If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   Elevators to space could be built in coming years using same principles of low centers of gravity and tapering tops employed in Gothic cathedrals. Suck it, atheists   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 75
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1964 clicks; posted to Geek » on 02 Jun 2014 at 11:14 AM (15 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



75 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-02 09:28:21 AM
You religious types didn't learn anything from the Tower of Babylon, did ya, now?
 
2014-06-02 10:35:29 AM
You know that as soon as they build this, some asshole is going to jump inside, press all the buttons and jump back out. And then they're going to have to stop on all 1,000,000 floors.
 
2014-06-02 11:16:21 AM
"All tall buildings, from gothic cathedrals to skyscrapers, stay upright because their centre of gravity is as low as possible. The centre of gravity determines balance, for example. This graphic shows that by digging deep foundations, and securing them with piles of metal and a concrete raft, this centre is underground"

Meh. Let's just tie it off to some fat guy.
 
2014-06-02 11:19:19 AM
Obligatory

imgs.xkcd.com
 
2014-06-02 11:21:53 AM
I initially read the headline as "escalator" and thought that would be some major fail
 
2014-06-02 11:26:07 AM

SurfaceTension: You religious types didn't learn anything from the Tower of Babylon, did ya, now?


Babel, not Babylon. It maybe the same as a rather large ziggurat called Etamenanki built by a Babylonian king, but the biblical name is the Tower of Babel.
 
2014-06-02 11:26:11 AM
Finally, she'll be happy.

www.rouge18.com
 
2014-06-02 11:27:40 AM
It's easy guys.

We just have to make the longest contiguous structure ever made by mankind, out of a substance we can only make in lengths of a few inches, and do it vertically, in an environment that will kill humans in 30 seconds. Oh yeah, we can only get to the building site with enormous chemical rockets that can only lift about a thousand kilograms to the work site.
 
2014-06-02 11:28:27 AM
Why does everybody still seem fixed on building this starting with a 23,000+ mile long cable?

Start with a couple asteroids (one large and one small) put them about 20,000 miles apart and build a framework between. Put the small one hanging down and then drop the cable the last 2,000 miles.
 
2014-06-02 11:30:05 AM

Slives: Why does everybody still seem fixed on building this starting with a 23,000+ mile long cable?

Start with a couple asteroids (one large and one small) put them about 20,000 miles apart and build a framework between. Put the small one hanging down and then drop the cable the last 2,000 miles.


ITS EASY GUYS! WE JUST START BY LASSOING A COUPLE ASTEROIDS WITH OUR SPACE HORSES!
 
2014-06-02 11:32:17 AM
clubtroppo.com.au
 
2014-06-02 11:33:17 AM

Slives: Why does everybody still seem fixed on building this starting with a 23,000+ mile long cable?

Start with a couple asteroids (one large and one small) put them about 20,000 miles apart and build a framework between. Put the small one hanging down and then drop the cable the last 2,000 miles.


Hmmmm, building a giant cable vs pulling a large asteroid towards our planet.  That's a tough one.
 
2014-06-02 11:33:32 AM

fluffy2097: It's easy guys.

We just have to make the longest contiguous structure ever made by mankind, out of a substance we can only make in lengths of a few inches, and do it vertically, in an environment that will kill humans in 30 seconds. Oh yeah, we can only get to the building site with enormous chemical rockets that can only lift about a thousand kilograms to the work site.


Couldn't you have made a similarly dismissing comment in 1930 about going to the moon?
 
2014-06-02 11:34:14 AM
Anyone remember what the expected year-of-the-space-elevator was in last years article?  What about the year before?
 
2014-06-02 11:35:58 AM

cgraves67: SurfaceTension: You religious types didn't learn anything from the Tower of Babylon, did ya, now?

Babel, not Babylon. It maybe the same as a rather large ziggurat called Etamenanki built by a Babylonian king, but the biblical name is the Tower of Babel.


Of course. That's what I get for not paying close attention (as usual) to what I was typing.

gopher321: Meh. Let's just tie it off to some fat guy.


Hey! I resemble that remark!
 
2014-06-02 11:38:50 AM

MugzyBrown: Couldn't you have made a similarly dismissing comment in 1930 about going to the moon?


