 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by #endgame
Plus the mindworms would keep door-to-door salesmen out. |
Any way to work on the telemarketers ?? Using call display to screen seems so unsatisfying. I was thinking that even a headache sent to them would be nice
|
|
| |
|
|
|
johndmuller
|
 |
Capitol Hill, Colony of DC
Feb 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
That web site referenced in the initial post seems to run counter to some of the previous notions on the subject. In particular, I noticed that they minimized the possibility of damage to earthside in the event of a broken cable reentry. Albeit it is sci-fi, but when the Mars cable was broken in one Kim Robinson's Mars books, the effects of the cable wrapping around the planet several times was pretty dramatic. Also, it sounded like they were planning to launch the cable straight up all at once, IIRC, as in unreeling it from a rocket; its hard to imagine how they could actually do that.
Sad to say, the whole thing sounded a little too not ready for prime time to me; although they seemed to be saying that the US government / NASA was prepared to ante up serious money.
That said, the Washington Post, in a sort-of kids-educational series in the Sunday comics, happens to be running a story about how some people were seriously lobbying Congress to get money to explore the north and south poles so that they could go inside through the humongous holes in the crust they expected to find there, leading to a set of concentric inner Earths, a la Jules Verne or something like that. To top it off, one of the chief lobbyists went on to later become Vice President. No wonder the job gets no respect.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whitering
|
|
Oh oh, this corporation will take over the world now! Think you are safe in the heartland of America? Think again.
The cable referred to in previous Sci-Fi works was not made of the same material as here. I don't doubt that there would be slightly more damage than they are suggesting but it wouldn't be on the same magnitude of say a nuclear blast. You might slice one or two people in half though.
(Can now make orbital inseritions anywhere on the planet). Yikes, that's how I invariably win all my games that happen to run that long.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:16
|
|
Its fun to speculate but I to me concepts like this are still in the far off science fiction
|
|
| |
|
|
|
binTravkin
|
 |
Lord of Progress of the Council of Lords of Gaia
Jan 2004
time: 07:16
|
|
quote:
Albeit it is sci-fi, but when the Mars cable was broken in one Kim Robinson's Mars books, the effects of the cable wrapping around the planet several times was pretty dramatic. |
Well, I must say I was once good at chemistry (during Secondary School years) and there was plenty of talks going on about those nanotubes.
When I went to the University to prepare for international chemistry contest we were even doing calculations and drawing those tubes - there are special software for that, you know.
And the point is that:
A C-C (Carbon) bond(am I using the right word) is one of the most enduring molecular bonds known that is what makes nanotubes so strong.
But that's only if we talk about physical strenght.
When it comes to chemical strenght, it is a piece of cake to cut those two C atoms apart - even flame can do it.
So they're using other elements as well in these tubes, like C-Si-C-Si strings (Silicium), to make them more chemically strong.
The point is - it is almost impossible to physically disintegrate a nanotube (especially in it's direction), but it is pretty easy to disintegrate it chemically.
What keeps them from being used more frequently now is this chemical inconsistency. In laboratory you can keep the tube in a steril environment, but just throw it out on street and I bet it will disintegrate pretty fast.
The task is to make them stable enough to not disintegrate in the atmosphere. In case they will fall down to Earth, Im pretty sure there will be some means to make them at least split in little bits. One of the possible solutions is filling the interior of the tube with a good conductor and then firing a powerful electric current into it, so it breaks at least some C-C bonds. As soon as some will be broken, an effect of avalanche will appear, as the broken bonds will be start of reaction with the atmosphere, namely oxygen.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
johndmuller
|
|
Capitol Hill, Colony of DC
Feb 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
I guess it's good that a broken cable won't make a huge trench wrapping around the planet several times, but OTOH, if it did, then we wouldn't have to explain to little kids anymore that the big stripe around the middle of the globe wasn't really there, because it really would be - talk about an easy way to cut through the political red tape to find a good straight route for a mag-lev line.
Anyway, even if the cable itself isn't a potential major hazard (and I still have my doubts about that), whatever is on it at that moment is bound to be. After all, the idea is to use this to raise heavy stuff to orbit, so there's going to be some heavy stuff up there, coming down pretty hard. I don't know how bad it could get - if it were a big load nearly at the geosynchronous equilibrium point - but if it were no worse than a bad plane crash, I suppose we could live with that kind of risk. Presumably the orbital station and the counterweight would be somehow prepared to deal with the situation out there. Perhaps it would even be possible to fit the cargo modules with some sort of emergency reentry system, at least something with enough control to avoid hitting population centers and nuclear reactors.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
johndmuller
|
|
Capitol Hill, Colony of DC
Feb 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
From the point of view of the station (presumably located at the geosynchronous orbit) they would most likely want to jetison the counterweight (and the residual segment on the down-to-earth side) to stay in their orbit rather than go off at some tangential course or end up in an eccentric elliptical orbit.
From the point of view of a load abandoned part-way up (which was what I was referring to in my post, not the station itself), either because it was below the break or because the station disconnected, whether or not it disintegrated would depend on how high up it was, how aerodynamic it was and no doubt other stuff, like what the load was. Obviously, at lower heights, there would not be time to develop the kind of speed necessary to burn up.
If it were way beyond the atmosphere (but still below the station), it still might not be going that fast when it hit the atmosphere; remember, things like Mir or the Space Shuttle were going around the earth a lot faster than the initial velocity of the cargo pod (the pod would be by definition doing only one orbit per day, while low earth sats like Mir do multiple - say 5 or more - orbits per day). Of course, if it was a really long drop from way beyond the atmosphere. the vertical compontent could ratchet right up there making that distinction moot.
It is also possible that the break could be on the counterweight side of the station at the equilibrium point, in which case, they would also want to disconnect the earthbound side - this time to stay up there instead of starting the long descent.
Still, if the cable itself isn't a killer, the risk associated with the random stuff going up or down, whether in one or many pieces, should not be a show stopper.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
WotanAnubis
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by binTravkin
And in other words? (so a non-native english speaker can catch you). |
Ever heard the term "elevator music"? Now think about space elevator music - if it doesn't improve dramatically, half the passengers will be insane once they've finally reached the top and the other half will have committed suicide.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-03-2005 09:20
post; good find, thanks
) - i.e. launch them into the sun.
.
who thinks my little writeup about nanotubes is extremely funny. I dunno him pretty well, but I suppose if it was so funny to him there might be more people who think it's just a piece of bullshit.
|