Users who Dugg This
DIGG-WillNotFixMy-STATISTICS
12956 Followers
made2popular (Gizmig)
1051 Followers
savetheseaFeb 22, 2012
FTA:
The terminal station, 36,000 kilometers above Earth, will be reached by cars that can carry 30 people and travel at 200 kilometers per hour.
Am I reading this correctly? 7.5 days to get to the base station?
sanmanFeb 22, 2012
think of it as a luxury cruise
savetheseaFeb 23, 2012
I would do it, even if it took two weeks
TUnit1991Feb 23, 2012
Doesn't matter because it won't happen for 2 reasons:
1. The strength of any material decreases as you increase the scale over which it is produced. This is because you get more and more defects in the material. Steel itself is a lot stronger as a micromaterial scale than it as a macromaterial.
2. Presuming they can produce the carbon nanotubes to be strong enough then the energy stored in tension by the carbon nanotubes is so high that if it broke the energy released per kilo of the structure would be higher than dynamite. Terrorist potential = huge.
sanmanFeb 23, 2012
nanotubes aren't necessarily a material - they're a nanostructure
the thing is that you can anneal nanotubes using an electric current, to fix defects by electromigration
breadfredFeb 24, 2012
Is that true or are you making up words? Don't get me wrong, I want it to be true - but have never heard of electromigration.
sanmanFeb 26, 2012
@breadfred,
the annealing properties of nanotubes are well known
think of pebbles in a stream, getting pushed by the current
thepicklemonkeyFeb 23, 2012
Does that mean if the elevator breaks, we could fall for 5 days?
uselesstriviaFeb 23, 2012
Only if you were actually going to the terminal station. If you're only going into low earth orbit the trip is just a couple hours.
anomaly100Feb 22, 2012
Let me do some calculations here. I'm 107 years old now. Hmm....I'll try to hang in there.
blinker1315Feb 22, 2012
I'll be there with you, doll. We'll revive "Crossfire."
emfkFeb 22, 2012
I'll bring the coffee and donuts!
blinker1315Feb 22, 2012
Excellent. Hot senior citizen date!
anomaly100Feb 22, 2012
No three ways at my age! <raises cane defiantly>
lutianaFeb 22, 2012
We don't need to get people up and down with this, we need to get raw materials into the upper atmosphere so we can build things up there, like a space station or better space ships.
Just think of the possibilities of being able to design these things without having to to take into account the need to reach terminal velocities (to escape earth's atmosphere).
letherialFeb 22, 2012
Before we do something like this (and its a good idea) we need to handle the space junk
One could easily see this junk getting so dangerous we no longer go into space
sanmanFeb 22, 2012
yes, before we get a space elevator, we need a
space garburetor
r0g3rFeb 23, 2012
For the record, reaching an ESCAPE velocity, not terminal velocity is how you escape the Earth's gravity well, not it's atmosphere, which is held in place by the very same gravity. Just for clarification purposes.
GreyPilgrimFeb 23, 2012
I believe lutiana is referring to Orbital Speed, not Escape Velocity.
r0g3rFeb 23, 2012
Yes, I commented hastily, I re-read his comment. He's talking about putting things in orbit, so escaping the atmosphere is correct, but terminal velocity (a function of fluid dynamics) still has nothing to do with it.
I have no problem with his comment, just his use of scientific jargon, which I should have been more careful in correcting.
uselesstriviaFeb 23, 2012
The swedes are already working on a plan for that. They want to start launching junk collectors into orbit to scrape up debris. The US government is also working on a ground-based laser system to burn up some of the smaller pieces to cause them to come down much more quickly.
bcm79Feb 22, 2012
I fear the U.S. will still be debating the shuttle replacement in 2050.
ninhFeb 22, 2012
A space elevator is the cheapest way to get mass out of a gravity well. Massive, massive capital expenditure but you have centuries to pay that off.
jqp123Feb 22, 2012
"... but you have centuries to pay that off."
And if a piece of space junk hits it?
countess666Feb 22, 2012
by oscillating the cable at the correct time, a space elevator can avoid large objects. (like a wave travelling through a rope. we've all done that as kids)
small object wont be a problem, as we can protect the wires from that even today, let alone in just under 40 years.
ninhFeb 22, 2012
And since it is cheap to haul up mass, putting out little space robots that buzz around, latch onto debris and kick it into the atmosphere is feasible.
letherialFeb 22, 2012
necessary...or something, We got to do something....im not sure kicking large space degree into the atmosphere in hopes it burns up is a good idea.
Also, small objects are more dangerous because they cannot be tracked...fortunately, the space is so large that we don't have much of a problem right now...but in 40 years? its going to be really bad up there unless we do something about it.
jqp123Feb 23, 2012
"by oscillating the cable at the correct time, ..."
