Energy savings with space elevator

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the energy savings associated with using a space elevator to reach geostationary orbit, with a formula presented for calculating this savings. However, it is clarified that the formula is incorrect and the premise is flawed, as reaching orbit necessitates both potential and kinetic energy increases, regardless of the method used. The cited paper by P.K. Aravind discusses energy savings from a non-fuel perspective, comparing it to alternative energy sources like solar or wind. Additionally, it is emphasized that escape velocity is not required for geostationary orbit, as excessive velocity would prevent a satellite from maintaining that position. The conversation highlights misconceptions about energy requirements for orbital insertion.
bksree
Messages
75
Reaction score
2
Hi
I read in a paper that the enrgy saving in taking a payload to geostaionary orbit with a space elevator is (R/Rg)*(2-R/Rg) where R- radius of earth, Rg - radious of geostaionary orbit.

How is this obtained ?

TIA
 
Physics news on Phys.org
bksree said:
Hi
I read in a paper

Please make a complete citation of the paper!

Zz.
 
It's easy enough to calculate, and the formula you give is wrong, but more importantly the premise is wrong. Reaching orbit requires an increase in potential energy and an increase in kinetic energy. These are the same regardless of how you get there, whether you use a rocket ship or a space elevator.
 
Thanks for the replies. The paper is : P.K Aravind, 'The Physics of the space elevator', Am. J. Phys., 75(2), Feb 2007.
The eqn actually gives the percentage saving of energy w.r.t that required if rocket prpoulsion is used. I think it is related to the energy required to accelerate to escape velocity with rocket propulsion wheras the space elevator uses the centrifugal force ofthe rotating Earth to accelerate the satellite.

TIA
 
You don't need escape velocity to put a satellite in geostationary orbit. If it has this much velocity it won't be neither geo- nor stationary.

The paper may be about the energy "saved" from the point of view of not using fuel but rather some other way to get the energy required.
Similar to the energy "saved" by connecting an appliance to a solar cell or wind generator rather than the wall plug.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...

Similar threads

Back
Top