|
About This Author
Come closer.
|
Complex Numbers #1072234 added June 6, 2024 at 9:51am
Restrictions: None
Elevator to Heaven
From Wired, some panic about a thing that might not even happen.
What Happens If a Space Elevator Breaks 
These structures are a sci-fi solution to the problem of getting objects into orbit without a rocket—but you don’t want to be under one if the cable snaps.
Yes, they're a staple of science fiction, but early concepts for them were thought up way back in the 19th century, before even controlled powered atmospheric flight and way before achievement of space travel.
They're also called Tsiolkovsky towers after the Russian who apparently first conceptualized them. According to Wiki, other names include "space bridge, star ladder, and orbital lift." Personally, I find all those names descriptive but boring. No, I think it should be called a space lift. Because it rhymes with "face lift," and I find that amusing. Everything should be named in accordance with what I find amusing.
In the first episode of the Foundation series on Apple TV, we see a terrorist try to destroy the space elevator used by the Galactic Empire. This seems like a great chance to talk about the physics of space elevators and to consider what would happen if one exploded.
Not even the prospect of a Foundation series is enough to get me to pay any attention to Apple TV. But the idea, as I said, isn't new, nor is thinking about the security issues surrounding them. If you think about it, the idea of a tower connecting Earth to space will inherently offend a large portion of the population, who will inevitably call it the Tower of Babel, decide that it's against God's will, and actively try to blow it up.
This is why we can't have nice things.
Well, actually, we can't have a space lift because, so far, no one's been able to come up with a material that with the appropriate requirements, or address numerous other issues including powering the thing or shielding any passengers from space radiation. As far as I know.
Anyway, the article mentions that, sort of, but starts out by explaining, in great detail, how a space lift would be an improvement over rockets. This takes up most of the article, and I'm not quoting that part. Only after that does it get into what the headline promised.
In the first episode of Foundation, some people decide to set off explosives that separate the space elevator’s top station from the rest of the cable. The cable falls to the surface of the planet and does some real damage down there.
Again, not the first time this has been considered. I don't remember a scene like that from the Foundation books (by Asimov, whose entire output I devoured as a teen), but it's been a very long time. I do remember Kim Stanley Robinson addressing the issue in his Mars series.
The (over-simplistic, which the author acknowledges) video model in the article aligns with what I recall of Robinson's description.
So not only is building a space elevator very difficult, but you really don’t want the cable to snap and fall.
At this point, though, it's firmly in the realm of speculation, both in science fiction and actual science. The problem may be so tough that we'll actually develop antigravity first, which would negate the need for a space lift. Which is why you don't see many space lifts in Star Trek (budget considerations notwithstanding).
Of course, all of that assumes that a small remnant of humanity doesn't get plunged back into subsistence living before either happens, which I'm not prepared to rule out. |
© Copyright 2024 Robert Waltz (UN: cathartes02 at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Robert Waltz has granted InkSpot.Com, its affiliates and its syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work. |
