Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #701094 > unrolled thread

Going Up!

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Going Up! The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2018-09-04 10:27 -0700
    Re: Going Up! Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-04 13:14 -0700
      Re: Going Up! Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-04 19:09 -0500
        Re: Going Up! Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 06:26 -0700
          Re: Going Up! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 07:25 -0700
            Re: Going Up! Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-14 09:38 -0500
              Re: Going Up! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 07:43 -0700
              Re: Going Up! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-14 11:26 -0400
            Re: Going Up! Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 10:01 -0700
              Re: Going Up! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 12:10 -0700
                Re: Going Up! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 21:24 +0000
                  Re: Going Up! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-17 14:34 -0700
                  Re: Going Up! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 16:12 -0700
                    Re: Going Up! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 23:22 +0000
                      Re: Going Up! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 06:29 -0700
                        Re: Going Up! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 14:30 +0000
                          Re: Going Up! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 08:13 -0700
                            Re: Going Up! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 16:22 +0000
                              Re: Going Up! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 10:28 -0700
                                Re: Going Up! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 18:52 +0000
                                  Re: Going Up! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 11:55 -0700
                                    Re: Going Up! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 20:04 +0000
                                      Re: Going Up! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 13:11 -0700
                                        Re: Going Up! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 21:27 +0000
                                          Re: Going Up! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 14:30 -0700
                                            Re: Going Up! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-19 00:02 +0000
                                              Re: Going Up! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 17:20 -0700
                                                Re: Going Up! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-19 00:42 +0000
                                    Re: Going Up! Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 13:29 -0700
                                      Re: Going Up! Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-18 18:51 -0500
                                        Re: Going Up! benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 21:06 -0400
                                          Re: Going Up! Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-18 21:26 -0500
                                            Re: Going Up! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-18 19:38 -0700
                                              Re: Going Up! Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-18 21:48 -0500
                                                Re: Going Up! mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-09-18 19:51 -0700
                                            Re: Going Up! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-19 07:01 -0700
                                              Re: Going Up! Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-19 13:31 -0700
                                            Re: Going Up! Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-19 13:29 -0700
                                              Re: Going Up! Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-19 21:00 -0500
                                        Re: Going Up! Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-09-19 13:14 -0700
                                          Re: Going Up! Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-19 21:08 -0500
                      Re: Going Up! john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 06:34 -0700
                        Re: Going Up! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-18 14:30 +0000
        Re: Going Up! "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson@invalid.invalid> - 2018-09-19 22:37 -0700
          Re: Going Up! Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-09-20 10:09 -0500
    Re: Going Up! Haných Ltskáš <lnni@yawlucla.ha> - 2018-09-04 23:08 +0000

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#703373

Odd
“You say the space elevator is impossible. Why?“

Why don’t you suggest some logical reasons?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#703389

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “You say the space elevator is impossible. Why?“
> 
> Why don’t you suggest some logical reasons?
> 

I can’t. It doesn’t seem impossible to me. 

You’re the one that says it’s impossible. What are your logical reasons?

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#703391

Odd
“Why don’t you suggest some logical reasons? 
> 

I can’t. It doesn’t seem impossible to me. 
”

Then you don’t want me to disabuse you of yet another fantasy, so why waste my time?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#703402

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “Why don’t you suggest some logical reasons? 
>> 
> 
> I can’t. It doesn’t seem impossible to me. 
> ”
> 
> Then you don’t want me to disabuse you of yet another fantasy, so why waste my time?
> 

No, really, I’m interested in how you might back up your claims. 

If you just don’t want to back up your claims, then don’t voice them. It’s
simple. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#703404

Odd
“If you just don’t want to back up your claims, then don’t voice them. It’s 
simple. ”
You say you have a model for the atom.
Where is it’s visual representation?
If you can’t picture your ‘idea’, you don’t have one

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#703438

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “If you just don’t want to back up your claims, then don’t voice them. It’s 
> simple. ”
> You say you have a model for the atom.
> Where is it’s visual representation?
> If you can’t picture your ‘idea’, you don’t have one
> 

Deflect deflection deflect. 
Space elevator. Why not?

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#703440

Odd
“Space elevator. Why not? ”

You can’t think of anything?
:)
It’s obvious

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#703441

john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> wrote:
> Odd
> “Space elevator. Why not? ”
> 
> You can’t think of anything?
> :)
> It’s obvious
> 

I’m waiting. Deflect, deflect, deflect. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#703396

On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 2:55:31 PM UTC-4, john wrote:
> Odd
> “You say the space elevator is impossible. Why?“
> 
> Why don’t you suggest some logical reasons?

