Slashdot Mirror


Japan To Test Mini 'Space Elevator' (phys.org)

Zorro shares a report from Phys.Org: A Japanese team working to develop a "space elevator" will conduct a first trial this month, blasting off a miniature version on satellites to test the technology. The test equipment, produced by researchers at Shizuoka University, will hitch a ride on an H-2B rocket being launched by Japan's space agency from southern island of Tanegashima next week. The test involves a miniature elevator stand-in -- a box just six centimeters (2.4 inches) long, three centimeters wide, and three centimeters high. If all goes well, it will provide proof of concept by moving along a 10-meter cable suspended in space between two mini satellites that will keep it taut. The mini-elevator will travel along the cable from a container in one of the satellites. The movement of the motorized "elevator" box will be monitored with cameras in the satellites.

114 comments

  1. That's fine for Japanese by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

    6cm long, 3 cm wide, 3cm high, works for Japanese, that's the average size of a Japanese apartment, but what about the rest of us?

    Typical, don't waste a moment to think about those damn gaijins.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re: That's fine for Japanese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      They rarely design for overweight Americans in space.

    2. Re: That's fine for Japanese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So Americans then. They don't design for Americans.

    3. Re:That's fine for Japanese by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      N scale space elevator

    4. Re: That's fine for Japanese by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      We're our own kind of overweight, eh?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    5. Re: That's fine for Japanese by Opportunist · · Score: 1, Funny

      That's an optical illusion. Americans are so overweight that they SEEM like a continent.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re: That's fine for Japanese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are weightless in space.

    7. Re: That's fine for Japanese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still a massive tool.

    8. Re: That's fine for Japanese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America is a country. North America is a continent.

  2. Its not a "Space Elevator"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unless its running from the surface to space. Between two satellites in space is more of a "Space Conveyor".

    1. Re:Its not a "Space Elevator"... by novakyu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not to mention Newton's Third Law necessarily puts a very harsh and unforgiving limit on possible payloads on those floating endpoints.

      Ignoring material strength requirements, rotational physics alone dictates a functional space elevator has a minimum required size, and that's nowhere near where a label "mini" would be appropriate.

    2. Re:Its not a "Space Elevator"... by dehachel12 · · Score: 1

      nano ?

    3. Re:Its not a "Space Elevator"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just possible the development of a space elevator requires low-G testing at smaller scales. But I guess we should defer to you, an "expert".

    4. Re:Its not a "Space Elevator"... by novakyu · · Score: 1

      It's comparable to geosynchronous orbit. It's a decent first-semester physics problem (once you get rid of references to fictitious forces).

    5. Re:Its not a "Space Elevator"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called a lift not an "elevator".

    6. Re:Its not a "Space Elevator"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess your area of expertise isn't reading? It says "Space Elevator", not "basic testing rig to evaluate feasibility of space elevator".

    7. Re:Its not a "Space Elevator"... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      Unless its running from the surface to space. Between two satellites in space is more of a "Space Conveyor".

      Regardless what you call it is still an interesting experiment and important to know long before any real Space Elevator could realistically ever be proposed even assuming all other technical hurdles have been overcome.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    8. Re: Its not a "Space Elevator"... by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

      What's the hurdle here though, for a conveyor in space? Ok, low temperature might be an issue

    9. Re: Its not a "Space Elevator"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Constant radiation exposure fatiguing metal parts, meteorites, actual fluctuations in gravity, etc.

    10. Re:Its not a "Space Elevator"... by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      You're the type of person who debates the meaning of the word "hole" with your wife. Giggidy.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    11. Re:Its not a "Space Elevator"... by lgw · · Score: 1

      once you get rid of references to fictitious forces

      A sure sign of a smug pseudo-intellectual is the claim that "centrifugal force is not a real force". What nonsense. Centrifugal force exists in a rotating reference frame. When your talking about the physics of a rotating reference frame, only a pedantic jerk whines "centrifugal force is not a real force". Don't be that guy.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:Its not a "Space Elevator"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have elevators that only run between above ground level floors. What do you call them?

