Megaprojects of the Future
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 06. 2024
- Use my link ridge.com/sideprojects to get up to 30% off through December 20th and enter free to win a Ridge bundle worth $4,000. Video Sponsored by Ridge.
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
Warographics: / @warographics643
MegaProjects: / @megaprojects9649
Into The Shadows: / intotheshadows
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Casual Criminalist: / thecasualcriminalist
Decoding the Unknown: / @decodingtheunknown2373
This video is #sponsored by Ridge.
Use my link ridge.com/sideprojects to get up to 30% off through December 20th and enter free to win a Ridge bundle worth $4,000. Video Sponsored by Ridge.
You need to use someone’s codes to save 30% of your reputation. Sorry, Simon… but your Shit has gotten scammy. Feels like you have 27,000 CZcams channels not to make quality content, but to collect ad revenue from 27,000 channels. Prove me wrong.
@dougkiphut1362 You are completely right. How dare he try and make a living from the videos. It is almost like he is forcing you to buy the products he advertises.
Wallets and key holders? What are they?
This is 2023 nearly 24, don't tell ridge we have technology now, like a smartphones, cars that don't use keys and even our front door can open with a tap on the lock with the phone. Sooo
What are wallets and keys
Please please please never stop ♥️
Yeah, how dare he have a hundred channels that are monetized but selling the same crap as everyone else. It’s just too much mediocrity from someone who used to be pretty good.
fun fact: I got to submit an engineering design proposal and prototype back in 2021 to a NASA Artemis competition which was designed to solve a lot of the problems that lunar dust poses (to electronics, launch systems, eventual habitats, space suits, human health, etc.). my group spent almost a year designing a lunar dust filtration system for the phase 3 habitat of the Artemis mission. was a huge undertaking & it’s super cool to think that our input could actually influence the design of future lunar and martian habitats!
I now work for Northrop Grumman which is providing the SRBs for the SLS rockets, altitude control and abort motors for the Orion launch abort system, the HALO module for the lunar gateway orbiter, and the gateway -> lunar orbit transfer arm for the human landing system. it’s awesome to see just how much we can contribute to this monumental multi-decade mission!!
The lunar dust can only be mitigated. Seals of all sorts fail very quickly. How did you plan to cope with going into and out of space suits?
@@oldmech619 Different teams/submissions focused on different aspects of the lunar dust problem. We only focused on habitat dust mitigation. Obviously entering/exiting for EVAs was the main issue, so we designed an airlock filtration system to dislodge any dust clinging to the space suits during return & repressurization, then force it to the bottom of the airlock where it was collected & sealed off, and then the dusty air was passed through an intricate filtration system to pull out the dust. Lunar dust is actually ferromagnetic (it’s composed mostly of magnetic iron particles) and radiation from the sun causes electrostatic charging making it super susceptible to magnets. so instead of using a standard HEPA filter which would need to be continually replaced, my team designed a system of magnets which would trap the dust before the air is returned to the habitat. the magnets can then simply be demagnetized by inserting a paramagnetic rod to disrupt the field gradient, making most of the dust fall off while the remainder is removed by a deionized water rinse. the dust can then just be returned to the lunar surface. very little maintenance/upkeep required, no need to continually replace components (meaning there will be no space/mass implications on future resupply missions - just set it up once and go), and it’s a relatively cheap solution.
another bonus: most martian soil is also magnetic, so the same filtration technique could be used for future mars missions as well (:
@@oldmech619I'm told due to low 🎉gravity, and how fine the particulates are? That moon dust is insidious, and it WILL get to places it shouldn't, somehow. It isn't a question of if, but where, when, and how much.
If the devil designed dust it is moon dust.
Personally while it would be awesome to go to the moon, and have a base. I'm not sure why we are caught up on it until we can really start building on it. Meaning when we have the capabilities to launch super heavy things frequently.
There is nothing there!
I guess it is a good start for a Mars base though. (I think we should focus on Venus colonies instead. )
Awesome career, working on these projects must be pretty cool and at times surreal!!! (not to detract but SLS is way too expensive and impractical, starship will thankfully [hopefully] put a swift end to this boondoggle)
@@joeygrandview7304 Elon will run out of money before the FAA approves Starship for human flight.
Getting to the ISS's height is the least difficult part of going to the ISS. It's going to fly past you at 28 000 km/h so you'd better have good reflexes to catch it.
Attach a cannon the the elevator and shoot supplies at the ISS. But you're right, about 83% of the fuel is used getting to Orbital speeds.
Its why you hear all the time about universities sending a probe on a rocket they built into space. It falls back down in seconds to a few minutes because its a sub orbital velocity.
There is the possibility to "drop" the cargo from higher up.
I think, dropped from an altitude of about 6000 km, the cargo would end up in a orbit "similar" to the ISS....just a very excentric one.....
Some kind of propulsion still needed to change that excentricity😅
@@yourguard4 there isn't that sort of possibility, most of the energy is used in reaching the orbital speed - you still need to do that.
This is Physics, not Alice in wonderland.
@@gmailaccount9962 Wow lets ignore what I said.... I'll ignore what you said
@@gmailaccount9962 yeah I agreed with him, the comment I replied to is deleted, and suggested that you just stop part way and you're done
0:35 - Chapter 1 - Space elevator
3:45 - Mid roll ads
5:30 - Chapter 2 - Moon bases
8:20 - Chapter 3 - Solar farms in space
13:45 - Chapter 4 - Underwater cities
they can't even fill pot holes in the UK so I don't hold out much hope
Those are *microprojects* thats why -- I wish I were kidding
Not in Canaduh either.
They too busy hanging gay flags
They can and do eventually! They just use Old Soviet tactics and do it in the winter so the "fix" doesn't last long
They could use Tory MPs. There are loads of them, we don't get attached to them and there are some things even rats won't /can't do.
When/if they figure out how to safely mass produce graphene, I feel a space elevator will be one of the least exciting achievements.
I logical extension of the space elevator should be the orbital shipyard.
The space elevator would allow for cost-effective movement of supplies and workers to and from the shipyard. The microgravity at the terminis of the elevator would allow for greater movement, but not be fully obstructive as microgravity in interplanetary space. Crafting and repair of vessels that far above a terrestrial body would be far cheaper to create and launch into space. It would also be a great place to act as a base for orbital cleanup drones to help keep Terra's skies clear of dangerous debris.
