The Space Elevator, again!

[nick c]

Can Quiet, Efficient 'Space Elevators' Really Work?
The EU says no...it will act as a giant lightning rod.
Will they really try to do this?
It could be a test of the EU model! A very expensive and dangerous test, but a test nevertheless.


Wal Thornhill on the subject:

Here we have another example where technology has outstripped science.

So, when Robert Cassanova says “There’s nothing wrong with the physics” we may be sure that he means the old, electrically sterile physics applied to the cosmos.

The continual cosmic discharge, which powers the storms on Earth, must be considered when placing long conductors radially to the Earth. Some years ago, the tethered satellite experiment suffered a plasma discharge that severed the tether cable as it was being reeled out from the space shuttle. That phenomenon will be repeated on a grand scale in any attempt to stretch a conducting elevator cable from Earth into space. The power that drives regional thunderstorms will be concentrated into a single cataclysmic thunderbolt, destroying the elevator cable like a thin fuse wire. In the worst scenario, the 50km high ground station will be replaced by a neat, circular crater, like those seen elsewhere in the solar system and attributed, erroneously, to meteoric impacts.

from:
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/columbia- ... te-7-june/

[Osmosis]

The people to blame for the outcome of this silly idea, must first be identified.

Osmosis

[CosmicLettuce]

Actually I always thought (now knowing anything about the EU at the time) that a 200-300 mile wire going up to and through the ionosphere would be an excellent means of electric power production. I think when they did the space tether on the shuttle (until it broke) they noticed that a current had been created, but I don't recall the details.

Peace

[4realScience]

My memory is that there were two NASA missions, both from the space shuttle, where they tried to unreal a single wire from a big supply spindle. Both failed. In both cases the unreeling process fouled up. In the last case, as I recall, they measured unexpectedly high voltages, thousands of volts, that developed on the wire and which destroyed the reel mechanism.

In EU we know there is a voltage gradient between the Earth's surface and space. It varies from a hundred or so volts per meter to thousands of volts per meter as in a thunderstorm or dust devil, and probably same or a lot more in a tornado. The last reel mechanism they tried to use was only capable of about 10,000 volts, as I recall.

zzzzzzZAP!!!!! Mister EU Taxpayer! There went a few hundred million dollars!

[D_Archer]

I was thinking that maybe if some sort of non conducting material was used, this could work? What about a plastics? We all know that with nanotechnology anything is possible

Regards,
Daniel

[knomegnome]

That a material is 'non conducting' is only true to a point.. everything has a voltage that will transfer current through it. Once you get into millions of volts, all bets are off. If the potential of 100V/m holds out into space, that's about 10 million volts at 100km. I am going to guess, though, that the voltage drop is non linear, in which case the potential could be in the billions of volts.

That's the simple case. There are a slew of other factors involved (surface effects, water condensation, electro magnetic effects, etc), which all point to the strong possibility that if any material tries to form a bridge between the mesopause and the stratosphere, it will self destruct in an enormous electrical discharge.

[celeste]

http://spaceflightnow.com/challenger/timeline/
We are making the mistake already.
Read what happens at T+48.418 in the Challenger disaster. An orange ball of flame from under the wing merged with the plume of the solid rocket boosters. More telling, is "this phenomenon... has been seen on previous launches" This was not a one time event! It is almost impossible to believe no one thought that may have been a problem.
This is what happens when we leave a conducting trail to the ground! The wing is not a place you would have expected for an explosion, but as a discharge site it is perfect.

When you read on rocket fuel types, what never comes up (obviously),is how much conducting material is in the rocket plume. If you remember your rocket history, you may recall the spectacular number of in flight fails they had with solid rockets (each time attributed to a different cause). Then we switched to more liquid fuels, and things got safer.
Now we are back to solid boosters again. I'm wondering here if our safe period came from what we learned, or if we just unknowingly got lucky by switching to fuels that left less conducting material in the exhaust plume?

[Sparky]

less conducting material in the exhaust plume?

fire is fire.... ...and fire is a plasma... ....plasma is very conductive...
can't we assume that the plume is plasma?

