Slashdot Mirror
Space Elevators Face Wobble Problem
NewScientist is reporting that while the strength of the tether has long been considered the main problem in building a space elevator, a new study suggests that a dangerous wobbling problem may also be a serious obstacle. "Previous studies have noted that gravitational tugs from the Moon and Sun, as well as pressure from gusts of solar wind, would shake the tether. That could potentially make it veer into space traffic, including satellites and bits of space debris. A collision could cut the tether and wreck the space elevator."
Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
Because escalators don't break... they just become stairs.
Well, back to rejecting software patent applications.
During a speech he once gave, someone in the audience asked Arthur C. Clarke when the space elevator would become a reality.
"Clarke answered, 'Probably about 50 years after everybody quits laughing,'" related Pearson. "He's got a point. Once you stop dismissing something as unattainable, then you start working on its development. This is exciting!"
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1.htm
I would be more concerned about the space elevator becoming a giant van degraff generator. Something that long would present some very interesting problems. Huge frikin lightning rod might be a better description.
"Trademarks are the heraldry of the new feudalism."
I don't think anybody really thought building a space elevator would be as simple as reeling out some cable and strapping on a cabin. There are a million complications, even before we get to solar winds or tidal pulls. How about something as simple as airplane traffic? Birds? Squirrels, for goodness sake!?
Plus a million things we haven't thought of, and won't think of until the product is built. When train tracks were first laid down, they were too close together, because nobody had heard of the Bernoulli effect. Trains were getting slammed against each-other by their own created air pressure. What did people do? They learned from it, and moved the tracks further apart. We take trains for granted, but they were not without their technological hurdles to overcome.
Of course something like a space elevator is not an easy accomplishment. Does that mean we shouldn't try?
What do you think?
My guitar chord generator.
Basically, the problem has been noted before this Perek guy's paper, but not studied in any detail. Perek reiterates and perhaps expands upon the concern, but doesn't do any analysis to establish the actual likelihood of a problem. It's basically an opinion.
Atmospheric oscillations should be extremely well damped by drag. Oscillations due to gravity from the sun and moon may be a greater concern, because there is no drag, although including conductive paths in the cable may allow the earth's magnetic field to suitably damp the oscillations.
An IEEE article on the topic discussed the related issue of harmonics. If these oscillations propogate through the cable at a rate that syncs up well with the rotation of the earth, gravity of either the moon or sun may amplify them. The tensile component can be tuned by adjusted the mass and tensile stiffness of the cable, and even better, the mass of the counterweight, allowing you to tune it by changing the tension, like an incredibly huge guitar string. The will also be a pendulum like motion due to the fact that the earth is on a tilted axis. This seems to be the concern discussed in the article.
I personally am not at all convinced that oscillation of the cable alone (waves) is a problem due to it's low density, but oscillation of the combined cable and counterweight (pendulum) may be. If so, thrusters on the counterweight are much simpler to attach and refuel than they would be at intermediate altitudes on the cable.
Looking at the sheer size of this, I'd say that 'wreck the elevator' is a major understatement. Look at all the other stuff that would be wrecked. I remember reading a Ben Bova book a while back where terrorists sabotaged an elevator. They went to the top and severed the connection to the counterweight. The rest of the thing toppled like a flimsy tree, wrapping itself 1/2 way around the earth. Yeah, scifi, but it could happen.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
getting stuck in an elevator in a NYC skyscraper, imagine a brownout halfway between here and the moon.
The old well worn bridge analogy: In theory it's pretty easy to built a bridge, but you need to only look at the Tacoma Narrows bridge to see that engineering a viable structure takes a bit more than str theory is prettSame deal with a space elevator. The theory is pretty straightforward, but the actual engineering to make a reliable structure is something else.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
is surely the biggest problem :)
It seems to me that, at this point, launch loops are a much more realistic and practical choice for a launch structure than space elevators.
Unlike space eleveators, launch loops require no exotic materials (just iron and steel), are essentially self-erecting, are anchored, and accelerate people quickly through the radiation belt.
We could probably build a launch loop in a decade or two, if we embarked on an Apollo-like program.
The Stealth Nighthawk fighter could not be controlled by a human, it is so aerodynamically unstable. But with the help of some good software, that plane flies. The same is true of the B-2 Batwing bomber, it only flies because a computer stabilizes it.
There will be controllable vanes (for the atmosphere) and thrusters (for space) to control the car's behavior. The wobble would be predictable and all the traffic would be required to avoid it, in the same way power boats are required to steer around sailboat.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
The top of an intact space elevator in orbit would move eastwards, just like the ground under it does.
The top would move at a much greater speed than the ground, since it is further from the center of the earth and has to cover a greater distance for a full circle.
As any part of this elevator falls towards earth, it would keep its greater eastward speed and therefore overtake its anchor point quickly.
Just because it's unstable doesn't mean it's impossible to get working.
For instance most modern fighter aircraft are aerodynamically unstable, but they still fly. For example, the F16 was deliberatly designed to be unstable (to gain better manuverability). Of course the F16 has a computer control system to make it flyable by humans, but if the computer dies, well, unstable tumble modes ahead... I've also antecdodally heard that some modern bridges and tall-buildings are also not inherently stable (and are actively stabilized by computer control systems).
But to be honest, I think the engineering of a space elevator is pretty much beyond our forseeable technical ability (material science, control systems, assembly techniques, not to mention project management, risk/return estimation, and financing/underwriting).
If you think the problems are merely about waiting for technology, just think of the chunnel. It was imagined for a long time, but even after they got all the science and technology and assembly issues under control, the project management, risk/return estimation and financing/underwriting issues managed to kill a few companies before if finally got done.