What is stopping us from building a space elevator now?
There is an incentive for us to go into Spayse right?
>>46622448
the fact that it being so stupidly huge it'd either
A. fall under its own weight
B. literally get blown over by the massive wind gusts at the higher altitudes
>>46622448
weight
>>46622448
That would fall over and squish a lot of people.
>>46622448
We don't have, what is it now carbon fiber nanotubes? start working on it OP
>>46622448
We can't yet produce the necessary materials in large enough quantities.
>>46622448
>Weight.
>Gravity.
>Speed of the earths rotation against a >stationary object that size.
>Etc..
>>46622448
why dont we make a rope connecting the moon and earth and make a giant generator?
>>46622657
>" The average distance to the Moon is 384,403 km (238,857 miles)."
>"the distance from Earth to Moon can vary by 43,592 km."
good luck with that
>>46622707
Ask a stupid question, get a stupider question in response.
>>46622448
No malls in space.
>>46622752
yet
>>46622707
just use the variation as the power generation
>>46622566
>carbon fiber nanotubes
lel
We have them, and we even have automated processes much like looms which produce them into threads. 3 years ago.
Loftstrom loops > momentum exchange tethers > space elevator
>>46622707
Just use a stretchy rope
>>46622821
why are they called lofstrom loops and why do you call them that?
gotta be hipster right?
>>46622906
wat
What would the rotational velocity be near the top of the atmosphere?
Sure the thing would feel like it's travelling 0mph at the bottom but it has to be going stupid fast at the top
>>46622448
Because it's the most stupidest thing I have ever heard.
In terms of usability it's pretty shitty because it's an elevator, also construction and waste of resources.
>>46622977
that's the least of your worries
the pull its generating is a much bigger concern
>>46622448
Reality. There's nothing that'll go that high.
>>46622448
Suppose we can build it.
But what use is that? What do we get from building it?
>>46623067
incredible cheap transfer from surface to space
we tend to use satellites you know
>>46623082
Transfer what?
>>46623090
>>46623090
Everything. One reason why we don't do more space exploration is because of the extreme costs of getting our shit into space.
>>46623067
This.
OP, pic related is the tallest building in the world in Dubai. Most first world countries can build something like taller than that with their capital. But they don't. Why? Because they don't need it. Even Japan and Korea aren't building anything like that.
Practically is a factor.
Idiots.
The reason we can't build one is because space elevators can't be rigid. You can't build them UP, you have to start with a structure in geostationary orbit and drop a cable or fibre DOWN.
A cable long enough to reach the Earth from geostationary orbit would be a gigantic payload; rocket propulsion simply can't transport that kind of load into space
Tl;dr: u need a space elevator to build a space elevator
>>46623082
It would be easier to grab a railgun and use it to launch satellites into space
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/02/06/the-pentagons-electromagnetic-rail-gun-makes-its-public-debut/
>>46622977
just did it out, sqrt(GM/r+50km)=7876.286m/s at 50km altitude
i don't think any material can handle the punishment of wind, ISIS crashing planes into it, and the gravitational pull something like this is supposed to endure.
>>46623148
No it wouldn't be easier until we've tried it. We haven't tried it so we can't say it's easier.
>>46622467
You don't know how they work.
Can we even build it? Let's say we have infinite capital. Is the carbon nano tube strong enough? Do we even have the technology?
Reminder that engineering in zero gravity is pathetically easy.
Reminder that Lofstrom loops are efficient as fuck.
Reminder that we are quite literally burning starlight with our idleness.
>>46623172
Launching a chunk of metal at earth's escape velocity into space is easier than building an elevator so you can carry it up there.
>>46623223
What's beyond that point?
>>46623229
the only issue with that is the fact that you can't put humans in it.
Never forget
>>46623254
But we want to send satellites.
We can already send humans out at those speeds.
>>46623147
no, you need lots of dosh to build a space elevator
you would need to build the "rope" in space and bring it up in parts.