    13. Re: Its not a "Space Elevator"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A space elevator to geosynchronous orbit isnâ(TM)t really practical. Even if you have a magic material thatâ(TM)s strong enough so you can just have a cm diameter cable all the way. Climbing the cable all the way just doesnâ(TM)t make sense. Why stay connected to the cable when you can accelerate along it until you hit escape velocity and then detach (yes, itâ(TM)s not that simple, but neither is making the elevator in the first place). What would be the benefit of spending days or weeks to climb the cable (including an extended period in the radiation belts)? What could make sense though, is a much shorter cable just up to low earth orbit. For that, you would need an orbital ring, or a launch loop or space fountain to tether to. The materials needed actually exist, unlike a space elevator, and climbing the cable is actually a practical endeavor. Once in space, the cargo could be accelerated along the loop or ring, etc. It would allow craft to get to space without the stresses of launch. Of course, to get them back down, you wouldnâ(TM)t climb them back down the cable, you would just decelerate them and then drop them (on earth, anyway)

    14. Re: Its not a "Space Elevator"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You said hole, Beavis.hehehehehh yea..holeee.

    15. Re: Its not a "Space Elevator"... by novakyu · · Score: 1

      So, that "launch loop or space fountain" is at an unstable equilibrium with respect to Earth, right? Meaning it would need constant expenditure of fuel to maintain its "orbit".

      They are both at science-fiction (and not that hard on the Mohs scale) level of feasibility, but I somehow think finding the magic material for space elevator will happen long before where we have such a well-established space-based economy that the astronomical maintenance of launch loop/space fountain would be practical.

      P.S. The length of space elevator is precisely what is calculated for a stable equilibrium position. I do imagine it can be designed so that the travelers don't need to go all the way out to the geosynchronous orbit.

    16. Re: Its not a "Space Elevator"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am the great cornholiooooo. Me need TP for me bungholeeeee

    17. Re:Its not a "Space Elevator"... by novakyu · · Score: 1

      And a sure sign of anti-intellectual pedant is someone who doesn't recognize the scientific term fictitious force.

      In my classes, we avoid fictitious forces not because they are not "real", but because they are difficult—you shouldn't bring up centrifugal forces unless you are also ready to handle the Coriolis force, but that's more of upper-division level classical mechanics, where you are taught Euler-Lagrange equation on the first day.

    18. Re:Its not a "Space Elevator"... by MoaDweeb · · Score: 1

      What is the BNP word for racist scum bag?

      --
      New Zealanders are well balanced with a chip on each shoulder. One represents Australia, the other the rest of the world
    19. Re: Its not a "Space Elevator"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure what you mean by âoeunstable equilibriumâ in this case. Launch loops and space fountains do need power to run, but only to compensate for losses from friction. Theyâ(TM)re unstable in the same way LEO is unstable (with more friction). So, constant expenditure of energy, yes. Odd that you say âfuelâ(TM) though. I mean pretty much every source of energy we use ultimately comes from some sort of fuel, but itâ(TM)s still oddly specific.
      As far as the relative âoehardnessâ of the concepts, itâ(TM)s ridiculous to group something that requires materials with physical properties that may be literally impossible with something that appears to be completely possible with existing materials. I would rate a space elevator to geosynchronous orbit somewhere around chalk, with launch loops and space fountains somewhere around limestone and orbital rings around sandstone and skyhooks around marble, while the SpaceX BFR would be somewhere around granite.
      As far as the space economy goes, itâ(TM)s already pretty big. About $350 billion per year by some estimates. Something like a launch loop would be an economy of scale project. Expensive, but ultimately cheaper than building a lot of rockets.

  3. Space Elevator.... by Daralantan · · Score: 1

    This reminds me their 00 Gundam series has some kind of space elevator or solar elevator or whatever they called it. They're trying to make the anime real! Kind of curious of how well this would actually work.

    1. Re:Space Elevator.... by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      Space elevators are a lot older than anime.

    2. Re:Space Elevator.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Space Elevators are from 1960, Anime is from 1917. (But yeah I know what you meant, the Space Elevators in Anime are newer than Space Elevators in scientific texts)

    3. Re:Space Elevator.... by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Space Elevators are from 1960, Anime is from 1917. (But yeah I know what you meant, the Space Elevators in Anime are newer than Space Elevators in scientific texts)

      So Konstantin Tsiolkovsky had nothing to say in 1895?

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    4. Re:Space Elevator.... by lgw · · Score: 1

      The idea of building a tower to Heaven predates history. But a tower is not a workable idea. "Space elevator" means something more specific.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  4. H-2B? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that some sort of tarted-up H1B?

