You are not logged in.
tim,
So the first elevator should indeed be gov't owned. I'm buying into this now.
I was more or less suggesting the opposite (depending on ones definition of government- I like to consider such things publicly owned).
If we have one space elevator, it would put almost everyone out of the space launching business. Pretty much common sense. But that one elevator could dictate prices how it saw fit. So, we could potentially have a situation where they're cheaper than conventional launches, but still prohibitively expensive for a lot of other things. And their capacity could hardly be touched at all. So one elevator isn't exactly in everyones interest.
But we'd have a perfect opportunity for other space elevators to come up, and they'd compete quite nicely with each other. Eventually we'd have prices drop way much, as more elevators are built. Then it gets tricky, though. If we have ten space elevators all competing with each other, they're all packed out, all pretty cheap and not profiting much, who will build the new ones? No one! There's no money to be made because the free market has made it so cheap!
That's basically why I intervened in this thread, if there's no profit to be made, governments or other organizations (ie, the public) will get their hands into the mix. Just like with the public highways in the US.
They aren't going to sacrifice safety as you mentioned, as the loss of their ribbon puts them out of business.
So? I'd think that they were in it for the money, nothing more. Not everyone is in the business for the sake of doing something they enjoy, some people look at the overall return, and if it's greater by a large percentage, they accept it. If they could get 10x return for their elevator over x ammount of time, they would, and then sell it to some sucker who's going to wind up putting so much into repairing it, they could've built a newer better one.
clark,
If the first one is government owned, won't the rest be too?
Heh, probably, considering that once we have several of them none of them is going to be able to make much profit.
soph,
No. It's contracting.
Oh well, even if they're not government owned, I expect them to be laughably cheap, so it really doesn't matter. CNTs are awesome. And HLS's design is pretty brilliant, even though it's all common sense stuff when you think about it.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
You all seem to forget that costs will come down. It's a natural part of the production process-things get cheaper as you figure out better ways to make them, understand their processes, modify your designs, etc.
The first elevator will be a golden goose compared to what will come after it. Highlift's predictions are $10 billion to $20 billion for the first elevator, and $1 billion to $2 billion for the immediately subsequent, higher capacity elevators. Five, ten years after that, I wouldn't be surprised if it were $500 million to $1 billion per elevator.
Now, if it were contracted only to one agency-no, I don't see this happening. However, Highlift, who seem to have good business sense, will probably try to cut their own costs, and their prices too, to attract more customers. So our initial estimates for the economics of an elevator are irrelevant for the second and third elevators, and really irrelevant after that.
Offline
Josh has been talking about a road analogy. He says that the elevators should be owned by za fazaland...I mean the people. :;): This is unavoidable because they aren't profitable. Huh?
If all roads were privately owned you would just have to pay tolls to drive on them. Bingo - profits! As for the maintainance, could it get worse than our current govt. owned roads. If two competing companies owned competing roads the one that had a bunch of potholes would lose business and would have to either fix them or lower prices and target the "economy class" drivers.
As for space elevators you say there is a saturation point. When you get x number of elevators up the price per ticket will fall so low that it will be unprofitable to build anymore elvators. You forget however that as price falls demand rises. So, your going to have more of a demand as access to space becomes cheaper. In other words the demand will increase as time goes on. Just like your road analogy. More roads are continually being built and expanded. A planner from the 1950s would not have guessed that there would ever be such a demand for 8 lane superhighways. In fifty more years we might see Earth-Moon commuters. Who knows? But, if you look at history you'll see that the demand will always increase. The supply (more elevators) will have to increase as well.
Offline
But, if you look at history you'll see that the demand will always increase. The supply (more elevators) will have to increase as well.
No it doesn't. Demand is a bell-shaped curve, along with just about everything else.
Offline
OK tim, I may not know what I'm talking about. I'm not an economics professor. But you'll have to convince me. When I look at the history of transportation (which is what space elevators are all about) all I see is an ever increasing demand. I do agree that a particular vehicle will follow a bell curve - horses aren't in great demand anymore - but demand for transportation in general should increase exponentially. I may be an idiot but that's what I see from history.
Eventually the elevators may be phased out if something better can replace them, but this probably won't happen for a long time - maybe centuries. Only then will the bell curve for elevators peak.
Offline
I do agree that a particular vehicle will follow a bell curve - horses aren't in great demand anymore - but demand for transportation in general should increase exponentially. I may be an idiot but that's what I see from history.
Perhaps over a century, the demand will taper off, because the elevator (at least the initial ones) will be obsolete. Freight trains, for example, have been replaced by airplanes, which may one day be replaced by high speed, transoceanic/continental spaceplanes. Sure, trains are good for a 50 mile commute, and planes may be great for a 100-500 mile commute. But the curve is sharper than you make it out to be.
