I think the proponents of such a device are making light of some glaring engineering problems, but I haven't crystalized an opinion. What specificly do you find stupid about the concept?
the main thing is that people really have no idea just how high up "Space" is. getting an airplane up 35000 feet is nothing, and the plane goes through 4 *different* atmospheric levels to get there, each with their own wind patterns, stressing the hell out of it.
now imagine how many different wind patterns there are to go up 4 miles (you're still not in space), or 40 (you're still not in space), or 400 (ok, now you're getting close...).
but if you want to get up to a stable orbit, you have to go geosync, and THAT is 24,000 miles. think about that.
think about going around the earth once and how long that would take and how much energy that takes. now fight gravity for the entire time.
now think about the more practical problems that could be dealt with instead of all of this wasted research on an idea that's never ever going to be technically possible, and even if it is, merely results in creating the worlds biggest terrorist target ever (and trust me, terrorism isn't going to end just 'cause BushCo says it might).
speculative fiction is fun, but there are better things we can try to do with our time and money then try to make every aspect of "Star Trek" real (not that ST predicted the elevator - actually, Buckminster Fuller was one of the early proponents).
Proponents of the space elevator concept aren't thinking about fighting gravity, they're trying to cheat gravity. The examples I've seen of the concept have all described the system as being built from space down, so the structure hangs toward the planet from an orbital site. They always seem to fail to recognize that as the structure gets larger, the increasing mass also increases the gravitational attraction between the structure and the planet, causing the orbit to destabilize.
And then where would you have the structure touch down? You've got MILES of structure subject to stresses from weather that is cracking like a whip through the atmosphere and you're going to nail the small end of the whip to a spot on the ground?
In order to make this sort of plan halfway feasable it requires super light, super strong materials, weather control, and anti-grav as pre-requisites. And if you've got those things, the benefit of a space elevator is what? Anti-grav alone will get you quickly and safely into or from orbit.
You'd be better off with a mass-driver system with a series of independent orbiting accelerators that can be positioned from the upper atmosphere to the receiving space station. Cargo would be flown up to the driver then launched from the upper atmosphere into space.
Depends on the propenents. Guys who just like the idea tend to gloss over the problems. The closer you get to the project the more pessimistic you beceome. Our director of research (Tom Nugent - and he is a rocket scientist) is the most pessimistic and knowledgable guy I'm aware of about a space elevator.
But this doesn't always make it into the news. We _tell_ the reporters that, it just doesn't always get reported.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-09-27 02:22 pm (UTC)Doc
no subject
Date: 2006-09-27 02:41 pm (UTC)now imagine how many different wind patterns there are to go up 4 miles (you're still not in space), or 40 (you're still not in space), or 400 (ok, now you're getting close...).
but if you want to get up to a stable orbit, you have to go geosync, and THAT is 24,000 miles. think about that.
think about going around the earth once and how long that would take and how much energy that takes. now fight gravity for the entire time.
now think about the more practical problems that could be dealt with instead of all of this wasted research on an idea that's never ever going to be technically possible, and even if it is, merely results in creating the worlds biggest terrorist target ever (and trust me, terrorism isn't going to end just 'cause BushCo says it might).
speculative fiction is fun, but there are better things we can try to do with our time and money then try to make every aspect of "Star Trek" real (not that ST predicted the elevator - actually, Buckminster Fuller was one of the early proponents).
no subject
Date: 2006-09-27 05:13 pm (UTC)And then where would you have the structure touch down? You've got MILES of structure subject to stresses from weather that is cracking like a whip through the atmosphere and you're going to nail the small end of the whip to a spot on the ground?
In order to make this sort of plan halfway feasable it requires super light, super strong materials, weather control, and anti-grav as pre-requisites. And if you've got those things, the benefit of a space elevator is what? Anti-grav alone will get you quickly and safely into or from orbit.
You'd be better off with a mass-driver system with a series of independent orbiting accelerators that can be positioned from the upper atmosphere to the receiving space station. Cargo would be flown up to the driver then launched from the upper atmosphere into space.
Doc
no subject
Date: 2006-09-27 07:50 pm (UTC)While I like the idea of a space elevator, I don't think it's going to happen until someone makes Niven's Sinclair Molecule Chain a reality...
no subject
Date: 2006-09-27 05:35 pm (UTC)But this doesn't always make it into the news. We _tell_ the reporters that, it just doesn't always get reported.