  5. Space elevators aren't problems for simple physics by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

    They are materials science problems.
    Newtonian physics does the job of predicting what will happen extraordinarily well and quite frankly you could do the experiment on earth, with a centrifuge apparatus and learn more, and cost less. Something like this https://www.roadsideamerica.co... if you want to test your cable climber but you don't even need that.

  6. So they're going for a science victory? by SqueakyMouse · · Score: 1

    We must take control of the aluminium supply and churn out some giant death robots!

  7. Space Visa? by tal_mud · · Score: 1

    "...will hitch a ride on an H-2B rocket"

  8. Elevator cable materiak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AFAIK, they still haven't done the tests ti show that carbon nanotubes are actually strong enough to be used for the elevator cable ?
    Anyone know if/when those tests will be done ?
    Because without a cable material, this is all pure speculation.

    1. Re:Elevator cable materiak by rkordmaa · · Score: 1

      They can just make the cable out of unobtanium, no problemo.

    2. Re:Elevator cable materiak by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, they still haven't done the tests ti show that carbon nanotubes are actually strong enough to be used for the elevator cable ?
      Anyone know if/when those tests will be done ?
      Because without a cable material, this is all pure speculation.

      My understanding is that there currently is no material suitable for an Earth-LEO space elevator. However a few years ago I did see someone saying that current materials technology could build a Moon based space elevator.

      Seems like wikipedia agrees with me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    3. Re:Elevator cable materiak by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

      AFAIK, they still haven't done the tests ti show that carbon nanotubes are actually strong enough to be used for the elevator cable ?
      Anyone know if/when those tests will be done ?

      They've done tests to show that carbon nanotubes are NOT actually strong enough to be used for the cable.

      But there may be variant materials that solve the problem.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    4. Re:Elevator cable materiak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that CNTs are strong enough, if manufactured perfectly. Flaws in the manufacturing process, even ones that lead to only a few atoms being misaligned, reduce tensile strength by 100x or more.

  9. Only 2041990 meters to go!!

    1. Re:Yes! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Virtual +1 Funny.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It said ten centimeters, Einstein, from TFS.

  10. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by yodleboy · · Score: 1

    yeah that's what I was thinking. We have a pretty good idea what will happen if we build it. We just can't build it with current tech. I'd love to see one in my lifetime.
     
    Wonder what the practical applications of this Japanese project are.

  11. H-2B Rocket, Phew! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm glad it wasn't an H-1B rocket.

    Those are notorious for having their specs merely copy/pasted from https://physics.stackexchange.com/.

  12. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Well Newtonian physics doesn't factor in long term strain on a material. Radiation, wear, friction. Simple physics has a everything in a uniformed mass frictionless ball in a perfect vacuum.

    Now these are good for the laws of physics, and its values will apply in general. However there are billions of tiny forces following these same rules just at different directions that makes engineering for the values more complex, and often will require over engineering a product to deal with this degree of entropy.

    I can calculate how much of a gap I need in my door so it will open, but I will always give it an extra millimeter more because the wood may expand during different humidity, the cut may not be perfectly straight, pressure on the beams may cause a little bit of bowing.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  13. Simple way to "simulate space" -- Epcot elevator! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's an "elevator" at Epcot which you go through in the sea/ocean exhibit, to the right as you enter the park. It doesn't really change one's height above sea level -- it just shakes, and images scroll by you can see through glass and gaps.

    Also there was Ascension, https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3696720/

    Either the "car" in the space elevator won't really move; or, once they get up to the top, the "vehicle" they get in to travel to "the stars" will just show them images.

    I believe a Scriptural world view, which is that we're all living in a yellow submarine.

  14. engineering too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lots of engineering mechanics too.

    That pesky atmosphere getting in the way won't make it easy, especially with high altitude winds in the 250mph highly likely. Heck, 253mph is the known record for a storm near the ground.

    Winter jet streams have been measured at over 275mph.

    Materials will be important, but so will engineering for all those issues nobody has seen at this point. Engineering is where theory and practice meet.

    1. Re:engineering too. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      That pesky atmosphere getting in the way won't make it easy, especially with high altitude winds in the 250mph highly likely. Heck, 253mph is the known record for a storm near the ground.

