Re: steel cable as an alternative for the space elevator?

This is from Wikipedia
formatting link
:
> Using the density and tensile strength of steel, and assuming
> a diameter of 1 cm at ground level, yields a diameter of several
> hundred kilometers at geostationary orbit height, showing that
> steel, and indeed most materials used in present day engineering,
> are unsuitable for building a space elevator.
I don't know enought to correct it, but it seems awfully
Earth-centric. Natural perhaps but still...
Also, this statement caught my untrained eye:
Chemical energy storage (batteries, fuel cells or internal
combustion engines) will not work- hydrogen/Oxygen is the chemical
fuel with the best energy/mass ratio, but will not lift its own
weight all the way to GEO.
rick jones
Reply to
Rick Jones
Loading thread data ...
Of course it's Earth centric, we're talking about a cable that extends to the surface of the earth who's center of mass (including counterweight) is at geosynchrynous altitude, so the end of the cable at the earth is stationary (obviously this assumes an orbit over the equator). Getting from the surface of the earth to GEO without using rockets would be a good thing.
I've not done the math myself, but it sounds true since using rocket engines you can't create a LOX/LH2 SSTO that would take you all the way to GEO (even getting to LEO this way is a subject of intense debate). You'd surely want a way to transmit power to the climber from the ground, from GEO, or from both. I'd think that you'd want to beam power to the climber using lasers or microwaves.
Jeff
Reply to
Jeff Findley
Here's a puzzle for all you contributors to this debate: who started off the debate with soc.culture.zimbabwe in the crosspostings, and why have none of you checked where you have been sending your posts to? Please do not invade our Zimbabwean newsgroup with your irrelevant utterances.
Reply to
sid
Clearly, some people here still don't know how to stop crossposting to irrelevant groups. Or are just plain ignorant.
Reply to
sid
What about a Infinite or Integrate STO that sacrifices the rocket casing and tanks as the propellands burn?
or neutr=F2ns? :)
-Aut
Reply to
Autymn D. C.
That's an infinite stage to orbit vehicle. I haven't done the math for that one, but I'm sure it would make a good problem for an aerospace engineering class.
I picked the SSTO comparison since I figured a space elevator climber wouldn't be dropping parts on the way up.
Jeff
Reply to
Jeff Findley
It would appear that these people are either ignorant or have reading difficulties:
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com PD BradGuth snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com snipped-for-privacy@org.trash (Rand Simberg) ayaz
They are still crossposting to soc.culture.zimbabwe despite appeals not to do so. Interestingly, four of them are using gmail.com addressess -- perhaps this is significant.
Reply to
sid
Some time ago, I began to simply ignore all postings from places like Hotmail.com and Gmail.com.
Life has been easier since then.
I may have missed a modest number of intelligent individuals, but don't regret that in the big picture.
Reply to
Jim
What exactly is your pretend dyslexic or whatever pretend atheist faith-based form of infomercial naysay spewing problem?
Why exactly is an efficient Lunar Space Elevator(LSE) and of utilizing the moon's L1 as offering such a terrific space depot/gateway (aka LSE- CM/ISS) being so continually taboo/nondisclosure rated? - Brad Guth -
Reply to
BradGuth
messagenews: snipped-for-privacy@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
That is, the rocketbody would be the fuel as well.
Reply to
Autymn D. C.

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.