We can build an Orbital Ring Space Elevator. Right now.

>>8813570
>ring structure that large around Earth

lol

File: 54123681.jpg (65KB, 402x604px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 402x604px

>>8813578

You can read the scientific journals yourself and verify everything.

>>8813570
I don't watch videos, why don't you post your calculations on how this is feasible as text?

So uh what's the probability of failure over the DECADES that it will be in operation? If it fails how much damage does it cause?

And how can you be assured that it will actually pay back its construction cost over the period of DECADES? In a couple decades it might be obsolete.

>>8813580
Citations motherfucker

File: 691524.jpg (72KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 500x375px

>>8813604

Here's the basics from some journal articles. There's more recent things out there that get into a lot more detail on specific aspects, but this is the basics of how the system works.

http://www.orionsarm.com/fm_store/OrbitalRings-I.pdf

http://www.orionsarm.com/fm_store/OrbitalRings-II.pdf

http://www.orionsarm.com/fm_store/OrbitalRings-III.pdf

> So uh what's the probability of failure over the DECADES that it will be in operation?

A whole system failure is almost zero chance. You could possibly lose a tether, but someone would basically have to launch a nuke into space to take the ring down.

> If it fails how much damage does it cause?

None, with proper planning. The ring segments would float away from earth, not toward it, since they are in orbit.

The tethers could be equipped with parachutes as a failsafe. Keeping them away from any populated areas would prevent any deaths or serious damage.

>And how can you be assured that it will actually pay back its construction cost over the period of DECADES?

Not decades, like 1-3 years. Space-based solar arrays.

The major limiting cost is the launch costs. Otherwise, they're about 5 times as efficient as land-based, and you don't need backup systems because they run all the time.

You can produce power for less than 1c/kwh, and the worldwide average price for energy is 17c/kwh. Tons of room to cut people's energy costs, and make insane profits (possibly 200% or more if you sold into expensive markets that are paying 25-30c/kwh, for example).

File: Fig-4-Europan-tether-decagonal-resonance.png (91KB, 447x525px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 447x525px

>>8813622
>> almost zero
Prove it. Now if you do the math the probability of a tsunami taking out the generators at fukushima in a 1 year period was almost

>>they are in orbit
They are NOT in orbit. In order to support the skyhooks, the skyhook must change the direction of the cable.

It has been shown that long flexible structures in space can behave in very strange ways because of how the mass is distributed: http://www.wseas.us/e-library/transactions/mathematics/2008/Ultra-long.pdf

Pic related, a possible pentagonal orbit for a very long tether. So uh, its probably not just going to float away and could cause a kessler syndrome.

>> keep them away from populated areas

Ok and how do you do that with a ring that goes around the whole earth?

>> parachutes
And how do you put enough parachutes over the whole damn tether to even be effective?

>> 1-3 years
Ok, so you are going to replace all of Earth's electrical infrastructure in 1-3 years?
For that matter how are you even going to build this thing in 1-3 years?

>> 1c/kwh
If you do that, your 2 GW solar power satellite takes 32 years to pay back its construction costs

Now if electricity gets cheaper because we invent some new cheap way of generating electricity after you finish construction you're screwed.

File: andy.jpg (86KB, 509x499px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 509x499px

>Prove it. Now if you do the math the probability of a tsunami taking out the generators at fukushima in a 1 year period was almost

What?

>They are NOT in orbit.

There are two parts. Moving segments. And stationary tethers.

The segments are in motion, and would float away from earth.

The tethers would have parachutes to insure they don't come crashing down.

>It has been shown that long flexible structures in space can behave in very strange ways because of how the mass is distributed

The orbital ring isn't a solid, flexible structure. It's a dynamic structure.

Otherwise, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, please clarify.

>Ok and how do you do that with a ring that goes around the whole earth?

Only the tethers need to be away from populated areas. You could put them on floating platforms with a train to land. Or put them in rural areas. Lots of ways to do this.

>And how do you put enough parachutes over the whole damn tether to even be effective?

Enough parachutes to slow the whole structure wouldn't be a lot of weight or cost.

Another option is to have inflatable structures going up maybe 20 miles that can be taken down in a hurricane or something, and the rest be steel and kevlar

>Ok, so you are going to replace all of Earth's electrical infrastructure in 1-3 years?

You wouldn't need to. Demand is not static, lower prices would drastically push demand. Ask anyone who works at a foundry.

>For that matter how are you even going to build this thing in 1-3 years?

Hire a few hundred thousand welders, and get to work.

Another option is to do a launch loop first, and then the cost of the whole project drops to like $50 billion, but it takes an extra year or two.

>If you do that, your 2 GW solar power satellite takes 32 years to pay back its construction costs

I'm not sure what you mean. You wouldn't sell it for 1c, you would sell it for like 15c/kwh and make money like there's no tomorrow.

>>8813740
Now if you do the math the probability of a tsunami taking out the generators at fukushima in a 1 year period was almost zero, but the cumulative probability over the lifetime of fukushima was quite high.

>>8813570
>we
Implying op

>>8813622
>someone would basically have to launch a nuke into space to take the ring down
>thinking that wouldn't happen eventually

So uh, how long have you been paying attention to your fellow humans OP?

File: instability of very large tethers.png (238KB, 678x583px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 678x583px

>>8813740
>>The orbital ring isn't a solid, flexible structure. It's a dynamic structure.
no shit. And guess what? Giant long structures in orbit can behave in strange manners.

See: http://www.wseas.us/e-library/transactions/mathematics/2008/Ultra-long.pdf

Pic related, a very long tether turns out to be very unstable. This is due to the fact that the tether is long enough for the force of gravity to be different at different points on the tether.

In the second paper, the author argues that a ring rupture would not cause the ring to hit the ground because of 'LEL it has enough energy to move to a higher orbit.' That is their entire argument and they do not do any math to show this is the case.