      Alright, so let's build this space elevator on the moon, then. Problem solved, once and for all.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:engineering too. by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      That pesky atmosphere getting in the way won't make it easy, especially with high altitude winds in the 250mph highly likely. Heck, 253mph is the known record for a storm near the ground.

      Alright, so let's build this space elevator on the moon, then. Problem solved, once and for all.

      Do a Google search. While we have strong enough material to build it, it would have to be much, much longer than a Earth elevator. Earth rotates once ever 24 hours, the Moon once every 28 days. IIRC it would reach beyond the first Lagrange point.

    3. Re:engineering too. by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1
      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    4. Re:engineering too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or read about the lunar space elevator. The lunar elevator tension beyond L1 arises from Earth's gravity, not the rotational acceleration about the Moon, so the 28 day period is irrelevant.

      Most elevators under consideration don't feature a massive counterweight just past GEO, as a longer cable is extremely useful for launching interplanetary missions. The distance needed by a lunar elevator isn't short, but it isn't exceptional either. The economics may be questionable though with weaker/heavier materials and current launch limitations. However, it is not an outrageous proposition.

    5. Re:engineering too. by lgw · · Score: 2

      Fun fact: the Moon-synchronous orbit height is actually closer to Earth than the moon.

      Of course, we could just build it on Mars! Except, well, there's this damn moon that actually orbits lower than Mars-synchronous orbit, and our elevator would have to dodge it every few hours. But that's a minor problem for the engineers, let's not get side-tracked. Mars Elevator!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  15. A ten meter tether is not a space elevator by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Informative

    A ten meter tether is not a space elevator, and is not really anything like a space elevator.

    Twenty kilometer tethers have already been demonstrated in space, notably the NASA Small Expendable Deployer System Experiments
    (SEDS and SEDS II): http://www.daviddarling.info/e...

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:A ten meter tether is not a space elevator by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They're not testing the tether, they're testing the wee little elevator cabin.

      Be interesting to see how long it can keep running up and down....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:A ten meter tether is not a space elevator by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      Be interesting to see how long it can keep running up and down...

      The answer should be obvious: it will keep running up and down until it runs down.

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    3. Re:A ten meter tether is not a space elevator by neoRUR · · Score: 1

      There is no Up in Space.

    4. Re:A ten meter tether is not a space elevator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're not testing the tether, they're testing the wee little elevator cabin.

      Be interesting to see how long it can keep running up and down....

      Bravo. That's the first feature of this I've read that makes this seem useful.

  16. they need to godzilla size it! by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    they need to godzilla size it!

    1. Re:they need to godzilla size it! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Godzilla is just a regular lizard. Japanese people are really tiny.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:they need to godzilla size it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Godzilla is just a regular lizard. Japanese people are really tiny

      Godzilla is a guy in a rubber suit stomping around models.

      Sorry to burst your bubble.

    3. Re:they need to godzilla size it! by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Sorry to burst your bubble.

      That's also a Japanese thing.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    4. Re:they need to godzilla size it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm more of a Bubble Bobble guy.

    5. Re:they need to godzilla size it! by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      Godzilla is a guy in a rubber suit stomping around models.

      So they dropped depth charges on and electrocuted a guy in a rubber suit? Then fire on him with tanks and jet fighters? And finally asphyxiate him? What the hell is wrong with Japan.

      People call Americans savages for the death penalty. But at least we don't make death row inmates dress in embarrassing rubber suits and continually fail at actually killing them. Jeez.

  17. Tsiolkovsky [Re:Space Elevator....] by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 1

    Space Elevators are from 1960, Anime is from 1917. (But yeah I know what you meant, the Space Elevators in Anime are newer than Space Elevators in scientific texts)

    So Konstantin Tsiolkovsky had nothing to say in 1895?

    He had a lot to say. But his thought experiment was a tower, not a tether.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Tsiolkovsky [Re:Space Elevator....] by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Tether and Tower both describe Elevators. Int fact the tower concept is literally based on teh word "Elevator"

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Tsiolkovsky [Re:Space Elevator....] by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2, Funny

      He had a lot to say. But his thought experiment was a tower, not a tether.

      If we're talking about towers, I think some guy named Nimrod might have him beat by a few dozen centuries.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
  18. Obligatory Family Guy by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1
    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  19. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    Wonder what the practical applications of this Japanese project are.

