posted
On the topic of shuttles being more efficient than tethers... I'm not so sure about that. I'm not well-versed in the physics that would be involved, but isn't one of the major benefits of the tether supposed to be that a lift that goes up regains 90% of the energy that it spent rising on the way back down? This would make it extremely energy-efficient.
Consider that when you're on a shuttlecraft, you get your escape velocity from a one-time burn of energy from a fusion reactor. This energy is nonrecoverable, and also requires more fuel.
Now, this certainly wouldn't work for the fast transportation that's often needed, like for sending people up to orbit. Because the elevators WOULD still move relatively slowly. However, for non-urgent cargo transportation, I'd wager that an orbital tether would still have a big advantage.
-------------------- “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
I'd think that transporter technology would be far more efficient than either shuttle or 'beanstalk'. No energy being lost via friction or moving parts...
BTW: for fiction dealing with beanstalks - read Sheffield.
ABTW: The 'stationary orbit' is also referred to as the 'Clarke Belt' - named after the golden age sci-fi writer who pointed out the usefulness of communications sattelites positioned here.
-------------------- 'One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.' - Lazarus Long
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
It seems a sad day when Clarke needs an introduction in a place like this...
And doesn't the TNG technical manual more or less say explicitly that shuttles are more effecient for any extended bit of freight moving you might need done? Not to mention that every time we see an established orbital facility or similar, it's swarming with shuttles, which would appear to be empirical evidence of their value in such conditions.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Yeah, yeah... but shuttles are so... normal. It'd be cool to have something that's really "farfetched" from our perspective. We already use the Space Shuttle, albeit at a greatly reduced frequency. Something like a space tower would be a really fun thing to actually see in SFX shots. "Rise" didn't do the concept justice, IMO.
-------------------- “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
Well, like Treknophyle said, the "really farfetched cool-looking thing" that augments/replaces the shuttles in Trek is the transporter. Sure, shuttles may move a few dozen people or a few tons of freight from ground to orbit with relative ease, but what if you have to move ten thousand people per day, or pump imported and exported goods up and down constantly?
A transporter apparently is impervious to the problems of moving stuff in and out of a gravity well, or matching linear and angular velocities, or any other traditional space launcher problems. And it runs on the same AA battery that a hand phaser uses (at least in TNG "The Hunted" it did). Surely it must be the most attractive surface-to-orbit transport system imaginable.
And since Delta quadrant doesn't have much in the way of transporters, it's only natural that our first two beanstalk references come from there...
As for which is the fastest - shuttle, beanstalk, transporter - it probably mainly depends on the terminal logistics. A transporter works more or less instantaneously; a shuttle ascent probably takes a few minutes; and the beanstalk cabin speed depends on how much Trek magic you add to the basically real-world device. But how long does it take to do the preflight checks on a shuttle, or maneuver her through the traffic jam of thousands of other small craft departing and arriving? Will transporters (with potentially a very large number of platforms) present fewer congestion problems than the one or two narrow beanstalks per planet? Will they have "bandwidth" problems?
I'd imagine that UFP civilian surface-to-orbit traffic relies heavily on transporters, explaining why we don't see much in the way of expansive shuttleports or landing-capable starships when we visit Earth. The military is more enamored with the old-fashioned shuttles, since they are more versatile in adverse conditions - plus the military logistics are not quite as demanding.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
