US Dollar Faces Collapse In 24 Months

[Kulindahr]

A space elevator is a totally new concept entirely.

You conceded that the basic equations of a suspension bridge apply. So it's no more totally new than the Brooklyn Bridge was.

 

[MoltenRock III]

This in other news, Rainbow Unicorn powdered horn was trading at $ 428,184.03 per gram today on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

 

[hotatlboi]

You conceded that the basic equations of a suspension bridge apply. So it's no more totally new than the Brooklyn Bridge was.

Holy fuck, this is starting to sound like a broken record.

One more time, the equations of a suspension bridge are PART of the solution for ONE part of the problem (analyzing the tension on the cable). There is FAR more to work out besides just that.

 

[Kulindahr]

Holy fuck, this is starting to sound like a broken record.

The equations of a suspension bridge are part of the solution for analyzing the tension on the cable. There is FAR more to work out besides just that.

And my sister-in-law, engineer in Everett, will tell you that there is a LOT more about the 787 to work out.

They're parallel: a basic concept quite well known, with lots of pesky details.

 

[hotatlboi]

a basic concept quite well known

An engineering concept of a space elevator is not well known, not in any sense the way planes are. The mixing of terminology you are using is simply not compatible.

There is no real world data to draw on, as there is with flight.

One more time, it is a high level concept, nowhere near developed enough to actually build it, it is simply not comparable on any level to the difficulty in making a more fuel efficient plane.

 

[Kulindahr]

An engineering concept of a space elevator is not well known, not in any sense the way planes are. The mixing of terminology you are using is simply not compatible.

There is no real world data to draw on, as there is with flight.

One more time, it is a high level concept, nowhere near developed enough to actually build it, it is simply not comparable on any level to the difficulty in making a more fuel efficient plane.

It's developed enough to do a Wright-Brothers equivalent, which here would be a single-cable span with no adornments. That single strand is nothing but a very long suspension bridge cable.

It's not developed enough for the imaginative pictures in the NASA clip or other groups' websites.

That's where I think we're operating under a difference in definition of feasibility. It seems to me that you won't call it feasible until it has maintenance, tower-like framework, meteor and micrometeor defenses, and all the other systems. I call it feasible because the only thing needed to run a single-cable version is the material for that cable.

Thinking of cable, have you run into the "bucket" system for moving cars along? they'd grip the cable, and have basic motors, but most of the lift would come from dropping a counter-weight......

 

[MoltenRock III]

An engineering concept of a space elevator is not well known, not in any sense the way planes are. The mixing of terminology you are using is simply not compatible.

There is no real world data to draw on, as there is with flight.

One more time, it is a high level concept, nowhere near developed enough to actually build it, it is simply not comparable on any level to the difficulty in making a more fuel efficient plane.

LOL! Dude, you're arguing with a guy with only a bachelor's degree that isn't even in the core sciences / math disciplines. As if any engineer with a PhD or even Master's degree would even begin by stating a "space elevator" was a "basic idea"! LMAO!

What's even more ridiculous is then arguing such a high level concept, with a massive number of unknowns unknowns and known unknowns (as Rumsfeld would put it) were easily to calculate and account for, yet at the same time being against government spending on the order it would come close to take to actually launch the thing, much less all the other unkowns, (ie... "grabbing" asteroids, refining their ore in space, getting power plants launched into space for the task, etc....)

 

[Kulindahr]

LOL! Dude, you're arguing with a guy with only a bachelor's degree that isn't even in the core sciences / math disciplines. As if any engineer with a PhD or even Master's degree would even begin by stating a "space elevator" was a "basic idea"! LMAO!

What's even more ridiculous is then arguing such a high level concept, with a massive number of unknowns unknowns and known unknowns (as Rumsfeld would put it) were easily to calculate and account for, yet at the same time being against government spending on the order it would come close to take to actually launch the thing, much less all the other unkowns, (ie... "grabbing" asteroids, refining their ore in space, getting power plants launched into space for the task, etc....)

At least he's arguing with someone who reads, pays attention, and doesn't lie about the foregoing conversation.


edit: just to help you out, there are seven errors and/or falsehoods in your post. most you would know better if you'd read the thread.