Strategic Implications of owning a Space Elevator

The reward is (in theory) having a bunch of people lining up to throw money at you because you can get shit up to space at a much cheaper cost than shooting it to space in a big-ass tin can with a fuck load of rocket fuel in it.

>>30109761
What happens when a Durka crashes a plane into it?

>>30109792
?
Nothing suggests that a space elevator will actually be cheaper to operate than fully reusable chemical rockets

Not to mention its not even physically possible to build, let alone actually be practical

>>30109798
just reconnect it.

>>30109807
If its not profitable it won't be built

Unless a lefty is in charge

>>30109807

Cheaper to maintain is questionable, but rockets are tremendously inefficient modes of transportation. The efficiency of rockets at turning their chemical energy into useful thrust is in the low single digits. Then add on the fact that you need more rocket fuel just to get rocket fuel up to the altitude where it's needed.

A space elevator is much much more energy efficient. The current theory is shooting ground based lasers at photo-receptors on the bottom of the elevator, and converting that into electricity to drive a motor.

>>30109807
Well, the assumption is that by the time the thing is built the demand for orbital access will have increased, also the elevator is safer. Currently satellite launches have a 7% failure rate.

>>30109845
Yup, because the counterweight is not flying out into space with everything above the breakpoint.

>>30109874
Yeah problem is the fuck huge cable we need, even if we could get nanotubes to cooperate. The power is one of the simpler parts.

Though apparently you could build one on Mars with Kevlar or the Moon with Steel though.

>>30109798

Build it out in the middle of an ocean and enforce a no-fly zone around it with SAM sites. If any unauthorized plane comes within 20 miles of the tower, blow it out of the sky.

>>30109798
Turn every durka country in the world into radioactive glass so there aren't any left to try again.

I just had this weird thought of an electromagnetic space elevator breaking and causing an elevator car full of people flying out the top into the vast nothingness of space.

>>30109761
This is the wrong board, you want /sci/

One issue with a space elevator is, when you send things up, the top of the elevator will slow down.

Another issue is how long the elevator would have to be. It would have to be HUGE, farther out than the moon if i remember correctly.

Finally, the tidal forces acting on the elevator would probably tear it apart.

>an aerospace major

>>30113445
>farther out than the moon.
Wtf that would be gigantic. Why would we need to have it so big?
Low earth orbit would be sufficient according to me but I'm no speciwlist

>>30113445
You should consider switching majors, you retard.

>>30115887
You want the end station to be geostationary, which brings you to 36000 km, after which, you need to go further to place the counterweight. It has to be pretty big (but not as big as what >>30113445 says).

>>is taller than the atmosphere

Yeah, it'd be a LOT taller than the atmosphere. Pic related, height to scale, width greatly exaggerated for visibility.

>>30115978
>Pic related
Why is this thread full of retards...

>>30109761
Space elevators only work low atmosphere. Like a helicopter blade, the outer edge swings faster than the inner. Even in 0G you could be looking at a reverse G force of about 20. Humans knock out at 9G often. You would have to be suspended in liquid (no air AT ALL) for it to work.

The idea is to send nonliving items up the elevator.

File: space elevator.jpg (66KB, 1875x504px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1875x504px

>>30109807
>Nothing suggests that a space elevator will actually be cheaper to operate than fully reusable chemical rockets

Chemical rocket launches are extremely inefficient, you lift a lot more shit than your payload.

With an elevator you balance the elevator module with a counterweight, such as another elevator module, and suddenly the only energy needed to lift that cargo container is for friction and such losses. If you can find somethign up there to bring down (asteroid mining or whatever) you can even end up with an overall excess of energy.

>>30113445
>farther out than the moon if i remember correctly.

You do not.

>>30115887
The outer end must have an orbital period of 24 hours, matching the planets surface, or you're going to have some pretty severe issues. In LEO the orbital period is about an hour and a half to two hours. Go around slower than that and you won't stay in orbit, you'll fall down.

>>30115978
And the pic

File: 20160530_153102.jpg (1MB, 2560x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1920px

>>30115947
>>30115977
>>30116052
>>30115887
Alright faggots, this is my math. The end distance for a geostationary orbit is a little over 42 million meters.

I was incorrect in saying the distance was farther than the moon, which is over 300 million meters.

The counterweight would need to be beyond this distance, since we also need to compensate for both the weight of the cable, and the weight of the cargo.

>>30116480
>Alright faggots, this is my math.

You can just google it you know.

>>30116629
>you can just google it you know
>google it
Never trust the kikes, Jeremy