Community > Forum > Technology & Science > is this new idea for space elevator ?

is this new idea for space elevator ?

Posted by: yavuz - Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:29 pm
Post new topic Reply to topic
 [ 14 posts ] 
is this new idea for space elevator ? 
Author Message
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:22 pm
Posts: 6
Location: Turkey
Post is this new idea for space elevator ?   Posted on: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:29 pm
hi
this is my first message to this forum.
i have an idea for space elevator and i got patent of it.

we will use 400km long pipe line instead of nanotubes ribbon.
we will have a station at each 30km of pipe line.
we will pump gas (hydrogen and oxygen) to 400km up.
each station will have a pump hardware that will increase pressure of gas.
each station has rockets which carry station itself and 30km of pipe line.
so we reach 400km up.

all rockets on all stations will always burn with a computer control.

is this new idea for space elevator ?
is this possible to build ?

30km value is a guess it may be 5 km or variable.
i named this system YABLAM.
YABLAM needs very hard calculations, who can do this ?

check pictures of patent on
http://www.gazcad.com/yablam1.jpg
http://www.gazcad.com/yablam2.jpg
sorry patent is in turkish language, i wait a friend translate to english.

pls contact me with
msn=yavuzbasturk@hotmail.com (do NOT mail here)
mail=yavuzbasturk@yahoo.com (mail here)
icq=127012544

------

my first target is send satellite to 300-400km high.
400km gas pipe will be carried by stations.
there will be 30km betweekn each sations.
stations are connected to gas pipe and EACH station will carry 30km of pipe line.
and we dont need nanocube to make a gas pipe of 30km long.
rockets on stations will use gas in pipe as a energy.
each station will have a pump hardware that will increase pressure of gas.
this is not standart space elevator. this project will end at 400km high and will send satellites to maximum 400km high. but at theory you can build 20.000km pipe line with hundreds (maybe thousands) of stations.

mass of gas pipe will be shared by stations, so we dont need nanotubes, today material carbon/epoxy is enough i think.
if you contact me by msn/icq i can answer your quesitions fastly and we can talk details.

---------

firstly i am software developer only. i am not educated on space or ant space related science. this idea occured in second in my idea as a lucky.

first we will send a rocket and its fuel to highest station, then we will send satellite. satellite and rocket will be clamped together with some mechanic at 300km high. then rocket will speed up satellite up to 27.000 km speed and satellite will be on orbit. can you calculate how much fuel we need to get 27.000 km speed ?

stations will have 40.000km / 24 hour = 1.666 km/hour speed. (complete system must be a line and must have speed of world rorating speed).

and check
http://www.isr.us/Downloads/ConfPresOve ... de0045.htm
after we get 300km orbit, it is easy to go GEO as i understand.

if we install this system to north or south pole point, system will be easier to create i think.
because earth self rotation is zero at pole points.
and there is no jet-streams at pole points and wind is weak always.

one we build this system, we can send 10-15 satellite in a 24 hour then we close this system. stations come back to ground as they climb to 300km. this system will not run 365 day in year as a standart space elevator.

do you believe this system is possible to build ?
did someone think this idea before me ?

-----

thx, bye


Back to top
Profile ICQ YIM
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Thu Mar 03, 2005 7:30 am
The pipeline will be much to heavy I suppose. Edwards' concept of using a nanotube ribbon will be working because of the ribbon's ability to withstand and hold extremely strong tense and because of the counterweight in geostationary altitude - not because of the weight or lightweight of the ribbon.

If you are convinced of your concept please try to compete in the elevator:2010 competition.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
User avatar
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 11:52 pm
Posts: 89
Location: UK, Cardiff
Post    Posted on: Thu Mar 03, 2005 8:34 am
Theres some research and breakthroughs that suggests we will be manufacturing in 2005 more Carbon Nanotubes than we did in 2004 and price will drop dramaticly.

In 2004 a few pounds of nanotubes a day could be made..

CNI plans to increase its manufacturing capacity to the point where the company can make 1,000 pounds of nanotubes a day by 2005

Seems like progress is being made and the concept of a space elevator does heavily rely on nanotechnology to be feasible.. So its believed.