I think the idea from a space elevator goes back to the 1950s?
Let me look.
Wow was I wrong:
"The concept of a tower reaching geosynchronous orbit was first
 published in 1895 by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky.[3] His proposal
 was for a free-standing tower reaching from the surface of
 Earth to the height of geostationary orbit."

The basic idea id over 100 years old!


A tower does not work as well as a tether design. With the center
of mass slightly above geosynchronous orbit, a cable reaching down
to earth's surface provides everything that is needed.

No danger of collapse.
deployment is achievable, especially with today's rockets.

Only the cable is the tough part. material having consistent
Tensile strength for a length over 35,000 km (21,000 miles)
is a challenge.

So what do you do with it?
 solar power conversion and transmission to earth (requires
              high power transmission lines that long also).
 zero gravity manufacturing
 Human space travel research (Think ISS but higher)
 astronomy observatory
 tourism/entertainment/advertisement

It would have to be based at an equatorial country, one of
13 countries: Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Sao Tome & Principe,
Gabon, Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Uganda, Kenya, Somalia, Maldives, Indonesia and Kiribati.

Really, at this point it is only an engineering problem
of building the cables and getting them in place.

Enjoy,
ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#703434

On 9/18/2018 3:29 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 2:55:31 PM UTC-4, john wrote:
>> Odd
>> “You say the space elevator is impossible. Why?“
>>
>> Why don’t you suggest some logical reasons?
> 
> I think the idea from a space elevator goes back to the 1950s?
> Let me look.
> Wow was I wrong:
> "The concept of a tower reaching geosynchronous orbit was first
>  published in 1895 by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky.[3] His proposal
>  was for a free-standing tower reaching from the surface of
>  Earth to the height of geostationary orbit."
> 
> The basic idea id over 100 years old!
> 
> 
> A tower does not work as well as a tether design. With the center
> of mass slightly above geosynchronous orbit, a cable reaching down
> to earth's surface provides everything that is needed.
> 
> No danger of collapse.
> deployment is achievable, especially with today's rockets.
> 
> Only the cable is the tough part. material having consistent
> Tensile strength for a length over 35,000 km (21,000 miles)
> is a challenge.
> 
> So what do you do with it?
>  solar power conversion and transmission to earth (requires
>               high power transmission lines that long also).
>  zero gravity manufacturing
>  Human space travel research (Think ISS but higher)
>  astronomy observatory
>  tourism/entertainment/advertisement
> 
> It would have to be based at an equatorial country, one of
> 13 countries: Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Sao Tome & Principe,
> Gabon, Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
> Uganda, Kenya, Somalia, Maldives, Indonesia and Kiribati.
> 
> Really, at this point it is only an engineering problem
> of building the cables and getting them in place.
> 
> Enjoy,
> ed
> 

open questions;

if not a tower, what is holding the cable up ?
is it a counterweight above geosync ?
would one still have to fix cable to the ground ?
how to keep the counterweight in position ?
is the cable cutting lines of magnetic field?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#703444

On 9/18/2018 7:51 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 9/18/2018 3:29 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>> On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 2:55:31 PM UTC-4, john wrote:
>>> Odd
>>> “You say the space elevator is impossible. Why?“
>>>
>>> Why don’t you suggest some logical reasons?
>>
>> I think the idea from a space elevator goes back to the 1950s?
>> Let me look.
>> Wow was I wrong:
>> "The concept of a tower reaching geosynchronous orbit was first
>>   published in 1895 by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky.[3] His proposal
>>   was for a free-standing tower reaching from the surface of
>>   Earth to the height of geostationary orbit."
>>
>> The basic idea id over 100 years old!
>>
>>
>> A tower does not work as well as a tether design. With the center
>> of mass slightly above geosynchronous orbit, a cable reaching down
>> to earth's surface provides everything that is needed.
>>
>> No danger of collapse.
>> deployment is achievable, especially with today's rockets.
>>
>> Only the cable is the tough part. material having consistent
>> Tensile strength for a length over 35,000 km (21,000 miles)
>> is a challenge.
>>
>> So what do you do with it?
>>   solar power conversion and transmission to earth (requires
>>                high power transmission lines that long also).
>>   zero gravity manufacturing
>>   Human space travel research (Think ISS but higher)
>>   astronomy observatory
>>   tourism/entertainment/advertisement
>>
>> It would have to be based at an equatorial country, one of
>> 13 countries: Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Sao Tome & Principe,
>> Gabon, Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
>> Uganda, Kenya, Somalia, Maldives, Indonesia and Kiribati.
>>
>> Really, at this point it is only an engineering problem
>> of building the cables and getting them in place.
>>
>> Enjoy,
>> ed
>>
> 
> open questions;
> 
> if not a tower, what is holding the cable up ?
> is it a counterweight above geosync ?
> would one still have to fix cable to the ground ?
> how to keep the counterweight in position ?
> is the cable cutting lines of magnetic field?
> 
Rumor has it that an experiment was tried with such a cable in space not 
as an elevator but as a massive current generator to power some kind of 
SDI device. Reportedly the cable broke and the experiment failed. Who 
knows if they tried it again. Maybe Sergio knows. He seems tuned into 
such things.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#703450

