Use my link ridge.com/sideprojects to get up to 30% off through December 20th and enter free to win a Ridge bundle worth $4,000. Video Sponsored by Ridge.
You need to use someone’s codes to save 30% of your reputation. Sorry, Simon… but your Shit has gotten scammy. Feels like you have 27,000 RUclips channels not to make quality content, but to collect ad revenue from 27,000 channels. Prove me wrong.
@dougkiphut1362 You are completely right. How dare he try and make a living from the videos. It is almost like he is forcing you to buy the products he advertises.
Wallets and key holders? What are they? This is 2023 nearly 24, don't tell ridge we have technology now, like a smartphones, cars that don't use keys and even our front door can open with a tap on the lock with the phone. Sooo What are wallets and keys
Yeah, how dare he have a hundred channels that are monetized but selling the same crap as everyone else. It’s just too much mediocrity from someone who used to be pretty good.
fun fact: I got to submit an engineering design proposal and prototype back in 2021 to a NASA Artemis competition which was designed to solve a lot of the problems that lunar dust poses (to electronics, launch systems, eventual habitats, space suits, human health, etc.). my group spent almost a year designing a lunar dust filtration system for the phase 3 habitat of the Artemis mission. was a huge undertaking & it’s super cool to think that our input could actually influence the design of future lunar and martian habitats! I now work for Northrop Grumman which is providing the SRBs for the SLS rockets, altitude control and abort motors for the Orion launch abort system, the HALO module for the lunar gateway orbiter, and the gateway -> lunar orbit transfer arm for the human landing system. it’s awesome to see just how much we can contribute to this monumental multi-decade mission!!
@@oldmech619 Different teams/submissions focused on different aspects of the lunar dust problem. We only focused on habitat dust mitigation. Obviously entering/exiting for EVAs was the main issue, so we designed an airlock filtration system to dislodge any dust clinging to the space suits during return & repressurization, then force it to the bottom of the airlock where it was collected & sealed off, and then the dusty air was passed through an intricate filtration system to pull out the dust. Lunar dust is actually ferromagnetic (it’s composed mostly of magnetic iron particles) and radiation from the sun causes electrostatic charging making it super susceptible to magnets. so instead of using a standard HEPA filter which would need to be continually replaced, my team designed a system of magnets which would trap the dust before the air is returned to the habitat. the magnets can then simply be demagnetized by inserting a paramagnetic rod to disrupt the field gradient, making most of the dust fall off while the remainder is removed by a deionized water rinse. the dust can then just be returned to the lunar surface. very little maintenance/upkeep required, no need to continually replace components (meaning there will be no space/mass implications on future resupply missions - just set it up once and go), and it’s a relatively cheap solution. another bonus: most martian soil is also magnetic, so the same filtration technique could be used for future mars missions as well (:
@@oldmech619I'm told due to low 🎉gravity, and how fine the particulates are? That moon dust is insidious, and it WILL get to places it shouldn't, somehow. It isn't a question of if, but where, when, and how much. If the devil designed dust it is moon dust. Personally while it would be awesome to go to the moon, and have a base. I'm not sure why we are caught up on it until we can really start building on it. Meaning when we have the capabilities to launch super heavy things frequently. There is nothing there! I guess it is a good start for a Mars base though. (I think we should focus on Venus colonies instead. )
Awesome career, working on these projects must be pretty cool and at times surreal!!! (not to detract but SLS is way too expensive and impractical, starship will thankfully [hopefully] put a swift end to this boondoggle)
The Artemis project reminds me of one line from JFK's original speech about NASA's plans to put a man on the moon before 1970: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things-not because they are easy, but because they are hard." This project is a huge undertaking and a massive team effort by everyone involved. Best of luck, y'all! I hope I am here to see it succeed.
I logical extension of the space elevator should be the orbital shipyard. The space elevator would allow for cost-effective movement of supplies and workers to and from the shipyard. The microgravity at the terminis of the elevator would allow for greater movement, but not be fully obstructive as microgravity in interplanetary space. Crafting and repair of vessels that far above a terrestrial body would be far cheaper to create and launch into space. It would also be a great place to act as a base for orbital cleanup drones to help keep Terra's skies clear of dangerous debris. I think it makes the most sense for such a project to immediately follow the successful construction of a space elevator.
Getting to the ISS's height is the least difficult part of going to the ISS. It's going to fly past you at 28 000 km/h so you'd better have good reflexes to catch it.
Attach a cannon the the elevator and shoot supplies at the ISS. But you're right, about 83% of the fuel is used getting to Orbital speeds. Its why you hear all the time about universities sending a probe on a rocket they built into space. It falls back down in seconds to a few minutes because its a sub orbital velocity.
There is the possibility to "drop" the cargo from higher up. I think, dropped from an altitude of about 6000 km, the cargo would end up in a orbit "similar" to the ISS....just a very excentric one..... Some kind of propulsion still needed to change that excentricity😅
@@yourguard4 there isn't that sort of possibility, most of the energy is used in reaching the orbital speed - you still need to do that. This is Physics, not Alice in wonderland.
The Space Elevator is applicable to other planets and celestial bodies. For locations in the solar system with weaker gravity than Earth's (such as the Moon or Mars), the strength-to-density requirements for tether materials are not as problematic, Currently available materials (such as Kevlar) are strong and light enough that they could be practical as the tether material for elevators there.
No, it wouldn't work on any planet. Distance to geostationary orbit is like 6 times the radius of the planet itself. We talking about building a structure that's as tall as 3 planets stacked on top of each other.
Gravity is acceleration. Low Gravity means low acceleration. You don't need a space elevator to get moderate amounts of mass into orbit when there is low acceleration. A rocket accelerates independent of the Earth's rotation. A space elevator is tied to the earth and is thus exerting a constant force on the earth. You would have to balance that force with an elevator on the opposite side. You need lighter materials because F=ma. As the acceleration factor increases so does the amount of applied force. You compensate by reducing the amount of mass. A space elevator is a tetherball. As the radius increases, so must your rotation. As the outward force increases, you must apply force in the opposite direction to stabilize your spin. To get a space elevator to work, you need something with essential zero mass. And wouldn't you know it. At geostationary orbits, there is no atmosphere/mass. Space elevators are flat earth science. You can get one to work but will be impractical for lifting cargo into orbit.
More practically usable spaceships seem to be a more feasible option. I'd say humanity will master engine technology sooner than defeating gravity, so in my opinion that's where the focus should be. A spaceship that can take off more or less like an airplane will be so much more effective that a Space Elevator won't be necessary at all.
@tjroelsma 'defeating gravity'. That's a good one since gravity is acceleration. You would think that people would understand by now that the earth isn't flat. Why are you still using flat earth physics?
You mean nanotubes which are harder to make than graphene, right? Space Elevator won't happen for centuries even with graphene. Not till fossil fuels are used up! Graphene however will help everything from computers, concrete to batteries! Hopefully we can produce it like we do cement hah.
I love the idea of the space elevator ever since i first read about them in science fiction books as a kid. But with all of the satellites currently in leo, how do we maintain the safety of the tether as it passes through that area? Given the satellite count is only going to get higher, and we cant exactly move the tether
New satellites would be able to move and even have an orbit that evades it. Existing satellites and debris would have to be sligthly moved or de-orbited before the space elevator gets constructed. I expect a space elevator will likely more exist of multiple threads linked to eachother in a way to create segments that in case of damage would be more easily replaced and the other threads would (for a time) take on the extra load/work. Eitherway this is something that would definitely be worked out well before any space elevator would start production.
Blowing up a space elevator would probably require quite a substantial amount of explosives, and where exactly do you blow it up? On one of the tethers? It's highly designed to not break if even 2 tethers was destroyed. Placing a bomb on the elevator and blow it up like half way up might be the way to go, but I'm fairly certain getting to the elevator with a bomb will be quite a monumental task. Something like a space elevator would be humanities biggest construction in history, dwarfing out everything else ever built. It will require tremendous amounts of materials, people and money. Probably so much material, that we need to mine asteroids to het enough. Something like it would highly likely be the Worlds most secure place.
As a Canadian with a compatriot of one of the Aretmis II crew, I tip my hat to all Americans: Your country is now in the technological position to do what was done in 1968- send a crewed spacecraft around the moon. This is no snide comment. As a precocious 8 year old I remember, all the excitemment Apollo 8 garnered. One American said at the time 'Apollo 8 saved1968'. May you never loose this capacity again. And, as a Canadian, I can say: 'Thanks for the lift!'
Big problem with the Space Elevator is that if the cable snaps, the part that starts wrapping itself around the Earth will become a dinosaur-killer class of impact.
On the bit about using the space elevator to send people or supplies to low-Earth orbit: You'd still need to add quite a lot of delta-V to reach orbital velocity at that altitude. Using the ISS as an example, it orbits once every 90-minutes, so it would "whiz past" the elevator tether 16 times a day. Also, even more delta-V would be needed to change inclination of the orbit from equatorial out to the 51 degree orbit plane of the ISS. I say this to point out that we'd still need rockets, but could ditch the idea of a first stage that mostly just gets you above the appreciable atmosphere. A staging area attached to the tether at that altitude could be used as a fuel depot as well, meaning said rocket could be lifted empty and fueled before rocketing away to orbital speeds. (Although significant masses hanging about in the middle of the tether would increase the mass needed at geosynch (or beyond) to keep the tether taut.)
I've been chewing on a concept of a dual ended elevator with center station the outer tether being a tether/balist allowing to maintain orbit slower and the balist being able to be pulled in or out
@@patrickday4206 I had a friend who worked briefly on the MXER project, which was a standalone tether flipping end-over-end using the ionosphere to keep momentum. Crazy project! ruclips.net/video/fC21kuM9NgQ/видео.html
I've also been thinking for some time that a low-orbit space elevator would be more viable. Even though any vessel launched from it would still require thrust to not just drop back to Earth, it would cut back considerably on the fuel-cost of launching. I'm also wondering if the objective was just low-orbit, would a more conventional building be sufficient? Could a compression based structure reach up to where there is only 98% atmospheric pressure?
