>--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas" <awnd329@...> wrote:
>
> > I am not comfortable with... long travel times, and serious
> > radiation problems. The latter two apply especially to human transport

I'm amazed by how many people get hung up on the travel time to
orbit. As Monte Davis wrote - The initial elevator will be for cargo
-and - humans make up a tiny fraction of what we need.

If we can build a space elevator we will have a system that can scale
up over time exponentially. Moore's Law can work for us - in fact it
must. Many of the schemes proposed for maintaining the ribbon will
force us to lift new ribbon material on a regular basis to replace
and/or augment the existing ribbon. If we ever stop growing it we
risk losing it.

So I take it as a given that 20 ton cargo lifters will in time give
way to multi-100 ton people lifters with all the shielding and other
life support we need.

Given that, will people tolerate the long trip?

Allow me to make a third observation - A great many of us in the
western hemisphere have ancestors who crossed the Atlantic on leaky
wooden boats eating moldy bread and maggoty meat.The trip often took
months. People often died. Ships often sank.

Somehow 7.5 days to GEO or  ~20 days to Mars insertion orbit while
living in air-conditioned comfort with the entire Internet at my
disposal does not seem a hardship.

Without the elevator, the trip to Mars takes about 9 months. With the
elevator, it will take no more than 9 months and 20 days and may even
take less because you get extra delta-V by going out to the end of
the tether before you let go. You get a flatter and faster transfer
orbit at the cost of having to shed some extra speed at the far end.

If we can build it, mankind will be all over the solar system in a
century or two.


          Vern McGeorge
          se@...

          "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events,
small minds discuss people."
                                  - Vice Adm. H.G. Rickover

          "The regret on our side is, they used to say years ago, we
are reading about you in science class.
          Now they say, we are reading about you in history class."
                                  - Neil Armstrong - July 20, 1999

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The first generation space elevator needs to be thought about as a
system to move stuff into space for 1 % of what it now costs. it is
not about travel time it is about cost.

More of e freight train than a plane


Later generations could be man rated and faster



Cheers,
Bert

--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, Vern McGeorge <se@...> wrote:
>
>
> >--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas" <awnd329@> wrote:
> >
> > > I am not comfortable with... long travel times, and serious
> > > radiation problems. The latter two apply especially to human
transport
>
> I'm amazed by how many people get hung up on the travel time to
> orbit. As Monte Davis wrote - The initial elevator will be for
cargo
> -and - humans make up a tiny fraction of what we need.
>
> If we can build a space elevator we will have a system that can
scale
> up over time exponentially. Moore's Law can work for us - in fact
it
> must. Many of the schemes proposed for maintaining the ribbon will
> force us to lift new ribbon material on a regular basis to replace
> and/or augment the existing ribbon. If we ever stop growing it we
> risk losing it.
>
> So I take it as a given that 20 ton cargo lifters will in time give
> way to multi-100 ton people lifters with all the shielding and
other
> life support we need.
>
> Given that, will people tolerate the long trip?
>
> Allow me to make a third observation - A great many of us in the
> western hemisphere have ancestors who crossed the Atlantic on leaky
> wooden boats eating moldy bread and maggoty meat.The trip often
took
> months. People often died. Ships often sank.
>
> Somehow 7.5 days to GEO or  ~20 days to Mars insertion orbit while
> living in air-conditioned comfort with the entire Internet at my
> disposal does not seem a hardship.
>
> Without the elevator, the trip to Mars takes about 9 months. With
the
> elevator, it will take no more than 9 months and 20 days and may
even
> take less because you get extra delta-V by going out to the end of
> the tether before you let go. You get a flatter and faster transfer
> orbit at the cost of having to shed some extra speed at the far end.
>
> If we can build it, mankind will be all over the solar system in a
> century or two.
>
>
>          Vern McGeorge
>          se@...
>
>          "Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events,
> small minds discuss people."
>                                  - Vice Adm. H.G. Rickover
>
>          "The regret on our side is, they used to say years ago, we
> are reading about you in science class.
>          Now they say, we are reading about you in history class."
>                                  - Neil Armstrong - July 20, 1999
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

> I like the space fountain idea, Mainly because it can be done with
> todays tech. Eventually it can be power with Solar Power Satellites
>
> The road map would go something like this
>
> 1 Mass Driver which could be rail gun or coil gun
http://www.sandia.gov/media/NewsRel/NR2001/flyer.htm
>
> 2 Space fountain with rotating tether operating on the platform
> required for orbital payloads.
>
> 3 Launch Loop (a design between a space fountain and orbiting rings)
>
> 4 Orbiting Rings
>
> Someplace along the line a CNT based ribbon may be developed. Then
a
> Brad Edwards style SE can be integrated into the infrastructure
>
>
> Cheers,
> Bert
> --- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Jolly Roger"
> <jollyrogerc@> wrote:
> >
> > This is very similar to the Space Fountain tower I proposed (on
this
> > group) several months ago to be built near the Oklahoma Spaceport.
> >
> > My idea would have similar benefits at a lower cost.
> >
> > The footprint is only a few acres.
> >
> > JR ;-)X
> >
>

--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, Vern McGeorge <se@...> wrote:
>
>
> >--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Andreas" <awnd329@> wrote:
> >
> > > I am not comfortable with... long travel times, and serious
> > > radiation problems. The latter two apply especially to human
transport
>
Just to set the record straight, I did not write the above excerpt and
mostly agree with Vern.

