US Dollar Faces Collapse In 24 Months

[hotatlboi]

The 787 is a first-of-its-kind aircraft, so it doesn't matter that the technology has been around; its never ever been used in this way before for a commercial aircraft. That's a bad example to try and refute what Kuli is proposing.

How is it a bad example?

A space elevator would be an even more radical use for new technology than a 787.

If anything it is a better example than a more typical use.

 

[MoltenRock III]

I just hope that anyone with 1/2 a brain, in these past 20 posts or so, has realized, just how insane and ridiculous various posters ideas are. They're talking about launching never before seen refining systems into space. They are talking about launching never before seen power generation systems (nuclear???) to power these systems. And then on top of that some insane "space elevators" and parachuting "pre-boiled ore" to the Earth's surface. It's fucking nutz to the 100th degree!

 

[Kulindahr]

How is it a bad example?

A space elevator would be an even more radical use for new technology than a 787.

If anything it is a better example than a more typical use.

The only thing we don't know how to do on a space elevator is the stations. Some designs call for the base station to go a kilometer deep and fifteen high.

In between, it's a suspension bridge.

 

[Kulindahr]

I just hope that anyone with 1/2 a brain, in these past 20 posts or so, has realized, just how insane and ridiculous various posters ideas are. They're talking about launching never before seen refining systems into space. They are talking about launching never before seen power generation systems (nuclear???) to power these systems. And then on top of that some insane "space elevators" and parachuting "pre-boiled ore" to the Earth's surface. It's fucking nutz to the 100th degree!

The refining systems have been in use since the 60s or maybe before: mirrors.

THe energy source has been there longer than humans have been using its feeble imitation, fire: the sun.

The mechanics of dropping hollow spheres to earth has been worked out by NASA -- no parachuting required.

This is just engineering. The items you've picked are simple, already-finished engineering.

BTW, the gear for an orbital refinery system could go up in one shuttle launch.

It only seems nuts to people who aren't up on science and engineering.

 

[Kulindahr]

The U.S. government doesn't think a space elevator is nuts, and neither do extremely rich people who'd like to own the Solar System and thus the earth:

The timetable for construction of an actual space elevator hinges mainly on development of the carbon-based building materials. While NASA is using a planning horizon of the year 2100, private-sector companies currently working on designs think an operating space elevator could be built by as early as the end of this decade.

source

 

[hotatlboi]

The only thing we don't know how to do on a space elevator is the stations.

Utterly false, as I was trying to explain.

We don't know how to do a whole host of things we would need to build one. We don' know how to make the materials, we don't know how to construct it with those materials, we don't know how to get the materials up there, we don't know how to maintain it from impacts etc, we don't know how to anchor it, we don't know basically anything to the level of detail that is needed to build it. What we have are high level concepts, those are not useful for engineering purposes.

In between, it's a suspension bridge.

Totally false and seriously misunderstood.

 

[Kulindahr]

Utterly false, as I was trying to explain.

We don't know how to do a whole host of things we would need to build one.


Totally false and seriously misunderstood.

Not according to the engineers. Given that both NASA and investors are fully expecting to actually build one before 2020, I have to say you're spinning problems that aren't there.

If we can't manage to build a multiple-klick tall base, there would be a nasty problem to overcome: atmospheric stabilizers that grip the cable snugly without bothering the car/module tracks. Studies indicate the stabilizers would have to be long, hundreds of meters at a minimum, in order to reduce lateral point-stress; they should probably also be flexible -- and yes, that is one heck of a challenge.

 

[hotatlboi]

Given that both NASA and investors are fully expecting to actually build one before 2020

I will bet you $5 at 1000:1 odds that we do not see anything of the sort by 2020.

And NASA has never said that. I haven't seen any other group claim that either (if they did, I would seriously not invest with them because their claim is totally unrealistic).

 

[hotatlboi]

btw there have been investment groups for space elevators that have formed int he past. They all failed.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/04/space_elevator/print.html

Once the reality starts to dawn on people of what they are actually proposing vs where we are, it just is not feasible right now.

I'm not saying research into the concept shouldn't continue, but we are a LONG way from building one.

 

[Kulindahr]

btw there have been investment groups for space elevators that have formed int he past. They all failed.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/04/space_elevator/print.html

Once the reality starts to dawn on people of what they are actually proposing vs where we are, it just is not feasible right now.

I'm not saying research into the concept shouldn't continue, but we are a LONG way from building one.

You provide an example of a group of penny-ante players who are accounting-challenged as evidence there are technical difficulties?


The groups I have in mind, that were reported in both DISCOVER magazine and elsewhere, have already pooled billions, and are paying for engineering studies. Some are getting matching funds from NASA for research work (e.g. a company called UpLift or something). At least one has funded a competition for engineers to design various parts of the whole thing. Designers argue over whether it's better to use a ribbon or a cable, and the implications of either.

