http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_fountain What about these guys? I know you've mentioned them before. I prefer these to the space elevator, largely because I've READ KSR's description of what happens when one fails... Mike H. On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 6:52 AM, Apptech wrote: >> What happened to the ladder to heaven we were going to >> build? > > Tower of Babel, did you say? :-) > > Presumably you mean the "beanstalk" / space elevator / ... > It is almost practical now for limiting values of practical. > ie the "taper" rate depends on the strength of the material > used. The best material available now COULD (probably) be > used to build one, but the taper rate is ugly. If the > material scientist boyos keep chugging along at current > rates it will keep on getting more practical and start to > approach downright compelling in a few decades. (When they > start *seriously* talking about building a single span > suspension bridge across the Straits of Gibralta it's bean > stalk time. Materials requirements are roughly equal. > This version cheats - only 5000 metre spans (!) > http://www.opacengineers.com/index.php?menu=projectsheet,Gibraltar > > Beanstalks have other issues apart from pure implementation > practicality. You have to build them from the top down or > top down with fly in or similar. Having a lot better/cheaper > access to space (chicken and egg) and will power to do it > and need to do it would help muchly. If you can source some > materials from 'out there' it saves hauling it from 'down > here' which can help. The idea of making this sort of thing > from material gained from 'out there' is liable to rather > add to the delays. > > If you break one of these, depending where you break it. it > will want to wrap itself all the way round the world a > number of times. That could be an extremely bad thing to be > anywhere near, quite apart from what the shareholders and > insurers are liable to say. If you do build one then placing > a nuke or other suitable device on board becomes the #1 > dream of every 911_upstager_wannabee going. Trying to fly > anthing, however innocuous, anywhere near it would guarantee > flight 007 / USS Vinciennes type results instantly. Deciding > who is "allowed" to build something that so dominates so > many aspects of earth and who allows them to will be > interesting questions. If there are N of these (N >1) then > you really really really don't want even 1 of them to fall > down! Mayhaps (and I just made this up) by making them > resonant and slightly off equator you MAY be able to make > them mutually non interfering in the case of a disaster. > (Resonant beanstalks have been proposed for eg Mars to allow > them to dodge the moons which are below the beanstalks > necessary minimum height.)(Or is that only one of the > moons - too lazy / forget - look it up yourself). A static > beanstalk must have its feet on the equator but perhaps a > dynamically oscillating oen can be offset slightly. Perhaps. > > Kim Stanley Robinson is his stunningly marvellous > Red/Green/Blue Mars fiction trilogy did a fair job of > discussing the making and breaking of beanstalks. > > Many refs below. > > > Russell > > Here's one on 'some world somewhere'. > Nice picture. > > http://www.blog.speculist.com/archives/06_SpaceElevator.jpeg > > A fw people [tm] are interested: > > http://www.spaceelevator.com/ > > http://www.spaceelevatorblog.com/ > > http://www.liftport.com/ > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator > > http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html > > NASA ! :-) > > http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1.htm > > http://www.spaceward.org/elevator2010 > > > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist