I'm not sure you could ever get the marginal cost of a rocket lower than an elevator because you'll use more power making the rocket fuel than you will use powering the winches on the tether.
Well, no. No asteroids needed, thanks, although if somebody shows up with one that would be great. We'll send a starter weight up by rocket. Once the elevator is working we'll take up additional mass for building, shielding, and selling.
A stable loading area is a gimme. It will in all likelihood be inside a building at the base of the tether (if on land) or in the center of a large barge (if on water).
I don't know why there would be a steady rain of nano tubes from the tether, but it certainly will not be at the base. Anything falling from great height will move to the east.
We've been dealing with electrostatic forces for a long time. We'll deal with them here, too.
The van Allen radiation belts and UV, coupled with the ozone are the real problems I see.
As far as rockets being as reliable as other forms of transportation? Not even close. They aren't. Really. Go look at the numbers, they're not even close. And airplane level? That's laughable.
More importantly, even if the costs were the same, we would still build it if we could, because tether lifts do not suffer the extreme vibration and g-force loading of a rocket launch.
The acceleration to orbital velocity comes from the rotation of the Earth. As the payload rises, the tether swings backwards (westward) because the payload is moving too slowly. The lateral tilt of the tether begins to pull the payload faster. As it reaches the correct orbital velocity, the tether moves forward (eastward) and becomes vertical again. Operations will have to account for the swing and minimize oscillations.
On the other hand, this does provide some limited mechanism for the tether to 'duck' away from some orbital debris passes.
The problem is that rockets cost tend to be heavy on 'marginal' costs, i.e., shooting twice as many rockets costs twice as much more. Space elevator costs will (theoretically, at least) be very overhead concentrated, with very low marginal costs. This means that it is cheaper to do more, so everyone does more, so the unit cost plummets.
No, he's wrong. The power to lift is absolutely at the terminus satellite. Probably electric winches powered by solar power installation on the terminus.
That cable is a really small target. A better question is how long can you statistically expect it to stay viable? Whatever that answer is, you need to be able to either rebuild or replace in less than that time frame. Realistically, this implies multiple tethers in operation at all times, using tethers to make sure there is material on-hand in orbit for repair/replacement.
A bigger problem is exposure to elemental oxygen in the upper atmosphere and hard UV as you go higher.
If an elevator company can get the cost to orbit down to 35% of the market-owning competitor, they will ABSOLUTELY make back their cost of capital. This is not even accounting for your comparison of LEO to GEO cost estimates. If you could demonstrate technical feasibility investors would be bum rushing you to give you money.
Even worse, much of the cost of modern rocket launches is tied to marginal costs (fuel, personnel, pad rentals, etc.) The primary marginal cost of a space elevator is electricity (to run the winches). So, you do more to lower the unit cost by spreading the fixed costs over a larger number.
Elevators will be FAR cheaper.
Regarding the 'accelerate to orbital velocity' question, it's a little complicated. You have to pay to LIFT the payload, but the Earth's rotation will accelerate it as it ascends the tether. This steals a minuscule portion of the Earth's rotational energy, but you can add some back as you lower payloads back to Earth (the process works in reverse as you go down the tether). As far as the electricity to lift the payload, I would assume that solar power generation at the terminus satellite would be the best answer, but I have not seen authoritative analysis of it.
The most wonderful thing about the space elevator concept is that once you have even a small one working you can bootstrap yourself into bigger and better things.
You could drop two cables to places equidistant from the equator (N and S, obviously) and have them come together at a satellite above the equator. Then one of your cables could be in a hurricane's path.
Hmm, if you put the satellite far enough past geostationary to get some additional pull, you could have the cables be of different lengths and maybe sustain the satellite north or south of the equatorial plane?
The idea of the space elevator is constantly out there, waiting just under the surface. Any technology that seems likely to bring the space elevator closer to reality re-ignites the idea like a spark.
I actually think this makes sense, since a working space elevator has more potential to immediately make radical changes to humanity's future than most others (AI being one of the most obvious exceptions.) A lot of great stuff (and some crappy stuff, too) could come from a practical space elevator.
While I am by no means a LEO booster, I don't remember ever reading a case where the 'forgetting' seemed believable. Usually in these kinds of cases it seems extremely implausible.
In cases where it was plausible, I think the outcome might well be acquittal, depending on the other evidence available.
For the record, I was being facetious, sorry if that came out wrong. I am actually a privacy advocate, and I have made your very argument repeatedly. I also point out how every time they try some new justification for search or forced testimony they use it on a pedophile or a terrorist. People will not show outrage in defense of these 'unsympathetic defendants' and then the precedent is set.
I was locked up with a lot of guys that may have been guilty, but their rights were trampled to get the conviction.
Roe v Wade did not write a law, it specifically said there is an entire type of law that cannot pass constitutional muster. They recognized a principle (a woman's right to choose) that was constitutionally protected
This is in fact almost the entire function of the SCOTUS. They decide the constitutionality of laws, both as written and as enforced. They have a sideline in assessing the performance of lower courts and redirecting them when they go astray, but that is really an extension of their primary gig.
A federal law legalizing abortion would be at the mercy of the next conservative congress to get voted in (consider the ACA, aka Obamacare as an example). This provides considerably LESS protection than a SCOTUS ruling.
Considering the political capital that passing such a law would spend, and the temporary protection it would offer, it is foolish to accuse Democrats of cowardice for not passing such a law in 2013.
Yes, he would certainly still get locked up. It would be much harder to secure a conviction against him, though. And he would be more likely to get during the pretrial period. Also, any conviction would be much more likely to be overturned at the appellate level.
It is better to serve two years and have the conviction overturned than to serve one year and have the conviction stick. Although that last part is not really super-relevant in this particular case.
This is very interesting. How long does it take? Is that something you could realistically do while an FBI agent was at your front door asking you to identify yourself? If a criminal was ready, maybe he could reach into his pocket and surreptitiously do this?
Problematically, he would probably open himself to additional charges for obstruction of justice.
A 'determiner of fact' (aka a judge) will assess your claim of forgetfulness. Then he (or she) will find you guilty of contemp of court, and away you go to jail until you 'remember'.
Of course, you can appeal the decision while you are in the pokey, but, realistically, good luck with that.
Your looks are not considered 'something you know', ie. 'testimonial', so yes LEOs can force you to stare at your phone (or more accurately, lock you up for contempt until you comply).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not sure you could ever get the marginal cost of a rocket lower than an elevator because you'll use more power making the rocket fuel than you will use powering the winches on the tether.
Well, no. No asteroids needed, thanks, although if somebody shows up with one that would be great. We'll send a starter weight up by rocket. Once the elevator is working we'll take up additional mass for building, shielding, and selling.
A stable loading area is a gimme. It will in all likelihood be inside a building at the base of the tether (if on land) or in the center of a large barge (if on water).
I don't know why there would be a steady rain of nano tubes from the tether, but it certainly will not be at the base. Anything falling from great height will move to the east.
We've been dealing with electrostatic forces for a long time. We'll deal with them here, too.
The van Allen radiation belts and UV, coupled with the ozone are the real problems I see.
As far as rockets being as reliable as other forms of transportation? Not even close. They aren't. Really. Go look at the numbers, they're not even close. And airplane level? That's laughable.
More importantly, even if the costs were the same, we would still build it if we could, because tether lifts do not suffer the extreme vibration and g-force loading of a rocket launch.
Almost
That is extremely insightful. Please log in. You are improving the discussion.
The acceleration to orbital velocity comes from the rotation of the Earth. As the payload rises, the tether swings backwards (westward) because the payload is moving too slowly. The lateral tilt of the tether begins to pull the payload faster. As it reaches the correct orbital velocity, the tether moves forward (eastward) and becomes vertical again. Operations will have to account for the swing and minimize oscillations.
On the other hand, this does provide some limited mechanism for the tether to 'duck' away from some orbital debris passes.
The problem is that rockets cost tend to be heavy on 'marginal' costs, i.e., shooting twice as many rockets costs twice as much more. Space elevator costs will (theoretically, at least) be very overhead concentrated, with very low marginal costs. This means that it is cheaper to do more, so everyone does more, so the unit cost plummets.
Did you notice that they were talking about un-tapered cables there?
No, he's wrong. The power to lift is absolutely at the terminus satellite. Probably electric winches powered by solar power installation on the terminus.
Well, THAT is insightful. You should have logged in. That's a great comment.
That cable is a really small target. A better question is how long can you statistically expect it to stay viable? Whatever that answer is, you need to be able to either rebuild or replace in less than that time frame. Realistically, this implies multiple tethers in operation at all times, using tethers to make sure there is material on-hand in orbit for repair/replacement.
A bigger problem is exposure to elemental oxygen in the upper atmosphere and hard UV as you go higher.