@@ckl9390orbital towers have been proposed as a way of launching rockets higher up. A typical height to width ratio of a tall building is 1:20, so a 100 km tower would likely be about 5 km wide at the base. Note that this tower’s height is about twice the thickness of the Earth’s crust, so the foundations will be tricky. Large reservoirs have been known to induce earthquakes; a super tall building causing its own seismic region will be a new challenge for structural and geotechnical engineers.
the entire idea of solar farms in space is probably the worst/unrealistic of the lot. it's taking one solution, being earth based nuclear energy and building an energy source infinitely more expensive and technically difficult. why aren't all the left over satellites being crashed into carefully chosen areas of the moon to be recycled for their metals, components, etc?
Earth's tilt means a GEO satellite only passes through Earth's shadow for a few days around the March & September equinox. The orbital circumference is more than 20 times (x20.8) greater than Earth's diameter - meaning a satellite will spend a maximum of 70 minutes in shadow. Overall, the satellite will be in sunlight for 99.7% of the year.
So the graphene they want to use for the space elevator is conductive. Have they determined what will happen to the cable when it passes through charged layers of the atmosphere and magnetosphere? Will it burn out like a giant fuse, from the massive current, or will it carry the charge, all the way to the ground, creating a hole in each charged layer? Either way, i wouldn't want to be the guy on the ground that has to catch the cable as it is lowered.
3:28 Just one little problem with taking a space elevator to the ISS... You'd be trying to step off the elevator onto something going past at 17,100 mph.
Space elevator is that one idea that falls apart the more you think about it. My favorite issues with it are of the "But what if it snaps in the middle for whatever reason." variety.
@@thearpox7873Heh, yup. I haven't done the math, but I expect a steel cable would snap under it's own weight if it was hanging from space all the way to the ground. Even without any additional tension from the lift or the counterweight beyond geostationary orbit.
@@galacticminx You misunderstand. I meant, let's pretend we've built it and it already works. Then, a month later Allah sends us a snack, or maybe somebody flubs the maintenance, or a giant eagle smacks into it, or literally anything else. Not a good image of what happens next, issit?
And what happens when a large satellite collides with the space elevator's tether? It's not like the tether can maneuver out of the way. Nor can many such satellites (or just space junk) have the ability to maneuver, either.
Probably bounce if it's made of nanotubes. If it's a large satellite we can track it, there's a Registry of stuff down to like 3 feet in size. This has been thought of, and solutions proposed. Do a quick search online
1. The tether could move. It has to remain taut, but it doesn't have to remain straight. A little movement could get a sort of "jump rope" movement of just a few degrees, and timed correctly, it could avoid the space debris. 2. The space debris could be moved. The goal is that for any new satellite launched, it will need to have a way to deorbit it once its life is done. As for stuff up there now, there are already companies working on plans for orbital clean-up. 3. The debris could be captured. The space elevator could have magnetic plates to attract orbiting metals and/or nets to capture non-magnetic debris. It could then be collected and dealt with. 4. Funtioning satellites have maneuvering thrusters, so they can keep their orientation, and to avoid debris on their own. Those could also be used to move around the tether.
Honestly, I think there is a huge market for space junk capture/elimination. A functional space plane with clean up in mind could make huge profits removing debris. Defunct satellites don’t have to be captured, you just need to slow them down, so they fall out of orbit. Tiny bits can be captured by air gel panels, like they used to capture particles from the comet years back. Send the bill to whomever is responsible for the garbage, making space safe again for new satellites and human exploration. There are literally dozens of space plane projects on paper, they just need to be built.
3:47 So long as you don't care about the space station zipping by at 27,000km/h. An orbital ring is the superior cheap space access megaproject and has the benefit of need no new materials and letting you accelerate off the ring to orbital speeds without using reaction mass.
Awesome video, some cool projects going on. A little surprised you didn't talk about orbital rings. They kind of go hand in hand with a space elevator, where you start with a satellite and wrap a cable around the planet's equator in geosynchronous orbit. You then send an electric current through the cable and send it rotating, this lets you use electromagnets to hang objects and habitats off the cable itself. You could even pass it through multiple space elevators or satellites and power the structures with solar panels hung off the ring.
using a space elevator to supply the ISS is uhhhh, an interesting prospect. Consider that the space station would be zooming past the elevator, so you need to accelerate to its speed once detaching from the elevator.
the space elevator can also be used to launch vehicles into space, like a giant earth sized version of SpinLaunch. the space elevator is the platform from which to build and maintain the solar farm . to link to low earth orbits, e.g. ISS, you can launch from higher up and "glide" down to dock.
The space elevator will be fixed structure, from which ships will dock onto. It's like a harbour in space. Travel to and from the ISS will be undertaken by smaller spaceships
IIRC the attachment for the elevator would be in geostationary orbit so there would be no need to "match the speed". It would be over the same exact spot of the earth continuously. Not the same as low earth orbit or LEO.
@@greggweber9967 It probably is and I'm missing something because a tether to geostationary is insane lol. I'd have to go re-watch PBS Space Time on it where they do a deepdive on it. Right now I'm afraid I won't retain any knowledge but if you find out how to cancel the angular momentum then lemme know. Or someone else who reads our comments lol.
@@Timmycoo he was talking about deploying things to LEO rather than go the entire way to GSO, problem is you need to match the speed and orbit of whatever you're deploying to and that's where most of the fuel use of a rocket is.
Nah that's not rights. Sorry lol. Would make no sense to have a bi-stationary telegraphing transport tether where one end STILL is locked in angular momentum. Edit. The stupidest thought that we ALL forgot is centrifugal force lmao. How Will it Work? A space elevator would involve a tether anchored to the ground and stretching up into space. At the top of the elevator, a counterweight will serve to keep the cable taut. Centrifugal force will actually be responsible for holding the tether in space as the Earth rotates slowly
Space elevator, the comment about not needing to go to the top, maybe the height of the ISS. But being in orbit requires a very high lateral speed, not just height.
At ground level the space elevator already has a lateral speed of over 1000 kph and any loads that are carried up will experience lateral acceleration. True that will only be sufficient for orbit once it reaches geosynchronous height (10,800 kph), but launches from lower levels will need less fuel to reach orbital velocities than launching from ground level.
Need more graphene? We have plenty of waste plastic. Find a way to recycle it. I also think waste plastic could be used to help de-orbit space junk. Also, weave hair/wool/fleece into huge balls, dust bunnies, if you will, and orbit them to capture space dust.
I don't think solar farms for earth will ever happen. It just isn't worth it, unless we run out of space or require a ridiculous amount of energy in the future. Now... Having solar farms to send power to the moon when there is no daylight for a few weeks at a time is a different story. Personally I think we should just embrace fission. Focus to make smaller, and smaller reactors that are even safer. Especially for a moon base.
@@dianapennepacker6854 Wait a second, hold your horses, we have already developed the safest nuclear fission reactor ever, all the way back in the 50's, its called a molten salt breeder reactor, and it is by its very nature a naturally safe reactor that will automatically deactivate itself in the event of a cooling failure. Additionally these reactors can be powered by the high level nuclear waste produced by other light water reactors, solving the whole nuclear waste problem in one go. And the other day I had seen an article about someone who made pumps that last longer in salt, solving the one Problem that was constantly being used as an excuse, but let me tell you the truth, its got nothing to do with the technicalities of pumping salt, it's all got to do with the fact that it is much harder to get weapons grade material from this kind of reactor, compared to currently used light water reactors.
Not really, a moon base first would be the best, as it is so much easier to launch from the moon. The problem with a moon base though is that moon dust, because moon dust is one really nasty thing, it is electrically charged by the sun, and so sticks to everything. Personally I am more for the O'Niel cylinder type centrifugal gravity habitats, as they are so much safer then any other place, including earth. For perspective if a supernova goes off within 10 light years earth, earth will not survive, however if you have a spin gravity habitat with more then 3 feet of dirt inside, you can be 1 light year away and not even know it went off, closer then 1 light year is risky though, as supernova create a lot of neutrinos, which do become lethal at that range, as nothing blocks neutrinos. But other then neutrinos, there is no other radiation that would make it through the 3 feet of dirt, so in essence a spin gravity habitat can actually have less radiation inside then the background radiation we experience here on earth if you engineer it right. Hopefully though mind uploading becomes possible soon, as a spacecraft with a few computers on it is much, much easier to build then a million plus tons spin gravity habitat.
@atlanciaza Getting supplies INTO space has always been the big limiter. There is a finite limit to how much a rocket can successfully carry, and they are of course very expensive. Building a moon base would be great, but building other things, especially closer to earth, would be a whole lot easier if you could make them on earth and then list them into space.
A space elevator would make *everything* we do in space easier. It's not worth waiting for, though we should build one as soon as the engineering is proven out.
There is a heck of a lot of stuff orbiting Earth, making an elevator a questionable project. Much better and safer is to build a Lunar space elevator. Doesn't have to be so long, no weather, no atmospheric drag, less danger if something goes wrong. Less orbiting stuff to worry about. In the long run a Lunar elevator would be easier to pay for.
It would have to be longer. Geostationary (selenostationary?) orbit for any body depends not only on its gravity but its rotation speed. Since the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth, the distance just to the tether would have to be the same as the distance from the Moon to the Earth.
One thing that got me thinking was the possibility of using a maglev system to launch cargo from the Moon without needing fuel. Reaching lunar escape velocity of 2.4 km/s shouldn't be that difficult if you can cheerfully ignore air resistance like you can on the Moon. Even transporting people and animals would only require a 90 second acceleration of 3 g's.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought of this. I'm not a fan of microwaving the power down to Earth as all sorts of things (aircraft, animals, weather) can end up in the microwave beam. The idea of sending the power down by wire is much more appealing (though I don't know how comfortable people would be travelling up a power cable).
about the space elevator: at 400 km above the earth the speed of the cable is a bit faster than the speed of earth rotation, 2000 km/hour. The space station or any satellite in orbit moves at 27500 km/hour. What are you going to do once you are up there with all satellites passing by at 10 times your speed?