Transportation-yes, the demand is increasing. But that's focusing way too much on macroeconomics. What we are discussing here is microeconomics-specific industries. And transportation modes face the bell curve.
"Transportation is in great demand!" Fantastic! But are horses (substitute elevators in 50-150 years from now) in great demand?
I don't think elevators will be obsolete for a long time-perhaps not ever. But they will have to innovate and improve, and the elevators of 2200 will not be the same elevators as 2050.
Offline
OK tim, I may not know what I'm talking about.
I misused "demand" - it should have been quantity. Quantity is a bell shaped curve. The gist of it is, you may not have any increase in quantity of riders at $50 as opposed to the quantity of riders at $100, for example.
According to the elasticity models on the highlift site, quantity will flatten out around $600 or so. Once you have lowered costs below $600/pd you don't have that much of an increase in quantity as you lower costs further.
Offline
There is a curve for demand-the supply and demand curve. Too much supply, too little demand.
However, technology is its own curve.
Offline
If all roads were privately owned you would just have to pay tolls to drive on them. Bingo - profits! As for the maintainance, could it get worse than our current govt. owned roads.
Heh, you answer your second question already. If profit is the primary motivator, what need is there for maintainance? The problem is when cost is so low (we have a dozen or so elevators, all operating at high capacity, some of them are even government owned which run at cost, and no more), you can't make profit, and you have to curb maintainance to fill your wallet.
You forget however that as price falls demand rises.
Sure. People tend to take the ?free? highways over the toll ones. But what's your point? I even said that there would probably be a queue. The question is which elevators would be running at their highest capacity? The cost of running an elevator is hardly the cost of, as other people here suggest, running shipping lines, etc. It's like maintaining a road. So the highest capacity elevators would be the ones running at cost, because they'd be the most affordable ones. People would gladly wait in a queue if the cost is right.
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
an old thread worth bumping?
Gravity of the Moon or Europa or Callisto or Mars is lower than the gravity of Earth the requirements to the tensile strength of the rope is less, making this construction easier, Phobos and Deimos are in low orbit will intersect the cable in intervals.
Space Colonization Using Space-Elevators from Phobos - NASA
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi … 065879.pdf
non equatorial space tether?
https://gassend.net/publications/NonEqu … vators.pdf
Why Space Elevators Could Be the Future of Space Travel
https://futurism.com/why-space-elevator … ace-travel
Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-09-13 10:01:29)
Offline
Another Earth Could Orbit In The Distant Reaches Of The Solar System, Say Astronomers
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc … system-say
Perhaps also used in a far-ish future, new exploration of Mesoplanets, Asteroid mining and the transport of waters or minerals, organic compounds called tholins on the surface, use of irons, the Oort cloud, Orbiting Asteroid Moons with tethers, minor dwarf planet and other trans-Neptunian objects.
Offline
I wonder what is the perfect world for a space elevator, maybe an already known very fast spinning small body with important minerals and resources? h = ³√ G * m * T² / ( 4 * π² ) - r h is the orbit height in meters, G is the gravitational constant, m is the mass of the celestial body
FA between satellite and Earth the inward radial direction and its magnitude is given by the equation FA=R2GMm
where M= aprox 6×10 ^24kg
Geosynchronous / Geostationary we know it does not work on Mercury, it might not work on a large station even if it spins fast an artificial made object it can be held together by other forces than gravity and a Geosynchronous Orbit might even so close to an object it is inside a satellite or might be inside a fake spinning Biosphere, the Venus Geosynchronous orbit seems too far away to be useful.
The gravitational constant GM (μ) for Mars is 42830 km3 s−2, its radius is 3389.50 km and the known rotational period (T) of the planet is 1.02595676 Earth days or 88642.66 sec. Mars' orbital altitude is equal to 17039 km.
https://web.archive.org/web/20060907215 … t_phys_par
The near-Earth asteroids, 2013 BS45, 2021 DW1, 2004 FH, 2010 AL30, 2008 HJ, Kamooalewa 2016 HO3, 2013 PJ10, have been spotted spinning very fast, some breaking the record for the fastest rotating natural object in the Solar System, some have been designated as a super-fast rotator, some worlds are so small you might be able to jump off them and space elevators are not needed?
Planetary Fact Sheet - Metric
https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/
The mass of Pluto is only 0.22% that of Earth
Pluto = 0.0130 X 10 ^24 Kg
I think this article could be an AI writing, not sure
'Space Elevators: The Future of Space Transportation?'
https://newspaceeconomy.ca/2023/06/28/s … portation/
Kurzgesagt do a lot of funny cartoons mixed with science and 'dark humor' from a German animation and simple toon design studio
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPQQwqGWktE
Ganymede orbits Jupiter in roughly seven days and is in a 1:2:4 orbital resonance with moons Europa and Io, respectively.
