No worries. You won't be able to SEE the thing unless you are very very close. Three meters wide - you'll need a telescope to read any advertising.
And why _not_ advertising if it helps pay back construction costs.
Ah - I just had an idea. If you play laser light along the length you MIGHT get the thing to shine. This might not be useful unless you play the ad in morse....
Are you certain that the magnetic field rotates with the physical magnet? Faraday's paradox suggests it may not (when the magnet and the conductor are attached, and thus rotate together, a charge is still induced).
I am fairly certain that is correct wrt to the magnetic field we're discussing. I'm willing to be wrong.
He didn't say 'no lightning' he said 'lighning free'. And that part of the world has less lightning than anywhere else.
The idea is that the magnetic field is moving at about the same speed as the tether. The Shuttle was zapping through the field, the SE, if anything, moseys along.
The power comes from the electric company. The only requirement for the laser is that it be in line-of-sight. For an SE spotted where Edwards wants that lets you build in the Mojave, the deserts of Mexico and mountains of South America.
Disengage the motor and slide home. You might want to keep the brakes.
Disengage the car from the ribbon and parachute home.
Car below/above can push the thing in the direction desired, if designed for it.
If it's just cargo - as the first will no doubt be a cargo-only system - warn people in the impact zone and disengage the lift from the ribbon. That's what insurance is for..
Re:Protection is a non-issue
on
NPR Talks Skyhooks
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It's easier than that. One space elevator is precious. Two are less so and the progression is geometric. Build a bunch OF them and your target problem is by and large solved.
Once it's in service for a while, the 'new' factor is gone and it's just another large structure, less suited for a terrorist target than most. No one really sweats a terr attack at Johnson Space Center after all.
I thought Dr. Edwards went through some interesting verbal gymnastics at one point to avoid mentioning anyone else by name..
FLATOW: Is there a business here? Is this a private project, much like the space plane was?
Dr. EDWARDS: Well, right now the space elevator--up until a couple of years ago, very, very few people knew about it. And so it's really just getting started. There's a couple hundred researchers now that have sort of taken up the torch and are working on it at a number of locations, including Los Alamos National Laboratory, some private companies, some people at MIT, various locations. And right now, there's not a dramatic amount of funding for it, and that's part of what we're working on is to get...
FLATOW: Yeah.
Dr. EDWARDS:...funding to do it, from private sources, from commercial sources. But since it's new, it always takes a bit of time to be accepted.
FLATOW: Right. How...
Dr. EDWARDS: Usually people look at first thing they think is it's crazy.
FLATOW: That didn't stop a lot of people from making what they said they would.
Dr. EDWARDS: Yeah.
Okay, sure, Edwards is running a startup and looking for funding but it can't hurt to tip the hat a bit to your competitors. If 'competitors' is even the proper word for an industry that by and large doesn't exist. Granted, I'm biased in that regard.
By 'Hercules-like' do you mean the options floated to re-use Shuttle hardware to build various configurations of cargo-only rockets?
Probably. It's not like bolting an aftermarket parts onto your rice-burner. The parts were designed for a specific use - to reuse them in another configuration requires nearly as much work as it would to design a new rocket from scratch. And you're still dealing with tech designed in the 70s. And not 'good' tech like Soyez but tech that is, all said and done, a comprimise among competing missions, none of them ever performed well.
I can't believe people actually are still intertaining this idea. A space elevator made out of carbon nanotubes...just say it to yourself...if you still don't get it, turn off that Enterprise rerun you've watched 50 times and crack open a physics book. Read under the heading "Crack Pot Ideas Non-Scientists Think are Possible" and "Nothing in this Universe is Free"
I understand you are simplyfying greatly but your post betrays something I've noticed before. When someone claims 'science' and 'open a phyics book' they seldom know what they are talking about.
Whatever. Look at the source docs and make up your own minds.
Unfortunately for LiftGroup, but probably not for Edwards, after about a year he gave Laine the boot and went off to do research at Eureka Scientific under a NASA grant.
Which isn't, really, what happened. The grant money to run Highlift ran out. There was an amicible parting of the ways - Edwards wanted to pursue grant money from the government via ISR, as head resercher, Laine thought going the private route was the best way to take.
If Edwards sounds bitter, note that he no longer affiliated with ISR, has moved to Dallas and is going the private money route.
