Yes it does. At a minimum, the center of mass of the entire elevator needs to be at the geosynchronous point. For that to happen, the mass below the geosynch point (the cable) needs to be offset by a mass above the geosynch point (the counterweight). Think of a teeter-totter. In order to get it to balance, you have to have weights on either side. Adding weight to the fulcum does nothing.
And even than, it took millenia to get from iron->steel->a few km steel wire for bridges/ect.
The transistor was invented in 1948. It only took fifty years to get thousands of them in everybody's household. The compact disk was invented in 1984 and is now considered obsolete in many circles. Technical advances happen at different speeds, but in general the closer you are to the present, the faster the rate of advance. The fact that we've had iron for thousands of years, and steel for hundreds means nothing. We could have apple lifting nanotubes in a year, and car lifting ones six months later.
There are two factors in an orbit: altitude and velocity. The elevator will take care of the altitude, so essentially all you need to do is get off of the elevator at the right level, and fire a rocket to get you to orbital velocity. This will take less fuel then launching from the surface. The higher you let go of the cable, the less fuel you need to get to orbital velocity.
So let me get this straight... Your plan to win the contest is to make a robot out of dirt. Good luck with that.
Re:Bad Post: Misinformative and Wrong
on
NASA's New Shuttle
·
· Score: 1
Apollo was confined to equatorial regions
I think this had more to do with safety concerns than with limitations of the spacecraft. It wouldn't take all that much of a course correction to go into a polar orbit around the moon compared to an equatorial orbit.
You'd probably get more money selling Ranger 6 on eBay than you would selling all the other crap combined to any local moon base you might find... with the possible exception of the lunar rovers.
So am I to understand he hasn't really removed concepts such as thought up new words for them?
Basically, yes. Instead of using the length of a line, he's using the square of the length of a line and calling it a Quadrance. Instead of rise/run, he's using the quadrance of the rise divided by the quadrance of the hypoteneuse, calling it the Spread. (really, the sine^2). He has derived equivalents to the cosine rule, and the sine rule for triangles
Apparently by redefining terms this way, a large quantity of tedious mathematics cancels each other out. I am suspicious of it though, for two reasons. If it was so fundamental, why are we just learning about it now, rather than having our Greek or Chinese ancestors carving it into clay tablets? And why is the knowledge only available in books sold by this guy's website?
I did. Radians can be convenient scale to measure angles in when mixing angles and arc lengths. It is just a side effect though. The angle is not the arc length, any more than the length of a rectangle is its area.
Well, now that I've Read The Fancy Sample Chapter, I have to agree with you.
I'm not sure where this guy is getting his definition of angle. The one I learned certainly had nothing to do with the length of the subtending arc. No wonder he's having problems. Defining an angle does not require calculus. It is merely a measure of how far one has to turn when facing one direction to face another direction.
Perhaps this guys ideas have merit, but he's a couple of thousand years too late.
Roofs are made from pre-engineered trusses, which are made at a factory using CAD software. Besides, roof pitch is measured in terms of rise and run, not angles. A carpentry square is all you need. Same thing with staircase stringers. The closest a carpenter would get to trigonometry is the pythagorean theorem.
You don't have to go to the moon to get solar power. In fact, you're better off not going to the moon. A space based power station in geosynchronous orbit can beam power to the same spot 24hrs/day seven days a week. A lunar based system has a 14 day light/dark cycle to contend with, as well as approximately 12hrs/day when the moon is not visible in the sky.
I generally agree with your post. I would hope, however, that NASA will have the foresight to plant a flag in such a way as to have usable tech left over. Take the CEV as an example. If they build it properly, they will have a platform for the future.
The only thing that worries me about this type of engine is how robust is the quartz "bulb"? It sounds an aweful lot like glass to me. In the event of an abort, will this bulb survive a splashdown? Can it even survive the vibrations of the exhaust?
What is NASA's budget now as a percentage of what is was in the Apollo days? How big is NASA compared to the Apollo days? How many projects are they handling now compared to then? In short, is NASA more or less efficient/effective than the good ol' days?
The definitions of the parts of speech we are taught in school are wrong. They are simplifications made to help young children; but we never get around to teaching the full story in later years. As a consequence, we've had a few generations of people who were never given anything beyond an elementary/junior high level understanding of what a part of speech is
I'm one of them, I guess. I sincerely wish they'd focussed on grammar a bit more than they had. Maybe I would have gotten a better grade. Perhaps I just had a string of bad teachers, but to this day I haven't got a clue as to what they were trying to teach during my highschool english classes.
Anyways, let me reiterate my request for some good links on the subject.
As an addendum to this, I would find it handy to be able to extract a tab (and any tabs I opened from links on that "parent" tab) and open it/them up in a new window.
Slashdot Mirror
Mind you, it doesn't have to be much beyond. The more massive the counterweight, the closer to geosych it can be.
Yes it does. At a minimum, the center of mass of the entire elevator needs to be at the geosynchronous point. For that to happen, the mass below the geosynch point (the cable) needs to be offset by a mass above the geosynch point (the counterweight). Think of a teeter-totter. In order to get it to balance, you have to have weights on either side. Adding weight to the fulcum does nothing.
