sid_galt
- 502
- 1
http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn8725"
Jolly Cool.
Jolly Cool.
Last edited by a moderator:
No. The article is about a company doing pretty speculative research, to put it mildly. To be more blunt, I consider such companies to be near scams. The enabling technologies for a space elevator just aren't there and they are building things that look to non-techies to be stepping stones - and using the demostrations to make money. But a 1 mile carbon-fiber cable is not a step on the way to a space elevator and people need to be very careful about supporting such companies. And NewScientist does a disservice to its readers by titling the article "space elevator tether..." - the cable used in the test/demonstration/publicity stunt is not a space elevator tether.scott1 said:There actullay building a space elevator?
IMO, that's the stage it is really at.I thought that was just somthing created that popluar secience had over extradded to get people to read there maginznes.
Why can't they just be bluffing? And even if they are serious - does being serious guarantee success?But if these people that say they are probably going to be able to build one by 2018, how the heck can they say that unless they have done all of the calculations? Surely they are not just bluffing, and saying that they can do it.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1.htmAccording to Smitherman, construction is not feasible today but it could be toward the end of the 21st century. "First we'll develop the technology," said Smitherman. "In 50 years or so, we'll be there. Then, if the need is there, we'll be able to do this. That's the gist of the report."
...During a speech he once gave, someone in the audience asked Arthur C. Clarke when the space elevator would become a reality.
"Clarke answered, 'Probably about 50 years after everybody quits laughing,'" related Pearson. "He's got a point. Once you stop dismissing something as unattainable, then you start working on its development. This is exciting!"
Ivan Seeking said:One approach is to use a series of climbers that would induce oscillations that would in turn be used to cancel natural ones that occur in the tether.
I'm much more forgiving of serious-but-overenthusiastic engineers getting carried away by their imaginations. At least there is a hint of realism in a 100 year timeframe. 15 years? Laughable, yes.enigma said:I've read the Smitherman report, and to be honest, I wasn't impressed. It really just looked like a bunch of enthusiast engineers and physicists sat around with some technical illustrators for a few days and did the same back-of-the-envelope calculations which I did when researching this topic a few years ago. They then said that it would be feasible sometime in the late 21st century, drew some pictures and wrote up a few pages of pie-in-the-sky ideas.
And I do believe that the people claiming that they'll be doing it by 2018 are bluffing.
I was thinking the same thing. I would hate to see what the 2nd order is, let alone the tenth, hundredth ot thousandth. I don't think standard modal analysis would work. If it was to work, I think it would be orders of magnitude more complicated than that which is practice today. The cumulation of error in even the slightest amount over something 30,000 miles long would alone make any single answer meaningless.enigma said:Wow. For which natural mode? The thing is 30,000 miles long. An aspect ratio of a bajillion. Probably have thousands of active modes, if you can even use modal analysis on it.
Aptly put.enigma said:A mouse farting in Guadalajarah would induce vibrations in that thing.