That's where geostationary orbit is (or about 36,000 km in sensible units). The centre of mass of the elevator needs to be at that height, otherwise the whole thing will move with respect to the earth. You actually need the tether to be further out that this limit, but if it is heavy enough it does not need to be /too/ far out.
Mike wrote in news:q318mj$rj4$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
Don't shit yourself.
Such a strand would be a key component of larger, multi-strand "cables", which would transfrom several aspects of several industries.
Bridges come to mind. Another would be stressed concrete cabling. Instead of a number of strands stressing a concrete span, one could fill out the entire space withe the lightweight strands and fill in with the concrete or epoxy matrix to make a lighter, stronger "slab" and revolutionize building construction.
Lighter, faster, safer elevators in buildings as well.
A braided cable of such a strand would revolutionize the entire industry.
Even fabrics could be made from it.
One could encapsulate non-newtonian slurries in a vest and make a vest that can stop sharp knife and arrow penetration along with blunt projectiles (bullets), something current vests do not protect against.
Lots of places for super strong, super light fibers.
Y'all need a better bigger picture view.
David Brown wrote in news:q31fek$8fk$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
That is for satellites which still get occaisional positional correction.
During (elevator) use, this platform will need constant outward correction as well as longitudinal adjustments.
When not in use, one would stow the cord and sit at a higher orbit.
Deployment for use would require a capture drone for the cord.
It would seem that a location such as the salt flats would be good because then the location of the lift would not have to be set in stone.
The entire benefit of this system would be to get parcels into space with *less* fuel requisite than Earthbound booster based delivery.
It is still costly and would only be used for specialized delivery events like emergencies.
It could also be fashioned to deliver a man sized payload such that single astronaut 'insertion' would also be possible.
e:
practical space elevator is going to depend on long carbon nanotubes. Noth ing else we know of has the tensile strength, and they don't seem to be com mercially available yet.
ry simply how no other material could possibly work. Talk about hanging by a thread! I wouldn't trust it.
.But how many things were conceived before they were practical only to becom e commonplace after an enabling technology was invented?
let, the Internet, credit cards and even the moon landings if you recall Ju les Verne.
. dly
. The twin towers is one of many potential targets, so yes, they were hard to protect from attack by air which we had failed to consider adequately. But the analogy is not very good. The space elevator won't be located in New York or Washington or any other major city. It will be located in a re latively remote area where it can be easily cordoned off not allowing ships or airplanes to come anywhere near.
Kiribati isn't all that corrupt, and it certainly isn't war-torn. Indonesia isn't too bad either.
to protect. It's the upper 22,000 miles that won't be so easy. Fortunate ly the likelihood of anything impacting it is relatively small... unless an other country with space capability decides to attack it.
Perhaps a rather large shaped charge. A drone would have very little chance of get close enough to the cable to put such a shaped charge in place - na val close-in defense weapons respond fast and savagely, and a space elevato r would get rather better fixed defenses.
It's going to have to be a pretty substantial cable, and fracturing it woul d take a lot more than a hand grenade.
It isn't going to be vulnerable to tiny mishaps, and it isn't going to unde r much tension at ground level - the point under maximum tension is at that geostationary synchronous orbital height - 35,786 km (22,236 mi) above sea level.
Sicne the two situations aren't remotely comparable, it's a rather silly qu estion.
You build it up and down from the geostationary orbit. Eventually the ancho r gets down to ground level, and is guided into a suitable socket which wil l can lock the cable in place. Only after the socket has locked will they add extra mass to other end to put the cable under tension (and not too muc h tension either).
Dropping the cable into a high tower would make it marginally lighter.
Putting the socket into a big sea-going vessel would allow it move east and west along the equator, which might be handy.
In fact you can. Spinning tethers in orbit present a interesting scheme for moving mass between orbits, and its an obvious intermediate step.
The cable doesn't have to be infinitely strong - just stronger than anythin g you can buy at the moment. The strength-to-weight ratio is crucial, but a finite and calculable.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
What you are describing is not a space elevator. It sounds more like a "Space Chinook". It would not work, for all sorts of reasons. I suggest you read a little about geostationary orbits and space elevators
- it would be more efficient than trying to write an explanation here.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you want to send people to Mars, you have to send a lot more freight than you do people, no?
A space elevator would be immensely useful.
Rick C.
-- Tesla referral code -
e:
practical space elevator is going to depend on long carbon nanotubes. Noth ing else we know of has the tensile strength, and they don't seem to be com mercially available yet.
ry simply how no other material could possibly work. Talk about hanging by a thread! I wouldn't trust it.
