[The E]

1. I like to use ADHD as an excuse. Not too off-topic though, since I was talking about nuclear reactors.

There is no excuse for not at least trying to uphold forum etiquette. If you want a discussion on german nuclear politics (Which, you will note, is a topic remarkably devoid of physics, which this thread seems to be about), make a new thread.

I was reading up on the Casimir effect and I was wondering if its ability to create a negative-mass region could be applied to the space elevator.

The Casimir effect, like all quantum phenomena, is only of interest when working in nanometer scales. The applications for macroscopic objects (like your beloved space elevator) are likely to be nonexistant.

That said, I can be and probably am wrong abut this. Why don't you sit down and study quantum dynamics? In depth, I mean. Not in the "I read wikipedia on the subject" sense. Note that advanced math is required.

[deathfun]

Sidenote: Why make a space elevator, when you can make the Stargate rings system? You'd probably have better luck in that regards

[The E]

Sidenote: Why make a space elevator, when you can make the Stargate rings system? You'd probably have better luck in that regards

Get out of this thread.

[deathfun]

Sidenote: Why make a space elevator, when you can make the Stargate rings system? You'd probably have better luck in that regards

Get out of this thread.

D:
Foine

[FlamingCobra]

1. I like to use ADHD as an excuse. Not too off-topic though, since I was talking about nuclear reactors.

There is no excuse for not at least trying to uphold forum etiquette. If you want a discussion on german nuclear politics (Which, you will note, is a topic remarkably devoid of physics, which this thread seems to be about), make a new thread.

I was reading up on the Casimir effect and I was wondering if its ability to create a negative-mass region could be applied to the space elevator.

The Casimir effect, like all quantum phenomena, is only of interest when working in nanometer scales. The applications for macroscopic objects (like your beloved space elevator) are likely to be nonexistant.

That said, I can be and probably am wrong abut this. Why don't you sit down and study quantum dynamics? In depth, I mean. Not in the "I read wikipedia on the subject" sense. Note that advanced math is required.

1. Isn't any excuse better than none at all?

2.1 My understanding was you pretty much dismissed this concept as well as its parent. The space fountain seems kind of unstable; the launch loop sounds scary as hell; and I can't even comprehend the orbital ring, how it looks, how it works, or what it does. So I've moved on to the space elevator.

2.2 In engineering, the first step is to identify the problem. The second step is to consider all possible solutions. Nothing is ruled out at this point. Brainstorming, if you will. I was wondering if such a negative-mass region could be a possible solution.

[The E]

The problem, dear FlamingCobra, is that neither you nor anyone here can effectively brainstorm on these issues because we do not know enough to make good guesses.

As for the designs you posted there, i have not dismissed them because I was unaware of them. Now that I am, I am going to dismiss both the fountain and the launch loop because they require continuous energy input in order to stay stable; this makes them only practical if you have a LOT of stuff you want to move into LEO. Not to mention disastrous in cases where the power gets switched off. As for StarTram and Mass drivers (And honestly, StarTram is just an extraordinarily well-behaved, non-WMD version of a giant mass driver), they are practical, as long as you can find the room for them. And the power plants to support them. And the traffic volume to make them economical. And the support staff necessary.
Finally, the orbital ring may be the most promising of these, however it too is dependant on having the need for a mass surface-to-orbit transit system. In other words, unless you have something in space to go to, building one of these systems is a hard sell.

1.  Isn't any excuse better than none at all?

No. Even if you have an excuse for being a dick, it doesn't change the fact that you are acting like a dick.

2.2 In engineering, the first step is to identify the problem. The second step is to consider all possible solutions. Nothing is ruled out at this point. Brainstorming, if you will. I was wondering if such a negative-mass region could be a possible solution.

Except for one little thing. You are not an engineer. You do not have the theoretical and practical background to effectively brainstorm on this subject. You have the information easily available to the layman, but I am pretty certain that you do not have the training necessary to actually evaluate them. Neither do I, by the way.

[FlamingCobra]

The problem, dear FlamingCobra, is that neither you nor anyone here can effectively brainstorm on these issues because we do not know enough to make good guesses.

As for the designs you posted there, i have not dismissed them because I was unaware of them. Now that I am, I am going to dismiss both the fountain and the launch loop because they require continuous energy input in order to stay stable; this makes them only practical if you have a LOT of stuff you want to move into LEO. Not to mention disastrous in cases where the power gets switched off. As for StarTram and Mass drivers (And honestly, StarTram is just an extraordinarily well-behaved, non-WMD version of a giant mass driver), they are practical, as long as you can find the room for them. And the power plants to support them. And the traffic volume to make them economical. And the support staff necessary.
Finally, the orbital ring may be the most promising of these, however it too is dependant on having the need for a mass surface-to-orbit transit system. In other words, unless you have something in space to go to, building one of these systems is a hard sell.