[celeste]

Sparky,
What I find interesting, is:
1. That from T+45.217 to T+48.418, there are three distinct flashes, all occurring downstream or trailing the wing. The third leaves us with a ball of flame which "merges" with the plume.

2. The fact that any of this "phenomenon" has been seen in previous launches, let's us be confident that at least it has nothing to do with the failed O-ring of the Challenger.

3.In spite of the "wind shear during Challenger's launch was more extreme than any of the previous shuttle missions" (T+62.084),we had that amazingly intact plume as you've already seen in picture 26 here http://www.weather.com/news/science/nev ... r-20140117 You've suggested that this was from falling debris. Maybe. What is clear, is that there is a clear pathway still marked out at the point of this picture.

I'm definitely not saying I know what is going on here. Are the flashes discharges, which then arc to the conducting path of the plume? Can we find pictures of those three flashes in Challenger's flight, or any video of other shuttle flights where a ball of flame was seen merging with the plume? Again, I still can not fathom how that "phenomenon" was not made into a bigger deal.

[celeste]

Sparky, I forgot to mention that the main rocket fuel was aluminum (aluminium). Again, I may be wrong, but that was what started me wondering about the plume in the first place. You are right,that the oxidizing aluminum is plasma. We also have those continuous trails running to the ground (maybe unburned rocket fuel too?). Any expert opinions?

[celeste]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ba4_1375052482
keep your eye on the wingtips.

[neilwilkes]

What are we looking for?
I'm amazed that the camera actually survived the experience, although I must say that it is not what I would ever call "HD" - I streamed it via the BD player onto a large screen and it was dreadfully blocky.
Still pretty awesome footage though.

PS - there is no such thing as "Aluminum".

[Sparky]

http://www.weather.com/news/science/nev ... r-20140117

1. That from T+45.217 to T+48.418, there are three distinct flashes, all occurring downstream or trailing the wing. The third leaves us with a ball of flame which "merges" with the plume.

sorry//// I can't get past the "questionnaire"...

[celeste]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ba4_1375052482

neilwilkes, watch the segment from when the shuttle goes from 700 to 800 mph. Those flashes under the shuttle wing are the "phenomenon" they have observed in multiple shuttle launches.

sparky, forget that other video, the one in this post is better.

More questions:
Is it coincidence that this happens near the sound barrier? What I'm asking, is what if an object is surrounded (protected) by charged double layers, but then is pushed through the sound barrier?
Also, if in "normal" shuttle launches, they saw "flashes" and "fireballs" that merged with the tail, then could it just have been that the anomalous plume from the Challenger, "shorted" the path? Maybe that time the shuttle was in the loop, while these other flashes arced right to the plume?
Again, just questions. (as one possibility: maybe collapse of double layers at shock front,leads to current arcing right to plume in "normal" shuttle launches?)

This does seem like an interesting video, in light of Wal Thornhill's ideas.

[knomegnome]

I don't think that the shuttle would be protected by charged double layers of, I am assuming air, while it is moving through an air envelope.

But, its conceivable that as the shuttle rises, its potential with respect to the earth increases. Near the speed of sound, air is piling up very strongly near the tail edge of the shuttle, and would momentarily create a plasma ball with its own double layer (not a very good one, but a plasma nonetheless).

So, for a few instants, the entire tail section of the shuttle would be surrounded by a conductive, very highly charged plasma, which is being blown back, deforming it. Along with that, the plume might be playing a role as a conductive path.

So, if that plasma was, for some reason, more highly charged than 'usual'. and it blew back at just the right time and came in contact with the plume, and the shuttle was high enough in the atmosphere when this happened, and the potential of the earth with respect to space was particularly high that day, then it's not unreasonable to consider that the plasma ball may have flared very brightly, and partially completed the circuit between the upper atmosphere and the ground, going directly through the shuttle. A lightning bolt would have appeared out of a clear sky, or a plasma bolt.. impossible to say.. and grounded through the shuttle for an instant.

Something like this would explain the photos of a 'purple bolt from the sky', although this was re-entry, so it is a different mechanism

http://www.columbiadisaster.info/index.html#that_photo

This is just a back of the envelope idea of mine, but Wall Thornhill has an article on it here:

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/columbia- ... e=cc6y424y