Space elevator.

R

reactor1967

Quantum Scribe
Using electric power to enable a space elevator to sustain its own weight into outter space. Its would be very expensive but so far I know of no other options yet.

elevator.jpg
 
Thanks, I had a look at it. I wonder if it will every be tried up there? I suppose some day it might. Sounds like a good way to reach close to the speed of light for would be TT people.
 
Darby

I built a magnetic propulsion drive very similar to Dr. Cramer's
idea. The similarity was in flipping the magnetic field over. The experiment did not produce a propulsion drive. What I used was a coil of wire hooked up to a commutator on a rotating shaft. For every 180 degrees of rotation the coil of wire would either be magnetic field on or off. The device just sat still and made a lot of noise when turned on. The noise it made was so loud that my ears were ringing when I turned it off. From the experiment I deduced that the act of rotation produces a counter directional force that canceled out the intended directional force. So I don't believe Dr Cramers device would work either. Of course both my device and his device use mechanically rotated magnetic fields. I haven't tried Tesla's simulated rotating magnetic field. I think the real trick is to get something to rotate that exists outside of spacetime.
 
Einstein,

You're correct about the back force. You were probably a medium sized nuclear reactor short of getting any measurable thrust. As I recall the gadget would output 1 Newton of thrust per 300 Mw of input.


But it's still a great experiment.
 
I thought about something like a "space elevator" a few years ago, and it seems to me, that if there was a device that could operate from the energy of a beam of light, or laser, then instead of a guitar string type of construct, the vehicle would simply ride the lasers up as far as required, like a locomotive on rails.

Of course, how it would not be subject to the currents within the sea of atmosphere and space, I have no idea. Getting pushed off the "rails" wouldn't be a good thing.
 
proposed, all of which involve traveling along a fixed structure instead of using rocket powered space launch. The concept most often refers to a structure that reaches from the surface of the Earth on or near the equator to geostationary orbit (GSO) and a counter-mass beyond.

The concept of a space elevator dates back to 1895 when Konstantin Tsiolkovsky[1] proposed a free-standing "Tsiolkovsky" tower reaching from the surface of Earth to geostationary orbit. Most recent discussions focus on tensile structures (specifically, tethers) reaching from geostationary orbit to the ground. This structure would be held in tension between Earth and the counterweight in space like a guitar string held taut. Space elevators have also sometimes been referred to as beanstalks, space bridges, space lifts, space ladders, skyhooks, orbital towers, or orbital elevators.
Click to expand...

The deal with them right now is they can,t hold their own weight. The space elevator if perfected could be the cheapest way to get to space if it was a properly regulated technology and not abused for profit.

It is my belief that using super strength materials known today augmented with magnetic fields to help support its own weight it is possible to get a space elevator put up into space. The magnetic fields would require a lot of power at first at least until the space anchor is properly put in place. After that it would have stress taken off it from outter space then the power could be reduce to less than half of what it was requiring. It might require many nations working together to build it. But it should be a top international project.
 
The main problem with the space elevator (which we should be dumping more money into) is not that the technology or the science is there (carbon nanotubes have almost enough tensil strenght to do it) is that there is no known economical way or industrial producability to make the amount of materials needed.
 
The main problem with the space elevator (which we should be dumping more money into) is not that the technology or the science is there (carbon nanotubes have almost enough tensil strenght to do it) is that there is no known economical way or industrial producability to make the amount of materials needed.
Click to expand...

I also don,t think we have the space capability right now to build one. The shuttle will be retiring and building a anchor in space from which to start construction on would be more difficult than building the space station. Finalizing specific plans on something like that could take decades let along coping with the issues you talked about. We will be flying UFO's before we can start building a real space elevator.
 
Spam - copied directly from Wiki to post the spam. Same as the other spammers from India recently "visiting" us from New Delhi. Same for her other two posts...copied from other sites to get the spam ad into the tag line.
 
The magnetic fields would require a lot of power at first at least until the space anchor is properly put in place. After that it would have stress taken off it from outter space then the power could be reduce to less than half of what it was requiring.
Click to expand...

I don't understand how "outter space" would relieve any stress on the structure. If you built such a structure and made it 1,000 km "tall" the outter end of the structure, which is firmly attached to Earth isn't in free fall (orbit). At 1,000 km you've added 1/6th to the distance to the center of gravity relative to the surface so you've only reduced the gravitational force by 1/36th (1/6^2) at the far end. The entire structure still experiences, on average, ~99% of the surface gravity.

And you can't launch an object "straight up" the elevator. You have to have a +Y component to the acceleration (if we set +Y = up). But the object starts with a eastward (+X) component of 1,609 kph - the surface angular velocity of the Earth if you're at the equator. At 1,000 km above the surface a rigid structure attached to the Earth has a eastward angular velocity of ~1,930 kph. You have to accelerate the object very uniformly eastward so that it doesn't leave the track and when its at the top you've added ~292 kph to the +X component. If you build the structure anywhere else but on the exact rotational equator then you will have coriolis effects that will introduce new stress, strain and angular veocity to the structure. It will want to collapse, lean toward the equator, lag behind the Earth's rotation to the east and twist about its length. All of these forces would be present at the Equator but the coriolis forces would be most pronounced at 45 degrees above/below the equator.

The Earth also wobbles in it's orbit around the sun. The Moon doesn't orbit the Earth. The Moon and Earth orbit each other with the center of the orbit being ~4,000 km from the center of the Earth. Another way of describing it is that the Earth-Moon system tumbles along the Sun orbital path. That will set up oscillations in the elevator system. It will also experience tidal forces from the changing position of the Moon.

Energy is delivered in quanta, dE/dt - differential quanta of energy per differential units of time. It does not travel up the elevator structure at the speed of light. It is transmitted along the structure at the speed of sound of the material making up the structure. As the Earth turns and accelerates the structure each quanta travels toward the outter end at the speed of sound. The far end will lag behind the Earth's surface where it is attached. It will tend to tilt to the west.

Winds aloft above 20 km can be 150-200+ kph and highly variable. That variability will introduce stress, oscillations and accelerations to the structure that cannot be ignored.

The structure will experience temperature differentials ranging from 20 C to -250 C which has to be factored into the effects of the stresses, strains, oscillations and accelerations imposed on the structure.

A good deal of the structure will be exposed to unshielded (by the atmosphere) ionizing radiation for decades while under loads never experienced before.

There are many more issues to deal with than the material strength of the structure.
 
There are many more issues to deal with than the material strength of the structure.
Click to expand...

Darby:

You proved your points rather well. When reading the science articals it sounds so easy just get the right materials but as you pointed out there are much greater issues involved. The building of it if these issues could be resolved would take place both in space and on the ground. The ground anchor and the deep space anchor would be put in place. The deep space anchor would have to be able to change orbit and speed just like the space station does but with the anchor tied to the ground doing so would be much more critcal. And I am sure slack in the system would have to be able to be adjusted and accounted for. But, this along would not solve all the problems. This would be a major project. The spinning of the earth itself is one of the factors helping to hold the anchor in deep space. Japan has corporations working on this. And I think there may be others. I guess we will see what happens in the future.

http://www.liftport.com/

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2009/03/09/2511257.htm

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=17844
 
Back
Top