Report, edit, etc...Posted by BeeR_KeG on 2005-06-21 at 16:54:37
NASA experts have been thinking about building a 100,000km high elevator. It will prove to be of great use because you will not need expensive rockets to lift objects into space. Right now, the price per kilogram into space is $20,000 this could drastically lower it to $200.
The idea for the elevator is simple, transport objects from Earth to Earth's orbit. An astronaut would take a week to walk all that distance, it won't be so hard since the weightlessness of space would make it a much easier task.
The building of the elevator won't be so hard. A material that could hold the tower needs to be 100 GigaPascals strong. As of right now, no material is strong enough, steel only hold about 10 GigaPascals and it's too heavy. The solution is Nanotube Technology which would arrange atoms, more specifically Carbon, into a tube into such a way that it'll be super strong. Attempts at Nanotube Technology have been succesfull reaching tubes that withstand about 63 GigaPascals.
Now to build it, scientists would launch a satelite into orbit until about 100,000km. Then a cord would be brought donw to earth. Now after the cord is in place, robots will climb up the cord to attach even more cords. Then the neccesary equipent similar to elevatros would be attached. The whole process should take about a month.
The idea for the elevator is simple, transport objects from Earth to Earth's orbit. An astronaut would take a week to walk all that distance, it won't be so hard since the weightlessness of space would make it a much easier task.
The building of the elevator won't be so hard. A material that could hold the tower needs to be 100 GigaPascals strong. As of right now, no material is strong enough, steel only hold about 10 GigaPascals and it's too heavy. The solution is Nanotube Technology which would arrange atoms, more specifically Carbon, into a tube into such a way that it'll be super strong. Attempts at Nanotube Technology have been succesfull reaching tubes that withstand about 63 GigaPascals.
Now to build it, scientists would launch a satelite into orbit until about 100,000km. Then a cord would be brought donw to earth. Now after the cord is in place, robots will climb up the cord to attach even more cords. Then the neccesary equipent similar to elevatros would be attached. The whole process should take about a month.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Chef on 2005-06-21 at 17:05:27
What are we supposed to dicuss here? Doesn't this belong in Garbage?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Snake)Ling on 2005-06-21 at 17:07:17
It seems reasonable, but I dont think the space elevator will become reality for quite a while. These nanotubes must be very costly and hard to produce.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by BeeR_KeG on 2005-06-21 at 17:07:47
I forgot that part, my bad. With all the warnings and suspensions I've done in the past hours I'm pretty tense right now.
Basically just discuss wether this would be effient or not and suggest anything to improve it.
Basically just discuss wether this would be effient or not and suggest anything to improve it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-06-21 at 17:41:26
I still don't understand what you mean with this, "elevator to space"
Could you explain so morons (me) can understand?
Could you explain so morons (me) can understand?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by timmy8586 on 2005-06-21 at 17:45:02
Rather than use fuel to reach space, a tower could be set up that could bring things up to space. Just like an elevator bringing people to the top floor rather than walking the whole way on the stairs.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by BeeR_KeG on 2005-06-21 at 17:46:33
I'll write the whole article later, what I did was plot the most important points of the article, which is in a boook. I'll do it tonight if possible.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Hitl1r1 on 2005-06-21 at 17:47:30
Whats the point of that anyways. Probably 5 rockets sent up to Space is proabably an eighth of what the elevators going to cost.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Vampire on 2005-06-21 at 17:53:19
BeeR, you relize that if that elevator somehow falls, it will smash trough half of the united states right?
Secondly, they will have to make at least a whole mile around the elevator the "restricted air space.
I'm not saying its impossible, but I am saying it will be unlikely to be done.
Secondly, they will have to make at least a whole mile around the elevator the "restricted air space.
I'm not saying its impossible, but I am saying it will be unlikely to be done.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Rantent on 2005-06-21 at 17:53:24
I think it will be funny if people start passing out on it, because of some leakage or something. 
Anyway, it sounds like a good idea, if it works. Plenty of Nasa's other odd-ball plans for cheap space exploration have failed.
(I read somewhere like two weeks ago that the experimentation for outer-intake rockects was canceled, which would have made rockets 74% lighter and not need compressed oxygen to run)
Anyway, it sounds like a good idea, if it works. Plenty of Nasa's other odd-ball plans for cheap space exploration have failed.
