Elevator to the Moon to become reality in 8 years!

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
I think the moon would be useful for resources even if there was no helium three. By this I mean I think that the moon will be a vital link in any logistic chains that stretch further into the solar system. It costs a lot less to launch things off of the Moon than off of the Earth. It would also be much easier to launch things using rail guns or other propulsion systems due to the lack of air resistance. There is also water on the moon, meaning that fuel can be manufactured there using solar and/or imported energy.

It will be vital for any operations in mars or the asteroid belt. What I hope to one day see is the capturing of an asteroid into orbit around Earth. It would provide an even better ship building platform than the moon and a lot of raw materiel to help build them.

One good sized nickel iron asteroid would provide more metal than has ever been mined. There are other compositions out there with other interesting and useful resources in them. A motherlode of phosphorous could just save our asses.
edit on 30-8-2012 by Mkoll because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue Shift
 


it has nothing to do with "propoganda" about helium3(is there such a thing?), it has to do with facts. there isnt a fusionable element here on earth that we can at present use in a reactor. the reactions are either too hot, or the cascading reaction gets out of control to easily.

for a reactor to work< one must be able to cause a sustained reaction, that is also controllable,( as destroying your reactor is useless for making power.)

Helium3 has a lower fusion point, and much less danger of a reaction going out of control. making it ideal for say a home reactor, or using it for powering vehicles, both on land and in air.

imagine a flying airport, or a car you refuel once every few years, reguardless of mileage. Providing power to the entire world for less than a country at todays rates.The uses are beyond imagining, we just need a way to acquire it in a cost effective manner. Sending astronauts to the moon on rockets to return a few hundred pounds( not including the gear needed to refine it to pure Helium3 from moon dust and rocks) isnt going to even cover the costs of the launch, not to mention the trip to and from the moon, the equipment needed to refine it( if we had a permanent base on the moon this wouldnt be such an issue) to usable concentrations.


jra

posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xquizit
Isn't it somewhat impossible? As the moon circulates around our planet, that "cable" would wrap itself around earth no?


I don't think they are proposing a space elevator from the Earth to the Moon, but from a high Lunar orbit to the Lunar surface.

From a Wikipedia article on Lunar space elevators:


Lunar space elevator
There are two lunar-synchronous points where an elevator could be placed that would be stable: the Lagrange points L1 and L2. L1 on the Earth side of the Moon is 56,000 km up from the surface, and L2 on the far side is 67,000 km up. In these positions, the forces of gravity and centrifugal force are equal, and as long as the system remained balanced (L1 and L2 are in unstable equilibrium along the line between Earth and Moon), it would remain stationary.


Either way, as much as I'd love to see space elevators become a reality. I don't see it happening in 8 years or any time in the near future.
edit on 30-8-2012 by jra because: spelling



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 

There is plenty of deuterium on Earth.


Helium3 has a lower fusion point, and much less danger of a reaction going out of control.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fusion point" but a helium3 reaction is much more difficult to sustain than a hydrogen reaction, requiring much higher temperatures. Lookup "Coulomb barrier". The problem with a fusion reactor is not one of "going out of control", it is in keeping the reaction going.

We are far from having viable hydrogen fusion reactors and very much farther from having helium reactors.
edit on 8/30/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   


Tethering the moon to the earth? That has to be the worst idea I have ever heard. and it scares me even more that someone who worked for nasa recommended this idea! The only way this is legit is if this guy is looking to scam investors of their money.

Even if this was possible, by tethering to the moon, I feel like over time, the act of "cars" pulling themselves up this cable would slowly draw the moon closer to earth.

I just cant accept this idea by any means.

Now a space elevator tethered to orbiting platform? I would be all for it!



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   
My only question is... WHY!

even if it could be done, why the heck would the money be wasted to build it.
woo hoo so a few rich people get to see the moon up close and personal.

How about ending out problems here, starvation, sickness, and above all a way to clean up our environment
before we look at mass populations going somewhere else.

How many years would it be before the moon looked like the gutters in many major cities, trash everywhere.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by jra
 

Yeah. The article sort of implied and Earth/Moon tether but that's not really what Liftport is on about.

It looks like Liftport wants their tether to pass through the L1 point (which would serve as the docking station) with the counterweight (sort of an anchor) set much farther out. That is one loonnnnnnng tether!



