Space Elevators - SciFi is becoming RealityNonFi

**Steam** · 13th December 2006, 09:33

Originally Posted by Big Dave

Do people still do dial up?

63% of connections in NZ are still dialup, amazing eh!

**Steam** · 13th December 2006, 09:37

Originally Posted by WRT

Hang on, sounds like this is a one way ticket. Sure, you can fling stuff outwards, but how does it get back to earth?

It's an elevator, so the most practical idea is that it has a counterweight, so some stuff goes up and some goes back down to earth.

Otherwise it's going to take exactly the same amount of energy as a shuttle launch to get a payload into orbit.

**WRT** · 13th December 2006, 09:39

Still think my idea of using it as an ejector chute is better . . .

**Winston001** · 13th December 2006, 13:08

Originally Posted by WRT

Hang on, sounds like this is a one way ticket. Sure, you can fling stuff outwards, but how does it get back to earth?

As a shuttle/lift cage goes up, a counterbalancing one goes down. This isn't necessary for every design however but the beauty is that it is a free ride.

Essentially the lift/tether is hundreds of kilometers long, ending at a station where the forces of gravity are balanced against the centrifugal force of the spinning Earth. The length stops the elevator from whipping around.

Back down the lift there would be a main station, about 50km above the planet (from memory) where payloads would be delivered. This is where rockets would arrive and depart from with people and equipment. The big benefit of the elevator is that it is an energy neutral way to get into space. Once you are out of Earths gravity well, you can move around quite easily.

**WRT** · 13th December 2006, 13:14

Seriously, you guys are all missing the point . . . imagine strapping Helen into a chair for the ride of his life, and knowing there is no way he could ever come back!

**Lias** · 13th December 2006, 13:19

Originally Posted by Steam

....based in Sri Lanka which incidentally has no laws against men having sex with minors, notably young boys, which is what Clarke did. THe UK justice system couldn't touch him becasue it was legal there at the time apparently.

It was an allegation made in 1998 by The Sun (Which is a piece of sensationalist tabloid shite and should hardly be considered a canonical trustworthy source for news), and the allgeations were in the end proven to be false AFAIK.

**Motu** · 13th December 2006, 13:25

Originally Posted by Lias

the allgeations were in the end proven to be false.

Aaaagh! I just burned all my Arthur C Clarke books,and now you tell me! No one mention Asimov please....

**Ixion** · 13th December 2006, 14:48

You're going to turn this into another denunciation of sucky hover things, aren't you.

**WRT** · 13th December 2006, 15:16

I thought hover things were blowy rather than sucky? Although I guess that's all just a matter of perception, and whether you are standing above or below it.

**Motu** · 13th December 2006, 15:54

The correct designation is sucky blowy,however the diminutive of sucky is acceptable in certain circumstances.

I read a book recently where the space elevator came down leaving a path of destruction - is that one of the previously mentioned?

**Squeak the Rat** · 13th December 2006, 15:57

Nah, it only weighs 1kg per kilometer of cable. Anything above 2500km would burn up on renentry so it would just be a big long light cable around the equator.....

I thought there was no such force as sucky, just a displacement of pressure caused by a blowy......