6 ms·
A whole article about why space elevators would be better than rockets with only the slight problem that we don't know of any way to build one with any material
by jbb555 10y ago
A whole article about why space elevators would be better than rockets with only the slight problem that we don't know of any way to build one with any materials we have.
If we are allowed to do that, I think we should use star trek transporters. They would be even cheaper and even better. We don't know how to build those either...
- nvdk 10y agoWell we can already build them on the moon or mars, but there's not much use to do that at this point. The physics of a space elevator our completely understood, it's "just" finding a strong enough material to build the tether. A star trek transporter is still far out of reach.
- pif 10y agoThe physics of rockets is completely understood, too, and several applications have already been debugged. It's "just" a matter of finding a better propellent.
- yiyus 10y agoStarting construction without having the needed materials is the approach followed at ITER. This way of working is based in a very reasonable idea: available materials have been improving since ever, there is no reason to think this progress will stop now.
- mcv 10y agoBut it's hard to even imagine what something stronger than carbon nanutubes would look like. How much stronger than diamond-like molecular bonds can you get?
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- yiyus 10y agoAccording to simulations, 58% [1]. Experimental confirmation is still needed. Although we are still far from it, it is something that we could see in our life times. [1] https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16610-diamond-no-longer-natures-hardest-material/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16610-diamond-no-long...
- wcoenen 10y agoHardness is not the same as tensile strength.
- yiyus 10y agoI know. From the linked article: "The simulation showed that wurtzide boron nitride would withstand 18 per cent more stress than diamond, and lonsdaleite 58 per cent more." The title of the article is misleading.
- wcoenen 10y agoThe title of that article is accurate, where it says "stress" they are really referring to hardness and not tensile strength. The quoted 58% comes from this paper, it talks about "hardness" and "indentation strength" in the abstract: http://sci-hub.cc/10.1103/physrevlett.102.055503 http://sci-hub.cc/10.1103/physrevlett.102.055503
- yiyus 10y agoYou are right, I stand corrected. They actually talk about tensile strength in the PRL article: "It is noted that lonsdaleite exhibits almost identical ideal tensile strength and only slightly larger pure ideal shear strength compared to diamond. The significant enhancement in its indentation strength occurs under biaxial stress loading conditions. The situation in w-BN versus c-BN is similar. All past calculations have shown that diamond exhibits the highest strength under various loading conditions compared to other materials, which was consistent with all available measurements. Here we show for the first time that w-BN and lonsdaleite exhibit higher strength than diamond under indentation." So, indeed, diamond is still the winner here.
- the8472 10y agowe could start by getting an asteroid into orbit, this could be used as orbital station, construction site and counterweight for a future elevator
- lawless123 10y agoI would rather go from point A to B than be murdered and have a copy of myself assembled at point B.
- dogma1138 10y agoWhy? Unless there will be an accident where there are 2 of you why does this even bothers you? If it's as safe or safer than any other mode of transport then who cares if technically one copy gets destroyed, your body is doing that every few years anyhow.
- detritus 10y ago"Why does this even bothers you?" Because he's human and despite every fibre of his wit possibly thinking otherwise, he has some unshakeable suspicion that he has a spirit or is at least more than a mere golem? I dunno, that's what puts me off the idea.
- the8472 10y ago> I think we should use star trek transporters. They would be even cheaper and even better. Most of the energy of a spaceship in star trek is provided by anti-matter annihilation. Those are stupendous amounts of energy that they have available. Transporters may not be cheaper or better than space elevators. They're just far more convenient. For lifting gigatons of raw material into space you probably still want an elevator or other more "conventional" launch systems (anti-grav, impulse engines, etc.). Or just tow asteroids from outside the gravity well to your manufacturing site.