So after the ring ruptures, we could get these crazy orbits, which could cause the ring to contact the atmosphere or break up. In the best case scenario, the entire thing reenters, because according to some 'it's magic I don't have to explain shit math', this would only cause 700 casualties. In the worst case scenario, these instabilities cause the ring to break up spewing debris into a bunch of different orbits resulting in kessler syndrome.

>>but someone would basically have to launch a nuke into space to take the ring down
so the ring cables are only like 1 meter in diameter. We could probably cause rupture with a suborbitally launched missile. For our skyhook, we can use hand tools cut the kevlar cable, perhaps even a blade of japanese steel folded over a million times. We can also just turn off the cooling for the superconducting magnets, say by venting coolant, resulting in the skyhook falling, some damage to the ring cables too, and a nice sudden load change transient propagating through the ring.


Oh and guess what? In paper one, they only demonstrated that the discrete skyhook system was stable for small perturbations, you know the one we can actually build.

>>8813570
sure but the cost and the amount of labour of building such a structure would be incredibly big

>>8813740

>>Enough parachutes to slow the whole structure wouldn't be a lot of weight or cost.
enough parachutes to slow a structure that weighs 80,000 metric tons won't add much weight or cost? We don't even put parachutes on airliners.

>>Hire a few hundred thousand welders, and get to work.
so how do you launch enough rockets in a year to get all that mass in orbit

>>Another option is to do a launch loop first
if you have a launch loop, then why do you need an orbital ring?

>>15c/kwh
is the average cost for electricity. At 15c/kwh you have to compete with terrestrial sources of electricity. You would have to undercut the cost of terrestrial electricity sources. Not to mention that the cost of electricity could drop in the time it takes to construct said structure or there could be less electrical customers.

Solar panels and storage could get very cheap, this could A) reduce the cost of electricity or B) severely reduce the demand for baseload power.

>>You wouldn't need to. Demand is not static,
Tell that to Iridium. Iridium's plan to make big bucks was to build a satellite constellation that would allow phone and pager coverage basically everywhere on Earth. This would allow them to get basically everyone on earth in their mobile plan and make a shit ton of money because no one's going to stop using phones and pagers and shit.

So after they spend 5 years and $6 billion to get it barely operational, pretty much no one buys their phones, because cell technology down on Earth improved. A few months later they filed for bankruptcy.

File: clippyspaceelevator.jpg (124KB, 510x393px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 510x393px

>>8813570
>We can build an Orbital Ring Space Elevator. Right now.

Goodbye van allen radiation belts....

Say hello to cosmic radiation, my friends.

>>8813570
While it would be nice to have onei don't think any government would get behind buildingor funding one

File: Space Mountain.png (344KB, 1113x461px) Image search: [Google]

344KB, 1113x461px

>>8813570
>youtube vid
>robot woman's voice
>cartoons

>>8813622
It won't work. That is a fantasy blog paper written in his spare time. The forces involved from the moon's gravity would tear it apart. Making it flexible simply means it will still fail, but in a more spectacular fashion as we watch wave propagation take place.

I'm not even going to go into discussion about radiation belts.

You may as well build a Space Mountain for all the good it will do. lol

the Mars trilogy books have a nice scene describing what happens if a structure like this (a space elevator though) falls on the surface. it is a cataclysmic event

File: walter.jpg (58KB, 500x348px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 500x348px

>>8814102
>Pic related, a very long tether turns out to be very unstable

The tethers are only a few hundred km, not like the long tether out to geosynchronous.

>That is their entire argument and they do not do any math to show this is the case.

Yeah, he doesn't go into details on things like this because they're fairly axiomatic. It's basically inherent in the design that the segments in motion would be going at a speed faster than a decay orbit.

I suppose someone could calculate the specifics on this if they wanted to.

>So after the ring ruptures

Hang on. Let's be clear that you're talking about a very remote possibility of total system failure. This would not happen if you just took down a tether or two.

>we could get these crazy orbits, which could cause the ring to contact the atmosphere or break up.

No, they would continue their current motion away from the earth (from which each tether re-directs them into a different orbit that would escape earth if not for the next tether).

So, they would float off, not come crashing down.

It might help to think of it as a giant bullet redirector system. If the bullet redirectors fail, the bullet fly off into space.

>so the ring cables are only like 1 meter in diameter.

Taking down a tether would be somewhat easier. Which is why you would have interceptors, antiaircraft weapons, etc. nearby.

If we're in an all-out war with a country that can defeat US air superiority, lots of bad things are going to happen with or without an orbital ring.

>For our skyhook, we can use hand tools cut the kevlar cable, perhaps even a blade of japanese steel folded over a million times.

Or slap a fairly large charge on it. These things can happen. But let's be honest, you could already kill hundreds of people with little more than a hand grenade, or even a rifle, by taking out train tracks that passenger trains are using.

Anyone with a hunting rifle could probably damage a train track enough to derail a passenger train.

>>8813570
Wouldn't that still be close to the earth, relative to it's radius? In which case you won't bec gaining anything by moving launches to it, if anything I'd expect it'll be more expensive since you'd have to do two launches.

File: 7.jpg (53KB, 500x470px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 500x470px

>>8814570

That's where people like you and I come in. We need to ask for it.

>>8814594
whats wrong with that if it conveys the message/information, its the knowledge that is important not the delivery system

File: 87.jpg (50KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 500x281px

>>8814594

> That is a fantasy blog paper written in his spare time.

It's based on peer reviewed journal articles. You can read for yourself the articles by Paul Birch and later Andrew Meulenberg, who both wrote a number of articles on the subject.

>The forces involved from the moon's gravity would tear it apart.

We can calculate these, and adjust launch trajectories accodingly. We already do it with space launches.

