Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #689363 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOCKail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-06-07 16:24 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-06-18 15:38 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 130 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Towards routine, reusable space launch. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOCKail.com> - 2018-06-07 16:24 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOCKail.com> - 2018-06-07 16:47 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-07 23:24 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-08 13:10 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-08 08:31 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-08 20:47 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-09 17:19 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-09 16:02 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-11 03:16 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-10 23:19 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2018-06-11 05:25 +0000
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
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 04:00 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-11 22:35 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 20:58 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-12 15:00 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 14:36 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Alain Fournier <alain245@videotron.ca> - 2018-06-12 20:08 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 22:12 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) - 2018-06-15 18:59 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-15 12:13 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) - 2018-06-18 20:36 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-18 19:57 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. willner@cfa.harvard.edu (Steve Willner) - 2018-06-25 21:17 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-25 15:52 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-11 07:49 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2018-06-11 16:36 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-11 14:02 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-11 17:23 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-11 21:20 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-06-11 19:38 -0600
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-11 22:50 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-11 21:03 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-12 06:44 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-06-12 09:57 -0500
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-06-12 17:52 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> - 2018-06-12 15:20 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 14:47 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2018-06-12 19:43 +0000
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 14:52 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-12 16:05 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-13 06:41 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2018-06-13 14:36 -0700
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2018-06-09 09:34 -0600
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2018-06-09 15:56 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOCKail.com> - 2018-06-08 18:06 -0400
Re: Towards routine, reusable space launch. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-06-18 15:38 -0700
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-19 00:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <jlchid9gihahhormkhe1om493u11529fbk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #691163 |
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.
>
>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.
>
>>
>>> 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'.
>>
>>> 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?
>
>>
>>> 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.
>
>[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.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>> 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.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-19 15:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pgbqp6$jnl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #691180 |
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. what else are you going to use besides steel ? NOTHING can support its own weight of 10,000 km of it. go ahead, NAME what you propose to use. > >> >> 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. > >> >>> >>>> 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 ? > >>> >>>> 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 ? > >> >>> >>>> 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 ? > >> >> [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. > >> >>> >>>> 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 -- > >>> >>>> 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". > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-19 14:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0itiid1psn6m5or70kd0urk0db4pll9e3f@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #691256 |
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.
>
>what else are you going to use besides steel ?
>
Almost anything.
>
>NOTHING can support its own weight of 10,000 km of it.
>
False. You really need to do some research.
>
>go ahead, NAME what you propose to use.
>
Carbon nanotubes.
>
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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).
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>
>>
>>>
>>> [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.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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?
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-20 15:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pgee8i$ujf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #691275 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-20 16:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <tdzWC.96144$Kp4.27458@fx43.iad> |
| In reply to | #691393 |
On 2018-06-20 16:42, Sergio wrote: >> Carbon nanotubes. > > they are held in a matrix of epoxy glue. your 10,000 km of glue wont > support itself. Carbon nanotubes do not replace the primary carbon fibre structure. They are mixed with the epoxy to add strength to the matrix.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-25 20:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pgrk86$ap$1@newsreader5.netcologne.de> |
| In reply to | #691394 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> schrieb: > On 2018-06-20 16:42, Sergio wrote: > >>> Carbon nanotubes. >> >> they are held in a matrix of epoxy glue. your 10,000 km of glue wont >> support itself. > Carbon nanotubes do not replace the primary carbon fibre structure. They > are mixed with the epoxy to add strength to the matrix. Or another material... With the problem of disentangeling the tubes, of binding the tubes to the matrix material (pulling out the fiber from the matrix is a common failure mode), and of course the fibers may have imperferfections which can _drastically_ (by quite a few orders of magnitude) reduce their strenghts. Is anybody aware of actual application of CNTs for materials, an application which has made it into the marketplace and that I could order today? I'm not, but I have not followed that field for some time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-20 17:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9vqlid1bcn0cfh9vuavrj6k30sppaoapv4@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #691393 |
Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote on Wed, 20 Jun 2018 15:42:56 -0500:
>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.
>
On you? Yes, I certainly did. You're far too adamantly stupid.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-21 23:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pghtmv$e2l$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #691413 |
On 6/20/2018 7:07 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote on Wed, 20 Jun 2018 15:42:56 -0500: > >> 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. >> > > On you? Yes, I certainly did. You're far too adamantly stupid. > > no worries! I'll do it for you, since you are new to math and materials.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-21 21:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d6voidh6k0gtvom4un4uohlvc6bah062ab@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #691521 |
Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote on Thu, 21 Jun 2018 23:24:53 -0500:
>On 6/20/2018 7:07 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote on Wed, 20 Jun 2018 15:42:56 -0500:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> On you? Yes, I certainly did. You're far too adamantly stupid.
