It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can a spaceship, shuttle, or satellite shoot a cable to the earth or is there research?

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Yea absolutely storm not limiting to ground to earth here completely. You added some more questions as well with dangling a cable. May require a spaceship and airship on each end. If not I am very curious the change in everything as you drop something further. Also changing orbits to see if you can manipulate the cable. Can you get it close to vertical or will it drag and how much will it drag or change as it goes down?




posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

So in simply terms gravity overcomes the orbit and or inertia unless you areabove 26,000 or so miles.? (which I keep saying but is orbit and inertia one and the same enough to leave out inertia?)

However a number under 500 is accepted as being in the vacuum out of our breathable atmosphere.?



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: Cygnis

The only possible way to achieve a geosynchronous geostationary orbit is at the earth's equator at an altitude of 26,199 miles. As far as a space elevator goes, or tethering any object to the earths surface, the craft in space has to be in a GEO.

Geostationary orbit


If the craft in space is slower or faster than the earth's rotation, the cable will wrap itself around the earth, snap under tensile stress, or drag the craft out of orbit. There's no way around a GEO for a space elevator or space to earth tether.


I believe you to be absolutely correct for a space elevator. I am still not limiting data to this as other ideas and experiments are countless. However I know you were not directing it to me I just wanted to remind anyone the info and data I am interested in is more broad. Thanks you for the contributions as well!



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: wildespace

So the atmosphere will cause friction. Does the atmosphere spin with earth or more stationary? I am wondering the effects. Still comes down to size and strength or resistance then.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: randomthoughts12
a reply to: stormbringer1701

This is some of my bigger questions. Speed and inertia vs gravity and a small mass or any mass or friction on either end.


The main problem is you would need to be in geosynchronous orbit (so your satellite end of the cable is stationary with the end attached to Earth), which is at least 23,000 miles up -- making your cable 23,000 miles long.

If you tried to do it from LEO (low earth orbit), such as from the 200-mile high International Space Station, you would need only a 200-mile long cable. However, the space station (or anything in LEO) needs to move at 17,000 mph to stay in orbit, so the cable would be moving along the ground at 17,000 mph along with the satellite.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: randomthoughts12
a reply to: wildespace

So the atmosphere will cause friction. Does the atmosphere spin with earth or more stationary? I am wondering the effects. Still comes down to size and strength or resistance then.

If the atmosphere stayed in place and the earth spun under it we would all be dead.

2,000 MPH winds......


So yes, the atmosphere spins with the earth.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
I think they experimented with a tether on the ISS. It got super charged and exploded or something. If I remember correctly they were looking into using the concept as an energy source: Just extend a cable out while in orbit and have it get charged with energy.

I think thats a huge issue. The heat as well as the charge that builds up are greater than current material science can overcome. It would all still be going really fast to stay in orbit.



I remember that story. They were experiencing voltage differences on the ends of the cable in the range of 3.5 kilovolts. Due to manufacturing defects, there were air bubbles trapped inside the inner copper core. When the cable was unwound to a mile in length, those bubbles expanded and were released into space around the cable forming a plasma, which then burnt through the cable.

www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

There there is the hazard of meteorites and other debris slicing through the cable. The cable itself becomes unstable at long lengths, twisting and tangling due to electric fields.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
This looks like it might be a good place to base the space elevator...You might have to build up the island a bit though:





Baker Island /ˈbeɪkər/ is an uninhabited atoll located just north of the equator in the central Pacific Ocean about 3,090 km (1,920 mi) southwest of Honolulu. The island lies almost halfway between Hawaii and Australia. Its nearest neighbor is Howland Island, 42 mi (68 km) to the north-northwest; both have been territories of the United States since 1857, though the United Kingdom considered them part of the British Empire between 1897 and 1936.

