Re: shuttle disaster
* Pigeon (jah.pigeon@ukonline.co.uk) wrote:
>>
> Yeah, but we need something better than the shuttle to get there.
>
> Even without the two tragedies, there's still the problem that the
> shuttle (or any rocket) uses vast amounts of energy to transport very
> small masses; and the energy is all lost, there's no way of recovering
> it on the way back down and you have the problem of trying to stop it
> burning the spacecraft up as well.
>
> I like the idea (Arthur C Clarke, Iain M Banks and doubtless others)
> of what you can do with a material with very high tensile strength: a
> space elevator, "sloir than a rokit or whatevir but mutch moar
> efishint". An orbiting mass somewhere outside the geostationary orbit
> is anchored to the Earth with a cable. You can then use it as the top
> end of an elevator mechanism, with counterweights of course. You can
> use the Earth's rotational energy to slingshot spacecraft off the top
> of it, and recover that energy when they return.
>
There was am item on Slashdot a while back (couple of months?) about a
Japanese group who had figured out how to make carbon nanotubes, which
is the first step toward Clark's space elevator. Very strong, very
light, and flexible. Making them in quantity is another matter...
Cam
--
Cam Ellison Ph.D. R.Psych.
From Roberts Creek on B.C.'s incomparable Sunshine Coast
cam@ellisonet.ca
camellison@dccnet.com
cam@fleuryassociates.com
Reply to: