Slashdot Mirror


Space Elevator Going Up

Adlopa writes "The Guardian newspaper reports on scientists' efforts to realise the space elevator, as first described by Arthur C Clarke in his 1979 novel 'Fountains of Paradise'. Advances in materials science mean that 'a cable reaching up as far as 100,000km from the surface of the Earth' is no longer an impossibility and 70 scientists and engineers are discussing the idea at a conference in Santa Fe today."

12 of 684 comments (clear)

  1. Error in article: by earthforce_1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the story:
    ----
    A space elevator would make rockets redundant by granting cheaper access to space. At about a third of the way along the cable - 36,000km from Earth - objects take a year to complete a full orbit. If the cable's centre of gravity remained at this height, the cable would remain vertical, as satellites placed at this height are geostationary, effectively hovering over the same spot on the ground.
    ------

    Actually, at 36,000 km from earth, objects take a day, not a year to complete a full orbit. The moon takes about 28 days to complete an orbit, (one lunar cycle) and any object far enough out from the earth to require a year in order to complete an orbit would passed the instability limit, where it would be captured away by the sun's gravity, and would no longer orbit earth.

    --
    My rights don't need management.
  2. For more info on Space Elevators by Phoenixhunter · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.spaceelevator.com/ About the only place I could find with all the information piled into one spot.

    1. Re:For more info on Space Elevators by ShadeARG · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here is some more information, with some interesting images.

  3. Not an impossibility? by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 5, Informative
    The state of the art is not quite strong enough or long enough.

    Quote from the article:

    "Until some of the basic science concerning how to connect nanotubes together and transfer load between them in a composite is understood it will remain elusive, but a lot of progress is being made."

    Basically, the state of the art with carbon nanotubes is that you can build them a few centimeters long, of almost/just about the right strength (72 Gpa); but nobody has made or can make a rope even 1 foot long with the right strength (ideally 130 GPa including a 50% safety factor).

    State of the art carbon nanotube ropes are down under 3GPa (less than Kevlar strength). To oversimplify the problem nanotubes are very slippery and hard to join with any strength. Splicing rope out of threads traditionally loses 20% of the strength, but nanotubes are too slippery, and not strong enough anyway for that right now.

    Still, enormous progress has been made; and it looks surprisingly promising; but it's impossible right now.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  4. Correction by merlin_jim · · Score: 4, Informative

    A space elevator would make rockets redundant by granting cheaper access to space. At about a third of the way along the cable - 36,000km from Earth - objects take a year to complete a full orbit. If the cable's centre of gravity remained at this height, the cable would remain vertical, as satellites placed at this height are geostationary, effectively hovering over the same spot on the ground.

    Objects take one DAY to complete a orbit at 36,000 km... and if that orbit is in the same direction as the earth turns, then you can orbit continuously over a spot on the equator. There's actually a minor perturbation, but those forces are minor compared to the other forces a space elevator would have to deal with...

    BTW, a nice recent sci-fi novel on the subject of space elevators is _Rainbow_Mars_ by Larry Niven, of _Ringworld_ fame.

    --
    I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
  5. Re:harnessing the public interest by amorsen · · Score: 4, Informative

    The ascent is going to be very very slow. Imagine going at 100km/h, a speed that would impress most normal elevator designers. 15 days for the ascent, 15 more for the descent. (Admittedly the descent could be done quicker).

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
  6. Re:Kind of scary. by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you read the article, they are looking at the Pacific ocean as the base of the ribbon. If there was a real problem, and they needed it, it would be possible to cut the ribbon on the earth side, and this would force the cable UP instead of down. Not necessarily the best thing to happen, but it could burn up (carbon) in the atmosphere on the way back.

    This stuff is pretty light, and they are looking at a RIBBON, not a cable. So the air resistance would prevent a 100 ft piece (for example) from accellerating to a speed that will cause any major damage. At least that is how I understand it after reading the article.

    Same reason if you throw a sheet of paper off a tall building, no one is hurt. You throw a marble instead, and you can split a skull.

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  7. Re:What about the static electricity it will gener by isorox · · Score: 5, Informative

    The atmosphere (and the earths magnetic thing which induced the current in shuttle tethers) wont whizz past it, because the cable will not be moving relative to the earths surface. Charge from the atmosphere using the cable as a conduit is all covered in the space elevator faq's on numerous sites.

  8. Clarke didn't invent this!!! by thorgil · · Score: 5, Informative


    According to A. Clarke himself the space elevator was invented by Jurij Artsutanov from St. Petersburg.

    (3001, The final Odyssey, under sources)

    --
    Warning: This sig contains a small bug. ==> *
  9. Re:Um...... by William+Tanksley · · Score: 4, Informative

    Why are you speculating that anything would have to mass the same as the earth? The Earth orbits the sun, but doesn't mass the same as the sun!

    The physics are simple: you just have a cord that stretches out beyond geostationary orbit. At geostationary, the cord's mass is in a precise orbit (zero pull towards or away from Earth); beyond that, the cord's inertia pulls it away from Earth. So you don't even need a lead weight at the end -- all you need is enough cord. As a bonus, anything that gets pulled past the geosync point will be accellerated away from Earth; so you can use it as a cosmic slingshot.

    Hoist a chickenfarm to the end of the tether, and you can throw eggs at Mars!

    -Billy

  10. The conference site is by cryptogryphon · · Score: 5, Informative
  11. Re:Kind of scary. by slamb · · Score: 5, Informative
    It's not like we're talking about a high tension cable here.

    Actually, yes, we are. That's why advances in materials science were necessary before they could even think about building this thing. I quote from the article:

    The biggest technical obstacle is finding a material strong but light enough to make the cable; this is where the carbon nanotubes come in. These are microscopically thin tubes of carbon that are as strong as diamonds but flexible enough to turn into fibre. In theory, a nanotube ribbon about one metre wide and as thin as paper could support a space elevator.

    The cable's structure will be balanced by gravity -- the center of gravity will rest at the geosynchronous point, meaning that the bottom half will be falling toward Earth while the top half will be moving away at an equal rate.

    Being "balanced by gravity" means there's a huge amount of tension here. In fact, that basically says that the top half (by mass - by distance probably a very small proportion of the thing) holds up everything below the center of mass at the geosync point. (Or from the other perspective: the bottom half holds down the top half, which would fly off into space otherwise.) It does that with tension in the cable, and we're talking about a lot of tension in the cable.

    Let's put concrete numbers on it: carbon nanotubes are pretty light, but we're still talking about 35,785 kilometers in the bottom half (by mass) of the elevator - that's geosynchronous orbit around the earth. Say the elevator is 1 kg / m (very conservative, I think), which we'll call lamba (normal for linear density). Now gravity changes along the length of the cable (that's sort of the point), so we need an integral to calculate the force of gravity pulling the thing down:

    F = \int GM dm/r^2 = \int GM \lambda dr / r^2

    (where dm = \lamba dr). From my Physics I book, r_e (the mean radius of the Earth, which is a bit higher than sea level but not too bad) is 6.37 * 10^6 m. M (the mass of the earth) is 5.98 * 10^24 kg. And G is 6.67 * 10^-11 N*m^2 / kg^2. So the integral becomes:

    F = \int_{6.37 * 10^6 m}^{6.37 * 10^6 m + 3.58 * 10^7 m} (6.67 * 10^-11 N*m^2/kg^2) (5.98 * 10^24 kg) (1 kg / m) dr / r^2 = 5.3 * 10^7 N = 53 MN (mega-Newtons)

    ...which I think is the require tension right above that point. I can't think off-hand exactly how geosync works, but essentially the stuff above that is being sped up and the stuff below (and the Earth itself, though not significantly) is being slowed down by that tension.

    Disclaimer: I'm an undergrad physics student with a headache. I very well may have made a mistake above, but I guarantee it's closer than the parent post.