>>46623254
That's fine. There's plenty of other stuff we can hurl into space with railguns. For delicate transport, we can use space elevators and rockets
>>46623249
treasure
>>46623249
A maze of holes that can confuse a diver with a limited supply of air.
>>46623249
death obviously
>>46623147
Couldn't you make a very thin cable and then thicken it afterwards?
Or start from something in geostationary orbit and extend it from both sides
>>46623249
Rape dungeons for dolphins
>>46622448
Space elevators dont exist right now because we have no way/dont know how to make a Carbon nanotube tether longer than a few Centimeters.
No other material is known to hold the tensile strength needed to hold the weight of the cable and the elevators at sea levels. So yeah we know wht we need, just we arent there yet.
>>46623249
c̢̻̩͇̣ͥ͆̔̌́̚͘͞t̑͋ͬͤ̐͏̶̬̩͓̞̳̗̞̘̬̗͓͙̹̙̖̟͉ͅh̡̨͖̼͎̫̳̮̙̲ͧ̏ͭ̎͗͐̉̈̍͌͐̌ͩ͗̏̓͜͠͞ͅu̷̡̗̻̣̯̻̙̮͈̔̂ͧͦ̈̅͑ͩ̄͋̓̉̈́̊͑̔̚l̹̼̝̤̬͎̮̟̘̬̜̳͍͓̭ͧ̉́̄̃ͥ̿̆ͣ̈́̓͛̒͛̇ͧ̽̕h̡̠̖͔͎̥͙͈̜̰͚̖̺̗͓̬̥͙͙͋̽̑ͪ̐̾̇́u̸̡̬͉͕̣̳ͮ̀ͫ̏͘̕ͅͅͅ
̸̢̹͉̫̬̗͔̖̱͓̩̠͋̓ͨͮ̎̎ͧ̽͌ͫͪ̌̆ͅ
>>46623274
also you can do this with launching the various parts with a railgun, they don't need to be manned
>>46623147
lol you think it would be one big cable?
holy fuck man.. how embarrassing
But the maintenance costs?
Who will pay for it?
>>46623315
The invisible hand of the free market obviusly
>>46623315
Investors will. A space elevator will create a profit stream that can pay off the investment + interest
>>46623315
the owners that get paid by various people/organisations to use the bloody thing
how is this even an issue
>>46623315
>maintenance costs
Im pretty sure any company smart enough to build a space elevator would include maintenance costs into the fee/kg lifted.
>>46623292
It would break if it's too thin.
>>46623264
What am I looking at?
>>46623306
So you would use a railgun to send stuff into space so you can build a space elevator to send stuff into space?
>>46623367
railguns aren't suitable for people.
>>46623367
>It would break if it's too thin.
it would break at any thickness because it's the ratio between weight and strength that matters.
there is only 1 known material that does what is needed and we can't make more then a handful in length
>>46623422
>implying we cant spin nanotube filaments like fucking cotton
old news brah
>>46623479
>like fucking cotton
So if carbon nanotubes are like cotton...
Guys, i have the perfect idea on how to fix Detroit
>>46623502
This would actually work
A second golden age for Detroit, but with nanotubes instead of steel.
>>46622448
>What is stopping us from building a space elevator now?
Sandniggers ALLAHSNACKBAR'ing the thing down, for one.
It requires stronger materials than we have. That's it. Last time I read about it, it was unclear whether or not carbon nanotubes could be used to make a strong enough material, or in fact whether it would be possible to make such a material at all, ever, out of anything.
There are some other unsolved problems, but no other problems that could not be overcome pretty quickly, I think, if we had a suitable material.
>>46623502
we can get the niggers to pick the nanotubes off of the substrate
>>46622821
My understanding is that carbon nanotubes can only be made currently in very short lengths, although they can be intertwined to make a kind of rope they cannot yet produce a single endlessly long strand which is what you'd need to support a space elevator. That's what I heard at least.