Just for review:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3077701/ns/technology_and_science-space/


I find the proposal there for an ocean-based "Earth Station" an interesting one. If we can't build a klicks-high tower, another way to deal with storms is to have a mobile base station that can reel out more ribbon or cable and sail out of the way -- a sort of romantic picture (of course to businessmen, two obvious advantages come with a deep-sea base station: outside government territory, and easier security).


At any rate, I'm still more interested in the asteroid project. When a modest one brought back could net $20 trillion, it's something the U.S. ought to be looking into.

 

[JB3]

How is it a bad example?

A space elevator would be an even more radical use for new technology than a 787.

If anything it is a better example than a more typical use.

Because he was trying to use it as an example of how we have trouble with technology we're already familiar with. In reality, the 787 is just as revolutionary as what Kuli has posited.

 

[hotatlboi]

In reality, the 787 is just as revolutionary as what Kuli has posited.

No it isn't. That's laughable.

The 787 contains huge similarities to a bunch of other implementations of existing technology that is proven (other airplanes).

A space elevator is a radical new idea with nothing remotely parallel currently in existence.

 

[MoltenRock III]

Not according to the engineers. Given that both NASA and investors are fully expecting to actually build one before 2020, I have to say you're spinning problems that aren't there.

If we can't manage to build a multiple-klick tall base, there would be a nasty problem to overcome: atmospheric stabilizers that grip the cable snugly without bothering the car/module tracks. Studies indicate the stabilizers would have to be long, hundreds of meters at a minimum, in order to reduce lateral point-stress; they should probably also be flexible -- and yes, that is one heck of a challenge.

Bullshit! Link?

You lose more and more credibility with every post. You're nuts!

 

[MoltenRock III]

No it isn't. That's laughable.

The 787 contains huge similarities to a bunch of other implementations of existing technology that is proven (other airplanes).

A space elevator is a radical new idea with nothing remotely parallel currently in existence.

That's the thing... you have these so-called "libertarians" (wingnuts) all blathering on about how government "needs to work" while proffering insane examples that it's hilariously stupid. These "libertarians" lose their kittens over someone wanting to raise gas taxes, and provide mass transit, while they somehow think proffering plucking stars from the sky as a sane policy discussion. My god, what a waste of time! To these nutbars why in the world would you try to curb emissions when you can just go grab Venus or Jupitar to mine it to kingdumb come?

 

[Kulindahr]

Because he was trying to use it as an example of how we have trouble with technology we're already familiar with. In reality, the 787 is just as revolutionary as what Kuli has posited.

In some ways it's more revolutionary: the cable itself is a very long suspension bridge. Its components are far simpler than a big jet, and while it will have to deal with turbulence and drag, it doesn't have to worry about lift.

The real revolutionary step in a space elevator is the base station: under the land-based design, it would be several times larger than the Great Pyramid, with foundations as deep as the deepest mines, and at tip ten times as high as the tallest building we've ever built (for an Africa base station, where the geology is solid, one dreamer suggested building a pyramidal city five kilometers high, with all the living space on the outside.....).

If you want revolutionary, there's been a proposal for sky cities tethered to the cable structure at ten, fifteen, twenty, and twenty-five kilometers up, like giant saucer-shaped dirigibles. I admire the audacity, but in a time of terrorists, all it would take is some imam to decide they were blasphemous.

Though if you want audacity, some have pointed out that it would require Reagan "Star Wars" weapons to protect the LEO section against space debris; that job is one I'm not convinced we could do yet, but are getting close to. And it is a critical one, especially for the ribbon design, which could be destroyed by one good piece of space junk just under monitoring threshold -- and with the ribbon design, there would be no way whatever to anchor any defense modules to the elevator (can be gotten around by a three-ribbon structure, the ribbons linked by a y-shaped middle structure, yielding an up ribbon, a down ribbon, and one for maintenance traffic; beams out from the y could support hanging structures). That's a reason I like the cable design, though I prefer the robust idea of a middle cable with a hexagon of other cables around it (cables: up, down, maintenance, VIP high-accel up, same down, and one for mobile modules doing defense, research, whatever).

 

[hotatlboi]

the cable itself is a very long suspension bridge.

Wrong. Where do you keep getting this from?

The two are not anywhere near the same, as easily evidenced by the fact that we can build suspension bridges but no materials we have right now can build a space elevator.

The only similarity they have is that gravity aids in the tensioning of the cables. The cables themselves are entirely different.

it doesn't have to worry about lift.

Are you kidding me?

Lifting it is one of the primary problems facing the construction of a space elevator. None of our current launchers can lift as much mass as would be necessary to lift it. So you would have to bootstrap it with a smaller one, which presents a whole other set of construction design issues.

 

[Kulindahr]

Bullshit! Link?

You lose more and more credibility with every post. You're nuts!