(I read somewhere like two weeks ago that the experimentation for outer-intake rockects was canceled, which would have made rockets 74% lighter and not need compressed oxygen to run)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by BeeR_KeG on 2005-06-21 at 17:57:39
Nanotubes are made out of carbon which isn't expensive. And to make Nano-Tubes you just have to apply a small magnetic force in the right spot.
It will certainly be more expensive than sending the Space Shuttle, but you will send objects into space for 100 times cheaper than it was before.
The elevator could be in place as soon as 2020.
Clarification: Steel is only 1 GigaPascal and Diamonds are 20 GigaPascals.
ADDITION:
Vampire: It doesn't have to be a mile in diameter, it's only going to be a couple of meters in diameter, about 50meetrs should be good. Thats why such a strong material is being looked for.
It also won't smash through half the U.S. I'm sure that NASA would make it collapse in space so that a big quantity won't fall on Earth. If it's to be placed, it will be on the Middle of the Pacific Ocean where very few bad weather is experienced.
Just wait till I copy the whole article from my book.
It will certainly be more expensive than sending the Space Shuttle, but you will send objects into space for 100 times cheaper than it was before.
The elevator could be in place as soon as 2020.
Clarification: Steel is only 1 GigaPascal and Diamonds are 20 GigaPascals.
ADDITION:
Vampire: It doesn't have to be a mile in diameter, it's only going to be a couple of meters in diameter, about 50meetrs should be good. Thats why such a strong material is being looked for.
It also won't smash through half the U.S. I'm sure that NASA would make it collapse in space so that a big quantity won't fall on Earth. If it's to be placed, it will be on the Middle of the Pacific Ocean where very few bad weather is experienced.
Just wait till I copy the whole article from my book.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Vampire on 2005-06-21 at 17:59:55
QUOTE
Vampire: It doesn't have to be a mile in diameter, it's only going to be a couple of meters in diameter, about 50meetrs should be good. Thats why such a strong material is being looked for.
BeeR, I'm talking about the HEIGHT not the LENGHT.
But if it is the way you say it, they would have to make a whole military base on whatever island they place the elevator on, you can't have it collapse in space... im sure about 90% of it will be on earth, plus it will need to be MUCH wider then a few meters cosndiering it needs a heating device, oxygen defice, so on and so on
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CheeZe on 2005-06-21 at 18:08:00
The earth's orbit isn't 100,000 Km high... 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Vampire on 2005-06-21 at 18:16:47
Satellites fly at 36,000 Kilometers high off the surface.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by DT_Battlekruser on 2005-06-21 at 18:21:10
Where on earth would we find the sheer raw materials to build a 100,000 kilometer long elevator shaft? They said a tunnel 10 ft. below the surface of the Atlantic from New York to London would take all the world's steel and that's only ~4,000 km.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Vampire on 2005-06-21 at 18:30:01
They could use some cement which is mostly made out of sand, I'm sure theres enough of that.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-06-21 at 18:48:07
I thought we needed a space rock or something at one end of the tower (the end) to like make sure it doesn't snap into or what ever.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Snake)Ling on 2005-06-21 at 19:28:38
Yeah, we'd need something in space to help the tower, I imagine. Else it wouldn't really stay up.
But anyways, if the elevator is up by 2020, terrorists will probably be still pissed at us, and they blow the damn elevator up and it fall on the world.
But anyways, if the elevator is up by 2020, terrorists will probably be still pissed at us, and they blow the damn elevator up and it fall on the world.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Vampire on 2005-06-21 at 19:38:48
Kurwa, jaka winda? Po huja nam taka duza winda?
BeeR, translate that, foo
BeeR, translate that, foo
Report, edit, etc...Posted by BeeR_KeG on 2005-06-21 at 19:50:43
Here's the Article:
Thats why you would use more advanced space suits currently being developed by NASA.
I already said in previous posts, it would be made out of carbon nanotubes, steel is far too weak and heavy. Cement... thats just illogical. Cement is not a strong material, thats why it isn't used in buildings over 20 stories high.
You got the right idea, a satellite would be used because a space rock (meteorite) has it's own orbit and would just keep drifting and moving the tower, causing it to bend.
ADDITION:
I doubt that any plane or bomb can produce enough power to reach 100 gigaPascals. If they crash a plane into it, it'll just slice the plane in half because of the tower's thin and strong structure.