>>46623502
Fill the detroit air with carbon nanotubes!
Asbestos for all!
>>46623600
I bet they'd think it's blasphemous or something for wanting to reach allah or something.
Goddamn extremist religious psychos.
It's all a matter of materials guys come on.
If we manage to find a way to manufacture cheaply the right material for the tether of the elevator then the rest is piece of cake.
Then we make space stations and huge spaceships to venture out into the unknown.
But people are busy making cellphones.
>>46624411
Eventually we'll be able to pile up all the old mobile phones and just climb into space.
>>46622448
Why do we need an unbreakable material? Why can't we just pick a big mountain and start dumping all our garbage on top of it, eventually it'll get big enough to reach into space.
>>46624485
Let's start with you. Go dump yourself on mount everest.
>>46624497
>>46622448
Read the mars trilogy
>>46624697
>read blue mars
>30% of the book is wrinkled codgers having orgies
>>46622467
NOPE
>>46623315
There's always this guy.
Much of what's important trancends money concerns. You think too much in terms of the paradigms of the last 500 years, that will eventually evolve beyond they're usefulness(in fact they've already proven dangerous as of last century.)
Fuck you, businessman.
>>46625008
Yeah man, why don't the workers, and engineers work for free for years on end for the transcendence of mankind? Why don't businesses give away billions of dollars of materials for the transcendence of mankind?
>>46622467
>A. fall under its own weight
>fall
I don't think you understand the concept of a space elevator, anon.
>>46622600
>>stationary object
It obviously won't be stationary.
>>46625081
yea, the part between the ground and the edge of the atmosphere will totally be fine once it gets into space
>>46625063
Think about why you don't do what you want, whenever you want.
>>46623090
>Transfer what?
Have you seen all those space stations, moon bases, mars bases, huge spaceships that can sustain big human trips around the solar system?
Do you know what's the main technological obstacle stopping us from building them? The fact that we can't lift the material to build them in space.
A space elevator makes transporting tons and tons of materials and resources dirt cheap compared to rockets.
>>46625132
I don't even understand what you're trying to say.
The cord would need to be dropped down, not built up. And that alone is already a big problem.
Obayashi Corp (the guys that built the Tower Skytree) want to build one, but they need international cooperation.
>>46623367
>What am I looking at?
A weather balloon.
>>46625081
protip: things in space are not exempt from the earths' gravity if they are still close enough to earth
>>46624393
nice of you to make shit up on the spot
>>46625205
>international cooperation
Imagine the insurance or treaties you'd need in case you monumentally fuck up and the whole thing comes crashing down back to earth.
The sheer capital investment required for a project like will probably mean that it will never happen unless there's a real need for it. Even if the technology for it is made, you have to hope that we will run out of resources that can only otherwise be acquired in space before we can develop ways to efficiently recycle them, and that nobody develops a method of propulsion that's more economical than rockets to send things into space.
>>46625236
you more stupid then he is
a space lift works by being in geostationary orbit
fucking up the balance in any way would cause it to fall or fly away, depending on which part de-attached
>>46625236
Can you then explain to me how the ISS and other satellites stay aloft?
>>46625377
>de-attached
The word you are looking for, is ``detached''.
>you more stupid...[]
You are more stupid...[]
I hope that helps you in some way.
>>46625455
hurr Rocket science.
>>>/sci/
>>>/x/
>>46625455
they are moving really fast
>>46625668
Exactly! You answered yourself.
The reason why the space elevator is viable is because it would be in a geostationary orbit.
>>46625455
Their orbits are constantly decaying, albeit slowly because of their immense speed, which can be corrected. In the case of the ISS they send up boosters every once and a while that dock with the station to raise it's altitude.
>>46625781
That's because of the atmosphere on that height.
