3 ms·
A space elevator on Mars is probably totally feasible. But of course the benefits would be much larger on Earth. The problem is: the benefit of a space elevato
by mcv 4y ago
A space elevator on Mars is probably totally feasible. But of course the benefits would be much larger on Earth.
The problem is: the benefit of a space elevator is bigger the deeper your gravity well is, but it's also much harder to impossible to make one there.
But I've also been wondering: wouldn't it be possible to have a tapering space elevator? Reduce the weight by making the parts that have to carry less weight thinner?
- ben_w 4y agoThe designs already have to taper, so you're right, but you still need supermaterials (or powered/active support structures) to make one on Earth.
- Sharlin 4y agoYes, it absolutely has to taper, with an exponential curve, to keep stress constant over the length of the cable. The taper ratio (in terms of cross-sectional area) for the best currently available engineering materials for an Earth space elevator would be in the tens to hundreds of millions, but a carbon nanotube cable might only require a taper ratio of around ten. (A steel cable would need a taper ratio on the order of 10^33.)
- midasuni 4y agoI believe A taper ratio of 10 means a 5cm rope at the bottom would be 50cm at the top. A steel cable would be 1mm thick at the bottom and several light years* thick at the top. *hyperbole. Maybe.
- Sharlin 4y agoIt’s a function of area so if we scale equally in both dimensions, a taper ratio of 10 means a thickness ratio of ~3.2. But yeah, that doesn’t exactly buy us much.
- marcosdumay 4y ago> *hyperbole. Maybe. A lightyear is around 10^19mm. Given that it's by area, a square lightyear is ~10^38mm^2. The cable is about 100 times thinner than it.