Comments on: Scientists Design Giant Elevator to the Stars

By: g.fielding

g.fielding — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 04:39:32 +0000

How would the tether be raiaed into a low stationary orbit and attached to a space station when the to a moving at different speeds? Would I raise the tether with helium gas filled balloons, or lower the tether for the space station in low orbit? would the tether be under the simular stresses as a shuttle on re-entry? if so then how much maintainance work would be needed and could the lift/train still opperate during maintenance work? has anyone considerd Electro Magnatism used in bursts to clear the lift/train of the earths gravity. As the fields are emitted from the poles the effect would be stronger there. Is anti gravity possible. I’d think more like Farraday and newton, and less like (Coca Cola or Sony) Has anyone got advertising rights to space or the moon? No? you might want to consider it!!!

By: sabina

sabina — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:23:01 +0000

these scientists test fate all the time and they are always wanting a pat on their backs for the most absurd. i pray they would be forgiven for all things are lawful unto us but not all things are expedient.

By: tracy

tracy — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:19:13 +0000

One problem that makes the Space Elevator subject to destruction is that it will attract high voltages from space. When satellites extended tethers in space they had high voltage flows that disabled the experiment. No tethers are used in space because of this. The Elevator would become a wire that would ground on earth that would punch through the double layer capacitance field of the earth. The long line would become electrified and any solar disturbance (like flares from the sun) it would become a channel for huge deadly electrical charges. The whole thing would fry and be destroyed fairly quickly.

By: Julian

Julian — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 07:25:28 +0000

Well, for one thing they’re really strong pencils too: Hundreds of times stronger than kevlar (bulletproof vests), and considerably stronger than the ceramics used in tank armor, so they can take a crapload of damage. Even if they do break, there’s no worry about death by giant space yo-yo as it wraps around the Earth, as only a ’small’ section (a few hundred miles or so) would actually fall. The rest would hit the atmosphere so fast that it burns up, making the world’s biggest, coolest, and most expensive shooting star. Also, since the base would be in the ocean, those hundred miles would make a big splash, but probably not damage anything. Second, you can destroy the base, certainly, but the upper station is actually in orbit and doesn’t need any support from the base. In fact it might go UP a bit.
The biggest problem is making sure airliners don’t smash into the insanely long, relatively thin cable, since that would be less than healthy for the plane (::slice::). Of course, we already put navigation lights on TV towers for the same reason- this case just needs considerably more lights/warning beacons.
Its worth mentioning that, because 62,000 miles is a loooooong trip, the elevator car would really be more like a ship or a small building, so no worries about claustrophobia (or farts).

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:23:22 +0000

Doesn’t matter if a terrrorist hits the bottom. Essentially, the space tower won’t really be connected to the earth, but will instead be orbiting. The center-of-gravity of the whole string will be WAY out in Geysynchronous orbit. So, if you attack the very bottom, it doesn’t matter it might cause some minor vibration, but part of mastering the whole design would be in learning to dampen these harmonic vibrations from weather, etc.

And the material being used would be strong enough to withstand forces that make a missle look puny. It would for all practical purposes be terrorist-proof, unless they had access to nuclear weapons – which would just damage the loading infrastructure, even then not the string itself too much.

By: Phlip Monroe

Phlip Monroe — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:58:03 +0000

Just cracking the how on this is going to be amazing. How in the world do you build something into space? It might be easier to start from space, build down, and meet somewhere in the middle. I have heard of this device for decades and there is even a Voyager Star Trek episode with one in it, but how in the world do you build something 10 times the height of Everest?

By: Cole (Author)

Cole (Author) — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:27:36 +0000

It would really be more like tying a string to a satellite than building a skyscraper (not that that’s any less ridiculous/awesome). And the thing would almost certainly be guarded by an absurd amount of high-tech defense systems. As far as farting on the way up — the things we do for science.

By: loxias

loxias — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:51:45 +0000

How would you deal with space “junk?” What about all the crap (satellites, screwdrivers, garbage, etc) that is constantly in orbit? There’s no way you could keep that stuff from running into this “elevator.” You’d have to clean up the atmosphere first, and, well, that’s not gonna happen…

By: Val

Val — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:46:36 +0000

Tsiolkovsky was actually Ukrainian. Being a representative of that nation myself, it pains me to see how Russia gets the credit for Soviet scientific achievements when 30%-50% of its rocketry and space sectors were designed, built and maintained by Ukrainians. Just getting some facts straight..

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:39:37 +0000

This is impossible, the rotation of the earth would topple it.