←back to thread

Space Elevator

(neal.fun)
1773 points kaonwarb | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jvanderbot ◴[] No.45643427[source]
Very cool. One thing I wish was better shown: space is close, it's just hard to go up. Our liveable breathable atmosphere is razor thin compared to the size of earth.

In most cases, 100km is less than the distance between sizeable metropolitan areas. It's a day long bike ride. Air runs out less than a bus ride across town. A 15k jog/hike would put you in the stratosphere. Those jet aircraft that seem so high are closer than that. Closer than your friends house or the local stadium probably.

Look at a map or globe with that in mind and everything feels so thin!

replies(9): >>45643658 #>>45646207 #>>45646233 #>>45646338 #>>45646829 #>>45646910 #>>45647596 #>>45647668 #>>45648223 #
messe ◴[] No.45643658[source]
> it's just hard to go up

Going up is the comparatively easy part, it's not exactly rocket science. Going fast enough sideways so you stay up there is the tricky bit.

replies(6): >>45643965 #>>45644286 #>>45646224 #>>45649112 #>>45652691 #>>45654212 #
aDyslecticCrow ◴[] No.45643965[source]
> Going fast enough sideways so you stay up there is the tricky bit.

nah, thats the simple part. getting up there efficiently is the difficulty. once we're up, its just a matter of force over time to create a nice orbit.

The faster you go, the more friction you face, and the more heat and vibration your equipment must endure.

Going slower reduce friction and stress but use more energy just negating gravity. Slow rocket is inefficient rocket.

So we wanna leave the atmosphere as soon as possible, but not so fast that the rocket melts or engines collapse. Prefferably just below the sound barrier.

once we're up, its pretty chill... until you wanna go down again. Slow rocket is alive rocket.

replies(5): >>45644389 #>>45645766 #>>45646139 #>>45650495 #>>45652373 #
hinkley ◴[] No.45650495{3}[source]
The best way I’ve seen it described is that the first 9.8 m/s² of thrust only makes you hover in place. So the more g forces you generate the higher the efficiency of the engine - as long as thrust per kg of fuel doesn’t dip too far.

This all changes in outer space, where 0.01g is a valid propulsion mechanism for long duration missions.

replies(1): >>45652432 #
LorenPechtel ◴[] No.45652432{4}[source]
Yup. Look at the launch trajectory of the Webb telescope. The upper stage engine was too weak for the orbital insertion and the booster had to waste energy putting it higher than need be so the upper stage engine had altitude to trade for time to keep the telescope from hitting the atmosphere.

But it was the optimum solution because that engine had a long burn to take it to L2. Hauling less engine to L2 was worth more than the loss of the engine not being powerful enough to fight gravity.

replies(1): >>45658908 #
1. hinkley ◴[] No.45658908{5}[source]
God bless the Webb team but if a manager came to me to pitch a software project with as many sequential events that had to go perfect I would have told him to fuck right off. After I stopped laughing so hard I couldn’t breathe.

I made a pikachu face when they returned the first image.