>yfw ISS is getting shafted because of ukraine
>>46622448
>What is stopping us from building a space elevator now?
money, years of research, appropriate materials, money and money
Did I mention the money
>>46622467
>fall under its own weight
I dont think you know what a space elevator is
>>46622448
money. also pretty far back on the priority list
>>46625455
They are constantly falling to earth.
The amazing thing is that their horizontal speed is fast enough that they are literally always falling over the edge of the planet.
I think that's amazing
>>46625995
Yes, that's the whole point of the Space Elevator.
terrible idea.
the amount of tension on the 'cable' would be so much that if anything were to go wrong, it would flail around and fuck anything up where it hit
>>46626009
Whatever, it's still cool as fuck how all that really works. You can't damage my wonder.
>>46626030
I'd like to think that eventually the cable could be made strong enough to keep the moon at a constant distance eliminating tides.
>>46626067
Nigger what the shit are you smoking
>>46626045
Ok man! Ok! It amazes me too
>>46623067
>9/11v2
>>46626067
Dank carbon nanotubes.
>>46622448
The only material strong enough to withstand the pull of gravity and the vacuum of space is theoretical forms of carbon nano-tubing which isn't viable to manufacture in large quantities.
Next question.
>>46626030
You could detach the whole thing somewhere in the atmosphere to make it fly away instead
>>46622448
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator_construction#Current_status
Lets build a bridge to the moon while we're at it
>>46625767
so what happens if they build it with a tilt?
>>46626150
what?
>>46626009
The space elevator doesn't stay up because it's "falling over the edge of the earth". The top of it is moving so fast that it's outward centrifugal acceleration and it's inward gravitational weight balance out.
>>46626067
I LOL'D. Nigger, you need to brush up on your astrophysics.
>>46626169
I think that's what he meant, in more layman terms.
>>46626150
I don't understand, do elaborate.
>>46626123
you don't know what viable means, do you?
>>46623148
>Instead of gunpowder as a propellant, it uses electromagnetic pulses, and the projectiles hit with such overwhelming force that they don’t need to be armed with explosives.
Nigger, that's hardcore.
Also the footage of it just fucking blasting through like fucking 7 walls and still going strong.
>>46626009
In what way is that the point of a space elevator?
>>46626214
what if the point on the ground it connects to isn't directly underneath it
>>46626196
It's possible but I doubt it, they're completely different concepts. Objects in orbit have no centrifugal acceleration since they're not tethered to the planet.
>>46625767
then wouldn't the middle of it be damaged from wearing against the atmosphere?
>>46626196
>>46626169
It's hard to explain in words what happens exactly.
Just assume that there is a relation between centrifugal speed and downwards acceleration. Too much speed and you get launched to space. Too little and you fall back down.
Pic related, the downwards acceleration needs to be equal to upwards acceleration generated by speed.
>>46626239
Do you?
>>46626268
Yeah that would be a funny thing to see. If we spend billions (or trillions) on making the space elevator and we make it just a little bit too long... and it rips out of the ground and off into space.
>>46626257
The tether DOES NOT KEEP THE THING ON THE PLANET/ORBIT
Seriously, don't make that mistake.
>>46626284
yes, it means feasible. obviously carbon nano tubes would be most viable in large quantities
because of the earths rotation wouldn't it just wind around the planet and crash down killing a bunch of people?
>>46626335
is it too much to ask to fucking google it?
>>46626319
Yet, at the moment they're not. Which is why it currently isn't.
>>46626377
kinda, don't know how to word that
>>46626248
It probably shouldn't even be exactly beneath it. There are a lot of math and external factors to account for.
>>46626259
There are a lot of problems that would need to be tackled, yes. There would obviously need to be maintenance, but that would be waaay cheaper than our current system.
>>46626294
Uh, it depends on what you're saying. Yes, it won't keep it from being ripped out of the earth, but without it, there wouldn't be a centrifugal force to counteract the weight of it.
