User talk:Maldek
Could someone just delete my account please, I don't want to be a part of a website that is narrow-minded. There is no point for me to contribute to this site any longer because any correction I make gets erased. Please, erase my account Maldek permanently because I am tired of wasting my time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maldek (talk • contribs) 08:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- As a procedural measure, accounts cannot be erased. Because the GFDL is used for text here, all edits must be tracked, so your edit history cannot be erased. However, I've done you the courtesy of clearing anything that was above your request from the face of your talk page. And of course, nothing is keeping you from just not logging back in to Wikipedia again. —C.Fred (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism
You are still vandalizing Burj Dubai. Kindly refrain from this urge. Thank you! Venny85 07:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Burj Dubai, you will be blocked from editing. Astronaut (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Burj Dubai's height
You have recently been "updating" the height of the Burj Dubai on several different articles (Burj Dubai, List of tallest buildings and structures in the world and List of tallest structures in the world). Please do not change the height without going to http://www.burjdubai.com and checking the height under "Construction Statistics." Only if the height has changed on the official website, you may change it here on Wikipedia. If you believe the height needs to be changed, even without an official statement by Emaar or an update on the official website, you need to discuss the proposed changes on the talk page.
There have already been a couple of discussions about updating the height of the Burj Dubai. I recommend you go to Talk:Burj Dubai#Height in early March 2008, Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in the world#Burj Dubai at 611.3 metres and Talk:List of tallest structures in the world#Burj Dubai as of March 1, 2008 to read the discussions to understand the situation.
If you change the height again without discussing your proposed changes and/or coming to a consensus on the talk page(s), I will make sure you are blocked. Thank you for understanding. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 00:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The Mile High Tower
For a few weeks I have noticed that It is listd that the Mile High Tower in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia has groundbroken in January 13, 2008, but I have found no proof of this fact whatsoever anywhere else and other sources say that the tower will not even begin until at least July 2008. Another thing is where does it say that the tower will be done in 2012. How can you build a 1620 meter building in 4 years? Where's the proof. No sources. No pictures. There is nothing here to prove this buiding has been in construction since January 2008.Maldek (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely right. A [citation needed] tag can be added (with
{{fact|date=month year}}). If no citation is forthcoming in a reasonable time, the mention can be deleted. - Where's the proof. No sources. There is a similar issue with the height of the Burj Dubai being regularly escalated to record-breaking values (BurjDubaiSkyscraper.com not being considered a 'reputable source' in this case) and outlandish suggestions of proposed 100,000 kilometre space elevators to be built in 10 years, with no backup at all. -- Regregex (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Mile High Tower
ON The Wikepedia site the Mile High Tower it says it is under construction since January but it also says that it is not under construction until at least July 2008. This seems contradictory.Maldek (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Lift port 62,000 mile space elevator by April 2018
Here are some sources for to back up this information.
Going up!
The LiftPort Group, in Bremerton, Wash., says that a 62,000-mile commercial space elevator could be operational by 2018.
LiftPort officials propose that a space elevator, constructed from a carbon nanotube composite ribbon anchored to a sea platform, could transport cargo and ultimately humans to the moon, Mars and beyond. Robotic lifters attached to the ribbon would carry cargo such as satellites and solar-powered panels far into space.
"We see the space elevator as an important infrastructure element for the expansion of commerce and human travel into space," said Michael Laine, LiftPort's president.
Company officials said such an elevator would reduce launch costs for a savings of up to $20,000 per pound. The company plans two major tests of robotic lifters this year, including one using a high-altitude balloon.
Help wanted
If you're a civilian willing to rough it, USAJobs may have just the thing for you. Officials are linking the government's job Web site with the Defense Department's recruitment site ,Support our Friends in Iraq and Afghanistan (known as SOFIA), for jobs in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Prospective applicants must be willing to live under field conditions. An aptitude for languages and prior military experience are helpful but not required.
Visit www.usajobs.opm.gov for more information.
ComNet goers brave the weather — not
The halls of the Washington, D.C., Convention Center were hushed early in the ComNet telecommunication trade show, which ran late last month. First, snow almost brought the city to a halt. Then, the federal government shut down early, leaving vendors at their display booths, apparently outnumbering attendees.
Although the weather relented later in the week, vendors acknowledged that the small turnout was a challenge for them. "It is quiet," said Richard Rauch, president of Apcon Inc., which makes network-switching technology. "But we've had some people wander by, and it only takes a couple of leads."
Got a tip? Send it to circuit@fcw.com.