> Allow me to make a third observation - A great many of us in the
> western hemisphere have ancestors who crossed the Atlantic on leaky
> wooden boats eating moldy bread and maggoty meat.The trip often took
> months. People often died. Ships often sank.
>
Right. These people must have been quite driven. One thing is sure:
they did not leave a life of air-conditioned comfort behind. More
likely a murderous mob.

If we never make it into space, it will not be because of a lack of
transportation, or cost. It will be because nobody really wants to go.
As the line says ("Rocket Man", was it?): "Mars ain't the place to
raise your kids". We have made ourselves all too comfortable on this
pretty planet of ours. Those of us who can afford it move to the
suburb with the good schools, and Mars isn't it.


I have recently convinced myself that space will first be colonized by
  robots to build a largely autonomous space industry for us, based
entirely on extraterrestrial resources. Once that is up and running,
some of us will visit (in air-conditioned comfort, of course, and on
fast rockets), some perhaps even stay. Because of the inherent high
degree of automation, everything in space will be cheap and plentiful,
and Earth-to-orbit transportation will be needed only for people.
Preferably fast, because who has time to waste. We will do quite well
without the SE.

Andreas

Here is a link to an article claiming a breakthrough in bonding
nanotubes to a plastic like material.

http://www.physorg.com/news110727530.html


Looks promising.

--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Herbert Murray" <hcm1955@...>
wrote:
>
> Today a report presenting a case for SPS was released by National
> Security Space Office (Part of DOD Acquisition). You can download a
> copy of this report at: http://ssafe.wordpress.com/
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if DOD help fund SE, much like it DOD funded the
> Interstate system 50 years ago?
>
> Cheers,
> Bert
>

BTW Space Elevator is mentioned on page 35 of the report

It seems unlikely to me that DOD would finance anything unless it is
maneuverable enough to avoid satellite killer missiles.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

DOD is more likly to put up an anti missle system to protect SPS
systems. It was a divison of DOD the organized the study and is
making positive sounds in favor of SPS.

Think of the Interstate project of the 1950's/60's or the TVA project
of the 1930's

Cheers,
Bert

--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "roger curnow"
<jollyrogerc@...> wrote:
>
> It seems unlikely to me that DOD would finance anything unless it
is maneuverable enough to avoid satellite killer missiles.
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Here are two problems with the Edwards Space Elevator that no one on
this group or anyone else in the SE community seems to be talking
about.
1.DURABILITY.  How may I ask, will a paper thin, 64,000 mile long
tether be able to withstand the constant bombardment from the
countless micrometeorites in earth orbit?  What good is a SE, if it
gets severed every month or year?
2.MALFUNCTION. What happens if the climber malfunctions on the way
up?  What are the passengers going to do in the meantime while they
wait days or weeks for a rescue climber to reach them? Starve or soak
up deadly radiation?
On Monday I will unveil Part II of my 100 mile Space Tower proposal.

With some more research and development, this could be the right pathway to our
needed SE ribbon. Looks enticing.

   Harvey

spacelifejunkie <stevensb1971@...> wrote:
           Here is a link to an article claiming a breakthrough in bonding
nanotubes to a plastic like material.

http://www.physorg.com/news110727530.html

Looks promising.






---------------------------------
  Check out  the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On the issue of durability - many designs currently call for climbers
which build up the
tether bit by bit as they climb it. Similarly "repair" climbers could
make regular runs of the
tether(say, every 3rd or 4th climber, since they arn't going to carry
alot of cargo, and they
could increase capacity as they go). Also, if you build one, the first
thing you do is build a second,
and probably third, since the cost has plummeted by a factor of thousands.

As to malfunction - I never have envisioned(seriously at least) the idea
of people going up
the space elevator. Maybe, I guess, decades from now. You could in a
case of a trapped group
consider having a repair climber climb up behind them(or maybe even have
every climber be
able to booster a trapped on above them).  Or you could have the
climbers capable of gliding,
and just detach, or if you're low enough, maybe even deploy parachutes.
Either way, I think in general
no people should be on the thing. It strikes me as a bad idea. Cargo is
the name of the game for
now, investments of around a million a person are fine to get people
into space in the near future,
it might even be less if we start needing to do it very regularly.

Regarding your space tower - could you do a proper feasibility study of
it? I have at times
tinkered with this idea, but what you really need to do is, for some
chosen material or set of
materials, show how one builds a self-supporting structure 100 miles
tall. I'm not sure it _is_ possible.

