Space Elevators Face Wobble Problem 244
NewScientist is reporting that while the strength of the tether has long been considered the main problem in building a space elevator, a new study suggests that a dangerous wobbling problem may also be a serious obstacle. "Previous studies have noted that gravitational tugs from the Moon and Sun, as well as pressure from gusts of solar wind, would shake the tether. That could potentially make it veer into space traffic, including satellites and bits of space debris. A collision could cut the tether and wreck the space elevator."
A collision could cut the tether... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like something I remember seeing as a kid. So the passengers either end up on a planet very much like Earth, but where they're tiny and everyone else is a giant, or they end up lost on an alien planet with a mechanical sounding robot and stow-away agent who's scared of everything (including work).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A collision could cut the tether... (Score:5, Interesting)
The design that specified steel cable did so specifically to show how impractical it would be to attempt a cable using existing materials.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You:No, most designs specify a thin ribbon.
You're a politician, right?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
As long as we consult the stars before building the thing, breakage shouldn't be a problem.
Then why not a space escalator? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Then why not a space escalator? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Then why not a space escalator? (Score:4, Funny)
Well it makes perfect sense to me!
Re:Then why not a space escalator? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Then why not a space escalator? (Score:5, Interesting)
You do realize that most goods imported are imported on ships rather than airplanes, right? The reason for this is because while it is possible to import everything by airplane (as was done in the Berlin airlift) it is much more expensive to do so. In the case of a person traveling across the ocean the extra energy can be justified by the convenience of rapid travel. Most shipped items however don't have to be anywhere in any particular hurry so if it takes a few weeks for them on a boat it is no big deal.
Similarly a space elevator can be used for things such as hauling materials and supplies up to geosynchronous orbit and if it takes days or weeks or even months that's no big deal since the materials don't care. In the mean time the energy saved on transporting literally hundreds of millions of tons (eventually) of payload into space via elevator would be immense.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
One man's nonsense is another man's dream. Why dismiss something that's considered technically feasible? NASA scientists are taking it seriously [nasa.gov], too.
Once this structure has been built, and a few satellites loaded into orbit, it will begin to make sense even to the extreme skeptics. It would be nearly silent in operation, safer than riding a missile into orbit, and much cheaper once the initial construction cost is covered.
The materials are almost the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your post is a statement of religious belief. This WILL happen, and that WILL happen. Why? Because you say so?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Less sense, actually. Trans-continental conveyors are at least technically possible. A space elevator violates basic physics, as people with more than two brain cells can easily see for themselves. One brief google brings up for example this post from 1995 [google.com] which should give you all you need.
That's not an answer, that's another question, with plenty of unspecified assumptions which would let you come up with almost any answer you want. Lots of people have worked it out under various assumptions, and you get an answer requiring a cable with strength between 60-120 GPa. Scientists have measured carbon nanotube filaments which have a tensile strength in that range. We can't build an assembly (cable) that strong yet, but I wouldn't call that "violating laws of physics".
Requiring research beyond
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The experiment with the string requires you to keep the weight moving by pulling it with the string, a real satellite does not get pulled by a wire, it moves by its own inertia. The wire isn't what's keeping it in orbit, that's the combination of centrifugal force and gravity.
Re:Then why not a space escalator? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Then why not a space escalator? Dizzying (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Aircraft are struck by lightning as well, and survive too.
The entire craft (due to the benefits of being a Faraday Cage) rises up to high voltage almost all at once,
meaning there is no serious voltage difference across the craft, therefore no dangerous currents, therefore no power dissipated into the craft.
A tether holding a satellite in place and attached to the Ground (KEY WORD) will have All of the voltage of a lightning strike across it, so the hundreds of tho
Re:Then why not a space escalator? (Score:4, Interesting)
Their copper tether was nowhere near as long as a satellite tether would be, and theirs wasn't shorting out a thunderhead like a satellite tether would,
Now, IF you could somehow manage the danger of a sudden lightning strike, I think you're right that there would be large voltages across the length of the tether, and you should be able to harvest it for a power source. The act of harvesting the electrical charges might even be a part of the solution..
Just let it wobble! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This is awesome (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"It's not the jumping part that hurts...it's the sudden stop at the end."
In good company (Score:3, Interesting)
being unstable doesn't preclude it being usable (Score:5, Interesting)
For instance most modern fighter aircraft are aerodynamically unstable, but they still fly. For example, the F16 was deliberatly designed to be unstable (to gain better manuverability). Of course the F16 has a computer control system to make it flyable by humans, but if the computer dies, well, unstable tumble modes ahead... I've also antecdodally heard that some modern bridges and tall-buildings are also not inherently stable (and are actively stabilized by computer control systems).
