[ExI] Space Elevator

Kevin Freels kevinfreels at insightbb.com
Wed Mar 26 18:07:07 UTC 2008


Given the massive amounts of energy, expense and complications required 
to get people out of the gravity well, maybe we would be better off 
skipping propulsion altogether and moving on to transporter technology. 
After all, the reason Star Trek used them was because faking the landing 
and take off of a spacecraft on each planet was just too complicated and 
expensive. :-)



Keith Henson wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin at rawbw.com> wrote:
>   
>> Keith wrote
>>
>>  > The unobtainium part of the space elevator is the cable.  There are
>>  > persistent rumors that the University of Cambridge has demonstrated 20
>>  > GPa nanotube yarn, the report has been expected to be published in
>>  > science for a few months, but nothing has happened.  Even 20 GPa isn't
>>  > strong enough, but it's getting there.
>>
>>  I've never looked into this or studied it at all.  But what about this?
>>  Just as we launch today's spaceships from the bottom of a big
>>  airliner or a B52, why not tether the lower end to the highest
>>  flying dirigible we can find?  Cable still too heavy?
>>     
>
> Think about it.  The highest you can go with a balloon is about
> 100,000 feet.  That's 20 miles out of 22,000.
>
> The Wikipedia article has the space elevator math worked out.
>
> Keith
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20080326/fa66203b/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list