You mean like a whip? I know from experience that doing this tends to jerk the tip around pretty violently.
mtownFeb 23, 2012
Well the tip of the thing is almost certainly going to have some thrusters on it, so they would just need to boost to the side and then boost it back to its original position once the danger is past.
craig1958Feb 22, 2012
We have no idea how cheap or expensive this technology will be if/when it becomes available.
agmlauncherFeb 22, 2012
And in 2050, rather than keeping pace, US leadership will still be spending all of its time and attention deciding whether gays have the right to get married or not.
sleestakslayerFeb 22, 2012
I read about this in the 80's in OMNI magazine's Book of Space. Hope I can buy a ticket.
langfordFeb 22, 2012
"The terminal station, 36,000 kilometers above Earth, will be reached by cars that can carry 30 people and travel at 200 kilometers per hour."
Wait a minute, that's 7 and a half days of travel. Lets hope they build some rest stops in along the way.
ophelloFeb 23, 2012
Or just make sure they have food and water...dur hur...
ben7337Feb 22, 2012
Okay, so 36,000km, at 200km an hr, means 7.5 days to get up there, and assuming they don't just drop you for going back down, there's still a good 7.5 days back down. Come on kids, let's go spend out family vacation in an elevator.
letherialFeb 22, 2012
return package sold separately.
The_SovereignFeb 22, 2012
The most conservative projections imaginable would have cars that can f**k you better than any high-class harem by 2050, among other things. I wouldn't worry about being bored anywhere, anytime by then.
pat_mzFeb 22, 2012
My first thought was this is going to be awesome. My second was thinking about all of the problems that could go wrong. Earthquake anyone?
satori3000Feb 22, 2012
disconnect the cables hanging down to the earth, that one's easy. But you have a point on problems, a hurricane would be an issue unless you could lift the cables as well.
countess666Feb 22, 2012
a hurricane would effect just the last few km's of the cable. it might stop the lift from going up, but that's probably about it.
same with earthquakes btw. that would hardly effect the elevator at all. the cable would act as a huge dampening device in that case.
if the Earthquake shifted the ground a lot that might mean it needs a bit of a adjustment in space but again, not a undoable engineering challenge.
satori3000Feb 22, 2012
I disagree, I would think breaking the connections a few Km above the ground due to tortition would require running entirely new cable as you couldn't splice it.
countess666Feb 22, 2012
a earthquake wont brake the cable. neither would a hurricane.
both could send vibrations up the cable, but that's all the 'damage' it would do.
satori3000Feb 22, 2012
I am not understanding your view on how cables would avoid damage. You understand that these cables would not simply be floating but would have to be affixed to the ground. How would anyone ensure that nothing more than vibrations be sent up the lines? Do you have insight into some revolutionary physics that preclude the destruction of their connection points onto the earth? ...or would you simply like to repeat the same thing you've been saying since the start without any kind of proof or backing information.
countess666Feb 22, 2012
the cable is a flexible structure. it wont be damaged by a few earth tremors.
as for the anchorage, we know quit well how to make those quake proof already.
we can keep building hundreds of meters high up in the air, the same for km's long bridges.
a big solid weight will be far far easier.
satori3000Feb 22, 2012
I want to live in your world, it sounds very padded and safe there.
pat_mzFeb 23, 2012
How flexible are you suggesting these cables are? There will be elevators going up and down on a frequent basis which means there has to be some type of stability. The cables aren't a flag flapping the wind that can withstand a massive earthquake. And thanks hat if an elevator is going up and there happens to be a tremor? Is thatgoing to swing back and forth as well?
mtownFeb 23, 2012
I don't see how disconnecting the cables hanging down to earth would be an option. Won't the thing just get launched off into space?
satori3000Feb 23, 2012
the cables are not a tether, the gravitational orbit is the tether.
ano233Feb 22, 2012
Unless I'm missing something, the ground station would not actually be located in Japan. I think that pretty much all space elevator concepts have the ground station located at or near the equator, either on land or on a ship or oil derrick like structure. Having it on a ship gives the advantage of being able to move the ship, and thereby the cable, to avoid atmospheric and space based threats.
ophelloFeb 23, 2012
Would that really matter?
pat_mzFeb 23, 2012
OK so maybe an earthquake isn't going to make the cables snap. Everyone is overlooking the possibility of disasters in space... What if a meteor hits the station in space? Is it just going to swing out of the way to avoid it?
ophelloFeb 23, 2012
Dont you understand that those risks are the same for any space-faring craft? We have the MIR and the ISS in space right now. They aren't getting hit by meteors.
rightfutureFeb 22, 2012
Where the hell did our big dreams go??? in the pockets of the privileged?
