Space Elevator alt Theory

You do realize that those trusses have to stay near mesospheric heights around 60km up in the air right ? No structure can withstand to stay like that without proper supporting poles. And you would have to use a tight grid structure and put supports all over the world.

tl;dr : impossible

Not impossible but probably really stupid and ugly.

No more impossible han a single elevator would be.

Also think of the things we build today that would of been impossible 100 years ago.

>>7954218
I wonder whether the ring would make the whole structure more or less stable than a single beanstalk. Having read Clarke's Fountains of Paradise, I'm aware of some of the problems, like the need for a counterweight.

On one hand, any force applied to one elevator goes up into the ring and propagates to the other elevators.

On the other hand, the ring spins with the Earth, and spinning things add stability.

So which is it?

>>7954218
Yes, but why would you? It would take an effort on par with 30x the current global economy to even get the materials into space.

>>7954275
This is /sci/. We ca ndream the impossible.

Then we discuss how to get there.

Finally we hand it to society and wait until it becomes feasible.

At the moment there are no materials light yet tough enough to build a space elevator. Next really problem is powering the cabs going up, and braking cabs going down. You don't want to go into near orbit just to be smashed on the way back.

Nevertheless we can already discuss whether adding a ring has advantages.

>>7954292
*really
*really hard

File: Space_elevator_structural_diagram--corrected_for_scale+CM+etc.svg.png (35KB, 280x651px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 280x651px

>>7954218

The point of a space elevator is not to get to vacuum. That doesn't help you. Being in orbit is about moving fast, not getting above the atmosphere. Something as tall as you have drawn would never be able to stand up, and it wouldn't be useful if it did. The space elevator, both in order to stand up and to actually get something moving fast enough, has to be long enough to use the Earth's own rotation to hold itself up with centrifugal force.

see pic related

>>7954292
>Nevertheless we can already discuss whether adding a ring has advantages.

Ok, the answer is no.

>>7954307
>multiple times the diameter of earth

>>7954313

Yes, exactly. Why is this greentext?

>>7954312
Kindly tell us why you think so.

>>7954320

What do you think the advantage might be?

>>7954318
Because it'll never happen. The scale of such a project makes it a non-starter.

>>7954338
>muh argument from incredulity

>>7954312
This. I don't mind the occasional planetary ring ecosystem but a structured ring would be useless.

Gravity is not a normal sphere around Earth. Keeping this thing stable would be a fucking nightmare.

>>7954343
greentext all you want faggot but hanging a 20,000 mile string in space is one of the dumbest ideas I've seen in a while

>>7954343
More like locality. OP didn't mention a "thousands of years later, in the future" premise for the thread so we can assume it was asked locally. ie., if it's not going to be feasible for 200-300 years, then it can't possibly be relevant to the normal organic lifespan.

>>7954359

Says you, based on zero expertise.

>>7954367
Even if we have the technology for such a thing it can be put to use in smarter ways.

>>7954367

Where do you get 200-300 years from? All we need is a mass production method of materials that already exist.

>>7954377
Which materials are that?

>>7954410

For example,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanothread

Anything with tensile strength on the same order would work. And then it's just about making it in large quantities. The part that made anon's tiny brain hurt ("but it's so big!") is actually not really a problem.

>>7954440
>As of 2015, fibers 90 nanometers in length had been created
we're already halfway there!

>>7954377
200-300 is the range for technological irrelevance. If it were 100 years out, people would feel it was close enough to discuss theoretically. If it's more than 300 years out, it's sci-fi, which is also valid for discussion. The reason it isn't technologically feasible now is because producing the material is NOT the hard problem. Launching it, assembling it and making sure the assembly isn't shredded by the tidal forces of the moon, Earth, and sun isn't easy.

I bet you don't even know >>7954410

>>7954453
Last time I looked, it had been found that carbon nanotubes are nice but still not up to the requirements for a beanstalk. I'd been hoping for something better.

Since I'm too tired to look up my source just now we'll have to agree to disagree on the suitability of CNT.

>>7954460
Since they're so strong, and it's kinda hard to make a lot of it, what do you think about a CNT slingshot? Give it enough force to get out of the gravity well and then thrusters 'n shit can take over from there. It would save a lot of fuel

Puting one on the moon could serve as a nice space station in the future might be a bit easier too

We'd need alot better construction vehicles though

>>7954460
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

" Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have been identified as possibly being able to meet the specific strength requirements"

Note the "possibly". Dunno whether Wikipedia missed an update.

>>7954307
. . so some orbiting pulley system maybe?

It's just like thr orbital ring concept but impossible:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_ring

Orbital ring = spin ring around the earth, keep it in place with tethers.