It's currently estimated that there is 600 BILLION kilograms of drinking ice water at the lunar poles. There will be a NASA probe sent in 2024 to get a more concise answer. There is easily enough for multiple generations given that the population of the moon once settled won't grow to be that big due to simple logistics.
Kinda reminds me of Gundam 00 where combined 3 Orbital Elevator with a ring of solar panels that "provides transportation from Earth to space and vice versa and also transports solar energy to the planet's surface to power the entire world, earning it the nickname "Solar Elevator"."
Space elevators are pure fantasy, ignoring materials existing that could even support it, I love how they brush over the sheer material cost. manufacturing capacity is mentioned only in passing as if its simple to accommodate but this is thirty five thousand kilometers of material per strand that not only has to be made meaning the supplies and facilities to do that but then has to be delivered. it just gets sillier as you think about it. by default the material has to be sourced in space. Put it this way, the Earth is just over forty thousand kilometers in circumference and some elevator designs extend the same distance in both directions However there is also the super big issue of electrical charge differences between ground and the end point and finally of course, debris in space. Oh joy. Plus you just know some radicals will find a way to attack it and I doubt anyone wants to know the effect of it falling back to Earth
The cable would have to be made of material that electricity wont conduct through. Lightening, static electricity,vetc. .you would build a HUGE grounding rod..
The space elevator will be fixed structure, from which ships will dock onto. It's like a harbour in space. Travel to and from the ISS will be undertaken by smaller spaceships
Yes, this was a bit of a miss by Simon's writers. Not as big a miss, though, as giving airtime to two of the least feasible concepts out there when there are so many less well-known megaproject concepts that are far better grounded in sound science and engineering - some of which have a descent chance of being realized in the not too distant future.
3:30 no! in order to dock to the ISS you need to get orbital speed and you don't get that from a space elevator --- one option might be from gravity by falling down but I gotta do some calculations for that ---- difficult to calculate because the earth's gravity isn't that strong at 36 000 km
Combine Space Elevator platforms with Solar Collectors then just run HV cables down the inside of the Space Elevator cable... 3 problems solved that can make cash in 3 ways - making it all cost effective... 👍
3:40 Simon, you forget that the ISS is not geostationary, it screams across the sky at 28,000km/h... Handing out items from the stationary elevator would present somewhat of a problem.
i think its possible by dividing it to parts , ie ground to balloon system with fuel cable connected to balloon... then one upper baloon to space station... and probbly lots of space to space stages... privide fuel from ground wth stabilozers on up... ten you got it...
There's something they would need to do before building a space elevator, clean out all the debris orbiting the Earth. Not doing so would mean the thing would be bombarded by objects moving at many kilometers per second. Even graphene can't withstand that.
I can see some future version of Rishi Sunak or starmer and the torries saying “we can’t expand the space elevator, instead it will just go to the edge of the atmosphere, you will need a transfer from them on”
I would like to know exactly how you're going to build an elevator to a space station that orbits the earth every 90 minutes funny how you ended that segment with that statement
You send it up higher than the space station, then let it "fall" into orbit. It will still need rockets for course correction, but far less fuel than a straight up launch.
Since the difference in speed between a geostationary space elevator and the ISS is 17k mph it would probably be easier to go there the way we do it now.
@@gubbvila It's a lot easier to get to leo from geo than from the ground. You can do it with small engines that would never get you off the ground. The benefit of "the way we do it now" would be time saved, which would be good for astronauts, but not needed for bulk cargo.
Ya know, I always thought that the X series Taurus Aeternal station was surprisingly viable in concept. But it very definitely is a mega project, and probably not necessary until humanity reaches the point of being more populous in space than on earth.
The only way this might be possible if materials weren’t a consideration would be to build the entire 36,000km at a Lagrange point and then transport it back to GSO and lower it down to earth. If you start with a satellite in orbit and build down to the surface, it would start to drag itself down as a great portion of it is not traveling at orbital velocity for its altitude. Basically if we could build a space elevator we wouldn’t need to.
How does the elevator work? 🤔 When it accelerates the payload to its own orbital velocity, doesn't the drag decelerate it / deorbit it? Does the elevator use rocket engines to maintain its orbit? How are they refueled?
There would likely be fuel piped up from processing plants on the surface. We have oil and gas pipelines that span continents, similar technology would apply.
@@ckl9390 You couldn't pump anywhere near that high (not with any pumping tech in existence at least) but would the centripetal force "help" somehow? I feel like I'm misunderstanding something.
@@jonmichaelgalindo Just like cross-continental pipelines there would be multiple pumps in stages with check valves. It would mostly be a function of how much fuel over what time with respect to how much energy and material us used to pump it up there. Or, the reserve of fuel at the top for the refuelling station could be brought up by the tanker load on the elevator. That would just take up lift time capacity that could be used for something else.
@@ckl9390 If you install a pump at a valve supported by the cable, when the pump accelerates liquid up, the kick-back accelerates the cable down (equal / opposite force). That added force deorbits the platform (unless the platform is using rocket boosters to counteract it). You can't put any weight on the cable unless you counteract it with platform rockets. What's the point of the cable? What does this thing "do" exactly? Edit: Oh! What if you sent up hydrogen and oxygen as hot gas, not liquid? Now you have to make the cable hydrogen-proof, which is insanely hard, but the pumping should be possible. I still don't see what the elevator does to help get things to space though. Edit Edit: LOL just send up electricity or laser power! Plus, pump up a very small amount of inert, easily contained gas. On the space platform, turn the gas to plasma and rocket thrust it. :-) Now just burn your thrusters to counteract the elevator climbing the cable and voila! Space elevator.
@@jonmichaelgalindo The cable is supported by a counterweight in most designs that can adjust outward beyond geostationary orbit, so the centre of mass can be controlled even with a dynamic weight climbing the cable. Though an active, and constant, thrust counter-force system would be required for any system shorter than geostationary orbit. The key is that the cable is a tension system because that allows us to use materials that are plausible to us. Whereas a compression based tower would essentially need to be built like a mountain that reaches beyond the upper atmosphere and would still require thrust to achieve orbit.
Build space elevator first, use it to bring up materials to build solar farm, then use space elevator wire to transmit electricity down. You’re welcome humanity
Underwater glass city, what could possibly go wrong? All it takes is a boat to either collide with the structure, or drop a few tonne rocks on it and its goodnight for 4000 people.
People like to cite needing a huge area for solar panels but fail to mention that panels get more efficient every year. The closer we get to 100% efficiency, the less area needed. Combined with better efficiency of consumer products we could very easily see homes powered by just a few panels on the roof.
They're gonna get a surprise when they try to use that space elevator. I suspect that whatever they try to have climb the nanotube (or ribbon) will throw the space end of the elevator out of its geosynchronous orbit.
It’s not the end point of a space elevator at geostationary orbit but rather its centre of gravity. Thus the end, with or without a counterweight, is a lot higher. Geostationary orbit is over 35,000 km up, so the weight of the elevator is going to be considerably larger than that of any elevator car - it’s not going to affect the balance much. What the car will do is drag the elevator sideways as it is accelerated from its lateral speed at the Earth’s surface (1,670 kph) to that of geosynchronous orbit (10,800 kph)
Assuming space elevator, it's not "easy" and "quick" to plonk stuff on or off the ISS. You need a vehicle capable of attaining the same orbital velocity as the ISS and dock with it. Easier than a ground launch, yes, but certainly not a simple thing to achieve. Multiple "cables" solution. Allowing a new "thread" to be wound up replacing old or degraded ones. Space mine sweepers to keep the orbital path clear?
Could the space elevator and the solar farms not work together? I realise that the elevator will be in a geostationary position, whereas the solar farm would need to be always in sunlight; but a position in the far north, for the elevator might provide a solution to that. Just a thought.
The thing I always wondered about in regards a space elevator, is the air drag on the cable and elevator components, and how that will affect the orbital speed of the entire structure. Will it require rocket fuel to counter the drag effect slowing the structure down? As for Mars, I dunno why we're so keen on putting a base there and terraforming that planet when we have a much better alternative nearby - Earth's true sister planet, Venus. At least she has an atmosphere and an induced electromagnetic field to help protect against solar winds and solar/space radiation, unlike Mars (so no need to live underneath the surface like we'd have to with Mars).
Yep. We have almost half a million people flying in airplanes on Earth at any given time. It should be possible to one day have half a million people flying around in solar powered airplanes in Venus's upper atmosphere, where the temperature, pressure, gravity, and radiation levels are all earth-like.
There is no "air drag," any greater than what the surface winds are, that day. The elevator *doesn't move* along the surface of the planet. It's got a stable base -- probably in something that looks like large oil platform, and it goes straight up from there and never moves, because the station at the far end is moving at *exactly the same speed* as the planet is turning. Put it in the "doldrums" at the Equator in the Pacific, where the winds sometimes just die, and you don't even have to worry about surface winds, very often, and what you do get are pretty minor. It's why sailors in the "wooden ship" days disliked that part of the trip, between five degrees north of Equator and five degrees south of it, because they'd sometimes get stuck for days waiting for a squall to move through that could generate enough wind they could use.
@@thomashiggins9320 I was more talking about the wind speeds much higher up, which tend to be a lot faster than at surface level. Though the reduced air pressure might make that have less of an impact perhaps? I'm not much of a mathematician or have much in the way of knowledge about fluid dynamics though, so you might very well be right. In my mind it's like the station itself is you and the cable and elevator is your hand sticking into a river - the difference between your upper arm out of the water and lower arm and hand _in_ the water would push your arm back or forward cos the river has more volume behind it - same thing with space and the atmosphere. That was my thinking, if I've typed it out clearly enough? (I'm not good at expressing my inner thoughts very well so apologies if I made no sense lol)
@@smalltime0 Yes but around 60,000ft up the air pressure is about the same as it is on the ground here on Earth, and the temperature is about 30 degrees centigrade which is basically perfect conditions for a floating city. Plus we can actually use the sulphur and other gases in the atmosphere to our advantage, as well as get unlimited energy either from floating solar power stations or even by lowering steam power plants further down into the atmosphere and using the ambient heat to boil water to steam to drive power generators. All benefits that Mars is missing out on. Sure Mars has lots of resources such as silicone dioxide, iron, titanium etc, but it still doesn't have as good a starting point for a colony than Venus. It'll be far cheaper to go for our first off-planet colony (after potentially the Moon) on Venus than Mars. And forget dreams of terraforming - even if we had the capability we wouldn't see worthwhile results for hundreds of years - and humans aren't good at doing projects that they won't be alive to see the results and benefits of.
