Relying on memory but it says that each trip on the elevator would be days. That strikes me as very limiting.
Quote from: Kansan52 on 06/06/2018 11:03 pmRelying on memory but it says that each trip on the elevator would be days. That strikes me as very limiting.The elevator is thousands of miles long and you are basically in a car. This limits you to the speeds of fast car. So the journey takes several days.
aceshigh,To begin with, the height of the FLOATING DOCKS will now be more around the 60-80 km mark. I've addedthat as a comment on the video after feedback I've received.I have failed to mention in video 003 that the FLOATING DOCKS will actually be supported by blimps.They are meant to be floating balloons, hence the name. I will definitely address that in the new video to make sure there is no confusion, thank you. 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.and FYI regarding where space begins:https://www.popsci.com/where-does-space-begin?con=TrueAnthem&dom=tw&lnk=TATW&src=SOC&utm_campaign=&utm_content=5b1278c200bd4700073e9461&utm_medium=&utm_source=
I see no future of the standard bean stalk space elevator on Earth because it is too slow
has too little mass transfer capability
and requires the use of unobtainium to be feasible.
The mass of the elevator with current materials is so high, all of which needs to be launched with rockets, that it makes no sense.
Quote from: colbourne on 06/13/2018 03:32 amhas too little mass transfer capabilitysource? 5 store tall elevator... several of them per cable... it all depends on the thickness of the cable, which in theory can be expanded by robot weavers going up and down the cables and adding new threads...
Quote and requires the use of unobtainium to be feasible.or just a breakthrough in carbon nanotubes or graphene?
Quote The mass of the elevator with current materials is so high, all of which needs to be launched with rockets, that it makes no sense. needs to be launched with rockets?
It cannot be built ground-up like tower. Most of it has to be built from from up to down. So most of the mass has to be first lifted to GEO.
I figured out a indirect way to make a smaller space elevator, doesen't need to be 36000km, but a few hundreds, I am really happy to explain my method so others would develop it based on it, but I am afraid of plagiarism, so please tell me how to protect and publish my method.
The tethers can be built today using presently available commercial fibers. The tethers are long, typically 400 to 1600 km (1300 to 5300 kft) in length. The total mass of the space tether plus the Tether Central Station typically will be 30-200 times the payloads being handled.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 06/07/2018 03:26 amQuote from: Kansan52 on 06/06/2018 11:03 pmRelying on memory but it says that each trip on the elevator would be days. That strikes me as very limiting.The elevator is thousands of miles long and you are basically in a car. This limits you to the speeds of fast car. So the journey takes several days. So... even if Space Elevator technology was feasible (and it isn't), it'd be a bit like saying: "Let's not fly from one side of America to the other - that's sooo routine. There's this great new tech called a car.. let's drive instead!!!" Really?!? Wow!
When you need to transport LOTS and LOTS of cargo, you canīt pay the price of an airplane. Too expensive. And even a BFR would be tooooo expensive to transport for example 100 thousand tons of Earth food and tech in exchange for Asteroid metals.Space Elevators have that in mind. Expensive to build (like the Panama canal) but once it's built, objetive is the cost of transport to be in the order of a few cents of a dollar per kilogram (cargo itself, even food, must be more expensive per it's weight than the transport of the same weight)
Quote from: aceshigh on 06/28/2018 01:06 amWhen you need to transport LOTS and LOTS of cargo, you canīt pay the price of an airplane. Too expensive. And even a BFR would be tooooo expensive to transport for example 100 thousand tons of Earth food and tech in exchange for Asteroid metals.Space Elevators have that in mind. Expensive to build (like the Panama canal) but once it's built, objetive is the cost of transport to be in the order of a few cents of a dollar per kilogram (cargo itself, even food, must be more expensive per it's weight than the transport of the same weight) You describe a system that not only requires large amounts of unobtainium to build but defies all known laws of nature to be "expensive" to build (I admire your optimism) but then say that, once built, the objective is the cost to "be in the order of a few cents of a dollar per kilogram"?? If you could perhaps kindly explain how something impossible to construct at any time in the foreseeable future could possibly be cheaper to operate than tech that already exists, then I'll reconsider my point of view.
Quote from: aceshigh on 06/28/2018 01:06 amWhen you need to transport LOTS and LOTS of cargo, you canīt pay the price of an airplane. Too expensive. And even a BFR would be tooooo expensive to transport for example 100 thousand tons of Earth food and tech in exchange for Asteroid metals.Space Elevators have that in mind. Expensive to build (like the Panama canal) but once it's built, objetive is the cost of transport to be in the order of a few cents of a dollar per kilogram (cargo itself, even food, must be more expensive per it's weight than the transport of the same weight) You describe a system that not only requires large amounts of unobtainium to build but defies all known laws of nature to be "expensive" to build (I admire your optimism) but then say that, once built, the objective is the cost to "be in the order of a few cents of a dollar per kilogram"??
If you could perhaps kindly explain how something impossible to construct at any time in the foreseeable future could possibly be cheaper to operate than tech that already exists, then I'll reconsider my point of view.
Quote from: CameronD on 06/28/2018 03:07 amQuote from: aceshigh on 06/28/2018 01:06 amWhen you need to transport LOTS and LOTS of cargo, you canīt pay the price of an airplane. Too expensive. And even a BFR would be tooooo expensive to transport for example 100 thousand tons of Earth food and tech in exchange for Asteroid metals.Space Elevators have that in mind. Expensive to build (like the Panama canal) but once it's built, objetive is the cost of transport to be in the order of a few cents of a dollar per kilogram (cargo itself, even food, must be more expensive per it's weight than the transport of the same weight) You describe a system that not only requires large amounts of unobtainium to build but defies all known laws of nature to be "expensive" to build (I admire your optimism) but then say that, once built, the objective is the cost to "be in the order of a few cents of a dollar per kilogram"?? If you could perhaps kindly explain how something impossible to construct at any time in the foreseeable future could possibly be cheaper to operate than tech that already exists, then I'll reconsider my point of view.Using current materials space elevators can be built on the Moon, Mars and large asteroids. It is Earth that has the material strength problem.