I don't remember video link but it was presented by guy with speech impediamet, he did whole session on space structures.
I don't remember video link but it was presented by guy with speech impediamet, he did whole session on space structures.Theory is you build metal ring in LEO, lower the better, can be at 80km. Place sections at time in orbit then join it can be thin cable. Next build structure around small section of ring and separate it from ring by permanent magnets. Operates like magnet trains. Ring spins at orbital velocity while structure stays stationary. Run cable to earth for the elevator. We now have stationary platform at 80km which spinning ring supports. Platform can be miles long, enough for railgun system to launch vehicles into space. In theory platform can extended right around earth allow transport system.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 05/28/2018 10:47 am I don't remember video link but it was presented by guy with speech impediamet, he did whole session on space structures.Isaac Arthur on YouTube? Lots of speculative videos about space megastructures from him
Here are the current thoughts for the next videoregarding the height of each stage:BASE (5-10km)FLOATING DOCKS (60-80km)OPUM (80-200km)SPACE DOCK (340km)
Couple of things:-1) The height I'm suggesting is actually 5-10 km as mentioned in the overhead informationand in the post you replied to.
-2) You're assuming that it is a natural lake.
Usually, visualizations are used to demonstrate a solution but the purpose of this brainstorm is to come up with that solution so in no way is this even close to complete. I'm using it as a 'sketch-board' for lack of better word.This is to trigger responses, criticism and solutions and it being in it's very early stages, this isjust start of a concept. It may well be that this will evolve into a completely different train-of-thoughteventually provided it is backed with solutions.
I've already tweaked some numbers for the next video and the FLOATING DOCKS would more be at a height between 60-80 km. The current record is 53 km but I'm assuming every thing will need to be pushed beyond our current possibilities.
This is definitely one of the hardest problems to solve. In the next video, so far (...and of course open for discussion), my idea is to add a ramp on top of the FLOATING DOCKS that accelerates the payload in a trajectory that coincides with the OPUM device that will pick-up the pay-load.
Also, the heights have changed for that too, now more at the 80-200 km level.Hard to describe, so I will try my best to explain it visually in the next video for feedback.
-estimate how much fuel the opum would need.-figure out where all that fuel would come from (It will certainly be larger than the payload you are bringing to orbit.)I've not dived too deep in that yet as I'm trying to isolate some more fundamentals right now (such as heights)
but one video I watched interested me greatly:...I'm hoping this can reduce the amount of fuel/energy that is required.
-An initial train-of-thought I have for the OPUM to SPACE DOCK and then SPACE DOCK to SUMMIT are drones.
The 'space elevator' name is more to stay in line with the existing concept of 'not using rockets' essentially.I've labelled this a 'multi-stage approach elevator' for now as the ultimate goal is to get to space as efficiently as possible.
Interesting answers.-With regards to the BASE height, a lot of my train-of-thought will actually be expressedin my next video despite the message at the end of your post.In a nut-shell, the idea will be to use landfill and waste to create the enormous structurethat I've depicted, hopefully solving two problems in one go. This is why I believe we cango higher than nature.
-I'm not entirely sure why the ramp idea on the FLOATING DOCKS does nothing to address the problem.
-Yes a lot of calculations for the OPUM consumption of energy even after the explanation in the video. He does explain in the video the effect that the wings have and the 'skipping off' of the atmosphere. Could that not be paired with let's say solar power gathered in orbit by the OPUM?(a little side-note, but the OPUMS can potentially stay up in orbit and keep circling until they fill-up in energy...assuming that is enough of course, you seem to have deeper knowledge of this,what are your thoughts?)
-I'm wondering if graphene is the answer against the plasma effect? plasma temperature : 1650 C graphene melting point: 4627 C
Graphene combusts at 350 °C
It seems apparent that you have much more knowledge about the Maths behind this than I do, and that youcan bring a lot to the mix, which is why I created this thread in the first place. If you would like to keep helping to contribute or at least point me in the right direction, it would be very useful.
Not entirely sure about you Maths or facts here:Assuming the US generates 230 million tons of trash a yearand the mass of Mt Everest from Base Camp to Summit is 162 trillion kg, then:162 000 000 000 000 / 230 000 000 000 = 704.3478 yearsQuite a bit away from a million years
You've mention the absurdity of the cost. Do you have any calculationsyou've done to back that?
I would also like to think that any meter gained in height for the BASE is less energy that will eventually need to be used to defy gravity.
I agree that accelerating the pay-load implies moving the tether faster relative to the atmosphere. The reasoning behind the acceleration is to dampen the impact of hooking-up the pay-load. The faster the pay-load is propelled, the less the OPUM (pick-up stage) has to accelerate/decelerate/accelerate.Yes, please do help to calculate the rough estimate and share the equationsso I can play around with the numbers.
I may need some enlightenment about plasma/combustion here. Any thoughts onfiguring out what the temperature of the tether would be? (let's say at ISS speed for now)
could we combine the strength of Graphene with a coating like the one on the spaceshuttle thermal tiles? This would add to the drag of course.