I think it makes the most sense for such a project to immediately follow the successful construction of a space elevator.
The Artemis project reminds me of one line from JFK's original speech about NASA's plans to put a man on the moon before 1970: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things-not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
This project is a huge undertaking and a massive team effort by everyone involved. Best of luck, y'all! I hope I am here to see it succeed.
The Space Elevator is applicable to other planets and celestial bodies. For locations in the solar system with weaker gravity than Earth's (such as the Moon or Mars), the strength-to-density requirements for tether materials are not as problematic, Currently available materials (such as Kevlar) are strong and light enough that they could be practical as the tether material for elevators there.
Yep. Mars has only 38 percent of Earth's gravity, so Kevlar would work for an elevator there, just fine.
No, it wouldn't work on any planet. Distance to geostationary orbit is like 6 times the radius of the planet itself. We talking about building a structure that's as tall as 3 planets stacked on top of each other.
Gravity is acceleration. Low Gravity means low acceleration. You don't need a space elevator to get moderate amounts of mass into orbit when there is low acceleration. A rocket accelerates independent of the Earth's rotation. A space elevator is tied to the earth and is thus exerting a constant force on the earth. You would have to balance that force with an elevator on the opposite side. You need lighter materials because F=ma. As the acceleration factor increases so does the amount of applied force. You compensate by reducing the amount of mass. A space elevator is a tetherball. As the radius increases, so must your rotation. As the outward force increases, you must apply force in the opposite direction to stabilize your spin. To get a space elevator to work, you need something with essential zero mass. And wouldn't you know it. At geostationary orbits, there is no atmosphere/mass. Space elevators are flat earth science. You can get one to work but will be impractical for lifting cargo into orbit.
More practically usable spaceships seem to be a more feasible option. I'd say humanity will master engine technology sooner than defeating gravity, so in my opinion that's where the focus should be. A spaceship that can take off more or less like an airplane will be so much more effective that a Space Elevator won't be necessary at all.
@tjroelsma 'defeating gravity'. That's a good one since gravity is acceleration. You would think that people would understand by now that the earth isn't flat. Why are you still using flat earth physics?
A moon base and solar space farm could both be more easily achieved if we did a space elevator first. At least, one would assume
I don't think solar farms for earth will ever happen. It just isn't worth it, unless we run out of space or require a ridiculous amount of energy in the future.
Now... Having solar farms to send power to the moon when there is no daylight for a few weeks at a time is a different story.
Personally I think we should just embrace fission. Focus to make smaller, and smaller reactors that are even safer. Especially for a moon base.
@@dianapennepacker6854 Wait a second, hold your horses, we have already developed the safest nuclear fission reactor ever, all the way back in the 50's, its called a molten salt breeder reactor, and it is by its very nature a naturally safe reactor that will automatically deactivate itself in the event of a cooling failure. Additionally these reactors can be powered by the high level nuclear waste produced by other light water reactors, solving the whole nuclear waste problem in one go.
And the other day I had seen an article about someone who made pumps that last longer in salt, solving the one Problem that was constantly being used as an excuse, but let me tell you the truth, its got nothing to do with the technicalities of pumping salt, it's all got to do with the fact that it is much harder to get weapons grade material from this kind of reactor, compared to currently used light water reactors.
Not really, a moon base first would be the best, as it is so much easier to launch from the moon. The problem with a moon base though is that moon dust, because moon dust is one really nasty thing, it is electrically charged by the sun, and so sticks to everything.
Personally I am more for the O'Niel cylinder type centrifugal gravity habitats, as they are so much safer then any other place, including earth. For perspective if a supernova goes off within 10 light years earth, earth will not survive, however if you have a spin gravity habitat with more then 3 feet of dirt inside, you can be 1 light year away and not even know it went off, closer then 1 light year is risky though, as supernova create a lot of neutrinos, which do become lethal at that range, as nothing blocks neutrinos. But other then neutrinos, there is no other radiation that would make it through the 3 feet of dirt, so in essence a spin gravity habitat can actually have less radiation inside then the background radiation we experience here on earth if you engineer it right.
Hopefully though mind uploading becomes possible soon, as a spacecraft with a few computers on it is much, much easier to build then a million plus tons spin gravity habitat.
@atlanciaza Getting supplies INTO space has always been the big limiter. There is a finite limit to how much a rocket can successfully carry, and they are of course very expensive. Building a moon base would be great, but building other things, especially closer to earth, would be a whole lot easier if you could make them on earth and then list them into space.
A space elevator would make *everything* we do in space easier.
It's not worth waiting for, though we should build one as soon as the engineering is proven out.
0:28 space elevators
5:24 moon bases
8:15 solar farms in space
13:40 underwater cities
Why couldn’t two solar farm run its energy down the space elevator? Two birds one stone
If the carbon nanotubes conduct electricity, that could work
Or just have nuclear power plants and not worry about it
@@southcoastinventors6583Germany is working on it.
The Wendelstein 7-X in Greifswald, Germany it's a Fusion Reactor.
Ya the solar farm in space is a bad idea. Good for some situations but it would be worse for the environment and cost way too much.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought of this. I'm not a fan of microwaving the power down to Earth as all sorts of things (aircraft, animals, weather) can end up in the microwave beam. The idea of sending the power down by wire is much more appealing (though I don't know how comfortable people would be travelling up a power cable).
I love the idea of the space elevator ever since i first read about them in science fiction books as a kid. But with all of the satellites currently in leo, how do we maintain the safety of the tether as it passes through that area? Given the satellite count is only going to get higher, and we cant exactly move the tether
New satellites would be able to move and even have an orbit that evades it. Existing satellites and debris would have to be sligthly moved or de-orbited before the space elevator gets constructed. I expect a space elevator will likely more exist of multiple threads linked to eachother in a way to create segments that in case of damage would be more easily replaced and the other threads would (for a time) take on the extra load/work.
Eitherway this is something that would definitely be worked out well before any space elevator would start production.