>You may as well build a Space Mountain for all the good it will do

Will a Space Mountain let you produce 100% clean energy at 1c/kwh, 1/6 the cost of coal? Will it let you sell that energy and create trillions of dollars in free cash flow?

>>8814624
Wow, you're really dumb. You can't even understand what you read in those PDFs. No, a space mountain can't work for the same reason a space ring can't work. No, I'm not telling you why, you don't deserve to know.

>>8814609
>The tethers are only a few hundred km, not like the long tether out to geosynchronous.
He means the big long loop around the entire planet being unstable.

Which is also why his pictures have had a big long loop around the entire moon and not a little noodle going to it from the surface.

>>8814245
whats a little cancer between friends

>>8814623
>its the knowledge that is important not the delivery system

Stop being a naive child.

>>8814668
how am I a child? How am I Naïve? Yes a nice document setting it out would be good but that video was perfectly fine as well. Wouldyou ignore a firewarning because it came from a synthetic voice? Ignore safety instructions because they come in the form of a cartoon and not a wall of text?

File: vfakt-580x777.jpg (67KB, 580x777px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 580x777px

>>8814681
>would you ignore >>>/x/ related warnings in a computerized woman's with cartoon images

Yes, I would ignore it completely.

>>8814688
ok then that is you

>>8814688
wouldn't you end up getting killed? or hurt? Remove yourself from the gene pool.

>>8813622
>someone would have to launch a nuke into space to take it down

We have done this several times already. With Assad using banned chemical weapons, Kim Jong Un believing he is a god that has nukes, and ISIS trying to take over an area that has nuclear research facilities. What makes you think somebody wont decide to take the world hostage with the threat of killing everyone who lives near said space ring with a single bomb? Im not saying the space elevator cant be done, but this space ring is just a bad idea. The human race has proven itself to not be trustworthy enough for such a structure to exist.

>>8814799
they wouldn't dare, the cholera damage alone might take them out at the same time

>>8814134

>enough parachutes to slow a structure that weighs 80,000 metric tons won't add much weight or cost? We don't even put parachutes on airliners.

We already put parachutes on space shuttles and other spacecraft, which are far heavier than airliners.

> At 15c/kwh you have to compete with terrestrial sources of electricity

Undercut at 10c/kwh and still make a hefty amount of money? Pay back your costs in about 3 years, and that's assuming minimal use.

>Solar panels and storage could get very cheap, this could A) reduce the cost of electricity or B) severely reduce the demand for baseload power.

Solar power in space will be infinitely more efficient and reliable. There's no rain in space.

>So after they spend 5 years and $6 billion to get it barely operational, pretty much no one buys their phones, because cell technology down on Earth improved. A few months later they filed for bankruptcy.

So you have it on good faith that the planet's energy crisis will be solved in 5 years? WOW! Just sit tight then and wait for the revolution!!!

-- --

Jesus Christ, you people are shilling hard enough to make me believe that a space elevator is a good idea.

>>8814632

You sound like the biggest fucking shill I've ever read.

>lol this is a blogpost why would you trust it
>NO THE PEER REVIEWED PAPERS ARE WRONG THIS WILL NOT WORK
>YOU DONT DESERVE TO KNOW WHY

neck yourself you unbearable faggot

>>8814809
collateral

>>8814817
>planet's energy crisis will be solved in 5 years?

It could be solved in about that time, but there's no political will tov invest the billions to do so. Right now everyone justc seems to be kicking the can down the road and hoping it's the other guy that cops for it. But even then why would why a government use some risky new technology instead of proven, reliable technologies like nuclear? Using any of the ideas itt to try and solve the growing energy crisis is beyond dumb.

>>8814824
>shill
And the schizophrenia inevitably comes out...

File: 1486010552774.png (21KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 500x400px

Why the fuck would you even want to go to the moon anyway? There's fucking nothing there. You people talk about it as if it's something people actually want to do.

Nobody fucking cares about the moon asshole

>>8814835

>no political will to enact a new economic revolution that will usher in an age of prosperity

Hmm... makes you think doesn't it?

>risky new technology instead of proven, reliable technologies like nuclear?

Nuclear energy has plenty of risks if the proper precautions aren't taken as well. They can also be targets of terror attacks, be subject to disasters when unsupervised, be affected by natural disasters, etc. It's probably harder to destroy a space elevator than a nuclear power plant because a space elevator and its accompanying structures will be too remote for anybody less powerful than a major state to attack.

Besides, the energy of the sun and the resources of outer space dwarf any sort of prosperity we can hope to accrue on planet Earth. You are talking about trillions of dollars of untapped potential, and that's with our current technology. You'd reduce the costs of launching material into outer space by 99.99%, and who knows what would happen after then.

>>8814839

I'm not the same poster as the dude with the broken brain, and I'm using the word "shill" tongue-in-cheek to mock the shitposter's incompetence. Cool it with the autism.

>>8814844
metals, minerals, helium 2, ice, etc -no of course there is nothing NOTHING there anon

>>8814844
There's at least a helium-3 and a nazi base with supersecret tech.
>Nobody fucking cares about the moon asshole
Transformers did. You think you are smarter then they are?

>>8814851
you aren't helping trolymctroll

>>8814809
>provide a legitimate impossible to refute reason why it shouldnt be done
>nah just forget about that reason, it wont happen. Mothafuckin SPACE!!!

People are fucking crazy, i wouldnt put it past Kim Jong Un to do that shit just for funsies. Looking at it more realistically though, consider the following, i am somebody who has access to one ballistic missle. I now have the ability to take the entire planet hostage. Bow down to your new leader.

