Space Elevator

[Nicole]

Good points, but the political arrangements would be tricky. It would have to be put under UN jurisdiction, since any country attempting to claim sovereignty would be blocked from doing so by everyone else--it's not like the US president can point at a map of the Pacific Ocean and say "Here, this spot is now American territory. Got a problem with that?"

Don't we have a large number of islands in the Pacific? Are any of them in a good location?

 

[Flocculencio]

BTW- I apologise for my mispellings in my previous post.

The sight of them shames me.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Don't build at sea level! Thats totally ridiculous. One book, Tour of the Universe, mentions building two space elevators by leveling Mount Cayambe, 5790 feet above sea level, in Ecuador and the other near Mount Kenya, 5199 feet above sea level.

For access by sea some place close to Macapa, Amapa, Brazil; in Gabon; Porto Alegre, Sao Tome; or even north of Pontianak, Borneo. Along the equator is best.

 

[DominusNovus]

Don't build at sea level! Thats totally ridiculous. One book, Tour of the Universe, mentions building two space elevators by leveling Mount Cayambe, 5790 feet above sea level, in Ecuador and the other near Mount Kenya, 5199 feet above sea level.

For access by sea some place close to Macapa, Amapa, Brazil; in Gabon; Porto Alegre, Sao Tome; or even north of Pontianak, Borneo. Along the equator is best.

I have a space elevator being built in Ecuador in the March of Days Yet Born.

Hint hint.

 

[PMN1]

Don't build at sea level! Thats totally ridiculous. One book, Tour of the Universe, mentions building two space elevators by leveling Mount Cayambe, 5790 feet above sea level, in Ecuador and the other near Mount Kenya, 5199 feet above sea level.

For access by sea some place close to Macapa, Amapa, Brazil; in Gabon; Porto Alegre, Sao Tome; or even north of Pontianak, Borneo. Along the equator is best.

Materials that allow a Space Elevator to be launched would probably allow a Tsiolkovski tower to be built without having to level mountains.

 

[Aldroud]

Don't build at sea level! Thats totally ridiculous. One book, Tour of the Universe, mentions building two space elevators by leveling Mount Cayambe, 5790 feet above sea level, in Ecuador and the other near Mount Kenya, 5199 feet above sea level.

For access by sea some place close to Macapa, Amapa, Brazil; in Gabon; Porto Alegre, Sao Tome; or even north of Pontianak, Borneo. Along the equator is best.

Considering that a space tether is going to stretch 84,000 km (twice the distance to geosynchronous), saving less than 6000 feet seems kinda silly don't you think?

An ocean based platform is being considered because the platform can move, dragging the ribbon out of the way of potential hazards, as well as respond to the movements of the ribbon.

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Some Problems...

So if one rules out Africa for chronic instability, that leaves Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Indonesia and Singapore. It's pretty obvious how the last option would appeal to India, China, Japan and Australia, among others.

Consider that any area in the Pacific Rim is seismically unstable. Just consider that the region is called "the Ring of Fire" due to the volcanic and earthquake activity in the region. As such, this might make any construction in the region a potential hazard. Another issue to consider is the issue of tsunamis and rogue waves. One need only remeber 1/26/2004 to realize how vulnerable the entire region is to tidal forces.

Another issue to consider is the possibility of attack by terrorists. Consider that after 9/11, it was revealed that the safety provisions for most skyscrapers were completely inadequate in terms of fire prevention, structural integrity, emergency evacuation, et al. Under such circumstances, how does one prevent a major terrorist action wherein a passenger airliner is used like a cruise missile against such a structure?

 

[Flocculencio]

Consider that any area in the Pacific Rim is seismically unstable. Just consider that the region is called "the Ring of Fire" due to the volcanic and earthquake activity in the region. As such, this might make any construction in the region a potential hazard. Another issue to consider is the issue of tsunamis and rogue waves. One need only remeber 1/26/2004 to realize how vulnerable the entire region is to tidal forces.