Space-elevator tether climbs a mile high
15:29 15 February 2006 NewScientist.com news service Kimm Groshong
Enlarge image In January, LiftPort team members deployed a mile-long tether with the help of three large balloons in the Arizona desert (N Aung/LiftPort Group) Tools
Related Articles
NASA unveils its toughest challenges yet 09 February 2006 Space elevators stuck on the first floor 24 October 2005 New space prizes target space elevators 24 March 2005 Search New Scientist Contact us
Web Links
LiftPort Group Centennial Challenges, NASA Elevator 2010, Spaceward Foundation
A slim cable for a space elevator has been built stretching a mile into the sky, enabling robots to scrabble some way up and down the line. LiftPort Group, a private US company on a quest to build a space elevator by April 2018, stretched the strong carbon ribbon 1 mile (1.6 km) into the sky from the Arizona desert outside Phoenix in January tests, it announced on Monday. The company's lofty objective will sound familiar to followers of NASA's Centennial Challenges programme. The desired outcome is a 62,000-mile (99,779 km) tether that robotic lifters – powered by laser beams from Earth – can climb, ferrying cargo, satellites and eventually people into space. The recent test followed a September 2005 demonstration in which LiftPort's robots climbed 300 metres of ribbon tethered to the Earth and pulled taut by a large balloon. This time around, the company tested an improved cable pulled aloft by three balloons. Rock solid To make the cable, researchers sandwiched three carbon-fibre composite strings between four sheets of fibreglass tape, creating a mile-long cable about 5 centimetres wide and no thicker than about six sheets of paper. "For this one, the real critical test was making a string strong enough," says Michael Laine, president of LiftPort. "We made a cable that was stationed by the balloons at a mile high for 6 hours…it was rock solid." A platform linking the balloons and the tether was successfully launched and held in place during the test. LiftPort calls the platform HALE, High Altitude Long Endurance, and plans to market it for aerial observation and communication purposes. But the test was not completely without problems. The company's battery-operated robotic lifters were designed to climb up and down the entire length of the ribbon but only made it about 460 m above ground. Laine told New Scientist that the robots had worked properly during preparatory tests and his team is still analysing the problem. Carbon nanotubes In March, LiftPort hopes to set up a HALE system in Utah's Mars Desert Research Station and maintain it for three weeks. Then, later in the spring, Laine says he wants to test a 2-mile (3.2-km) tether with robots scaling to at least half way up. Laine aims to produce a functioning space elevator by 2018 – a date his company chose in 2003 based on a NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts study, which said an elevator could be built in 15 years. "This is a baby step, but it's part of the process," he says of LiftPort's recent test. The idea is to build the actual elevator's ribbon from ultra-strong carbon nanotube composites and to have solar-powered lifters carry 100 tonnes of cargo into space once a week, 50 times a year. Beams and climbers Laine sits on the board of the California-based Spaceward Foundation, which partnered with NASA to put on two space-elevator-related competitions that were the first of the agency's Centennial Challenges programme – the Tether Challenge and the Beam Power Challenge. The first is designed to test the strength of lightweight tethers while the beam challenge tests the climbing ability and weight-bearing capability of robots scaling a cable. Laine’s team is not competing in the NASA challenges so there is no conflict of interest. In October 2005, none of the competition entrants performed well enough to claim the twin $50,000 purses. But the challenges are scheduled to take place again in August 2006 with $150,000 top prizes. Nineteen teams have signed up for the beam power challenge so far and three will compete in the tether challenge. Ben Shelef, founder of the Spaceward Foundation, hopes the competitions will drum up interest and drive technological innovation. He told New Scientist he is pleased to hear of LiftPort's successful test. "A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step,"
Science Second Round of Space Elevator Technology Completed
Michael Hoffman (Blog) - February 16, 2006 2:23 AM
________________________________________
del.icio.us
48 comment(s) - last by reiters.. on Feb 21 at 12:08 PM
Recipient E-mail
Sender E-mail
Please input the letters/numbers that appear in the image below. (not case-sensitive)
________________________________________
Courtesy LiftPort Group The LiftPort Group has a bold and interesting plan -- to build a massive space elevator before 2020
The LiftPort Group has completed a second round of testing on a prototype space elevator platform that stretches a mile into the sky, which allows a robots to climb and descend the ribbon that is between the two platforms. The LiftPort Space Elevator would allow a revolutionary way to get cargo and supplies into space -- using a cable thousands of miles long tethered to an object in geosyncronous orbit. The company hopes to build the space elevator by the year 2018, but the task will obviously not be easy. The observation and communication platform that robots climbed is properly dubbed HALE, High Altitude Long Endurance. HALE was secured in place by several high altitude balloons for over six hours.
The ribbon that will hopefully stretch 62,000 miles from Earth into space will be made of carbon nanotubes weighing less than 1.5 pounds per mile. Although initial testing was done in Arizona, the space elevator will likely be anchored to an offshore sea platform that will be located somewhere in the Pacific Ocean.
________________________________________
Comments Threshold
Username
Password
remember me
This article is over a month old, posting comments is disabled
So what happens when the cable snaps?
By EODetroit on 2/16/2006 9:34:47 AM , Rating: 2 I wouldn't want to be on the counterweight if the cable snapped... you'd be thrown out into space. I wonder what their contigency plan is. Or maybe all the "equipment" that runs the thing will be placed at the center of gravity, and the counterweight is just dumb weight. But it makes sense to have your equipment as part of the counterwieght if it wasn't for the cable-snapping factor.
RE: So what happens when the cable snaps?
By lamestlamer on 2/16/2006 10:25:36 AM , Rating: 2 The counterweight will eliminate the orbital drag due to corriolis force. The point of the counterweight is that at all times, the weight of the counterweight-tether system is less than the centrifigal force. This will keep tension and will prevent it from being dragged down from a heavy rising load. It will also keep it normal to the surface of the planet, if it is anchored precisely at the equator. The problem is that you need a very heavy counterweight to cause oscillations to be small and slow: however, a very heavy counterweight will be extremely expensive.
I would also like to know how they are going to strand together nanotubes: nanotubes are cheap to make, but excedingly hard to manipulate.
Parent
RE: So what happens when the cable snaps?