If you haven't read the links already given, I have no reason to believe you'll read any more.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's the thing... you have these so-called "libertarians" (wingnuts) all blathering on about how government "needs to work" while proffering insane examples that it's hilariously stupid. These "libertarians" lose their kittens over someone wanting to raise gas taxes, and provide mass transit, while they somehow think proffering plucking stars from the sky as a sane policy discussion. My god, what a waste of time! To these nutbars why in the world would you try to curb emissions when you can just go grab Venus or Jupitar to mine it to kingdumb come?

Proof that liberals hate the poor: you keep insisting on things that would hurt them.


When you have to resort to lies to discredit something, you've got a problem. I'll just note that its easy to find on government web sites that NASA doesn't consider this nuts.

And if it costs five trillion -- superb! The first moderate-sized metallic asteroid will pay off that and the (current) national debt. The second could be used to provide every American free housing.


BTW, technology for moving Venus is conceivable. But at the moment it requires at least two major technological breakthroughs to even think about. Even if we had the technology right now (and no national debt), it would take a century to even get set up to begin getting ready to start the preparations to build the drive required, and probably another fifty years to build the drive. Then if you want to wait about two thousand years, we could get Venus into a trailing earth orbit.

So maybe 2500 years from now Venus could be a fixed distance from here, and maybe even cooled down enough to live on.

 

[hotatlboi]

When you have to resort to lies to discredit something, you've got a problem. I'll just note that its easy to find on government web sites that NASA doesn't consider this nuts.

No one has said the concept is nuts. The concept has merit and certainly deserves further research and investment.

However the current cost of getting to orbit puts a prohibitively expensive price on any kind of thing like this in the current economic climate.

None of these ideas are going to reduce the deficit, they will all require substantially more money going to space exploration than we currently spend.

 

[Kulindahr]

Wrong. Where do you keep getting this from?

The two are not anywhere near the same, as easily evidenced by the fact that we can build suspension bridges but no materials we have right now can build a space elevator.

What we can build right now is irrelevant. In terms of physics and construction technique, it's a suspension bridge -- a rather unique one, because the cable itself is the bridge, but still a suspension bridge. Instead of towers, it has a planet and (possibly) an asteroid as the points it hangs from.

The only similarity they have is that gravity aids in the tensioning of the cables. The cables themselves are entirely different.

And that's the point! A suspension bridge made of jungle vines, of cotton clothesline, of hemp rope, of steel cable -- they're all the same thing. The materials don't matter, the height doesn't matter, the length doesn't matter -- only the equations matter. The important items come down to self-length, tensile strength, cross section vs. distance from base, which are just plugged into the equations.

They're the very same things the engineers on the Golden Gate faced: you write your equation for you span, you plug in your values for your material, and you know if your bridge will hold; conversely, you design your bridge, plug in known values, and get a figure for how strong a material must be to do the job. It's no different than square buildings sitting on the ground: the equations are the same for a beam-and-post hall in the fourteenth century and a brick and concrete fourteen-floor structure of the last century -- or the concrete-and-steel ones of today.

Yet the cables for a space elevator will be very, very much like old hemp ropes: fibers bound by friction and possibly some matrix are spun into and hold together as thread; threads are braided into cord; cord is stretched out to cover the span, and then more cords are twined about them to make a cable. That's the way suspension bridges are done -- a lead line, twined about to be thicker and thicker, until the desired diameter is achieved (or occasionally, a lead line will serve as carrier for the main cable to be pulled across the span).

Are you kidding me?

Lifting it is one of the primary problems facing the construction of a space elevator. None of our current launchers can lift as much mass as would be necessary to lift it. So you would have to bootstrap it with a smaller one, which presents a whole other set of construction design issues.

Huh?

Oh -- I said "lift", not "lifting" -- look at the context: turbulence, drag, lift -- all nouns having to do with aerodynamics.

As for bootstrapping -- exactly. The lead line would be only large enough to have a long enough self-length and carry the twining machine. The typical proposal is to drop the lead line, catch it (trade-off: make the ballast mass too big, the spin unit at the top has to do more work and be correspondingly more massive itself; make it too small, and it could be dangerous to catch), then drop the first twiner from above, braiding three identical cables around the first, followed by an ascending twiner braiding yet more, etc. Note that this requires a launch payload more than four times the size of one merely dropping the lead line -- but if the spinner only drops one line and a twiner is sent up, the lead line has to have a different design.

The only technical problem there is twiners that work in vacuum -- twiners to work with all sorts of cable materials already exist.


BTW: for fun I went looking but couldn't find anything regarding an idea I read about a while back--
Some researchers have made synthetic spiderweb that's got a self-length in the hundreds of kilometers [self-length is the length of the longest piece of a given material than will stay together in one gravity and not break under its own weight ~ as examples, the self-length of our best steel cable is around fifty kilometers and of a Kevlar one around four hundred kilometers], with a side benefit of sticking to whatever it contacts. It's been suggested that using fibers of the spiderweb as a matrix for nanotube fiber would give the cohesion which has been lacking in many nanotube experiments. Development of nanotubes with protrusions may make that unnecessary, but it's a fun idea.