Once again this is why I suggested Singapore. It's completely geologically stable and sheltered from the open sea.

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

But Then Again...

Once again this is why I suggested Singapore. It's completely geologically stable and sheltered from the open sea.

Ah, but as the 12/26/2004 tsunami in Indonesia points out there is also the problem of a possible tsunami and/or rogue wave event damaging the tower.

 

[Flocculencio]

Ah, but as the 12/26/2004 tsunami in Indonesia points out there is also the problem of a possible tsunami and/or rogue wave event damaging the tower.

Yes...you mean the tsunami that came nowhere near Singapore because we're completely sheltered on all sides by the Malay Peninsula and the Riau Islands?

 

[Michael]

Yes...you mean the tsunami that came nowhere near Singapore because we're completely sheltered on all sides by the Malay Peninsula and the Riau Islands?

Well one could use Australia, large continent, smack in the middle of a plate, lots of room for a massive base, and who'd care if it fell over?

 

[Dr Pervez Hoodbhoy]

I think only one should be built, and it should be owned by an international consortium.

If 2 are built then they become targets. Knock down the other' side elevator and defend your own, you'll be left with the only one; then give them a very limited right to use it so that they'll have an interest in not destroying it. If one is built, but it's owned by a country/group of countries, then everyone who can't use it will have a problem with it.

An internationally owned elevator, on the other side, is something nobody will want to destroy. Even terrorist groups and rogue states, if rational, will avoid it, not wanting to draw the wrath of the entire world.

 

[orbeyonde]

I think only one should be built, and it should be owned by an international consortium.

If 2 are built then they become targets. Knock down the other' side elevator and defend your own, you'll be left with the only one; then give them a very limited right to use it so that they'll have an interest in not destroying it. If one is built, but it's owned by a country/group of countries, then everyone who can't use it will have a problem with it.

An internationally owned elevator, on the other side, is something nobody will want to destroy. Even terrorist groups and rogue states, if rational, will avoid it, not wanting to draw the wrath of the entire world.

"if rational" is the key here. No one has ever accused the Mad Mullahs, the Kims, or al qaeda of being rational.

 

[David S Poepoe]

An internationally owned elevator, on the other side, is something nobody will want to destroy. Even terrorist groups and rogue states, if rational, will avoid it, not wanting to draw the wrath of the entire world.

This means nothing to those that would seek to destroy it.

 

[David S Poepoe]

Considering that a space tether is going to stretch 84,000 km (twice the distance to geosynchronous), saving less than 6000 feet seems kinda silly don't you think?

An ocean based platform is being considered because the platform can move, dragging the ribbon out of the way of potential hazards, as well as respond to the movements of the ribbon.

Depends on the cost per square foot or meter. What would be the cost of building the platform and its upkeep? If built on a continent the elevator 'ground station' may be connected to existing railroad and highway infrastructures.

 

[Tielhard]

It seems I have to make a serious reply to some of these posts.

1) Singapore is 1o 18' N it is not on the equator. If you put a celestial cable there then one of two things things will happen depending on the size of the counter weight in GSEO. Either the counter weight is large and almost unpreturbed in which case the cable moves sinusoidally or the counter weight moves and the cable pivots at the attachment points, base and counter weight. In both cases it will fatigue the cable.

2) No material yet developed is close to the strength required of the cable unless a completely unreasonable expansion factor is used for the cross sectional area. You could build one on Mars using carbon fibre (I am told, I have not done the calcs myself).

3) Putting the thing on a mountain is not a good idea what is needed is a vast hole and a pile of rocks to keep the bottom attachment point from being pulled out by transient forces. The inertial of the thing is so large even a small perturbation will destroy the system stability.

4) Sea anchoring is possible but it would have to be dynamic. That is if the power stops you are going to have an uncontrolled cable falling fast.