But to be honest, I think the engineering of a space elevator is pretty much beyond our forseeable technical ability (material science, control systems, assembly techniques, not to mention project management, risk/return estimation, and financing/underwriting).
If you think the problems are merely about waiting for technology, just think of the chunnel. It was imagined for a long time, but even after they got all the science and technology and assembly issues under control, the project management, risk/return estimation and financing/underwriting issues managed to kill a few companies before if finally got done.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
An aircraft's controls are primarily aerodynamic, so you don't have to worry much about the cost of those controls, since its just a bit of electricity. However, for maintaining a spacecrafts center of mass (where reaction wheels and shifting masses won't help), the only modern way to maintain control is with rockets/jets of some sort, with the use
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Specifically if you have a tether you can feed a charge onto it and it will either get pulled in or pushed out by the earths magnetic field.
This may be useful for stabilizing portions of the tether and controlling any vibrations that develop.
When will it become a reality? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Clarke answered, 'Probably about 50 years after everybody quits laughing,'" related Pearson. "He's got a point. Once you stop dismissing something as unattainable, then you start working on its development. This is exciting!"
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1.htm [nasa.gov]
It's easier to postulate than actually engineer (Score:4, Insightful)
The old well worn bridge analogy: In theory it's pretty easy to built a bridge, but you need to only look at the Tacoma Narrows bridge to see that engineering a viable structure takes a bit more than str theory is prettSame deal with a space elevator. The theory is pretty straightforward, but the actual engineering to make a reliable structure is something else.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's going to wobble! (Score:3, Interesting)
any who has ever seen cartoons as a kid would know this :p
News flash! (Score:2)
I never saw that one coming!
I am more concerned about the static problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Current carrying space cables (Score:2)
In order to make a power available from a space elevator you'd need superconductors. Even on a relatively short (12.5 mile) cable they got 3500 volts@amp.
Actually on second thought, I'm not sure they would get ANY current to flow. The reason current flows is because the conductor is traveling with respect to the magnetic field. That probably doesn't apply to a stationary space elevator. A skyhook, or
Re: (Score:2)
It failed because the materials sucked. I can see the headline now- 'Revolutionary Idea fails at first attempt, scientists return home to re-train'.
I'm not saying that space elevators are going to cut it one day, but that current is usable for sure, if only to make the fucker glow, or to discourage the squ
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why wooden lightning rods are a bad idea, kids.
Re:I am more concerned about the static problem (Score:5, Informative)
They do both. As the storm builds up the lightning rods help to diffuse the charge. This is one reason why they have sharp ends; electrons leave a charged conductor more readily at points of higher curvature. The pathway thus created then becomes the preferred (low-resistance) route to ground in the event of an actual lightning strike.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Of course it's not easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus a million things we haven't thought of, and won't think of until the product is built. When train tracks were first laid down, they were too close together, because nobody had heard of the Bernoulli effect. Trains were getting slammed against each-other by their own created air pressure. What did people do? They learned from it, and moved the tracks further apart. We take trains for granted, but they were not without their technological hurdles to overcome.
Of course something like a space elevator is not an easy accomplishment. Does that mean we shouldn't try?
What do you think?
Re:Of course it's not easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Space squirrels? Are they at least mean space squirrels? With laser beams on their heads?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course something like a space elevator is not an easy accomplishment. Does that mean we shouldn't try?
What Space Elevator proponents always overlook is that the Miracle Material (cue angelic singing) that makes it possible also drastically improves the cost of POR[tm] (Plain Ol' Rockets). That'll make the space elevator make even less sense if the material was that cheap and plentiful.
And no, we shouldn't even try unless the engineering gets a lot more feasible.
Shurely shome mishtake!! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Multiple tether points in space? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the stars, but not so hard your brain falls out.
Re: (Score:2)
"I think" Engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, the problem has been noted before this Perek guy's paper, but not studied in any detail. Perek reiterates and perhaps expands upon the concern, but doesn't do any analysis to establish the actual likelihood of a problem. It's basically an opinion.
Atmospheric oscillations should be extremely well damped by drag. Oscillations due to gravity from the sun and moon may be a greater concern, because there is no drag, although including conductive paths in the cable may allow the earth's magnetic field to suitably damp the oscillations.
