Home arrow Forum arrow Achieving the Space Elevator arrow Science & Technology arrow Building a structure to space. A new approach?
0 && mosCountModules('left') > 0) { echo '
'; } elseif (mosCountModules('right') > 0) { echo '
'; } elseif (mosCountModules('left') > 0) { echo '
'; } else { echo '
'; }; ?> Building a structure to space. A new approach?
March 12, 2010, 04:07:28 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Building a structure to space. A new approach?  (Read 3608 times)
Reece James
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


View Profile
« on: August 31, 2006, 05:07:37 PM »

Hey all,

I had a brainwave a week ago of how to build a structure the 100KM to space.

Part one is the design which resembles a tripod more than a single spire.
Part two is the construction of each leg.

If you look at a camera tripod, it can acheive great stability over long distances with relativly lightweight materials. A tripod is also a lot easier to keep upright than say a single post. A tripod also allows for a more interestng form of construction as construction can occur on the ground and not up in the air/space.

Building a tripod using normal construction methods however is impractical as the shear weight of the structure would cause it to bow and snap. I have a solution however.

Bamboo grows with large air pockets which allows it to acheive great strength while remaining lightweight. I propose a similar construction for such a structure. Large, inflateable blocks I think would solve almost all material delemas. Each block is tied together to form the legs of the tripod on the ground, deflated. Each component could then be inflated using normal oxygen in sequence from the middle. As each segment is inflated, the structure would rise higher into the air. Furthermore, as it rises into the air, the pressure inside increases and makes the structure even stronger. (Pressure release valves would be needed on each component and as air escapes as it rises, it becomes lighter)

Benifits of this structure include that few materials are used, the main support of the structure is pressurised air, the erection of the structure is relatively easy, it provides multiple paths to get to the top, maintenence is also simple and best of all, it will bend and sway with the weather as necessary.

Thoughts anyone?
Logged
Stephen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 31, 2006, 05:25:43 PM »

Go one step further and fill the structure with hydrogen or helium to help support the weight.
This would be a cheap way of building very tall buildings. Dont think we would get anywhere near space with this technique though.
Logged
Reece James
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 31, 2006, 07:10:39 PM »

The reasons for using oxygen is that it is cheap to obtain and doesn't weight too much. Also it pressurises well.

I'm not sure if this method would work well for buildings as it is self-supporting, but I don't think it would take too much additional weight. However as a spacelift only needs to be self supporting and take a small amount of additional weight, iI think it would work. Getting to the top is also easy as a climber could go up the legs with little trouble.
Logged
Stephen
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 115


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 31, 2006, 07:43:53 PM »

Wind would be the main problem as a tall structure would be bent over, possibly beyond the limits of the construction material.

If I wanted to get the record for the tallest building I would use an inflatable structure possibly with the top filled with helium to hold it up.

I am surprised it has not already been built. I think the floors would have to be dynamic to keep them level as the wind rocked the structure.
Logged
Reece James
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 31, 2006, 08:50:11 PM »

I could see the structure bending, but the construction of using small high pressure compartments would help prevent twisting and bending (Exactly the same as bamboo), but would allow it to sway and bend back with the wind. The construction material is also flexible, probably a plastic or kevlar like material so it could puncture but not shear, snap or bend out of shape. As each compartment would bend, the pressure would increase and force it to spring back into its original shape.

I can't believe that this hasn't been done before or investigated.

What is very interesting is that each component will physically get lighter the higher it is. The reason is that you require less air to maintain the pressure and equal strength as the atmosphere around it becomes lower in pressure. I can't think of another material that the higher it is the less mass it has, nor one that keeps its strength even though it is lighter. Cool huh?
« Last Edit: August 31, 2006, 08:57:13 PM by Reece James » Logged
windemut
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 747


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: September 01, 2006, 07:29:11 AM »

Quote from: Reece James
I can't believe that this hasn't been done before or investigated.
Check out page 13 of this slightly aged document: http://www.spaceelevator.com/docs/elevator.pdf


Let me make a few points:

- In principle this is a great idea.

- Getting 100 km high does not help much, to get into orbit you still need a rocket that is almost as big as the ground based one. The difference is not worth the trouble of putting the launch pad on a tower, even it the tower itself were free.

- It cannot just be a tripod, the legs would buckle. It would have to have a more complex, fractal truss kind of shape. Like a much larger version of the Eiffel Tower.

- The sheer size and number of components puts this well out of range of any construction project ever done, and may require centuries for completion. It is more than 100 times higher and wider than a skyscraper, thus 1,000,000 times as big in volume. Even if most of that is air (as is a skyscraper), and even if it can be put together on the ground before being inflated, the work required is staggering.

The SE is possible because it is really big only in one dimension. Rolled up, it could be stored in a single warehouse. A compression structure is big in three dimensions, and thus fundamentally more difficult and costly to put together.

Andreas
« Last Edit: September 01, 2006, 07:37:14 AM by windemut » Logged
Reece James
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: June 09, 2009, 12:32:01 AM »

Well it has been 3 years! Lots has changed, but it looks like this idea's not so stupid after all...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227117.000-inflatable-tower-could-climb-to-the-edge-of-space.html

15km instead of 100, but I'm glad to hear someone's followed up on the idea!
Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.7 | SMF © 2006, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!

Login Form

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 12, 2010, 04:07:28 PM
Username: Password:
Login with username, password and session length

Forgot your password?