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."
will it have a 13th floor?
-knowles
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.
http://www.spaceelevator.com/ About the only place I could find with all the information piled into one spot.
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!"Nasa played around with dragging wires through the atmosphere to generate static electricity.
This thing will could possibly generate HUGE amounts of SE as the atmosphere whizzes past it 24/7. Are there plans to capture and use this electricity or what??
calculating orbits by hand (this was before the advent of the PC, remember), for example. Much of our scientific and engineering achievement today was first written about by Sci Fi authors, including personal computers, world wide networks, men traveling in outerspace, satellites, genetic engineering, waterbeds and much more. I personally hope we continue building what Sci Fi writers write about. Idealism and dreams lead to greatness. Pragmatism and "being realistic" lead to boredom and stagnation.
In my universe I'm perfectly normal, it's not my fault you don't live in my universe.
New continents were found, the sound barrier was broken and even space flight was developed at the cost of human life. Yet, it was worth it.
As a species we have become too concerned about safety. We are afraid to such extent that testing new discoveries (medicinal, chemical and physical) are becoming so burdened by the hysterical safeguards, governmental red tape and the associated costs that nothing ever gets done. To my mind, this development threatens the very progess of our species.
BOO! TERRO
But there is another problem: if it burns, will the resulting particles be hazardous for us to inhale?
Carbon nanotubes are primarily, well, carbon. Burning up would create the same stuff that charcoal makes, CO2. Potentially less toxic than second hand cigarette smoke. There may be some other chemicals in there, but the whole idea is to make the tube out of a single material, the nanotubes, to make it strong. So, yes, research is good, but toxicity is probably not the biggest issue.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
a) Carbon nanotubes are strong but very, very light. They have a high surface area per unit mass. In the lower atmosphere, the cable would float to earth like a piece of fishing twine; in the higher atmosphere it would just burn up.
b) Not really. Airborne traffic is smart enough to deal with comms towers, skyscrapers and hurricanes. This thing does not move - all you need to do is fly around it.
c) Yes it does. In order to advance space traffic, we need to get to geosynchronous and LEO MUCH cheaper, allowing us to loft the larger masses necessary for more ambitious space missions. Getting big tonnages out of Earth's gravity well cheaper and more reliably than is currently possible would be a BIG win for space travel.
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!
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.
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. ==> *
So how exactly do you come up with a budget for a project that calls for an unknown (but massive) amount of nonexistanium, delivered to orbit no less?
The same way that NASA came up with the budget for the space program in the early 50's and 60's. They had to create a huge number of things that did not exist in order to put a man on the moon. From things as mundane as food and drink and holders that could be used while weightless to as science fictiony as computers small enough to fit in an Apollo space craft. Somehow they managed to not only do all of that, but to budget for it as well. Not only that, all of that R&D was very good for the economy, returning, depending on who you believe, as much as $7 to the economy for every dollar spent.
In my universe I'm perfectly normal, it's not my fault you don't live in my universe.
...about the space elevator is when the kid who launched his satellite just before you mashes every button before getting off.
http://isr.us/spaceelevatorconference/
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 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.