-S


Barry wrote:
>
> Here are two problems with the Edwards Space Elevator that no one on
> this group or anyone else in the SE community seems to be talking
> about.
> 1.DURABILITY. How may I ask, will a paper thin, 64,000 mile long
> tether be able to withstand the constant bombardment from the
> countless micrometeorites in earth orbit? What good is a SE, if it
> gets severed every month or year?
> 2.MALFUNCTION. What happens if the climber malfunctions on the way
> up? What are the passengers going to do in the meantime while they
> wait days or weeks for a rescue climber to reach them? Starve or soak
> up deadly radiation?
> On Monday I will unveil Part II of my 100 mile Space Tower proposal.
>
>
>

Barry wrote:
  >Here are two problems with the Edwards Space Elevator that no one on
  >this group or anyone else in the SE community seems to be talking
  >about.
  >1.DURABILITY.
Quite possibly because it is fairly well covered in his book. A wide,
flat ribbon is resistant to appreciable damage from micrometeorites.
Having a base that isn't firmly anchored (e.g. to a floating sea based
platform) allows you to move the ribbon around larger tracked space debris.
You should seek to be better informed before being so critical. But I
guess someone who posts on a group at cross purposes to the topic of the
group is only actively seeking negative attention anyway. I shouldn't
have even responded...
Cheers,
Jo

--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Barry" <bseegebarth@...> wrote:
>
> Here are two problems with the Edwards Space Elevator that no one on
> this group or anyone else in the SE community seems to be talking
> about.

> 1.DURABILITY.  How may I ask, will a paper thin, 64,000 mile long
> tether be able to withstand the constant bombardment from the
> countless micrometeorites in earth orbit?  What good is a SE, if it
> gets severed every month or year?

Section 10.2 of Edwards report in the link section of this group
(found at: http://www.spaceelevator.com/docs/472Edwards.pdf) explains
how the baseline design will address the risk do to micrometeorites,


> 2.MALFUNCTION. What happens if the climber malfunctions on the way
> up?  What are the passengers going to do in the meantime while they
> wait days or weeks for a rescue climber to reach them? Starve or
soak up deadly radiation?

As I understand it Edward's design was never meant to carry people. If
so could you point the group to the reference that states a
requirements to carry people?


> On Monday I will unveil Part II of my 100 mile Space Tower proposal.
>

Cheers,
Bert

Yes this is a positive development. Edwards baseline design is 60%
CNTS with the balance as some type of substrate. The polymer matrix
referenced in the article might very well serve as the substrate.

Cheers,
Bert

--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, harvey trevillion
<hetrevillion@...> wrote:
>
> With some more research and development, this could be the right
pathway to our needed SE ribbon. Looks enticing.
>
>   Harvey
>
> spacelifejunkie <stevensb1971@...> wrote:
>Here is a link to an article claiming a breakthrough in bonding
> nanotubes to a plastic like material.
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news110727530.html
>
> Looks promising.
>

The inflatable space tower idea is nothing new.  There are several
designs being proposed in the scientific community.  Most notable is
the one being floated by Russian born Dr. Alexander Bolonkin. The
basic idea is pumping electrostatic air to inflate a structure to
the desired height to a pressure equaling a earth atmosphere. A
detailed schematic of this design can be found on the NASA Technical
Reports Server, or at Citebase.org and in his new book Non-Rocket
Space Launch and Flight.  Another idea would be be to scale up the
already proposed 1km high Solar Heat Windtower by Enviromission,
which is nothing more than channeling rising hot air from the
greenhouse surrounding the tower. My idea is, why stop at 1km?  Why
not go the full monty into earth orbit?  My proposal is a hybrid
concept, combining the above two ideas along with inflatable roof
structures such as the Metrodome in Minneapolis, and the inflatable
Trans Hab space modules now being used by Bigelow Aerospace. Build
the inflatable structure from the ground up, pumping air pressure as
you go.  The outer material would be the same used by the TransHab
modules, layered cevlar-like material that is used in bullet proof
vests to protect the structure from micrometeorites and reinforced
inside by a generic elevator shaft connected to the inner wall of
the tower.  This structure would have 8 inner "bladders" of
pressured air, and monitored with sensors to detect any possible
leaks, the outer hull would contain a leak if it occured.  Payloads
and people would be send up the tower via a standard elevator pulley
system like you see in any basic high rise office building. This and
electric power would be controlled at ground level. The best part of
all, this could be built using existing materials and technologies.
We do not have to wait for the invention of "unobtainium" to begin
construction on this. Has anyone on this group considered this idea?
The disturbing part is the Russian and Chinese governments have
seriously considered funding a project like this, which if built,
would leave the American space community, and the fragile Edwards
Space Elevator concept in the dust. ANY THOUGHTS
PEOPLE?

The inflatable tower would have to have considerably
more pressure in its walls than one atmosphere at the
bottom of the tower, or else it would collapse.  If
you are going all the way to earth orbit then Kevlar
would not be strong enough to hold the pressure.

What material would you be using for the elevator
cable you describe?  Such a cable could not be
tapered, and would not only have to hold up the
elevator car below it but also the mass of cable
between the pulley and the elevator car.  Again you
are forced to use carbon nanotubes.  You therefore
have all the complexity of a carbon nanotube space
elevator, as well as the additional complexity of the
surrounding inflatable wall, without being able to
detach your elevator car at an arbitrary altitude.  I
strongly suspect that an untapered nanotube cable
wouldn't even be strong enough and that you'd need
unobtainium.