Laine's dealings with Bremerton and the building on 4th street are public record - you can find any number of articles on them at the local paper's website. 'Cheating' isn't what I would call it myself. Feel free to look up the sources and make up your own mind.
if you want a rational discussion on this thing pushing "facts" like these at us is hardly likely to sway any opinion.
'rational discussion' and 'slashdot' can't be used in the same sentence. Nor was what I pushed at you 'facts'.
Think of it as an attempt to start a conversation. If you want informed discussion, head over to the Forum at Liftport.
Think of it this way; without money, you'll be hard pressed to do much enginering. Thus the focus by Michael on our business model and how we'll boot strap. If the presentation is not slick (think polished) then there won't be any money.
Engineers are thick on the ground around the idea of space access. What we need are business guys, lawyers and pols. Any such who are interested are welcome to apply - send your c.v. to info at liftport dot com.
We'll talk enginering, sure, but I doubt they thought you'd find many engineers (sober or otherwise) at NORWESCON. Note that engineers can talk forever and day and haggle over endless detail - this is a compliment not a complaint! But the time we had at NORWESCOn was limited.
Note that we're really not trying to control public perception - it's a fool's game with the internet available and a million eye-balls fact checking. We are doing what you say: presenting ourselves, our ideas and letting people decide for themselves.
not to mention names like 'Brewster Buffalo', 'Fairey Swordfish', 'Mitchell', 'Gooney Bird' and so on. Fearsome names the Greatest Generation used, fearsome.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is pithy and worth a chuckle. Too bad it's not true.
And the hardware cost, and the cost to upgrade, down time for the end-user, transaction costs all.
The computer runs, the OS works, why endure the pain of an upgrade for dubious benefits?
No worries. You won't be able to SEE the thing unless you are very very close. Three meters wide - you'll need a telescope to read any advertising.
....
And why _not_ advertising if it helps pay back construction costs.
Ah - I just had an idea. If you play laser light along the length you MIGHT get the thing to shine. This might not be useful unless you play the ad in morse
Are you certain that the magnetic field rotates with the physical magnet? Faraday's paradox suggests it may not (when the magnet and the conductor are attached, and thus rotate together, a charge is still induced).
I am fairly certain that is correct wrt to the magnetic field we're discussing. I'm willing to be wrong.
He didn't say 'no lightning' he said 'lighning free'. And that part of the world has less lightning than anywhere else.
The idea is that the magnetic field is moving at about the same speed as the tether. The Shuttle was zapping through the field, the SE, if anything, moseys along.
The power comes from the electric company. The only requirement for the laser is that it be in line-of-sight. For an SE spotted where Edwards wants that lets you build in the Mojave, the deserts of Mexico and mountains of South America.
Disengage the motor and slide home. You might want to keep the brakes.
..
Disengage the car from the ribbon and parachute home.
Car below/above can push the thing in the direction desired, if designed for it.
If it's just cargo - as the first will no doubt be a cargo-only system - warn people in the impact zone and disengage the lift from the ribbon. That's what insurance is for
It's easier than that. One space elevator is precious. Two are less so and the progression is geometric. Build a bunch OF them and your target problem is by and large solved.
Once it's in service for a while, the 'new' factor is gone and it's just another large structure, less suited for a terrorist target than most. No one really sweats a terr attack at Johnson Space Center after all.
I thought Dr. Edwards went through some interesting verbal gymnastics at one point to avoid mentioning anyone else by name ..
...funding to do it, from private sources, from commercial sources. But since it's new, it always takes a bit of time to be accepted.
FLATOW: Is there a business here? Is this a private project, much like the space plane was?
Dr. EDWARDS: Well, right now the space elevator--up until a couple of years ago, very, very few people knew about it. And so it's really
just getting started. There's a couple hundred researchers now that have sort of taken up the torch and are working on it at a number of
locations, including Los Alamos National Laboratory, some private companies, some people at MIT, various locations. And right now,
there's not a dramatic amount of funding for it, and that's part of what we're working on is to get...
FLATOW: Yeah.
Dr. EDWARDS:
FLATOW: Right. How...
Dr. EDWARDS: Usually people look at first thing they think is it's crazy.
FLATOW: That didn't stop a lot of people from making what they said they would.
