Re: beanstalks (was Re: Metallic hydrogen ...)
From: Pete Lynn (pete_at_peterlynnkites.com)
Date: 06/10/04
- Next message: Paul Stowe: "Re: Prefered frame of reference"
- Previous message: tj Frazir: "Re: Why electricity runs the wrong way"
- In reply to: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: beanstalks (was Re: Metallic hydrogen ...)"
- Next in thread: Henry Spencer: "Re: beanstalks (was Re: Metallic hydrogen ...)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 15:55:21 +1200
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimmenegay@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:TdPxc.21889$eH1.9938006@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
>
> You are forgetting that empty elevators going down for another
> load can help to lift the full elevators going up.
Actually I was interpreting payload in the strict sense, so no. Also, I
do not think this is even practically possible in the short term, too
heavy.
I should make the point that beanstalk mass is highly dependent on
specific strength, which is still very uncertain, so for the sake of
argument, within an order of magnitude is fine. :-)
> Too bad you can't pull off that trick with rockets.
That is what rotovators are for, much cheaper and easier.
> Your calculation needs to count the elevators as part of the fixed
> mass of the beanstalk - a capital cost, not as an operating cost,
> unlike the cost of lifting and then lowering rocket shells.
Pete.
- Next message: Paul Stowe: "Re: Prefered frame of reference"
- Previous message: tj Frazir: "Re: Why electricity runs the wrong way"
- In reply to: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: beanstalks (was Re: Metallic hydrogen ...)"
- Next in thread: Henry Spencer: "Re: beanstalks (was Re: Metallic hydrogen ...)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