>>
>
>no worries! I'll do it for you, since you are new to math and materials.
>
Gee, let's not tell the university. They might ask for my degree in
mathematics back. And certainly let's not tell Texas Instruments or
Raytheon, as they might want some of that salary back that they paid
me for being an engineer all those years.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-19 21:35 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <fou0c6Fs27iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #691256 |
Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: >> Nope. The Earth spins, you know. And STEEL? That's cute. > >earth spin is red herring, do the math. >what else are you going to use besides steel ? >NOTHING can support its own weight of 10,000 km of it. > >go ahead, NAME what you propose to use. You're not hanging a simple cable. It tapers. The taper amount depends on the material. So they talk about boron filaments or buckeytubes. Still not there, but they make steel look "cute". >>> 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 ? "If you support the tower" shows that you don't even understand the proposal. Nobody here is saying that any currently known material is practical for this, but you're clearly not even in the ballpark. -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-19 17:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pgbct9$tkg$1@newsreader5.netcologne.de> |
| In reply to | #691078 |
Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> schrieb: > On 6/16/2018 8:54 AM, Alain Fournier wrote: >> Building an elevator, with current technologies, is outrageously >> expensive. But if you have one, it can be very useful. >> > we don't have one, and never will. It is a joke among Engineers. Well, I did like the space elevator in "Red Mars". Spoiler: When it fell, Mars finally acquired a visible equator... it came down as some sort of continuous meteor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-21 22:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pghr29$b69$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #690810 |
On 6/15/2018 10:34 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote on Fri, 15 Jun 2018 > 22:13:01 -0400: > >> On 2018-06-15 19:21, Alain Fournier wrote: >>> >>> Yes. But I think I am a little less optimistic than you about it >>> becoming practical in the future. If we have fantastic materials in the >>> future, maybe an elevator will become more practical, >>> >> >> Apart from lifting geostationary satellites to just below orbit and then >> let them use their own thrusters to position to their assigned >> slot/longitude, what other use would a space elevator have ? >> > > You go above the GEO point on the cable and get flung on > interplanetary trajectories. > > "get flung" and what reaction does the cable have ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-14 15:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5bf6af64-4940-4813-9a76-c6120d6141a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #690514 |
On Wednesday, June 13, 2018 at 4:39:15 PM UTC-7, Alain Fournier wrote: > On Jun/13/2018 at 5:35 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote : > > Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote on Wed, 13 Jun > > 2018 12:57:19 -0000 (UTC): > > > >> For your reference, records indicate that > >> Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > >> > >>> In article <pfolpv$t6n$1@dont-email.me>, droleary@ > >>> 2017usenet1.subsume.com says... > >>>> > >>>> For your reference, records indicate that > >>>> Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Sure, sure, Star Trek style transporters with infinite range. I'll get > >>>>> right on that. > >>>> > >>>> No, you won?t. But you apparently *will* use it as a straw man to avoid > >>>> actually addressing the likelihood that new technologies developed in > >>>> the future will change the economies of space launches. Hell, that?s > >>>> essentially what SpaceX is demonstrating today. > >>> > >>> Bullshit. SpaceX is not demonstrating any new technologies. They've > >>> combined existing technologies in novel ways to solve the problems > >>> involved in building Merlin engines and Falcon launch vehicles. There > >>> is zero new tech in them. If you believe differently, name a new > >>> technology they're using in their engines, launch vehicles, Dragon, and > >>> etc. > >> > >> <Sigh> Of *course* there’s no “new technology” in *anything* that’s > >> in the world today. Your engineering mindset has you in a motivated > >> reasoning spiral. The fact remains that, over the course of time, > >> new technologies have been developed that have made their way into > >> space programs. SpaceX is taking advantage of some of those > >> technologies today. It is a safe bet that such innovations will occur > >> in the future, and somebody will take advantage of them. > >> > > > > And it's an even safer bet that none of those 'new technologies' are > > going to replace "throwing stuff aft to move forward". A space > > elevator on Earth requires not 'new technology', but 'new physics'. > > It would be possible to build a space elevator using materials available > today without any major new technology. But that wouldn't be economical. > Not even remotely close to being economical. New materials would be > needed to build a sane space elevator, but new physics isn't needed. > > See for instance > http://space.nss.org/media/2000-Space-Elevator-NASA-CP210429.pdf > > > Alain Fournier GOP Mafia shuttles killed our space program.Money they stole in 43 years was about 100 billion.They also killed 12 people.Now we pay Russia to get us to the ISS. When I point this out Im called a commie.Get the picture yet Bert Ps think Annenberg,Nixon and Kissenger for what we have today.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-14 15:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pfurlu$sbv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #690658 |
"reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> wrote "I am a proud Jew with a IQ of 1.22" Bert "I have a Superiority complex" and "I know how everything works." Bert>> > which is why Glazier bragged: Bert's cockroach has taught Bert a lot, and so, Bert became an idiot. Bert > Bert's smart teacher-cockroach-critter taught Bert how to be a vile Face-Shitter > Bert's Octopus on Bert's Fish-bowl-wall taught Bert how to be a Graveyard Vandal > ------- See: Glazier's Dossier ------- e.g. <http://tinyurl.com/Swine-Glazier-s-REAL-intent> as <http://tinyurl.com/The-Chosen-Graveyard-Vandal> who pimps <https://tinyurl.com/Glazier-s-sexual-harassments>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-14 04:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.358bf594206cd06b989ad1@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #690402 |
In article <pfr4bf$hj8$1@dont-email.me>, droleary@ 2017usenet1.subsume.com says... > > For your reference, records indicate that > Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > > > In article <pfolpv$t6n$1@dont-email.me>, droleary@ > > 2017usenet1.subsume.com says... > > > > > > For your reference, records indicate that > > > Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Sure, sure, Star Trek style transporters with infinite range. I'll get > > > > right on that. > > > > > > No, you won?t. But you apparently *will* use it as a straw man to avoid > > > actually addressing the likelihood that new technologies developed in > > > the future will change the economies of space launches. Hell, that?s > > > essentially what SpaceX is demonstrating today. > > > > Bullshit. SpaceX is not demonstrating any new technologies. They've > > combined existing technologies in novel ways to solve the problems > > involved in building Merlin engines and Falcon launch vehicles. There > > is zero new tech in them. If you believe differently, name a new > > technology they're using in their engines, launch vehicles, Dragon, and > > etc. > > <Sigh> Of *course* there?s no ?new technology? in *anything* that?s > in the world today. Your engineering mindset has you in a motivated > reasoning spiral. The fact remains that, over the course of time, > new technologies have been developed that have made their way into > space programs. SpaceX is taking advantage of some of those > technologies today. It is a safe bet that such innovations will occur > in the future, and somebody will take advantage of them. You're the one making the assertion. What new technologies did SpaceX develop? Be specific. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 04:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f9lshdh9441gm8vjt40bsoo3fhe5vni6cr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #689966 |
Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote on Mon, 11 Jun
2018 03:16:38 -0000 (UTC):
>For your reference, records indicate that
>Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> High altitude balloon launch is a tad risky and only gains you a bit of
>> altitude and zero velocity. Not worth the complexity and cost, IMHO.
>>
>
>Like I said, it might not *currently* be viable, but as an alternative
>technology it brings new sets of trade-offs to the table such that a few
>tweaks here and there might make it viable for certain kinds of launches
>(e.g., “bulky” items that are hard to make aerodynamically efficient
>benefit from starting at the highest possible altitude).
>
And just what such items do we send to space?
>
>>
>> BFR/BFS is planned to be "zero waste" from the very beginning. Fully
>> reusable TSTO with "gas and go" like operations.
>>
>
>But that’s not the true “zero waste” I was talking about. Any resources
>that you’re sending up *and* down, along with any fuels you burn to do it
>safely, is a waste. It may be a necessary waste for the current launch
>technologies, so it’s good to minimize it, but I still say it’s a good
>idea to think about ways to shoot stuff into space that doesn’t involve a
>lot of heavy stuff coming back to Earth.
>
Well, let us know if you think of one that doesn't require unobtainium
or payloads to take tens of thousands of gravities on launch.
>
>>
>> Also don't count out Blue Origin. They're off to a slow start, but have
>> a very reliable funding source in Jeff Bezos ($1 billion a year).
>>
>
>I’m not counting them out, but when the topic is cost/efficiency, the
>basic question is still how much energy is being expended to get each
>kg into orbit. So long as the idea is still to send a lot of
>supporting (non-fuel) heavy stuff up only to have most of it come back
>down, there are wastes that a new technology can come in and improve
>upon.
>
We're constrained by the real world. Magic materials are right out.
>
>>
>> Besides, how you going to get those space elevator bits into orbit?
>> That's right, conventional (hopefully reusable) launch vehicles.
>>
>
>Hope for bigger things. I fully believe that, for a society to be
>advanced enough to make a space elevator project realistic, it’s value
>would be more incremental than revolutionary. Rockets are the best we
>have right now, but we’re stuffed if that’s the best we can do.