I love the idea of a space elevator but it feels almost certain that some religious nutjob will try to blow it up (tower of babel comes to mind)
@@Lodrik18 There would strict security against that and blowing something like that up shouldn't be easy either.
Blowing up a space elevator would probably require quite a substantial amount of explosives, and where exactly do you blow it up? On one of the tethers? It's highly designed to not break if even 2 tethers was destroyed. Placing a bomb on the elevator and blow it up like half way up might be the way to go, but I'm fairly certain getting to the elevator with a bomb will be quite a monumental task. Something like a space elevator would be humanities biggest construction in history, dwarfing out everything else ever built. It will require tremendous amounts of materials, people and money. Probably so much material, that we need to mine asteroids to het enough. Something like it would highly likely be the Worlds most secure place.
He saying it can " revolutionise"
Nooooo rich people will enjoy
Those that dont even have $1000 just go brrr
And what happens when a large satellite collides with the space elevator's tether? It's not like the tether can maneuver out of the way. Nor can many such satellites (or just space junk) have the ability to maneuver, either.
Probably bounce if it's made of nanotubes. If it's a large satellite we can track it, there's a Registry of stuff down to like 3 feet in size.
This has been thought of, and solutions proposed. Do a quick search online
Another option I've heard proposed is having the base on a ship so it could be maneuvered on demand.
1. The tether could move. It has to remain taut, but it doesn't have to remain straight. A little movement could get a sort of "jump rope" movement of just a few degrees, and timed correctly, it could avoid the space debris.
2. The space debris could be moved. The goal is that for any new satellite launched, it will need to have a way to deorbit it once its life is done. As for stuff up there now, there are already companies working on plans for orbital clean-up.
3. The debris could be captured. The space elevator could have magnetic plates to attract orbiting metals and/or nets to capture non-magnetic debris. It could then be collected and dealt with.
4. Funtioning satellites have maneuvering thrusters, so they can keep their orientation, and to avoid debris on their own. Those could also be used to move around the tether.
Little shuttle bots with nets go out and catch such nasties. Then the bots can party on the scrap money
Honestly, I think there is a huge market for space junk capture/elimination. A functional space plane with clean up in mind could make huge profits removing debris. Defunct satellites don’t have to be captured, you just need to slow them down, so they fall out of orbit. Tiny bits can be captured by air gel panels, like they used to capture particles from the comet years back. Send the bill to whomever is responsible for the garbage, making space safe again for new satellites and human exploration. There are literally dozens of space plane projects on paper, they just need to be built.
A space elevator connected to a solar farm would be neat. Solve 1 project's problem by tackling a separate herculean task.
using a space elevator to supply the ISS is uhhhh, an interesting prospect. Consider that the space station would be zooming past the elevator, so you need to accelerate to its speed once detaching from the elevator.
the space elevator can also be used to launch vehicles into space, like a giant earth sized version of SpinLaunch. the space elevator is the platform from which to build and maintain the solar farm . to link to low earth orbits, e.g. ISS, you can launch from higher up and "glide" down to dock.
@@CharlsonCKimnot possible at all
The space elevator will be fixed structure, from which ships will dock onto. It's like a harbour in space. Travel to and from the ISS will be undertaken by smaller spaceships
@@daemonblade-4f7a lmao this is pure science fiction 😂
@@CharlsonCKim spin launch can't work
3:28 Just one little problem with taking a space elevator to the ISS... You'd be trying to step off the elevator onto something going past at 17,100 mph.
Space elevator is that one idea that falls apart the more you think about it.
My favorite issues with it are of the "But what if it snaps in the middle for whatever reason." variety.
@@thearpox7873Heh, yup. I haven't done the math, but I expect a steel cable would snap under it's own weight if it was hanging from space all the way to the ground. Even without any additional tension from the lift or the counterweight beyond geostationary orbit.
@@BrandyBalloon You misunderstand. I meant, let's pretend we've built it and it already works. Then, a month later Allah sends us a snack, or maybe somebody flubs the maintenance, or a giant eagle smacks into it, or literally anything else.
Not a good image of what happens next, issit?
YES more sci fi megaprojects!
There is a heck of a lot of stuff orbiting Earth, making an elevator a questionable project. Much better and safer is to build a Lunar space elevator. Doesn't have to be so long, no weather, no atmospheric drag, less danger if something goes wrong. Less orbiting stuff to worry about. In the long run a Lunar elevator would be easier to pay for.
3:47 Once you get that high, you also need to match the speed and direction. It's going real fast that a way.
IIRC the attachment for the elevator would be in geostationary orbit so there would be no need to "match the speed". It would be over the same exact spot of the earth continuously. Not the same as low earth orbit or LEO.
@@Timmycoo I thought that this was shifted to be about LEO.
@@greggweber9967 It probably is and I'm missing something because a tether to geostationary is insane lol. I'd have to go re-watch PBS Space Time on it where they do a deepdive on it. Right now I'm afraid I won't retain any knowledge but if you find out how to cancel the angular momentum then lemme know. Or someone else who reads our comments lol.
@@Timmycoo he was talking about deploying things to LEO rather than go the entire way to GSO, problem is you need to match the speed and orbit of whatever you're deploying to and that's where most of the fuel use of a rocket is.
Nah that's not rights. Sorry lol. Would make no sense to have a bi-stationary telegraphing transport tether where one end STILL is locked in angular momentum.
Edit. The stupidest thought that we ALL forgot is centrifugal force lmao.
How Will it Work?
A space elevator would involve a tether anchored to the ground and stretching up into space. At the top of the elevator, a counterweight will serve to keep the cable taut. Centrifugal force will actually be responsible for holding the tether in space as the Earth rotates slowly
The Moon base is far more feasible than the fanciful dream the colonization of Mars. Also it's all of that 'random crap floating around up in space' would be an unacceptable risk to the space elevator.
Same way traveling faster than the speed of sound was for planes
@@southcoastinventors6583Yeah traveling to Mars then living on it is just like flying a plane 🤣
@@JohnH1 Traveling to space in metal tube doesn't sound very feasible almost a fanciful dream
@@southcoastinventors6583 Yeah. Weird how it happens *all the time* , these days.... 🤔😬
So the graphene they want to use for the space elevator is conductive. Have they determined what will happen to the cable when it passes through charged layers of the atmosphere and magnetosphere? Will it burn out like a giant fuse, from the massive current, or will it carry the charge, all the way to the ground, creating a hole in each charged layer? Either way, i wouldn't want to be the guy on the ground that has to catch the cable as it is lowered.
