posted
Erik, I imagine it would have to go pretty fast to get to 62,000 miles, so that might be a real possibility! I can just see people floating around an elevator in outer space.
The other question is--would they get on and then stand around and face the door like they do on a regular elevator? Posts: 107 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rumor is though, that the makers of the Space Elevator are planning on hosting the same crappy music found on conventional elevators.
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
'Twould be best if they piped in Bugs Bunny's elevator lines. "Sixth floor: Hunting gear, Sporting goods, Ladies' langerie." I paraphrase with apologies to the real Warner Bros. experts in the forum.
Posts: 230 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
for a simple summary, space elevators aren't a new concept, in fact...they're very old. The basic concept is to have some sort of satellite in geo-syncranous orbit teathered to...obviously, a station on the ground, and operates the same way a normal elevator would, as the elevator goes up, a counter weight comes down, thus keeping balance. The main problem we have of developing a space elevator is not the physics, we've got that all figured out...theoretically...the problem we have is developing a material that would be strong enough, and up until now...we haven't had anything that was light and strong enough.
Well...not exactly, we still don't have it really, what I'm talking about are carbon nanotubes, we can make them...but not at the speed, quantity, or volume required...yet. That's why they're saying 15 years, the majority of those 15 years is the estimated development time of having the capability to put carbon nanotubes into full scale production.
People wonder why the hell would we need a space elevator anyways? My very simple answer is: the cost. While setting up a rudimentary space elevator will cost somewhere around 10,000,000,000, the cost to transport materials to and from space would immediatly drop, while the initial cost is high, maintaining would be rather cheap, and though it would take any entity that built one a decade to recover the initial cost, the cost of sending materials into space would still be much, much cheaper which would allow for more space-related research and even commerce.
posted
To clairify a bit, making them in volume isn't really the problem. There are several ways to do that. The problem is that although the properties of each individual nanotube are really good for this application, no one has found a way to mass produce fibers with the same qualities.
Just as a side note, there is at least one factory somewhere that makes them. GM uses them to strengthen some plastic parts in some of the new cars. (Sort of like rebar in concrete. a little bit goes a long way.)
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although the tubes are hardly nanotechnology, the Sears Tower is constructed with rigid tubes that allow for the design of the skyscraper to achieve its great heights.
Space Elevators are cool. This brings a whole new level to BASE jumping...
Posts: 1870 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