    It's probably Glico, I've heard they want to launch a new line of Space Pocky.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  20. Did they... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Skip the H-1B visa rockets?

  21. Sounds kind of pointless by DrXym · · Score: 2

    What exactly is the experiment meant to prove? Moving little devices over a 10 metre taut wire isn't exactly pushing the boundaries of science.

    1. Re:Sounds kind of pointless by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      What exactly is the experiment meant to prove? Moving little devices over a 10 metre taut wire isn't exactly pushing the boundaries of science.

      From the article:

      "It's going to be the world's first experiment to test elevator movement in space," a university spokesman told AFP on Tuesday.

      I'm not sure what you're saying. Do you think they should push a larger device over a longer distance for their first attempt? Or do you think they should skip this test entirely and just assume it will work fine?

    2. Re:Sounds kind of pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I'm not sure what you're saying

      What they are saying, is that this is a non-story to generate hype but got confused and angry halfway through the thought.

    3. Re:Sounds kind of pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they spinning the satellites until the cable nears failure?
      Does braking the box introduce oscillation into the cable?
      Does any cable oscillation dampen naturally or does it need active station keeping from the satellites to dampen?
      Can a kink severe enough to impede the motion of the elevator or generate excessive energy in the system be introduced by repeated braking?

      I'm not an engineer, and clearly this is not going to answer all the questions about a much larger system, but I'm sure there are questions about operating a space elevator that can at least be investigated with a scaled down system. Alternatively it's just an advertisement.

    4. Re:Sounds kind of pointless by DrXym · · Score: 1
      All of these things could be done in a lab on Earth, far more easily in fact - string a wire between two points, to any tension and oscillate to your heart's content. Not that it would have much bearing on a space elevator in that context either given the complexity of the problem.

      This seems more like a pointless stunt than anything of real scientific value.

  22. Ultimate strength of nanotubes yet to be seen by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Informative

    The problem is that CNTs are strong enough, if manufactured perfectly. Flaws in the manufacturing process, even ones that lead to only a few atoms being misaligned, reduce tensile strength by 100x or more.

    Not clear. The predicted high ultimate strength of nanotubes is entirely theoretical, it has yet to be experimentally demonstrated.

    Carbon nanotubes are strong enough in an idealized theory that doesn't allow bonds to shift. If you include the fact that the hexagonal rings spontaneously shift the bonds to form pentagonal rings or heptagonal rings under stress, they don't reach that ideal strength. It's not clear that you can stabilize the hexagon only structure.

    https://www.newscientist.com/article/2093356-carbon-nanotubes-too-weak-to-get-a-space-elevator-off-the-ground/

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Ultimate strength of nanotubes yet to be seen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bend the nanotubes into torii. This gets the edge symmetry you need. This is now a link for a chain.

  23. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by Whumpsnatz · · Score: 1

    "I'd love to see one in my lifetime". Not me. When, not if, it failed, it'd smash down a line of utter destruction all the way around the planet. Or maybe twice around.

  24. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We have a pretty good idea what will happen if we build it.

    Yes: it will swing and bob wildy out of control, and eventually the counterweight will start zooming around the GEO station, if the station is massive. Then the cable will break and the counterweight will shoot off in a random direction, and inevitably destroy Tokyo.

    The hard problem for a space elevator, even aside from needing unobtanium, is the lack of any way to damn the pendulum-like energy fed into the system with every payload lifted. Only half the energy needed to get to GEO is in lifting, the other half is in accelerating the payload laterally. That energy will be added to the system with every load lifted, and there's no obvious way to damp it.

    And remember, this is not a Freshman Physics pendulum. It's both a spring pendulum and a double pendulum. Each of which is a chaotic system. When combined, it's a mess.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  25. Maybe not a "Space Elevator" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe this isn't a "space elevator", exactly. And there may be some serious problems with any known material that we can use to manufacture a long enough cable. And even some possible issues with "what if it breaks".

    However, that's not to say that exploring the technology is a bad idea. Even if we never figure out how to make a proper space elevator, this could have other applications than getting things out of a gravity well like Earth's. Maybe it's practical elsewhere with lower gravity bodies. Or maybe it turns out to be useful for shuttling things around in a different context. Or maybe we learn some new science. Or something.