If what you're saying is that once you make the thing long enough that it's weight becomes negative, then I agree, the tether will do nothing to prevent it flying into space.
>>46626335
No, it wouldn't.
>>46626429
If you're building ground-up maybe, since it would face a lot of force from air at high speeds, but in a completed state it would be pulling up enough to prevent it from falling down.
>>46626257
Yeah, guy who said that here, I really did think that objects in orbit exhibit centrifugal force. Am I totally wrong about that?
>>46626490
yes, completely.
>>46626287
That would be a fun couple of years, with all the news and shit that would be around, epoch making, even if it totally fucked up I'd be just as happy watching it all at home on the telly.
>>46626433
it would prevent it from twisting on it's own center of mass.
it does nothing to prevent it from flying away.
>>46626490
The force to counteract gravity.
It's not a real force but can be considered as such.
>>46626502
right now your a nigger.
Explain or remain...
>>46626490
I thought you were at first but I'm having second thoughts. I'm beginning to think that the concept "falling around the earth" is the same thing as the massive angular velocity causing a centrifugal force that balances with the gravitational pull of the earth.
I am the guy that you actually asked, btw.
A 70 000 km series of superstrong ropes made from material that isn't invented yet(carbon nanotubes are not nearly as strong as required for space elev, not even close), build on a perfect equator and a place that would probably be politically neutral, most likely an artificial island in the pacific since there isn't much stable/neutral places on perfect equator, accounted for high altitude winds an, tidal gravitation waves, radiation damage, space debris including micro meteorites and micro asteroids.
And the only way to build this thing is to do it from top to bottom would require a massive counterweight on the "hanging" side, presumably made from an asteroid captured somewhere in asteroid belt, refined to be precise mass and shape for better stability that stretches the rope that goes down 70 000 km.
I would presume that the budget required to make this retarded shit possible would be as high as launching regular rockets at current price levels for about 20 years just to save pennies later.
Considering that rocket delivery systems are potentially cheap as fuck and the only reason for them being this expensive is government and private corporations shilling on their almost monopoly.
>>46626513
if the tether wasn't fastened to the ground, the find would blow it, causing it to slowly recoil. If it recoils then that shifts its centre of gravity outside of geostationary orbit and it will slowly drift into a higher orbit.
>>46626539
>"falling around the earth"
You're falling towards earth, it's just that your forward speed(perpendicular to earth) is so high that you won't lose altitude, thus "falling" forever
>>46626539
guy here, totally that thing.
If it works out, I'm the guy!
>>46626561
I'm not falling at all. I'm supported by the earth and it's bringing me along as well as the entire atmosphere with it in it's rotation.
>>46626549
The part in the atmosphere would get pushed back relative to the top.
the issue is that low orbits have faster speeds then higher orbits, and the moment it's not tethered it would rotate around the CoM to do exactly this. The wind messes this up
Something would happen but the initial reaction would not cause the thing to fly away, maybe after.
>>46626604
You're not in orbit faggot
>as well as the entire atmosphere with it in it's rotation.
Only because of drag, and it's a pretty minor force. Atmosphere goes whatever direction it wants at any moment. It's the average movement that's probably following earths spin.
>>46623148
>implying humans can ride this
still a good idea for misc payloads, but anything living will need something a little less... accelerative.
>>46626531
things in orbit are just like normal object falling to earth. they are simply moving very fast.
If there was no gravity on earth and no atmosphere and you shot a bullet from a gun horozontal to the ground, the bullet would keep going straight forever. And that means the bullet would slowly drift away from the surface of the earth because the earth is curved.
So now imagine we add a little gravity to this earth. There's enough gravity to pull the bullet back towards the earth as it travels. If there's enough gravity the bullet will fall to earth, if there's not enough it will fly away from the earth. If we add just the right amount of gravity the bullet will stay the same distance from the surface of the earth as it travels and do a perfect 360 around the planet. Unless we stop it, it will keep going. The bullet is now in "orbit".
