|
|
|
Tanner
|
 |
« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2008, 03:35:03 PM » |
|
They shall be the first to touch Airship 2600.
Then they'll all die horrible, painful deaths for attempting to be on the same level as It.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Tanner
|
|
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2008, 04:22:44 PM » |
|
I just looked up Airship 2600, and oh my :D
Biggerfish: late to the party since forever. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Zaphos
Guest
|
|
« Reply #3 on: September 22, 2008, 05:06:45 PM » |
|
Wikipedia attributes the idea of space elevators to this guy:  The key concept of the space elevator appeared in 1895 when Russian scientist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky was inspired by the Eiffel Tower in Paris to consider a tower that reached all the way into space, built from the ground up to an altitude of 35,790 kilometers above sea level (geostationary orbit). He noted that a "celestial castle" at the top of such a spindle-shaped cable would have the "castle" orbiting Earth in a geo stationary orbit (i.e. the castle would remain over the same spot on Earth's surface).
Space castles. Nice. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
neon
|
|
« Reply #4 on: September 22, 2008, 05:57:32 PM » |
|
I attribute the idea of the space elevator to this.
from wikipedia:
Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator is a children's book by Welsh author Roald Dahl. It is the sequel to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, continuing the story of young Charlie Bucket and eccentric candymaker Willy Wonka as they travel through space in the Great Glass Elevator.
Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator was first published in the United States by Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. in 1972, and in the UK by George Allen & Unwin in 1973. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was written by Roald Dahl in 1964.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
deadeye
First Manbaby Home
Level 10
|
|
« Reply #5 on: September 22, 2008, 06:42:05 PM » |
|
Skyhooks are superior to carbon nanotubes in every respect.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Seth
Guest
|
|
« Reply #6 on: September 22, 2008, 06:45:32 PM » |
|
in space
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Zaphos
Guest
|
|
« Reply #7 on: September 22, 2008, 08:56:54 PM » |
|
Skyhooks are superior to carbon nanotubes in every respect.
Would you say that to carbon nanotubes' faces?  Look at what you have done, they are crying now!  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 22, 2008, 09:03:46 PM by Zaphos »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Alex May
...is probably drunk right now.
Level 10
hen hao wan
|
|
« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2008, 10:53:16 PM » |
|
Wouldn't skyhooks be made from nanotubes anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Rory
|
|
« Reply #9 on: September 23, 2008, 02:02:06 AM » |
|
It's still gonna be a looong way off though. And really only feasible with carbon nanotubes cause they're so light.
And I'd actually prefer a Glass Elevator, as seen in the most recent charlie and the chocolate factory, the one with Johnny Depp. But maybe tinted.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Gainsworthy
|
|
« Reply #10 on: September 23, 2008, 04:39:14 AM » |
|
Shame Nanotubes are so damned expensive, really. Still feasible, but... well, less so. For now.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
medieval
Guest
|
|
« Reply #11 on: September 23, 2008, 04:56:41 AM » |
|
Now everyone will forget about the LHC, then the LHC will create dragons that will eat us all when we expect it the least.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
shinygerbil
Blew Blow (Loved It)
Level 10
GET off your horse
|
|
« Reply #12 on: September 23, 2008, 05:27:11 AM » |
|
I did an A-level Physics project on carbon nanotubes.  I got 100%.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
olücæbelel
|
|
|
|
GregWS
|
|
« Reply #13 on: September 23, 2008, 10:48:45 AM » |
|
Well, it seems that we have an expert among us! Tell us, expert on carbon nanotubes, how long until they become 4 times stronger?
And for those that are talking about the cost of a space elevator, the second it can be made it will be made. I mean, just look at how much the LHC is costing, and that doesn't even take people into space.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
medieval
Guest
|
|
« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2008, 10:53:20 AM » |
|
and that doesn't even take people into space.
How do you know |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dacke
|
|
« Reply #15 on: September 23, 2008, 11:54:15 AM » |
|
and that doesn't even take people into space.
How do you knowIt will make space dragons! We shall fly into space on their backs. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
programming • free software animal liberation • veganism anarcho-communism • intersectionality • feminism |
|
|
|
Cheater‽
|
|
« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2008, 03:20:22 PM » |
|
and that doesn't even take people into space.
I told them to build it vertically and with a hatch, but did those CERN boys listen? No. They did not. We're all paying for that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Valter
|
|
« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2008, 03:40:14 PM » |
|
But that wouldn't be a space elevator! That would be more like a Giant Space Ring. Way more boring  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
GregWS
|
|
« Reply #18 on: September 23, 2008, 03:48:26 PM » |
|
I think you're all forgetting something very important:
A space elevator is required to begin construction on the Super Hadron Collider World 3.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mildmojo
Level 1
summer rain (soon)
|
|
« Reply #19 on: September 24, 2008, 08:33:05 AM » |
|
But that wouldn't be a space elevator! That would be more like a Giant Space Ring. Way more boring Are you kidding? A 53-mile-long rollercoaster, boring? Think of it... You get hauled 26.5 miles up to the apex, then have a 13.25-mile trip until you're perpendicular to the planet, and then you're basically *inverted* for 20 miles. Evacuate the tube of gases, give everybody respirators and suits, mash it up with some maglev tech, and you negate terminal velocity. That'd be a screamer right there. Totally on board with the vertical LHC idea. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Player