By Micky2Shoes on 2/16/2006 7:40:15 PM , Rating: 2 I don't agree, let me put it another way. The coriolis force is the force needed to add all that extra angular momentum that a payload would have at GEO compared to at the ground. The force will act perpendicularly to the cable. There is no getting around it, you will need to periodically re-boost the counter weight. The only way you wouldn’t would be if there were no net mass transferred up the cable. I do admit that I could be wrong but I am 99% certain of this. I would appreciate enlightenment if you have any to offer but I would like some maths to prove it.
Also I believe coriolis is spelt with a single r (but I may be wrong again).
Parent
RE: So what happens when the cable snaps?
By LiamC on 2/16/2006 7:25:56 PM , Rating: 2 Read Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson.
What about the falling cable? Not pretty.
Parent
RE: So what happens when the cable snaps?
By Micky2Shoes on 2/16/2006 7:46:41 PM , Rating: 2 Yes that was a great book. I have seen a study somewhere on precisely this problem. If I remember correctly they concluded that there would be virtually no danger if the cable snapped.
Parent
RE: So what happens when the cable snaps?
By Micky2Shoes on 2/16/2006 7:53:56 PM , Rating: 2 Yes you are right but that’s a bit like saying I wouldn't want to be on an aeroplane when the wings fall off. If the thing is properly engineered it won't break.
Parent
RE: So what happens when the cable snaps?
By EODetroit on 2/17/2006 9:30:38 AM , Rating: 2 Except that in the early days of flight wings were probably torn off all the time. The consequences of which fall back to earth. In this scenario, a failure means you're flung out into space, probably a higher orbit, maybe one that isn't circular any more and will soon result in a re-entry. I doubt you could be flung completely free of the earth, but geo-sync is a long way up, and the counterweight would be thrown out even higher if the cable snapped.
I'm just curious what they plan on doing, or if they plan on it not happening ever.
Parent
Date of completion
By smitty3268 on 2/16/2006 3:23:28 AM , Rating: 2 The company hopes to build the space elevator by the year 2018,
Only 12 years away? I don't think there's any chance it will happen that quickly, but this does make me think there might be one in 30 years. Cool. Now my question is, what happens during a hurricane? It seems like strong winds could seriously affect the stability of the station in orbit, and could knock it out of geosynchronous orbit fairly easily. Maybe rocket thrusters are more than enough to compensate though.
RE: Date of completion
By smitty3268 on 2/16/2006 3:26:46 AM , Rating: 2 Hmm, now that I think about it winds would only accelerate or deccelerate the orbit a bit, not move it into a completely different orbit. So not a big problem after all.
Parent
RE: Date of completion
By AppaYipYip on 2/16/06, Rating: 0
RE: Date of completion
By goku on 2/16/2006 7:10:44 AM , Rating: 2 Who said this was going to connect us to the moon?
Parent
RE: Date of completion
By oTAL (blog) on 2/16/2006 12:49:56 PM , Rating: 2
- lolol* He actually thought the counter weight depicted in the drawing was the moon.
I'm trying to contain the laughter in a lab full of ppl... Damn... they're all starring at me....
Parent
RE: Date of completion
By SGTPan on 2/16/2006 8:13:04 AM , Rating: 2 Lol, no what was funny is that you thought the counter weight was the moon! Sorry I'm not trying to be an ass here, but the moon is a little farther than 62,000 miles away.
Parent
RE: Date of completion
By SGTPan on 2/16/2006 8:13:52 AM , Rating: 2 Lol, farther... further. Seesh, its too early.
Parent
Hmm.
By Souka on 2/16/2006 3:02:15 AM , Rating: 2 Why would the ribbon need to "stretch" 62,000 miles into space?
All gyo-syncronous (don't laugh at my spelling) objects are at approximately 32,000 miles from the Earths surface.
Also, "weighing less than 1.5 pounds per mile" Weight won't be an issue since gravity is very slight over 150 miles over the surface.....but if they need to get 62,000 miles of the stuff into space, that's 46.5 tons to lift... the space shuttle cargo lift is only 32.45tons...hmm... guess it'll be a multiple trip....
RE: Hmm.
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/16/2006 3:18:15 AM , Rating: 2 I'll bite.
Even though you can obtain geosyncronous orbit at 32k miles, you would need a very heavy counterweight to keep the cable in place. You could just extend the cable further into space without the need for heavy, astroid sized counterweights. I am guessing that is the reason they are doing this.
Next, weight IS an issue. There is weightlessness in space, but you're still falling even when in orbit. This is why ISS needs to constantly boost even though it is orbit.
Anyways, the highest GTO of any rocket I know of is 29k lbs. 46 tons is like 4 trips.
Parent
RE: Hmm.
By SNM on 2/16/2006 4:05:43 AM , Rating: 2 Once they get the first portion up they can presumably lift more of it up over the elevator itself. Possibly that's even how they intend to do the whole thing.
Parent
RE: Hmm.
By Zirconium on 2/16/2006 4:06:15 PM , Rating: 2 quote: Next, weight IS an issue. There is weightlessness in space, but you're still falling even when in orbit. This is why ISS needs to constantly boost even though it is orbit.
Something in orbit is continuously falling, so weight is not the issue. What is an issue is friction. Space is not a complete vacuum, and satellites do slow down.
