Thread: The Space Elevator

Originally Posted by supreme

Wow, that is so cool! Clean space travel as well! I hope I'm here to see it!
Wonder how safe it will be, could anything knock out the laser ribbon and
then would the elevator crash back to earth? I guess the designers would
figure all of that out. Very Cool!

Here's an example of the environmentalist left brainwashing our youth. The space shuttle main engine combines hydrogen with LOX to produce water steam, the cleanest chemical reaction imaginable.

Thank you Nasa I choose to believe. All hail Nasa and also our new useful space elevator project! As we sure ain't getting off this planet lately. Nasa and our evolution. The private sector. With money we can do it. Believe it, support it. Progress it. You'll be off the planet in no time with Nasa, ready to explore the universe. And if not Nasa, pay someone else to screw you over. All we need is some fancy music and some more broken promises. This will delay your yearning for space travel for atleast another generation before we can come up with some other excuse to keep you grounded. It's a new project, it's different. You can believe in this one, unlike the Apollo missions. By the time you don't believe in this project hopefully you will have a short enough memory span that you can just forget about all the other times you got screwed over. That way we can start a new lie and start it all over again.

Originally Posted by supreme

Wow, that is so cool! Clean space travel as well! I hope I'm here to see it!
Wonder how safe it will be, could anything knock out the laser ribbon and
then would the elevator crash back to earth? I guess the designers would
figure all of that out. Very Cool!

Originally Posted by drewmandan

Here's an example of the environmentalist left brainwashing our youth. The space shuttle main engine combines hydrogen with LOX to produce water steam, the cleanest chemical reaction imaginable.

So...

Professor Fraser said: "The classic example of environmental impact is in Kazakhstan at the Baikonur launch site, where there are reports of quite serious environmental damage."

For most shuttles, the damage comes from the solid rocket boosters, or SRBs, require at shuttle launch to provide 71.4% of the thrust at lift-off and elevate the shuttle to an altitude of 45km (28 miles).

As a shuttle launches, a "cloud" becomes visible which contains SRB exhaust products, either dissolved or as particles in the water vapour released by the main engines.

Hydrochloric acid formed in this launch cloud leads to acidic deposits in the surrounding area, a phenomenon which may also be observed some distance away if exhausts are carried on prevailing winds.

Dead fish
The scenes of dead fish in Spain could be repeated next to launch sites
John Pike, president of Global Security.org, and an expert on the US space programme says: "The hydrochloric acid can pit the paint on your car if it is too close to the launch site."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4130980.stm

...with the scrapping of the need for SRB's, is the shuttle not even cleaner than it previously was?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

...with the scrapping of the need for SRB's, is the shuttle not even cleaner than it previously was?

I can't decipher the meaning of this sentence, but the shuttle gets most of its orbital energy from its main engines, which do produce pure water. NASA didn't use that reaction because of the environment; it just happens to be a very energetic reaction. The reason SRBs are used are purely economical. There's no physical reason the shuttle couldn't go on H+LOX alone.

Originally Posted by drewmandan

I can't decipher the meaning of this sentence, but the shuttle gets most of its orbital energy from its main engines, which do produce pure water. NASA didn't use that reaction because of the environment; it just happens to be a very energetic reaction. The reason SRBs are used are purely economical. There's no physical reason the shuttle couldn't go on H+LOX alone.

I just re-read it, and realized that what I meant to say was:

"...in scrapping the SRB's, wouldn't the space elevator still be a cleaner way into orbit than the present boosters?"

(Sorry. Smoked a bowl as soon as I got home. )

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I just re-read it, and realized that what I meant to say was:

"...in scrapping the SRB's, wouldn't the space elevator still be a cleaner way into orbit than the present boosters?"

(Sorry. Smoked a bowl as soon as I got home. )

Dude, I like your style.

I suppose if you consider all the maintenance and the low efficiency of the rocket, one could argue that a tether might have smaller lifecycle CO2 emissions, but that's assuming producing either the H, LOX, or laser energy produces CO2 emissions at all. Bottom line, the main concern is energy usage, not environmental bullshit.