    Regardless, it seems sensible to start with small scale experiements to learn what we can and then see how that behaves as we scale things up. After all, smaller scale experiments are cheaper than larger scale ones.

  26. it's bigger on the inside by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "What is this, a space elevator for ANTS?!"

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  27. We've had geostationary sattelites for a while now by karlandtanya · · Score: 1

    I guess it's time to re-read "The Fountains of Paradise".

    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
  28. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    The hard problem for a space elevator, even aside from needing unobtanium, is the lack of any way to damn the pendulum-like energy fed into the system with every payload lifted. Only half the energy needed to get to GEO is in lifting, the other half is in accelerating the payload laterally. That energy will be added to the system with every load lifted, and there's no obvious way to damp it.

    Oh way to dump on Elisha Otis.

    counterweight. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Or there is the ever popular and very scenic funicular https://www.google.com/search?...

    If you are ever in Switzerland don't miss out it's a wonderful day trip to ride to the top of a mountain on one.

    As to the double pendulum problem you solve that by making the anchor point large. Which is one of the reasons you need unobtanium to build the thing.

  29. I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...if these are the same guys who built Stonehenge for Spinal Tap...

  30. Re: Space elevators aren't problems for simple phy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are comparing a fucking lift to a god damn space elevator. No these won't solve the issues.

  31. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by q4Fry · · Score: 1

    One chap's kinetic bombardment is another chap's chocolate biscuits?

  32. Re: Space elevators aren't problems for simple phy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are comparing a fucking lift to a god damn space elevator. No these won't solve the issues.

    TRY CAPS NEXT TIME. IT MIGHT MAKE YOUR STATEMENT SEEM REASONABLE.

    or not.

  33. the hell is the point of this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do we have any doubt that something can traverse a line???

  34. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by lgw · · Score: 1

    Your reply was a bit of a non-sequitur.

    When your start a normal pendulum swinging, or pluck a guitar string, the energy is eventually dissipated through interaction with the air and friction associated with bending the string (which is quickly lost as heat by conduction). That won't happen with a space elevator. A material suitable for making the cable will shed very little energy through internal friction (otherwise it will get quite hot, as radiative cooling in space sucks).

    What that means is any energy put into swinging the pendulum will just stay there. And every payload lifted will add such energy. If it were an ideal pendulum, it would just start swinging with greater amplitude, and maybe you could try to send payloads up in such a way as to damp the swing. A complex pendulum doesn't work that way, however, it will swing and bob and vibrate like a plucked guitar string, and the counterweight will swing about the station. There's no way in such a system to damp that energy by sending payloads up cleverly, or by having some rockets at the station (or at the counterweight).

    The complex pendulum will keep accumulating energy until it achieves "rapid unscheduled disassembly" in some unpredictable way.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  35. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congratulations , it is so rare to encounter sanity in a space elevator thread, we all know nobody will ever build one for the same reason nobody is trying to bring back the hydrogen filled zeppelin or the nuclear powered aeroplane , accidents happen and the consequence of one of these monstrosities failing would be horrendous.The rest of you , carry on dreaming anyway.

  36. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    Your reply was a bit of a non-sequitur.

    The Elisha Otis reference should have been a dead giveaway that I was laughing my ass off.

    When your start a normal pendulum swinging, or pluck a guitar string, the energy is eventually dissipated through interaction with the air and friction associated with bending the string (which is quickly lost as heat by conduction). That won't happen with a space elevator. A material suitable for making the cable will shed very little energy through internal friction (otherwise it will get quite hot, as radiative cooling in space sucks).

    You aren't plucking this cable, you are applying a constant and relatively small force over a period of hours to days. The energy is going to go in and out of three reservoirs involved. The rotational speed of the earth, the orbital speed of the counterweight, and tension in the cable itself.

    The complex pendulum will keep accumulating energy until it achieves "rapid unscheduled disassembly" in some unpredictable way.

    Yes the same way people are being killed all over the place by executive desk toys that are spontaneously undergoing rapid disassembly. The cable may well have some sort of material fatigue but this experiment wont tell you a damn thing about it, as it isn't even testing a material you would build such a cable out of.

    Oh and no you don't need to be in space to test that either.

  37. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by lgw · · Score: 1

    You aren't plucking this cable, you are applying a constant and relatively small force over a period of hours to days.