On 9/18/2018 8:06 PM, benj wrote:
> On 9/18/2018 7:51 PM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 9/18/2018 3:29 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 2:55:31 PM UTC-4, john wrote:
>>>> Odd
>>>> “You say the space elevator is impossible. Why?“
>>>>
>>>> Why don’t you suggest some logical reasons?
>>>
>>> I think the idea from a space elevator goes back to the 1950s?
>>> Let me look.
>>> Wow was I wrong:
>>> "The concept of a tower reaching geosynchronous orbit was first
>>>   published in 1895 by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky.[3] His proposal
>>>   was for a free-standing tower reaching from the surface of
>>>   Earth to the height of geostationary orbit."
>>>
>>> The basic idea id over 100 years old!
>>>
>>>
>>> A tower does not work as well as a tether design. With the center
>>> of mass slightly above geosynchronous orbit, a cable reaching down
>>> to earth's surface provides everything that is needed.
>>>
>>> No danger of collapse.
>>> deployment is achievable, especially with today's rockets.
>>>
>>> Only the cable is the tough part. material having consistent
>>> Tensile strength for a length over 35,000 km (21,000 miles)
>>> is a challenge.
>>>
>>> So what do you do with it?
>>>   solar power conversion and transmission to earth (requires
>>>                high power transmission lines that long also).
>>>   zero gravity manufacturing
>>>   Human space travel research (Think ISS but higher)
>>>   astronomy observatory
>>>   tourism/entertainment/advertisement
>>>
>>> It would have to be based at an equatorial country, one of
>>> 13 countries: Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Sao Tome & Principe,
>>> Gabon, Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
>>> Uganda, Kenya, Somalia, Maldives, Indonesia and Kiribati.
>>>
>>> Really, at this point it is only an engineering problem
>>> of building the cables and getting them in place.
>>>
>>> Enjoy,
>>> ed
>>>
>>
>> open questions;
>>
>> if not a tower, what is holding the cable up ?
>> is it a counterweight above geosync ?
>> would one still have to fix cable to the ground ?
>> how to keep the counterweight in position ?
>> is the cable cutting lines of magnetic field?
>>
> Rumor has it that an experiment was tried with such a cable in space not
> as an elevator but as a massive current generator to power some kind of
> SDI device. Reportedly the cable broke and the experiment failed. Who
> knows if they tried it again. Maybe Sergio knows. He seems tuned into
> such things.

https://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wtether.html

The Space Tether Experiment

Im sure they have done more on this,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tether

Pendular motion instability -- what the cable space elevator would have,
lots of strange ossicilation modes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#703451

On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 7:26:43 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:

Your next going up is your next going down Roy Masters...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#703452

On 9/18/2018 9:38 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 7:26:43 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> 
> Your next going up is your next going down Roy Masters...
> 

yes, the space tether holds Roy Masters in Hydrosynchronous orbit, so
the aliens can land on him and chip off little pieces of him for
soverniers for their little pupa's back home.

(Aliens do not have children (humans) they have pupas)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#703453

On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 7:48:41 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> On 9/18/2018 9:38 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 7:26:43 PM UTC-7, Sergio wrote:
> > 
> > Your next going up is your next going down Roy Masters...
> > 
> 
> yes, the space tether holds Roy Masters in Hydrosynchronous orbit, so
> the aliens can land on him and chip off little pieces of him for
> soverniers for their little pupa's back home.
> 
> (Aliens do not have children (humans) they have pupas)

You've never left jail...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#703497

Sergio 
“

The Space Tether Experiment 

Im sure they have done more on this, “

You beat me to it.
They also had LOTS of electrical discharge- it was nasty.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#703538

On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 10:01:11 AM UTC-4, john wrote:
> Sergio 
> “
> 
> The Space Tether Experiment 
> 
> Im sure they have done more on this, “
> 
> You beat me to it.
> They also had LOTS of electrical discharge- it was nasty.