>>8814857
and what I'm saying is that the backlash would be damaging to whoever attacks, aka the fall out would do as much damage to them as everyone else, they'd have to be mentally ill or suicidal to do that and whatever you say about N Korea they arent that crazy

>>8814817
>Solar power in space will be infinitely more efficient and reliable. There's no rain in space.
they will have exactly the same efficiency of 20-25%, even worse actually since there is no cooling


assuming that starting tomorrow:
- the falcon heavy will be fully operational
- (according to one of elons latest claims) the launch costs are cut by 99%
- russia, usa, china and india start delivering payload at at the rate of 1 rocket per day

Try calculating how long it would take to putt all this mass into orbit and how much that would cost. Then kill yourself

>>8814850
Wow it's fucking nothing! N O T H I N G of any worth!

>>8814851
Who gives a shit about any of that

Call me when people will actually PAY for that shit outside of geopolitics

File: evil-john-mccain.jpg (446KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

446KB, 1024x768px

>>8814857

t. John McCain

>>8814846
>Nuclear energy has plenty of risks
Not really. All the risks are well known and can be accounted for.

>targets of terror attacks

Stop listening to Greenpeace propaganda.

>It's probably harder to destroy a space elevator than a nuclear power plant because a space elevator and its accompanying structures will be too remote for anybody less powerful than a major state to attack.

That's a lot of fucking speculation.

Lets look at the cost for a minute:
>You want to build a ring that circles the earth
>ISS cost 150 billion dollars
>Radius of earth~ 6,400 km
>circumference of earth~40,000 km
>Length of ISS 70m
>Suppose the cost to build scales linearly with length
>You'd need~57,000 ISS equivalent stations to build a ring around the earth
>Project cost~$8.6x10^15
>Or about 114 times global gdp

Good luck getting capital investment on that when you can just go nuclear with much, much MUCH, less risk on your investment

>>8814862
>Call me when people will actually PAY for that shit outside of geopolitics
Shit, who wouldn
t've paid for some neat nazi tech? Huh? Huh?!
>>8814859
>they will have exactly the same efficiency of 20-25%, even worse actually since there is no cooling
Don't forget that while earth have some protection from solar wind, the moon have none whatsoever. So everything will get wasted real fast.

>>8814862
its valuable if you want further space exploration/colonization but clearly your the sort of chap who doesn't like space travel in that case why come to this thread except to whine and moan and bitch about how much space triggers you. Also the helium 2 could be used for fusion reactors (if we ever get them) which would provide clean energy for everyone.
Even you - you could post more on 4chan then and tell us all how you dislike progress

>>8814859

>they will have exactly the same efficiency of 20-25%, even worse actually since there is no cooling

you're fucking retarded. the atmosphere diffuses around 50% of all light that reaches Earth. there is far more energy available for capture

also, there's no "night" in outer space, there's no "weather" in outer space, etc. you would be exponentially increasing your output with a far more reliable and steady environment.

>Try calculating how long it would take to putt all this mass into orbit and how much that would cost. Then kill yourself

It's already been calculated at ~$500 billion with the current model. And with a near future unlimited return, with trillions within a decade immediately possible, you'd have to be a total fucking retard NOT to open up outer space to exploitation through a space elevator.

>>8814872
>its valuable if you want further space exploration/colonization

Valuable to you maybe... Nobody else gives a single shit!

>WOW YOU CAN WALK ON THE MOON FOR A BIT

Nobody cares asshole.

>your the sort of chap who doesn't like space travel

Well YOU aren't helping your own cause you dumbass... Stop making shit people don't want and start making shit they DO want.

This isn't fucking Star Wars motherfucker... Space is fucking boring and it takes tremendous amounts of effort, smarts, energy and MONEY to even get anywhere, and you want to do it for what? TOURISM? The shit you people say...

>>8813718
>pentagonal orbit
Bud, that's pretty clearly a hexagon. Did you even look at the picture before you posted it?

>>8814889
he just likes pentagon.

>>8814868

>Not really. All the risks are well known and can be accounted for.

And Fukushima still happened. I'm a fan of nuclear energy, but you'd have to be joking to suggest that its risks are 100% protected against.

What you are doing is selectively complaining about the space elevator while passing a blind eye to any possible danger of nuclear energy.

>Stop listening to Greenpeace propaganda.

>Start listening to anti-space elevator propaganda.

Sorry, but terrorists "targeting nuclear power plants" is just as much, if not more so, than a risk of terrorists targeting space elevator tethers or the orbital structures.

>That's a lot of fucking speculation.

Space elevator --> in outer space or in a few central locations surrounded by military defenses

Nuclear power plants --> scattered all over the world with much less security and much more access

HMMM... I WONDER WHICH ONE IS MORE VULNERABLE.

>Good luck getting capital investment on that when you can just go nuclear with much, much MUCH, less risk on your investment

The costs of a project are your only valid concern, IMO. It's certainly not going to be the equivalent of launching ISS-equivalent structures a billion times because you don't have to account for all sorts of expensive, heavy life support systems in the beginning. i.e., only bring into outerspace what you need to build the space elevator, then use the space elevator to cheaply bring the auxiliary parts into space

I've heard of estimates around $500 billion, which is certainly feasible by a major country like the USA, the EU, China, or even Russia/India.

>>8814886
Actually if you read my post I mentioned tourism a grand total of never, you must have meant to reply to some other anon.
Several other anons on this thread also want space exploration, hell if you check the rest of sci youll find a thread abut terraforming, space colonization, venus, warp drive, ect so all in all a few people wnat it, just not you.

File: spess.jpg (83KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 640x360px

>>8814632
>a space mountain can't work
brainlet confirmed

>>8814858
So i suppose sucide bombers dont exist then?

>>8814896

try getting a suicide bomber through military defenses

>>8814896
yes they do but generally when suicide bombers blow up buildings they just collapse and cause collateral damage in the surrounding area. If they did it to the elevator it would be planetary wide, they may end up damaging their own country that way. I admit it is a very serious security threat and that is what armed guards, walls, maybe some sort of exclusion zone around the base of the elevator, no fly zone, vetting any and everyone coming through.

>>8814896
Anti Air, walls, no fly zone, make it out of bacon so its haram and they'll never go near it

>>8814892
>And Fukushima still happened
It was built in the 50s, literally one of the first generation of reactors. It's also worth mentioning that it was poor placement of back up generators that really fucked it over.

>Sorry, but terrorists "targeting nuclear power plants" is just as much, if not more so

Except it's not, have you any idea how hardened the reactor shell is? There's a video of an F-15 flying into a concrete block that makes up the shell, the F-15 comes of second best. The idea that a power plant is going to be a target for terrorists is utterly absurd.

>anti-space elevator propaganda.
You can call it propaganda if you want, but it's reality.

>HMMM... I WONDER WHICH ONE IS MORE VULNERABLE.

See above.

>I've heard of estimates around $500 billion

WHAT? A project at least 50,000 times larger than the ISS is going to cost less than 5 times the cost? Where the hell are you getting these figures from?

>>8814892
Dude even nuclear power plants are huge capital investments. Despite their proven effectiveness, they're still not commonly invested in because it's a huge fucking project. Far better to work towards distributed power generation and miniaturization than some sci-fi nerd's wet dream.

>>8813570
>build giant ring around earth
>democrat government gives all tax dollars to rapefugees instead of funding its maintenance
>it collapses and destroys the west coast of literally of every continent

>>8814907
Ok so you are saying someone who is willing to kill themselves to kill other people would morally object to the idea of killing people they didnt intend to kill up to or including themselves? If someone is willing to kill themselves to get something you cant seriously argue that they care about collateral damage.

>>8814907
Im pretty sure the inside of WTC qualified as a "no fly zone" and had plenty of armed guards. How did that happen? Surely the armed guards should have stopped the planes with their minds.

>>8814918
There is a difference between killing a few hundred in one building compared to killing millions across the globe, debris hitting the earth at speed and wiping out whole countries/cities, dust blocking out the sun, mass extinction event basically. Its not something to be taken lightly.
Also I did mention some sort of security but you seem have not read it

>>8814907
>lets just create a no fly zone literally everywhere

get a load of this guy

>>8814922
you didnt really read the bit about a no fly zone, security perimeter surrounding the elevator for miles and that any plane flying that way would be detected and intercepted before it reached the elevator did you?

>>8814914

>Dude even nuclear power plants are huge capital investments. Despite their proven effectiveness, they're still not commonly invested in because it's a huge fucking project.

Nobody invests in nuclear energy because people are scared of the risks. I believe that both nuclear energy and the space elevator don't deserve the hysteria that they generate.

>Far better to work towards distributed power generation and miniaturization than some sci-fi nerd's wet dream.

>better to work on incremental gains than to open up vast untapped energy and resource potentials

We should be used to stagnation.

>>8814926
>Mudslime thinks he's going to bec rewarded by killing as many infidels as possible
>B...but he wouldn't want to kill too many people at once.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. This fucking guy.

>>8814933
you didn't really read the bit about the area in Nice being a no truck zone when alaham bala jamanji drove a truck through 100 people did you?

>>8814929
Did I say a no fly zone everywhere, no I did not, and while I haven't specified the exact particulars i would have imagined that most people would have guess a perimeter or no fly zone of a few miles around the tower/space elevator but no you didn't because you don't ant to think/imagine how it would work for a few moments of your time before posting

>>8814934
That's right dude whenever presented with reality just stick your fingers in your ears and repeat "We have such untapped potential"

>>8814940

Considering that the bulk of your arguments have been:

>nuh-uh, it's too le dangerous or it's too le uneffective

I find it remarkable that you have the gonads to project that hard.

>>8814937
now your being fallacious, why don't you try b, that may be more of your style.
>Security perimeter with radar, ant air guns, etc
>Road in town in France
One will be defended, the other was just an ordinary street/area

>>8814933
Thats what was supposed to happen on 9/11. It didnt work out. The planes were known to have been hijacked more than 20 minutes before they hit the towers. You can put up no fly zones and exclusion zones all you want but those things have been proven to be not 100% effective. For the space ring you cannot settle for anything less than 100% effective, the stakes are too high.

>>8814942
Actually my arguments have been:
>It's too expensive
>It's technologically infeasible
>It's dangerous
>It can't compete with proven technologies.

But whatever.

>>8814935
Ok say you have a bomb and if you use it loads of people will die, however the blast will render you, your country, everyone you love will also die in the blast to take out the people you hate, would you do that, kill your parents, friends, siblings, the country/cause your fighting for will cease to exist, it would be the ultimate nilistic, fuck you response to the world, would you do it?

>>8814944
If you put up the nofly zone dozens of miles away it would give you more response time, say 15/25 miles, or whatever,

>>8814949
>however the blast will render you, your country, everyone you love will also die in the blast to take out the people you hate

That's fine. You see because I did it in the name of my god, so we'll all be together again in paradise.

Has the past two decades just past you by?

>>8814956
ok then we will just stick a small poster saying no muslims next to the thing, ok, will that make it better for you?
Did the posts I made in this thread about security around the elevator pass you by?

>>8814961
So now you're changing tactic and going back tov the start? Bold move considering you admitted any lapse in security could lead to millions of deaths.

>>8814966
I'm just saying we would do our damned best to make sure the thing was safe and protected firstly, so the scenario your describing would be almost impossible to pull off with a strong enough ring of steel (security wise, not a literal shield of steel) surrounding the elevator.
Also I unlike you don't want to believe the worst in people, I hope/imagine that no terrorist would try and target it but yes like you said they probably would

>>8813570
>We can build an Orbital Ring Space Elevator.
someone doesn't understand how retarded the space elevator concept is, or how poorly thought out it is among brainlets such as yourself, OP.