QUOTE(Christopher Wanjek)
Elevator goin up... and up... and up a little more. Scientists and Engineers contemplating inexpensive and reliable access to space have set their sights on a modern-day version of Jack's beanstalk: an elevator reaching 100,000 kilometers, far beyond the International Space Station's 355-kilometer-high loft. This is no fairy tale. The space elevator, as it is known, would be a ribbon or cable tethered to Earth and rising to an orbiting platform a quarter of the way to the moon. Earth's gravity and the platform's centrifugal force, acting on opposite directions, would keep the cable taunt. A cargo box containing a satellite could rise, or astronautes could even shimmy up that cable at a fraction of the cost of a rocket launch-a steady weeklong climb. The feat may be less challenging and expensive than other projects under consideration, such as the proposed bridge over the straight of Gibraltar connecting Spain to Morocco, or past accomplishments such as the transatlantic telegraph cable. The estimated price tag is ten billion dollars. The elevator would quickly pay for itself, though, lowering the cost of placing a satellite into space from $20,000 to about $200 a kilogram.
The concept of a space elevator dates back to 1895. Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, a Russian astronautics Pioneer, envisioned a "celestial castle" sitting atop a thin tower, held up by centrifugal force like a rock swinging high at the end of a rope. Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke featured the space elevator in his 1979 novel The foundations of Paradise. The elevator remained fundamentally impossible to build, however, because no material known could withstand expected forces. The building material requires a tensile strenght of over 100 gigaPascals. THis is a measure of the material's resistance to snapping or deforming, Steel has a tensile strenght of about 1 gigaPascal; quartz and diamond fibers support about 20 gigaPascals.
The 1991 discovery of carbon nanotubes escalated the space elevator from the realm of science fiction into science reality. Nanotubes are cylindrical molecules of carbon stronger than diamond and steel, theoretically beyond 100 gigaPascals. With fiber in hand, the space elevator will be a challenge but not impossible to build. Perfecting nanotube production is the first task. The longest fibers today are about a meter long, with 63-gigaPascal tensile strenght, Clearly much more is needed-produced inexpensively- to create what engineers foresee as a meter-wide, paper-thin ribbon made up of hundreds of fibers, each 100,000 kilometers long. Parts of the ribbon would need an aluminum coating to protect them from oxidation. The elevator's base would be a moveable ocean platform in the equatorial Pacific, far from air traffic and in a region with little lightning activity or severe weather.
Construction would begin with a rocket launch to geosynchronous orbit, about 35,900 kilometers high. This is the point at which a satellite takes exactly one day to orbit Earth and thus maintains a hovering position. The satellite would snake a cable back to Earth and gradually climb to 100,000 kilometers as more and more cable is released. Once the first cable was secured to Earth, engineers would send up robotic "climbers" that would sew new cable onto existing cable, creating a ribbon. This process would take about 2 years. That first satellitle, now at 100,000 kilometers, would act as the necessary counterweight to hold up the ribbon tight. Elevator operators would power the climb from Earth with lasers. Cargo could be released at any point after several hundred kilometers, Cargo let loose at 100,000 kilometers, whirling at around at more than 11 kilometers a second, would have enough tangencial velocity ti escape Earth's gravitational field and fly to Saturn. Several payloads could climb the elevator at once.
With directed resources, the elevator could be in place by 2020. A second generation of faster elevators could halve the trip into space, sparing would-be travelers from an overload of elevator music.
The concept of a space elevator dates back to 1895. Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, a Russian astronautics Pioneer, envisioned a "celestial castle" sitting atop a thin tower, held up by centrifugal force like a rock swinging high at the end of a rope. Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke featured the space elevator in his 1979 novel The foundations of Paradise. The elevator remained fundamentally impossible to build, however, because no material known could withstand expected forces. The building material requires a tensile strenght of over 100 gigaPascals. THis is a measure of the material's resistance to snapping or deforming, Steel has a tensile strenght of about 1 gigaPascal; quartz and diamond fibers support about 20 gigaPascals.
The 1991 discovery of carbon nanotubes escalated the space elevator from the realm of science fiction into science reality. Nanotubes are cylindrical molecules of carbon stronger than diamond and steel, theoretically beyond 100 gigaPascals. With fiber in hand, the space elevator will be a challenge but not impossible to build. Perfecting nanotube production is the first task. The longest fibers today are about a meter long, with 63-gigaPascal tensile strenght, Clearly much more is needed-produced inexpensively- to create what engineers foresee as a meter-wide, paper-thin ribbon made up of hundreds of fibers, each 100,000 kilometers long. Parts of the ribbon would need an aluminum coating to protect them from oxidation. The elevator's base would be a moveable ocean platform in the equatorial Pacific, far from air traffic and in a region with little lightning activity or severe weather.