Back to top
Profile
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:22 pm
Posts: 6
Location: Turkey
Post    Posted on: Thu Mar 03, 2005 6:58 pm
Ekkehard Augustin wrote:
The pipeline will be much to heavy I suppose. Edwards' concept of using a nanotube ribbon will be working because of the ribbon's ability to withstand and hold extremely strong tense and because of the counterweight in geostationary altitude - not because of the weight or lightweight of the ribbon.

If you are convinced of your concept please try to compete in the elevator:2010 competition.


if we have 10 station on system, mass of pipeline will be divided to 10.
Each station will carry only 1/10 of total mass. This means we can build this system with todays materials, maybe with carbon/epoxy. There is no maximum limit of station count. we can have 100 station for 300km pipepile and each station carry only itself and 3km of pipeline.

another advantage is my system is,it is reusable. After you launch payloads, stations may come back to earth ground and you shut down system. you can launch it later when you need. At theory ; 300km system can move with a ship on ocean too.

Rocket on station will be dynamic rocket which can create impulsion on all directions with exhaust pipe. so we can balance any tense/mass with rocket power.
this system will be only 300km long. one payload will reach 300km up, a transport satellite will take it transport to GEO altitude. at theory we can build 30.000km gas pipeline but it is not necessary i think.


Back to top
Profile ICQ YIM
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:22 pm
Posts: 6
Location: Turkey
Post    Posted on: Thu Mar 03, 2005 7:04 pm
whoa182 wrote:
Theres some research and breakthroughs that suggests we will be manufacturing in 2005 more Carbon Nanotubes than we did in 2004 and price will drop dramaticly.

In 2004 a few pounds of nanotubes a day could be made..

CNI plans to increase its manufacturing capacity to the point where the company can make 1,000 pounds of nanotubes a day by 2005

Seems like progress is being made and the concept of a space elevator does heavily rely on nanotechnology to be feasible.. So its believed.


lets say we have enough nanotube for space elevator. same nanotube may be used for my system instead of space elevator too. nanocubes make my system very cheaper i think.
my system can move on a ship so it can run away from a tornado on ocean. we can get stations back to ground and launh again when we need to send payload. System can run away from space scrap and other possible problems.


Back to top
Profile ICQ YIM
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2003 9:58 pm
Posts: 111
Post    Posted on: Fri Mar 04, 2005 12:53 am
A rocket would be so much more efficient and easier delivery system than this it's not even funny.

Edit: even if the plume was solid enough to climb upon


Back to top
Profile
Spaceflight Participant
Spaceflight Participant
User avatar
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 11:43 pm
Posts: 97
Location: Canada
Post    Posted on: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:58 am
I have never been much of one for space-elevator systems, and this one seems to take the prize when it comes to needless complexity and dubtful benefits. So you have the idea, and it may, in theory, possibly work. The problem is that it would never be practical to build, set-up, or use. The fact that you don't have any of the details worked out doesn't help. There's an expression, saying that "the devil is in the details", and in this case, I think it is a very big devil indeed.


Back to top
Profile
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:22 pm
Posts: 6
Location: Turkey
Post    Posted on: Fri Mar 04, 2005 8:57 am
Vendigo wrote:
A rocket would be so much more efficient and easier delivery system than this it's not even funny.

Edit: even if the plume was solid enough to climb upon


yes a rocket is easier and simple system.
this system more complex than a rockets. but a rocket can launch 5-15 ton payload only.
once you build this system, if there is 10 station, there will be 10 elevator cabin.
all cabins are climbing at same time.
so you can send a payload in 1-2 hours.
this system high probably is not economic to send a few satellites.
it is economic ONLY when launching a thousand of internet satellite
or building a 5-10 thousand ton space hotel.

i am working on detailed project document now.


Back to top
Profile ICQ YIM
Rocket Constructor
Rocket Constructor
avatar
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:22 pm
Posts: 6
Location: Turkey
Post    Posted on: Fri Mar 04, 2005 9:01 am
slycker wrote:
I have never been much of one for space-elevator systems, and this one seems to take the prize when it comes to needless complexity and dubtful benefits. So you have the idea, and it may, in theory, possibly work. The problem is that it would never be practical to build, set-up, or use. The fact that you don't have any of the details worked out doesn't help. There's an expression, saying that "the devil is in the details", and in this case, I think it is a very big devil indeed.


i am working on a detailed project document.
this system will be complex, will be expensive,
but it will be ecn omic when we launch thousand internet satellite or launch 5-10 ton of space hotel.
possibly only nasa or esa may build this. they need at least $1 billon dolar and 2-3 year research time.