For shame America, for giving up on our vision and leadership of the future.
rightfutureFeb 22, 2012
And good for you Japan, maybe you will give America a reason to start rethinking investment in the future and the future of all of it's people:)
letherialFeb 23, 2012
Only if they start putting WMD's to recreate the cold war, hostility's is the only thing that motivates us.
craig1958Feb 22, 2012
If/when something like this is done, it will be an international project. The days of national competition in space are long gone, a relic of the cold war.
theonewhoknowsFeb 22, 2012
I don't think so.
craig1958Feb 22, 2012
Does everyone understand that the required carbon nanotubes do not currently exist? The longest ones are now about 2-3 cm long, not 36,000 km. This idea has been around for decades, the problem is finding a material strong enough to support itself.
countess666Feb 22, 2012
that's many times longer then what they were 2 decades ago, and we still have almost 4 decades to go.
all we need is a process that can make them continuously, then we can make them as long as we want.
craig1958Feb 22, 2012
I agree, but that is a long way to go. I'm actually more interested in the 1000s of other advantages of this technology.
countess666Feb 22, 2012
p.s.
a new record was set at 4 CM's in 2004.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040917091336.htm
countess666Feb 22, 2012
2009: 18.5cm
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nl901260b
craig1958Feb 22, 2012
Thanks, I couldn't remember the current number.
fadialiramosFeb 23, 2012
Well, If it worked in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy....
magghuindiaFeb 23, 2012
Japan is tech savy.
http://sarkaaree-naukri.blogspot.in/
magghuindiaFeb 23, 2012
Right.
by
http://sarkaaree-naukri.blogspot.in/
abombitoFeb 22, 2012
Looks like they're going to have to invent "carbon nanontubes" first.
neondistractionFeb 23, 2012
They already did, like 20 years ago. The obstacle is producing them in sufficient quantities.
abombitoFeb 23, 2012
Really? I mean I've heard of carbon nanotubes, but nanontubes were a new one to me.
Can't help it, copy editing was part of my college studies.
neondistractionFeb 24, 2012
Ahh, I didn't even notice the typo. I see what you did now.
johnomazzFeb 22, 2012
I'm sorry, but what is the purpose of this? I mean, do they plan to have a resort like place up there to stay? What about earth quakes. Japan just had a massive earthquake last year. Its not the first nor will it be the last in that region. Imagine the maintenance on that. Roller coasters need daily checks to operate properly. And why use cables to operate the elevator. Why not use a push/pull magnetic system.
countess666Feb 22, 2012
the point is to reduce the cost of getting stuff into space. (to less then 1% of current costs per kg)
with that reduction a whole realm of new possibilities will be open to mankind in terms of space exploration, and importantly, exploitation.
and the cables they mentioned ARE the structure, they aren't used to operate the elevators.
how the elevators will move up and down the cable isn't mentioned in the article, but there are already people thinking about this.
ophelloFeb 23, 2012
A space elevator is a way to cheaply put things in space. And cables weigh less than electromagnets. They're also cheaper.
Good thing you're not an engineer. You'd probably f**k it all up.
johnomazzFeb 23, 2012
Pretty sure if I was an engineer, I'd know these things and wouldn't f**k anything up.
ImperatoreChicoFeb 22, 2012
great
mazebotFeb 23, 2012
awesome, my dream of committing a space, rail road, car explosion, building disaster terror attack is no track.
jukmariFeb 23, 2012
Imagine what our planet would look like when taken a picture from distance... a nice round planet with a stick!
The_SovereignFeb 23, 2012
You are imagining a much thicker structure than I am.
ferretmanFeb 23, 2012
There's still some materials work to be done, but *excellent*....a goal is good to have. I'll keep my fingers crossed.
markwikFeb 23, 2012
Looks like someone is a Gunnm fan
annamariastackFeb 23, 2012
Like it :)
annamariastackFeb 23, 2012
Like it :)
dvidyFeb 23, 2012
really???
clunderFeb 22, 2012
7.5 days to get to the top? I don't like using the toilet on the airplane so this is going to be a problem....
abitcynicalFeb 22, 2012
That's PR at it's best right there!
pranaysinghFeb 22, 2012
go japs!