>>8814976
I'm not the OP but I'm wondering is brainlet the new flavour of the month insult like dumpf or cuck? Because I've only noticed it these past few days or is it a sci related expression? Thanks in Advance.

>>8814983
although I guess cucks been around for a while now

>>8814688
whats thatvid got to do with the x paranormalboard?

>>8814973
>Also I unlike you don't want to believe the worst in people, I hope/imagine that no terrorist would try and target it but yes like you said they probably would

So you're retarded. I have to ask again, has the past twenty years just past you by? Have you not watched the news recently, these people don't care who they kill, the believe they're doing it for the right reasons. So what if they also murder their entire family, they do it right now anyway:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/16/pakistani-social-media-star-murdered-by-her-brother-in-apparent/

And you still think they'd care if they killed their entire family in the name of their god.

We can't build small reusable rockets
But dumbshits want to talka bout massive space structures

Eh, I'd say it's doable, and will happen at some point, but it'll be built from space resources.

>>8814988
It is totally normal in human history & within a traditional value structure to kill a family member for dishonoring the family

>>8814966
There is a difference between a bomb and a nuke, destroying the space elvator, bringing it down would be the nuclear option, not many people could push that button is all I'm trying to say. Only 2 nukes have been used on populated targets and something imprecise like a falling spacetower would be just as devastating to the side hoping to profit from ts fall

>>8814990
>It is totally normal

It's not the point. If someone from some culture can be so callous as to murder his own sister for """dishonoring""" the family. Why not a larger section of the family for even loftier goals?

>>8814948

>It's too expensive

$500 billion, and it's not the fucking ISS cloned thousands of times, which you continued to ignore.

You're not bringing in non-essential modules such as life support, research equipment, food, etc., that you'd find on a space station designed to serve as human living spaces.

>It's technologically infeasible

You only need steel, kevlar, and current payload technologies.

>It's dangerous

the worst that happens is the orbital ring detaching and careening off into space, or the space elevator crashing into a sparsely populated area.

Unless you sent an ICBM into the orbital ring at critical points, you can't kill millions of people with its destruction. And NO random terrorist can fucking do that.

You'd need an entire state's resources, and even states like North Korea can hardly manage to fire even basic rockets.

>It can't compete with proven technologies.

It's as risky as, or even less risky than, nuclear power. It's far cheaper in the long-run. And no proven technology can cut payload costs from $2000/kg to $1/kg, or 0.05% of the original expense. That's a fucking 99.95% reduction in costs that can open up a whole new industry of mineral exploitation, energy production, scientific research, etc.

>>8814992
>Still applying rationality to irrational people

What are you not getting about this? These people don't care, they believe they'll be rewarded for killing um non-believers.

>>8814988
I havent insulted you and lord knows you've been rude tome can we keep this civil, I know its online and all, no faces or consequences but you wouldn't chat like that if we were talking in a classroom or the street. As my old math teacher used to say manner cost nothing. What I'm trying to say is that your rudeness is uncalled for, although I am enjoying this discussion.
I see you think that muslim people are the largest threat to the spacetower, would you like it better if my response was to go full pol on them? That seems to be what your aiming for is it not? that would solve the terrorist threat problem would it?

>>8815001
hypothetically what would be your solution then? If you don't mind me you seem to have all the answers.

>>8814744
/x/ things are not real anon

>>8815001
I am a rational person and hence can only apply a rational response to a problem. Sorry if me trying to logic it out and try and think of a way to stop someone killing people aggravates you.

>>8814894
There's a reason no mountain on Earth is that tall. The crust itself begins to sink when you get something too heavy on it.

>>8815007
if you read back through the post replies you will come to the original situation of a pre-recorded warning in a mechanical voice. That user said he would ignore it, while I said ignoring the warning would get them hurt, they responded it was x and therefore not real.
>>8814668

>>8814995
>$500 billion

Since you've still to provided any authoritative source for that figure I'm just going to keep on looking at the cost of the next nearest thing to what you want. That thing being the ISS.

>current payload technologies.
See above.

>the worst that happens
Source, because all of that sounds like wishful thinking.

>It's as risky as, or even less risky than, nuclear power.

Are you for real? It's a never before used, never before implemented, space borne technology. It's the literal definition of risk.

I honestly don't know what else to say at this point.

File: ISIS attack on outpost.webm (3MB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1280x720px

>>8814898
You're kidding right? Those fuckers have attack drones now. Go watch their videos on youtube or something. Shits pretty scary actually. Don't think for a second that they wouldn't be trying that shit 24/7.

>>8814614
judging from the people in the thread that seems increasingly unlikely

>>8815017
Because space rings are /x/ anon.

>>8815021
not the poster your replying to but sensors, radar, spotters, etc around the base of the tower and some sort of perimeter around it would be able to head them off hopefully. Also I don't tend to look up psychopaths/murders on youtube

>>8815023
I still think you haven't read through the posts, I was saying if a voiceover told you to evacuate would you ignore it, the poster said yes he would

File: 3D70DF5000000578-4241632-image-a-1_1487585085972.jpg (127KB, 634x824px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 634x824px

>>8815024
>>8815021
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4241632/French-police-training-EAGLES-attack-drones.html

Hawk Defence force will protect us!

>>8815002
>Muh /pol/
I'm using Muslims as an example of ideologically driven, murderous bastards. You could also look at Jonestown for a non Muslim example of people killing their own families over things they believed in.

>>8815004
My solution would be not to build it. I've yet to see any reason why it should be given a look in, there are far more effective technologies available that don't require such mega engineering. Also other than "People wouldn't do something bad" I've not seen any realistic way to keep it secured.

>>8815008
They don't care about your logic.

>>8815030
I was the person you were originally replying to and my comments still stand. OP's video is completely ignorable. Fuck off, kid.