However, you are right that the reason they are putting the platform in space farther than geosynchronous orbit (which is actually closer to 36k miles above the surface) is due to the need to for the satellite keep tension on the cable and not fall as something is going up the elevator.
Parent
RE: Hmm.
By sandytheguy on 2/16/2006 4:14:09 AM , Rating: 2 At 150 miles up gravity would only be down from 9.8 m/s^2 to 9.1 m/s^2, that's not much of a drop. At 62k miles it would be down to like .04 though.
Parent
thunder storms
By kattanna on 2/16/2006 12:19:03 PM , Rating: 2 i take it they are going to do the next test and IF they build the thing in an area where they dont get thunder storms??
if not WOW...the thing is going to be one SUPER lightning rod...
RE: thunder storms
By fhornmikey on 2/16/2006 12:33:08 PM , Rating: 2 Hint: The Elevator is made out of CARBON.
Parent
RE: thunder storms
By oTAL (blog) on 2/16/2006 1:03:19 PM , Rating: 2 Dude, carbon nanotubes can be conductive... that's one of their greatest characteristics.... they may be... and they may not be.... carbon nanotubes rule!
Parent
RE: thunder storms
By Dmitheon on 2/16/2006 1:03:48 PM , Rating: 2 And you're going to prevent moisture from gathering on it how?
Parent
Physics
By Bladud on 2/16/2006 8:14:58 AM , Rating: 2 I feel I should correct some of the physics from prior commenters.
Remember that the apparent "weightlessness" of orbit is not weightlessness at all; it is free fall. There is still a force on you, and you are still falling, but you don't notice it because it is a uniform acceleration (remember Einstein's famous lift?). However, the lower parts of the cable, being nearer the earth, are under greater acceleration, which is noticeable. The rope is therefore under (a lot of) tension. So the mass of the cable is very important, because if it were too great no material known to man could withstand the tension created.
The reason they go up to 63,000km is, I imagine, because the *center of mass* of the elevator has to be in geosynchronous orbit, at whatever height, so the counterweight has to be somewhat higher, and the cable proportionally longer.
Hurricanes and so forth are fairly negligable because the cable is very thin and very very heavy, making it correspondingly hard to move. That said, they could cause it to vibrate, like a guitar string, which could be rather unfortunate.
Lastly, using the cable itself to put more of itself into orbit would not work at all, because until it is finished and the counterweight attached, the cable has nothing holding it up (parachutes don't work where there is no atmosphere). I would imagine, however, that by 2018 the new NASA lifter will be ready, and if it isn't, well, transportation is a picayune compared to the problems they would have to solve to get that far.
RE: Physics
By oTAL (blog) on 2/16/2006 12:56:36 PM , Rating: 2 For ppl with any questions you should check out the VERY good Wikipedia article about the space elevator. It describes the problems and solutions in detail. Weather IS a problem. And you are all thinking in newtonian physics which is not the best one here. Think Lagrange and use the Earth as an acelerated referencial. At geosinchronous orbit the gravity becomes zero. Below this point it rises up till the ground where it is highest and over this point it is negative. What you need to get is an overall (slightly) negative gravity so that the cable is always under tension - as if something was pulling it from space. It's pretty simple, but you have to understand the concepts of orbit and geosichronous orbit pretty well to even try and understand this.
Parent
RE: Physics
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 2/16/2006 3:45:31 PM , Rating: 2 quote: The reason they go up to 63,000km is, I imagine, because the *center of mass* of the elevator has to be in geosynchronous orbit, at whatever height, so the counterweight has to be somewhat higher, and the cable proportionally longer.
Kind of. The reason it extends 62k MILES is because the cable will continue to stay in geosyncronous orbit -- even at that great of a distance. The tip of the cable moving that fast is actually what keeps the whole tether stable.... this way you don't need a coutnerweight.
I read someone earlier that the reason why we don't want to use counterweights anymore is because someone calculated that you would need several tons of counterweight at 32k miles.. or you would need just the weight of the cable moving at a much faster speed.... 32k miles further out. its a neat physics problem to work out.
Parent
asdf
By konekobot on 2/16/2006 10:37:11 AM , Rating: 2 ... makes sense to me.
i like the idea i read about in popular science about space balloons. i forget exactly what the name of the project was. anyways, it involves floating small labs (probably about the size of my one bedroom apt.) into very high stratospheric orbit. they would never completely leave the atmosphere, but the balloons would be high enough to do some interesting observations or possible act as a launching platform for smaller satellites.
keep in mind, i'm not talking about something a small as a zepplin. in the article, these things were half a kilometer in diameter and made of three humongous tubes filled with helium. i think the point here was that it was much cheaper, simpler, and safer than using the shuttle. actually that seems to be the drive behind NASA's "challenge".
"Make Space Cheaper!"
RE: asdf
By Ringold on 2/16/2006 10:57:33 AM , Rating: 2 I dont know why there's even so much debate, especially among common geeks like myself. NASA engineers have figured it out, private engineers have figured it out; the science is there. It can be done; there are only a couple restraints.
Price tag: If NASA does it, expect anything from billions to trillions. Government is wasteful, something said in the first week of a macro or micro econ class. If private business does it, expect the cost to be MUCH less, MUCH more innovative, possibly revolutionary.
Materials: What's the ribbon to be made of exactly? Thats really the missing link. It has to be able to withstand numerous holes getting punched in it from orbital waste, micrometeorites, etc, and there has to be huge margins of safety for possible terrorist attack.
