posted
I was thinking about the Voyager episode "Rise" today. It's the one where Tuvok and Neelix try to escape the atmosphere in an orbital mining tether with a bunch of locals after an asteroid hit.
Anyway, I've always thought the whole idea of such a machine was quite rediculous, but not being an astrophysics type guy, I'm not sure how far off I am.
I would think that several considerations would make this device impossible:
1) such a structure, with a base no wider than a house, would likely collapse under its own weight long before leaving the atmosphere.
2) From what I gathered, this teher was actually attached to an orbital body as well as to the planet's surface. I can't imagine this working since it would likely pull the body out of orbit. Also, the variation in rotational velocity along the length of the tether would most certainly tear it to bits.
Am I off, or was this idea pretty far fetched? Not that Voyager didn't come up with other far fetched ideas... I just don't remember us ever talking about this one.
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
ive seen a few popular science stories featuring variations of this idea... i think the voyager version was moronic though.. i spernt most of that episode either cringing or laughing, or at times, doing both so hard simultaneously that i wanted to cry. thats on my list of the 10 worst voyager episodes ever.
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
It's actually quite feasable. Nano-tubes (carbon polymers; an offshoot of buckyballs) possess sufficient strength to withstand the huge rotational and gravitational stress such a surface-to-orbit "cablecar" would be subjected to.
Clarke used this concept in 3001, I believe.
[ July 05, 2002, 11:44: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Uh, no. The satellite simply has to be in a geosynchronous orbit. This is not unusual or particularly hard. Now, to build your tether/mushroom/skyhook thing, you do need Interesting Materials, as Cartman points out. But not Impossible Materials.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Not necessarily. For a body to be pulled out of orbit, it would need to have a significant mass compared to the planet.
However, the really cool thing is that the cable need not actually be attached to the planet!
The "orbital tether" concept was also used in Kim Stanley Robinson's "Red Mars" trilogy. They used Phobos (moved into a geosynchronous orbit) as a counterweight/anchor, and lowered the cable from there. They stopped the cable just a few meters short of the surface in the middle of a big crater, and the cable literally hung in midair!
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Incidently, while there was indeed such a structure in 3001, Clarke (and others) came up with the idea some 30 or 40 years earlier, and had used it in several other (and much, much better) books.
And why did I say mushroom? I don't think anyone calls them mushrooms. Beanstalks is what I was thinking of.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
It's not connected to a "satellite" per se, either natural or artificial. There's a destination station that's actually at the midpoint of the tether; on the other side of it is a rotational counterweight. Think of it like a centrifugal sling or a hammer throw--you're constantly throwing out the counterweight & this keeps the tether taut & in place.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
I don't mean to drown this thread in dull posts, but I want to say that this sort of idea is such a good one, provided you have the necessary technology, that such tethers should be the rule in Star Trek, and not the exception.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Wow. Thanks for the info guys. One other thing, though... explain geo synch orbit. From what I gather, it's an orbit in which the orbiting body remains in the same relative position to the planet. It doesn't go around the planet like the moon goes around the earth... it just stays put, right?
I'm just having trouble understanding the physics of how it works and I figure I'll understand one of your explanations better than a text book's
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
The closer to a body (like the Earth) you are, the faster you have to go to maintain a stable orbit. For instance, Mercury goes around the sun once every 88 days, while it takes Pluto 248 years. Blah blah blah, gravity, etc.
Anyway, let's say we want to get a satellite hanging over downtown Tehran 24 hours a day. The shuttle, orbiting at a usual altitude of about (I think) 150 miles or so, travels at a speed a bit over 17,000 mph. This is fast. Too fast, as it turns out. The shuttle goes all the way around the planet every 90 minutes (or so). We need an orbit in which it will take 24 hours for our satellite to travel all the way around the Earth, so that Tehran, which is also traveling all the way around the planet (so to speak) in 24 hours, is always underneath.
As it happens, our satellite will need to be 22,223 miles up, traveling at a velocity near 7,000 mph.
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
In geostationary orbit, an object's speed is such that it retains its position above the same point on the surface of a planetary body.
Geosynchronous satellites have an orbital period of 24 hours. We want those orbits to be suitable for communication (and other purposes), which means that a satellite's:
1). radial velocity must be zero 2). tangential velocity must be constant 3). relative location must be fixed
The only way to meet all conditions is to place the satellite at an altitude of approximately 36,000 kilometers. At that height, its orbital velocity causes it to "hover in place" --- the centripetal force that attempts to pull the satellite towards its rotational center is balanced by its momentum. If you're interested, I could attempt to explain Newton's laws which govern these mechanics
Alternatively, a quick visit to howstuffworks.com could tell you exactly the same
[ July 05, 2002, 16:21: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
I don't mean to drown this thread in dull posts, but I want to say that this sort of idea is such a good one, provided you have the necessary technology, that such tethers should be the rule in Star Trek, and not the exception.
I disagree. What with shuttles being so bloody efficient even in the 22nd century, to build and maintain an orbital tether when you can very likely build and maintain a number of shuttlecraft and cargo haulers that can far more work than the tehter ever could in less time - a tether trip may take a few hours, limited by the physical speed of the actual lift, when shuttles can get to orbit in minutes. As with everything else in Trek, environmental damage by their technology is almost never an issue, so this would not be a factor.
What *would* be a factor would be if the tether were ever to fall. KSR's book shows exactly that, and the catastrophe of having something that long hit the planet extremely fast, essentially winding its way around the planet and crushing everything in its path. Anything strong enough to resist shear and weather will be strong enough to survive re-entry, and so something like that falling over Earth would kill a lot of people, and piss off a lot more people. So no, I don't see orbital tethers being s good thing in Trek.
Nor for that matter have I ever seen the logic of placing a massive spacedock in orbit as seen in STIII et. al. Can you imaigne what'd happen if one of THOSE things fell to the surface?
posted
Well, yeah, and if something ever went wrong with a warp core while a ship is in orbit it would probably sterilize the planet down to the bedrock. This doesn't happen, however, in the fictional stories to which we are a party to, and so we could presume that any Federation beanstalk would be relatively immune to disaster as well.
Your point about incredibly efficient shuttles is well-taken, though, and it was something I thought about several minutes after posting, but I stand by my point for two reasons. One, I suspect a UFP-designed orbital tether would be even more efficient than a UFP-designed shuttle for your usual boring "let's get this stuff into orbit" jobs. And two, I don't necessarily mean that Earth needs one of the things. (At least, not Star Trek's Earth.) Or even any Federation world. But they should be out there. The Borg should be engaged in engineering megaprojects to boggle the mind, for instance, but that's perhaps somewhat beside the point.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
And t'round out all the hoohah, what's the cover story for the July 2002 issue of Popular Mechanics? You guessed it...
[ July 05, 2002, 19:28: Message edited by: Shik ]
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