    The fundamental frequency of the cable would be very low indeed, given it's high mass and low proportional stiffness. If it's enough longer than the transit time of the payload, you are indeed plucking it. OK, that's a bit of an oversimplification - you're inducing a wave that will need to damp a bit to become a standing wave, but that's just an even more complex system.

    Yes the same way people are being killed all over the place by executive desk toys that are spontaneously undergoing rapid disassembly.

    They have a lot more friction (and air resistance, and they make noise, etc). Plus, people don't just keep adding energy to them, or they would start spinning around or slide off the desk.

    That's they whole point: you have to damp the energy faster than you add it. A space elevator has little to work with for damping: energy must either be shed as heat, or lost to the atmosphere near the bottom (but that's such a small part of the length). Every ton lifted will mean finding a way to shed MWh of energy, and it's not at all obvious how that mechanical energy could be converted into heat via friction in any reasonable time.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  38. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    That's they whole point: you have to damp the energy faster than you add it.

    Yes that is the whole point which is exactly what having balanced counterweights accomplishes. Once again the system is not the cable it is the cable the earth and the endpoint weight

    They have a lot more friction (and air resistance, and they make noise, etc). Plus, people don't just keep adding energy to them, or they would start spinning around or slide off the desk

    You failed physics I take it ? Or reading comprehension ?

    "The energy is going to go in and out of three reservoirs involved. The rotational speed of the earth, the orbital speed of the counterweight, and tension in the cable itself."

    Even if you didn't use a counterweight the net kinetic energy imparted to the system over a cycle would be zero.

  39. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by lgw · · Score: 1

    Yes that is the whole point which is exactly what having balanced counterweights accomplishes. Once again the system is not the cable it is the cable the earth and the endpoint weight

    Do you understand what "damping" means? The "cable the earth and the endpoint" is basically a pendulum, from the frame of reference of the rotating earth. As energy is added, the pendulum starts to swing, and to bounce, and the cable vibrates at each harmonic. The only way that energy is reduced is to somehow covert it into heat.

    Even if you didn't use a counterweight the net kinetic energy imparted to the system over a cycle would be zero.

    Cycle of what? Lifting a ton to orbit means MWh of energy added to the system as it laterally accelerated the payload, as if you ran your finger down the length of a pendulum, pressing sideways. It will certainly have energy when you're done.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  40. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    Do you understand what "damping" means?

    Do you understand how big the earth is ?

    Cycle of what

    What goes up comes down. It's a loop not a one way move.

    Really you would do much better if you actually tried reading.

  41. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by lgw · · Score: 1

    Yeah, you don't understand what "damping" means.

    Try stopping a swinging pendulum, with a flexible string, from the point it hangs from. There's no way to do that - you have to wait for the pendulum to slow down due to friction and air resistance. If your string is almost perfectly elastic, and you're in a vacuum, that pendulum will keep swinging for a long, long time.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  42. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    Yeah, you don't understand what "damping" means.

    Seeing as I spent a good deal of my life dealing with tuned circuitry, I probably have a better idea than you.

    Try stopping a swinging pendulum, with a flexible string, from the point it hangs from.

    That's nice all you are doing showing is you don't understand where the forces are being applied, which would be the climber and the descender respectively.

    I would suggest you just get a rope and spend a few hours to build a climber so you could see the dynamics are nothing like you are describing but it seems other people have already done this

    https://youtu.be/a8xduff1yyM?t...

    Feel free to try and actually think about what you say in the future.

  43. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by lgw · · Score: 1

    That experiment did not involve a centripetal pendulum. When you move a weight to the station, the pendulum must swing "backwards" to conserve angular momentum. No way around it: you've given the pendulum a kick. Of course, it will swing back to directly above the ground station, but it won't stop there, it will keep being a pendulum.

    Why is that confusing?

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  44. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    When you move a weight to the station, the pendulum must swing "backwards" to conserve angular momentum

    And when you simultaneously move a weight down the station the opposite happens. Really ring up whoever taught you physics and demand your money back.

  45. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by lgw · · Score: 1

    When you lower a weight (the same weight? unlikely) you give the pendulum another kick. Sure, this one's in the other direction, but that doesn't really help - this isn't an ideal, rigid pendulum where you could actually "brake" it that way. You'll be adding energy to the system in either direction.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  46. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    When you lower a weight (the same weight? unlikely)

    Yes because ballast and dead weight aren't things that are well understood / sarcasm

    you give the pendulum another kick.