Also, two smaller (easy/non important) issues are safety -- methods of safely landing the crawler in case of cable failure at ANY altitude -- from 10ft to 62,000m. Whole planes have parachutes these days, so thats easy. Also, engineers have pointed out that it'll slowly slow the orbit of the planet down..... After we haul Texas in to space, by a couple seconds per day.
This is like going to Mars. Could be done in 5-10 years, easy. Could have private industry on the Moon with a little push in 5 or less years. It's just a question of 'balls' and vision. NASA is a rounding error in our 2.7 trillion wellfare & military national budget.
Parent
Storms etc...
By CurtOien on 2/16/2006 11:38:17 AM , Rating: 2 I had read that the anchor at the earth end of a space elevator could be on an ocean platform that could be moved to avoid severe storms.
Parent
Trash
By reiters on 2/16/2006 1:16:42 PM , Rating: 2 Maybe the counterweight could be made out of excess trash from all the major cities. Solves 2 problems at once. :)
Really, how would the mobile base not be lifted up and away with any major changes in tension?
RE: Trash
By nomagic on 2/16/2006 4:21:18 PM , Rating: 2 ...
You are kidding me right? The counterweight itself does not cost much money. Sending the counterweight up to the sky does. You misunderstood...
Parent
RE: Trash
By reiters on 2/16/2006 4:47:24 PM , Rating: 2 I very much was kidding.
I do wonder what effect it will have on the rotation of the earth. Our planet is highly balanced with our solar syetem and any changes could cause catastrophic results.
Parent
extra miles
By PrimarchLion on 2/16/2006 10:13:50 PM , Rating: 2 I don't know if anyone mentioned this, but anything on the elevator that is out past gs orbit(32,000 mi) will be accelerated away from the earth. Very high stresses, but carbon nanotubes can handle it. This is how the elevator could eventually be used as a low-zero fuel launch platform.
RE: extra miles
By PrimarchLion on 2/16/2006 10:24:24 PM , Rating: 2 Sorry for double posting. I haven't read all the comments but as I read I want to comment. To deploy the space elevator requires a satellite be put in geosynchronous orbit. The satellite has two spools of carbon nanotube filament. It unrolls both, extending them at the same rate in both directions. The filament doesn't need to be strong enough to support any payload. When the filament touches down, a robot climbs ups, reinforcing the carbon tube as he goes. He makes several trips to make it strong enough to safely support heavy payloads. Carbon nanotubes are extremely strong.
Parent
RE: extra miles
By PrimarchLion on 2/16/2006 10:30:17 PM , Rating: 2 sorry again, i'm excited. I made a mistake, gs orbit is about 36000 km or ~22000 mi. The section of filament above this is probably not as heavily reinforced as the section below, so it is extended further as the bottom part is reinforced. A counterweight would not be required in this case as it would make launching payload difficult.
Parent
Tsunamis
By DrDisconnect on 2/16/2006 12:24:38 PM , Rating: 2 Interesting point about the Tsunamis and resonance. Hurricanes or Cyclones might be avoided by an intelligent choice of base location. The base will have to be somewhere on the equator. Actually, I would think that the best location would be the highest stable landmass you could find on the equator but that would cause issues with shipping materials to the base station, risk to adjacent communities, terrorism and local weather (more rapidly variable than mid ocean weather generally).
RE: Tsunamis
By oTAL (blog) on 2/16/2006 1:06:00 PM , Rating: 2 You can't do that if you want an even balance and a geosinchronous lift. Check wikipedia for more info. The two best options are a high mountain or a movable platform in the ocean.
Parent
This idea is not quite new...
By MarkHark on 2/16/2006 3:11:32 PM , Rating: 2 ... but it always had me amazed from the very first day I read about it.
For anyone interested in the subject, I recommend the excellent (fictitious) work by Arthur C. Clarke, "The fountains of Paradise".
RE: This idea is not quite new...
By DEMO24 on 2/16/2006 4:06:38 PM , Rating: 2 And then the day comes when someone programs a satellite wrong and it smacks right into the pole.
I think a more interesting thing is how are they really going to get it all pieced together. Obviously just making the whole elevator is gonna take forever. Then they have to put it all together. I assume they will start in space, but how they hold it in place will be interesting.
I also wonder if this will cast some shadows on the earth? I've read more in depth articles than this one and it's going to be a massive project with many stations and elevators going all over the place. Thus if it does have a counterweight I wonder if it might one day cast a mini-eclipse upon the earth?
Parent
Air Plane
By reiters on 2/16/2006 4:49:48 PM , Rating: 2 What if some missguided pilot smacked the cable. There would have to be anti-aircraft equipment available to shoot down any airplanes that get too close. Even if by accident.
RE: Air Plane
By Zoomer on 2/16/2006 10:23:43 PM , Rating: 2 It should be engineered so that any such shocks can be withstood without stress.
Parent
Teh End is Nigh...
By Visual on 2/18/2006 12:34:37 PM , Rating: 2 If this thing does work out... it'd be running circles around the Tower of Babylon! I wonder what the Pope has to say about this.
- grumble* we've lost our fear of god these days... next thing you know, everyone will be speaking the same languge. (Oh wait, no... that'll take at least a couple more generations.)
Boy oh boy how I want to fast-forward a hundred years and have a glimpse around...
RE: The End is Nigh...
By reiters on 2/21/2006 12:08:27 PM , Rating: 2 The goal of the people building the tower of Babylon was to be with God by building a tower to heaven. God shot that down real effectively (assuming you believe the Bible). What they are does not have the intention of finding God, so it I don't think the reference is valid.
Parent
Big problem:
By knowyourenemy on 2/16/2006 8:35:05 AM , Rating: 2 Nothing has a perfectly circular orbit, and what is considered a minor change can possibly affect miles of the tether, therefore creating variable slack and maybe even stress damage. I don't see this happening at all.
So like a guitar string huh...
By wjp001 on 2/16/2006 11:25:24 AM , Rating: 2 The resonance would be my main concern because it could potentially act as a guitar string. So hmm, are we going to hear Hells Bells every time God sends a tsunammi across the ocean? :)
Silly Question
By Dmitheon on 2/16/2006 1:01:26 PM , Rating: 2 Silly question: Why anchor it to the ground? It seems like that creates a huge number of complexities. If we're placing a platform out in space and a counterbalance, why not have a platform/counterbalance in the atmosphere as well? Put it at an altitude that aircraft use when they're flying over the storm. The cost of getting it to the platform would be simply that of flying the cargo. This would also let the system be more tolerant of any movement.
You'd have to place the space weight first, but you pretty much have to do that with a sea-level based platform as well. The whole thing seems like an interesting problem, a via solution to which may not exist until we've failed a few times. :-
Space Elevator
By DHunter on 2/16/2006 11:15:50 PM , Rating: 2 This article was a little light. If anybody wants to know more go to www.spaceelevator.com/directory which has links to other articles and sites.
Coriolis Force
By Micky2Shoes on 2/16/2006 9:27:03 AM , Rating: 1 Biggest problem I can see (apart from getting a strong enough cable) is coriolis force. Any object travelling up the elevator would experience coriolis force which eventually would drag the whole thing out of orbit. So you would need to continually boost the counter weight. That being said however you could use this to stabilise the cable (but only if the oscillations were in the plain of the orbit). Also you could use a high specific impulse engine to do the boosting (like an ion engine) which would be a lot more efficient than rockets. So I would say it’s doable but quite tricky.
Coriolis force is a fictitious force arising from the fact the whole system is in a rotational reference frame. It’s given by,
-2m(Omega)xV
where m is the mass of the object, Omega is the angular velocity and V is the velocity of the elevator within the rotating reference frame. Oh and x = cross product not straight multiplication or for that matter the letter x.
"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson
Space-elevator tether climbs a mile high with robots climbing up and down
News Type: Event — Seeded on Fri Feb 17, 2006 4:43 PM EST
Article Source: Space.com
science, tech, robotics, space-elevator Seeded by Devo LiftPort Group, a private US company on a quest to build a space elevator by April 2018, stretched the strong carbon ribbon 1 mile (1.6 km) into the sky from the Arizona desert outside Phoenix in January tests, it announced on Monday. The company's battery-operated robotic lifters were designed to climb up and down the entire length of the ribbon. By 2018, the plan to build a 62,000 mile cable, ferrying 100tons once a week.
Wednesday, February 15. 2006
Space-Elevator Tether Climbs a Mile High
From New Scientist SPACE: (via Instapundit)
A slim cable for a space elevator has been built stretching a mile into the sky, enabling robots to scrabble some way up and down the line.
LiftPort Group, a private US company on a quest to build a space elevator by April 2018, stretched the strong carbon ribbon 1 mile (1.6 km) into the sky from the Arizona desert outside Phoenix in January tests, it announced on Monday.
The company's lofty objective will sound familiar to followers of NASA's Centennial Challenges programme. The desired outcome is a 62,000-mile (99,779 km) tether that robotic lifters – powered by laser beams from Earth – can climb, ferrying cargo, satellites and eventually people into space.
The recent test followed a September 2005 demonstration in which LiftPort's robots climbed 300 metres of ribbon tethered to the Earth and pulled taut by a large balloon. This time around, the company tested an improved cable pulled aloft by three balloons. ...
But the test was not completely without problems.
The company's battery-operated robotic lifters were designed to climb up and down the entire length of the ribbon but only made it about 460 m above ground. Laine told New Scientist that the robots had worked properly during preparatory tests and his team is still analysing the problem. ...
[LiftPort's president, Michael Laine] aims to produce a functioning space elevator by 2018 – a date his company chose in 2003 based on a NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts study, which said an elevator could be built in 15 years. "This is a baby step, but it's part of the process," he says of LiftPort's recent test.