5) How do you construct it? Do it the Soviet/Clark way, building down a bit at a time. It is unstable all the time. Do it the Sheffield way and fly it in? If you get it wrong you are looking at 2 bn+ casualties.

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Some Problems...

It seems I have to make a serious reply to some of these posts.

1) Singapore is 1o 18' N it is not on the equator. If you put a celestial cable there then one of two things things will happen depending on the size of the counter weight in GSEO. Either the counter weight is large and almost unpreturbed in which case the cable moves sinusoidally or the counter weight moves and the cable pivots at the attachment points, base and counter weight. In both cases it will fatigue the cable.

2) No material yet developed is close to the strength required of the cable unless a completely unreasonable expansion factor is used for the cross sectional area. You could build one on Mars using carbon fibre (I am told, I have not done the calcs myself).

3) Putting the thing on a mountain is not a good idea what is needed is a vast hole and a pile of rocks to keep the bottom attachment point from being pulled out by transient forces. The inertial of the thing is so large even a small perturbation will destroy the system stability.

4) Sea anchoring is possible but it would have to be dynamic. That is if the power stops you are going to have an uncontrolled cable falling fast.

5) How do you construct it? Do it the Soviet/Clark way, building down a bit at a time. It is unstable all the time. Do it the Sheffield way and fly it in? If you get it wrong you are looking at 2 bn+ casualties.

Alsohere are some other problems that should be considered with the elevator:

-Consider that at 10,000 ft above sea level, the problem of oxygen becomes a problem. For many people, consider that fingers and toes begin to turn blue due to lack of proper blood flow and oxygen. As such, you have the problem of having to provide oxygen/helium mix tanks for every step of the way upwards. Also consider that you immediately lose 12.5% of your potential workforce due to heart palpitations/murmurs which can prove lethal at those heights....

-Consider that for construction workers, another problem will be hyperbaric oxygen chambers. Consider that like divers, prolonged exposures to the heights will be damaging to the cardio-vascular systems. Consider that each worker will have to spend at least 1-2 hours in a hyperbaric chamber to prevent "the bends"...

-Also consider that another problem will be transport. Consider that an elevator moving upward at 60 km/h is often enough to cause motion sickness in some people. If you consider that most people will blackout at 3-7Gs of force, consider that even more people will be excluded from the initial work force...

-Consider that the project will be a magnet for terrorism. Consider the fact that the lion's share of the cost would have to be paid by major nations. The materials cost alone would be astronomical. As such, consider that many Third World nations would be angered, pointing out, that the same amount of money could have been used to pay for the infrastructure and food distribution problems of those nations. To make matters worse, considering the technical expertise and materials needed for such a project, consider that the majority of the work will be done by contracted workers from the First World, building further resentment.

 

[Aldroud]

Alrighty then, I'm sorry but I'm going to have to lecture. I went to a symposium a few years back and met with some of the Lift Port folks, went on to meet with them a few times over the years on some collaboration projects. Because of this, I think I have as much of a layman's understand as possible.

1- The space tether is envisioned to be a sheet of paper thick, 3 meters wide, and made from woven nanocarbon tubules. The tether will be twice the length to geosynchronous to eliminate/reduce the need for a counterweight and anchored to a sea vessel.

2- The required material strength of carbon nanotubles is right at the edge of what is physically possible. Further research is necissary as we're down to questioning if the atomic strength of the molecular bonds is strong enough. Two studies thus far have come up with two seperate answers- one said yes, one said no. I'm sureh hoping the correct answer is yes.

3- Intial construction would consist of a satillite launched with two spools of carbon nanotubule thread. From geosynchronous orbit, the satillite would spool out two threads in opposite directions. Eventually one thread would decend to Earth while the other acts as a counterbalance. Static discharge would still be a bit of a problem, but ameliorated by the nonconductive nature of the thread.

4- Once the thread had been attached to the support vessel, a climber robot would begin stitching in more thread to widen the tether. Successive climbers would continue to enlarge the tether until it reaches operational size of 3 meters.