    You aren't kicking much of anything. For someone who keeps going on about dampening this is a relatively small force applied over a relatively long time across the entire elevator.

    Sure, this one's in the other direction, but that doesn't really help

    Conservation of angular momentum is on the phone for you.

    - this isn't an ideal, rigid pendulum where you could actually "brake" it that way.

    Actually that is exactly what it is. Very nearly Ideal and rigid. What did you think would be needed to reach from the surface of the earth to geosynchronous orbit ?

    You'll be adding energy to the system in either direction.

    I'm done, I can tolerate ignorance, I can't tolerate willful stupidity.

    Here's a free course in freshman physics
    http://go.une.edu/sphp-program...

    Reply again when you can say something intelligent.

  47. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah! A new thought for me!

    This is where experience with elevators that run on tracks inside a stiff building does not work with a track supported by tension from orbit.

    In a building, the sidewise forces that happen as the payload rises dissipate into the (much shorter) building. A space elevator rail does not have that braced support as a momentum sink, and therefore the bits at the top end will manifest the orbital mechanics consequences.

    Would returning mass along the elevator help to damp the overall swing of the pendulum? The timings and relative distances of the loads headed up and down seem significant to keep the sidewise loads within tolerable limits.

    And then there are gravatic perturbations from the Moon and the Sun! This is complicated.

  48. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same AC here (No account):

    Could the outer mass be pumped up and down in orbit in time with the swings to move back into a good-enough position?

  49. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by lgw · · Score: 1

    s because ballast and dead weight aren't things that are well understood / sarcasm

    You're going to, what, mine the counterweight for ballast? Won't work - a space elevator becomes economical when it launches payloads that collectively exceed the mass of the counterweight. So you'd be, what, dragging asteroids over to mine for ballast? Seems unlikely (well, eventually a space elevator would help enable asteroid mining, but it would be some time).

    Sure, this one's in the other direction, but that doesn't really help

    Conservation of angular momentum is on the phone for you.

    As I said, that just means a kick to the pendulum in the other direction. Now it has twice as much energy, unless you do something very clever. But this is a chaotic system with many modes of oscillation: it's a spring pendulum, complicated by the weight of the station at GEO, that will hold massive energy in standing waves on the cable, as well as the counterweight itself rocking on the end of the cable (unless you have one amazing bearing where the cable connects, but why would you).

    Given how well this would all be modeled, I could believe you could get some small damping effect from a payload going down, by timing against the pendulum swing (and only that mode), but even that's quite tricky as the pendulum period would just be a few hours, and the trip would likely take at least as long.

    Actually that is exactly what it is. Very nearly Ideal and rigid. What did you think would be needed to reach from the surface of the earth to geosynchronous orbit ?

    Nothing is rigid at that scale: even for the hardest materials the length is thousands of "speed of sound seconds". The cable would need to have massive tensile strength, but it has no need to be rigid at scale - it's a cable, not an I-beam - and it can't be brittle. Sure, the unobtainium might have the highest spring constant of any known material, but push on it at one end and it will take thousands of seconds for the wave to reach the other end (where, absent some really impressive shock absorbers, the wave will bounce back down the cable).

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  50. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    You're going to, what, mine the counterweight for ballast? Won't work - a space elevator becomes economical when it launches payloads that collectively exceed the mass of the counterweight. So you'd be, what, dragging asteroids over to mine for ballast? Seems unlikely (well, eventually a space elevator would help enable asteroid mining, but it would be some time).

    Too stupid for words.

  51. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by lgw · · Score: 1

    You seem to have run out of arguments, leaving only name-calling. Sad.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  52. Re:Space elevators aren't problems for simple phys by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    You seem to have run out of arguments, leaving only name-calling. Sad.

    Well unlike you, I can't bring myself to predict economic details of civilization hundreds of years removed from now. I also have a pretty good idea of the limits of my knowledge and would never make the claims you do without actually doing the math. Then there is the fact I can't bring myself to ignore the laws of physics the way you do.

    Must be nice to think you know everything.

  53. War Fighting Environment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a clear demonstration of the need for... Space Force!