.But how many things were conceived before they were practical only to becom e commonplace after an enabling technology was invented?
let, the Internet, credit cards and even the moon landings if you recall Ju les Verne.
. dly
. The twin towers is one of many potential targets, so yes, they were hard to protect from attack by air which we had failed to consider adequately. But the analogy is not very good. The space elevator won't be located in New York or Washington or any other major city. It will be located in a re latively remote area where it can be easily cordoned off not allowing ships or airplanes to come anywhere near.
None. I thought it was obvious that a point in the ocean should be used. I expect a suitable location could be found and an adequate exclusion zone could be declared around it to prevent drones with hand grenades from attac king it.
to protect. It's the upper 22,000 miles that won't be so easy. Fortunate ly the likelihood of anything impacting it is relatively small... unless an other country with space capability decides to attack it.
You seem to think that the whole assembly is lost if somewhere in the lower mile the cable is severed. I'm pretty sure that is the least critical por tion. It bears the least weight. But even so, it is also not so hard to p rotect... if you are rational about it.
As an insurance agent would you insure satellite launches... but they do. Would you insure Heidi Klum's legs? They did. Many solitary, non-group in surance policies are issues on a regular basis.
That's obvious. Whirl it around over head and let go at the right moment. Or you could fire it into the geostationary orbit and lower the rope on a small rock.
Lol. How about the first transatlantic cable? Did they lay one just to Lo ng Island first? Now who's being ridiculous?
Fortunately there are a lot of people to work on all the problems we face. In fact, there are more every day.
Rick C.
-- Tesla referral code -
Yes.
Yes.
A space elevator would be a massive investment, but once made, the cost of getting goods into space would be vastly reduced. That would mean that your Mars spaceship could be big, luxurious, lead-lined, etc. The cost of getting the parts into Earth orbit would no longer be the limiting factor.
"Mechanical engineers build weapons, civil engineers build targets."
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
-- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 http://electrooptical.net https://hobbs-eo.com
David Brown wrote in news:q31kva$d59$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
The "space elevator" is the same strand as mine but with a fixed Earth bottom location. There is still the single strand and no "elevator" or building. It is just like my design... a simple dumbwaiter. In that design, the "winch end" (space platform) spools in and out as the wind and other factors vary the line tension.
In my design, the line gets payed out when it is to be used. That keeps the line in the best condition (read known). It gets payed out toward Earth and captured in the atmosphere just like our spy sat film payloads were except by drone instead of cargo plane. That then gets attached and the delivery payload can be hoisted.
The system requires two lines. One, smaller (thinner), hard attached line to guide the hoist line.
A little thing called gravitational physics. You need mv^2/r=GmM/r^2 for force balance. v= 2*pi*r/(24 hrs x 3600 secs/hr) makes it geostationary. M= earth mass, G= gravitational constant, m=equivalent mass of satellite.
FYI, the first mention of a space elevator I know of is by David E.H. Jones, aka Daedalus, New scientist, 1964-65. (book with ref. is at home.) GH
Chew on THAT, AlwaysWrong.
Would you insure Heidi Klum's legs? They did.
Not worth the premiums.
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news:1565cb47-aa94-412e-a7f0- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
You seem to forget that it is not freefall orbit which is required here.
This "platform" will have orders of magnitude more Earthward force applied to it by the strand and the load and the lift.
Every use requires station fixing fuel expenditure, and load lift station positition fixing energy as well.
So, yes, I do know inertial physics as well as 'gravitational physics'.
John S wrote in news:q31ukd$mrl$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
Looky! The total retard John S chimes in yet again with yet another uncivil, stupid KRW bastard coattail following Usenet troll horseshit.
Chew on that, you characterless, dishonorable, Usenet troll twit!
Why don't you slip into something more comfortable... like a coma.
What you are describing is the fuel required to lift the load into orbit. No one is for getting that. The point is that this is much, much less than what is required to get a rocket into orbit and all the fuel required to make that happen.
Much less fuel is required to maintain the position of the station. How do you think they manage to keep the ISS and all the many geostationary sats on station?
Rick C.
-+ Tesla referral code -
John S wrote in news:q32ahn$mrl$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:
You just cannot handle the fact that the truth hurts. You really are a dishonorable PUTZ!
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
No, dippy dope.
The completed platform will be in space. When used to lift a payload, it will require corrective force during the lift.
What you are attempting is to nit pick... ala krw retarded stupid shit mindset... again.
The boost requisites to place those elements into space have NOTHING to do with ANY of what I have been talking about. Wake up.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.