Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #691393
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.space.policy, sci.physics, rec.arts.sf.science |
| Subject | Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. |
| Date | 2018-06-20 15:42 -0500 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <pgee8i$ujf$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (9 earlier) <pg9kv7$fbd$1@dont-email.me> <pg9sk3$13su$1@gioia.aioe.org> <jlchid9gihahhormkhe1om493u11529fbk@4ax.com> <pgbqp6$jnl$1@gioia.aioe.org> <0itiid1psn6m5or70kd0urk0db4pll9e3f@4ax.com> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 6/19/2018 4:38 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote on Tue, 19 Jun 2018 15:58:10 -0500:
>
>> On 6/19/2018 2:45 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote on Mon, 18 Jun 2018 22:17:21 -0500:
>>>
>>>> On 6/18/2018 8:06 PM, Alain Fournier wrote:
>>>>> On Jun/18/2018 at 2:45 PM, Sergio wrote :
>>>>>> On 6/16/2018 8:54 AM, Alain Fournier wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun/15/2018 at 11:34 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote :
>>>>>>>> JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote on Fri, 15 Jun 2018
>>>>>>>> 22:13:01 -0400:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2018-06-15 19:21, Alain Fournier wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Yes. But I think I am a little less optimistic than you about it
>>>>>>>>>> becoming practical in the future. If we have fantastic materials
>>>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>>>> future, maybe an elevator will become more practical,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apart from lifting geostationary satellites to just below orbit and
>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>> let them use their own thrusters to position to their assigned
>>>>>>>>> slot/longitude, what other use would a space elevator have ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You go above the GEO point on the cable and get flung on
>>>>>>>> interplanetary trajectories.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You would also likely put at least one cable above GEO rotating in a
>>>>>>> plane perpendicular to the main cable. So you can give an extra push for
>>>>>>> interplanetary trajectories and to fine tune in which direction you
>>>>>>> depart for said trajectories.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can also jump off at an altitude of about 15000 km (that figure is
>>>>>>> from the top of my head, it might be more or might be less). From there
>>>>>>> after a few passes of aero-braking you can reach LEO with very small
>>>>>>> thrusters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For polar orbits, you use the rotating cable above GEO mentioned above.
>>>>>>> But instead of using it for extra push you get off while it is
>>>>>>> subtracting some speed but not quite in the direction of rotation of the
>>>>>>> cable. So you subtract some speed in the direction of rotation of the
>>>>>>> cable and give some speed in the north-south axis. You then use
>>>>>>> aero-braking again to lower apogee, and a small thruster to raise
>>>>>>> perigee. Note however that using the elevator to reach polar orbits in
>>>>>>> this way isn't obvious. You would want a long and fast rotating cable
>>>>>>> and you would want it far above GEO, it might not be practical to do so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Building an elevator, with current technologies, is outrageously
>>>>>>> expensive. But if you have one, it can be very useful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> we don't have one, and never will. It is a joke among Engineers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What would is the monthly insurance payment for it? if it fell over ?
>>>>>
>>>>> You put the cable on an east coast. You also put a system to cut the
>>>>> cable at something like 10000 km high. If the cable breaks below that
>>>>> 10000 km the upper part doesn't fall it goes up, the bottom part falls
>>>>> in the ocean, where it isn't likely to cause damage. If the cable breaks
>>>>> higher than 10000 km, you cut it at 10000 km, the bottom 10000 km falls
>>>>> once again in the ocean. The two other parts won't fall to the ground,
>>>>> the lower part will probably be in an elliptical orbit, the higher part
>>>>> might be in an escape trajectory. So the damage from a cable breaking
>>>>> doesn't have to be high. It might be a little difficult to explain that
>>>>> to an insurance company, but if you can pay for the cable, you should be
>>>>> able to cover the damages.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> how much does 10,000 of cable weigh? 100,000 #
>>>> the center of gravity is directly over the support, so you have 100,000#
>>>> of steel cable crashing onto it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope. The Earth spins, you know. And STEEL? That's cute.
>>>
>>
>> earth spin is red herring, do the math.
>>
>
> You do the math.
you gave up.
>
>>
>> what else are you going to use besides steel ?
>>
>
> Almost anything.
like what ? anything real ?
>
>>
>> NOTHING can support its own weight of 10,000 km of it.
>>
>
> False. You really need to do some research.
name it, else you are lying.
>
>>
>> go ahead, NAME what you propose to use.
>>
>
> Carbon nanotubes.
they are held in a matrix of epoxy glue. your 10,000 km of glue wont
support itself.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> nothing will go into orbit as the accelleration vector is stright down,
>>>> gravity.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, no. When whole, the cable is under tension, not compression.
>>> Remove weight from the bottom or break the tether point and it goes UP
>>> above the break, not down.
>>>
>>
>> no, gravity wins over whatever transitory events.
>>
>
> Don't look now, but I think you just claimed that space satellites and
> the Moon are impossible.
those are your words, now try to refocus on the topic, If your space
elevator is a cable in orbit, atmospheric drag ruins it.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> how many miles would the top swing back and forth ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you care?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I asking to see if you know what you are talking about. 20,000 km is
>>>> 12,427 miles, if you support the tower it will swing at least 2 degrees
>>>> sin 2 degrees = 0.035 times 12427 = *434 miles*
>>>>
>>>> does the tip swinging wider than most states bother you ??