Well that tether was for electrical generation, so not surprising
that it generated a few sparks when it failed. That satellite was
not in geosynchronous orbit on purpose!

Enjoying this conversation,
   Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#703537

On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 10:26:43 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote:
> On 9/18/2018 8:06 PM, benj wrote:
> > On 9/18/2018 7:51 PM, Sergio wrote:
> >> On 9/18/2018 3:29 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 2:55:31 PM UTC-4, john wrote:
> >>>> Odd
> >>>> “You say the space elevator is impossible. Why?“
> >>>>
> >>>> Why don’t you suggest some logical reasons?
> >>>
> >>> I think the idea from a space elevator goes back to the 1950s?
> >>> Let me look.
> >>> Wow was I wrong:
> >>> "The concept of a tower reaching geosynchronous orbit was first
> >>>   published in 1895 by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky.[3] His proposal
> >>>   was for a free-standing tower reaching from the surface of
> >>>   Earth to the height of geostationary orbit."
> >>>
> >>> The basic idea id over 100 years old!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> A tower does not work as well as a tether design. With the center
> >>> of mass slightly above geosynchronous orbit, a cable reaching down
> >>> to earth's surface provides everything that is needed.
> >>>
> >>> No danger of collapse.
> >>> deployment is achievable, especially with today's rockets.
> >>>
> >>> Only the cable is the tough part. material having consistent
> >>> Tensile strength for a length over 35,000 km (21,000 miles)
> >>> is a challenge.
> >>>
> >>> So what do you do with it?
> >>>   solar power conversion and transmission to earth (requires
> >>>                high power transmission lines that long also).
> >>>   zero gravity manufacturing
> >>>   Human space travel research (Think ISS but higher)
> >>>   astronomy observatory
> >>>   tourism/entertainment/advertisement
> >>>
> >>> It would have to be based at an equatorial country, one of
> >>> 13 countries: Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Sao Tome & Principe,
> >>> Gabon, Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
> >>> Uganda, Kenya, Somalia, Maldives, Indonesia and Kiribati.
> >>>
> >>> Really, at this point it is only an engineering problem
> >>> of building the cables and getting them in place.
> >>>
> >>> Enjoy,
> >>> ed
> >>>
> >>
> >> open questions;
> >>
> >> if not a tower, what is holding the cable up ?
> >> is it a counterweight above geosync ?
> >> would one still have to fix cable to the ground ?
> >> how to keep the counterweight in position ?
> >> is the cable cutting lines of magnetic field?
> >>
> > Rumor has it that an experiment was tried with such a cable in space not
> > as an elevator but as a massive current generator to power some kind of
> > SDI device. Reportedly the cable broke and the experiment failed. Who
> > knows if they tried it again. Maybe Sergio knows. He seems tuned into
> > such things.
> 
> https://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wtether.html
> 
> The Space Tether Experiment
> 
> Im sure they have done more on this,
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tether
> 
> Pendular motion instability -- what the cable space elevator would have,
> lots of strange ossicilation modes

Ah yes. the Tacoma Washington bridge scenario.
I hadn't thought of that problem. But wouldn't that only
affect the first few hundred miles of cable? Thinking about it,
no, it's not limited. The forcing function might only be in the
atmosphere, but the oscillations would travel the whole length
of the cable.

Another tough problem to solve. It would require some kind
of dampers at various points. That could add weight to the
cable system, meaning the tensile strength would need to be
even stronger. 

