Thread View: fa.space
1 messages
1 total messages
Started by ucbvaxspace
Mon, 28 Dec 1981 03:17
SPACE Digest V2 #72
Author: ucbvaxspace
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1981 03:17
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1981 03:17
53 lines
2417 bytes
2417 bytes
>From OTA@S1-A Mon Dec 28 03:03:47 1981 SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 72 Today's Topics: North Pole ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 27 Dec 1981 1936-PST From: Jim McGrath <JPM at SU-AI> Subject: North Pole To: space at MIT-MC First, you CAN have a skyhook at the North (or South) Pole. In theory, these are the only two spots on the earth which do not rotate. There are, in fact, slight precessions that give you difficulties, especially since the skyhook's horizontial position (like an equatorial one's vertical position) is at an unstable stable point (ie the moment it gets out of wack the displacement tends to get larger, not smaller). However, all this speculation is really meaningless because a skyhook, in the sense we have been talking about, cannot be placed at the poles. Why? Well, our skyhooks rely upon the tension created throughout the structure by the rotation of the earth. At the poles, this tension cannot be generated (since the structure does not rotate). Thus the weight of the structure has to be supported by the base, just like any other building. I am not sure we could build such a structure (I have not cranked the numbers) , but clearly the polar skyhook scheme has no ADVANTAGE over the equatorial one. Second, I am puzzled that no one has mentioned the obvious solution to the SPS power beaming problem. Naturally the power transmission from space to ground is done via superconducting cables along a skyhook. So why not extend this logic further? Instead of beaming the power from the SPS to the skyhook (incurring transmission losses, conversion losses, and still some safety problems), simply string a superconducting cable from the SPS to the skyhook! That is, do not use beam transmission at all - always use cables. This cuts your transmission losses to near zero. If you are generating electricity directly at the SPS, then you never do any energy conversions - if not, then only one conversion is needed. And you have eliminated all safety problems. Jim ------- ------------------------------ End of SPACE Digest *******************
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads