Space Elevators and Pipelines

patrick · 2004-11-26 20:27:21

The point is the technogly is currently here to get a spacestation to Geo. since we already have Geo. orbiting satellites.

John Creighton · 2004-11-26 21:35:18

http://www.zadar.net/space-elevator/#Carrying]THE SPACE ELEVATOR
- PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES -

Ranko Artukovi, Zadar, Croatia

edit: after rechecking the author is correct

patrick · 2004-11-26 21:58:34

It is for real and that is why it will work for the pipeline to space.

John Creighton · 2004-11-27 11:16:54

I think my estimates are off anyway to get on the right track here is a table for the cost to LEO. Remember it will cost more to get to GEO but we can work with these numbers.

http://www.androidpubs.com/Chap04.htm#4.1]The cost to LEO

* Table 4.1-1 Costs of various boosters
Booster LEO cost GEO cost Source
$/kg $/kg
Shuttle 14,960 [28, p.50] Newsweek
Titan 4 11,220 "
Delta 7,205 "
Proton 1,650 "
Energia 660 "
Titan 34D/IUS 68,200 [97, p.132] OTA
Atlas/Centaur 55,000 "
Delta 52,800 "
Ariane 3 44,000 "
Ariane 4 41,800 "
Titan 34D/TOS 37,400 "
Shuttle 39,900 * Author (NASA data)
Titan 4 35,133 [AW 58, p.79] GAO est.
Long March 3 7,143 * 35,714 [AA 6, p.54]
Titan 34D 4,333 [AA 1, p.6]
Ariane 4 3,970 * [97, p.131] OTA
Shuttle-C 3,446 [AW 63, p.18-20] OTA est.
Energia 2,727 [AA 4, p.34]
Proton 2,381 * Space Commerce Corp.

Anyway this table suggest the cost of the shuttle is 14 milllion per metric tone. So I was pretty close with my 10 million dollar estimite.

John Creighton · 2004-11-27 11:34:40

If the pipeline only weighs 1000 tons you could get it all there in about 12 shuttle launches.

No

Winged orbital launch vehicle. Year: 1981. Family: Shuttle. Country: USA. Status: Hardware. Other Designations: STS. Manufacturer's Designation: Space Transportation System. Manufacturer: NASA.
Redesign of the shuttle with reliability in mind after the Challenger disaster reduced maximum payload to low earth orbit from 27,850 kg to 24,400 kg. When the decision was made to move the International Space Station to a high-inclination 51.6 degree orbit, net payload to the more challenging orbit dropped to unacceptable limits. The situation was improved by introduction of the Super Lightweight External Tank, which used 2195 Aluminium-Lithium alloy as the main structural material in place of the 2219 aluminium alloy of the original design. This saved 3,500 kg in empty mass, increasing shuttle payload by the same amount. The tank was first used on STS-91 in June 1998. LEO Payload: 27,500 kg. to: 204 km Orbit. at: 28.5 degrees. Payload: 16,050 kg. to a: space station orbit, 407 km, 51.6 deg inclination trajectory. Liftoff Thrust: 2,875,000 kgf. Liftoff Thrust: 28,190.00 kN. Total Mass: 2,040,000 kg. Core Diameter: 8.70 m. Total Length: 56.00 m.

from http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuleiss … uleiss.htm

The shuttle can only lift 27.5 tons to LEO. 1000/27=37 flights. The shuttle will fly at most 6 flights a year so it will take 37 years at (27.5 tons)*(10 million /tone)*(6 flight per year)=1.65 billion dollars a year. For a total cost of 60 billion dollars. Okay I am wrong it is not trillions it is only billions. Anyway I think the elevator might way less then 1000 tons. I got to go back and look at his table at:
http://www.zadar.net/space-elevator/#Carrying]THE SPACE ELEVATOR - PHYSICAL PRINCIPLES -

John Creighton · 2004-11-27 12:12:41

Lets just see if the graph makes sense. Say there was no taper 36 000 000 m *(pi*(0.5 cm)^2*(1 m^2/(100cm)^2))= 2.8274e+003 m^3. Okay it seems somewhat reasonable but I think you can get away with making the carbon nano tube start with a much smaller area then 1 cm^2. Therefore the elevator can be made cheaper then 60 billion dollars.

John Creighton · 2004-11-27 12:25:25

Okay lets recheck how big an area of carbon nanotubes you need to lift 12 000 tons.
(12 000 000 kg)/(150*10^9 N/m^2/9.8 m/s)
= 7.8400e-004 m^2*((100 cm)^2/m)= 7.8400 cm^2.
Oh okay the author is roughly right. Maybe he wasn’t refereeing to metric tons.

ERRORIST · 2004-11-27 22:40:31

What elements on the Moon can you burn to get C?

Austin Stanley · 2004-11-27 23:08:24

None. There are no elements you can burn on the moon to get carbon.

In fact, there are no elements ANYWHERE you can burn to get some-other element. That is the nature of an element. Chemical reactions (like burning something) do not change what elements are present. They do not transmute say Titanium or Oxygen into Neon or Carbon.