As far as a space elevator is concerned, wouldn’t there be a lot of satellites and other stuff that could easily hit the elevators when they are lowered to earth?🤔
There are many questions about space elevators that I can't find the answers yet; por example: Almost all space ocupation now are concentred in low earth orbit (LEO) and the elevator must be anchored in geosync orbit that is a lot higher. How to stop the elevator at LEO with orbital velocity of 2k Km/h (the geosync orbital velocity) and then acelerate to 28Km/h to keep itself at LEO without reenter? The solution could be move all our facilities to geosync orbit but what about satelites? They still need to be launched by rockets on earth or be bringed to geosync orbit and launched from there with rockets anyway to archieve LEO velocity? And it is only one question, there much others more.
There's no way that anyone that suffers vertigo is getting on a space elevator. Very cool idea though. As for the idea of an underwater city, you might want to talk to a guy named Andrew Ryan- he had a few ideas on the subject.
A space elevator to the ISS would involve a clusterflock of problems of their own; not the least of which is the difference in lateral velocities between the ISS (5 miles a second) and the elevator itself (0 miles per second). There is a possible system thought up to deal with that, but you did not mention it at all.
Regarding the space elevator: while we need new materials to build one on Earth, you _could_ build one on the Moon using just steel. The gravitational situation of the Moon only gives you two locations where you can put one stably, though. One directly facing Earth, and one pointing directly away. Wireless charging is NOT efficient. It wastes half the power. It might be tolerable for space-based solar power if you can generate it cheaply enough. If you can generate it for $50 per megawatt-hour, but lose half of it in transmission, then you'll be competitive with anything that costs $100 per megawatt-hour or more.
We've had commercially available solar installations for a lot of private houses efficient enough to meet the majority of that houses energy needs for decades. It even side steps the amount of space solar farms need by just being strapped to the houses roof too. In UK they even had subsidies available for a number of years to cover some of the costs for homeowners. The subsidies dried up though(which resulted in devastating that industry and a lot of small-medium sized companies going under btw) and now it's back to prohibitavly expensive for most. Just boggles my mind there's consideration for megaprojects in this when a big step forward would cost far less and is achievable now. I guess you can't be having your population becoming to self sufficient when it comes to their energy needs though 🤦
If you have a solar array in space and a space elevator already built couldn't you just use the tether from the elevator to get the power to earths surface?
The solar array could also serve as an "actively useful" counterweight rather than just a deadweight. The space elevator would also require a considerable amount of power.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the space solar farms that beam energy to earth, that can also be used as a weapon right? It sounds like a better weapon than nuclear weapons because it won't cause radiation poisoning in the aftermath
No; the microwave frequencies which pass unimpeded through atmosphere and severe weather (1 - 10 GHz, 2.45 GHz typically assumed) require very large transmitter diameters (around 1 km) to be able to focus a beam spot on Earth measuring a minimum of several kilometres across (5 km typical) from 35,786 km away in geosynchronous orbit. Such a satellite optimises at gigawatt scale (similar to the power delivered by a coal or natural gas power plant, the amount of sunlight collected being related to the size of the satellite), but the peak intensity at the centre of the beam spot will be only one-quarter that of noon sunlight - with a proportional warming capability. This is governed by diffraction physics known since the 1800's - it can't be defeated by a software hack. The microwaves in a kitchen oven are 50 times more intense, yet it only takes a thin wire mesh in the glass door to protect anyone nearby. See the FAQs at the UK Space Energy Initiative or Space Solar Limited for more info.
I think there would be other challenges for Space Elevator.. for example, Simon suggested that it would take 2.5h to get to ISS.. the problem with that is that at that altitude ISS travels something akin to 17K miles per hour, whilst cable's relative speed at that altitude would be significantly lower.. only at geostationary orbit does the relative speed of end-point of the elevator would match relative speed of Earth surface.. I don't know the math, but I would guess the speed at Around 300km would be around 1700 m/h (basically 100 times less orbital speed).. so rendezvous with a point on Space Elevator at that altitude is unfeasible (unless, of course, introducing another exotic technology).. I think best way would be to reach end-point of Space Elevator, undock, and then lower the orbit.. obviously engineers would need to work on speeding-up ascent of mass into orbit, otherwise the whole concept would make less sense to launching rockets.. unless the whole of Space Elevator would consist of hundreds, maybe even thousands of cables, each capable lifting and bringing down cargo.. that way, even though it would take longer, the amount of mass to orbit would increase drastically, and perhaps future Space Factories could use it to get raw materials into orbit and get finished product back to Earth in a week or so.. However, all that said I SINCERALY hope that Humanity will try this endeavor, and the sooner the better, as it would inspire awe (even if its early version wouldn't be particularly practical or profitable, at least with the ascent speed of 300km/h)
Combine the orbital solar panel farm idea and the space elevator idea and have a giant extension cord go from the solar panel farm to the space elevator and rund down the elevator cable to the earth.
Stupid question: of the graphene tether is severed close to the station for some reason, wouldn't it then wrap around the earth like a whip like 10 times due to the rotation of the earth? It's a sincere question, the effects of such speeds are hard to fathom.
Yuh, but the Morgans' and other monied folk don't want free energy!, they want to maintain a stranglehold on society by any means, it's called hydrolic despotism.
The issue with underwater cities is their main draw was "the abundance of the sea" back when we thought the sea would be an inexhaustible resource. Unfortunately we've already pushed the oceans to near exhaustion. There's no real reason to build underwater other than novelty.
I once heard of a book called Sunstroke, in which a space based solar array beaming energy back to Earth breaks from its tether an begins microwaving everything on the surface as it orbits the planet. Better get that SPF 5000.
The biggest science fiction story failure i can think of is clothing. In some stories the heroes would get up in the morning and print out a set of clothes from a printer/ recycler. At the end of the day they would toss the old clothing in the recycler to be recycled. As close to no laundry as i can imagine.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Use my link ridge.com/sideprojects to get up to 30% off through December 20th and enter free to win a Ridge bundle worth $4,000. Video Sponsored by Ridge.
You need to use someone’s codes to save 30% of your reputation. Sorry, Simon… but your Shit has gotten scammy. Feels like you have 27,000 RUclips channels not to make quality content, but to collect ad revenue from 27,000 channels. Prove me wrong.
@dougkiphut1362 You are completely right. How dare he try and make a living from the videos. It is almost like he is forcing you to buy the products he advertises.
Wallets and key holders? What are they?
This is 2023 nearly 24, don't tell ridge we have technology now, like a smartphones, cars that don't use keys and even our front door can open with a tap on the lock with the phone. Sooo
What are wallets and keys
Please please please never stop ♥️
Yeah, how dare he have a hundred channels that are monetized but selling the same crap as everyone else. It’s just too much mediocrity from someone who used to be pretty good.
fun fact: I got to submit an engineering design proposal and prototype back in 2021 to a NASA Artemis competition which was designed to solve a lot of the problems that lunar dust poses (to electronics, launch systems, eventual habitats, space suits, human health, etc.). my group spent almost a year designing a lunar dust filtration system for the phase 3 habitat of the Artemis mission. was a huge undertaking & it’s super cool to think that our input could actually influence the design of future lunar and martian habitats!
I now work for Northrop Grumman which is providing the SRBs for the SLS rockets, altitude control and abort motors for the Orion launch abort system, the HALO module for the lunar gateway orbiter, and the gateway -> lunar orbit transfer arm for the human landing system. it’s awesome to see just how much we can contribute to this monumental multi-decade mission!!
The lunar dust can only be mitigated. Seals of all sorts fail very quickly. How did you plan to cope with going into and out of space suits?
@@oldmech619 Different teams/submissions focused on different aspects of the lunar dust problem. We only focused on habitat dust mitigation. Obviously entering/exiting for EVAs was the main issue, so we designed an airlock filtration system to dislodge any dust clinging to the space suits during return & repressurization, then force it to the bottom of the airlock where it was collected & sealed off, and then the dusty air was passed through an intricate filtration system to pull out the dust. Lunar dust is actually ferromagnetic (it’s composed mostly of magnetic iron particles) and radiation from the sun causes electrostatic charging making it super susceptible to magnets. so instead of using a standard HEPA filter which would need to be continually replaced, my team designed a system of magnets which would trap the dust before the air is returned to the habitat. the magnets can then simply be demagnetized by inserting a paramagnetic rod to disrupt the field gradient, making most of the dust fall off while the remainder is removed by a deionized water rinse. the dust can then just be returned to the lunar surface. very little maintenance/upkeep required, no need to continually replace components (meaning there will be no space/mass implications on future resupply missions - just set it up once and go), and it’s a relatively cheap solution.
another bonus: most martian soil is also magnetic, so the same filtration technique could be used for future mars missions as well (:
@@oldmech619I'm told due to low 🎉gravity, and how fine the particulates are? That moon dust is insidious, and it WILL get to places it shouldn't, somehow. It isn't a question of if, but where, when, and how much.
If the devil designed dust it is moon dust.
Personally while it would be awesome to go to the moon, and have a base. I'm not sure why we are caught up on it until we can really start building on it. Meaning when we have the capabilities to launch super heavy things frequently.
There is nothing there!
I guess it is a good start for a Mars base though. (I think we should focus on Venus colonies instead. )
Awesome career, working on these projects must be pretty cool and at times surreal!!! (not to detract but SLS is way too expensive and impractical, starship will thankfully [hopefully] put a swift end to this boondoggle)
@@joeygrandview7304 Elon will run out of money before the FAA approves Starship for human flight.