-snip-

1. That's why materials science is looking like a better major every single day.

2. YEAAAHH I always though constant inputs of energy to a launch system was a bad idea.

3. So, um, what use do we have for the Nevada desert and Siberia, again? Oh, and the UAE is building manmade islands off the coast of their country for tourism purposes, so I figure we can make land if we need to. I believe the nevada desert does have an ecosystem, so environmentalist groups might get their panties in a bind if we built one there. Siberia, not so much. If we build a manmade island, we won't be "destroying the existing ecosystem" because there won't be one.

4. The thing that is beyond my understanding is that because the StarTram is nothing more than a more elegant mass driver I figure it should have the same problems with switching and power handling limits as conventional mass drivers. BUT startram uses maglev technology whereas conventional mass drivers operate on the principle of a coilgun. So I don't know if that fixes the issue.

5. BIG PROBLEM: If the demand for spacelaunches were higher, the incentive to build better launch systems would be greater. However, since there aren't any really good launch systems in place right now, space launches cost a fortune. Consequently, the demand is low. And I figure this is why the government subsidizes rocket launches.

Cheaper price = higher demand = increase chance of developments

If this is all "no ****, Cobra" information, then I'm sorry I posted. I just felt the need to speak my mind.

[The E]

The problem is, you want to skip ahead a few steps to a mature space infrastructure. I believe the next step should be cheap SSTO vehicles capable of filling the same role as the Shuttle. Once we have those, we can build more elaborate LEO facilities, which we can then use as launch points for permanent moon bases, which can then be expanded into self-sufficient outposts and so on and so on. All of these steps present incremental challenges that are essentially solved problems (apart from the "self-sufficient outpost in an utterly hostile environment" bit), the only thing that is lacking is a reason to do it. Before you say "Overpopulation", let me point out that such efforts will not be able to serve as release valves for population pressures, given that you'd have to ferry at least a billion people into space. Building enough space for all of them is ... tricky, to say the least.

For reference, I recommend you read this essay: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the-high-frontier-redux.html and its associated comment thread.
Other essays by the same author on similar subjects:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/11/cooking-in-zero-gee.html
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/10/id-hate-to-have-his-email-inbo.html

[Nuke]

Thermodynamics doesn't really like your idea, sorry to say.

I know
Hence why I don't live in a world where it exists! Ha! Take that factual science!

you dont have no point.

DOUBLE NEGATIVE

LEARN TO SPEAK REDNECK!!!

[FlamingCobra]

The problem is, you want to skip ahead a few steps to a mature space infrastructure. I believe the next step should be cheap SSTO vehicles capable of filling the same role as the Shuttle. Once we have those, we can build more elaborate LEO facilities, which we can then use as launch points for permanent moon bases, which can then be expanded into self-sufficient outposts and so on and so on. All of these steps present incremental challenges that are essentially solved problems (apart from the "self-sufficient outpost in an utterly hostile environment" bit), the only thing that is lacking is a reason to do it. Before you say "Overpopulation", let me point out that such efforts will not be able to serve as release valves for population pressures, given that you'd have to ferry at least a billion people into space. Building enough space for all of them is ... tricky, to say the least.

For reference, I recommend you read this essay: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the-high-frontier-redux.html and its associated comment thread.
Other essays by the same author on similar subjects:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/11/cooking-in-zero-gee.html
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/10/id-hate-to-have-his-email-inbo.html

So... kind of like my idea of using natural gas to bridge the gap while we make our transition to nuclear?

[Nuke]

The problem is, you want to skip ahead a few steps to a mature space infrastructure. I believe the next step should be cheap SSTO vehicles capable of filling the same role as the Shuttle. Once we have those, we can build more elaborate LEO facilities, which we can then use as launch points for permanent moon bases, which can then be expanded into self-sufficient outposts and so on and so on. All of these steps present incremental challenges that are essentially solved problems (apart from the "self-sufficient outpost in an utterly hostile environment" bit), the only thing that is lacking is a reason to do it. Before you say "Overpopulation", let me point out that such efforts will not be able to serve as release valves for population pressures, given that you'd have to ferry at least a billion people into space. Building enough space for all of them is ... tricky, to say the least.

For reference, I recommend you read this essay: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the-high-frontier-redux.html and its associated comment thread.
Other essays by the same author on similar subjects:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/11/cooking-in-zero-gee.html
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/10/id-hate-to-have-his-email-inbo.html

So... kind of like my idea of using natural gas to bridge the gap while we make our transition to nuclear?

are you even in the right thread?

[FlamingCobra]

Yes. E was saying cheap SSTO vehicles could provide a stepping stone to "more elaborate LEO facilities." I was comparing it to my proposal of using natural gas to fill in the gap for power generation while we phase out coal and go nuclear.

[Nuke]

your ideas suck, stop thinking, do some illegal drugs, kill as many braincells as you possibly can, you would be doing them a favor.

you know what? **** it. its getting old. im tired of the out of context nonsense, trying to bring every one of your childish notions to bare on whatever topic may come up. you make every interesting topic unreadable. and this one has turned to drivel. thread locked!