Originally posted by Metal Brain "Don't you think that scientists would naturally think about these obvious things?"
Did you think of it before I brought it up?
You keep harping on the problems of building a tower 25 km high. That is not how it will be done. It will be done on a mountain in the South American equatorial region. There is no need to build such a tower.
Originally posted by sonhouse You keep harping on the problems of building a tower 25 km high. That is not how it will be done. It will be done on a mountain in the South American equatorial region. There is no need to build such a tower.
Maybe, maybe not. That only gains you a few kilometres, it might not be worth it. I am not sure there is any need for a tower anyway, it probably depends on the tether.
Originally posted by humy YES. Who hasn't heard of lighting?
troposphere to ionosphere gigantic jets? That is different than terrestrial lightning. If you put something connected to the ground up above the troposphere then you will likely get the first ground to ionosphere discharge as well as increasing the chances of gigantic jets hitting the tether to take the electrons from above clouds to the ionosphere.
If a scientist considered this (as you seem so certain) there must be some calculations to determine how high a tether that conducts electricity would have to be for it to be problematic. If you can show me those calculations I will be grateful.
I noticed some books were written since the discovery of blue jets and gigantic jets. Is there any mention of gigantic jets in those books? Any competent author would at least mention them, wouldn't you think so?
Originally posted by sonhouse You keep harping on the problems of building a tower 25 km high. That is not how it will be done. It will be done on a mountain in the South American equatorial region. There is no need to build such a tower.
There are different types of ideas for a space elevator. That is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to know what each person is thinking of. Googlefudge is thinking of building a tower. I have no idea if he is thinking of a tether in addition to that and I don't know if he suggests using carbon nanotubes or something else. Twhitehead suggests no tower at all and using a mountain and a tether I presume. I don't know if he suggests using carbon nanotubes either. Some suggest a rocket take two spools of the tether into space and unroll it and let gravity pull the end down and it will be retrieved. How it would be retrieved was not mentioned. It may seem trivial to some but I disagree. I need to know all these things. There are problems with all the different methods suggested. I don't know what you and all the others are endorsing.
Please be specific in describing exactly how you would achieve a space elevator.
Originally posted by sonhouse You keep harping on the problems of building a tower 25 km high. That is not how it will be done. It will be done on a mountain in the South American equatorial region. There is no need to build such a tower.
I always did wonder why the space shuttle was launched at near sea level instead of at a higher elevation. I did run across this link while searching for the answer. Tell me what you think.
Originally posted by Metal Brain There are different types of ideas for a space elevator. That is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to know what each person is thinking of.
Well you could try reading peoples posts.
Googlefudge is thinking of building a tower. I have no idea if he is thinking of a tether in addition to that... He is.
Twhitehead suggests no tower at all and using a mountain and a tether I presume. No, I have said the mountain may not be necessary. Having a movable sea based platform may be preferable. I am however not advocating any one system, I think every possibility should be investigated.
I don't know if he suggests using carbon nanotubes either. I have no material preference. However it seems carbon nanotubes is one of only a few known materials suitable.
I need to know all these things. You need to know them for what?
Originally posted by Metal Brain I always did wonder why the space shuttle was launched at near sea level instead of at a higher elevation. I did run across this link while searching for the answer. Tell me what you think.
A space shuttle mostly ends up with horizontal velocity, and the vast majority of energy is put into that.
A space elevator is different, it puts its payload into geosynchronous orbit.
I also doubt the benefits of using a mountain or tower, but they would be more significant than the space shuttle launch as both options would get you above much of the earth's atmosphere which causes a lot of the strain on the tether due to wind resistance.
19 Mar '15 09:54
Question about space elevators:
Back to Top