Live data from Hacker News

Japan starts space elevator experiments

electronicsweekly.com

161–170 of 304 posts

Re: Japan starts space elevator experiments

#161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most humor can be categorized as "insubstantive comments" and those are discouraged. It is possible to crack a joke here and get it upvoted, but it's hard to pull it off. I even once had a joke upvoted by quite a lot,* like 50 points or something, but most jokes are downvoted not because humor is forbidden, but because insubstantive comments are discouraged. Some humor is downvoted for being uncivil because a lot of…

I posted a joke a couple of days ago about "the Xzibit pattern" which ended up at 10 points, but it fluctuated a lot so it probably got something like 40 up 30 down. Would be interesting to see the breakdown of votes on HN.

I'm just glad you can't see the # of votes here for other comments. Helps prevent bandwagonning, though that still happens for downvotes once the css kicks in.

Re: Japan starts space elevator experiments

#163
post #149
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The advantage of going up by pulling oneself up on a space elevator over pushing oneself up with a rocket, is that one doesn't have to push oneself up with a rocket. The tyranny of the rocket equation! The energy use of a rocket isn't just "how much energy is needed to have that kinetic energy and that potential energy", but also includes the energy needed to lift and accelerate the fuel used to provide that energy,…

Isn't the rocket equation just a momentum equation? Does it escape that? If we brought something up, would we not pull the satellite it's attached to down, requiring more momentum from somewhere?

If by "Does it escape that?" You mean "would a space elevator not be subject to the rocket equation?", then yes, it would not be subject to the rocket equation.

The rocket equation is about reaction mass that is carried by the thing expelling it. It does not apply to climbing a rope, nor does it apply to the flight of a helicopter.

Regarding pulling the satellite down,

Pulling down on the weight at the end is something we have to do anyway to keep it from flying out away from earth.

Re: Japan starts space elevator experiments

#164

Google was reported to be looking into this a few years ago. And determined that there was no material strong enough at the time. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/180682-google-x-admits-i... That aside, how might adversaries disrupt such an expensive and precarious venture? Seems a very hard to defend machine.

99% of the comments about this story online think that they're talking about making one NOW. They don't think they can do it now. They're starting initial research into a few isolated systems required to do it one day in the future when materials science and all the other aspects catch up.

It will take decades of R&D, but someone might as well start on the bits we can do now, like a system for climbing the tether (which this is, and it's being done purely in space).

Re: Japan starts space elevator experiments

#166

I'm a bit confused the ISS is only 408km from the earth's surface so why would it take 8 days at 200kph? Unless they are including the speed of orbit in which case the earth is already rotating at 1600 kph. What am I missing here?

My bad, missed the explanation below, go synchronization requires a much further distance than the iss. So I guess they will also have to make a new station or shuttle system to get to the iss.

Re: Japan starts space elevator experiments

#168

Google was reported to be looking into this a few years ago. And determined that there was no material strong enough at the time. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/180682-google-x-admits-i... That aside, how might adversaries disrupt such an expensive and precarious venture? Seems a very hard to defend machine.

99% of the comments about this story online think that they're talking about making one NOW. They don't think they can do it now. They're starting initial research into a few isolated systems required to do it one day in the future when materials science and all the other aspects catch up. It will take decades of R&D, but someone might as well start on the bits we can do now, like a system for climbing the tether (wh…

Fair enough. We have to start somewhere. Perhaps a tether climbing rig will be be useful in future megacity skyscrapers.

Re: Japan starts space elevator experiments

#169

I don't understand how a space elevator would be advantageous in terms of the energy required to get something to space. The load still has to reach orbital velocity. Will the station at the end of the tether still need a rocket to deal with the additional mass? Is the fact that this rocket only has to go up once the core advantage? Wouldn't the load going up the elevator pull the tether to one side?

How does the load have to reach orbital velocity? I think there is some disconnect here..

Re: Japan starts space elevator experiments

#170

I don't understand how a space elevator would be advantageous in terms of the energy required to get something to space. The load still has to reach orbital velocity. Will the station at the end of the tether still need a rocket to deal with the additional mass? Is the fact that this rocket only has to go up once the core advantage? Wouldn't the load going up the elevator pull the tether to one side?

There are two types of energy at play here: the gravitational potential energy and the kinetic energy of the orbiting object (necessary to maintain an orbit).

As you climb the cable, the force of gravity pulling you back to earth decreases, and the centrifugal force pulling you away from earth increases. The difference between these two is the force you need to provide to climb the cable.

I believe you are correct for tethers much shorter than geosynchronous orbit. Below geosynchronous orbit, the force of gravity is higher than the centrifugal force. Therefore, an object climbing a space elevator will have to provide energy equal to the integral of the difference between the centrifugal force and the gravitational force across the distance traveled. The remaining energy (the remaining gravitational potential and the kinetic energy of the orbit) will be leeched from the orbiting counterweight (requiring the counterweight to have a rocket to maintain orbit, as you suggested)

For tethers that extend beyond geosynchronous orbit, it is possible to for no energy to be removed from the counterweight (instead, all the non-climbing energy will be taken from the rotation of the earth). Imagine that we place a counterweight on a tether beyond geosynchronous orbit. This counterweight and the earth it form an orbiting two body system. The tether will be under tension (the force necessary to keep the counterweight in synchronous orbit) -- let's call that force T. A climber that scales the tether will exert some force T_1 on the counterweight, pulling it towards the earth. However, as long as T_1 is less than T, the counterweight will remain where it is. The force of the table on the earth will become T_2 = T - T_1. In other words, a portion of the force necessary to keep the counterweight in orbit will now be applied by the climber instead of by earth. The energy that the climber must apply is the same as before, but the counterweight is not affected. The remaining energy, by process of elimination, must come from the rotation of the earth.

Geosynchronous orbit is 42 km from the center of the earth while the ISS orbits 7k km from the center of the earth. I expect the experiments are being done at the ISS for convenience rather than from a plan to build a space elevator to the ISS. The article also cites speed and distance numbers that imply reaching a geosynchronous orbit.

To answer your questions more directly: 1) below geosynchronous orbit, yes. 2) No, the ability to extract energy from the earth's rotation is the main advantage. 3) Yes, but for a counterweight beyond geosynchronous orbit, the tension on the tether will pull it vertical.

Post reply on HN