PanjeeFeb 22, 2012
If the population keeps on rising it, is going to need to create really tall buildings...
jacobdisFeb 22, 2012
What would happen to the people at the top if the elevator's cable snapped? Without any anchor, the force of the snap would likely project them into Earth's orbit.
ano233Feb 23, 2012
Most modern space elevator concepts have some type of station located in a normal geostationary orbit as a destination for passengers & cargo with only a slight grip (if the two are connected at all) on the cable. There is a separate counterweight thousands of kilometers further out from the planet. If the cable does break it is either severed again at the station, allowing one half to fall to earth and the other to be ejected into space, or the station simply uses maneuvering thrusters to move to a safe distance as the cable goes up/down. Any people traveling along the cable at the time of the break would hopefully be riding in or have access to some type of emergency escape system consisting of an ablative heat shield and a parachute.
teldarioFeb 22, 2012
Is it really a good idea to build something that tall in a place that has so many earthquakes?
theater61Feb 22, 2012
http://rightonweekly.com/lets-talk-about-the-moon-nasa-and-reality/ Soon no one will be snickering at Newt! There are far greater implications!
donniehoward08Feb 22, 2012
my stomach dropped just thinking about it... freaky stuff right there. plus what do you think a ticket on that thing would cost? sheesh..
satori3000Feb 22, 2012
it would be way cheaper than the Virgin space trip and you could run the thing all the time.
couragewulfFeb 22, 2012
This money should be used toward a moon or Mars colony.
drewdaddy213Feb 22, 2012
Not really. Either of those undertakings would benefit from this infrastructure. Perhaps you aren't aware, but the reason a space elevator sounds like a good idea is that it reduces the costs of getting stuff into space by ~20 times, making either of those projects 20 times more viable.
countess666Feb 22, 2012
do you realise how much cheaper a moon or mars colony would be with a space elevator?
the price of getting a kg into orbit would go from a few thousand dollars to a few ten-ers at most.
a near 100 fold reduction in costs, not to mention risk.
drewdaddy213Feb 22, 2012
Ah, thank you for the correction. I knew the reduction was huge, but I was fuzzy on quite how huge :)
ophelloFeb 23, 2012
Ok...so how do we get the colony built? We have to get the stuff into space somehow. Rockets are expensive. Space elevator is smarter, faster, cheaper. It's a no-duh solution.
So many science retards in here...my god...
MichaelJacksonAlbumsFeb 23, 2012
How Japanese are inventive! I'm very proud of them!!! http://michaeljacksonalbums.in/
seektrainingsFeb 23, 2012
World wil end by 2012.Let us hope the best
http://www.seektrainings.com
The_SovereignFeb 22, 2012
What a f**king joke. There is no way anyone can predict what anyone will be doing in 2050.
theonewhoknowsFeb 22, 2012
Is noone thinking about the the fact that such a device would slow the Earth's rotation?
ophelloFeb 23, 2012
LOL you fail at science. It wouldn't affect it any more than a new skyscraper in Dubai.
Go back to school, dude. You're an embarrassment.
neondistractionFeb 23, 2012
Technically it could slow the Earth's rotation, but it would be by such a small amount we wouldn't even be able to measure it. It would be like tethering a BB to a bowling ball filled with iron.
Maybe you should change your username to 'theonewhodoesn'tknow'. Seems like that would be more accurate.
Also, 'noone' isn't a word.
theonewhoknowsFeb 23, 2012
You sure got me!
The_SovereignFeb 23, 2012
I'm sure nobody has ever insulted him like that before.
Please just stick to the f**king content of posts, Mark Twain.
neondistractionFeb 24, 2012
Mark Twain?
The_SovereignFeb 24, 2012
Jesus f**king christ you're hopeless.
neondistractionFeb 25, 2012
I guess you showed me. Perhaps your greatness could enlighten me, what the hell does Mark Twain have to do with any of this?
ophelloFeb 23, 2012
Even THAT example isn't accurate. More like tethering a speck of dust to a lead zepplin. Earth weighs about 6×10^24 kg. The International Space Station, for example, weighs 419,600 kg. That's more than 10^19 times less than earth.
Keep in mind: Something doesn't have to be tethered to earth to affect its rotation. The moon affects the earth's rotation because it is so massive.
neondistractionFeb 24, 2012
You're right, but I wasn't going for total accuracy. Just something off the top of my head to drive home the point that what he said was ridiculous.
richfsrFeb 22, 2012
Insanity. I would rather be shot out of a cannon than take that trip.
theonewhoknowsFeb 22, 2012
Spoken like someone who has never been shot out of a canon.
letherialFeb 22, 2012
well currently, its one huge rocket full of rocket fuel
SO without any science involved (as using a cannon to get into space is not scientific) then we need to presume what is safest
cannon
large rocket with explosive fuel
elevator with a thin wired
In this scenario i to would choose a cannon....then again, without science, they all seem to be deadly so maybe i might choose the rocket to go out quick.
samthurstonFeb 23, 2012
"SO without any science involved"
Always a good basis upon which to make your decisions.
"using a cannon to get into space is not scientific"
That depends on your definition of cannon. http://research.lifeboat.com/ieee.em.pdf
trontonFeb 23, 2012
Physically impossible