NationStates

I know! Build a trade hubs on Mars, Ceres, and Ganymede, then use them as bases for asteroid mining.

Coalition of North American States wrote:I know! Build a trade hubs on Mars, Ceres, and Ganymede, then use them as bases for asteroid mining.

Easier said then done. Without a cheaper and more robust way of getting materials and personnel into orbit, like a space elevator, any venture would be very costly.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Coalition of North American States wrote:I know! Build a trade hubs on Mars, Ceres, and Ganymede, then use them as bases for asteroid mining.

Easier said then done. Without a cheaper and more robust way of getting materials and personnel into orbit, like a space elevator, any venture would be very costly.

Are you talking about the elevator that is an actual physical construct going miles into the air (serious engineering issues there), that somehow does not have issues due to things like winds in the atmosphere, hurricanes and all that jazz?

Hmmmmm , use border wall money to invade Mexico and then make Mexico pay for our mars expedition !

Redsection wrote:Hmmmmm , use border wall money to invade Mexico and then make Mexico pay for our mars expedition !

No need for a border wall when you have no border.

Neutraligon wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Easier said then done. Without a cheaper and more robust way of getting materials and personnel into orbit, like a space elevator, any venture would be very costly.

Are you talking about the elevator that is an actual physical construct going miles into the air (serious engineering issues there), that somehow does not have issues due to things like winds in the atmosphere, hurricanes and all that jazz?

Yeah, bit beyond our capability at the moment.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:Are you talking about the elevator that is an actual physical construct going miles into the air (serious engineering issues there), that somehow does not have issues due to things like winds in the atmosphere, hurricanes and all that jazz?

Yeah, bit beyond our capability at the moment.

Yeah, especially when we don't have anything able to support the weight of what is being proposed. Our tallest buildings now are nowhere near a mile high.

Neutraligon wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Yeah, bit beyond our capability at the moment.

Yeah, especially when we don't have anything able to support the weight of what is being proposed. Our tallest buildings now are nowhere near a mile high.

I think most designs would just have a (obviously very strong) flexible cable compose most of the elevator, and the shuttles would climb it to reach orbit. Still beyond out reach, but better then a 120,000KM skyscraper.

And I think current skyscrapers are limited to 1.6KM theoretical height when using steel as the main component...I forget the name of the rule but it has to do with the base having to tolerate the entire weight of the structure. The tallest under construction is 1KM, in Saudi Arabia I think.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:Yeah, especially when we don't have anything able to support the weight of what is being proposed. Our tallest buildings now are nowhere near a mile high.

I think most designs would just have a (obviously very strong) flexible cable compose most of the elevator, and the shuttles would climb it to reach orbit. Still beyond out reach, but better then a 120,000KM skyscraper.

And I think current skyscrapers are limited to 1.6KM theoretical height when using steel as the main component...I forget the name of the rule but it has to do with the base having to tolerate the entire weight of the structure. The tallest under construction is 1KM, in Saudi Arabia I think.

Flexible cable needs something to attach to, otherwise it would...flex under int's own weight. Even our nano tubes today are not able to do what you are talking about.

Neutraligon wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
I think most designs would just have a (obviously very strong) flexible cable compose most of the elevator, and the shuttles would climb it to reach orbit. Still beyond out reach, but better then a 120,000KM skyscraper.

And I think current skyscrapers are limited to 1.6KM theoretical height when using steel as the main component...I forget the name of the rule but it has to do with the base having to tolerate the entire weight of the structure. The tallest under construction is 1KM, in Saudi Arabia I think.

Flexible cable needs something to attach to, otherwise it would...flex under int's own weight. Even our nano tubes today are not able to do what you are talking about.

Either an asteroid towed in from the asteroid belt, or a reeeeealy long cable. And yeah, that's the biggest problem. Graphite has been suggested, but even that might not be enough.

Go to mars and make Mexico pay for it.

Neutraligon wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Easier said then done. Without a cheaper and more robust way of getting materials and personnel into orbit, like a space elevator, any venture would be very costly.

Are you talking about the elevator that is an actual physical construct going miles into the air (serious engineering issues there), that somehow does not have issues due to things like winds in the atmosphere, hurricanes and all that jazz?

To be fair, as long as there's a counterweight at the other end (assuming said end is far enough away from the surface), then the whole "wind" thing isn't much of a problem.

Primary problem is mass producing a material that can handle that amount of tension.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:Flexible cable needs something to attach to, otherwise it would...flex under int's own weight. Even our nano tubes today are not able to do what you are talking about.

Either an asteroid towed in from the asteroid belt, or a reeeeealy long cable. And yeah, that's the biggest problem. Graphite has been suggested, but even that might not be enough.

Problem with an asteroid, at least the first one that comes to mind, is getting it inside the Roche limit. Most designs I'm aware of use a cable longer than the geostationary orbit altitude, with a station at the end as a counterbalance. Also, the material you're thinking of isn't graphite, its carbon nanotubes. Different allotrope.

Old Garcy wrote:Go to mars and make Mexico pay for it.

go to mexico and make mars pay for it

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Coalition of North American States wrote:I know! Build a trade hubs on Mars, Ceres, and Ganymede, then use them as bases for asteroid mining.

Easier said then done. Without a cheaper and more robust way of getting materials and personnel into orbit, like a space elevator, any venture would be very costly.

You mean the thing that, due to Mar's gravity, would actually be possible to build on Mars? Hence why having a permanent settlement on Mars is important?

Why are we even still funding a PUBLIC company?! We should spend as much as we want to build a wall. Sieg Heil America!

National Conservative America wrote:Why are we even still funding a PUBLIC company?! We should spend as much as we want to build a wall. Sieg Heil America!

We want to spend $0.00

Neanderthaland wrote:

National Conservative America wrote:Why are we even still funding a PUBLIC company?! We should spend as much as we want to build a wall. Sieg Heil America!

We want to spend $0.00

And only half a tibia.

Grenartia wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Either an asteroid towed in from the asteroid belt, or a reeeeealy long cable. And yeah, that's the biggest problem. Graphite has been suggested, but even that might not be enough.

Problem with an asteroid, at least the first one that comes to mind, is getting it inside the Roche limit. Most designs I'm aware of use a cable longer than the geostationary orbit altitude, with a station at the end as a counterbalance. Also, the material you're thinking of isn't graphite, its carbon nanotubes. Different allotrope.

Wouldn't it need to be outside the Roche limit, since being inside it would cause the asteroid to disintegrate due to gravitational tidal stresses. I think 36,000 KM would do, in theory. And to get it there, we'd just have to attach a thruster or two and be very careful, don't want it to get caught in earths gravity well. That would be bad.

I meant Graphene, which does form carbon nanotubes when rolled up. Or we could use the diamond teather from Futurama https://www.technologyreview.com/s/5436 ... anothread/

The Emerald Legion wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Easier said then done. Without a cheaper and more robust way of getting materials and personnel into orbit, like a space elevator, any venture would be very costly.

You mean the thing that, due to Mar's gravity, would actually be possible to build on Mars? Hence why having a permanent settlement on Mars is important?

But why would you want one on mars? It would be considerably more expensive then building one on earth, wouldn't have much potential for fiscal return, and there's nothing on Mars worth taking off the planet, most of the stuff will need to go down, which can be done with gravity.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Grenartia wrote:
Problem with an asteroid, at least the first one that comes to mind, is getting it inside the Roche limit. Most designs I'm aware of use a cable longer than the geostationary orbit altitude, with a station at the end as a counterbalance. Also, the material you're thinking of isn't graphite, its carbon nanotubes. Different allotrope.

Wouldn't it need to be outside the Roche limit, since being inside it would cause the asteroid to disintegrate due to gravitational tidal stresses. I think 36,000 KM would do, in theory. And to get it there, we'd just have to attach a thruster or two and be very careful, don't want it to get caught in earths gravity well. That would be bad.

I meant Graphene, which does form carbon nanotubes when rolled up. Or we could use the diamond teather from Futurama https://www.technologyreview.com/s/5436 ... anothread/

The Emerald Legion wrote:
You mean the thing that, due to Mar's gravity, would actually be possible to build on Mars? Hence why having a permanent settlement on Mars is important?

But why would you want one on mars? It would be considerably more expensive then building one on earth, wouldn't have much potential for fiscal return, and there's nothing on Mars worth taking off the planet, most of the stuff will need to go down, which can be done with gravity.

Lot of natural resources on Mars. While it would probably be better to just build the factories there, the end products would eventually have to leave.

Go to Mars, you might actually accomplish something worthwhile doing that

Alvecia wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Wouldn't it need to be outside the Roche limit, since being inside it would cause the asteroid to disintegrate due to gravitational tidal stresses. I think 36,000 KM would do, in theory. And to get it there, we'd just have to attach a thruster or two and be very careful, don't want it to get caught in earths gravity well. That would be bad.

I meant Graphene, which does form carbon nanotubes when rolled up. Or we could use the diamond teather from Futurama https://www.technologyreview.com/s/5436 ... anothread/



But why would you want one on mars? It would be considerably more expensive then building one on earth, wouldn't have much potential for fiscal return, and there's nothing on Mars worth taking off the planet, most of the stuff will need to go down, which can be done with gravity.

Lot of natural resources on Mars. While it would probably be better to just build the factories there, the end products would eventually have to leave.

Why not build both, and one on lunar for good measure. Lunar could be a technology demonstrator.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Alvecia wrote:Lot of natural resources on Mars. While it would probably be better to just build the factories there, the end products would eventually have to leave.

Why not build both, and one on lunar for good measure. Lunar could be a technology demonstrator.

Not much need for it on the moon tbh. Construction and maintenance would probably cost more in the long run than just regular launch given it's low gravity and lack of atmosphere.

Alvecia wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Why not build both, and one on lunar for good measure. Lunar could be a technology demonstrator.

Not much need for it on the moon tbh. Construction and maintenance would probably cost more in the long run than just regular launch given it's low gravity and lack of atmosphere.

But it would reassure investors on the earth/mars elevator, and might reveal unknown problems that could be addressed before building more expensive ones. Also, Lunar tourism would probably be a thing. The moon is also closer, the distance to mars is always a pain.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

Alvecia wrote:Not much need for it on the moon tbh. Construction and maintenance would probably cost more in the long run than just regular launch given it's low gravity and lack of atmosphere.

But it would reassure investors on the earth/mars elevator, and might reveal unknown problems that could be addressed before building more expensive ones. Also, Lunar tourism would probably be a thing. The moon is also closer, the distance to mars is always a pain.

I feel like it's just a waste. Why build it when it's much cheaper and easier to use another method? I also feel like you wouldn't need a full working prototype to reassure investors. Particularly one that's bound to be financially worthless.