Elevator to space

They're building one.
"Experts believe that by the year 2031, at the earliest, we could see a 15-foot-wide ribbon, 62,000 miles long. One end would be attached to earth, the other end to a counterweight in outer space."

NASA isn't building this thing. Liftport is. So they're going to launch a rocket into space to start construction, and according to you, it's just going to fall back down, blowing NASA's scheme sky high.
And look... NASA isn't objecting to it...

Whatever. One of us will be proven right in like 5 years when they try to build the counterweight.
I can't wait.

They'll still believe it's a conspiracy or a hologram.

One of us will be proven right in like 5 years when they try to build the counterweight.
I can't wait.

Why wait? Just read Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not A Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

All right, more nonexistent evidence against FE! 

Quote from: TheWonkits on August 23, 2009, 09:53:03 AM

One of us will be proven right in like 5 years when they try to build the counterweight.
I can't wait.

Why wait? Just read Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not A Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham.

Why wait to read that to find what's wrong with this suggestion? Just read Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Skepticism by Rochus Boerner.

All right, more nonexistent evidence against FE! 

Yeah... nonexistant...
Carbon nanotubes are myths too, I guess.

And did I not say "in 5 years"?
That was a tad off, (it'll be 20), but still. I know it hasn't happened yet. I specifically said so, you sad bumbling man.
Your post was useless.

They're building one.
"Experts believe that by the year 2031, at the earliest, we could see a 15-foot-wide ribbon, 62,000 miles long. One end would be attached to earth, the other end to a counterweight in outer space."

NASA isn't building this thing. Liftport is. So they're going to launch a rocket into space to start construction, and according to you, it's just going to fall back down, blowing NASA's scheme sky high.
And look... NASA isn't objecting to it...

Whatever. One of us will be proven right in like 5 years when they try to build the counterweight.
I can't wait.

Nice story bro.  Too bad its not true. 

Lets look at the facts.  For this to work the counter weight would have to start in a "geosynchronous orbit."  For that to happen...NASA in all of their infinite wisdom say that is 22,236 miles give or take a few and moving at 1.91 mi/s.  Now if the height of your elevator tower is 62,000 miles that means they are really going to have to put the speed on it to maintain proper position.  It would also probably mean a sustained fuel source and propulsion system to keep it up to speed at that altitude until it was actually attached to the ground properly.  And if I am not mistake...it has to be on the equatorial plane.  So unless we are all going to drive down to South America or over to Africa to see it.  I doubt it will prove anything.

They're building one.
"Experts believe that by the year 2031, at the earliest, we could see a 15-foot-wide ribbon, 62,000 miles long. One end would be attached to earth, the other end to a counterweight in outer space."

Then it'll be at least 22 years before this becomes relevant evidence.  *yawn*  Wake me up when they actually start construction.

Quote from: TheWonkits on August 23, 2009, 09:53:03 AM

They're building one.
"Experts believe that by the year 2031, at the earliest, we could see a 15-foot-wide ribbon, 62,000 miles long. One end would be attached to earth, the other end to a counterweight in outer space."

NASA isn't building this thing. Liftport is. So they're going to launch a rocket into space to start construction, and according to you, it's just going to fall back down, blowing NASA's scheme sky high.
And look... NASA isn't objecting to it...

Whatever. One of us will be proven right in like 5 years when they try to build the counterweight.
I can't wait.

Nice story bro.  Too bad its not true. 

Lets look at the facts.  For this to work the counter weight would have to start in a "geosynchronous orbit."  For that to happen...NASA in all of their infinite wisdom say that is 22,236 miles give or take a few and moving at 1.91 mi/s.  Now if the height of your elevator tower is 62,000 miles that means they are really going to have to put the speed on it to maintain proper position.  It would also probably mean a sustained fuel source and propulsion system to keep it up to speed at that altitude until it was actually attached to the ground properly.  And if I am not mistake...it has to be on the equatorial plane.  So unless we are all going to drive down to South America or over to Africa to see it.  I doubt it will prove anything.

Wow, way to not do any research at all.
They're not building it in space, smart one. They're building it on the ground, attaching it to the ground, and then lifting the counterweight and ribbon into space. They don't need to have geosynchronous orbit, because they're not orbiting the planet... Oi.
Basically, they're tossing the counterweight up there, and it will obtain synchronization with the earth on it's own.
And where'd you pull the "it has to be on the equatorial plane" out of? Because it doesn't. It's still going to get sufficient rotation to maintain lift, without being in Africa.

Major fail.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on August 23, 2009, 08:53:08 PM

Quote from: TheWonkits on August 23, 2009, 09:53:03 AM

They're building one.
"Experts believe that by the year 2031, at the earliest, we could see a 15-foot-wide ribbon, 62,000 miles long. One end would be attached to earth, the other end to a counterweight in outer space."

NASA isn't building this thing. Liftport is. So they're going to launch a rocket into space to start construction, and according to you, it's just going to fall back down, blowing NASA's scheme sky high.
And look... NASA isn't objecting to it...

Whatever. One of us will be proven right in like 5 years when they try to build the counterweight.
I can't wait.

Nice story bro.  Too bad its not true. 

Lets look at the facts.  For this to work the counter weight would have to start in a "geosynchronous orbit."  For that to happen...NASA in all of their infinite wisdom say that is 22,236 miles give or take a few and moving at 1.91 mi/s.  Now if the height of your elevator tower is 62,000 miles that means they are really going to have to put the speed on it to maintain proper position.  It would also probably mean a sustained fuel source and propulsion system to keep it up to speed at that altitude until it was actually attached to the ground properly.  And if I am not mistake...it has to be on the equatorial plane.  So unless we are all going to drive down to South America or over to Africa to see it.  I doubt it will prove anything.

Wow, way to not do any research at all.
They're not building it in space, smart one. They're building it on the ground, attaching it to the ground, and then lifting the counterweight and ribbon into space. They don't need to have geosynchronous orbit, because they're not orbiting the planet... Oi.
Basically, they're tossing the counterweight up there, and it will obtain synchronization with the earth on it's own.
And where'd you pull the "it has to be on the equatorial plane" out of? Because it doesn't. It's still going to get sufficient rotation to maintain lift, without being in Africa.

Major fail.

Oh really smart one?  Let me ask you a question.  So they are going to put a big counterweight in a rocket and launch it straight up until it hits 62,000 miles and the just drop it off up there and its going to hang out, Is that what you are saying?        please say yes please say yes plese say yes

Oh really smart one?  Let me ask you a question.  So they are going to put a big counterweight in a rocket and launch it straight up until it hits 62,000 miles and the just drop it off up there and its going to hang out, Is that what you are saying?        please say yes please say yes plese say yes

The orbital angular velocity at that altitude is less than the angular velocity of the Earth's rotation. Therefore, a geosynchronous object at that altitude will tend to move away from the Earth. If it is connected to the Earth by a space elevator, then not only would it maintain a stable altitude, but there would be a local gravitational field within the counterweight, solving the problems caused by zero gravity conditions in space.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on August 23, 2009, 09:32:20 PM

Oh really smart one?  Let me ask you a question.  So they are going to put a big counterweight in a rocket and launch it straight up until it hits 62,000 miles and the just drop it off up there and its going to hang out, Is that what you are saying?        please say yes please say yes plese say yes

The orbital angular velocity at that altitude is less than the angular velocity of the Earth's rotation. Therefore, a geosynchronous object at that altitude will tend to move away from the Earth.

  Yes its because the speed is too great being that far away from the earth.   SHhhhhh...let him fight his own battle.

If it is connected to the Earth by a space elevator, then not only would it maintain a stable altitude, but there would be a local gravitational field within the counterweight, solving the problems caused by zero gravity conditions in space.

The counter weight actually needs to be higher than an actual geosync orbit....but not by 40,000 miles.  Again.....shhhhhhh.  I want him to answer my last question.

The counter weight actually needs to be higher than an actual geosync orbit....but not by 40,000 miles.  Again.....shhhhhhh.  I want him to answer my last question.

After some quick calculations, it looks like the strength of the gravitational field at that distance would actually be less than 1 m s^-2. You would need a much longer space elevator to emulate the environment on Earth.

The calculations have already been done.
If it wasn't mathematically possible, they wouldn't be doing it.

And yes, they're basically tossing it up in space, then opening it to the public.

This isn't something that some redneck from the hills is trying to do in his spare time, without knowing anything about physics. They've done demonstrations at MIT, they've met with NASA scientists, and they, themselves, are astrophysicists.