I suggest that you do some math and supply us with
your calculations.

Ed


--- Barry <bseegebarth@...> wrote:

> The inflatable space tower idea is nothing new.
> There are several
> designs being proposed in the scientific community.
> Most notable is
> the one being floated by Russian born Dr. Alexander
> Bolonkin. The
> basic idea is pumping electrostatic air to inflate a
> structure to
> the desired height to a pressure equaling a earth
> atmosphere. A
> detailed schematic of this design can be found on
> the NASA Technical
> Reports Server, or at Citebase.org and in his new
> book Non-Rocket
> Space Launch and Flight.  Another idea would be be
> to scale up the
> already proposed 1km high Solar Heat Windtower by
> Enviromission,
> which is nothing more than channeling rising hot air
> from the
> greenhouse surrounding the tower. My idea is, why
> stop at 1km?  Why
> not go the full monty into earth orbit?  My proposal
> is a hybrid
> concept, combining the above two ideas along with
> inflatable roof
> structures such as the Metrodome in Minneapolis, and
> the inflatable
> Trans Hab space modules now being used by Bigelow
> Aerospace. Build
> the inflatable structure from the ground up, pumping
> air pressure as
> you go.  The outer material would be the same used
> by the TransHab
> modules, layered cevlar-like material that is used
> in bullet proof
> vests to protect the structure from micrometeorites
> and reinforced
> inside by a generic elevator shaft connected to the
> inner wall of
> the tower.  This structure would have 8 inner
> "bladders" of
> pressured air, and monitored with sensors to detect
> any possible
> leaks, the outer hull would contain a leak if it
> occured.  Payloads
> and people would be send up the tower via a standard
> elevator pulley
> system like you see in any basic high rise office
> building. This and
> electric power would be controlled at ground level.
> The best part of
> all, this could be built using existing materials
> and technologies.
> We do not have to wait for the invention of
> "unobtainium" to begin
> construction on this. Has anyone on this group
> considered this idea?
> The disturbing part is the Russian and Chinese
> governments have
> seriously considered funding a project like this,
> which if built,
> would leave the American space community, and the
> fragile Edwards
> Space Elevator concept in the dust. ANY THOUGHTS
> PEOPLE?
>
>



       Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new Yahoo!
Mail: http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca

Barry,

As a structural engineer I have to agree with Ed's assessment.  If you
draw a free body diagram just below the pulley attachment and actually
calculate all the forces you will find why we don't use inflatable
structures in this way.

regards,

Paul

Ed Minchau wrote:
>
> The inflatable tower would have to have considerably
> more pressure in its walls than one atmosphere at the
> bottom of the tower, or else it would collapse. If
> you are going all the way to earth orbit then Kevlar
> would not be strong enough to hold the pressure.
>
> What material would you be using for the elevator
> cable you describe? Such a cable could not be
> tapered, and would not only have to hold up the
> elevator car below it but also the mass of cable
> between the pulley and the elevator car. Again you
> are forced to use carbon nanotubes. You therefore
> have all the complexity of a carbon nanotube space
> elevator, as well as the additional complexity of the
> surrounding inflatable wall, without being able to
> detach your elevator car at an arbitrary altitude. I
> strongly suspect that an untapered nanotube cable
> wouldn't even be strong enough and that you'd need
> unobtainium.
>
> I suggest that you do some math and supply us with
> your calculations.
>
> Ed
>
> --- Barry <bseegebarth@...
> <mailto:bseegebarth%40cableone.net>> wrote:
>
> > The inflatable space tower idea is nothing new.
> > There are several
> > designs being proposed in the scientific community.
> > Most notable is
> > the one being floated by Russian born Dr. Alexander
> > Bolonkin. The
> > basic idea is pumping electrostatic air to inflate a
> > structure to
> > the desired height to a pressure equaling a earth
> > atmosphere. A
> > detailed schematic of this design can be found on
> > the NASA Technical
> > Reports Server, or at Citebase.org and in his new
> > book Non-Rocket
> > Space Launch and Flight. Another idea would be be
> > to scale up the
> > already proposed 1km high Solar Heat Windtower by
> > Enviromission,
> > which is nothing more than channeling rising hot air
> > from the
> > greenhouse surrounding the tower. My idea is, why
> > stop at 1km? Why
> > not go the full monty into earth orbit? My proposal
> > is a hybrid
> > concept, combining the above two ideas along with
> > inflatable roof
> > structures such as the Metrodome in Minneapolis, and
> > the inflatable
> > Trans Hab space modules now being used by Bigelow
> > Aerospace. Build
> > the inflatable structure from the ground up, pumping
> > air pressure as
> > you go. The outer material would be the same used
> > by the TransHab
> > modules, layered cevlar-like material that is used
> > in bullet proof
> > vests to protect the structure from micrometeorites
> > and reinforced
> > inside by a generic elevator shaft connected to the
> > inner wall of
> > the tower. This structure would have 8 inner
> > "bladders" of
> > pressured air, and monitored with sensors to detect
> > any possible
> > leaks, the outer hull would contain a leak if it
> > occured. Payloads
> > and people would be send up the tower via a standard
> > elevator pulley
> > system like you see in any basic high rise office
> > building. This and
> > electric power would be controlled at ground level.
> > The best part of
> > all, this could be built using existing materials
> > and technologies.
> > We do not have to wait for the invention of
> > "unobtainium" to begin
> > construction on this. Has anyone on this group
> > considered this idea?
> > The disturbing part is the Russian and Chinese
> > governments have
> > seriously considered funding a project like this,
> > which if built,
> > would leave the American space community, and the
> > fragile Edwards
> > Space Elevator concept in the dust. ANY THOUGHTS
> > PEOPLE?
> >
> >
>
> Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new
> Yahoo! Mail: http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca
> <http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca>
>
>

