Not sure if this is the place to post this.
space elevators, practical or not?
if we agree we should try and build one why where would you place it?/ route it?
if its stationary why would you not want it on the earths axis on the south pole in Antarctica? this eliminates the moving platform problem and no terrorist is going to be able to get to it, who would run it? I would think US/NATO with UN backing.
i remember reading on a technology to move an object by having a laser beam at it, perhaps transport the pod/vessel that way down the tether? same thing to push it down from a platform in space?
would make a moon base plausible as the cost to reach the moon is a fraction of traditional rocketry.
would make satieties incredible cheap to put into space
problems would be the inability to make a second one as the axis would have to be pinpointed on the axis.
what do you think /sci?
>inb4 Argentina becomes local trade hub
if not space general?
It's a garbage idea
Completely pointless
Massive, fragile super structure
Wouldn't be cheaper either.
>>7694651
but it make travel to space economically viable, otherwise its like 10k per kg correct? do you think rocketry is the answer? to you think it will get cheaper? how do you propose to either fix the problem or what would your alternative be?
>>7694663
nuclear pulse propulsion could bring costs down to triple or double digits
Fully reusable rockets would bring it down to triple digits
Building trillion dollar engineering project that isn't even physically possible yet, and will just get allah ackbar'd, is a way to save money.
>>7694627
>on the south pole
magick required, lots of
>>7694663
>but it'd make travel to space economically viable
>it
>structure that is a wholly impossible with current materials
magic fairy dust propulsion would make space travel economically feasable too, and the best thing is that it's just as achievable as a space elvator
Far as I'm concerned a Launch Loop is a far more reasonable megastructure for accessing space.
>>7694779
please explain this
>>7694783
That's a lofstrom loop.
>>7694627
>if its stationary why would you not want it on the earths axis on the south pole in Antarctica? this eliminates the moving platform problem and no terrorist is going to be able to get to it, who would run it? I would think US/NATO with UN backing
because that's not how orbits work. the space end of the elevator would have to be anchored to something moving at geostationary orbital velocity. the altitude required for geostationary orbit is about 36,000 km, and has to be above earth's equator.
even if it was possible to build something that tall without anchoring it to something, putting it at the poles would be a terrible idea. if you reached the top and just let go, you'd immediately fall like a stone. putting it on the equator, on the other hand, would mean that the space end is moving at orbital velocity, so as you climb, it imparts increasing sideways velocity to you, meaning if you let go at the top, you'd remain in orbit, because you're moving at orbital velocity.
>>7694783
A loop of tubing containing a magnetically levitated rotor is run across a couple of thousand kilometres east to west around the equator. The rotor inside is accelerated up to hypersonic velocities, which causes it to rise up off the surface of the Earth, where it's held around 80km up by tethers. Things are then winched up to one end and accelerated along the track to almost orbital speeds, with a small rocket motor kick at apogee to raise the payload into orbit.
>>7694804
>lofstrom loop
Thats stupid and doesn't make sense. I read the wiki, and there is no description of the "rotor" or what shoots or moves it (ambiguous on which 'action' it is), or even how in theory that keeps it above ground.
>>7694906
>there is no description of the "rotor" or what shoots or moves it
I suspect it would use some kind of linear induction motor or something.
>or even how in theory that keeps it above ground.
The rotor is going around at a good 3 km/s above escape velocity. It's held up by it's own momentum trying to take it into space.
>>7694779
>far more reasonable superstructure
>spans at least a thousand miles in length
>remembers a sea-faring variant of this concept
>nearly a thousand feet deep
> mfw Cthulhu gets its slimy tentacles on it
> mfw
>practical or not
very practical, see appendix A for a list of reasons
>>7694804
The biggest problem with the launch loop is that no one needs such a high-capacity launch solution.
It is infinitly more feasible than a space elevator, but to be run at a profit, you need a lot of paying customers. It's a superhighway concept in an age with few automobiles.
We explore space, and position comm satellites there, but we don't use it for normal commerce or transportation...yet.
I think a series of suborbital launch loops could find more financially solid ground. As an Earth-to-space solution, it's too much. Excellent, but more than the market can support. As an Earth-to-Earth transportation solution, however, it could be huge. New York to Paris in 20 minutes.
>>7694804
I dont know how the fuck you want to rotate a 5600 o rotor at 14km/s with existing engineering materials.
pls explain.
weather and wind would make the fundament vibrate to such a extend, straight lined movement on the rails would not be possible. everything would wobble like crazy.
>>7694663
>make travel to space economically viable
Hahaha, no.
>>7694966
That makes a lot more sense. Wonder why its not in the wiki or description here.
>>7695049
>The biggest problem with the launch loop is that no one needs such a high-capacity launch solution.
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
Thomas Watson, president of IBM, 1943
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."
Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977
"Television won't be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night."
Darryl Zanuck, executive at 20th Century Fox, 1946
>>7695164
>I read your words but missed their meaning entirely.
Wasn't saying there won't be a huge market for orbital launch solutions, I'm saying that market doesn't yet exist and must be built. Don't be such a jackass.
