Space elevators?!?

If Janus has opportunity to attend advanced class in orbital mechanics then advantage will be obtained if same does so.

On a rigid link between surface and geostationary satelite, ANY location BELOW geostationary has LESS than orbital velocity.

Therefore, any object below satelite will have less angular momentum than it needs. So, it will give drag back and down upon satelite.

Unless you calculate physics according to Pete Physics, in which momentum is not conserved.

( Although Pete has multiciplicitously posted that momentum is not conserved, he has not posted documentation or equations to back up his postulate, so his expostulation may be safely considered to be dubious. )

Momentum, including angular momentum, in peer reviewed mainstream physics, does not just pop out of hyperspace at random on a large scale.

A payload traveling up the orbit elavator MUST gain angular momentum. Said angular momentum can only come from three sources:

1.: Angular momentum of the Earth's rotation transmitted UP through a rigid moment connection link. Of course this slows the Earth's rotation with each payload that goes up.

2.: Angular momentum of the satelite's rotation transmitted DOWN through a tether hanging from said satelite. Of course this slows the satelite's rotation with each payload that goes up.

3.: In Pete Physics, momentum is not conserved, so momentum can pop out of of hyperspace ( or pop INTO hyperspace ) at whim and speed up or slow down the payload or the satelite or anything else at any time.

If Janus will carefully graphically analyze the situation of a flexible tether trying to pull up a payload then J will be forced to confess that the satelite will become dragged DOWN.

Angular momentum dragged out of satelite MUST be restored by burning of rocket fuel, etc., etc., or else satelite orbit will decay and satelite will fall onto planet.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pete needs to calculate length of cable.

Then Pete needs to calculate electrical resistance of long cable reaching from surface to geostationary satelite.

Then Pete needs to make HONEST calculation of efficiency based upon huge resistance of really long cable.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

People ignorant of hands-on design engineering are blithely free to ignore real problems which may well be impossible to overcome.

I am aware of terrible problems prohibitive of recovering energy.

Perhaps genius Janus can give hints ( SPECIFIC HINTS ) of how, in practical engineering terms, recovery can be done. I do not believe that it can be possible in practical engineering terms.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, no, it is on your responsibility to correctly address the point and do your own correcting.

Although you choose to represent yourself as a baby, I refuse to change your diapers for you.

 

That's a good point, although quite different to your original one. We're agreed that the practical engineering problems are tough, perhaps insurmountable... but you seemed to have something to say about the physics involved?

Anyway, the simple (!!) solution to electricity delivery is to use superconductors.

So, my bookkeeping (previously posted) still says that climbing a cable to geostationary orbit would uses 20 times less fuel than riding a rocket.

Your turn, honest bookkeeper.

 

CANGAS,

Of course slowing of the Earth's rotation is due to the transfer of additional angular momentum to the payload + payload carrier over what they had on the Earth's surface.

Of course when the payload carrier goes DOWN the tether, the payload carrier loses a part of the angular momentum in had in the higher location. This lost angular momentum is transferred to the satellite, raising its orbit.

The angular momentum dragged out of the satellite by the payload itself must be restored. The part of the angular momentum used by the payload carrier vehicle during ascent will be restored to the system during descent.
The physics concerning angular momentum in this system is as simple as shit CANGUS, its the engineering part that is difficult, if not near impossible.

 

Doesn't that require a massive cooling system?

 

I wouldn't think so. I suspect that the temperature of the cable would be low enough without additional cooling.

 

The temprature would vary (to?) greatly over it's distance I gues depending on when it's still in the atmosphere or in the night shadow of the earth.

 

Ok the original pic/article is in this post http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1374469&postcount=140

And i messed up it a bit to ask u all a good question.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I have changed the rotation direction of the tether in above pic. And the question is.

Wont this be better ? I mean the lower orbit is faster than the orbital speed of the tether. So when the tether picks up the payload the speed of the tether should increase as show in the above pic (ie the payload will pull tether in the orbiting direction), and that should help the tether gain some orbital height.

And when the payload is released perpendicular to earth the orbiting speed should keep the payload up after its thrown.

Sorry if u didnt understand the question please ask me as i am sure i have made some goofups here.

 

Do you realize how much energy is involved in this silly diagram? Orbital velocity (LEO) is about 7400 meters/second.

 

Can u please explain what exactly u mean.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Okay I'm yust thinking here but a short tether like singus picture could be propelled by tether propulsion to a higher orbit, The tether is of suchs lenghts at altitude that it never dips in the atmosphere and stays... on let's say 200 km above the earth at it's closest point while the rest is long enough to effectivly get counter the drag with extra's,
anyway when a cargo arives in a sort of plane a climber decends that holds a aditional 200 km rope (long enough to even reach the surface) the rope decends 120 km a catches it and the craft uses the aditional cable to weild in the cargo... sacrificing orbital momentem that later is regained with tether propulsion/a electromagnetic propulsion or any other method of 0 fuel propuslion

 

And any object above geostationary has more than orbital velocity, which why that is where we put the counterweight; So that it more than compensates for any drag caused by any objects below geostationary.

Here's some actual calculations:
Geostationary orbit is at an altitude of 35926 km. So we place the counterweight at 78230 km.

At this distance, making one circuit every 24 hrs, it has a velocity of 6.153 km/sec. Orbital velocity for that altitude is only 2.175 km/sec, so it is obvious that it is traveling faster than orbital velocity.

Now assume that our counterweight masses the same as our elevator car (call it "M".

Sitting on the surface of the Earth the car has a velocity of 464 meters/sec. thus has a momentum of 464m/s * M
The counterweight has a momentum of 6153m/s * M

If we move the car up to the counterweight, the new total momentum of the combined mass will be 464m/s * M + 6153m/s *M = M(464m/s+6153m/s) = 6617m/s * M

Now the actual combined mass will be 2M and since momemtum is velocity times M we can also write the new momentum as 2Mv, with v being the new velocity of our combined mass.

Thus we can write 6617m/s * M = 2Mv

Solving for v, we get

v= 3308.5m/s still greater than the velocity needed to maintain an orbit.

And, we are not limited to making the counterweight equal to the mass of the elevator, we can make it many times larger, resulting in even a smaller change.

I already have, as have many others. And the conclusion is that a counterweight will more than compensate for any dragging down effect.

If you really want to be picky about it, you can maintain perfect angular momentum balance at all times by the simple method of a second elevator.

You break the ascent into two stages. One elevator travels from Earth to the geostationary station, and the other from geostationary station to the counterweight station.

As elevator one rises from the Earth, elevator two lowers from the counterweight. Thus as one removes angular mometum from the structure, the other is adding it back in. Once the cars meet at the center, passengers swap cars, and car one heads back down to Earth while car two climbs back up the the counter weight station.

 

this section of Wiki discusses angular momentum in the space elevator; on average, the up cars will balance the down cars (if they mass the same), but the cable will flex somewhat;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator#Angular_momentum.2C_speed_and_cable_lean

 

Seems like u skimped most of the posts here,

whos talking about elevators here anymore, Mr. illuminati.

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1395053&postcount=170

 

A couple of clicks brought me to this link

interesting?

 

"within 2 days"

Thats something to cheer about

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Clearly things are getting out of hands for illuminati since the days of television. :m:

 

Hey but dont forget this conspiracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonov_An-225

 

This is why you are stuck in the twentieth century while we enjoy the fruits of the twenty first.