Located at 0°11′41″N 176°28′46″W.[1] the island covers 2.1 km2 (0.81 sq mi),[2] with 4.8 km (3.0 mi) of coastline.[2] The climate is equatorial, with little rainfall, constant wind, and strong sunshine. The terrain is low-lying and sandy: a coral island surrounded by a narrow fringing reef with a depressed central area devoid of a lagoon with its highest point being 8 m (26 ft) above sea level.[2]



That looks like an ideal place. It would need to support a few landing strips and some big construction.
It would be expensive to visit on a regular basis and dangerous as well. (Remembering that this is the surrounding area that Amelia Earhart went missing.)

Saying that, perhaps this place could be named after Amelia Earhart as a commemoration. "Earhart Space Portal" !



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: tadaman
I think they experimented with a tether on the ISS. It got super charged and exploded or something. If I remember correctly they were looking into using the concept as an energy source: Just extend a cable out while in orbit and have it get charged with energy.

I think thats a huge issue. The heat as well as the charge that builds up are greater than current material science can overcome. It would all still be going really fast to stay in orbit.



I remember that story. They were experiencing voltage differences on the ends of the cable in the range of 3.5 kilovolts. Due to manufacturing defects, there were air bubbles trapped inside the inner copper core. When the cable was unwound to a mile in length, those bubbles expanded and were released into space around the cable forming a plasma, which then burnt through the cable.

www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

There there is the hazard of meteorites and other debris slicing through the cable. The cable itself becomes unstable at long lengths, twisting and tangling due to electric fields.


Talk about a potential thermo-electric generator.
Imagine being able to harness that power AND be the support cable for the space elevator. It could be totally off the grid.

I recall this experiment as well. If you turned the defect into a controlled release of air to create the plasma, this would make TEG's look like hearing aid batteries in comparison.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: charlyv

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: tadaman
I think they experimented with a tether on the ISS. It got super charged and exploded or something. If I remember correctly they were looking into using the concept as an energy source: Just extend a cable out while in orbit and have it get charged with energy.

I think thats a huge issue. The heat as well as the charge that builds up are greater than current material science can overcome. It would all still be going really fast to stay in orbit.



I remember that story. They were experiencing voltage differences on the ends of the cable in the range of 3.5 kilovolts. Due to manufacturing defects, there were air bubbles trapped inside the inner copper core. When the cable was unwound to a mile in length, those bubbles expanded and were released into space around the cable forming a plasma, which then burnt through the cable.

www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov...

There there is the hazard of meteorites and other debris slicing through the cable. The cable itself becomes unstable at long lengths, twisting and tangling due to electric fields.


Talk about a potential thermo-electric generator.
Imagine being able to harness that power AND be the support cable for the space elevator. It could be totally off the grid.

I recall this experiment as well. If you turned the defect into a controlled release of air to create the plasma, this would make TEG's look like hearing aid batteries in comparison.


There's just one little problem.

Consider. Energy has to come from somewhere. Where is it coming from in this instance? Why was there an electric current? Why was there a potential difference? What was the intent of the experiment to begin with? These are questions that if answered, will tell you answer to the mystery.

Once you figure out what was going on, you should then know why it wouldn't be a GREAT idea to tap into that for running the lights. Unless you WANT the inevitable to occur. In which case, it's really a great thing to do, very cutting edge.

edit on 4-2-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: charlyv

I've long suspected that we have hidden bases out in Oceania ...



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: stormcell

what if small unmanned aircraft were deployed into the upper ionosphere to get supercharged with the purpose of charging batteries transferable to the station?

Better yet,

They could dock remotely with a much shorter but stronger non conductive tether. The stress would be less and the collector drone would still be nearer to its operating area.

The collector drone could deploy much smaller (cheaper) highly conductive wires to collect energy.

If anything as a backup. The ISS should have a fleet of drones and small satellites. EVAs should be for fun. Energy should not be an issue for them at least. Not while knowing what we know.

The collector drones could use electric propulsion to stay in position and maneuver:
en.wikipedia.org...

The station could then add an array of electric thrusters for small adjustments that cut down on fuel consumption.

edit on 2 4 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman

The collector drone could deploy much smaller (cheaper) highly conductive wires to collect energy...



Except that's not what's going on with the ISS tether experiment. You don't "collect energy" from the ionosphere like vacuuming a rug.