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're not smart enough to be asking questions. It's not a 'tower'.
>>>
>>
>> what do you propose ?
>>
>
> And in that question you demonstrate just how clueless you are.
again, no info from you. Because you have no idea what you are typing
about.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> How much sideways force is pushed on it by a 20 mph wind ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you care?
>>>>
>>>> ...to evaporate your imagination with facts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That would be refreshing. When are you going to start?
>>>
>>
>> what are you proposing ?
>>
>
> I'm proposing you start making sense (but I'm not holding my breath).
so you propose nothing, and state nothing, and know nothing.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> how much does one guy wire weigh ? (assume 20,000 km elevator height)
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would you put a guy wire? Don't assume 20,000 km elevator height,
>>>>> assume 70,000 km, you want the top of the cable to pull up the bottom of
>>>>> the cable, so you have to go beyond GEO height.
>>>>
>>>> so what is the weight of 70,000 km of cable to support 500# ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> That rather depends on what it's made of.
>>>
>>
>> you wont name anything, because it is all too heavy.
>>
>> got anything ?
>>
>
> Jesus, go learn something. Right now you just sound abysmally stupid.
no reason to bring God into this, he cant help you.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> [there is no cable that will support itself 70,000 km, darling)
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is no cable that will support its own weight like that YET. You
>>> really need to STFU until you educate yourself.
>>>
>>
>> and there never will be. do the math. check the materials, imaginarium
>> won't work either.
>>
>
> I'm sorry you're clueless.
and you still have nothing, as it does not exist.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> how much does one copper cable weigh if moving 200 amps ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't put a copper cable. Send energy to the climber using some kind of
>>>>> beamed energy. (A laser on the ground, maybe another one in
>>>>> geosynchronous orbit, and photocells on the climber to convert back to
>>>>> electricity. Or something of that kind.)
>>>>
>>>> Use McGinn's patented plasma's and water vapor it up. What happens
>>>> when you use a 1000 watt laser to shoot power to it ? the beam heats up
>>>> the air and defocuses the beam and the power splinters out, the power
>>>> does not get there.
>>>>
>>>> there is no know laser that can meet the dispersion requirements either
>>>> (google dispersion laser)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hogwash.
>>>
>>
>> afraid to google for it ? why doen't the army shoot down missles with
>> lasers ? -- dispersion and defocusing --
>>
>
> Uh, you haven't been paying attention, have you?
Just testing your depth of knowledge in the subject and it is 1/32 inch
deep. just another troll on the internet.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> What voltage is needed at the ground to feed the copper wires ? assume
>>>>>> 500 V AC needed at the top.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How much does the tower weigh counting only the copper wires, main
>>>>>> cable, and guy wires ?
>>>>>
>>>>> The copper wires and guy wires are nonexistent and therefore weigh
>>>>> nothing. As for the main cable, it weighs way too much. That is why I
>>>>> said in the message to which you are replying that "Building an
>>>>> elevator, with current technologies, is outrageously expensive." I don't
>>>>> think we will ever have one.
>>>>
>>>> it is joke bate by Engineers,
>>>>
>>>
>>> You wouldn't know an engineer if you tripped over one.
>>>
>>
>> and you have no real facts for your "space elevator".
>>
>
> Go educate yourself and get back to us.
no need, you have demonstrated you know nothing in this thread.
you know nothing.
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-11 22:18 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 20:52 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-12 06:34 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-12 14:36 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 14:29 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-12 19:00 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-13 02:15 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 01:27 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-13 06:46 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-13 16:28 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 14:38 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-14 05:22 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-14 15:44 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-15 07:52 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-15 21:33 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-16 10:38 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-16 17:51 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 02:16 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-17 15:49 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-17 16:52 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-18 02:44 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 00:05 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-18 14:27 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 19:39 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-17 18:26 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-13 12:57 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 14:35 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-13 17:55 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 21:44 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-14 22:02 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-13 19:39 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 21:53 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-14 19:46 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-15 07:56 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-15 19:21 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-15 19:18 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-15 21:05 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-16 10:06 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-16 13:21 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-16 13:57 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-16 14:19 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. mvp@web1.calweb.com (Mike Van Pelt) - 2018-06-19 18:38 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-06-19 21:27 -0600
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-15 22:13 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 20:34 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-16 09:54 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-18 13:45 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-18 21:06 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 20:00 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-19 19:45 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-19 22:12 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-20 20:21 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 17:13 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-20 20:34 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-21 06:26 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 03:48 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-21 13:35 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-21 20:57 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-21 23:22 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-22 07:18 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-22 17:45 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-22 19:58 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-23 03:39 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-23 08:38 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-23 17:18 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-23 09:58 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-24 00:53 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-23 08:34 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-18 22:17 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 00:45 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-19 15:58 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-19 14:38 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-20 15:42 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2018-06-20 16:58 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2018-06-25 20:44 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-20 17:07 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-21 23:24 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-21 21:38 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-06-19 21:35 -0600
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2018-06-19 17:01 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-21 22:39 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-06-14 15:39 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-06-14 15:53 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-14 04:47 -0400
csiph-web