[dead]
Space Elevator
31–40 of 414 posts
Re: Space Elevator
#32It is appreciated that you can change the temperature unit by clicking on it, and how surprisingly cold and changeable the temperature is as you travel up through the atomic sphere (down to -84C, -119F).
Re: Space Elevator
#33TIL it's estimated that over 48 tons of meteors hit the atmosphere every day. Regarding actual space elevators though, while they're not sci-fi to the extent of something like FTL travel - ie. they're technically not physically impossible - they're still pretty firmly in the realm of sci-fi. We don't have anything close to a cable that could sustain its own weight, let alone that of whatever is being elevated. Plus,…
Space elevator was the perfect application for carbon nanotubes according my professor few decades ago. I wish humanity could unite for such project and enter space exploration phase. But I feel it will stay sci-fi forever.
Re: Space Elevator
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not every behavior has an evolutionary advantage. If anything, "evolution" filters out disadvantages (eg: can't survive because your neck's too short and that pesky giraffe is eating all the leaves you could reach). Evolution kills what doesn't work.
but every behaviour has a cost. In cast of flight altitude its energy and distance to food, water, mating zones.
Darwin started with survival of the "fit". It changed to "fittest" in later editions.
Re: Space Elevator
#35Incomplete. Where's the LEO, GEO, the counterweight?
I think the idea behind this was less to showcase an actual space elevator and more to showcase what's going on at different altitudes. And above the Kármán line it would have become pretty boring, especially if you want to go up to GEO and beyond where the counterweight of a space elevator would be located - the Kármán line is at only 0.28% of the way to GEO. Using a logarithmic scale would have maybe helped, but not sure...
Re: Space Elevator
#36I loved the visuals but space elevators are far more science-fantasy than hard science-fiction. We should move on to sci-fi tech that has more realistic applications.
Only for Earth. We already have materials that can do it on the Moon (Zylon, for example), though not with great tether-to-payload ratios (200:1 or more), and Mars isn't too huge of a stretch (huge like the mass of the tether, which would be in the thousands to one tether-to-payload ratio. Shipping 50,000 tons of Zylon to Mars is a different beast)
Re: Space Elevator
#37TIL it's estimated that over 48 tons of meteors hit the atmosphere every day. Regarding actual space elevators though, while they're not sci-fi to the extent of something like FTL travel - ie. they're technically not physically impossible - they're still pretty firmly in the realm of sci-fi. We don't have anything close to a cable that could sustain its own weight, let alone that of whatever is being elevated. Plus,…
The problem with space elevator is not only the lack of material today, but also the fact that such elevator is an ultimate and very fragile weapons platform, you basically get stones up the well and then drop them on the enemy. Meaning that any authoritarian country would destroy it even before it is ever built. And sturdy enough space elevator after it's break at any high point would start falling down on the planes in a loop, eventually flattening everything in its path when higher portions reach supersonic speeds. So unfortunately there is low chance it will be built, unless we sort out stuff on the planet first.
Re: Space Elevator
#38Some huh! moments...
* Jeez, Everest is tall
* They got a plane to 17km in 1938!
* There was a paper airplane flight at 35km
Re: Space Elevator
#39TIL it's estimated that over 48 tons of meteors hit the atmosphere every day. Regarding actual space elevators though, while they're not sci-fi to the extent of something like FTL travel - ie. they're technically not physically impossible - they're still pretty firmly in the realm of sci-fi. We don't have anything close to a cable that could sustain its own weight, let alone that of whatever is being elevated. Plus,…
> A space elevator on the moon is much more feasible: less gravity, slow rotation
The slow rotation is a minus, it means you've got to string the tether up to L1 instead of "just" up to geo/luna-stationary orbit. A lunar space elevator needs to be at least 56000 km long, more than 20000 km longer than the one to earth.
> But it's also much less useful.
Yeah, especially because all the things that make lunar space elevators a little more attainable also make lunar mass drivers a lot more attainable. Why ride in an elevator for a week if you also can just be fired from a cannon?
Re: Space Elevator
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not every behavior has an evolutionary advantage. If anything, "evolution" filters out disadvantages (eg: can't survive because your neck's too short and that pesky giraffe is eating all the leaves you could reach). Evolution kills what doesn't work.
but every behaviour has a cost. In cast of flight altitude its energy and distance to food, water, mating zones.
Going up there's currents, going down... gravity. Sure it costs energy, but there's bound to be a tradeoff. Travel distance? Sight range?