Construction would begin with a rocket launch to geosynchronous orbit, about 35,900 kilometers high. This is the point at which a satellite takes exactly one day to orbit Earth and thus maintains a hovering position. The satellite would snake a cable back to Earth and gradually climb to 100,000 kilometers as more and more cable is released. Once the first cable was secured to Earth, engineers would send up robotic "climbers" that would sew new cable onto existing cable, creating a ribbon. This process would take about 2 years. That first satellitle, now at 100,000 kilometers, would act as the necessary counterweight to hold up the ribbon tight. Elevator operators would power the climb from Earth with lasers. Cargo could be released at any point after several hundred kilometers, Cargo let loose at 100,000 kilometers, whirling at around at more than 11 kilometers a second, would have enough tangencial velocity ti escape Earth's gravitational field and fly to Saturn. Several payloads could climb the elevator at once.
With directed resources, the elevator could be in place by 2020. A second generation of faster elevators could halve the trip into space, sparing would-be travelers from an overload of elevator music.
QUOTE
needs a heating device, oxygen defice, so on and so on
Thats why you would use more advanced space suits currently being developed by NASA.
QUOTE
Vampire Posted Today, 06:30 PM
They could use some cement which is mostly made out of sand, I'm sure theres enough of that.
DT_Battlekruser Posted Today, 06:21 PM
Where on earth would we find the sheer raw materials to build a 100,000 kilometer long elevator shaft? They said a tunnel 10 ft. below the surface of the Atlantic from New York to London would take all the world's steel and that's only ~4,000 km.
They could use some cement which is mostly made out of sand, I'm sure theres enough of that.
DT_Battlekruser Posted Today, 06:21 PM
Where on earth would we find the sheer raw materials to build a 100,000 kilometer long elevator shaft? They said a tunnel 10 ft. below the surface of the Atlantic from New York to London would take all the world's steel and that's only ~4,000 km.
I already said in previous posts, it would be made out of carbon nanotubes, steel is far too weak and heavy. Cement... thats just illogical. Cement is not a strong material, thats why it isn't used in buildings over 20 stories high.
QUOTE
I thought we needed a space rock or something at one end of the tower (the end) to like make sure it doesn't snap into or what ever.
You got the right idea, a satellite would be used because a space rock (meteorite) has it's own orbit and would just keep drifting and moving the tower, causing it to bend.
ADDITION:
QUOTE
Yeah, we'd need something in space to help the tower, I imagine. Else it wouldn't really stay up.
But anyways, if the elevator is up by 2020, terrorists will probably be still pissed at us, and they blow the damn elevator up and it fall on the world.
But anyways, if the elevator is up by 2020, terrorists will probably be still pissed at us, and they blow the damn elevator up and it fall on the world.
I doubt that any plane or bomb can produce enough power to reach 100 gigaPascals. If they crash a plane into it, it'll just slice the plane in half because of the tower's thin and strong structure.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by ShadowBrood on 2005-06-21 at 19:51:44
QUOTE(Vampire @ Jun 21 2005, 02:53 PM)
BeeR, you relize that if that elevator somehow falls, it will smash trough half of the united states right?
Secondly, they will have to make at least a whole mile around the elevator the "restricted air space.
I'm not saying its impossible, but I am saying it will be unlikely to be done.
[right][snapback]240498[/snapback][/right]
Secondly, they will have to make at least a whole mile around the elevator the "restricted air space.
I'm not saying its impossible, but I am saying it will be unlikely to be done.
[right][snapback]240498[/snapback][/right]
Not to mention, it's going to be a beacon for terrorist activity.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Vampire on 2005-06-21 at 19:55:50
QUOTE
Diamond has 20 gigaPascals.
Diamond is currently the strongest natural non-manmade material on earth... good luck getting something 5 times that strenght...
BeeR, I can bet my head that if a meteor or an asteroid smashes into this tower, the tower will rip like paper, no matter how strong it is.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by BeeR_KeG on 2005-06-21 at 20:13:45
Yes, but the chances of a meteor goign therough a small area only a couple of meters wide is quite small. The last meteor to hit the earth was in 1929 if my memory serves right.
Humans have already made materials about 69 giga-Pascals strong.
