There are two failure points in the "space elevator" idea. The first is a flaw in the theory, the other is a danger that is known but ignored.
The theoretical flaw is exposed by the name "space elevator". Almost everybody tends to assume that getting into orbit is a matter of gaining altitude. It is not. A ship can orbit as low as 60 miles or so, but but it has to accellerate to about 17,000 miles per hour to do it. To get into a geosychronous orbit requires a much higher velocity. Space nerds call that "delta v", and it is the coin of the realm. Altitude is of interest, but it's delta v that gets you from one altitude to another.
The energy to lift a pod is drawn from the anchor already in orbit, pulling it down. As it drops it moves ahead. The tether won't allow it to move ahead. The tether pulls on the anchor, causing it to drop more, and the anchor wraps its tether around the earth and crashes. The only way to prevent this is to apply rocket power to the anchor; exactly as much power as it would have taken to lift and accelerate the pod without the tether.
The other danger is lightning. We have this thing called the ionosphere. The "ion" part means electrical charge. Meteors and ships passing through this zone often trigger a discharge of the stored energy. The amount of stored energy varies, but anything that crosses that zone can discharge whatever is stored there. The space elevator's tether would be the world's tallest lightning rod.
BTW, I anticipate that there will be at least one response from someone who thinks the physical laws can be circumvented by careful design, and another from someone who thinks all laws are subject to a vote.
I saw a story a few months back, but haven't heard any more about it. The plan was to use sodium and water to produce hydrogen on demand. Sodium strips oxygen out of water instantly, releasing hydrogen. When the sodium was used up, the canister would be exchanged for a fresh one and the sodium oxide would be smelted by solar heat. No other inputs - just water and solar heat.
Has anybody else heard of this? Has the idea been "disappeared"?
It's called a transformer. The theory is that a changeing current causes a magnetic field to expand or contract, and the moving field will induce a current into any conductor it moves across. But if the wires are wound on a toroid (iron donut) all the field is inside the toroid and none can be detected moving around the wires. So the theory is wrong, but it works exactly as if the theory were right. And nobody knows what it does instead.
Yes, I have seen that illustration. What holds the balls to the fabric? Looking at the picture you automatically assume that GRAVITY pulls them down. But gravity is what the picture was supposed to explain. It is circular reasoning, using gravity to explain gravity.
Einstein's is not the only theory, and there is a major flaw in his: there is no such thing as "fabric of space-time". It's a convenient buzzword but it doesn't mean anything. This is a case of "exactly as if..." Things work as if Einstein was right, but there is no evidence that he was right.
Here's an example: If you pass a current through a wire it generates a magnetic field. If that field crosses another wire it generates a current in that wire. It's exactly as if the magnetic field moved from one wire across the other. The flaw is that if you wrap both wires through an iron donut all the field is inside the iron - absolutely NO field is detected anywhere around either wire. The theory is false, but it is "exactly as if" it were true.
Likewise, Einstein's theory may give correct answers even though nobody actually knows why. For one thing, plasma physicists can easily explain a lot of effects in electrical terms, relying on laboratory observations instead of imagined theories. Astronomers ignore plasma physics because nobody ever taught it to them.
Slashdot Mirror
There are two failure points in the "space elevator" idea. The first is a flaw in the theory, the other is a danger that is known but ignored. The theoretical flaw is exposed by the name "space elevator". Almost everybody tends to assume that getting into orbit is a matter of gaining altitude. It is not. A ship can orbit as low as 60 miles or so, but but it has to accellerate to about 17,000 miles per hour to do it. To get into a geosychronous orbit requires a much higher velocity. Space nerds call that "delta v", and it is the coin of the realm. Altitude is of interest, but it's delta v that gets you from one altitude to another. The energy to lift a pod is drawn from the anchor already in orbit, pulling it down. As it drops it moves ahead. The tether won't allow it to move ahead. The tether pulls on the anchor, causing it to drop more, and the anchor wraps its tether around the earth and crashes. The only way to prevent this is to apply rocket power to the anchor; exactly as much power as it would have taken to lift and accelerate the pod without the tether. The other danger is lightning. We have this thing called the ionosphere. The "ion" part means electrical charge. Meteors and ships passing through this zone often trigger a discharge of the stored energy. The amount of stored energy varies, but anything that crosses that zone can discharge whatever is stored there. The space elevator's tether would be the world's tallest lightning rod. BTW, I anticipate that there will be at least one response from someone who thinks the physical laws can be circumvented by careful design, and another from someone who thinks all laws are subject to a vote.
I saw a story a few months back, but haven't heard any more about it. The plan was to use sodium and water to produce hydrogen on demand. Sodium strips oxygen out of water instantly, releasing hydrogen. When the sodium was used up, the canister would be exchanged for a fresh one and the sodium oxide would be smelted by solar heat. No other inputs - just water and solar heat. Has anybody else heard of this? Has the idea been "disappeared"?
It's called a transformer. The theory is that a changeing current causes a magnetic field to expand or contract, and the moving field will induce a current into any conductor it moves across. But if the wires are wound on a toroid (iron donut) all the field is inside the toroid and none can be detected moving around the wires. So the theory is wrong, but it works exactly as if the theory were right. And nobody knows what it does instead.
Yes, I have seen that illustration. What holds the balls to the fabric? Looking at the picture you automatically assume that GRAVITY pulls them down. But gravity is what the picture was supposed to explain. It is circular reasoning, using gravity to explain gravity.
Einstein's is not the only theory, and there is a major flaw in his: there is no such thing as "fabric of space-time". It's a convenient buzzword but it doesn't mean anything. This is a case of "exactly as if ..." Things work as if Einstein was right, but there is no evidence that he was right.
Here's an example: If you pass a current through a wire it generates a magnetic field. If that field crosses another wire it generates a current in that wire. It's exactly as if the magnetic field moved from one wire across the other. The flaw is that if you wrap both wires through an iron donut all the field is inside the iron - absolutely NO field is detected anywhere around either wire. The theory is false, but it is "exactly as if" it were true.
Likewise, Einstein's theory may give correct answers even though nobody actually knows why. For one thing, plasma physicists can easily explain a lot of effects in electrical terms, relying on laboratory observations instead of imagined theories. Astronomers ignore plasma physics because nobody ever taught it to them.