>>8815024
That's great until the sleeper Muhammad who works in the facility is activated.

File: French police are training EAGLES to attack ISIS drones.webm (3MB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x360px

>>8815032

>>8815019

>Since you've still to provided any authoritative source for that figure I'm just going to keep on looking at the cost of the next nearest thing to what you want. That thing being the ISS.

Given Paul Birch's schematics:

An orbital ring - 160 million kg
An elevator - 20 million kg

with $2000/kg payload costs = $365 billion in launch costs. material and manufacturing costs will be dwarfed by launch costs.

A barebones framework structure is identical to an ISS with all of its heavy equipment and modules? You have to be kidding me. You aren't even trying to be charitable. Strip the ISS of everything except its most basic structural components, then stretch its length as long as possible, and then MAYBE you might have a useful approximation.

>Source, because all of that sounds like wishful thinking.

do you think terrorists are able to get ICBMs? be real here

the only real danger from the orbital structure comes from tethers, which can be centrally defended, built in isolated areas, and would also require serious military might to take down

>Are you for real? It's a never before used, never before implemented, space borne technology. It's the literal definition of risk.

The largest risk is that it becomes more expensive than initially projected. It doesn't have the same kind of life risk that nuclear power does.

>I honestly don't know what else to say at this point.

You shouldn't. I'm hearing nothing from cognitive dissonance and willful ignorance at this point.

>>8815036
There is no need to be rude. I think OPs vid was interesting but you were offended by the aesthetics/sound quality which would suggest that of the two of us (continued arguing aside)
you are the more childish.

>>8815035

Jonestown killed themselves mostly (and maybe one or two officials if I remember rightly)
They didn't trigger an environmental catastrophy by bring down a mega-tonne of space worthy materials all over the planet.

As for your solution that does nothing for anyone who actually wants to go into space
People will always do bad things and society is still here.
Also I'm am sure terrorists are just as logical as you or me even if they are religious. How can they achieve their aims if everyone is killed, the planet damaged by there reckless actions?

File: 1489929926426.jpg (8KB, 196x196px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 196x196px

>>8815057
>There is no need to be rude.

There certainly fucking is. GET THE FUCK OF /sci/ WITH YOUR FUCKING /x/ SHIT POSTING

>>8815041
Screening, background checks, these were all implied by my whole ring of steel metaphor I used earlier in the thread but apparently a giant no fly zone, security perimeter with guards and anti air craft weapons will just employee anyone due to budgetary cuts due to the vast expenditure and overhead, this one area will be overlooked.

>>8815051
>Paul Birch's
Literally who? Were did these figures get published?

Same for the rest of your post. As far as I know you're just pulling these ideas out of your ass.

>If you have a functioning space elevator then it's all really cheap.
Aren't we back at the start were anon pointed out why space elevators aren't feasible?

>>8815058
first of all I'm not OP of the thread, I am however interested in the space elevator concept (of course why else would i be here for ages), its not X related it is science related and you being rude tome wont change that, nor with you changing the subject. Would you kiss your mother with that mouth? No in that case please behave yourself. If you want to discuss the elevator then do so if your going to be impolite then It would just as well be better if you left the thread.

>>8813578
If you love something you put a ring on it.

>>8815057
>Jonestown killed themselves mostly

They fed their children the cool-aid, they did this willingly.
>They didn't trigger an environmental catastrophy by bring down a mega-tonne of space worthy materials all over the planet.

The point is unlike your retarded utopian ideas, people can be horrible and do horrible things for no discernible reason. The modern world is littered with examples of normal people doing evil things just because they believed it to bec right.

>who actually wants to go into space

Why should I care about that guy?

>Also I'm am sure terrorists are just as logical

Damn you are retarded. Well seeing as how I'm arguing with a series legit morons, I might go see if I can help anyone in the SQT. Enjoy your circlejerk faggots.

Also this >>8815058

>>8815068
Not who your talkingto but

Paul Birch (writer)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Paul Birch (25 May 1956 – 4 July 2012)[1] was a British author, engineer and scientist, who has worked in radioastronomy and satellite communications, and latterly wrote full-time.
He was educated at Merchant Taylors' School, Crosby and Trinity College, Cambridge and worked for Marconi Defence Systems and Plessey Radar.
He was a former Fellow of the British Interplanetary Society.
He also notably worked on Orbital rings and Supramundane Habitats.
He stood for the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) in an election taking 11.3% of the vote.[2] He was a Town Councillor in Cowes, Isle of Wight at the time of his death.
In 1982 Birch published a series of papers in Journal of the British Interplanetary Society which described orbital rings and described a form which he called Partial Orbital Ring System (PORS).

a few seconds on google or if you used the wiki link at the OP you would have seen him mentioned

>>8815081
>He stood for the United Kingdom Independence Party

Dropped.

>>8815068

Sources were provided in literally the 4th post. Paul Birch isn't the only person to publish articles about space elevators. See Andrew Meulenberg.

>>8813622

>Same for the rest of your post. As far as I know you're just pulling these ideas out of your ass.

Do I need to cite something to prove that terrorists can't launch ICBMs? Or are you that fucking stupid?

>If you have a functioning space elevator then it's all really cheap.

I never once made this argument. The initial cost of the orbital ring and the first space elevator will be expensive, but everything else will be trivial in comparison. We are discussing the initial costs only, which I've shown can be handled easily.

>>8815081

I wouldn't bother. He's clearly shown that he wants everything spoonfed to him.

>>8815080
you obvious didn't read my post about being rude. Also I shall miss you, our conversation has been the highlight of my day so far even if you were rude ad overly cynical, I don't know why you were on a elevator thread if you didn't want one built.