I am not sure about these numbers but I will quote Video game math programmer people doing 'World Building' on stackexchange
'Space Elevator for Ganymede'
https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com
My settlement on Jupiter's moon Ganymede is to get a space elevator. Unfortunately, I am completely overwhelmed with the math: How long would the cable have to be to the stationary anchor point in orbit? And would this point still be within the magnetic field of Ganymede (which is favourably extended at the equatorial regions, as far as we know today)?
https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com … r-ganymede
You are looking for where ω2⋅r=GM÷r2 or, more to the point, r=GM÷ω2−−−−−−−−√3Ganymede has a mass (M) of 1.48×1023
kilograms; its rotational velocity (ω) is one revolution per 7.1 days- 0.00024582 radians per second; and the gravitational constant (G) is 6.67×10−11That should be a "r" of 5,466 kilometers from Ganymede's core, about 2,832 kilometers from the surface.
What about a counterweight? If you have something heavy, like Apophis (300 meter diameter-- approx 98.9 million tons), the counterweight can be parked just 912 meters further down the line and you'll be good (assuming you are using untapered cable made of 7,000 kg per cubic meter steel).
With Ganymede having a rotation period the same as its orbit (roundly a week), and all the other moons in the system, there isn't really a stationary orbit, but there's something better: your elevator can stretch to the Ganymede/Jupiter L1 point, the quasi-stable location where Jupiter's and Ganymede's gravity fields cancel each other. Alternatively, you could go for the L2, where the addition of the two fields gives a quasi-stable region further from Jupiter with the same orbital period as Ganymede.
Building a Space Elevator in a hazardous radioactive environment of Jupiter might be scifi for now, a huge technical problem has been the weight of the cable to hold up on Earth, no known material existing the elevator itself would need to withstand micro-meteorites which already impact satellites and the space station. Phobos tidal-locked with one side always facing its primary, would have an elevator 6,000 km from that inward and would end about 28 kilometers above the Martian surface, away from the dense part of atmosphere. Futuristic Cables made from Carbon nanotubes are one of the future candidates on Earth, diamond nano threads are another.
'Space Elevator on Mars with Today's Technology Possible?'
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest … y-possible
I know it's not possible with Earth today, but With today's level of material science technology, would it be possible to make cable strong and light enough to make a space elevator system connecting a Mars-synchronous satellite to an anchor on Mars' surface, ignoring any load at all by an elevator car?
There is a reply by a person using the user name 'Martin'
The long answer is much more complicated: 1. Taper of the tether plays a role as much as the safety factor you want to engineer into your elevator, how much a tether can hold, and how much material you can put into space to construct it. Strength, taper, and tether mass are related. You can check for the Space Elevator feasibility condition via isec.org or Google. It is basically some form of decay equation: how much do you need to keep lifting to maintain or grow your elevator, basically taking away from transport payload for maintenance/repairs. 2. Mars has some interesting options with Deimos being made of mostly Carbon.
There is also a comment by Alan Rominger who says he's a nuclear engineer by training
I'll have to concede that it is possible, since Zylon is a real material, even if I am skeptical the industrial production capability and quality control. If you'll just accept the ratio of 1,929 then we can agree it is possible. It might be promptly broken by a meteorite, but that's not the question.
a comment from Calliban on a discussion of alternative methods to orbit
For minor planets and dwarf planets, a simple cable may be more efficient than a catapult. We can launch material from its surface using an elevator. Provided we extend the cable beyond a synchronous orbit and attach a counter weight, it should remain taught. For the Pluto-Charon system, Charon is actually in a stationary orbit. By extending a cable out from its surface in the direction away from Pluto, we could use it own orbital kinetic energy to launch payloads. Haumea would be an interesting one. It already has a rapid rotion that we can use as an energy source.
Haumea is roughly the same size as Pluto.
https://science.nasa.gov/dwarf-planets/haumea/
It is one of the fastest rotating large objects in our solar system. The fast spin distorts Haumea's shape, making this dwarf planet look like a football. Everything we know about Haumea is from observations with ground-based telescopes from around the world.
Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-12-12 18:38:52)
Offline
Geosynchronous orbit 35,786 km (22,236 mi) many have a counter weight design at double the distance 70,000 km or 43495.9 miles
End of rocketry? ....of course not, maybe you will just lift bigger rockets into space and put them in Mars museums .
The Space Elevator Construction Concept
https://www.obayashi.co.jp/en/news/deta … ncept.html
The space elevator is planned to be built by the year 2050
'Orbital Rings' - Isaac Arthur
also for the scifi concept of 'planet building'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMbI6sk-62E
Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-12-12 18:46:58)
Offline