Back to top
Profile ICQ YIM
Space Station Commander
Space Station Commander
User avatar
Joined: Sat May 22, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 578
Location: Zurich
Post    Posted on: Fri Mar 04, 2005 9:13 am
Pssst ... yavuz ... just a tip for future reference. Never make the confession that your design is both complex and expensive. If you want to attract funding you have to fool the benefactor into believing that it ain't gonna cost much and it wont take long to implement. After you get the initial investment then he's sucked into the usual vortex and you can take your time with further vaporware designs over drinks with little umbrellas in the bahamas.

Good luck.

DKH

_________________
Per aspera ad astra


Back to top
Profile
Moderator
Moderator
avatar
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 11:23 am
Posts: 3745
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Post    Posted on: Fri Mar 04, 2005 12:19 pm
Hello, yavuz,

there is another point you might have overlooked.

Edwards' concept of the space elevator is providing significant advantages missing in your concept. Edawards' space elvator doesn't carry payloads into space without propellant only - it is using the freely available energies and forces of space too to remove nearly all requirements of propellant for acceleration.

The major advantages of Edwards' concept are got above the geostationary orbit - if the nanocarbontube-ribbon is extended above that altitude the payload gets a velocity higher than that required to orbit at the achievd altitude. At 100,000 km altitude the elevator gets the payload more than escape velocity.

These advantages will not be provided by your idea.

But your idea may be a basis for a first step towards Edwards' elevator perhaps. And there is a company whose developments may be used to make your concept a reality - JP Aerospace. Please try to discuss it in their General ...Form section of this board with jpowell and the people working with him. I am thinking about it too and I will contribute thoughts, ideas and so on if I have some.

From my point of view a DSS-based elevator should start with a DSS fixed above a special site by nanotube-ribbons that are anchored well and strong at DSS as well as at the ground. Next a fifth nanotube ribbon from ground to DSS should be installed to let an elevator go up and down - and this could be an elevator like that you have in mind.

This would be much more realistic. The DSS and your idea could be a relay station for Edwards' elevator later because Edwards' ribbon then doesn't need to go down to Earth's surface then but to DSS only.



Dipl.-Volkswirt (bdvb) Augustin (Political Economist)


Last edited by Ekkehard Augustin on Mon Mar 07, 2005 1:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Fri Mar 04, 2005 1:12 pm
Dr_Keith_H wrote:
Pssst ... yavuz ... just a tip for future reference. Never make the confession that your design is both complex and expensive. If you want to attract funding you have to fool the benefactor into believing that it ain't gonna cost much and it wont take long to implement. After you get the initial investment then he's sucked into the usual vortex and you can take your time with further vaporware designs over drinks with little umbrellas in the bahamas.

Good luck.

DKH


Heh. That's good.

He says it's complex and expensive, yet somehow better than a cheap, simple, easily implemented, easily maintained, easily upgraded rocket......

This sounds rather like Herr Daimler arguing with Mr. Ford..... Anyone care to guess who had more money?

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Space Walker
Space Walker
avatar
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2003 9:58 pm
Posts: 111
Post    Posted on: Sat Mar 05, 2005 9:13 pm
spacecowboy wrote:

This sounds rather like Herr Daimler arguing with Mr. Ford..... Anyone care to guess who had more money?


I would find it more Rube Goldberg than Daimler...


Back to top
Profile
Moon Mission Member
Moon Mission Member
avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 2:56 am
Posts: 1104
Location: Georgia Tech, Atlanta, GA
Post    Posted on: Mon Mar 07, 2005 1:04 pm
Thank you, Vendigo! That's the kind of comparison I was looking for!

_________________
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aerospace Engineering

In Memoriam...
Apollo I - Soyuz I - Soyuz XI - STS-51L - STS-107


Back to top
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
 

Who is online 

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


cron
© 2014 The International Space Fellowship, developed by Gabitasoft Interactive. All Rights Reserved.  Privacy Policy | Terms of Use