Should be made from boron nitride nano tubes! Stronger than carbon nanotechnology.
@@dianapennepacker6854 still sounds conductive. Even if it is only slightly more conductive than air, it's going to be a light show.
On the bit about using the space elevator to send people or supplies to low-Earth orbit: You'd still need to add quite a lot of delta-V to reach orbital velocity at that altitude. Using the ISS as an example, it orbits once every 90-minutes, so it would "whiz past" the elevator tether 16 times a day. Also, even more delta-V would be needed to change inclination of the orbit from equatorial out to the 51 degree orbit plane of the ISS. I say this to point out that we'd still need rockets, but could ditch the idea of a first stage that mostly just gets you above the appreciable atmosphere. A staging area attached to the tether at that altitude could be used as a fuel depot as well, meaning said rocket could be lifted empty and fueled before rocketing away to orbital speeds. (Although significant masses hanging about in the middle of the tether would increase the mass needed at geosynch (or beyond) to keep the tether taut.)
I've been chewing on a concept of a dual ended elevator with center station the outer tether being a tether/balist allowing to maintain orbit slower and the balist being able to be pulled in or out
I've read a book about a space hook catching planes at crazy speeds and was like no freaking way was that actually going to work
@@patrickday4206 I had a friend who worked briefly on the MXER project, which was a standalone tether flipping end-over-end using the ionosphere to keep momentum. Crazy project! czcams.com/video/fC21kuM9NgQ/video.html
I've also been thinking for some time that a low-orbit space elevator would be more viable. Even though any vessel launched from it would still require thrust to not just drop back to Earth, it would cut back considerably on the fuel-cost of launching. I'm also wondering if the objective was just low-orbit, would a more conventional building be sufficient? Could a compression based structure reach up to where there is only 98% atmospheric pressure?
@@ckl9390orbital towers have been proposed as a way of launching rockets higher up. A typical height to width ratio of a tall building is 1:20, so a 100 km tower would likely be about 5 km wide at the base.
Note that this tower’s height is about twice the thickness of the Earth’s crust, so the foundations will be tricky. Large reservoirs have been known to induce earthquakes; a super tall building causing its own seismic region will be a new challenge for structural and geotechnical engineers.
Best space elevator representation I've seen was in Gundam 00. And when it fell... that was spectacular!!!!
the elevator falling in the Foundation series was pretty spectacular too!
And exactly how are they going to do the rendezvous with ISS and their space elevator? Last time I checked the ISS was moving at about 17,000 mph …
The space elevator will be fixed structure, from which ships will dock onto. It's like a harbour in space. Travel to and from the ISS will be undertaken by smaller spaceships
Yes, this was a bit of a miss by Simon's writers. Not as big a miss, though, as giving airtime to two of the least feasible concepts out there when there are so many less well-known megaproject concepts that are far better grounded in sound science and engineering - some of which have a descent chance of being realized in the not too distant future.
One thing that got me thinking was the possibility of using a maglev system to launch cargo from the Moon without needing fuel. Reaching lunar escape velocity of 2.4 km/s shouldn't be that difficult if you can cheerfully ignore air resistance like you can on the Moon. Even transporting people and animals would only require a 90 second acceleration of 3 g's.
A sideprojects thats a Megaprojects? Now thats a double whammy! 😅
It’ll just end up smelling of piss, like most elevators.
Kinda reminds me of Gundam 00
where combined 3 Orbital Elevator with a ring of solar panels that "provides transportation from Earth to space and vice versa and also transports solar energy to the planet's surface to power the entire world, earning it the nickname "Solar Elevator"."
As a child of the 60's, and a great Back to the Future fan, I am really disappointed that there are no hover boards.
The cable would have to be made of material that electricity wont conduct through. Lightening, static electricity,vetc. .you would build a HUGE grounding rod..
This might be a dumb question but like how much water ice is at the Moon's poles? Like how long will the last? Is it a finite resource?
It's currently estimated that there is 600 BILLION kilograms of drinking ice water at the lunar poles. There will be a NASA probe sent in 2024 to get a more concise answer. There is easily enough for multiple generations given that the population of the moon once settled won't grow to be that big due to simple logistics.
As a Canadian with a compatriot of one of the Aretmis II crew, I tip my hat to all Americans: Your country is now in the technological position to do what was done in 1968- send a crewed spacecraft around the moon. This is no snide comment. As a precocious 8 year old I remember, all the excitemment Apollo 8 garnered. One American said at the time 'Apollo 8 saved1968'.
May you never loose this capacity again. And, as a Canadian, I can say: 'Thanks for the lift!'
There's something they would need to do before building a space elevator, clean out all the debris orbiting the Earth. Not doing so would mean the thing would be bombarded by objects moving at many kilometers per second. Even graphene can't withstand that.
There's no way that anyone that suffers vertigo is getting on a space elevator. Very cool idea though. As for the idea of an underwater city, you might want to talk to a guy named Andrew Ryan- he had a few ideas on the subject.
Sucks for them ?
@@jamesbizsthe comment is referencing the game BioShock
Since the Sun is literally nuclear fire; solar power is still technically nuclear power just with extra steps
Yes, more specifically it is wireless fusion power, where we already have the commercial reactor warranted for another 4 billion years.
I would like to know exactly how you're going to build an elevator to a space station that orbits the earth every 90 minutes funny how you ended that segment with that statement
Haha, yeah. You'd still need a beefy rocket to get into orbit from there.
You send it up higher than the space station, then let it "fall" into orbit. It will still need rockets for course correction, but far less fuel than a straight up launch.
@@bobthecomputerguy More for circularization than course correction. But then you're crawling much further up the tender anyway.
Since the difference in speed between a geostationary space elevator and the ISS is 17k mph it would probably be easier to go there the way we do it now.
@@gubbvila It's a lot easier to get to leo from geo than from the ground. You can do it with small engines that would never get you off the ground. The benefit of "the way we do it now" would be time saved, which would be good for astronauts, but not needed for bulk cargo.