This is how satellites work, but the have to be very high to be outside the atmosphere and they have to go very fast to not fall to earth faster than they are trending away from it.
There's no centrifugal forces. They are simply falling.
>>46623148
>that distortion in the air behind it
muh dik
>>46626669
>There's no centrifugal forces
you're stating something that's technically right but very wrong to explain in this manner.
centrifugal forces are a easy way to describe circular movements
>>46623148
>180 km raange
this could be used to launch non-manned stuff very easily, just need to do a corrective burn to fix your orbit
>>46626702
well, like.. whatever man. Basically trying to say that things is orbit are not like things being swung around in circles on the end of a rope.
>>46626760
i recall someone saying anything launched with a railgun would explode the moment it hit the atmosphere.
>>46622752
>the point!
You are now aware that we would be launching things into space with giant cannons, if it weren't for the jews!
*sniff*
It's the tale of a simple man. A man with a simple dream. A dream.. of launching things into space using a fukcheug artillery piece.
I can understand all the practical reasons he was assassinated, but still...
>>46626646
No shit I'm not in orbit, so why the fuck did you say I was falling towards earth?
>>46626784
the bullet isnt exploding now is it
>>46623090
people, supplies, satellites, etc.
the fuel and conditions needed to leave the atmosphere using propulsion are expensive and fleeting, and an elevator would make the process cheap.
>>46625236
i find it funny that you are this stupid. A literal 1 minute read on wikipedia would show you how one works
protip: its not even complicated and once mass production of carbon nanotubes begins it will be possible to make one
>>46625236
protip: gravity does not have a limited range
>>46626150
its a cable, not a solid structure. it can and will bend
>>46626838
If fired fast enough to get into orbit, it presumably would.
>>46623148
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rV-QvUTAQ9E
A couple thoughts from me, I don't know if they're intelligent ones or not but fuck it, this is an anonymous imageboard, not the NASA drawing room.
First, geostationary orbits tend to have a little wiggle; they do little figure eights in the sky. My worry would be what if the elevator started doing that too, and it created a harmonic oscillation? It would shake the thing apart or render it unusable until stabilized in some manner.
Secondly, would the moon's gravity affect it in any way? I understand the the moon is pretty far out from geostationary, and gravity decreases exponentially the further you get, but we're talking about a cable held in delicate equilibrium here.
>>46626922
you cant get into orbit by firing a gun from the surface of a planet, no matter how strong the gun is.
>>46627008
>and it created a harmonic oscillation?
Basesin the water (mobile enough) would stop this.
>>46622977
>Lofstrom loops
ever see astronauts floating in space? theyre travelling at over 17,000 miles per hour, and they dont seem to mind
>>46627014
I didn't saw that. i said it would explode when it entered the atmosphere.
You could probably do it just fine from mercury or some shit though.
>>46626832
(forgot link)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Bull
>>46627014
of course you can
just need to adjust orbit once you're on the other side.
Gravity. I hate gravity so much.
>>46626774
But things in orbit _are_ like things being swung around in circles on the end of a rope. The tension in the rope is analogous to the force of gravity, and the orthogonal motion of the object keeping the rope taut is like orbital velocity.
>>46627275
the difference is the fact that a rope is a static force that does not allow ANY movement in it's radius.
>>46626547
Okay using the word shill has really gotten out of hand
>>46627275
well, yeah, kinda.. *ahem*
>>46622448
>get into space elevator
>it ascends
>get to space
>open the door
>i'm dead
wow. seems like a really useful idea.
Because it would take literally 10 seconds for a terrorist to make one fall.
>Make space elevator
>heavy winds sever the cables
>part goes flying into space, part comes crashing back down, killing hundreds.