And even than, it took millenia to get from iron->steel->a few km steel wire for bridges/ect.
The transistor was invented in 1948. It only took fifty years to get thousands of them in everybody's household. The compact disk was invented in 1984 and is now considered obsolete in many circles. Technical advances happen at different speeds, but in general the closer you are to the present, the faster the rate of advance. The fact that we've had iron for thousands of years, and steel for hundreds means nothing. We could have apple lifting nanotubes in a year, and car lifting ones six months later.
all the way around the Earth's circumference.
Can someone please explain this to me. The cable has the same rotational velocity as the Earth. Why would it not fall straight down?
There are two factors in an orbit: altitude and velocity. The elevator will take care of the altitude, so essentially all you need to do is get off of the elevator at the right level, and fire a rocket to get you to orbital velocity. This will take less fuel then launching from the surface. The higher you let go of the cable, the less fuel you need to get to orbital velocity.
So let me get this straight... Your plan to win the contest is to make a robot out of dirt. Good luck with that.
Apollo was confined to equatorial regions
I think this had more to do with safety concerns than with limitations of the spacecraft. It wouldn't take all that much of a course correction to go into a polar orbit around the moon compared to an equatorial orbit.
You'd probably get more money selling Ranger 6 on eBay than you would selling all the other crap combined to any local moon base you might find... with the possible exception of the lunar rovers.
The cable will not wrap. It will fall "straight" down. Remember, it's got the same rotational velocity as the planet.
What is an N-Registered aircraft and a C-Registered aircraft? Has it got something to do with the size/number/type of engines, or something?
Let's see, mach 20+ in the thickest part of the atmosphere... 300+ G acceleration... What's not to love?
So am I to understand he hasn't really removed concepts such as thought up new words for them?
Basically, yes. Instead of using the length of a line, he's using the square of the length of a line and calling it a Quadrance. Instead of rise/run, he's using the quadrance of the rise divided by the quadrance of the hypoteneuse, calling it the Spread. (really, the sine^2). He has derived equivalents to the cosine rule, and the sine rule for triangles
Apparently by redefining terms this way, a large quantity of tedious mathematics cancels each other out. I am suspicious of it though, for two reasons. If it was so fundamental, why are we just learning about it now, rather than having our Greek or Chinese ancestors carving it into clay tablets? And why is the knowledge only available in books sold by this guy's website?
I did. Radians can be convenient scale to measure angles in when mixing angles and arc lengths. It is just a side effect though. The angle is not the arc length, any more than the length of a rectangle is its area.
So close! If you had said "... nothing more than raising an irrational number to an imaginary power", you might have gotten a +5 funny.
Well, now that I've Read The Fancy Sample Chapter, I have to agree with you.
I'm not sure where this guy is getting his definition of angle. The one I learned certainly had nothing to do with the length of the subtending arc. No wonder he's having problems. Defining an angle does not require calculus. It is merely a measure of how far one has to turn when facing one direction to face another direction.
Perhaps this guys ideas have merit, but he's a couple of thousand years too late.
That's why I have a sin() button on my calculator.
Roofs are made from pre-engineered trusses, which are made at a factory using CAD software. Besides, roof pitch is measured in terms of rise and run, not angles. A carpentry square is all you need. Same thing with staircase stringers. The closest a carpenter would get to trigonometry is the pythagorean theorem.
You don't have to go to the moon to get solar power. In fact, you're better off not going to the moon. A space based power station in geosynchronous orbit can beam power to the same spot 24hrs/day seven days a week. A lunar based system has a 14 day light/dark cycle to contend with, as well as approximately 12hrs/day when the moon is not visible in the sky.
I generally agree with your post. I would hope, however, that NASA will have the foresight to plant a flag in such a way as to have usable tech left over. Take the CEV as an example. If they build it properly, they will have a platform for the future.
The only thing that worries me about this type of engine is how robust is the quartz "bulb"? It sounds an aweful lot like glass to me. In the event of an abort, will this bulb survive a splashdown? Can it even survive the vibrations of the exhaust?
Yes, the honeymoon is over, and now the more enjoyable adventure of building a life together begins.
What is NASA's budget now as a percentage of what is was in the Apollo days? How big is NASA compared to the Apollo days? How many projects are they handling now compared to then? In short, is NASA more or less efficient/effective than the good ol' days?
The definitions of the parts of speech we are taught in school are wrong. They are simplifications made to help young children; but we never get around to teaching the full story in later years. As a consequence, we've had a few generations of people who were never given anything beyond an elementary/junior high level understanding of what a part of speech is
I'm one of them, I guess. I sincerely wish they'd focussed on grammar a bit more than they had. Maybe I would have gotten a better grade. Perhaps I just had a string of bad teachers, but to this day I haven't got a clue as to what they were trying to teach during my highschool english classes.
Anyways, let me reiterate my request for some good links on the subject.
Middle clicking on a tab label does nothing here. Is that a setting that you activated?
As an addendum to this, I would find it handy to be able to extract a tab (and any tabs I opened from links on that "parent" tab) and open it/them up in a new window.