If an elevator company can get the cost to orbit down to 35% of the market-owning competitor, they will ABSOLUTELY make back their cost of capital. This is not even accounting for your comparison of LEO to GEO cost estimates. If you could demonstrate technical feasibility investors would be bum rushing you to give you money.
Even worse, much of the cost of modern rocket launches is tied to marginal costs (fuel, personnel, pad rentals, etc.) The primary marginal cost of a space elevator is electricity (to run the winches). So, you do more to lower the unit cost by spreading the fixed costs over a larger number.
Elevators will be FAR cheaper.
Regarding the 'accelerate to orbital velocity' question, it's a little complicated. You have to pay to LIFT the payload, but the Earth's rotation will accelerate it as it ascends the tether. This steals a minuscule portion of the Earth's rotational energy, but you can add some back as you lower payloads back to Earth (the process works in reverse as you go down the tether). As far as the electricity to lift the payload, I would assume that solar power generation at the terminus satellite would be the best answer, but I have not seen authoritative analysis of it.
The most wonderful thing about the space elevator concept is that once you have even a small one working you can bootstrap yourself into bigger and better things.
You could drop two cables to places equidistant from the equator (N and S, obviously) and have them come together at a satellite above the equator. Then one of your cables could be in a hurricane's path.
Hmm, if you put the satellite far enough past geostationary to get some additional pull, you could have the cables be of different lengths and maybe sustain the satellite north or south of the equatorial plane?
The idea of the space elevator is constantly out there, waiting just under the surface. Any technology that seems likely to bring the space elevator closer to reality re-ignites the idea like a spark.
I actually think this makes sense, since a working space elevator has more potential to immediately make radical changes to humanity's future than most others (AI being one of the most obvious exceptions.) A lot of great stuff (and some crappy stuff, too) could come from a practical space elevator.
Log in, and let's talk about it.
Everyone always wants to talk about the little tennis balls, but no one ever talks about the tiny little golden retrievers chasing them around.
Do you need five fish, or will you take a pepperoni and two soups?
While I am by no means a LEO booster, I don't remember ever reading a case where the 'forgetting' seemed believable. Usually in these kinds of cases it seems extremely implausible.
In cases where it was plausible, I think the outcome might well be acquittal, depending on the other evidence available.
Look at my username.
For the record, I was being facetious, sorry if that came out wrong. I am actually a privacy advocate, and I have made your very argument repeatedly. I also point out how every time they try some new justification for search or forced testimony they use it on a pedophile or a terrorist. People will not show outrage in defense of these 'unsympathetic defendants' and then the precedent is set.
I was locked up with a lot of guys that may have been guilty, but their rights were trampled to get the conviction.
That's not really the way that works.
Roe v Wade did not write a law, it specifically said there is an entire type of law that cannot pass constitutional muster. They recognized a principle (a woman's right to choose) that was constitutionally protected
This is in fact almost the entire function of the SCOTUS. They decide the constitutionality of laws, both as written and as enforced. They have a sideline in assessing the performance of lower courts and redirecting them when they go astray, but that is really an extension of their primary gig.
A federal law legalizing abortion would be at the mercy of the next conservative congress to get voted in (consider the ACA, aka Obamacare as an example). This provides considerably LESS protection than a SCOTUS ruling.
Considering the political capital that passing such a law would spend, and the temporary protection it would offer, it is foolish to accuse Democrats of cowardice for not passing such a law in 2013.
Nice.
Passwords are 'testimonial'.
Yes, he would certainly still get locked up. It would be much harder to secure a conviction against him, though. And he would be more likely to get during the pretrial period. Also, any conviction would be much more likely to be overturned at the appellate level.
It is better to serve two years and have the conviction overturned than to serve one year and have the conviction stick. Although that last part is not really super-relevant in this particular case.
Don't be a criminal.
This is very interesting. How long does it take? Is that something you could realistically do while an FBI agent was at your front door asking you to identify yourself? If a criminal was ready, maybe he could reach into his pocket and surreptitiously do this?
Problematically, he would probably open himself to additional charges for obstruction of justice.
A 'determiner of fact' (aka a judge) will assess your claim of forgetfulness. Then he (or she) will find you guilty of contemp of court, and away you go to jail until you 'remember'.
Of course, you can appeal the decision while you are in the pokey, but, realistically, good luck with that.
Your looks are not considered 'something you know', ie. 'testimonial', so yes LEOs can force you to stare at your phone (or more accurately, lock you up for contempt until you comply).