As far as a space elevator is concerned, wouldn’t there be a lot of satellites and other stuff that could easily hit the elevators when they are lowered to earth?🤔
Yep. Satellites would be a constant threat, especially the most prolific ones and those with the lowest safety rating. In other words: Starlink. It would be like aiming a firing squad at a trillion dollar target, but with bullets that travel at Mach 22 and don't require a direct hit to fμ©k it all up. (see: Kessler syndrome)
Combine Space Elevator platforms with Solar Collectors then just run HV cables down the inside of the Space Elevator cable...
3 problems solved that can make cash in 3 ways - making it all cost effective... 👍
Lol Simon's writer must not know that the ISS is being decommissioned
They also don't understand how fast it's moving.
The lunar base and especially the underwater habitations would probably result in some change in how we think about economics and logistics.
A space elevator would be fantastic! It would be a total winner on the moon or Mars.
have been reading about space elevators for yrs in both sci-fi and science articles but even if it's possible to build them the issue of possible sabotage and terrorism is worrying⚛😀
Read Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy, Red Mars, Green Mars & Blue Mars about the colonisation of Mars where a space elevator on Mars is blown up & becomes wrapped around the planet.
yes read the entire trilogy years ago and enjoyed it although I'm much more skeptical now about the whole terraforming concept especially for a planet like mars@@elroyfudbucker6806 ⚛😀
They're gonna get a surprise when they try to use that space elevator. I suspect that whatever they try to have climb the nanotube (or ribbon) will throw the space end of the elevator out of its geosynchronous orbit.
If they use a LeGrange point it will work but there arent may of those on land
Whipping around like, uhhh a whip?😮
BSc
MSc
PhD
Guy in CZcams comments
That's what the counterweight is for. And it will likely need to have thrusters as well.
It’s not the end point of a space elevator at geostationary orbit but rather its centre of gravity. Thus the end, with or without a counterweight, is a lot higher.
Geostationary orbit is over 35,000 km up, so the weight of the elevator is going to be considerably larger than that of any elevator car - it’s not going to affect the balance much. What the car will do is drag the elevator sideways as it is accelerated from its lateral speed at the Earth’s surface (1,670 kph) to that of geosynchronous orbit (10,800 kph)
So a space elevator tethered to a space solar farm with the electrity fed down the space elevator would work. Just saying
Yuh, but the Morgans' and other monied folk don't want free energy!, they want to maintain a stranglehold on society by any means, it's called hydrolic despotism.
@9:42
Geostationary solar satalites would still be subject to night, they would be shaded behind earth.
Earth's tilt means a GEO satellite only passes through Earth's shadow for a few days around the March & September equinox. The orbital circumference is more than 20 times (x20.8) greater than Earth's diameter - meaning a satellite will spend a maximum of 70 minutes in shadow. Overall, the satellite will be in sunlight for 99.7% of the year.
The thing I always wondered about in regards a space elevator, is the air drag on the cable and elevator components, and how that will affect the orbital speed of the entire structure. Will it require rocket fuel to counter the drag effect slowing the structure down? As for Mars, I dunno why we're so keen on putting a base there and terraforming that planet when we have a much better alternative nearby - Earth's true sister planet, Venus. At least she has an atmosphere and an induced electromagnetic field to help protect against solar winds and solar/space radiation, unlike Mars (so no need to live underneath the surface like we'd have to with Mars).
Venus has sulphuric acid clouds and the surface temp is a mild 500C
Yep. We have almost half a million people flying in airplanes on Earth at any given time. It should be possible to one day have half a million people flying around in solar powered airplanes in Venus's upper atmosphere, where the temperature, pressure, gravity, and radiation levels are all earth-like.
There is no "air drag," any greater than what the surface winds are, that day.
The elevator *doesn't move* along the surface of the planet.
It's got a stable base -- probably in something that looks like large oil platform, and it goes straight up from there and never moves, because the station at the far end is moving at *exactly the same speed* as the planet is turning.
Put it in the "doldrums" at the Equator in the Pacific, where the winds sometimes just die, and you don't even have to worry about surface winds, very often, and what you do get are pretty minor.
It's why sailors in the "wooden ship" days disliked that part of the trip, between five degrees north of Equator and five degrees south of it, because they'd sometimes get stuck for days waiting for a squall to move through that could generate enough wind they could use.
@@thomashiggins9320 I was more talking about the wind speeds much higher up, which tend to be a lot faster than at surface level. Though the reduced air pressure might make that have less of an impact perhaps? I'm not much of a mathematician or have much in the way of knowledge about fluid dynamics though, so you might very well be right. In my mind it's like the station itself is you and the cable and elevator is your hand sticking into a river - the difference between your upper arm out of the water and lower arm and hand _in_ the water would push your arm back or forward cos the river has more volume behind it - same thing with space and the atmosphere. That was my thinking, if I've typed it out clearly enough? (I'm not good at expressing my inner thoughts very well so apologies if I made no sense lol)
@@smalltime0 Yes but around 60,000ft up the air pressure is about the same as it is on the ground here on Earth, and the temperature is about 30 degrees centigrade which is basically perfect conditions for a floating city. Plus we can actually use the sulphur and other gases in the atmosphere to our advantage, as well as get unlimited energy either from floating solar power stations or even by lowering steam power plants further down into the atmosphere and using the ambient heat to boil water to steam to drive power generators. All benefits that Mars is missing out on. Sure Mars has lots of resources such as silicone dioxide, iron, titanium etc, but it still doesn't have as good a starting point for a colony than Venus. It'll be far cheaper to go for our first off-planet colony (after potentially the Moon) on Venus than Mars. And forget dreams of terraforming - even if we had the capability we wouldn't see worthwhile results for hundreds of years - and humans aren't good at doing projects that they won't be alive to see the results and benefits of.
3:47 So long as you don't care about the space station zipping by at 27,000km/h.
An orbital ring is the superior cheap space access megaproject and has the benefit of need no new materials and letting you accelerate off the ring to orbital speeds without using reaction mass.
And now we will have more Simon videos in the future 😂
People like to cite needing a huge area for solar panels but fail to mention that panels get more efficient every year. The closer we get to 100% efficiency, the less area needed. Combined with better efficiency of consumer products we could very easily see homes powered by just a few panels on the roof.