The idea is to build the actual elevator's ribbon from ultra-strong carbon nanotube composites and to have solar-powered lifters carry 100 tonnes of cargo into space once a week, 50 times a year. Maldek (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Burj Dubai 2009
I was looking on Burj Dubai's official site and I did not find a date for the end of construction. Where is 2009 coming from. I have been to this site many times and it has always said December 2008. Many internet sites also say 2008. I have not seen 2009 as a date on the official site of BurjDubai.com. Since I now know other sites don't count such as BurjDubaiSkyscraper.com, then I think that the 2009 construction end date should be deleted because Burj Dubai's official site does not back up this claim.Maldek (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Emporis.com and BurjDubai.com
I have looked thoroughly for an end of construction date on BurjDuba.com but didn't find one. I also saw that on BurjDubai.com it says that on July 21,2007 the Burj Dubai became the tallest skyscraper, but Emporis.com quotes a wrong date of July 24, 2007. This leads me to beleive that Emporis is not a good source and since I can't find 2009 as a date of the construction end on Burj Dubai, I urge you to let me change it back to Decemeber 30, 2008. On the official site of Burj Dubai.com it says that the Armani hotel will open up in Downtown Burj Dubai in 2008, but no date is given. If Decemeber 30, 2008 disturbs you then to be politically correct let me put unknown for date of completion since the offical site does not quote a date. Thank You.Maldek (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Burj Dubai
Its been almost two months. There are almost 7,000 workers working on the Burj Dubai. If Emaar hasn't updated the height yet, it probably won't update it until it is finished. The height of the Burj Dubai is in secrecy due to compettion from other projects, but There are pictures to prove that the Burj Dubai is much taller. How long will you wait to update your site? Will you wait until the Burj Dubai is complete?Maldek (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Burj Dubai Completion Date
The completion date for the Burj Dubai had always been 2008. How can you change it to 2009, when it doesn't list 2009 on Burj Dubai's official site, which is www.BurjDubai.com?Maldek (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Burj Dubai's height again
Unless you have a source for the floors/height the numbers you are entering constitute nothing more than speculation on your part. Here is where the offical height/floors can be found for use in the various articles. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Burj Dubai as of March 27, 2008-Tallest Manmade Structure in the World.
Burj Dubai became the World's Tallest Structure! The tower has just hit the 630,5 m mark by starting the construction of the third mezzanine level. The top of the three new columns makes it 1,7 m taller than the KVLY-TV Mast.
The one and only remaining record to be broken is the height of the
collapsed Warsaw radio mast, which
used to be 646.38 metres tall until August 8. 1991 . Photos by Altind: You can view the proof with new pictures on BurjDubaiskyscraper.com. Please consider updating your wikipedia site before your information becomes extremely outdated. Emmar has not
contradicted this information by
posting any differnt figures for the same date. The height is fully documented with pictures and has already been updated on March 1,
March 19, and March 27. Another record and Milestone for the Burj Dubai has already been met. Please
consider updating it. Thank You.
Maldek ([[User talk: Maldek#top|talk]]) 21:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Burj Dubai Vandalism Warning
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Burj Dubai, you will be blocked from editing. Astronaut (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I AM NOT VANDALIZING
I have proof and pictures you just are reluctant to update your information. UNDERSTAND THAT IT IS NOT FEBUARY 5, 2008!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Maldek (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, you are vandalising. You have added incorrect data from unreliable sources to the Burj dubai article on seventeen occasions over the last two weeks. That is called vandalism. Now, please stop. Astronaut (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please note that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. While the height of the building may not be exactly what is posted, unless there is a verifiable source, it should not be changed. Useight (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- I agree this does appear to be vandalism. The alleged facts seem to change from edit to edit. And a 2200 foot tower with 400 floors would only accommodate a very short population. -- Tcncv (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ha ha, that's hilarious! Useight (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- At least one reliable source apepars to be a reliable source http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1644559,00.html and says "Sang says it will go "at least" to 2,300 ft. (700 m)" which is completely different then changes posted by the editor Diff "Greg Sang, has said only that the final height would be greater than 2,200 m (7,218 ft)", The actions of Maldek appear to be vandalism against consensus and after being warned a umber of times. Jeepday (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ha ha, that's hilarious! Useight (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a 3 day block Jeepday (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back
Welcome back after being blocked for 3 days. And your first edit is to vandalise Burj Dubai again!!!
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Astronaut (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for finally updating the Burj Dubai's height to the correct height in over two months.
Hey I was wondering are different people measuring the Burj Dubai a little bit differently because one source claims that the Burj Dubai is 630.5 meters and one claims that it is 629.0 meters which is a 1.5 meter difference. Just wondering.Maldek (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- We finally got 629 m from a reliable source (NDTV - an Indian TV station of international repute; then from Emaar itself). If you have a similarly reliable source for 630.5 m then please tell us or add it yourself. Astronaut (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Burj Dubai floors
Okay I know the Burj Dubai is now 629 meters tall and 160 floors are completed. On wikipedia it says that the Burj Dubai will have 162 floors, but that the top floor will end at 624.1 meters. If the 162nd floor will be 624.1 meters high, then how is it that the Burj Dubai is already 629 meters tall, yet it still has two more floors to go, if the top floor was only supposed to reach 624.1 meters? Does this mean that the Burj Dubai will be taller than 818 meters, maybe even around 950 meters? I'm so confused. Does anybody know the answer to this?Maldek (talk) 00:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
- There has been some confusion as to whether 162 floors includes the two basement levels or not. This diagram suggests that the highest floor is going to be number 160, with its floor level at 624.1 m, but the roof is at 643.3 m, and the total height is 808 m. I think the diagram is intended to show how more that 100 m of pinnacle is to be jscked into place. BUT (and this is a big but), I'm not sure of the source of this diagram, or whether it shows the current plan - things could have changed a lot since that diagram was made, or the diagram could be a complete work of fiction. As for the building being a lot taller, most reliable sources I've seen appear to be pretty settled on 818 m. Despite 950 m appearing regularly in the Wikipedia article, I've yet to see a recent reliable source with that figure. Astronaut (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Edit summaries
In your recent edit I noticed you once again used the edit summary "Updated Height" when you in fact specified the groundbreaking date. To avoid confusion, it would be useful to write edit summaries that reflect what you have changed or your reasons for changing it (see Help:Edit summary for more guidance). Astronaut (talk) 10:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The Burj Dubai floor height
Emaar claims that as of 7 April 2008 the Burj Dubai is 629 meters tall with only 160 of the 162 floors completed. If the 160th floor is 629 meters tall then the 162nd floor cannot be only 624.1 meters tall. It makes no logical sense whatsoever. That means the top floor must be a bit higher than 629 meters.Maldek (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Burj Dubai floor height.