Here are your calculations Ed.  The material I would suggest using
would be readily available graphite epoxy, like that used for
aircraft with a weight of 0.068 lb/in^3. Material of this weight
used for a tapered space tower be it a radio tower style structure,
inflatable, or a hybrid of the two would be able to reach a height
of 325 miles, and I'm only suggesting a height of 100 miles with the
standard height to weight ratio of 20:1. If this isn't enough during
scale model testing, or if wind loading becomes a factor, we could
always use struts or guide wires to reinforce the structure.  Keep
in mind this idea initially originated from Dr. Alexander Bolonkin,
not from me, whose schematics are readily available online or in his
books. If these concepts are unworkable, contact him as well. I'm
merely reporting on this group that there are alternative designs
for the space elevator concept other than the one by Dr. Bradley
Edwards.  The point of the matter is this.  Radio towers or
inflatables are proven, testable, and scaleable technologies,
whereas the Edwards space elevator is not.  Lets not paint ourselves
in a corner with one design when the rest of the world is
considering other, seemingly more reliable orbital tower concepts.
Cheerio, Barry

Scanning thru Bolonkin's paper "Optimal Electrostatic Space Tower"
left me with a basic question:

Is the electron gas referenced in the paper:

   A. Electron cloud contained in an electric field
   B. Ionized gas contained in an electric field

For what it worth Bolonkin work is worth looking at. This paper can
be found at:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0704/0704.3466.pdf

I will also add it to the link section of this group

Cheers,
Bert



--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Barry" <bseegebarth@...>
wrote:
>
> The inflatable space tower idea is nothing new.  There are several
> designs being proposed in the scientific community.  Most notable
is
> the one being floated by Russian born Dr. Alexander Bolonkin. The
> basic idea is pumping electrostatic air to inflate a structure to
> the desired height to a pressure equaling a earth atmosphere. A
> detailed schematic of this design can be found on the NASA
Technical
> Reports Server, or at Citebase.org and in his new book Non-Rocket
> Space Launch and Flight.  Another idea would be be to scale up the
> already proposed 1km high Solar Heat Windtower by Enviromission,
> which is nothing more than channeling rising hot air from the
> greenhouse surrounding the tower. My idea is, why stop at 1km?  Why
> not go the full monty into earth orbit?  My proposal is a hybrid
> concept, combining the above two ideas along with inflatable roof
> structures such as the Metrodome in Minneapolis, and the inflatable
> Trans Hab space modules now being used by Bigelow Aerospace. Build
> the inflatable structure from the ground up, pumping air pressure
as
> you go.  The outer material would be the same used by the TransHab
> modules, layered cevlar-like material that is used in bullet proof
> vests to protect the structure from micrometeorites and reinforced
> inside by a generic elevator shaft connected to the inner wall of
> the tower.  This structure would have 8 inner "bladders" of
> pressured air, and monitored with sensors to detect any possible
> leaks, the outer hull would contain a leak if it occured.  Payloads
> and people would be send up the tower via a standard elevator
pulley
> system like you see in any basic high rise office building. This
and
> electric power would be controlled at ground level. The best part
of
> all, this could be built using existing materials and
technologies.
> We do not have to wait for the invention of "unobtainium" to begin
> construction on this. Has anyone on this group considered this
idea?
> The disturbing part is the Russian and Chinese governments have
> seriously considered funding a project like this, which if built,
> would leave the American space community, and the fragile Edwards
> Space Elevator concept in the dust. ANY THOUGHTS
> PEOPLE?
>

Putting aside the fantastic 120,000 km tower filled with the fabled
"electron gas" (which I have never heard of) of Mr Bolognkin, it is
reasonable to assume a 100 mile tower could be built from fairly
conventional materials.

It would, however, be extremely expensive and nearly useless. It
certainly does not get you into Earth orbit. As the more reasonable
members of this group know, Earth orbit is primarily characterized by
its velocity, rather than its height.

So, on top of this tower you would need to install a rocket launch
platform, and hoist up a rocket nearly as large as the ones used to
launch the same amount of payload from the surface.

Some idea.

