←back to thread

Space Elevator

(neal.fun)
1773 points kaonwarb | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
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 #
adwn ◴[] No.45641436[source]
Almost all discussions around space elevators focus on the cable itself, how to manufacture and deploy it, and completely forget about the issues that would arise afterwards:

1) How do you attach the climber to the cable without affecting its structural integrity? By squeezing it really hard? A material that's optimized for longitudinal tension strength is probably not very tolerant of lateral compression.

2) How do you provide power to the climber? A regular electric cable can't support its own weight, so either you have to attach it to the climbing cable, or you have to make it from the same material.

3) Is it even worth it? The climber needs to cover a distance of ~36,000 km, so even at 200 km/h it takes 7.5 days from the bottom to geosynchronous orbit. How many climbers and what payload can the cable support at the same time? Refer to issue #1 regarding limits in speed and mass per climber.

The throughput in tonnes/day is absolutely abysmal in relation to the immense upfront infrastructure cost per elevator. Compare this to SpaceX's Starship, which is getting closer and closer to fully reusable 100 tonnes to orbit in minutes. Space elevators will stay science fiction forever, not because they're infeasible, but because they're useless.

replies(2): >>45645524 #>>45652746 #
seer ◴[] No.45645524[source]
If you somehow manage to get magnetic fields involved, so you are not afraid of friction with the cable itself, at 1.3 max apparent acceleration/deceleration (after a turnover) and including earth’s gravity you get 116min to geostationary.

If you account for various inefficiencies like taking it slow in the lower atmosphere Ant whatnot, it still should be in the matter of hours. So totally feasible and even comfortable.

replies(1): >>45647400 #
adwn ◴[] No.45647400[source]
> If you somehow manage to get magnetic fields involved, so you are not afraid of friction with the cable itself, at 1.3 max apparent acceleration […]

This means that half-way after 58 minutes, the climber is traveling at 0.3 * 9.81 m/s² * 60 * 58 ~= 10.2 km/s ~= 36,720 km/h (!!!) relative to the cable. A tiny imperfection or wobble is going to make the climber crash into the cable, destroying both.

A climber with a mass of 10 tonnes requires 10^4 kg * 1.3 * 9.81 m/s² ~= 127.5 kN of force to accelerate at 1.3 g. At the ~56 minute mark, the climber reaches a speed of ~9,888 m/s. This means it requires a power output of 127.5 kN * 9888 m/s = 1.26 GW (!!!) to achieve this acceleration, plus overhead for the power electronics and transmission. Even at a voltage of 1 kV, that's around 1,500,000 A (!!!) of current that you have to transmit and invert.

If you have a way to reliably transfer that amount of power without touching the cable which is moving at 10 km/s relative speed, or with touching but without immediately melting the cable or the collector, let me know :-)

> So totally feasible

lol no

replies(3): >>45648623 #>>45648636 #>>45656505 #
ben_w ◴[] No.45648623[source]
> A tiny imperfection or wobble is going to make the climber crash into the cable, destroying both.

A maglev train is several centimeters from the rail; if someone made the carbon nanostructures (the only known material strong enough are atomically precise carbon nanotubes or graphene, but the entire length has to be atomically precise you can't splice together the shorter tubes we can build today) this badly wrong, the cable didn't survive construction.

> Even at a voltage of 1 kV, that's around 1,500,000 A

Why on earth would you do one kilovolt? We already have megavolt powerlines. That reduces the current needed to 1500 A. 1500 A on a powerline is… by necessity, standard for a power station.

We even already have superconductor cables and tapes that do 1500 A, they're a few square millimeters cross section.

replies(2): >>45648852 #>>45652787 #
LorenPechtel ◴[] No.45652787{3}[source]
Have you ever seen a megavolt power line? Note how far apart the wires are. They are actually a bit farther apart than they really need to be because it is designed to tolerate a large bird with spread wings, but they still need quite a bit of distance. I believe you can tolerate a closer spacing once you're out in space and have no possibility of a plasma arc.
replies(1): >>45653839 #
1. ben_w ◴[] No.45653839{4}[source]
Indeed, I have not, however, I have looked up the breakdown voltage of vacuum at those altitudes, as long as the graph wasn't completely fictional, in that part of space even just 2 cm (barely, but it does) support a megavolt.