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
You could build a space elevator from the surface of the moon to orbit around the moon.that would be easy due to the low gravity of the moon and the lack of a atmosphere

There is a possibility of building one from earth to orbit if the right materiel can be found. then its just using a shuttle craft to go between stations.

This in its self wound save 98% of the fuel to travel back and forth to the moon.

we can built a nuclear or solar ion engine to power the shuttle craft and use very little fuel on it
en.wikipedia.org...
www.nasa.gov...

Getting from the surface to orbit is the big fuel burner.
And no you could not build a space elevator from the earth to the moon
edit on 30-8-2012 by ANNED because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Would fusion using helium three have any benefits over fusing hydrogen?



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Mkoll
 

A greatly reduced (though not none) level of radioactive waste.
The potential for the direct generation of electricity without the need for steam powered generators.
A great deal of energy from a small amount of fuel.



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 08:57 PM
link   
For those of you interested, here is an idea from a Japanese company trying to do the same thing, but it's called a "Space Elevator", somehow saying it that way makes it seem more feasable.

I like this site very much, there is a lot of cool stuff to look at.

www.gizmag.com...





Peace



posted on Aug, 30 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
You put a station in orbit large enough to maintain integrity under the speed the moon travels around the earth, you use the station as a docking point and ship things across the tether, the only thing i can see wrong with this is how you stop debris from destroying anything using the tether to or from the moon.

What is more feasible is building a station orbiting the moon that maintains position with a tether down below, have an earth elevator, fly to the next station, use the moon elevator.

That way you dont have to have a fleet of multi-stage vessels as you can Build Heavy shuttles strong enough in space to be remotely controlled and make continuous flights to and from the satellite.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by FutureThinker

For those of you interested, here is an idea from a Japanese company trying to do the same thing, but it's called a "Space Elevator", somehow saying it that way makes it seem more feasable.

I like this site very much, there is a lot of cool stuff to look at.

www.gizmag.com...

Peace


That's exactly what's been proposed in the op.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mianeye
There is a litle more info here on how it "could" be done.

But seems imposible with todays material.

inhabitat.com...



It CAN'T be done



How could you have a link from the Earth to a station and the to the Moon the Earth rotates once a day the Moon rotates on is own axis and it also orbits the Earth how could it work



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:03 AM
link   
I've read about these in science fiction for a long time.
But, till the materials get much stronger, it's just not possible.
I honestly wish it were, I would give a lot to be one of the first passengers.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
A space elevator is "feasible" with a geostationary satellite being at the terminus and the base being located on the Earth's equator. The problem is, there is no material currently available which could support its own weight. Pretty scary situation if the damned thing breaks.

An elevator to the Moon? No.

Carbon nano tubes?

IT IS AGREED AND ORDERED that Respondents, Michael Laine and LiftPort, Inc., and their agents and employees each shall cease and desist from offering or selling securities in violations of RCW 21.20.140, the securities registration section of the Securities Act of Washington.

www.dfi.wa.gov...
edit on 8/30/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Space ships or teleportation to the moon maybe
but no elevator lol

cant believe people seriously consider to build such thing
it remind me a SouthPark episode where they build a ladder to God

im seeing the same thing here and worst
you guys would be great writting some Cartman script
edit on 8/31/2012 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by inverslyproportional
 


also forgot to add, as far as i know, at this time, there s no known material that can withstand its own weight under gravity for the, 22,000 miles it take to reach the geosync sat station. (obviously the "tether" will only be supporting about 60 miles of its own total weight total since after it gets high enouh it will be in orbital freefall.)

carbon nano tubes are the closest analogue, and they are nowhere near the required scale to produce enough for even a 22thousand mile long tether just to geosync orbital stations. not to mention trying to make enough to go to the moon from earth orbit( more than likely, if it did exist, they would deploy it from one of the lagrange points between the earth and moon, then just onroll it and let gravity pull it down for you.)en.wikipedia.org...


Graphine?



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
That elevator has to be strong. So many different forces at work, stability is a must. This is going to take some serious math.



posted on Aug, 31 2012 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


So in essence they want a kind of railway to the moon with the rail starting at the counterweight and the going straight to the moon with the L1 acting as a space station? That way the would only have to use enough chemical propellant to reach the counterweight instead of landing on the moon themselves?

That sounds more feasible with regards to material selection, but actually building it would probably be the greatest, most challenging engineering project to date.
edit on 31-8-2012 by Mkoll because: (no reason given)



new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join