The Artemis project reminds me of one line from JFK's original speech about NASA's plans to put a man on the moon before 1970: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things-not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
This project is a huge undertaking and a massive team effort by everyone involved. Best of luck, y'all! I hope I am here to see it succeed.
0:35 - Chapter 1 - Space elevator
3:45 - Mid roll ads
5:30 - Chapter 2 - Moon bases
8:20 - Chapter 3 - Solar farms in space
13:45 - Chapter 4 - Underwater cities
I logical extension of the space elevator should be the orbital shipyard.
The space elevator would allow for cost-effective movement of supplies and workers to and from the shipyard. The microgravity at the terminis of the elevator would allow for greater movement, but not be fully obstructive as microgravity in interplanetary space. Crafting and repair of vessels that far above a terrestrial body would be far cheaper to create and launch into space. It would also be a great place to act as a base for orbital cleanup drones to help keep Terra's skies clear of dangerous debris.
I think it makes the most sense for such a project to immediately follow the successful construction of a space elevator.
Getting to the ISS's height is the least difficult part of going to the ISS. It's going to fly past you at 28 000 km/h so you'd better have good reflexes to catch it.
Attach a cannon the the elevator and shoot supplies at the ISS. But you're right, about 83% of the fuel is used getting to Orbital speeds.
Its why you hear all the time about universities sending a probe on a rocket they built into space. It falls back down in seconds to a few minutes because its a sub orbital velocity.
There is the possibility to "drop" the cargo from higher up.
I think, dropped from an altitude of about 6000 km, the cargo would end up in a orbit "similar" to the ISS....just a very excentric one.....
Some kind of propulsion still needed to change that excentricity😅
@@yourguard4 there isn't that sort of possibility, most of the energy is used in reaching the orbital speed - you still need to do that.
This is Physics, not Alice in wonderland.
@@gmailaccount9962 Wow lets ignore what I said.... I'll ignore what you said
@@gmailaccount9962 yeah I agreed with him, the comment I replied to is deleted, and suggested that you just stop part way and you're done
The Space Elevator is applicable to other planets and celestial bodies. For locations in the solar system with weaker gravity than Earth's (such as the Moon or Mars), the strength-to-density requirements for tether materials are not as problematic, Currently available materials (such as Kevlar) are strong and light enough that they could be practical as the tether material for elevators there.
Yep. Mars has only 38 percent of Earth's gravity, so Kevlar would work for an elevator there, just fine.
No, it wouldn't work on any planet. Distance to geostationary orbit is like 6 times the radius of the planet itself. We talking about building a structure that's as tall as 3 planets stacked on top of each other.
Gravity is acceleration. Low Gravity means low acceleration. You don't need a space elevator to get moderate amounts of mass into orbit when there is low acceleration. A rocket accelerates independent of the Earth's rotation. A space elevator is tied to the earth and is thus exerting a constant force on the earth. You would have to balance that force with an elevator on the opposite side. You need lighter materials because F=ma. As the acceleration factor increases so does the amount of applied force. You compensate by reducing the amount of mass. A space elevator is a tetherball. As the radius increases, so must your rotation. As the outward force increases, you must apply force in the opposite direction to stabilize your spin. To get a space elevator to work, you need something with essential zero mass. And wouldn't you know it. At geostationary orbits, there is no atmosphere/mass. Space elevators are flat earth science. You can get one to work but will be impractical for lifting cargo into orbit.
More practically usable spaceships seem to be a more feasible option. I'd say humanity will master engine technology sooner than defeating gravity, so in my opinion that's where the focus should be. A spaceship that can take off more or less like an airplane will be so much more effective that a Space Elevator won't be necessary at all.
@tjroelsma 'defeating gravity'. That's a good one since gravity is acceleration. You would think that people would understand by now that the earth isn't flat. Why are you still using flat earth physics?
When/if they figure out how to safely mass produce graphene, I feel a space elevator will be one of the least exciting achievements.
You mean nanotubes which are harder to make than graphene, right?
Space Elevator won't happen for centuries even with graphene. Not till fossil fuels are used up!
Graphene however will help everything from computers, concrete to batteries! Hopefully we can produce it like we do cement hah.
0:28 space elevators
5:24 moon bases
8:15 solar farms in space
13:40 underwater cities
I love the idea of the space elevator ever since i first read about them in science fiction books as a kid. But with all of the satellites currently in leo, how do we maintain the safety of the tether as it passes through that area? Given the satellite count is only going to get higher, and we cant exactly move the tether
New satellites would be able to move and even have an orbit that evades it. Existing satellites and debris would have to be sligthly moved or de-orbited before the space elevator gets constructed. I expect a space elevator will likely more exist of multiple threads linked to eachother in a way to create segments that in case of damage would be more easily replaced and the other threads would (for a time) take on the extra load/work.
Eitherway this is something that would definitely be worked out well before any space elevator would start production.
I love the idea of a space elevator but it feels almost certain that some religious nutjob will try to blow it up (tower of babel comes to mind)
@@Lodrik18 There would strict security against that and blowing something like that up shouldn't be easy either.
Blowing up a space elevator would probably require quite a substantial amount of explosives, and where exactly do you blow it up? On one of the tethers? It's highly designed to not break if even 2 tethers was destroyed. Placing a bomb on the elevator and blow it up like half way up might be the way to go, but I'm fairly certain getting to the elevator with a bomb will be quite a monumental task. Something like a space elevator would be humanities biggest construction in history, dwarfing out everything else ever built. It will require tremendous amounts of materials, people and money. Probably so much material, that we need to mine asteroids to het enough. Something like it would highly likely be the Worlds most secure place.
He saying it can " revolutionise"
Nooooo rich people will enjoy
Those that dont even have $1000 just go brrr
More than happy to agree with any proposal which covers West Virginia in solar panels...
As a Canadian with a compatriot of one of the Aretmis II crew, I tip my hat to all Americans: Your country is now in the technological position to do what was done in 1968- send a crewed spacecraft around the moon. This is no snide comment. As a precocious 8 year old I remember, all the excitemment Apollo 8 garnered. One American said at the time 'Apollo 8 saved1968'.
May you never loose this capacity again. And, as a Canadian, I can say: 'Thanks for the lift!'
they can't even fill pot holes in the UK so I don't hold out much hope
Those are *microprojects* thats why -- I wish I were kidding
Not in Canaduh either.
They too busy hanging gay flags
They can and do eventually! They just use Old Soviet tactics and do it in the winter so the "fix" doesn't last long
They could use Tory MPs. There are loads of them, we don't get attached to them and there are some things even rats won't /can't do.
A space elevator connected to a solar farm would be neat. Solve 1 project's problem by tackling a separate herculean task.
Big problem with the Space Elevator is that if the cable snaps, the part that starts wrapping itself around the Earth will become a dinosaur-killer class of impact.
On the bit about using the space elevator to send people or supplies to low-Earth orbit: You'd still need to add quite a lot of delta-V to reach orbital velocity at that altitude. Using the ISS as an example, it orbits once every 90-minutes, so it would "whiz past" the elevator tether 16 times a day. Also, even more delta-V would be needed to change inclination of the orbit from equatorial out to the 51 degree orbit plane of the ISS. I say this to point out that we'd still need rockets, but could ditch the idea of a first stage that mostly just gets you above the appreciable atmosphere. A staging area attached to the tether at that altitude could be used as a fuel depot as well, meaning said rocket could be lifted empty and fueled before rocketing away to orbital speeds. (Although significant masses hanging about in the middle of the tether would increase the mass needed at geosynch (or beyond) to keep the tether taut.)
I've been chewing on a concept of a dual ended elevator with center station the outer tether being a tether/balist allowing to maintain orbit slower and the balist being able to be pulled in or out
I've read a book about a space hook catching planes at crazy speeds and was like no freaking way was that actually going to work
@@patrickday4206 I had a friend who worked briefly on the MXER project, which was a standalone tether flipping end-over-end using the ionosphere to keep momentum. Crazy project! ruclips.net/video/fC21kuM9NgQ/видео.html
I've also been thinking for some time that a low-orbit space elevator would be more viable. Even though any vessel launched from it would still require thrust to not just drop back to Earth, it would cut back considerably on the fuel-cost of launching. I'm also wondering if the objective was just low-orbit, would a more conventional building be sufficient? Could a compression based structure reach up to where there is only 98% atmospheric pressure?
@@ckl9390orbital towers have been proposed as a way of launching rockets higher up. A typical height to width ratio of a tall building is 1:20, so a 100 km tower would likely be about 5 km wide at the base.
Note that this tower’s height is about twice the thickness of the Earth’s crust, so the foundations will be tricky. Large reservoirs have been known to induce earthquakes; a super tall building causing its own seismic region will be a new challenge for structural and geotechnical engineers.
Best space elevator representation I've seen was in Gundam 00. And when it fell... that was spectacular!!!!
the elevator falling in the Foundation series was pretty spectacular too!
the entire idea of solar farms in space is probably the worst/unrealistic of the lot. it's taking one solution, being earth based nuclear energy and building an energy source infinitely more expensive and technically difficult. why aren't all the left over satellites being crashed into carefully chosen areas of the moon to be recycled for their metals, components, etc?
@9:42
Geostationary solar satalites would still be subject to night, they would be shaded behind earth.
Earth's tilt means a GEO satellite only passes through Earth's shadow for a few days around the March & September equinox. The orbital circumference is more than 20 times (x20.8) greater than Earth's diameter - meaning a satellite will spend a maximum of 70 minutes in shadow. Overall, the satellite will be in sunlight for 99.7% of the year.
So the graphene they want to use for the space elevator is conductive. Have they determined what will happen to the cable when it passes through charged layers of the atmosphere and magnetosphere? Will it burn out like a giant fuse, from the massive current, or will it carry the charge, all the way to the ground, creating a hole in each charged layer? Either way, i wouldn't want to be the guy on the ground that has to catch the cable as it is lowered.
Should be made from boron nitride nano tubes! Stronger than carbon nanotechnology.