Andreas


--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Barry" <bseegebarth@...> wrote:
>
> The inflatable space tower idea is nothing new.  There are several
> designs being proposed in the scientific community.  Most notable is
> the one being floated by Russian born Dr. Alexander Bolonkin. The
> basic idea is pumping electrostatic air to inflate a structure to
> the desired height to a pressure equaling a earth atmosphere. A
> detailed schematic of this design can be found on the NASA Technical
> Reports Server, or at Citebase.org and in his new book Non-Rocket
> Space Launch and Flight.  Another idea would be be to scale up the
> already proposed 1km high Solar Heat Windtower by Enviromission,
> which is nothing more than channeling rising hot air from the
> greenhouse surrounding the tower. My idea is, why stop at 1km?  Why
> not go the full monty into earth orbit?  My proposal is a hybrid
> concept, combining the above two ideas along with inflatable roof
> structures such as the Metrodome in Minneapolis, and the inflatable
> Trans Hab space modules now being used by Bigelow Aerospace. Build
> the inflatable structure from the ground up, pumping air pressure as
> you go.  The outer material would be the same used by the TransHab
> modules, layered cevlar-like material that is used in bullet proof
> vests to protect the structure from micrometeorites and reinforced
> inside by a generic elevator shaft connected to the inner wall of
> the tower.  This structure would have 8 inner "bladders" of
> pressured air, and monitored with sensors to detect any possible
> leaks, the outer hull would contain a leak if it occured.  Payloads
> and people would be send up the tower via a standard elevator pulley
> system like you see in any basic high rise office building. This and
> electric power would be controlled at ground level. The best part of
> all, this could be built using existing materials and technologies.
> We do not have to wait for the invention of "unobtainium" to begin
> construction on this. Has anyone on this group considered this idea?
> The disturbing part is the Russian and Chinese governments have
> seriously considered funding a project like this, which if built,
> would leave the American space community, and the fragile Edwards
> Space Elevator concept in the dust. ANY THOUGHTS
> PEOPLE?
>

Had you bothered to read only as much as just the Wikipedia article on
the space elevator, you would have found  meteorite damage and
malfunctions of various sorts treated in some detail, plus links to
lots more detailed publications.

Although some would like to, people will probably never ride the SE,
as it is too slow and bad for your health.

Andreas


--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Barry" <bseegebarth@...> wrote:
>
> Here are two problems with the Edwards Space Elevator that no one on
> this group or anyone else in the SE community seems to be talking
> about.
> 1.DURABILITY.  How may I ask, will a paper thin, 64,000 mile long
> tether be able to withstand the constant bombardment from the
> countless micrometeorites in earth orbit?  What good is a SE, if it
> gets severed every month or year?
> 2.MALFUNCTION. What happens if the climber malfunctions on the way
> up?  What are the passengers going to do in the meantime while they
> wait days or weeks for a rescue climber to reach them? Starve or soak
> up deadly radiation?
> On Monday I will unveil Part II of my 100 mile Space Tower proposal.
>

In a message dated 10/17/2007 2:09:02 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
awnd329@... writes:

Although some would like to, people will probably never ride the  SE,
as it is too slow and bad for your  health.

Andreas


I don't claim to know whether anybody will ride the SE or not, although if
human space flight remains always in the decamegabuck price range (i.e.
20th-Century rocketry), there will be far too few humans up there to make cargo
hauling via SE a practical business plan.

In any case, were there to be manned climbers, they could be heat-shielded
and, if they broke down, ejected from the SE to return to Earth via atmospheric
  reentry.


GEA



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Commercial spaceflight has only very recently come down to the
decamegabuck range (from non-existence), and there is still a lot of
room for improvements, even using 20th century rocketry.

What's more, almost all of those megabucks go into launching the
equipment for surviving in space and returning safely, not the actual
bodies. If that equipment is brought cheaply on the SE (or
manufactured in space) ahead of time, bringing the person only (on a
half-hour trip, with 20 pounds of luggage, perhaps) will not be all
that expensive anymore.

Andreas

--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, GEddieA95@... wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 10/17/2007 2:09:02 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
> awnd329@... writes:
>
> Although some would like to, people will probably never ride the  SE,
> as it is too slow and bad for your  health.
>
> Andreas
>
>
> I don't claim to know whether anybody will ride the SE or not,
although if
> human space flight remains always in the decamegabuck price range
(i.e.
> 20th-Century rocketry), there will be far too few humans up there to
make cargo
> hauling via SE a practical business plan.
>
> In any case, were there to be manned climbers, they could be
heat-shielded
> and, if they broke down, ejected from the SE to return to Earth via
atmospheric
>  reentry.
>

--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Herbert Murray" <hcm1955@...>
wrote:
>
>
> > Putting aside the fantastic 120,000 km tower filled with the fabled
> > "electron gas" (which I have never heard of) of Mr Bolognkin, it is
> > reasonable to assume a 100 mile tower could be built from fairly
> > conventional materials.
> >
> First I need to state that I am very skeptical of the idea of an
> inflatable tower using electrostatic gas or any other gas.
>
> The only reference of electron gas that I am aware of is at the
> quantum level, in solid state physics. If electron gas means ionized
> gas (as a result of a translation mistake from Russian) then:
>
> • The ionized gas will need to be heated to a considerable
> temperature
> • Somehow high voltage and power will need to be delivered to
> the multiple conducting shields. How will this be done? The high
> voltage field interacting with the charged gas is what pressurizes
> the gas, a key feature of the concept.
> • A very elaborate control system will be required to keep the
> structure stable.
> • A diagram in the paper shows a laser, what is its purpose
> (Ionization of the gas?). Any bending in the tower may result in the
> laser will hitting the side. Another method to keep the gas ionized
> should be used.
> • This sounds a lot like an ion traps or storage rings. In both
> cases actual operating traps and rings are made from precision
> machine components, not inflatable components,
>
> The basic physical concepts might be valid, but some rough order
> engineering needs to take place. To see if this idea has any chance
> of working I randomly pick some issues:
>
> • How much will the power distribution system weigh?
> • What are the basic performance of the gas containment field,
> in terms of leak rate, and power usage?
> • What are the basic requirements of an active control system
> to keep this thing stable?
>
> Better yet if some one builds a small scale (20 ft tall and 1 inch
> diameter) to see if a charged balloon can hold a charged gas, and
> significantly change pressure by vary the voltage, while holding its
> shape then the concept would be a lot more credible. That is: show
> that varying different pressures in different sections, with out a
> physical partition separating the sections.
>
> The criticism of Edward's design is not justified, because the issues
> have been addressed and is available in open domain referenced in
> other posts.
>
> Cheers,
> Bert
>
After reading thru the paper again, I believe I got it all wrong. I
will post comments later. Still a working model needs to be built to
demo the concept


Bert

--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, "Barry" <bseegebarth@...>
wrote:
>
> Here are two problems with the Edwards Space Elevator that no one
on
> this group or anyone else in the SE community seems to be talking
> about.
> 1.DURABILITY.  How may I ask, will a paper thin, 64,000 mile long
> tether be able to withstand the constant bombardment from the
> countless micrometeorites in earth orbit?  What good is a SE, if it
> gets severed every month or year?
> 2.MALFUNCTION. What happens if the climber malfunctions on the way
> up?  What are the passengers going to do in the meantime while they
> wait days or weeks for a rescue climber to reach them? Starve or
soak
> up deadly radiation?
> On Monday I will unveil Part II of my 100 mile Space Tower proposal.
>


Personally, I have always had the view that the ribbon would have a
cover.

I know, I know. The weight! The weight!

No problem, it's gotta weight almost nothing, stop micrometeors,
provide data and power transmission, give climbers something to hold
onto, be replacable in segments, and so on and so on.

HA! You think the ribbon is hard to make! Ribbon is nothing compared
to
my cover for it!

The elevator is, I think, destined to be the "Heavy Lifting to Orbit"
capability for future generations, but that does not mean we will
abandon rockets, aircraft, etc. People may still travel primarily by
these means. It's a lot like the ships and railways of today. Some
people do travel by rail and ship, but very few. People often fly. On
the other hand, half the stuff at your local Walmart rode here on a
ship.

Rescuing someone off the stuck car, or more likely, clearing a stuck
cargo car that is shutting down the elevator, becomes a mission that
involves getting to the trouble area quickly.

For a Mars mission, the crew represents probably 0.01% of the mission
weight. So isn't it reasonable that the "freight" goes up the
elevator
and people fly up? And a Mars mission represents an early, exotic
trip
into space. When businees becomes routine in space, I think you can
see
how the modes we use on the ground to move things around simply "Go
Vertical". Planes, Trains and Automobiles.

For those that are in the NYC area A.BOLONKIN will be speaker at NSS
Chapter event. One may even have a chance to ask him about electron
gas. Since the other speakers are with Northrop and Lockheed Martin,
I have to believe that he is considered an expert, if not
knowledgeable in his field


Event Notice Follows:


COME CELEBRATE THE

GOLDEN ANNIVERSARY OF THE SPUTNIKS

Allies in Space III Conference

"The Space Age at 50 Years & Beyond to the Stars"

Free and open to the Public

Saturday, November 3, 2007

12:30 – 4:30 PM

CUNY Graduate Center

365 Fifth Avenue at 34th Street

New York City, NY

Featured Guest Speakers will include:

ASTRONOMER TOM HAMILTON who was employed by Grumman Aerospace as an
Orbital Analyst for the Apollo Program 1962-1966

LOCKHEED MARTIN ORION DEPUTY PROJECT MANAGER LAURENCE PRICE whose
engineering team will be designing the next generation Crew
Exploration Vehicle (C.E.V.)

DR. ALEXANDER BOLONKIN, former Soviet Aviation and Aerospace
Engineer, Senior Researcher at NASA and U.S. Air Force Laboratories
and Author

TOM HILL, Aerospace Engineer Technician and Author

For further information and details, please refer to these websites:

http://community-2.webtv.net/ASTROHAL/ASTROGAIANEWS/page5.html

http://chapters.nss.org/ny/nyc

www.nyskies.org

or contact Chapter President, Harold Egeln at:  ASTROHAL@...