Still seems doable, but VERY hard.
Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#703585

On 9/19/2018 3:29 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 10:26:43 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote:
>> On 9/18/2018 8:06 PM, benj wrote:
>>> On 9/18/2018 7:51 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 9/18/2018 3:29 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 2:55:31 PM UTC-4, john wrote:
>>>>>> Odd
>>>>>> “You say the space elevator is impossible. Why?“
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don’t you suggest some logical reasons?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the idea from a space elevator goes back to the 1950s?
>>>>> Let me look.
>>>>> Wow was I wrong:
>>>>> "The concept of a tower reaching geosynchronous orbit was first
>>>>>   published in 1895 by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky.[3] His proposal
>>>>>   was for a free-standing tower reaching from the surface of
>>>>>   Earth to the height of geostationary orbit."
>>>>>
>>>>> The basic idea id over 100 years old!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A tower does not work as well as a tether design. With the center
>>>>> of mass slightly above geosynchronous orbit, a cable reaching down
>>>>> to earth's surface provides everything that is needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> No danger of collapse.
>>>>> deployment is achievable, especially with today's rockets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only the cable is the tough part. material having consistent
>>>>> Tensile strength for a length over 35,000 km (21,000 miles)
>>>>> is a challenge.
>>>>>
>>>>> So what do you do with it?
>>>>>   solar power conversion and transmission to earth (requires
>>>>>                high power transmission lines that long also).
>>>>>   zero gravity manufacturing
>>>>>   Human space travel research (Think ISS but higher)
>>>>>   astronomy observatory
>>>>>   tourism/entertainment/advertisement
>>>>>
>>>>> It would have to be based at an equatorial country, one of
>>>>> 13 countries: Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Sao Tome & Principe,
>>>>> Gabon, Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
>>>>> Uganda, Kenya, Somalia, Maldives, Indonesia and Kiribati.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really, at this point it is only an engineering problem
>>>>> of building the cables and getting them in place.
>>>>>
>>>>> Enjoy,
>>>>> ed
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> open questions;
>>>>
>>>> if not a tower, what is holding the cable up ?
>>>> is it a counterweight above geosync ?
>>>> would one still have to fix cable to the ground ?
>>>> how to keep the counterweight in position ?
>>>> is the cable cutting lines of magnetic field?
>>>>
>>> Rumor has it that an experiment was tried with such a cable in space not
>>> as an elevator but as a massive current generator to power some kind of
>>> SDI device. Reportedly the cable broke and the experiment failed. Who
>>> knows if they tried it again. Maybe Sergio knows. He seems tuned into
>>> such things.
>>
>> https://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wtether.html
>>
>> The Space Tether Experiment
>>
>> Im sure they have done more on this,
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_tether
>>
>> Pendular motion instability -- what the cable space elevator would have,
>> lots of strange ossicilation modes
> 
> Ah yes. the Tacoma Washington bridge scenario.
> I hadn't thought of that problem. But wouldn't that only
> affect the first few hundred miles of cable? Thinking about it,
> no, it's not limited. The forcing function might only be in the
> atmosphere, but the oscillations would travel the whole length
> of the cable.

and be reflected back at both ends, an oscillation could be 1 to 1000
miles long.

and there is nothing holding the weighted end above the Geosync orbit,
except small positioning rockets (?)   So it could flail about, could
take a year to calm down.

> 
> Another tough problem to solve. It would require some kind
> of dampers at various points. That could add weight to the
> cable system, meaning the tensile strength would need to be
> even stronger. 
> 
> Still seems doable, but VERY hard.
> Ed
> 

the high frequency osc could be damped somewhat.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#703535

On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 7:51:36 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote:
> On 9/18/2018 3:29 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> > 
> > A tower does not work as well as a tether design. With the center
> > of mass slightly above geosynchronous orbit, a cable reaching down
> > to earth's surface provides everything that is needed.
> > 
> > No danger of collapse.
> > deployment is achievable, especially with today's rockets.
> > 
> > Only the cable is the tough part. material having consistent
> > Tensile strength for a length over 35,000 km (21,000 miles)
> > is a challenge.
> > 
[]
> > It would have to be based at an equatorial country, one of
> > 13 countries: Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Sao Tome & Principe,
> > Gabon, Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo,
> > Uganda, Kenya, Somalia, Maldives, Indonesia and Kiribati.
> > 
> > Really, at this point it is only an engineering problem
> > of building the cables and getting them in place.
> > 
> > Enjoy,
> > ed
> > 
> 
> open questions;
> 
> if not a tower, what is holding the cable up ?
> is it a counterweight above geosync ?

yes

> would one still have to fix cable to the ground ?

Interesting question. I don't know the answer.

> how to keep the counterweight in position ?

It is geosynchronous. it orbits at the same angular speed
that the earth turns. 

> is the cable cutting lines of magnetic field?

The only significant magnetic field would be the earth's field.
I am pretty sure that field turns with the earth and so the
tether would not be moving relative to that field. So no induced
currents AFAIK.

Great questions.
Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web