Dr. EDWARDS: Yeah.
Okay, sure, Edwards is running a startup and looking for funding but it can't hurt to tip the hat a bit to your competitors. If 'competitors' is even the proper word for an industry that by and large doesn't exist. Granted, I'm biased in that regard.
By 'Hercules-like' do you mean the options floated to re-use Shuttle hardware to build various configurations of cargo-only rockets?
Probably. It's not like bolting an aftermarket parts onto your rice-burner. The parts were designed for a specific use - to reuse them in another configuration requires nearly as much work as it would to design a new rocket from scratch. And you're still dealing with tech designed in the 70s. And not 'good' tech like Soyez but tech that is, all said and done, a comprimise among competing missions, none of them ever performed well.
This is a standard practice for a manufacturing activity. Start small with a prototype facility. Expand when production takes off.
And, yes, I am a (former) rocket scientist.
Sure. And you have how much experience in a manufacturing facility? Most MA plants are NOT like Lockheed's assembly line.
I understand you are simplyfying greatly but your post betrays something I've noticed before. When someone claims 'science' and 'open a phyics book' they seldom know what they are talking about.
Whatever. Look at the source docs and make up your own minds.
Which isn't, really, what happened. The grant money to run Highlift ran out. There was an amicible parting of the ways - Edwards wanted to pursue grant money from the government via ISR, as head resercher, Laine thought going the private route was the best way to take.
If Edwards sounds bitter, note that he no longer affiliated with ISR, has moved to Dallas and is going the private money route.
Sure I'm biased. But I'm right.
Laine's dealings with Bremerton and the building on 4th street are public record - you can find any number of articles on them at the local paper's website. 'Cheating' isn't what I would call it myself. Feel free to look up the sources and make up your own mind.
Neither. It's intended as a prototype facility that can scale as needed.
Henry Ford didn't build the Rogue River facility to make his cars - he started small and built as he needed. Same deal.
you want to really break 'the internet' once and for all.
Who in turn stole the idea from K.E. Tsiolkovsky.
I say the Russians stole the idea for manned rocketry from Robert Goddard. Nyah.
If something is cheap enough to ship, it's economical to do so. If it's cost effective to loft consumables, it will be done.
if you want a rational discussion on this thing pushing "facts" like these at us is hardly likely to sway any opinion. 'rational discussion' and 'slashdot' can't be used in the same sentence. Nor was what I pushed at you 'facts'. Think of it as an attempt to start a conversation. If you want informed discussion, head over to the Forum at Liftport.
Think of it this way; without money, you'll be hard pressed to do much enginering. Thus the focus by Michael on our business model and how we'll boot strap. If the presentation is not slick (think polished) then there won't be any money.
Engineers are thick on the ground around the idea of space access. What we need are business guys, lawyers and pols. Any such who are interested are welcome to apply - send your c.v. to info at liftport dot com.
We'll talk enginering, sure, but I doubt they thought you'd find many engineers (sober or otherwise) at NORWESCON. Note that engineers can talk forever and day and haggle over endless detail - this is a compliment not a complaint! But the time we had at NORWESCOn was limited.
Note that we're really not trying to control public perception - it's a fool's game with the internet available and a million eye-balls fact checking. We are doing what you say: presenting ourselves, our ideas and letting people decide for themselves.
This is /. and I want to be nice but honestly replying to each and every post that is wrong, mis-informed or stomp-down ignorant is tiring.
These are expounded in greater detail at our FAQ. See http://www.liftport.com/faq.php
Catastrophe. Yes Bad Things can happen. The amount of damage done is less than might be expected.
Terrorism. The thing is less a target than might be expected.
Elevator Music. Puh-lease, this is the 21st century. You can bring your IPod.
Anything else?
Done. Orbiter has a module for a space elevator.
u bmit2=Sea rch
Link for the orbiter space simulator download
http://www.orbitersim.com
Link for the space elevator add-on:
http://www.orbithangar.com/searchna...&S
If their liftoff is on April 12, 2018, why have they only paid for the domain until 2006
Because we got a really good deal from our host for doing so.
tsia
not to mention names like 'Brewster Buffalo', 'Fairey Swordfish', 'Mitchell', 'Gooney Bird' and so on. Fearsome names the Greatest Generation used, fearsome.