>
Just why are we 'stuffed'? Be specific.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 22:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfmtf8$1bp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #689981 |
For your reference, records indicate that Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote on Mon, 11 Jun > 2018 03:16:38 -0000 (UTC): > > >Like I said, it might not *currently* be viable, but as an alternative > >technology it brings new sets of trade-offs to the table such that a few > >tweaks here and there might make it viable for certain kinds of launches > >(e.g., bulky items that are hard to make aerodynamically efficient > >benefit from starting at the highest possible altitude). > > > > And just what such items do we send to space? Chicken and egg. The fact is that we *do* sometimes have to elaborately engineer spacecraft in order to make them small enough to fit into a nose cone or payload bay of a rocket. A different launch vehicle/process might allow us more flexibility when it comes to approaching those very real problems. > We're constrained by the real world. Magic materials are right out. Straw man. All I’m saying is that it’s foolish to completely discount new technologies simply because they’re not the rockets you know so well from the past. > >Hope for bigger things. I fully believe that, for a society to be > >advanced enough to make a space elevator project realistic, its value > >would be more incremental than revolutionary. Rockets are the best we > >have right now, but were stuffed if thats the best we can do. > > > > Just why are we 'stuffed'? Be specific. Because rockets have only taken humans as far as the Moon, but we haven’t gone to the Moon in decades, and we’ll likely see all the people who *have* been to the Moon dead before we ever return there. *Maybe* the promise of a Mars colony is achievable with rockets, but probably not in the lifetime of anyone walking on Earth today. And even in 1000 lifetimes, rockets aren’t going to take us to explore another planet around another star. -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-11 20:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7sguhdp3btbbbs83nm5la7lrl7vgg1j6a8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #690123 |
Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote on Mon, 11 Jun
2018 22:35:20 -0000 (UTC):
>For your reference, records indicate that
>Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote on Mon, 11 Jun
>> 2018 03:16:38 -0000 (UTC):
>>
>> >Like I said, it might not *currently* be viable, but as an alternative
>> >technology it brings new sets of trade-offs to the table such that a few
>> >tweaks here and there might make it viable for certain kinds of launches
>> >(e.g., ?bulky? items that are hard to make aerodynamically efficient
>> >benefit from starting at the highest possible altitude).
>> >
>>
>> And just what such items do we send to space?
>>
>
>Chicken and egg. The fact is that we *do* sometimes have to
>elaborately engineer spacecraft in order to make them small enough to
>fit into a nose cone or payload bay of a rocket.
>
Head and ass. Cite for such payloads? Be specific. You're posting
into a 'sci' newsgroup. Handwavium is not sufficient.
>
>A different launch
>vehicle/process might allow us more flexibility when it comes to
>approaching those very real problems.
>
What 'very real problems' would those be?
>
>>
>> We're constrained by the real world. Magic materials are right out.
>>
>
>Straw man. All I’m saying is that it’s foolish to completely discount
>new technologies simply because they’re not the rockets you know so
>well from the past.
>
Go look up what 'straw man' means. It manifestly does NOT mean
pointing out reality. Cite some of these 'new technologies' and what
it takes for them to work. Be specific. You're crossposting into a
'sci' newsgroup. Handwavium is not sufficient.
>> >Hope for bigger things. I fully believe that, for a society to be
>> >advanced enough to make a space elevator project realistic, it?s value
>> >would be more incremental than revolutionary. Rockets are the best we
>> >have right now, but we?re stuffed if that?s the best we can do.
>> >
>>
>> Just why are we 'stuffed'? Be specific.
>>
>
>Because rockets have only taken humans as far as the Moon, but we
>haven’t gone to the Moon in decades, and we’ll likely see all the
>people who *have* been to the Moon dead before we ever return there.
>*Maybe* the promise of a Mars colony is achievable with rockets, but
>probably not in the lifetime of anyone walking on Earth today. And
>even in 1000 lifetimes, rockets aren’t going to take us to explore
>another planet around another star.