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

No I get that. But just have the drones deploy a smaller version of the conductive wire that was used in the last experiment. As someone stated before the issue was plasma forming from inert oxygen in the copper that burned through the wire. It did actually work and produced a charge. Right?


You could build the whole thing like a retractable antenna with tethers going from station, to controllable module, to collector , each in lower earth orbit than the last with each having varying types of tethers for different considerations in between.

It could even be used as a capture system for supplies delivered at near earth orbit.(cheaper)


edit on 2 4 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2016 @ 08:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Bedlam

No I get that. But just have the drones deploy a smaller version of the conductive wire that was used in the last experiment. As someone stated before the issue was plasma forming from inert oxygen in the copper that burned through the wire. It did actually work and produced a charge. Right?


Well, not so much. Plasma doesn't 'produce a charge'. It's just gas with some electrons stripped off. Unless you go out of your way to separate it, it generally doesn't have a net charge.

What you had happen goes all the way back to Faraday. If you move a conductor through a magnetic flux, you get potential, and current flow. It's how generators work.

The tether was intended to do that on purpose, to measure the sort of power you'd get, and what issues they hadn't planned on might crop up. So, they found one. I didn't follow up on the resolution of why it failed. But there are a couple of obvious possibilities - if you take the load off of a current transformer, you will get a rise in potential that generally ends with an arc to complete the circuit. If the tether lost its load, you will get a catastrophic voltage differential, and an arc. They might also have generated more current than the tether's conductor could handle.

Now, why not simply do that all the time, for power? Why have solar cells? Because it's the same as any other generator. If you drag a conductor through some magnetic flux, and you put a load on it, you're going to generate energy alright, but the source of that energy is the ship's momentum. Your tether will apply a drag proportional to the power you're removing. And you de-orbit.

In fact, using a loop or line to deorbit spacecraft by electrical load is a hot topic. You don't have to have deorbiting thrusters. You can simply drag something out of orbit by dissipating its momentum in a big resistor/heatsink and radiating it away. You can also change attitude in a similar but more complex way.

You can do that intentionally, say, to save fuel or an OMS, or you can do it for someone else - say you wanted to drop someone's spy satellite out of orbit by attaching a drag line to it.



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 03:09 AM
link   
There is no real advantage to a line hooked to any kind of high altitude object.
Here is why, as others have mentioned you need geostationary orbit to sync with earths rotation. But what needs to be geo stationary? The object, the center of mass of the object to be exactly.

That cable is going to have weight, and it is part of the object. So this is going to put the center of mass below geostat height! See the problem? The platform needs to be higher to compensate, creating new problems.

In short, I don't think this is possible without the need to constantly put energy in to maintain position. This defeats the purpose of the lift. Imagine what the center of mass will do when you start lifting up stuff?

Most expensive funny home video ever! 🤓
edit on 5-2-2016 by Jubei42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2016 @ 04:39 AM
link   
Any configuration within the atmosphere is not going to have the delta v needed to get into orbit. When the idea is to get things into space from earth you need to bring it in orbit. Orbit is just a balance between falling and moving forward. Earths gravity does not disappear, it just becomes smaller with distance. You need the forward momentum, anything less and you fall back anything more and you're not comming back.

Delta v is brought to you by Kerbal Space Program. 😋
edit on 5-2-2016 by Jubei42 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2016 @ 10:46 AM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...(structure)

non elevator type skyhook schema.



posted on Feb, 15 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam




Energy has to come from somewhere. Where is it coming from in this instance? Why was there an electric current? Why was there a potential difference?

The Earths magnetic field.
Just like a motor winding.

Now consider the result of pulling energy from the Earths magnetic field.
Slower rotation. Longer days and nights.
It's not worth it.



posted on Feb, 16 2016 @ 04:39 AM
link   
a reply to: stormbringer1701

The rotating skyhook needs to have a counterweight 1000-2000 times the mass of the payload! Hello
The non rotating skyhook needs to de-orbit an object of the same mass. Usefull
edit on 16-2-2016 by Jubei42 because: Corrected counterweight req.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join