Thanks to Nanotech the Space Elevator is closer to reality w/a cable made of diamonds

Unless you've got a really big ballast weight and a stabilizer tail at the top, if you get some Mooslums blowing it up at the bottom, it'll fall with devastating consequences.

At least if it's top weighted it'll fall UP, but you'll probably eat it next orbit.

a reply to: GV1997

It could be in it's path. Lightning sometimes strikes sand, trees etc, because they are there, not for their conductivity. Also there is no guarantee that any protective coating could withstand asteroids / space debris etc impacts.

a reply to: Bedlam

If the cable were served the fulcrum would fly out into space at escape velocity.

A space elevator would be an amazing accomplishment which would pave the way for gigantic space stations, solar system exploration done at a fraction of the cost, etc.

Its importance is noted and will evolve us rapidly as a species into a space based race...this should be a global project once feasible technology has been attained

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Trees and the ground are grounded. Why would lighting strike a non-grounded medium?

You make it sounfs like space debris has not already been considered, have you read up on the proposal?

originally posted by: GV1997
a reply to: Bedlam

If the cable were served the fulcrum would fly out into space at escape velocity.

You might have issues if it were cut in the middle...

a reply to: Bedlam

Doesnt matter where, the weight o n the space side is already at esacpe velocity and would fly out into space dragging the cable behind it.

originally posted by: GV1997
a reply to: Bedlam

Doesnt matter where, the weight o n the space side is already at esacpe velocity and would fly out into space dragging the cable behind it.

While the lower half falls to the ground over the next few km...

eta: Not only could the ballast at the top NOT be at escape velocity, you wouldn't want it to be, the tension on your cable doesn't need to exceed what's necessary to put it in tension for the cable's weight plus the maximum load, and a little for luck.

a reply to: Bedlam

in the middle of the ocean.

Ever since I heard of the idea I've always put it down as the most stupidest idea ever thought of. It would never be possible to build one and what use will it be ... Sorry I just tend to shake my head and sigh with disbelief when people mention a space elevator

originally posted by: GV1997
a reply to: Bedlam

in the middle of the ocean.

The ballast at the top can't possibly be moving at escape velocity, either. Nor would you want it to be.

a reply to: Bedlam

please look up the concept, that is the whole principle behind it.

originally posted by: GV1997
a reply to: Bedlam

please look up the concept, that is the whole principle behind it.

I understand the concept. Have you tried calculating how far out the cable has to go for the end to be moving at escape velocity?

a reply to: Bedlam

I have seen proposals from 20-90,000 miles.

originally posted by: GV1997
a reply to: Bedlam

I have seen proposals from 20-90,000 miles.

But none of them had one end at escape velocity, which is what I'm saying. What you end up with is the far end at an altitude where, if it weren't tethered, it would be in orbit. Grant you, it's not going to be in orbit due to the tether. The difference between the orbital speed at that altitude and the speed it's making ends up with a residual force that causes the tension in the tether.

OTOH, it also won't end up with the tether departing the Earth's orbit, either, if you get a ground level break. What will happen is that the cable will induce drag as it careens around the globe, and eventually, you'll get a re-entry the hard way, cable and all.

originally posted by: Bedlam
But none of them had one end at escape velocity...

Yes, they do.

An object attached to a space elevator at a radius of approximately 53,100 km will be at escape velocity when released. link

originally posted by: GV1997

Whup! They're right, was using the barycenter, not the orbital height.

a reply to: GV1997

Infallible due to a proposal and research?

Is that the same infallible as all the other humans in space technology, like Columbia, Challenger, Soyuz 11 etc.

Space debris cannot be discounted nor can space weather, electromagnetism etc. Add to that mechanical infallibility, electronic infallibility, human error etc. and it is a disaster waiting to happen.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

Where did i say infalliable? stop putitng words in my mouth.

If you are so afraid of scientific progress you should hide under your bed.

a reply to: GV1997

I am pointing out the fact that it isn't infallible due to many factors, you advised that the proposals accounted for these risk factors. I didn't say you said infallible.

As for this comment, strawman argument much? Yawn!

If you are so afraid of scientific progress you should hide under your bed.