Humans have already made materials about 69 giga-Pascals strong.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Ultimo on 2005-06-21 at 20:52:01
If you claim this tower to be tall as it, it'll be much more subject to meteor showers. Even though they'll burn up in the atmosphere, they don't need to reach the ground to hit the tower. Also, assuming this tower is tough, just blow up the supports and it'll fall like any other object.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by BeeR_KeG on 2005-06-21 at 21:40:36
I believe that msot of you don't know how much 100 giga-Pascals is.
If one Pascal is 1Newton of Force on 1m[sup]2[/sup] then 100 giga-Pascals is 100,000,000,000 newtons of force on one m[sup]2[/sup]
If F=MA where F is expressed in Newtons
-and-
Gravity=(G*mi*m2)/(d[sup]2[/sup]) and G is the gravitational constant which is 6.67 x 10[sup]-11[/sup]
Averages sattelites weighing about 1,000 kilograms and the earth weighing 5.978x10[sup]24[/sup] kilograms
So taken these basic physics concepts to express 100 Giga-Pascals in a simpler way to understand:
Gravitational pull to the satellite at 100,000km= (6.67x10[sup]-11[/sup]*1,000*5.978x10[sup]24[/sup])/(100,000[sup]2[/sup])
Gravity = 39873260 Newtons
If F=MA and a=9.8m/s[sup]2[/sup]
69873260=M(9.8m/s[sup]2[/sup])
7,129,924.49 kg = M
Meaning that if you were on Earth with such a force, you would have 7.1 million kilograms on top of you.
So if F=MA and a metorite weighing 1,000 kilgrams traveling at 11,111 m/s (40,000 km/h) the force would be:
F=(1,000)(11,111)
F=11111000 Newtons which is 1,133,775.51 kilograms on the earth's surface.
We can see that the Gravitational pull on the tower is a little less than 7 times greater than a meteorite impact.
Now we have the 100,000,000,000 pascals.
1 Pascal = 1 Newton/m[sup]2[/sup]
1 Kg/m[sup]2[/sup] = (1/9.80665)Pascals
Then:
100,000,000,000(1/9.80665)Pascals = 1 kg/m[sup]2[/sup]
100 giga-Pascals is equal to 10,197,162,130 kg/m[sup]2[/sup]
A structure that can withstand 10,197,162,130 kg/m[sup]2[/sup] hit with 1,133,775.51 kilograms would definetly survive.
can someoen check all these calculations? I did all this a rush and couldn't check it.
If one Pascal is 1Newton of Force on 1m[sup]2[/sup] then 100 giga-Pascals is 100,000,000,000 newtons of force on one m[sup]2[/sup]
If F=MA where F is expressed in Newtons
-and-
Gravity=(G*mi*m2)/(d[sup]2[/sup]) and G is the gravitational constant which is 6.67 x 10[sup]-11[/sup]
Averages sattelites weighing about 1,000 kilograms and the earth weighing 5.978x10[sup]24[/sup] kilograms
So taken these basic physics concepts to express 100 Giga-Pascals in a simpler way to understand:
Gravitational pull to the satellite at 100,000km= (6.67x10[sup]-11[/sup]*1,000*5.978x10[sup]24[/sup])/(100,000[sup]2[/sup])
Gravity = 39873260 Newtons
If F=MA and a=9.8m/s[sup]2[/sup]
69873260=M(9.8m/s[sup]2[/sup])
7,129,924.49 kg = M
Meaning that if you were on Earth with such a force, you would have 7.1 million kilograms on top of you.
So if F=MA and a metorite weighing 1,000 kilgrams traveling at 11,111 m/s (40,000 km/h) the force would be:
F=(1,000)(11,111)
F=11111000 Newtons which is 1,133,775.51 kilograms on the earth's surface.
We can see that the Gravitational pull on the tower is a little less than 7 times greater than a meteorite impact.
Now we have the 100,000,000,000 pascals.
1 Pascal = 1 Newton/m[sup]2[/sup]
1 Kg/m[sup]2[/sup] = (1/9.80665)Pascals
Then:
100,000,000,000(1/9.80665)Pascals = 1 kg/m[sup]2[/sup]
100 giga-Pascals is equal to 10,197,162,130 kg/m[sup]2[/sup]
A structure that can withstand 10,197,162,130 kg/m[sup]2[/sup] hit with 1,133,775.51 kilograms would definetly survive.
can someoen check all these calculations? I did all this a rush and couldn't check it.