Again I urge you to use some logic. All of us agree that as of April 7, 2008 the Burj Dubai was atleast 629 meters with 160 floors. Emaar has stated this, and I think everyone understands this. You also agree that there will be atleast, at the minimum 162 floors. What makes no logical sense is that you say the Burj Dubai has 160 out of 162 completed floors and that it is 629 meters tall, but you say that the top floor is at a height of 624.1 meters. How can the top floor be at 624.1 meters, when the 160th floor was at a height of 629 meters? Bascially the only way that this could be possible is if somebody destoryed the top floors of the Burj Dubai and then started over by building smaller floors so that by the time the tinier floors got up to 162 floors it would be 624.1 meters tall. Please use some logic and stop editing the sane edits that I make. If you are going to edit the floor height of the Burj Dubai, please answer this question for me. Do you think it is in anyway logical that the top floor of the Burj Dubai can be 624.1 meters high when already the 160th floor is much higher than that at 629 meters high? Do you think that by adding two more floors the top floor of the Burj Dubai will be 15 feet lower that it currently is? How can the top floor height of the Burj Dubai become lower than it is by adding atleast 2-4 more floors. It's already higher than 624.1 meters, so stop editing the floor height, because you make no logical sense. I am sorry if I seem to be rude, but honeslty I am tired of people saying that the top floor height of the Burj Dubai will be 624.1 meters when as you and Emaar agree the Burj Dubai is currently atleast 629 meters. So stop stating 624.1 meters. Its illogical and contradictory. Thank You.Maldek (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe the 162nd floor = 624.1 m is wrong?? The diagrams I have seen could be from previous designs or complete works of fiction. The Burj Dubai article is not the place for your own calculations. Please see Talk:Burj Dubai#SOM as official source? for further discussion. Astronaut (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hang on a moment... where does it say the top floor is at 624.1 m? Astronaut (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)- OK, I was looking at your edit (again!) I have removed the 624.1 m for now. However, adding unsourced, unverifiable data is NOT the correct way to fix this inconsistancy in the article. Astronaut (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Directing you to top floor
Okay Hi Astrotalk. Regarding your question if you look under the picture of the Burj Dubai it will list spire Height 818 meters and then Roof height and below that it will say Top Floor 624.1 meters which is obviously wrong as I have mentiond and should not have to keep repeating. You obviously know this is wrong data by common logic so stop giving false information. Thank You.Maldek (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please can we keep the discussion on Talk:Burj Dubai. Astronaut (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Burj Mubarak Tower Groundbreaking and Completion
Hi, I have noticed for quite some time that it says that the Burj Mubarak tower will ground break in 2008 and finish in 2011, or 2012. What evidence or source is there for this claim? How can a 1,001 meter building be built is 3 years? You can see the much smaller Burj Dubai took 5 years to build, so how can this much larger building be built by 2011, 2012?Maldek (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Chicago Spire
I don't understand why you would want to write something like this:
The skyscraper will stand 1,116 feet shorter than the Burj Dubai. The Chicago Spire will be 1,116 feet shorter than the tallest building in the world making it the second tallest building in the world. [8][4][5]
Takarada (talk) 07:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with what your saying, its just not expressed in wiki style, see edit by Astronaut for the a good way of saying this. Takarada (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Talk pages
Hi Maldek. I noticed that when you make a comment on a talk page, you usually start a new section. Please note it is only necessary if you are starting a new topic of discussion. If you are continuing a discussion, replying to someone's comment or adding more explanation to your own comment, then you can edit that section. If you want to, you can use one or more colons (":") to increase the indent of each paragraph. Astronaut (talk) 14:10, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok thanks for telling me, I didn't know that. Maldek (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Burj Dubai records
I noticed over the last few weeks you have added statements like "Burj Dubai is now the world's tallest skyscraper, freestanding structure, and man-made structure of any kind built on Earth" to many articles where Burj Dubai is mentioned. To be honest, it is not necessary to add this complex statement everywhere, when "Burj Dubai is now the world's tallest structure" is perfectly sufficient and readers can click on the link to read more about the Burj Dubai. It is also worth pointing out that we shouldn't be claiming Burj Dubai is the world's tallest skyscraper until the CTBUH declare that it is the current record holder (which won't happen until Burj Dubai is completed). Astronaut (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Sections and height cutoff
Maldek, the reason I reverted you edit is because it would be really wierd to only have one building in a section. There is no point to create a whole new section for structures greater than 650 m if there is only one. Once there is a reasonble number of buildings greater than 600 m, then we can create a "Greater tan 650 m" section. Also, the Burj Dubai has not even risen above 650 m yet, so there is no point to get the section titles ready for that yet. I will open a discussion about this at Talk:List of tallest structures in the world so other users can voice their opinion. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 21:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)