Big problem with the Space Elevator is that if the cable snaps, the part that starts wrapping itself around the Earth will become a dinosaur-killer class of impact.
when your space based solar farm comes online there will be a glowing pillar between the farm and the ground that will imolate anything that approaches it.
good to see you’re branching out into comedy
3:40 Simon, you forget that the ISS is not geostationary, it screams across the sky at 28,000km/h...
Handing out items from the stationary elevator would present somewhat of a problem.
I can see some future version of Rishi Sunak or starmer and the torries saying “we can’t expand the space elevator, instead it will just go to the edge of the atmosphere, you will need a transfer from them on”
Oh oh welcome to amazing season these next 4 seasons are peak doctor who in my opinion
Space elevator, the comment about not needing to go to the top, maybe the height of the ISS. But being in orbit requires a very high lateral speed, not just height.
At ground level the space elevator already has a lateral speed of over 1000 kph and any loads that are carried up will experience lateral acceleration. True that will only be sufficient for orbit once it reaches geosynchronous height (10,800 kph), but launches from lower levels will need less fuel to reach orbital velocities than launching from ground level.
In defense of rockets I might say that rockets scale better than for instance space cannons. Let's assume a 5000 t rocket with a payload of 100 t and that's 2% payload of its mass. There were plans for 20 000 t rockets or even bigger.
about the space elevator: at 400 km above the earth the speed of the cable is a bit faster than the speed of earth rotation, 2000 km/hour. The space station or any satellite in orbit moves at 27500 km/hour. What are you going to do once you are up there with all satellites passing by at 10 times your speed?
Underwater glass city, what could possibly go wrong? All it takes is a boat to either collide with the structure, or drop a few tonne rocks on it and its goodnight for 4000 people.
The issue with underwater cities is their main draw was "the abundance of the sea" back when we thought the sea would be an inexhaustible resource. Unfortunately we've already pushed the oceans to near exhaustion. There's no real reason to build underwater other than novelty.
Need more graphene? We have plenty of waste plastic. Find a way to recycle it.
I also think waste plastic could be used to help de-orbit space junk. Also, weave hair/wool/fleece into huge balls, dust bunnies, if you will, and orbit them to capture space dust.
Regarding the space elevator: while we need new materials to build one on Earth, you _could_ build one on the Moon using just steel. The gravitational situation of the Moon only gives you two locations where you can put one stably, though. One directly facing Earth, and one pointing directly away.
Wireless charging is NOT efficient. It wastes half the power. It might be tolerable for space-based solar power if you can generate it cheaply enough. If you can generate it for $50 per megawatt-hour, but lose half of it in transmission, then you'll be competitive with anything that costs $100 per megawatt-hour or more.
The only way this might be possible if materials weren’t a consideration would be to build the entire 36,000km at a Lagrange point and then transport it back to GSO and lower it down to earth. If you start with a satellite in orbit and build down to the surface, it would start to drag itself down as a great portion of it is not traveling at orbital velocity for its altitude. Basically if we could build a space elevator we wouldn’t need to.
We already have space elevators we just need to build skyscrapers tall enough to contain them. ;)
More than happy to agree with any proposal which covers West Virginia in solar panels...
If it is difficult to lower the elevator cable from orbit, then why not lower the wire of a solar power plant from it?
The van Allen belts would negate the need for solar panels, just a superconductor wire 50-60 thousand miles long.
The deserts of Australia or the Australian deserts cover about 2,700,000 km2 (1,000,000 sq mi),
West Virginia has a land area of 24,034.8 square miles
Build space elevator first, use it to bring up materials to build solar farm, then use space elevator wire to transmit electricity down.
You’re welcome humanity
"They" build a huge underwater City somewhere in the mid atlantic in the 1950's.
It turned out to be a Desaster for various technical and psychological reasons.
After a plane crashed and hit the City things finally spiraled out of control.
The half km sea ball reminds me of the line. And the space elevator as well! 😅
Aside from curing mortality there is nothing more important than space exploration.
Definitely need space colonization before a cure for death, I personally don't want the earth to be ruled by an immortal anti-natal upper class
The space elevator's greatest utility is enabling space based geoengineering climate restoration and moon industrialization
i think its possible by dividing it to parts , ie ground to balloon system with fuel cable connected to balloon... then one upper baloon to space station... and probbly lots of space to space stages... privide fuel from ground wth stabilozers on up... ten you got it...
14:36
"Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. Rapture!"
-Andrew Ryan
The concept of a Geostationary orbit was first documented in 1929. It is unlikely an 1800's project would have it as the destination.
Getting off the space elevator to pop into the ISS on your way up is going to be a SPLAT of you as they are traveling a massively different speeds.
Beaming energy from solar panels in orbit around the moon to a lunar station is a no brainer!
TLDR. I think most important of these four is Elevator.
Fourth - Underwater City: very cool concept and if we made it, it would be as great of achievement as Moon Landing. It won't really effect much of anything, but for PR and for Humanity's pride it would be Huge. Because We can finally make Atlantis, One of the Oldest stories, a reality. It would result in more children interested in STEM.
However, except of PR, it won't really bring Big short term benefits. (when I say short I mean decades).
Third - Space Solar Panels (SSP): to our current 0.71 Kardashev scale civilization. Good enough amount of these panels will bring unlimited energy. However, as mentioned it would cost too much now. And even without this there are other projects which can bring equal results with fewer cost and complexity. Fusion (even if not ready yet, but maybe in 20 years). People are on fence, but if we changed every country to Good enough Nuclear Plants, it would fix most of the energy problems with comparatively very small amount of Plants and space needed for this.
So even though it would be great to have Space Solar Panels. other means of energy production will most likely be cheaper, with less complexity and not as hard to defend.
Second: Moon Base (MB): It would be our HUB and First Line of Offense in Final Frontier. However, to create real usable Moon Base with 1000s and 100000s of occupants it would take decades before we can achieve it. And today maybe space travel is not as costly as it was and is becoming cheaper every couple of years. However, still the amount of fuel and resources it would take to create normal functioning moon base will be huge and long term project.
First: Space Elevator:
Firstly it will be a huge win to Sci-fi genre to show that we finally have what could only have been a dream once. With it would be Huge PR because compare to SSP and MB everyone who has enough money can easily visit and see that Marvel of engineering. So, it would be constant reminder to our civilization what we can achieve.
Secondly, It would drastically decrease the cost of space travel. we won't be sending stuff using rockets anymore. but will simply deliver it using cheaper option with way less carbon omissions. Maybe even the space rockets won't fly from earth but will be built in the space itself, which would hugely decreases the amount of unnecessary parts in rockets which only exits to fight against Earth's gravity. It would make the logistics of space travel trivial and the amount of stuff we can deliver to space way bigger. It would make it way easier to create MB as real HUB and way faster. It would even make SSP real viable option.
Thirdly, the astronauts requirements won't be as strict as they are now. It would hugely increase the amount of people who can visit real space and see the earth below.
Overall, the amount of benefits this Space Elevator will bring in short term, one-sidedly outweighs anything else. And in long term will still be hugely necessary thing.
I once heard of a book called Sunstroke, in which a space based solar array beaming energy back to Earth breaks from its tether an begins microwaving everything on the surface as it orbits the planet.
Better get that SPF 5000.
How does the elevator work? 🤔 When it accelerates the payload to its own orbital velocity, doesn't the drag decelerate it / deorbit it? Does the elevator use rocket engines to maintain its orbit? How are they refueled?
There would likely be fuel piped up from processing plants on the surface. We have oil and gas pipelines that span continents, similar technology would apply.
@@ckl9390 You couldn't pump anywhere near that high (not with any pumping tech in existence at least) but would the centripetal force "help" somehow? I feel like I'm misunderstanding something.
@@jonmichaelgalindo Just like cross-continental pipelines there would be multiple pumps in stages with check valves. It would mostly be a function of how much fuel over what time with respect to how much energy and material us used to pump it up there. Or, the reserve of fuel at the top for the refuelling station could be brought up by the tanker load on the elevator. That would just take up lift time capacity that could be used for something else.
@@ckl9390 If you install a pump at a valve supported by the cable, when the pump accelerates liquid up, the kick-back accelerates the cable down (equal / opposite force). That added force deorbits the platform (unless the platform is using rocket boosters to counteract it).
You can't put any weight on the cable unless you counteract it with platform rockets. What's the point of the cable? What does this thing "do" exactly?
Edit: Oh! What if you sent up hydrogen and oxygen as hot gas, not liquid? Now you have to make the cable hydrogen-proof, which is insanely hard, but the pumping should be possible. I still don't see what the elevator does to help get things to space though.
Edit Edit: LOL just send up electricity or laser power! Plus, pump up a very small amount of inert, easily contained gas. On the space platform, turn the gas to plasma and rocket thrust it. :-) Now just burn your thrusters to counteract the elevator climbing the cable and voila! Space elevator.
@@jonmichaelgalindo The cable is supported by a counterweight in most designs that can adjust outward beyond geostationary orbit, so the centre of mass can be controlled even with a dynamic weight climbing the cable. Though an active, and constant, thrust counter-force system would be required for any system shorter than geostationary orbit. The key is that the cable is a tension system because that allows us to use materials that are plausible to us. Whereas a compression based tower would essentially need to be built like a mountain that reaches beyond the upper atmosphere and would still require thrust to achieve orbit.
Living underwater sounds great but it takes just one bolt to fail and boom, dead
That last one made me want to play some BioShock again
It won’t be too long before Miami is an underwater city.
Doing what you love is the cornerstone of having abundance in your life.
As soon as an underwater city is built it will be nicknamed 'Rapture'.
If a solar farm is in geo-stationary orbit, then it will have day/night problems like on earth. If the solar farm is always pointing at the sun, then the "beam-back-to-earth" will have to have multiple beam collector points across the planet, as the earth rotates underneath the farm in space.
Not really as you just put them outside the shadow of the earth. Which is a tiny fraction of the available area.
@@Da40kOrks Right. Solar collectors in Geostationary orbit have sunlight about 90 percent of the time.
The diameter of a Geostationary orbit, from one side to the other, is about 84,292, if measured from the center of the Earth.
(Most geostationary orbits are measured from the surface to the orbit, but a diameter passes through the center-point, right?)
The diameter of the Earth takes up on 12,756 km of that, and it's very far away so the power-sat would traverse the relatively small "shadow" very quickly, because of that.
Remember, the sun is very much larger than the Earth, so light comes in at angles from all around the circumference of the planet, too.
I think there would be other challenges for Space Elevator.. for example, Simon suggested that it would take 2.5h to get to ISS.. the problem with that is that at that altitude ISS travels something akin to 17K miles per hour, whilst cable's relative speed at that altitude would be significantly lower.. only at geostationary orbit does the relative speed of end-point of the elevator would match relative speed of Earth surface.. I don't know the math, but I would guess the speed at Around 300km would be around 1700 m/h (basically 100 times less orbital speed).. so rendezvous with a point on Space Elevator at that altitude is unfeasible (unless, of course, introducing another exotic technology).. I think best way would be to reach end-point of Space Elevator, undock, and then lower the orbit.. obviously engineers would need to work on speeding-up ascent of mass into orbit, otherwise the whole concept would make less sense to launching rockets.. unless the whole of Space Elevator would consist of hundreds, maybe even thousands of cables, each capable lifting and bringing down cargo.. that way, even though it would take longer, the amount of mass to orbit would increase drastically, and perhaps future Space Factories could use it to get raw materials into orbit and get finished product back to Earth in a week or so..
However, all that said I SINCERALY hope that Humanity will try this endeavor, and the sooner the better, as it would inspire awe (even if its early version wouldn't be particularly practical or profitable, at least with the ascent speed of 300km/h)
What stops storms and orbiting objects hitting the elevator cable?
3:30 no! in order to dock to the ISS you need to get orbital speed and you don't get that from a space elevator --- one option might be from gravity by falling down but I gotta do some calculations for that ---- difficult to calculate because the earth's gravity isn't that strong at 36 000 km
Simon neglected to mention how a microwave beam from space can also be a WMD. Just point it at a city, and it turns from clean energy into a death ray. Most countries in the world would object to anyone having this sort of technology, and rightly so.
