←back to thread

Space Elevator

(neal.fun)
1773 points kaonwarb | 10 comments | | HN request time: 0.207s | source | bottom
Show context
tempestn ◴[] No.45640679[source]
TIL it's estimated that over 48 tons of meteors hit the atmosphere every day.

Regarding actual space elevators though, while they're not sci-fi to the extent of something like FTL travel - ie. they're technically not physically impossible - they're still pretty firmly in the realm of sci-fi. We don't have anything close to a cable that could sustain its own weight, let alone that of whatever is being elevated. Plus, how do you stabilize the cable and lifter in the atmosphere?

A space elevator on the moon is much more feasible: less gravity, slow rotation, no atmosphere, less dangerous debris. But it's also much less useful.

replies(10): >>45641098 #>>45641279 #>>45641321 #>>45641436 #>>45641636 #>>45641725 #>>45642489 #>>45644099 #>>45644600 #>>45647734 #
tsimionescu ◴[] No.45641725[source]
While a space elevator doesn't contradict any fundamental limits of physics, that doesn't mean it's actually possible to build one. There is no reason to be certain that it's actually possible to create a material that has the required characteristics in terms of tensile strength to support it's own weight, plus the weight of the elevator, plus the weight of all the additional cabling. It also has to endure the huge temperature differences that it will experience along its length and from day to night and from season to season.

This is especially true considering that you don't need something that barely holds - you need something that you know will hold up to many times more weight than it needs to, so that it can be safe: the potential energy such a thing would store would be enough to dig into hundreds of meters of rock all around the world, if it ever crashed. So, you have to ensure there is no realistic chance of it ever crashing. It also has to be highly non-fragile in other ways, so that a madman with a bomb or a freak collision with an airplane or a meteor (especially likely in the thin upper layers of the atmosphere) won't bring it all down.

This combination of properties may well be completely impossible to actually achieve in a material. Even if there is no obvious basic law of physics that it would break, that doesn't mean that it wouldn't break other, harder to touch, derived laws.

replies(3): >>45641944 #>>45642412 #>>45647741 #
icetank ◴[] No.45642412[source]
The issue of the line falling back to earth is solved by putting the base of the elevator on water. If the top part of the elevator was cut of you could even detonate charges along the line to make sure all pieces fall into water.
replies(5): >>45642456 #>>45642635 #>>45642852 #>>45647151 #>>45647938 #
1. pfdietz ◴[] No.45642852[source]
There's also the issue of the vehicle on the space elevator falling back to Earth if it detaches from the space elevator (accidentally or deliberately in case of malfunction that stops it from moving up). This means each vehicle will need rockets on it. At low altitude, the rockets are fired to keep the vehicle from reentering the atmosphere too fast at a steep angle, killing the passengers. At high altitude, the rockets fire to raise the perigee enough that the vehicle misses the atmosphere entirely (or enters at a very shallow survivable angle). There's a cross over point that dictates the delta V the rocket must be able to deliver. which if I vaguely recall correctly is greater than 4 km/s.

Pure payload capsules with no passengers wouldn't need this.

The argument for space elevators is that there's a pretty strong limit on how much payload can be launched by rockets due to injection of water into the upper atmosphere. Starship could arguably reach this limit with plausible projected growth rates in traffic.

replies(2): >>45643029 #>>45652665 #
2. actionfromafar ◴[] No.45643029[source]
Why is the water bad?
replies(2): >>45643493 #>>45644559 #
3. tonyhart7 ◴[] No.45643493[source]
heavy as fuck
replies(1): >>45643591 #
4. actionfromafar ◴[] No.45643591{3}[source]
It would like, rain down hard?
5. pfdietz ◴[] No.45644559[source]
In the stratosphere it both contributes to IR opacity, increasing global warming, and can provide ice surfaces on which ozone destruction is amplified. The stratosphere is normally extremely dry, so even small inputs can have an effect that would be invisible in the much moister troposphere.
replies(1): >>45646808 #
6. actionfromafar ◴[] No.45646808{3}[source]
Aha, so in the stratosphere we should use oxygen / solid carbon boosters?
replies(1): >>45647482 #
7. pfdietz ◴[] No.45647482{4}[source]
Their Isp is very low, unfortunately, because the molecular weight of the combustion gas is too high. Ditto for oxygen/carbon monoxide.

Maybe the Isp could be increased by mixing in some helium, but helium is very expensive.

replies(1): >>45650901 #
8. LargoLasskhyfv ◴[] No.45650901{5}[source]
Methalox should suffice for practical and technical reasons?

Compensate the slight loss of ISP by using aerospiked rotating detonation engines...

replies(1): >>45652428 #
9. pfdietz ◴[] No.45652428{6}[source]
Methalox contains hydrogen (methane is CH4), which turns into water, either in the engine, or oxidized by the atmosphere after being expelled.
10. LorenPechtel ◴[] No.45652665[source]
Ouch, never thought of the re-entry angle problem. Straight down is bad.