3 ms·
Space is big. 1) The cable's vibration resonance can be adjusted to avoid the bulk of larger objects, 2) new satellites can be mandated to have emergency maneuv
by MilStdJunkie 4y ago
Space is big. 1) The cable's vibration resonance can be adjusted to avoid the bulk of larger objects, 2) new satellites can be mandated to have emergency maneuver systems (with larger objects not yet de-orbited cleared out by an elevator consortium), and 3) the cable will necessarily have close range defense systems probably at intervals for smaller objects that might be harder to detect at long range. The cable, also, is enormous, which is the largest barrier to its implementation - it would dwarf every other artifact in human history, put together - and can not be made with any material we can currently create at scale. Compared with that, orbital TCAS of some sort is fairly trivial. In the long term, a space elevator is inevitable, but it's inevitable in the same way that . . I dunno, human-crocodile hybrids are, or fusion drive, or the way a lot of other medium-term future stuff is.
EDIT Also, this thing stops at the Karman line. That's not a viable space elevator. Pretty widget, though.
- marcosdumay 4y ago> In the long term, a space elevator is inevitable There are plenty of zero-fuel launch possibilities and a few very high-ISP ones. On the long term one of them is inevitable, but it's pushing it a bit to claim that it will be the space elevator.
- MilStdJunkie 4y agoSpace elevator is by far the most efficient though . . right? Stuff that's on the end of the cable has enough angular velocity to get flung all across the inner system. Lunar orbit could be reached with release at 50,960 km. At the end of a 144,000 km cable you could get to Jupiter. I dunno what sort of other zero fuel launch techniques are getting considered though - there's no doubt a space elevator is just out of our capabilities today and for a while yet. Probably until our automation is good enough for self-directed asteroid factories to be a Thing.
- marcosdumay 4y agoThe zero fuel options all sit around the same efficiency possibilities. A launch-loop won't get you as far as a GEO space elevator, but it can get farther than a non-stationary one. A sky hook can in theory get you a larger delta-v than a GEO elevator. A space fountain can do GEO, but no further... And the very high ISP options are all on the same category in that they can save you more fuel than the zero fuel ones, but only if you want enough delta-v. None of those are viable today, but most are in a "we can make all parts, but it's a fucking big machine that we can't assemble", while the elevator is still missing parts.