Indeed. It's also likely to happen accidentally. Even in normal operation, it'd be a no-fly zone. Try communicating that to the birds.
Another week and another channel this guy owns that I find lol
The issues about space elevator is not about strength of the tether, it's about the difference in speed of orbit vs what would be needed on the surface. No one has figured that out yet.
They have, that is why the station of the elevator would be in Geostationary orbit, ie. one where satellites are stationary compare to a location on earth. That is also why the weight of the cable material matters, because the cable itself wouldn't be at the speed required for a stable orbit, thus being pulled down to earth (well, technically this is also the case for stable orbits where you just move fast enough, but you get what I mean I assume).
@@MDP1702 geostationary orbit is 22,300 miles up. And it has to be over the equator. I don't think people understand this. For comparison, the ISS is around 250 miles. That's a massive difference. By the time we get the technology to do that, there will be much easier ways to get to space.
@@chrisfields8077 Well, yes. It is made clear that the production of the tether (needed amount) is what is making a space elevator currently not feasible.
Maybe by the time it can be feasible we'll find a better solution, or we won't.
@@MDP1702 I still don't think people understand the lengths here. The circumference of the earth is only 24,900 miles... So the tether would have to almost be long enough to circle around earth. That's a non starter. Even if it as small as string, the mass alone would be too heavy to lift up to geostationary orbit. Wayyy too heavy.
How about combining 1, 2 & 3. A lunar-based solar farm maintained by a lunar base transmitting the excessive power to a rectenna at the top of a space elevator. (Farm would also power the base, of course)
Since the moon is tidally locked, it would spend roughly 15 of every 30 days in darkness and not generating power. Being at pole could help, but there are challenges with the angle, lunar geography and whether the exact pole is really a useful place for anything other than the solar farm.
The moon also isn't in a geostationary orbit, so the rectenna on a space elevator wouldn't align with the moon very often. Anything to solve the 1st challenge also causes a problem here, since when the side of the moon facing earth is in the lunar night, then any solar farm on the moon can only have line of sight to one of the Sun or Earth, at least without a really long cable to a point on the moon that always faces the Earth. For that though, you'd need to get hundreds of tonnes of materials for cable up there (I don't think there's much copper on the moon).
On top of all that, a space elevator would be at 10% of the distance to the moon. If you installed a rectenna on the counterweight, that's 20% - it's a lot of engineering to still have to transmit the power 80% of the distance.
Essentially, I can see the logic behind the idea, but unfortunately they're not things that work well together. Of course, once we get the power transmission really well solved, you'd have to assume we'll use it between Earth and any moon base, so that element of it makes sense but probably as a secondary combination of the 2 things rather than a primary use case.
Thanks, that was a long reply.
Other thoughts on similar topic could depend what was on the end of the elevator. If you just put a re-alignable recteena (manual or autoaligning) then yes probably not worth the effort, but suppose you put a whole space station up there (space dock, Star Trek style). The elevator could shuttle stuff up and down again while the dock serves as a launch pad to the stars (or at least the rest of the solar system, FTL is another video).
One of the many, many challenges of the mission to Mars is the sheer amount of fuel to get a Mars-capable ship off the ground and into space in the first place. If you could ship it up to a hypothetical waystation in pieces, assemble it and launch from there it shifts all the calculations. Obviously manhandling stuff in space suits is severely tricky, but that just means the modules have to be engineered more precisely - after all they managed it with the ISS.
@@robd9413 Using the space elevator as a waystation is an interesting one, plus even the counterweight. Since I've opened some wine and have only nerd-knowledge (definitely not a proper science guy!) I'm not even going to attempt to work out the potential benefit for Mars. Others pointed out that the elevator is useless for the ISS because at low Earth orbit the elevator is still stationary and something like 83% of the energy is used to get to orbital speed, not the altitude.
For Mars though, orbiting the Earth doesn't matter, so without doing the maths, to a random person like me that sounds like a very logical suggestion. It would certainly save an amount, I just don't know how much. I guess the calculation is the impact on delta V vs what the space elevator costs vs how many times it gets used. I do love a good cost-benefit analysis (yeah I'm odd 🤣) plus obviously nerdy science, so it'd be great to see someone like Scott Manley cover that in detail!
Rooftop Solar PV requires Zero land. It would be easier and cheaper to use mirror to keep a ground based solar farm always illuminated.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the space solar farms that beam energy to earth, that can also be used as a weapon right? It sounds like a better weapon than nuclear weapons because it won't cause radiation poisoning in the aftermath
No; the microwave frequencies which pass unimpeded through atmosphere and severe weather (1 - 10 GHz, 2.45 GHz typically assumed) require very large transmitter diameters (around 1 km) to be able to focus a beam spot on Earth measuring a minimum of several kilometres across (5 km typical) from 35,786 km away in geosynchronous orbit. Such a satellite optimises at gigawatt scale (similar to the power delivered by a coal or natural gas power plant, the amount of sunlight collected being related to the size of the satellite), but the peak intensity at the centre of the beam spot will be only one-quarter that of noon sunlight - with a proportional warming capability.
This is governed by diffraction physics known since the 1800's - it can't be defeated by a software hack.
The microwaves in a kitchen oven are 50 times more intense, yet it only takes a thin wire mesh in the glass door to protect anyone nearby.
See the FAQs at the UK Space Energy Initiative or Space Solar Limited for more info.
Bass drop at 11:47. Soon Whistler is gonna have a DJ channel. 😂
We've had commercially available solar installations for a lot of private houses efficient enough to meet the majority of that houses energy needs for decades. It even side steps the amount of space solar farms need by just being strapped to the houses roof too. In UK they even had subsidies available for a number of years to cover some of the costs for homeowners. The subsidies dried up though(which resulted in devastating that industry and a lot of small-medium sized companies going under btw) and now it's back to prohibitavly expensive for most. Just boggles my mind there's consideration for megaprojects in this when a big step forward would cost far less and is achievable now. I guess you can't be having your population becoming to self sufficient when it comes to their energy needs though 🤦
the one, who controls the direction of microwaves, send to earth from solar farms, controls the world.
"SCI-FI authors hate gravity" is the truest statement I've heard on youtube.