The calculations have already been done.
If it wasn't mathematically possible, they wouldn't be doing it.

And yes, they're basically tossing it up in space, then opening it to the public.

This isn't something that some redneck from the hills is trying to do in his spare time, without knowing anything about physics. They've done demonstrations at MIT, they've met with NASA scientists, and they, themselves, are astrophysicists.

*sigh*  Tell me...in my example is that how the counter weight is going to get into place.? A rocket blasted straight up  62,000 miles?

I'm bored of arguing with you, when you apparently haven't even been to their website...

http://www.liftport.com/wiki/id,faq/
Read that.
It explains exactly how they're going to do it.

Also read this
http://www.liftport.com/wiki/id,space_elevator/

It explains even more. Oh, and the elevator is going to be on the equator.

I will read yours when you read mine.

http://www.braeunig.us/space/orbmech.htm


For future reference try not debating something you have absolutely no idea how the basics of it work.

He doesnt need to know a great deal about it, He has produced to you a website and proposed idea and has asked your opinion on it

He doesnt need to know a great deal about it, He has produced to you a website and proposed idea and has asked your opinion on it

Well there in lies the problem.  In FET orbital flight is not possible.  He said that this would prove one way or the other, ending the debate between RET and FET.  Seeing as now he says you dont have to go into to orbit to put the counter weight up there...which is hilarious within itself....I would say he has to be at least a little knowledgeable about the subject, considering its the end all discussion.

My opinion is that it is impossible to build in either theory.  So its not going to prove anything.

Quote from: djrelc on August 24, 2009, 12:01:01 AM

He doesnt need to know a great deal about it, He has produced to you a website and proposed idea and has asked your opinion on it

Well there in lies the problem.  In FET orbital flight is not possible.  He said that this would prove one way or the other, ending the debate between RET and FET.  Seeing as now he says you dont have to go into to orbit to put the counter weight up there...which is hilarious within itself....I would say he has to be at least a little knowledgeable about the subject, considering its the end all discussion.

My opinion is that it is impossible to build in either theory.  So its not going to prove anything.

WHAT?
Oh dearie me, you've misunderstood me yet again.
The counterweight itself DOES need to be in orbit, I was saying that we aren't going to need to have a shuttle orbiting in space in order to build it, or launch it.

*sigh* here we go again.  An geosync orbit at 62,000 miles is impossible in Round Earth Theory.  Would you like to debate this?

The calculations have already been done.
If it wasn't mathematically possible, they wouldn't be doing it.

The calculations may have been done, but you haven't posted the results of any of them. Therefore, to obtain certain pieces of information, I have to do them myself.

Also, for future reference, posting data in non-SI units makes me automatically not want to take you seriously.

so... when they actually build this thing... would you believe that earth is round??
and dont tell me it is impossible... because thats not what I am asking

They will not build it. That's the whole point. Also, please tell us what the stress of the ribbon would be?

Also, please tell us what the stress of the ribbon would be?

Stress is measured in N m^-1, correct? Just making sure I remember last year's mechanics module correctly.

Quote from: bridget on August 24, 2009, 06:08:38 AM

Also, please tell us what the stress of the ribbon would be?

Stress is measured in N m^-1, correct? Just making sure I remember last year's mechanics module correctly.

I think, N m^-2, because its per unit cross-sectional area, but, since we don't know the thinkness of the ribbon, we can find it per unit length in units that you mentioned.

On another note. Think about the forces acting on a taut ribbon when an object is moving on it upwards or downwards. Since the rotating RE is a non-inertial Frame of Reference, there would be a Coriolis force. What counters this force and what is its long term effect?

They explain all this on their website.
You seem to think I designed this thing... I had nothing to do with it, if you want to know more, ask them.

And yes, they tell you what the force on the ribbon will be. In fact, they account for just about every problem I could think of... Including the Coriolis Effect.

EDIT: I seem to have lost the page where the mention the CE... I saw it yesterday. If I find it again, I'll provide a link for you.

ok

http://www.liftport.com/wiki/id,space_elevator/

Scroll down to "Angular momentum, speed and cable lean" (and read the rest while you're at it. It's rather interesting, even if you don't believe in it)