@@dianapennepacker6854 still sounds conductive. Even if it is only slightly more conductive than air, it's going to be a light show.
@@michaellowe3665 yay more green energy
3:28 Just one little problem with taking a space elevator to the ISS... You'd be trying to step off the elevator onto something going past at 17,100 mph.
Space elevator is that one idea that falls apart the more you think about it.
My favorite issues with it are of the "But what if it snaps in the middle for whatever reason." variety.
@@thearpox7873Heh, yup. I haven't done the math, but I expect a steel cable would snap under it's own weight if it was hanging from space all the way to the ground. Even without any additional tension from the lift or the counterweight beyond geostationary orbit.
@@galacticminx You misunderstand. I meant, let's pretend we've built it and it already works. Then, a month later Allah sends us a snack, or maybe somebody flubs the maintenance, or a giant eagle smacks into it, or literally anything else.
Not a good image of what happens next, issit?
And what happens when a large satellite collides with the space elevator's tether? It's not like the tether can maneuver out of the way. Nor can many such satellites (or just space junk) have the ability to maneuver, either.
Probably bounce if it's made of nanotubes. If it's a large satellite we can track it, there's a Registry of stuff down to like 3 feet in size.
This has been thought of, and solutions proposed. Do a quick search online
Another option I've heard proposed is having the base on a ship so it could be maneuvered on demand.
1. The tether could move. It has to remain taut, but it doesn't have to remain straight. A little movement could get a sort of "jump rope" movement of just a few degrees, and timed correctly, it could avoid the space debris.
2. The space debris could be moved. The goal is that for any new satellite launched, it will need to have a way to deorbit it once its life is done. As for stuff up there now, there are already companies working on plans for orbital clean-up.
3. The debris could be captured. The space elevator could have magnetic plates to attract orbiting metals and/or nets to capture non-magnetic debris. It could then be collected and dealt with.
4. Funtioning satellites have maneuvering thrusters, so they can keep their orientation, and to avoid debris on their own. Those could also be used to move around the tether.
Little shuttle bots with nets go out and catch such nasties. Then the bots can party on the scrap money
Honestly, I think there is a huge market for space junk capture/elimination. A functional space plane with clean up in mind could make huge profits removing debris. Defunct satellites don’t have to be captured, you just need to slow them down, so they fall out of orbit. Tiny bits can be captured by air gel panels, like they used to capture particles from the comet years back. Send the bill to whomever is responsible for the garbage, making space safe again for new satellites and human exploration. There are literally dozens of space plane projects on paper, they just need to be built.
3:47 So long as you don't care about the space station zipping by at 27,000km/h.
An orbital ring is the superior cheap space access megaproject and has the benefit of need no new materials and letting you accelerate off the ring to orbital speeds without using reaction mass.
Awesome video, some cool projects going on. A little surprised you didn't talk about orbital rings. They kind of go hand in hand with a space elevator, where you start with a satellite and wrap a cable around the planet's equator in geosynchronous orbit. You then send an electric current through the cable and send it rotating, this lets you use electromagnets to hang objects and habitats off the cable itself. You could even pass it through multiple space elevators or satellites and power the structures with solar panels hung off the ring.
using a space elevator to supply the ISS is uhhhh, an interesting prospect. Consider that the space station would be zooming past the elevator, so you need to accelerate to its speed once detaching from the elevator.
the space elevator can also be used to launch vehicles into space, like a giant earth sized version of SpinLaunch. the space elevator is the platform from which to build and maintain the solar farm . to link to low earth orbits, e.g. ISS, you can launch from higher up and "glide" down to dock.
@@CharlsonCKimnot possible at all
The space elevator will be fixed structure, from which ships will dock onto. It's like a harbour in space. Travel to and from the ISS will be undertaken by smaller spaceships
@@daemonblade-4f7a lmao this is pure science fiction 😂
@@CharlsonCKim spin launch can't work
3:47 Once you get that high, you also need to match the speed and direction. It's going real fast that a way.
IIRC the attachment for the elevator would be in geostationary orbit so there would be no need to "match the speed". It would be over the same exact spot of the earth continuously. Not the same as low earth orbit or LEO.
@@Timmycoo I thought that this was shifted to be about LEO.
@@greggweber9967 It probably is and I'm missing something because a tether to geostationary is insane lol. I'd have to go re-watch PBS Space Time on it where they do a deepdive on it. Right now I'm afraid I won't retain any knowledge but if you find out how to cancel the angular momentum then lemme know. Or someone else who reads our comments lol.
@@Timmycoo he was talking about deploying things to LEO rather than go the entire way to GSO, problem is you need to match the speed and orbit of whatever you're deploying to and that's where most of the fuel use of a rocket is.
Nah that's not rights. Sorry lol. Would make no sense to have a bi-stationary telegraphing transport tether where one end STILL is locked in angular momentum.
Edit. The stupidest thought that we ALL forgot is centrifugal force lmao.
How Will it Work?
A space elevator would involve a tether anchored to the ground and stretching up into space. At the top of the elevator, a counterweight will serve to keep the cable taut. Centrifugal force will actually be responsible for holding the tether in space as the Earth rotates slowly
YES more sci fi megaprojects!
Space elevator, the comment about not needing to go to the top, maybe the height of the ISS. But being in orbit requires a very high lateral speed, not just height.
At ground level the space elevator already has a lateral speed of over 1000 kph and any loads that are carried up will experience lateral acceleration. True that will only be sufficient for orbit once it reaches geosynchronous height (10,800 kph), but launches from lower levels will need less fuel to reach orbital velocities than launching from ground level.
Need more graphene? We have plenty of waste plastic. Find a way to recycle it.
I also think waste plastic could be used to help de-orbit space junk. Also, weave hair/wool/fleece into huge balls, dust bunnies, if you will, and orbit them to capture space dust.
A moon base and solar space farm could both be more easily achieved if we did a space elevator first. At least, one would assume
I don't think solar farms for earth will ever happen. It just isn't worth it, unless we run out of space or require a ridiculous amount of energy in the future.
Now... Having solar farms to send power to the moon when there is no daylight for a few weeks at a time is a different story.
Personally I think we should just embrace fission. Focus to make smaller, and smaller reactors that are even safer. Especially for a moon base.
@@dianapennepacker6854 Wait a second, hold your horses, we have already developed the safest nuclear fission reactor ever, all the way back in the 50's, its called a molten salt breeder reactor, and it is by its very nature a naturally safe reactor that will automatically deactivate itself in the event of a cooling failure. Additionally these reactors can be powered by the high level nuclear waste produced by other light water reactors, solving the whole nuclear waste problem in one go.
And the other day I had seen an article about someone who made pumps that last longer in salt, solving the one Problem that was constantly being used as an excuse, but let me tell you the truth, its got nothing to do with the technicalities of pumping salt, it's all got to do with the fact that it is much harder to get weapons grade material from this kind of reactor, compared to currently used light water reactors.
Not really, a moon base first would be the best, as it is so much easier to launch from the moon. The problem with a moon base though is that moon dust, because moon dust is one really nasty thing, it is electrically charged by the sun, and so sticks to everything.
Personally I am more for the O'Niel cylinder type centrifugal gravity habitats, as they are so much safer then any other place, including earth. For perspective if a supernova goes off within 10 light years earth, earth will not survive, however if you have a spin gravity habitat with more then 3 feet of dirt inside, you can be 1 light year away and not even know it went off, closer then 1 light year is risky though, as supernova create a lot of neutrinos, which do become lethal at that range, as nothing blocks neutrinos. But other then neutrinos, there is no other radiation that would make it through the 3 feet of dirt, so in essence a spin gravity habitat can actually have less radiation inside then the background radiation we experience here on earth if you engineer it right.
Hopefully though mind uploading becomes possible soon, as a spacecraft with a few computers on it is much, much easier to build then a million plus tons spin gravity habitat.
@atlanciaza Getting supplies INTO space has always been the big limiter. There is a finite limit to how much a rocket can successfully carry, and they are of course very expensive. Building a moon base would be great, but building other things, especially closer to earth, would be a whole lot easier if you could make them on earth and then list them into space.
A space elevator would make *everything* we do in space easier.
It's not worth waiting for, though we should build one as soon as the engineering is proven out.
There is a heck of a lot of stuff orbiting Earth, making an elevator a questionable project. Much better and safer is to build a Lunar space elevator. Doesn't have to be so long, no weather, no atmospheric drag, less danger if something goes wrong. Less orbiting stuff to worry about. In the long run a Lunar elevator would be easier to pay for.
It would have to be longer. Geostationary (selenostationary?) orbit for any body depends not only on its gravity but its rotation speed. Since the Moon is tidally locked to the Earth, the distance just to the tether would have to be the same as the distance from the Moon to the Earth.
One thing that got me thinking was the possibility of using a maglev system to launch cargo from the Moon without needing fuel. Reaching lunar escape velocity of 2.4 km/s shouldn't be that difficult if you can cheerfully ignore air resistance like you can on the Moon. Even transporting people and animals would only require a 90 second acceleration of 3 g's.
Why couldn’t two solar farm run its energy down the space elevator? Two birds one stone
If the carbon nanotubes conduct electricity, that could work
Or just have nuclear power plants and not worry about it
@@southcoastinventors6583Germany is working on it.
The Wendelstein 7-X in Greifswald, Germany it's a Fusion Reactor.
Ya the solar farm in space is a bad idea. Good for some situations but it would be worse for the environment and cost way too much.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought of this. I'm not a fan of microwaving the power down to Earth as all sorts of things (aircraft, animals, weather) can end up in the microwave beam. The idea of sending the power down by wire is much more appealing (though I don't know how comfortable people would be travelling up a power cable).
about the space elevator: at 400 km above the earth the speed of the cable is a bit faster than the speed of earth rotation, 2000 km/hour. The space station or any satellite in orbit moves at 27500 km/hour. What are you going to do once you are up there with all satellites passing by at 10 times your speed?
This might be a dumb question but like how much water ice is at the Moon's poles? Like how long will the last? Is it a finite resource?
It's currently estimated that there is 600 BILLION kilograms of drinking ice water at the lunar poles. There will be a NASA probe sent in 2024 to get a more concise answer. There is easily enough for multiple generations given that the population of the moon once settled won't grow to be that big due to simple logistics.
Kinda reminds me of Gundam 00
where combined 3 Orbital Elevator with a ring of solar panels that "provides transportation from Earth to space and vice versa and also transports solar energy to the planet's surface to power the entire world, earning it the nickname "Solar Elevator"."
Space elevators are pure fantasy, ignoring materials existing that could even support it, I love how they brush over the sheer material cost. manufacturing capacity is mentioned only in passing as if its simple to accommodate but this is thirty five thousand kilometers of material per strand that not only has to be made meaning the supplies and facilities to do that but then has to be delivered. it just gets sillier as you think about it. by default the material has to be sourced in space. Put it this way, the Earth is just over forty thousand kilometers in circumference and some elevator designs extend the same distance in both directions
However there is also the super big issue of electrical charge differences between ground and the end point and finally of course, debris in space. Oh joy. Plus you just know some radicals will find a way to attack it and I doubt anyone wants to know the effect of it falling back to Earth
The cable would have to be made of material that electricity wont conduct through. Lightening, static electricity,vetc. .you would build a HUGE grounding rod..
Oh oh welcome to amazing season these next 4 seasons are peak doctor who in my opinion
And exactly how are they going to do the rendezvous with ISS and their space elevator? Last time I checked the ISS was moving at about 17,000 mph …
The space elevator will be fixed structure, from which ships will dock onto. It's like a harbour in space. Travel to and from the ISS will be undertaken by smaller spaceships
Yes, this was a bit of a miss by Simon's writers. Not as big a miss, though, as giving airtime to two of the least feasible concepts out there when there are so many less well-known megaproject concepts that are far better grounded in sound science and engineering - some of which have a descent chance of being realized in the not too distant future.
3:30 no! in order to dock to the ISS you need to get orbital speed and you don't get that from a space elevator --- one option might be from gravity by falling down but I gotta do some calculations for that ---- difficult to calculate because the earth's gravity isn't that strong at 36 000 km
Combine Space Elevator platforms with Solar Collectors then just run HV cables down the inside of the Space Elevator cable...
3 problems solved that can make cash in 3 ways - making it all cost effective... 👍
The deserts of Australia or the Australian deserts cover about 2,700,000 km2 (1,000,000 sq mi),
West Virginia has a land area of 24,034.8 square miles
3:40 Simon, you forget that the ISS is not geostationary, it screams across the sky at 28,000km/h...
Handing out items from the stationary elevator would present somewhat of a problem.
i think its possible by dividing it to parts , ie ground to balloon system with fuel cable connected to balloon... then one upper baloon to space station... and probbly lots of space to space stages... privide fuel from ground wth stabilozers on up... ten you got it...
Since the Sun is literally nuclear fire; solar power is still technically nuclear power just with extra steps
Yes, more specifically it is wireless fusion power, where we already have the commercial reactor warranted for another 4 billion years.
A sideprojects thats a Megaprojects? Now thats a double whammy! 😅
There's something they would need to do before building a space elevator, clean out all the debris orbiting the Earth. Not doing so would mean the thing would be bombarded by objects moving at many kilometers per second. Even graphene can't withstand that.
I can see some future version of Rishi Sunak or starmer and the torries saying “we can’t expand the space elevator, instead it will just go to the edge of the atmosphere, you will need a transfer from them on”
As a child of the 60's, and a great Back to the Future fan, I am really disappointed that there are no hover boards.
I would like to know exactly how you're going to build an elevator to a space station that orbits the earth every 90 minutes funny how you ended that segment with that statement
Haha, yeah. You'd still need a beefy rocket to get into orbit from there.
You send it up higher than the space station, then let it "fall" into orbit. It will still need rockets for course correction, but far less fuel than a straight up launch.
@@bobthecomputerguy More for circularization than course correction. But then you're crawling much further up the tender anyway.
Since the difference in speed between a geostationary space elevator and the ISS is 17k mph it would probably be easier to go there the way we do it now.
@@gubbvila It's a lot easier to get to leo from geo than from the ground. You can do it with small engines that would never get you off the ground. The benefit of "the way we do it now" would be time saved, which would be good for astronauts, but not needed for bulk cargo.
Ya know, I always thought that the X series Taurus Aeternal station was surprisingly viable in concept.
But it very definitely is a mega project, and probably not necessary until humanity reaches the point of being more populous in space than on earth.
A space elevator would be fantastic! It would be a total winner on the moon or Mars.
The only way this might be possible if materials weren’t a consideration would be to build the entire 36,000km at a Lagrange point and then transport it back to GSO and lower it down to earth. If you start with a satellite in orbit and build down to the surface, it would start to drag itself down as a great portion of it is not traveling at orbital velocity for its altitude. Basically if we could build a space elevator we wouldn’t need to.
The half km sea ball reminds me of the line. And the space elevator as well! 😅
It’ll just end up smelling of piss, like most elevators.
How does the elevator work? 🤔 When it accelerates the payload to its own orbital velocity, doesn't the drag decelerate it / deorbit it? Does the elevator use rocket engines to maintain its orbit? How are they refueled?
There would likely be fuel piped up from processing plants on the surface. We have oil and gas pipelines that span continents, similar technology would apply.
@@ckl9390 You couldn't pump anywhere near that high (not with any pumping tech in existence at least) but would the centripetal force "help" somehow? I feel like I'm misunderstanding something.
@@jonmichaelgalindo Just like cross-continental pipelines there would be multiple pumps in stages with check valves. It would mostly be a function of how much fuel over what time with respect to how much energy and material us used to pump it up there. Or, the reserve of fuel at the top for the refuelling station could be brought up by the tanker load on the elevator. That would just take up lift time capacity that could be used for something else.
@@ckl9390 If you install a pump at a valve supported by the cable, when the pump accelerates liquid up, the kick-back accelerates the cable down (equal / opposite force). That added force deorbits the platform (unless the platform is using rocket boosters to counteract it).
You can't put any weight on the cable unless you counteract it with platform rockets. What's the point of the cable? What does this thing "do" exactly?
Edit: Oh! What if you sent up hydrogen and oxygen as hot gas, not liquid? Now you have to make the cable hydrogen-proof, which is insanely hard, but the pumping should be possible. I still don't see what the elevator does to help get things to space though.
Edit Edit: LOL just send up electricity or laser power! Plus, pump up a very small amount of inert, easily contained gas. On the space platform, turn the gas to plasma and rocket thrust it. :-) Now just burn your thrusters to counteract the elevator climbing the cable and voila! Space elevator.
@@jonmichaelgalindo The cable is supported by a counterweight in most designs that can adjust outward beyond geostationary orbit, so the centre of mass can be controlled even with a dynamic weight climbing the cable. Though an active, and constant, thrust counter-force system would be required for any system shorter than geostationary orbit. The key is that the cable is a tension system because that allows us to use materials that are plausible to us. Whereas a compression based tower would essentially need to be built like a mountain that reaches beyond the upper atmosphere and would still require thrust to achieve orbit.
14:36
"Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. Rapture!"
-Andrew Ryan
Build space elevator first, use it to bring up materials to build solar farm, then use space elevator wire to transmit electricity down.
You’re welcome humanity
Underwater glass city, what could possibly go wrong? All it takes is a boat to either collide with the structure, or drop a few tonne rocks on it and its goodnight for 4000 people.
People like to cite needing a huge area for solar panels but fail to mention that panels get more efficient every year. The closer we get to 100% efficiency, the less area needed. Combined with better efficiency of consumer products we could very easily see homes powered by just a few panels on the roof.
They're gonna get a surprise when they try to use that space elevator. I suspect that whatever they try to have climb the nanotube (or ribbon) will throw the space end of the elevator out of its geosynchronous orbit.
If they use a LeGrange point it will work but there arent may of those on land
Whipping around like, uhhh a whip?😮
BSc
MSc
PhD
Guy in RUclips comments
That's what the counterweight is for. And it will likely need to have thrusters as well.
It’s not the end point of a space elevator at geostationary orbit but rather its centre of gravity. Thus the end, with or without a counterweight, is a lot higher.
Geostationary orbit is over 35,000 km up, so the weight of the elevator is going to be considerably larger than that of any elevator car - it’s not going to affect the balance much. What the car will do is drag the elevator sideways as it is accelerated from its lateral speed at the Earth’s surface (1,670 kph) to that of geosynchronous orbit (10,800 kph)
Beaming energy from solar panels in orbit around the moon to a lunar station is a no brainer!
Lol Simon's writer must not know that the ISS is being decommissioned
They also don't understand how fast it's moving.
Getting off the space elevator to pop into the ISS on your way up is going to be a SPLAT of you as they are traveling a massively different speeds.
The space elevator's greatest utility is enabling space based geoengineering climate restoration and moon industrialization
Assuming space elevator, it's not "easy" and "quick" to plonk stuff on or off the ISS. You need a vehicle capable of attaining the same orbital velocity as the ISS and dock with it. Easier than a ground launch, yes, but certainly not a simple thing to achieve. Multiple "cables" solution. Allowing a new "thread" to be wound up replacing old or degraded ones. Space mine sweepers to keep the orbital path clear?
Could the space elevator and the solar farms not work together? I realise that the elevator will be in a geostationary position, whereas the solar farm would need to be always in sunlight; but a position in the far north, for the elevator might provide a solution to that. Just a thought.
The thing I always wondered about in regards a space elevator, is the air drag on the cable and elevator components, and how that will affect the orbital speed of the entire structure. Will it require rocket fuel to counter the drag effect slowing the structure down? As for Mars, I dunno why we're so keen on putting a base there and terraforming that planet when we have a much better alternative nearby - Earth's true sister planet, Venus. At least she has an atmosphere and an induced electromagnetic field to help protect against solar winds and solar/space radiation, unlike Mars (so no need to live underneath the surface like we'd have to with Mars).
Venus has sulphuric acid clouds and the surface temp is a mild 500C
Yep. We have almost half a million people flying in airplanes on Earth at any given time. It should be possible to one day have half a million people flying around in solar powered airplanes in Venus's upper atmosphere, where the temperature, pressure, gravity, and radiation levels are all earth-like.
There is no "air drag," any greater than what the surface winds are, that day.
The elevator *doesn't move* along the surface of the planet.
It's got a stable base -- probably in something that looks like large oil platform, and it goes straight up from there and never moves, because the station at the far end is moving at *exactly the same speed* as the planet is turning.
Put it in the "doldrums" at the Equator in the Pacific, where the winds sometimes just die, and you don't even have to worry about surface winds, very often, and what you do get are pretty minor.
It's why sailors in the "wooden ship" days disliked that part of the trip, between five degrees north of Equator and five degrees south of it, because they'd sometimes get stuck for days waiting for a squall to move through that could generate enough wind they could use.
@@thomashiggins9320 I was more talking about the wind speeds much higher up, which tend to be a lot faster than at surface level. Though the reduced air pressure might make that have less of an impact perhaps? I'm not much of a mathematician or have much in the way of knowledge about fluid dynamics though, so you might very well be right. In my mind it's like the station itself is you and the cable and elevator is your hand sticking into a river - the difference between your upper arm out of the water and lower arm and hand _in_ the water would push your arm back or forward cos the river has more volume behind it - same thing with space and the atmosphere. That was my thinking, if I've typed it out clearly enough? (I'm not good at expressing my inner thoughts very well so apologies if I made no sense lol)
@@smalltime0 Yes but around 60,000ft up the air pressure is about the same as it is on the ground here on Earth, and the temperature is about 30 degrees centigrade which is basically perfect conditions for a floating city. Plus we can actually use the sulphur and other gases in the atmosphere to our advantage, as well as get unlimited energy either from floating solar power stations or even by lowering steam power plants further down into the atmosphere and using the ambient heat to boil water to steam to drive power generators. All benefits that Mars is missing out on. Sure Mars has lots of resources such as silicone dioxide, iron, titanium etc, but it still doesn't have as good a starting point for a colony than Venus. It'll be far cheaper to go for our first off-planet colony (after potentially the Moon) on Venus than Mars. And forget dreams of terraforming - even if we had the capability we wouldn't see worthwhile results for hundreds of years - and humans aren't good at doing projects that they won't be alive to see the results and benefits of.
Do you think that covering the soul on the moon could affect seasons here on earth by possibly messing with the magnetic poles?
Doing what you love is the cornerstone of having abundance in your life.
Your West Virginia premise is certainly impractical; which is why there needs to be some solar in every state. This would also compensate for weather.
3:29 You cant use the lift go to the ISS. The ISS will be whizzing past the lift 7.66 km/s (4.79 mi/s)
As far as a space elevator is concerned, wouldn’t there be a lot of satellites and other stuff that could easily hit the elevators when they are lowered to earth?🤔
Yep. Satellites would be a constant threat, especially the most prolific ones and those with the lowest safety rating. In other words: Starlink. It would be like aiming a firing squad at a trillion dollar target, but with bullets that travel at Mach 22 and don't require a direct hit to fμ©k it all up. (see: Kessler syndrome)
Bass drop at 11:47. Soon Whistler is gonna have a DJ channel. 😂
There are many questions about space elevators that I can't find the answers yet; por example: Almost all space ocupation now are concentred in low earth orbit (LEO) and the elevator must be anchored in geosync orbit that is a lot higher. How to stop the elevator at LEO with orbital velocity of 2k Km/h (the geosync orbital velocity) and then acelerate to 28Km/h to keep itself at LEO without reenter? The solution could be move all our facilities to geosync orbit but what about satelites? They still need to be launched by rockets on earth or be bringed to geosync orbit and launched from there with rockets anyway to archieve LEO velocity? And it is only one question, there much others more.
There's no way that anyone that suffers vertigo is getting on a space elevator. Very cool idea though. As for the idea of an underwater city, you might want to talk to a guy named Andrew Ryan- he had a few ideas on the subject.
Sucks for them ?
@@jamesbizsthe comment is referencing the game BioShock
A space elevator to the ISS would involve a clusterflock of problems of their own; not the least of which is the difference in lateral velocities between the ISS (5 miles a second) and the elevator itself (0 miles per second). There is a possible system thought up to deal with that, but you did not mention it at all.
Regarding the space elevator: while we need new materials to build one on Earth, you _could_ build one on the Moon using just steel. The gravitational situation of the Moon only gives you two locations where you can put one stably, though. One directly facing Earth, and one pointing directly away.
Wireless charging is NOT efficient. It wastes half the power. It might be tolerable for space-based solar power if you can generate it cheaply enough. If you can generate it for $50 per megawatt-hour, but lose half of it in transmission, then you'll be competitive with anything that costs $100 per megawatt-hour or more.
We've had commercially available solar installations for a lot of private houses efficient enough to meet the majority of that houses energy needs for decades. It even side steps the amount of space solar farms need by just being strapped to the houses roof too. In UK they even had subsidies available for a number of years to cover some of the costs for homeowners. The subsidies dried up though(which resulted in devastating that industry and a lot of small-medium sized companies going under btw) and now it's back to prohibitavly expensive for most. Just boggles my mind there's consideration for megaprojects in this when a big step forward would cost far less and is achievable now. I guess you can't be having your population becoming to self sufficient when it comes to their energy needs though 🤦
What stops storms and orbiting objects hitting the elevator cable?
If you have a solar array in space and a space elevator already built couldn't you just use the tether from the elevator to get the power to earths surface?
The solar array could also serve as an "actively useful" counterweight rather than just a deadweight. The space elevator would also require a considerable amount of power.
Doing a megaproject video on a channel named side projects, while also having a channel called megaprojects lol
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the space solar farms that beam energy to earth, that can also be used as a weapon right? It sounds like a better weapon than nuclear weapons because it won't cause radiation poisoning in the aftermath
No; the microwave frequencies which pass unimpeded through atmosphere and severe weather (1 - 10 GHz, 2.45 GHz typically assumed) require very large transmitter diameters (around 1 km) to be able to focus a beam spot on Earth measuring a minimum of several kilometres across (5 km typical) from 35,786 km away in geosynchronous orbit. Such a satellite optimises at gigawatt scale (similar to the power delivered by a coal or natural gas power plant, the amount of sunlight collected being related to the size of the satellite), but the peak intensity at the centre of the beam spot will be only one-quarter that of noon sunlight - with a proportional warming capability.
This is governed by diffraction physics known since the 1800's - it can't be defeated by a software hack.
The microwaves in a kitchen oven are 50 times more intense, yet it only takes a thin wire mesh in the glass door to protect anyone nearby.
See the FAQs at the UK Space Energy Initiative or Space Solar Limited for more info.
I think there would be other challenges for Space Elevator.. for example, Simon suggested that it would take 2.5h to get to ISS.. the problem with that is that at that altitude ISS travels something akin to 17K miles per hour, whilst cable's relative speed at that altitude would be significantly lower.. only at geostationary orbit does the relative speed of end-point of the elevator would match relative speed of Earth surface.. I don't know the math, but I would guess the speed at Around 300km would be around 1700 m/h (basically 100 times less orbital speed).. so rendezvous with a point on Space Elevator at that altitude is unfeasible (unless, of course, introducing another exotic technology).. I think best way would be to reach end-point of Space Elevator, undock, and then lower the orbit.. obviously engineers would need to work on speeding-up ascent of mass into orbit, otherwise the whole concept would make less sense to launching rockets.. unless the whole of Space Elevator would consist of hundreds, maybe even thousands of cables, each capable lifting and bringing down cargo.. that way, even though it would take longer, the amount of mass to orbit would increase drastically, and perhaps future Space Factories could use it to get raw materials into orbit and get finished product back to Earth in a week or so..
However, all that said I SINCERALY hope that Humanity will try this endeavor, and the sooner the better, as it would inspire awe (even if its early version wouldn't be particularly practical or profitable, at least with the ascent speed of 300km/h)
Combine the orbital solar panel farm idea and the space elevator idea and have a giant extension cord go from the solar panel farm to the space elevator and rund down the elevator cable to the earth.
If it is difficult to lower the elevator cable from orbit, then why not lower the wire of a solar power plant from it?
The van Allen belts would negate the need for solar panels, just a superconductor wire 50-60 thousand miles long.
Stupid question: of the graphene tether is severed close to the station for some reason, wouldn't it then wrap around the earth like a whip like 10 times due to the rotation of the earth? It's a sincere question, the effects of such speeds are hard to fathom.
We already have space elevators we just need to build skyscrapers tall enough to contain them. ;)
So a space elevator tethered to a space solar farm with the electrity fed down the space elevator would work. Just saying
Yuh, but the Morgans' and other monied folk don't want free energy!, they want to maintain a stranglehold on society by any means, it's called hydrolic despotism.
And now we will have more Simon videos in the future 😂
The issue with underwater cities is their main draw was "the abundance of the sea" back when we thought the sea would be an inexhaustible resource. Unfortunately we've already pushed the oceans to near exhaustion. There's no real reason to build underwater other than novelty.
@7:26 "high powered laser"
First they would need to build a power station, or lots of solar panels!
I once heard of a book called Sunstroke, in which a space based solar array beaming energy back to Earth breaks from its tether an begins microwaving everything on the surface as it orbits the planet.
Better get that SPF 5000.
good to see you’re branching out into comedy
Aside from curing mortality there is nothing more important than space exploration.
Definitely need space colonization before a cure for death, I personally don't want the earth to be ruled by an immortal anti-natal upper class
One day, aliens will find the remains of humanity, and think "man they had potential".
The biggest science fiction story failure i can think of is clothing. In some stories the heroes would get up in the morning and print out a set of clothes from a printer/ recycler. At the end of the day they would toss the old clothing in the recycler to be recycled. As close to no laundry as i can imagine.
Living underwater sounds great but it takes just one bolt to fail and boom, dead
It won’t be too long before Miami is an underwater city.