Space Elevator

[Ian W.]

hmm, that reminds me of the time dan made a caffine molecule in bio...

to bad we didn't get a picture. i'm sure we could recreate it next year though

[Rob Ribaudo]

Dan may have found how to make it from where I did...
Anyway, here is my attempt to make a caffine molecue:

O CH3
|| /
H2C--N-/ \_N
| | \
// \ N/ \N/
O |
CH3

(C3 H8 N4 O2)

Seems alittle different from Matt put up.

If you want to see a better version of a caffine molecue go to here. So many interesting things at that site for geeks. I want the buttons that are there.

[Ian W.]

if you guys are going to try to make a caffine molecule here, use the CODE brackets, cause it preserves spacing.

[MBiddy]

At Kroger, there is some brand of salt, and on the package it says "Real Salt - 30% less Sodium"

How does that figure?

[Jon K.]

the only thing i can find wrong with this is that who could it reach the moon when the moon and the earth are rotating at different speeds and the moon is revolving around the earth and with the space station it would fall right out of the sky because it was going to slow to maintain a steady orbit and how would it just shoot up this cable it would have to be a huge super structure so it couldnt get past the moon without it being hit hence no mars or asteroids and what about satelites there tradjectaries(?) would have to be altered to not hit this and how would it be constructed no air = no welding or concrete meaning it wouldnt be too sturdy so it would just be cheaper to build new shuttles in the long run and the only reason the Challenger Space Shuttle exploded was because of a faulty O-ring so the space shuttle is a lot safer than you think it is probably safer than riding in a car or crossing a street becuase even if there is a bird in the area they wont launch the shuttle so dont go there with the it isnt safe garbage

[Ian W.]

well, the space shuttles were safe, when they were first built 20 years ago. they're starting to find that the space shuttles are reaching the end of useful lives. sure, they maybe able to extend the useful lives of the space shuttles, but the bottom line is, nothing lasts forever. a space elevator could be started now, to replace the space shuttles in say, 5, 10 years. i think that would be reasonable time period, and in the end, a huge money saver.

[Andy A.]

Each shuttle was designed with a hundred mission service life. They have flown slightly over 100 all together, a fraction of their potential.

The shuttle fleet will be flying for some time to come, they've got plenty left in them.

-Andy A.

[Ian W.]

hmm, i thought that they had less time, and it seems that they have been plauged many problems lately. maybe it's just a phase (sorta like the terrible twos ), but we'll still need something to replace them eventually. even if the shuttles do last for another 20 years, the cost to put 1 pound into space is rahter high, is it not? with a space elevator, all the fuel would not be needed, and the entire proccess would be much cheaper, or at least according to everything i've read.

[Jon K.]

nasa knows that it isnt cast effective to keep launching the shuttle that is why they are looking at different things as: a.) escape vehicles for the space station and a new reusable space craft to take people to the station, some models use high voltage electric magnets to force a ship to launch sort of llike when you try to putt twoo magnets with the same polarity together they repell that is the desired affect here also they are currently reusing the two white rockets because they are refillable so even that saves money

[Jim Giacchi]

Originally posted by Ian W.
well, the space shuttles were safe, when they were first built 20 years ago. they're starting to find that the space shuttles are reaching the end of useful lives.

Look a the B-52's which were put into service 50 years ago and most of which are older than the pilots that fly them. According to what i heard they plan to use them for another 50. So I wouldn't count the age of anything especially something so expensive and time consuming to replace so lightly, especially the way those shuttles are maintained and rebuilt after every flight.

[Bduggan04]

Originally posted by jk2005
nasa knows that it isnt cast effective to keep launching the shuttle that is why they are looking at different things as: a.) escape vehicles for the space station and a new reusable space craft to take people to the station, some models use high voltage electric magnets to force a ship to launch sort of llike when you try to putt twoo magnets with the same polarity together they repell that is the desired affect here also they are currently reusing the two white rockets because they are refillable so even that saves money

You are refering to a LIM device or Linear induction motor. This is the device use to power Maglev Trains, or roller coasters such as superman, or Wicked twister. It works by turning on a super-conducting electromagnet in front of a vehicle, attracting it, and a identicle magnet behind it repel the vehicle. As it moves down the track the magnets turn on and off in front of a behind the vehicle to accelerate it to very high speeds. Superconductor electromagnets use a relatively low amount of energy. I know with Maglev trains, a full train can float above the track using less electricity than it takes to run the air conditioning.

Rail guns use this technology to accelerate projectiles to supersonic speeds and allows them to go through nearly anything. The perfect weapon.

[Ian W.]

you'd need like an aircraft carrier to bring the railgun around though. those magnets aren't small .

they do have some really cool superconductors that work with just liquid nitrogen in open air. those are pretty cool.

[MattK]

Good idea, needs some work. Needs Dean

[DanL]

psah! Rail gun physics don't work. Yes, we've all seen Eraser and we've all played Quake, but you just can't make a rail gun an effective hand-held weapon.

This site explains all the physics behind it: http://intuitor.com/moviephysics/eraser.html

This quote explains just the recoil of a railgun:

As Lee observes, "...they said the physics [of the rail gun] were impossible", and we're inclined to heartily agree. The first problem is a nasty little law of physics called conservation of momentum. Briefly, this states that the forward momentum of the bullet must be counteracted by the backward momentum of the gun. The magnitude of an object's momentum is equal to its mass times the magnitude of its velocity, as expressed by the following equation:

p = mv

We know that the bullet is travelling close to the speed of light (3 × 108 m/s). To be conservative, we will assume the bullet travels at only half the speed of light, and that its mass is about the mass of a paper clip (0.0005 kg). For the sake of simplicity, we will ignore the effects of relativity, which would cause the bullet's mass to be even greater. Thus, we calculate the bullet's momentum:

pbullet = (0.0005 kg)(½)(3 × 108 m/s)
= 7.5 × 104 N·s

If we assume the mass of the rifle is 10 kg, its backward velocity must be 7.5 × 104 N·s divided by 10 kg, which equals 7500 m/s. Compared to the velocity of a .45 cal bullet going a sedate 330 m/s, our rail gun would be a mite difficult to hold.

A recoil with the force of 7500 m/s, eh? Thats a nice kick to it, and that number is when the bullet travels at only half the speed of light.

Anyways, check that site out. It's a bunch of physics nerds analyzing the physics behind popular movies and shows how Hollywood repeatidly bends the laws of the universe =)