That said, there is apparently very, very little carbon on the moon.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-29 09:29:14

There is for all intents and purposes zero carbon on the Moon. Even with very high percentage extraction, you would have to harvest over a million tonnes of soil to get enough carbon to make a minimal space elevator.

ERRORIST · 2004-11-29 19:35:12

How does that C get on my sparkplugs?

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-29 21:31:53

Easy: From the gasoline. Some of it converts to carbon black when hit with the electric spark, and it will deposit on the spark plug.

Its a simple problem. There is no easily acessable source of Carbon in space or on the Moon. No carbon atoms, no carbon nanotubes or binder polymers.

GraemeSkinner · 2004-11-29 22:54:25

Easy: From the gasoline. Some of it converts to carbon black when hit with the electric spark, and it will deposit on the spark plug.

Plus the engines probably running too rich

Its a simple problem. There is no easily acessable source of Carbon in space or on the Moon. No carbon atoms, no carbon nanotubes or binder polymers.

The easiest way for the forseeable future to have a usable source of Carbon in space is to put it there ourselves via either rocket or elevator.

Graeme

ERRORIST · 2004-11-30 05:16:11

Surly there are C diamonds on the Moon from all those impacts?

GraemeSkinner · 2004-11-30 06:13:33

Surly there are C diamonds on the Moon from all those impacts?

If there are any diamonds from lunar impacts they are likely to be tiny fragments, and not a great deal of the them at that. By they time you've taken the effort to go to the moon, set up mining processes to locate the diamonds, and then manufactured the tiny fragements into usable lumps you could have taken tonnes of the stuff into space from Earth in a fraction of the time for a lot less cost.

Graeme

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-30 08:24:23

Surly there are C diamonds on the Moon from all those impacts?

Why would there be? Carbon-rich meteors are pretty rare.

John Creighton · 2004-11-30 16:08:09

Here is some stuff on supersonic flows:

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm? … uppersonic flows

John Creighton · 2004-11-30 16:17:41

This paper looks kind of cool:

http://research.imb.uq.edu.au/~m.gagen/ … Supersonic expelled jets from squeezed fluid singularities

ERRORIST · 2004-11-30 19:09:31

Surly there are C rich meteors that have impacted the Moon.

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-30 19:25:18

Not nessesarrily, not that many asteroids make it past Jupiters' gravity well. Even if there were, they would likly be small and hard to find. And not have much carbon.

ERRORIST · 2004-11-30 19:33:02

Small like Mars Moons?

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-30 19:50:40

No, more like small cars and washing machine sized ones

ERRORIST · 2004-11-30 20:00:35

Oh come on this one is a lot larger than a car or washing machine.

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/mathilde. … thilde.htm

GCNRevenger · 2004-11-30 20:09:42

Sure there are, just probobly not on the Moon. If a big one hit, there would be a crater, and the carbon would have spread out over the impact area. That much carbon would probobly be visible from orbiting spectrometers.

Most big rocks never make it past Jupiter's orbit either.

ERRORIST · 2004-11-30 20:15:10

Can we can get to this one and mine the Carbon?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-11-26 20:27:21

Re: Space Elevators and Pipelines

#77 2004-11-26 21:35:18

Re: Space Elevators and Pipelines

#78 2004-11-26 21:58:34

Re: Space Elevators and Pipelines

#79 2004-11-27 11:16:54

Re: Space Elevators and Pipelines

#80 2004-11-27 11:34:40

Re: Space Elevators and Pipelines

#81 2004-11-27 12:12:41

Re: Space Elevators and Pipelines

#82 2004-11-27 12:25:25

Re: Space Elevators and Pipelines

#83 2004-11-27 22:40:31

Re: Space Elevators and Pipelines

#84 2004-11-27 23:08:24

Re: Space Elevators and Pipelines

#85 2004-11-29 09:29:14

Re: Space Elevators and Pipelines

#86 2004-11-29 19:35:12

Re: Space Elevators and Pipelines

#87 2004-11-29 21:31:53

Re: Space Elevators and Pipelines

#88 2004-11-29 22:54:25

Re: Space Elevators and Pipelines

#89 2004-11-30 05:16:11

Re: Space Elevators and Pipelines

#90 2004-11-30 06:13:33

Re: Space Elevators and Pipelines

#91 2004-11-30 08:24:23

Re: Space Elevators and Pipelines

#92 2004-11-30 16:08:09

Re: Space Elevators and Pipelines

#93 2004-11-30 16:17:41

Re: Space Elevators and Pipelines

#94 2004-11-30 19:09:31

Re: Space Elevators and Pipelines

#95 2004-11-30 19:25:18

Re: Space Elevators and Pipelines

#96 2004-11-30 19:33:02

Re: Space Elevators and Pipelines

#97 2004-11-30 19:50:40

Re: Space Elevators and Pipelines

#98 2004-11-30 20:00:35

Re: Space Elevators and Pipelines

#99 2004-11-30 20:09:42

Re: Space Elevators and Pipelines

#100 2004-11-30 20:15:10

Re: Space Elevators and Pipelines

Board footer