Yes, but the difference is we've already done the math these days.

Do you know how much payload a Delta IV heavy can get to geostationary orbit? The orbit you need for a Space elevator?

6,750kg Thats IT. The largest rocket that is operational today can only get that much to GEO and it costs 170 million dollars to do it.

Just what sort of money do you intend to be making with this space elevator to justify the expenditure of such resources? It has no strategic use. It has no military use. It doesn't really even have a research use.
 
2014-06-02 11:41:17 AM

Slives: Why does everybody still seem fixed on building this starting with a 23,000+ mile long cable?

Start with a couple asteroids (one large and one small) put them about 20,000 miles apart and build a framework between. Put the small one hanging down and then drop the cable the last 2,000 miles.


I'm guessing that maneuvering two asteroids into a precise location is still rated as "tricky."
 
2014-06-02 11:41:17 AM
Not that the base wouldn't start with a tower, but wouldn't overall moment of inertia matter more in the end for any structure that could be described as reaching 'space' in the end?

I mean, by definition, it has to be tall enough and weighted such that that the center of gravity is both geosynchronous and in free-fall, or close enough that you can make up the difference with propulsion or shearing resistance/stiffness.  Otherwise it'll be moving around, or if it sticks at the base it'll be turning into a 60km long hammer/bola smacking something near the anchor site with the force of a low-yield nuke.
 
2014-06-02 11:42:57 AM

fluffy2097: MugzyBrown: Couldn't you have made a similarly dismissing comment in 1930 about going to the moon?

Yes, but the difference is we've already done the math these days.

Do you know how much payload a Delta IV heavy can get to geostationary orbit? The orbit you need for a Space elevator?

6,750kg Thats IT. The largest rocket that is operational today can only get that much to GEO and it costs 170 million dollars to do it.

Just what sort of money do you intend to be making with this space elevator to justify the expenditure of such resources? It has no strategic use. It has no military use. It doesn't really even have a research use.


You've answered your own question.

Once the elevator is up, the cost to place things, and humans, out of our gravity well and on towards the stars will drop dramatically.
 
2014-06-02 11:43:33 AM
It's 23,000 miles. How farking long will that take? Orbital rockets go like a bat out of hell to get up a few hundred miles.

I'd give better odds to a Loftstrom loop. That'll get you into orbiatcheap, then you can take enough fuel to be profligate in asteroid ranching.
 
2014-06-02 11:45:06 AM
Why do atheists have to suck it? Are they going to build it with prayers or science? Hopefully better science than this article.

/engineer
 
2014-06-02 11:45:35 AM
this is a fun engineering problem, but its entirely too impractical to ever.. get off the ground
 
2014-06-02 11:45:43 AM

MugzyBrown: fluffy2097: It's easy guys.

We just have to make the longest contiguous structure ever made by mankind, out of a substance we can only make in lengths of a few inches, and do it vertically, in an environment that will kill humans in 30 seconds. Oh yeah, we can only get to the building site with enormous chemical rockets that can only lift about a thousand kilograms to the work site.

Couldn't you have made a similarly dismissing comment in 1930 about going to the moon?


Circa 1930 the head of New York public schools complained that the idea of rockets to the moon was rediculous because in the vacuum of space they'd have nothing to push against.
 
2014-06-02 11:47:49 AM

SordidEuphemism: You've answered your own question.

Once the elevator is up, the cost to place things, and humans, out of our gravity well and on towards the stars will drop dramatically.


Ah yes. Our access to a hard vacuum, filled with radiation just ACHING to murder us horribly will be much cheaper.

And we'll be able to get humans to other planets that they will die without tons and tons of life support machinery, if we can even get them to those planets without the radiation killing them.

/Have you ever looked at the cancer rates of astronauts?
 
2014-06-02 11:50:53 AM

wildcardjack: It's 23,000 miles. How farking long will that take? Orbital rockets go like a bat out of hell to get up a few hundred miles.


Hours to days, depending on who you talk to, and if they think you can travel supersonic in an elevator car without the use of chemical rockets.
 
2014-06-02 11:55:11 AM

fluffy2097: MugzyBrown: Couldn't you have made a similarly dismissing comment in 1930 about going to the moon?