5- Operation would involve climbers carrying approximately 16 tonnes of payload into orbit. The benefit of the double length tether is that spacecraft destined to go beyond cis-lunar space can get a free velocity vector by slingshot. Every 4th or 6th climber would be a maintenance climber that would repair holes or tears in the tether.

6- Operational costs would drop the cost to orbit to about $100/pound.

7- Manned climbers are probably not likely, life support requirements may exceed the 16 tonne payload or require so much of the payload to make a manned climber impractical.

That's what I know. I don't claim it to be absolutely accurate, so take it for what it's worth.

 

[Mr_ Bondoc]

More Problems...

Alrighty then, I'm sorry but I'm going to have to lecture. I went to a symposium a few years back and met with some of the Lift Port folks, went on to meet with them a few times over the years on some collaboration projects. Because of this, I think I have as much of a layman's understand as possible.

1- The space tether is envisioned to be a sheet of paper thick, 3 meters wide, and made from woven nanocarbon tubules. The tether will be twice the length to geosynchronous to eliminate/reduce the need for a counterweight and anchored to a sea vessel.

2- The required material strength of carbon nanotubles is right at the edge of what is physically possible. Further research is necissary as we're down to questioning if the atomic strength of the molecular bonds is strong enough. Two studies thus far have come up with two seperate answers- one said yes, one said no. I'm sureh hoping the correct answer is yes.

3- Intial construction would consist of a satillite launched with two spools of carbon nanotubule thread. From geosynchronous orbit, the satillite would spool out two threads in opposite directions. Eventually one thread would decend to Earth while the other acts as a counterbalance. Static discharge would still be a bit of a problem, but ameliorated by the nonconductive nature of the thread.

4- Once the thread had been attached to the support vessel, a climber robot would begin stitching in more thread to widen the tether. Successive climbers would continue to enlarge the tether until it reaches operational size of 3 meters.

5- Operation would involve climbers carrying approximately 16 tonnes of payload into orbit. The benefit of the double length tether is that spacecraft destined to go beyond cis-lunar space can get a free velocity vector by slingshot. Every 4th or 6th climber would be a maintenance climber that would repair holes or tears in the tether.

6- Operational costs would drop the cost to orbit to about $100/pound.

7- Manned climbers are probably not likely, life support requirements may exceed the 16 tonne payload or require so much of the payload to make a manned climber impractical.

That's what I know. I don't claim it to be absolutely accurate, so take it for what it's worth.

-Considering the sheer size and the amount of static electricity generated by the elevator, wouldn't one possible danger be the creation of a large electrical storm system that would hover over the region. Consider while the electricity wouldn't damage the tower, a permanent electrical storm system could seriously damage global weather patterns....

-Considering one ton of metal dropped from space has the same explosive force as a Hiroshima-class nuclear weapon, there are two problems. First, whats to prevent a terrorists from dropping large objects from the top of the tower, killing thousands, if not millions of people? Also, who would want to live around a tower and/or building wherein whether by accident or by terrorist attack, everything for 75 miles could be annihilated?

-Consider that if the tower collapses, 2 billion people are going to be killed within 24 hours. As such, who would be willing to take on the insurance liability? Consider that the costs of insurance for the entire project from terrorist attack could bankrupt the entire venture. To make matters worse, what happens when cost overruns cause delays in the construction. Just consider that construction on the Yangtze River Dam was halted at least 6 times , for a total of 8 months due to various lawsuits, labor disputes, and concerns of environmental damage....

 

[Alchemist29]

Where are you getting the 2 billion deaths from? If there was a break, most of the ribbon would burn up in the atmosphere and the anchor itself is out in the middle of the Pacific.
As for the Yangtze River Dam, you didn't include the rampant corruption so I wouldn't count that as a resonable comparison.
With the static electricity, part of it depends on what KIND of nanotubes are being used. Some types are conducting and some are insulating.