>
So, not 'stuffed' at all, then. As I thought. What do you propose to
replace rockets with, other than 'magic'?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-12 15:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pfon5t$9p8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #690171 |
For your reference, records indicate that Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote on Mon, 11 Jun > 2018 22:35:20 -0000 (UTC): > > >Chicken and egg. The fact is that we *do* sometimes have to > >elaborately engineer spacecraft in order to make them small enough to > >fit into a nose cone or payload bay of a rocket. > > > > Head and ass. Cite for such payloads? Be specific. You're posting > into a 'sci' newsgroup. Handwavium is not sufficient. Then I must say I note a lack of citations for your own claims. Mine are easy enough to demonstrate. I can literally link to just about *any* payload that unfolds to deploy as evidence. Let’s start with the obvious: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#/media/File:JWST_launch_configuration.png> > >A different launch > >vehicle/process might allow us more flexibility when it comes to > >approaching those very real problems. > > > > What 'very real problems' would those be? Asked and answered. Your willful ignorance is not compelling. > >> We're constrained by the real world. Magic materials are right out. > >> > > > >Straw man. All Im saying is that its foolish to completely discount > >new technologies simply because theyre not the rockets you know so > >well from the past. > > > > Go look up what 'straw man' means. It manifestly does NOT mean > pointing out reality. Then you need to look up the definition yourself, because I did not suggest anything magical. I simply made note of the fact that new technologies come along all the time. In light of that, it is foolish to be so dismissive of anything but rockets as launch vehicles for all stages of space travel. > Cite some of these 'new technologies' and what > it takes for them to work. Be specific. You're crossposting into a > 'sci' newsgroup. Handwavium is not sufficient. It actually is. My argument is not *for* any one technology. It is simply that rockets have obvious limits, have inherent inefficiencies, and it’s worthwhile to keep our options open when it comes to thinking about different ways to get things into orbit and beyond. > What do you propose to > replace rockets with, other than 'magic'? You continue to build this same straw man. Don’t be a dick. Please save your threadshitting for Facebook or Twitter. -- "Also . . . I can kill you with my brain." River Tam, Trash, Firefly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-06-12 14:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <rqe0idpd5fvuh1k50f8f1e88ji18sqj6ff@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #690211 |
Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote on Tue, 12 Jun
2018 15:00:13 -0000 (UTC):
>For your reference, records indicate that
>Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Doc O'Leary <droleary@2017usenet1.subsume.com> wrote on Mon, 11 Jun
>> 2018 22:35:20 -0000 (UTC):
>>
>> >Chicken and egg. The fact is that we *do* sometimes have to
>> >elaborately engineer spacecraft in order to make them small enough to
>> >fit into a nose cone or payload bay of a rocket.
>> >
>>
>> Head and ass. Cite for such payloads? Be specific. You're posting
>> into a 'sci' newsgroup. Handwavium is not sufficient.
>
>Then I must say I note a lack of citations for your own claims.
>
I haven't made any claims.
>
>Mine
>are easy enough to demonstrate. I can literally link to just about
>*any* payload that unfolds to deploy as evidence. Let’s start with
>the obvious:
>
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#/media/File:JWST_launch_configuration.png>
>
Not a good example. Things like solar arrays are launched folded
because they can't take acceleration without snapping off, not because
they're 'too bulky'. Try again?
>> >A different launch
>> >vehicle/process might allow us more flexibility when it comes to
>> >approaching those very real problems.
>> >
>>
>> What 'very real problems' would those be?
>
>Asked and answered. Your willful ignorance is not compelling.
>
I only asked it once and you never answered. Claim fails.
>> >> We're constrained by the real world. Magic materials are right out.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Straw man. All I?m saying is that it?s foolish to completely discount
>> >new technologies simply because they?re not the rockets you know so
>> >well from the past.
>> >
>>
>> Go look up what 'straw man' means. It manifestly does NOT mean
>> pointing out reality.
>
>Then you need to look up the definition yourself, because I did not
>suggest anything magical. I simply made note of the fact that new
>technologies come along all the time. In light of that, it is
>foolish to be so dismissive of anything but rockets as launch
>vehicles for all stages of space travel.
>
It is foolish NOT to be dismissive of airy claims for 'magic'
justified by handwavium. You are in the wrong newsgroup.
>
>>
>> Cite some of these 'new technologies' and what
>> it takes for them to work. Be specific. You're crossposting into a
>> 'sci' newsgroup. Handwavium is not sufficient.
>>
>
>It actually is. My argument is not *for* any one technology. It is
>simply that rockets have obvious limits, have inherent inefficiencies,
>and it’s worthwhile to keep our options open when it comes to thinking
>about different ways to get things into orbit and beyond.
>
No, it actually isn't. Congratulations on demonstrating that you
don't know shit about either science or engineering.
>
>>
>> What do you propose to
>> replace rockets with, other than 'magic'?
>>
>
>You continue to build this same straw man. Don’t be a dick. Please
>save your threadshitting for Facebook or Twitter.
>
You continue to flap your arms and make chicken noises, insisting you
can fly to the Moon that way. Don't be a dipshit. You are in the
wrong newsgroup.
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web