Yes, but the difference is we've already done the math these days.

Do you know how much payload a Delta IV heavy can get to geostationary orbit? The orbit you need for a Space elevator?

6,750kg Thats IT. The largest rocket that is operational today can only get that much to GEO and it costs 170 million dollars to do it.

Just what sort of money do you intend to be making with this space elevator to justify the expenditure of such resources? It has no strategic use. It has no military use. It doesn't really even have a research use.


Well, by the time we would be ready to build this thing there will be a number of much more powerful rockets available.
 
2014-06-02 11:57:01 AM
Hollie Maea:
Well, by the time we would be ready to build this thing there will be a number of much more powerful rockets available.

Ah yes, the "someone else will upgrade the 100 year old power grid for my electric car"  argument.
 
2014-06-02 11:58:31 AM

Flappyhead: Slives: Why does everybody still seem fixed on building this starting with a 23,000+ mile long cable?

Start with a couple asteroids (one large and one small) put them about 20,000 miles apart and build a framework between. Put the small one hanging down and then drop the cable the last 2,000 miles.

Hmmmm, building a giant cable vs pulling a large asteroid towards our planet.  That's a tough one.


Well, assuming the barycenter was in geosynchronous orbit, the larger asteroid, theoretically should move further away if the cable let go.

/Sure, the small one will hit ground, but who cares about Quito anyway.
//if you really want to worry, worry about the 20 thousand long mile impact zone when cable snaps up high and whips the cable down with orbital velocity.
 
2014-06-02 12:01:38 PM

fluffy2097: Hollie Maea:
Well, by the time we would be ready to build this thing there will be a number of much more powerful rockets available.

Ah yes, the "someone else will upgrade the 100 year old power grid for my electric car"  argument.


They are already in development, dipshiat.
 
2014-06-02 12:01:45 PM
Rockets are easier, more fun to watch, and don't have those nasty issues with physics.
Okay class, anybody here know where that vator is going to be getting it's orbital velocity? It has to be getting kinetic energy from somewhere. Maybe we should put a rocket engine on it.
 
2014-06-02 12:03:14 PM

Flappyhead: Slives: Why does everybody still seem fixed on building this starting with a 23,000+ mile long cable?

Start with a couple asteroids (one large and one small) put them about 20,000 miles apart and build a framework between. Put the small one hanging down and then drop the cable the last 2,000 miles.

Hmmmm, building a giant cable vs pulling a large asteroid towards our planet.  That's a tough one.


I think building from the asteroid down has merit, getting the cable up to space after building it seems pretty impossible.
the hard part isn't building it it is putting it in place without anything breaking and getting that perfect balance
 
2014-06-02 12:03:46 PM

fluffy2097: SordidEuphemism: You've answered your own question.

Once the elevator is up, the cost to place things, and humans, out of our gravity well and on towards the stars will drop dramatically.

Ah yes. Our access to a hard vacuum, filled with radiation just ACHING to murder us horribly will be much cheaper.

And we'll be able to get humans to other planets that they will die without tons and tons of life support machinery, if we can even get them to those planets without the radiation killing them.

/Have you ever looked at the cancer rates of astronauts?


It's comforting to know that in most cases, people with opinions like yours stay the fark away from the science that shapes our present and our future.
 
2014-06-02 12:08:57 PM

fluffy2097: SordidEuphemism: You've answered your own question.

Once the elevator is up, the cost to place things, and humans, out of our gravity well and on towards the stars will drop dramatically.

Ah yes. Our access to a hard vacuum, filled with radiation just ACHING to murder us horribly will be much cheaper.

And we'll be able to get humans to other planets that they will die without tons and tons of life support machinery, if we can even get them to those planets without the radiation killing them.

/Have you ever looked at the cancer rates of astronauts?


Perhaps slightly higher than the general population, but not at a statistically significant level and potentially due to chance?

Risk of cancer mortality among the Longitudinal Study of Astronaut Health (LSAH) participants.

If you have other data I'd actually be really interested in seeing it.

/health physicist
//undergraduate degree in astrophysics
 
2014-06-02 12:10:09 PM

SewerSquirrels: Okay class, anybody here know where that vator is going to be getting it's orbital velocity? It has to be getting kinetic energy from somewhere.