An IEEE article on the topic discussed the related issue of harmonics. If these oscillations propogate through the cable at a rate that syncs up well with the rotation of the earth, gravity of either the moon or sun may amplify them. The tensile component can be tuned by adjusted the mass and tensile stiffness of the cable, and even better, the mass of the counterweight, allowing you to tune it by changing the tension, like an incredibly huge guitar string. The will also be a pendulum like motion due to the fact that the earth is on a tilted axis. This seems to be the concern discussed in the article.
I personally am not at all convinced that oscillation of the cable alone (waves) is a problem due to it's low density, but oscillation of the combined cable and counterweight (pendulum) may be. If so, thrusters on the counterweight are much simpler to attach and refuel than they would be at intermediate altitudes on the cable.
Now you have TWO problems (Score:2)
allowing you to tune it by changing the tension, like an incredibly huge guitar string
Great. So now instead of wobble we have to worry about hiss and distortion!
Not to mention that every dork who strolls by will be trying to pluck out a tune on it. The base station will need an incredibly huge "NO STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN" sign.
wreck the elevator (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It was even more spectacular when Kim Stanley Robinson did it to Mars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:wreck the elevator (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, somebody has to play this role every time a space elevator article gets posted, and they get modded all the way up.
We typically point them to Wikipedia and write them off as 'the new guy'. Hey, wait a second!
Re:wreck the elevator (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't, because all these things, a space elevator included, travel through space at the same speed as the earth's rotation. Why would it suddenly, magically lose that momentum, were it severed from its counterweight?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Go ahead...balance a pin on its end. If you can do that, it will be affected far more by breezes in the room than by the earths rotation.
A perfectly symmetrical tree? No such thing.
Falling skyscraper? Again, no such thing as a perfectly symmetrical collapse.
The far end of the space elevator is in fact moving quite a bit faster than the ancho
Re: (Score:2)
no, it would go east. (Score:4, Insightful)
The top of an intact space elevator in orbit would move eastwards, just like the ground under it does.
The top would move at a much greater speed than the ground, since it is further from the center of the earth and has to cover a greater distance for a full circle.
As any part of this elevator falls towards earth, it would keep its greater eastward speed and therefore overtake its anchor point quickly.
Insightful? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
And you thought it was bad (Score:4, Funny)
space elevators will not co-exist with satellites (Score:2)
A practical elevator is going to need a lot of armor to protect it from debris for a considerable portion of the low earth orbital space.
Re:space elevators will not co-exist with satellit (Score:2)
Yet another possible solution. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who needs CNTs? (Score:2)
Energy & momentum conservation (Score:2)
What is less clear is how eneregy and momentum would be recovered on a payload descent. Perhaps balanced by an ascending load on pulleys.
Kids pressing all the buttons... (Score:5, Funny)
The wobble would be small or low in frequrency (Score:2)
What "the Doctor" had to say about it. (Score:2, Funny)
God almighty! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
#1> You don't have to go all the way to orbit.
There are several ways to split this up. Skyhooks [wikipedia.org], Partial elevators etc. The cool part about these are that they aren't nearly as vulnerable to terrorists due to their high altitude.
#2> The space elevator can be active. See Space Fountain [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
launch loops (Score:5, Informative)
Unlike space eleveators, launch loops require no exotic materials (just iron and steel), are essentially self-erecting, are anchored, and accelerate people quickly through the radiation belt.
We could probably build a launch loop in a decade or two, if we embarked on an Apollo-like program.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if you could use a miniature version of that to transport goods. We could sort of work up to space capability: use small ones to throw & catch cargo across increasingly long distances. You could reduce drag using Hydrogen Injection [islandone.org].
Come to think of it, could you use a mini space fountain to enable VTOL in your back yard? Entry would be near vertical, and the abort scenario would be for the computer to execute an immediate pull-up in case of latch-on failure t
The Stealth Fighter and Bomber Are Unstable, Too (Score:4, Interesting)
The Stealth Nighthawk fighter could not be controlled by a human, it is so aerodynamically unstable. But with the help of some good software, that plane flies. The same is true of the B-2 Batwing bomber, it only flies because a computer stabilizes it.
There will be controllable vanes (for the atmosphere) and thrusters (for space) to control the car's behavior. The wobble would be predictable and all the traffic would be required to avoid it, in the same way power boats are required to steer around sailboat.
The bigger problem with space elevators... (Score:5, Funny)
Might I suggest an improvement (Score:2)
Buckling? (Score:2)
So then? (Score:3, Funny)
They've solved the elevator music problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)