>tfw i will never blow a load in space
>tfw i will never have someone assfuck me in zero g
>tfw i will never be a faggot in space
why continue living ;_;
>>46627374
>heavy winds sever the cables
>cables
u wot m8
>>46627047
On any planet with an atmosphere, you cannot put a small object in orbit with a gun on the surface alone. No matter how powerful the gun or what angle you shoot at, the starting position (barrel of the gun) will always be the lowest point of orbit (pericentre). In order not to fall into the atmosphere and collide with the planet due to air resistance, the object must somehow accelerate after it has left the atmosphere.
>>46627355
Anything that important to the space industry, with the ridiculous amount of effort that would have to go into building it, would probably make it a candidate for the most well protected structure on the planet.
>>46627374
>heavy winds sever the cables
>atmoshphere 100km thick, and only meaningfully thick near the very bottom
>cable is fucking 35,000km long
okay anon... okay
>>46627388
if the atmosphere was thin enough I dunno would this really be an issue. might be possible on mars..
>>46627416
The elevator would still be forced to endure extreme weather conditions near the bottom, and depending on whether there is tension in the elevator, that could be enough to send it into space.
Is there technical feasibility in constructing launchpads on the highest elevations of earth?
such as Chimborazo in Ecuador, we'd save ourselves from having to punch through 6km of atmosphere and gravity just like that
seems to be a far cheaper option than spess elevators
>>46627432
The point he's making is that if there is no resistance the bullet will ALWAYS come back and go through the exact same spot it was fired from.
>>46622448
lazy ass people with a low budget are using carbon wafers to create carbon nano-tubes that are strong enough to make the space elevator using a fast method. We need a nano-molecular fabricator and can do the same thing just as fast. This ultimately is what is keeping us from the space elevator.
>>46622467
Doesn't fall under its own weight you fucking hill billy. the earth spins and because its so long, it gives it a force that counters gravity and gust of winds.
>>46627008
>My worry would be what if the elevator started doing that too, and it created a harmonic oscillation? It would shake the thing apart or render it unusable until stabilized in some manner.
This may be less of a problem than it seems.
>Secondly, would the moon's gravity affect it in any way?
Yes, but this is also somewhat less of a problem than it seems, for the same reason:
The elevators, as the climb and descend, would be constantly changing the frequency it "wants" to oscillate anyway, and it would not be too difficult to tune it by a change in speed or mass of the payload. I could even envision a scenario where you might have several elevators climbing at once at different rates, speeding up and slowing down to manage the amount of oscillation.
Also, the length of the tether between the top station and the counterweight would have to be adjustable anyway, either by allowing it to move further out or by pulling it in to make sure that the center of mass for the entire system stays in a geostationary orbit.
The fuckhuge amount of inertia would probably cause it to disintegrate.
>>46627466
dumbest post ITT
>>46627445
if a cable the length of the earth circumference is strong enough to hold itself in tension along it's entire length, then a little wind is along 0.4% of it's length isn't going to matter too much.
>>46627455
oh, i get it
money OP.
>>46622448
No one wants to live on a plasma mining derelict with a clown fucking up your plans.
>>46627554
What about aa friendly AI?
>>46627554
Wut
>>46627567
>>46627562
Nah, because once you got an AI all of his robot assholes start fucking the station, and then engineering is too goddamned busy with maintaining the singularity, so the assistants and cargosia come to help but get cockblocked by shitcurity and then get held up in containment while the whole station goes to hell.
>>46622600
the idea is that the end of the elevator would orbit around the earth at the same speed it spins
the elevator itself would be some sort of cable rather than a solid structure
>>46627594
And just when you think you're OK, you realize you're in a simulation that's really shitty and lags all over the place.
>>46622448
God. He said that the old people of the Earth tried to make a tower to reach Heaven, and he diversed their language so that they couldn't do it. He must be hiding things in Heaven, so yeah.
>>46623219
We haven't got nanotubes longer than two double decker bus stacked up so no.
>>46627594
>>46627584
>>46627567
>>46627554
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L-CYkXmJzw