The rotation of the planet.  Pull your center of mass up and down to make velocity corrections, as you do with any orbiting object.

Yeah, maneuvering thrust would be necessary, most likely, but maneuvering to maintain relative position in geosynchronous orbit is significantly less energy intensive than rocketing something out of the gravity well.  As others have pointed out, the issue is a practical one of materials, there's not real issue with the underlying idea.

// ... do you really think that everything in orbit has to constantly expend fuel/energy to stay up?  Because space threads might not be a good place for you to hang out if that's the case.
 
2014-06-02 12:14:47 PM

fluffy2097: SordidEuphemism: You've answered your own question.

Once the elevator is up, the cost to place things, and humans, out of our gravity well and on towards the stars will drop dramatically.

Ah yes. Our access to a hard vacuum, filled with radiation just ACHING to murder us horribly will be much cheaper.

And we'll be able to get humans to other planets that they will die without tons and tons of life support machinery, if we can even get them to those planets without the radiation killing them.

/Have you ever looked at the cancer rates of astronauts?


Good jerb ignoring half of my statement. Once launches become 1/10th to 1/100th of their current cost, low-budget research projects become possible, opening space to the layman and potentially increasing our knowledge as a species.

But sure. Focus on the negatives, however hyperbolic they may be. Take comfort in them.
 
2014-06-02 12:15:35 PM

Relatively Obscure: Slives: Why does everybody still seem fixed on building this starting with a 23,000+ mile long cable?

Start with a couple asteroids (one large and one small) put them about 20,000 miles apart and build a framework between. Put the small one hanging down and then drop the cable the last 2,000 miles.

I'm guessing that maneuvering two asteroids into a precise location is still rated as "tricky."


All of the anime I've seen on this leads to terrorists using it to kill most of the population on Earth which leads to a race of super hot clones and 13 year-old girls with huge knockers.
 
2014-06-02 12:25:15 PM

fluffy2097: Hollie Maea:
Well, by the time we would be ready to build this thing there will be a number of much more powerful rockets available.

Ah yes, the "someone else will upgrade the 100 year old power grid for my electric car"  argument.



/I help electric utilities do exactly that so I'm getting a kick
 
2014-06-02 12:26:22 PM

Jim_Callahan: SewerSquirrels: Okay class, anybody here know where that vator is going to be getting it's orbital velocity? It has to be getting kinetic energy from somewhere.

The rotation of the planet. Pull your center of mass up and down to make velocity corrections, as you do with any orbiting object.


Yep, but if you try to up mass a few tons, what is going to happen? Your going to pull the top mass (whatever the hell it's called) to the west (and downward) progressively...unless you provide some additional ΔV. I believe it's called the coriolis force.

I figure you or Hollie will school me (Hollie has a long history of doing that); all I know for sure is that somebody is wrong.
 
2014-06-02 12:36:28 PM
alphacentauri2.info

"In one moment, Earth; in the next, Heaven."

-Academician Prokhor Zakharov,
"For I Have Tasted The Fruit"
 
2014-06-02 12:37:35 PM
QA is that you?
 
2014-06-02 12:43:07 PM

SewerSquirrels: Jim_Callahan: SewerSquirrels: Okay class, anybody here know where that vator is going to be getting it's orbital velocity? It has to be getting kinetic energy from somewhere.

The rotation of the planet. Pull your center of mass up and down to make velocity corrections, as you do with any orbiting object.

Yep, but if you try to up mass a few tons, what is going to happen? Your going to pull the top mass (whatever the hell it's called) to the west (and downward) progressively...unless you provide some additional ΔV. I believe it's called the coriolis force.

I figure you or Hollie will school me (Hollie has a long history of doing that); all I know for sure is that somebody is wrong.


Thus the counterweight. You can spool out more cable or draw it in to provide proper rotation.
 
2014-06-02 12:44:50 PM

fluffy2097: SordidEuphemism: You've answered your own question.

Once the elevator is up, the cost to place things, and humans, out of our gravity well and on towards the stars will drop dramatically.