>>7695164
....you know, Thomas Watson was technically right. There was a market for about five computers in 1943.....
The only customer would have been the United States Government.....but I digress.
>>7694627
We've had far better technologies of getting into space for decades now. What we need to focus on is to get it out to the public.
>>7695179
Go take a class on business development before insulting others for your lack of understanding how economics work.
>>7695757
You are not suggesting that something with several orders of magnitude more capacity than the market can support in the next several decades should be built now, are you?
Clearly a lot, a LOT of market growth needs to happen before a launch loop makes any kind of financial sense. You or the person I was replying to act as though I'm suggesting it's best to wait until the demand is sky high before starting construction. Clearly this is not true; being first to market is worth operating at a loss for awhile while the market catches up to your capacity. But we are talking about an existing market that is less than 1% of what you need to turn a profit. It's too soon, it's way too soon, and if you don't think so, then by all means, invest in the technology and watch your money sit in an account doing nothing but earn interest for someone else, or be spent in a flash on research that will take decades, *if not centuries,* to pay off.
>>7694779
Who would constantly upkeep this colossal mechanism?
>>7696476
>Clearly a lot, a LOT of market growth needs to happen before a launch loop makes any kind of financial sense
Ditto for a particle fountain, and a space elevator, etc.
Combined, the total world GDP isn't sufficient at this point in time to either. Given the growth curve (average inflation rate), it may be a reality in another 50 to 100 years.
You may see fusion technology before we see loftstrom loops or carbon nanotube compositie reinforced space elevators.
>>7694651
I made a thread about making a space elevator out of drones and ion engines on /sci/ a while ago. It was quite well received. The idea is that instead of trying to hold the thing up with the rope itself make a long line of drones attached to a ground power supply so that it can hold itself up with thrust rather than mechanically.
>>7696482
You have to imagine a world with a much busier space industry than currently exists.
Right now the demand for orbital or suborbital launching of payloads is low and sporadic. The entities launching in the highest numbers of satellites are countries, not corporations. The United States government built and launched 25 satellites so far this year. A small launch loop could do that in a day; a large one, in a *half hour.* That's staggeringly impressive, but what do you do for the rest of the year? The loop has to run constantly, whether it's launching or not.
But if the demand were constant, perhaps because the world had changed such that there was a constant demand for raw material, cargo, or people from Earth to be transported to orbital colonies, the moon, or beyond, then the constant electric bill of the loop would be paid by the pooled profit made off each launch.
I would like to point out that nobody said a launch loop was feasible at this point in time. Simply that it was more reasonable that other megastructures built for space access.
>>7696516
>Given the growth curve (average inflation rate), it may be a reality in another 50 to 100 years.
Your growth curve is totally dependent on cheap fossil fuels. So you're betting that fossil fuels will remain cheap for the next 50 to 100 years.
o_O
Wow, you're better educated about petroleum geology than the petroleum geologists. How did you manage that particular miracle?
>>7697216
>totally dependent on fossil fuels
>fossil fuels
>fuels
>anon doesn't understand how the baby boomer population had a negative impact on the price of fuel
Speaking of petroleum geology, are you one of those knucklechildren who subscribes to the peak oil theory?
I bet you're one of those assholes who thinks the world gdp completely ignores solar, thermal, wind and even nuclear power.
I bet you laugh at emerging technologies in general, thinking everyone will continue driving their 1978 shitboxes until we exhaust our total supply of oil.
If you would only keep your fucking mouth shut, you might convince people you are an intelligent person who has a full grasp on the knowledge of supply and demand.
But clearly you don't. Doesn't phase me one bit. I could care less if you like making a fool of yourself in front of other people.
Thanks for playing
>>7694627
not practical for Earth:
* gravity too strong, thus requires more tensile strength than any certified material
* atmosphere gives too much shear force
* weather means it would draw lightning strikes
* for stability, it must be thousands of km in length
An elevator makes somewhat more sense on a smaller body like Mars or the Moon.
>>7696520
So instead of a rope going out to geo-synch and beyond
You have an array of ion engines burning in low earth orbit?
And shit will climb up a rope to them?
Could work I suppose.
No, they're not practical. Even if you manage to build one, it'll still be far less efficient than a chemical rocket.
>>7697976
Yup.
I want to one day make the drone part up to a couple thousand feet in order to get the big boys interested who would then add the ion engines to get it all the way up to space. Just need money.
>>7695275
More importantly, get /x/ out of /sci/. As if that'll happen, though. These lumps of tumors do provide a fair bit of entertainment. At the same time, I can feel a hemorrhage of the brain developing. Best keep doses balanced.
And, yes. I just fell for the trap. I know. No need. Continue on shitposting and lurking, all.
>>7696520
Wait, you're telling me that not ONE person here was able to tell you why that wouldn't work?
Ion engines don't even have a thrust:weight ratio anywhere near unity, and the energy costs would be downright insane. A 2 kW ion thruster only puts out a tenth of a Newton.
>>7694627
>if its stationary why would you not want it on the earths axis on the south pole in Antarctica?
>>7694627
>south pole in Antarctica?
If the base was on the south pole the whole structure would just fall back to Earth.