File: Space_elevator_structural_d.jpg (12KB, 381x657px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 381x657px

>>8815089
>I wouldn't bother. He's clearly shown that he wants everything spoonfed to him.
Oh. Well it is his loss I suppose.
Pic-Some nice images

File: 316px-OrbitalRing.svg.png (18KB, 316x237px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 316x237px

>>8815112
Something like what the thread OP is talking about

File: Spacelevator.gif (781KB, 800x449px) Image search: [Google]

781KB, 800x449px

>>8815112

File: 1490552024787.png (80KB, 200x211px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 200x211px

>this thread

File: 140826-spacele_6adceca8954517e87ecad82a69bb3187.jpg (127KB, 2254x1234px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 2254x1234px

>>8815114

File: ring_800.jpg (46KB, 800x564px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 800x564px

>>8815117
what is wrong, you can write a little more if there is something we are doing wrong you know

File: earth-orbital ring-wallpaper.jpg (256KB, 1600x1024px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 1600x1024px

>>8815117
Space elevators are very interesting and I don't fully understand sci reluctance and hostility of other posters (not you) surrounding them

File: Space-Elevator-made-in-Japan-by-2050-2.jpg (78KB, 900x572px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 900x572px

>>8815124
I think they would be fun to ride in if not a little bit intimidating

File: space-elevators.png (560KB, 737x554px) Image search: [Google]

560KB, 737x554px

>>8815093

File: 132.jpg (54KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 800x800px

>>8815058
>>8815058
>>8815058
This.

/thread

File: space-elevator_1024.jpg (52KB, 1024x415px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1024x415px

>>8815138
I am all pictured out now. sci goodbye and goodnight and everyone I've talked too it has been a pleasure.

>>8815139
Space elevators are not x anon they are sci related its just users seem prejudiced about them for some reason

>>8815036
>>8815139
He was being rude and I don't see how enjoying OP vid was x posting or whatever I am accused of

>>8813622
>The tethers could be equipped with parachutes as a failsafe.

Topkek

>>8813570
could somebody explain to a brainlet like me how could that large of a ring be in constant freefall to earth?

>>8814955
Ok. Lets say there is a hypothetical distance where the no fly zone idea makes sense. A ballistic missle enters your no fly zone at 500 mph. Jets are scrambled and are in the air 5 minutes after the missile was spotted, and are 5 miles away from the no fly zone
>note im being very generous with these figures. This would be best case scenario response time
In those 5 minutes that missle, which is on its way to space, has traveled 42 miles. That jet now has to catch up to said missile and destroy a NUCLEAR WARHEAD that is already very close to its target without causing damage to the murder ring. At a certain altitude jets cant even fly but rocket engines work fine, whats to stop someone from flying their missile in the whole way above the operational limits of a jet engine? Face it, you cant defend the murder ring against everything and that is what's necessary to put billions of lives at stake by building it.

>>8815147
>>8815152
Earth-based space elevators are /x/ because they can not be made on Earth. This isn't a space elevator, is a space ring with space elevators. The entire fucking thing is high order /x/ bullshit.

Why? Because magic fairies are holding it in orbit and preventing it from flying apart under its own weight and 100 other types of force.

>>8815232
It can't be built so it won't matter. It will be a partial murder ring when it enters the atmosphere. The best thing the terrorists can do is to help the project by funding it. That will ensure more of it gets completed and more of it can fall on Earth.

>completely ignores the issue of space debris

>>8815336
This brings up another point. Even if such a device was built, it is pretty much the end of all space travel for the next 10,000 years when it fails catastrophically and causes Kessler Syndrome.

Would require global cooperation.
That is to say: Will never happen

File: 137593505136.jpg (14KB, 240x320px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 240x320px

>>8813622
>Dude... they should give every piece of an airplane a parachute. That way it won't crash like ever man.

>>8814892
>How the fuck would you bomb a nuclear power plant. Go in the reactor area and fling a hand grenade towards the 5m solid concrete and steel core casing?

The space ring attack would be as simple as flying an airliner into a tether.

File: Pilot Uses Full-plane Parachute in Crash.webm (3MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x270px

>>8815351
Actually, those exist. There are even people wanting to make the passenger compartments of jetliners have their own parachutes. Basically, the entire section of passenger seats would be ejected like a pill/pod and float down like a space capsule using parachutes.

Small personal planes already have plane parachutes for the entire plane.

But, fuck giving all of a jetliner parachutes.

>>8815358
You don't even need to do that. You can simply cause resonance in a tether to completely destroy it.

>>8814609
so how is a big ring going around the planet with a break in it any different than a large space tether?

Oh and these results also imply that constructing an orbital ring would be very difficult. I would also like to point out that in NONE of the three papers is a method for building a ring around planet earth provided. NONE WHATSOEVER

>>very remote possibility of total system failure.1
fucking prove it with math/numerical analysis.

>>This would not happen if you just took down a tether or two
fucking prove it with math/numerical analysis. I would also like to point out that the stability of a discrete skyhook system HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED FOR LARGE PERTURBATIONS. Losing a tether seems like pretty goddamn big perturbation.

>>they would float off, not come crashing down.
fucking prove it with math/numerical analysis

>> giant bullet redirector system. If the bullet redirectors fail, the bullet fly off into space.
Except the bullet can be treated as a point mass, we cannot treat our broken orbital ring as a point mass.

The cables are only 1 meter in diameter and we can hit them with a suborbital rocket like a sounding rocket. A goddamn sounding rocket. Heck I'll bet you don't even need to carry explosives to sufficiently damage the ring and that you can use the kinetic energy of the ring against itself. Good luck trying to protect a ring that goes around the WHOLE EARTH.


In conclusion, not enough work has been shown for this to be feasible.

>>8814850
>helium 2
anon...

>>8815077
Underrated kek

Honestly, as someone who loves the idea of mega-structures (especially those of the space variety) this was a painful train-wreck of an argument to read.