Ah yes. Our access to a hard vacuum, filled with radiation just ACHING to murder us horribly will be much cheaper.

And we'll be able to get humans to other planets that they will die without tons and tons of life support machinery, if we can even get them to those planets without the radiation killing them.

/Have you ever looked at the cancer rates of astronauts?


I just did:  http://www.solarstorms.org/Sastronauts.html

They are higher from the sample size of having incidences of cancer 14 of 312, however, just going to space doesn't necessarily mean that you'll get cancer, in fact it's not certain that these astronauts didn't contract the diseases due to genetics or other factors.

As for getting them to places, Mars is about 3 months away, and would be our first stop. Our technology is getting better at blocking radiation as well.

The major thing that a space elevator would allow is transportation of materials to build bigger and better spacecraft that we couldn't build on Earth. Not to mention that with the elevator you would have shorter trips for observational scientists - e.g. the kinds of people that live on the ISS. The ISS is really a much higher source of radiation than background radiation found in space.

People like you need to realize that just like the frontier days, there were casualties as our society spread westward. Space will suffer (and has suffered) minor losses, but the reward for the Earth and the rest of humanity will be incredible.
 
2014-06-02 12:51:17 PM

TheShavingofOccam123: Finally, she'll be happy.

[www.rouge18.com image 585x390]


Not with an 18-inch Hitachi vibing at something only dogs could hear would make that happy.
 
2014-06-02 12:55:28 PM
I hope I am alive when the elevator crashes down.  Wrapping the world once, impacting at supersonic speeds as it falls.   And I will giggle at man hubris.

But actually we should build it anyway.
 
2014-06-02 01:00:08 PM

SordidEuphemism: SewerSquirrels: Jim_Callahan: SewerSquirrels: Okay class, anybody here know where that vator is going to be getting it's orbital velocity? It has to be getting kinetic energy from somewhere.

The rotation of the planet. Pull your center of mass up and down to make velocity corrections, as you do with any orbiting object.

Yep, but if you try to up mass a few tons, what is going to happen? Your going to pull the top mass (whatever the hell it's called) to the west (and downward) progressively...unless you provide some additional ΔV. I believe it's called the coriolis force.

Thus the counterweight. You can spool out more cable or draw it in to provide proper rotation.


Ooooh...crap. I hate being wrong, but best to just get it over with than stay that way, I guess. I didn't realize that you could give the counter mass more line. That does change things a tad.
 
2014-06-02 01:01:26 PM

Relatively Obscure: Slives: Why does everybody still seem fixed on building this starting with a 23,000+ mile long cable?

Start with a couple asteroids (one large and one small) put them about 20,000 miles apart and build a framework between. Put the small one hanging down and then drop the cable the last 2,000 miles.

I'm guessing that maneuvering two asteroids into a precise location is still rated as "tricky."


Also by definition an astroid 20,000 miles below geosync will be orbiting much faster than geo-sync. So you'd need 2 astroids in geo-sync, build the connection. Then you'd need some way of rotating the whole thing about its center of mass as to keep its center at geosync. I'm not sure it would stay that way though, seems like it would keep rotating???
 
2014-06-02 01:02:46 PM

Saiga410: I hope I am alive when the elevator crashes down.  Wrapping the world once, impacting at supersonic speeds as it falls.   And I will giggle at man hubris.

But actually we should build it anyway.


It wouldn't burn up reentering the atmosphere at that speed?
 
2014-06-02 01:02:48 PM
Is that like a ladder to heaven?
 
2014-06-02 01:06:07 PM

fluffy2097: It's easy guys.

We just have to make the longest contiguous structure ever made by mankind, out of a substance we can only make in lengths of a few inches, and do it vertically, in an environment that will kill humans in 30 seconds. Oh yeah, we can only get to the building site with enormous chemical rockets that can only lift about a thousand kilograms to the work site.


Yes, because we are now at the zenith of human technology and no further progress will ever be made.

i560.photobucket.com

/what are your feelings on 3d printers?
 
2014-06-02 01:13:47 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: You know that as soon as they build this, some asshole is going to jump inside, press all the buttons and jump back out. And then they're going to have to stop on all 1,000,000 floors.


i.imgur.com
 
Displayed 50 of 75 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report