From Andreas
> > > Putting aside the fantastic 120,000 km tower filled with the
fabled
> > > "electron gas" (which I have never heard of) of Mr Bolognkin,
it is
> > > reasonable to assume a 100 mile tower could be built from fairly
> > > conventional materials.
> > >

From Bert
> > First I need to state that I am very skeptical of the idea of an
> > inflatable tower using electrostatic gas or any other gas.
> >
> > The only reference of electron gas that I am aware of is at the
> > quantum level, in solid state physics. If electron gas means
ionized
> > gas (as a result of a translation mistake from Russian) then:
> >
> > • The ionized gas will need to be heated to a considerable
> > temperature
> > • Somehow high voltage and power will need to be delivered to
> > the multiple conducting shields. How will this be done? The high
> > voltage field interacting with the charged gas is what
pressurizes
> > the gas, a key feature of the concept.
> > • A very elaborate control system will be required to keep the
> > structure stable.
> > • A diagram in the paper shows a laser, what is its purpose
> > (Ionization of the gas?). Any bending in the tower may result in
the
> > laser will hitting the side. Another method to keep the gas
ionized
> > should be used.
> > • This sounds a lot like an ion traps or storage rings. In both
> > cases actual operating traps and rings are made from precision
> > machine components, not inflatable components,
> >
> > The basic physical concepts might be valid, but some rough order
> > engineering needs to take place. To see if this idea has any
chance
> > of working I randomly pick some issues:
> >
> > • How much will the power distribution system weigh?
> > • What are the basic performance of the gas containment field,
> > in terms of leak rate, and power usage?
> > • What are the basic requirements of an active control system
> > to keep this thing stable?
> >
> > Better yet if some one builds a small scale (20 ft tall and 1
inch
> > diameter) to see if a charged balloon can hold a charged gas, and
> > significantly change pressure by vary the voltage, while holding
its
> > shape then the concept would be a lot more credible. That is:
show
> > that varying different pressures in different sections, with out
a
> > physical partition separating the sections.
> >
> > The criticism of Edward's design is not justified, because the
issues
> > have been addressed and is available in open domain referenced in
> > other posts.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Bert
> >
> After reading thru the paper again, I believe I got it all wrong. I
> will post comments later. Still a working model needs to be built to
> demo the concept
>
>
> Bert
>

Hi,

I agree that the cost should be more realistic,
perhaps $2B.

In addition to the restaurant, cell-phone antenna, and
upper atmospheric research station, one could add a
large volume of aerogel (or other low density
material) to slow down pieces of space debris that
pass through that volume.  I.E. a space-junk
de-orbiter.

Also, since you would have a tower 100 miles high,
hopefully it could also support a small evacuated
tube.  This tube would contain electromagnets to
launch very small spacecraft to escape velocity. Some
of them could be put into earth orbit at the expense
of trading payload mass for propulsion system mass.
This would make achievable lunar orbits, GEO, or other
very high (or eccentric) orbits, for an extremely low
cost per unit mass.  Does anyone have any ideas of
what could be done with even very small spacecraft of
say 30KG payload, at a rate of say up to 2 per minute
(1 in the launch tube at a time)?  This adds up to
over 30,000 T per year.

regards,
Dave



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, Dave Handwerk <dhandwerk@...>
wrote:
>
> Also, since you would have a tower 100 miles high,
> hopefully it could also support a small evacuated
> tube.  This tube would contain electromagnets to
> launch very small spacecraft to escape velocity.

The tower/mass driver combination is not too outrageous an idea.
Unfortunately electromagnetic mass drivers are neither small nor
light. A better solution is a mechanical sling, a rotating tether with
its hub supported by the tower and driven by an electric motor.
Payloads can be hung on at the hub and flung out along the tether in
fairly quick succession. When sliding freely along, they will reach
~1.4 times the tip velocity of the tether, bringing orbit within reach
of existing materials.

Andreas

Andreas wrote:

> The tower/mass driver combination is not too outrageous an idea.
> Unfortunately electromagnetic mass drivers are neither small nor
> light. A better solution is a mechanical sling, a rotating tether with
> its hub supported by the tower and driven by an electric motor.
> Payloads can be hung on at the hub and flung out along the tether in
> fairly quick succession. When sliding freely along, they will reach
> ~1.4 times the tip velocity of the tether, bringing orbit within reach
> of existing materials.

Nice idea, but it would need lots of work in making sure everything's
balanced.

Graham

--- In space-elevator@yahoogroups.com, Graham Addis <graham@...> wrote:
>
> Andreas wrote:
>
> > The tower/mass driver combination is not too outrageous an idea.
> > Unfortunately electromagnetic mass drivers are neither small nor
> > light. A better solution is a mechanical sling, a rotating tether with
> > its hub supported by the tower and driven by an electric motor.
> > Payloads can be hung on at the hub and flung out along the tether in
> > fairly quick succession. When sliding freely along, they will reach
> > ~1.4 times the tip velocity of the tether, bringing orbit within reach
> > of existing materials.
>
> Nice idea, but it would need lots of work in making sure everything's
> balanced.
>
Balancing the sling will be a walk in the park once you've balanced
that 100 mile tower...

Seriously, all it takes is a counterweight. The tower will have to
support the forces necessary to accelerate the payload, and the weight
of the sling. This is the best you can do with any kind of mass driver.

A mechanical sling is the lightest, simplest, and most efficient mass
driver there is. Plus, with a motor/generator at the hub, it doubles
as a high capacity, highly efficient energy storage device.

Andreas