| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ==Untitled==
| |
| "It is used for lifting heavy ordinance into the atmosphere of the planet using a '''pulley system''' that negates the use of rockets or waste of fuel to generate an escape velocity for materials." | | "It is used for lifting heavy ordinance into the atmosphere of the planet using a '''pulley system''' that negates the use of rockets or waste of fuel to generate an escape velocity for materials." |
|
| |
|
| Line 20: |
Line 19: |
| == Mombasa elevator NOT destroyed by slipspace blast == | | == Mombasa elevator NOT destroyed by slipspace blast == |
|
| |
|
| I'd like to point that out. While it seems logical, in the new 'Keep It Clean' trailer, the elevator is seen standing ''after'' the blast, so it must have been destroyed at a later point, before Master Chief returns to Earth. Heck, no-one reads talk pages anymore, so I dunno why I bother. [[User:Diaboy|Diaboy]] 09:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC) | | I'd like to point that out. While it seems logical, in the new 'Keep It Clean' trailer, the elevator is seen standing ''after'' the blast, so it must have been destroyed at a later point, before Master Chief returns to Earth. Heck, no-one reads talk pages anymore, so I dunno why I bother. [[User:Diaboy|Diaboy]] 09:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Indeed, the elevator is not destroyed after Regret jumps into slipspace. I think we will find out how it has been destroyed in the new campaign experience. [[User:SQ G T3rr0R|SQ G T3rr0R]] 10:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC) | | Indeed, the elevator is not destroyed after Regret jumps into slipspace. I think we will find out how it has been destroyed in the new campaign experience. [[User:SQ G T3rr0R|SQ G T3rr0R]] 10:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| I think the same thing, the elevator not key but part of the structure that supports it. In [[Halo 3]] one sees part of the structure but the rest is not seen anywhere. --[[User talk:H A L O Legend|H A L O Legend]] 01:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC) | | I think the same thing, the elevator not key but part of the structure that sostenia. In [[Halo 3]] one sees part of the structure but the rest is not seen anywhere. --[[User talk:H A L O Legend|H A L O Legend]] 01:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC) |
| | |
| The Mombasa Space Elevator collapsed when the city was glassed by Truth's forces, it says so on [[Tsavo Highway]], right after you leave the base, head left past the destroyed phantom and there is a cliff, if you listen carefully you can hear a few Marines talking about what happened to it. CoH/Member List#Field Masters|<span style="color:gold">''Field''</span>]] UoH/Member List#Colonel|<span style="color:#000000">''Master''</span>]] [[User:Spartansniper450|<span style="color:#00416A">Spartansniper</span>]][[User talk:Spartansniper450|<span style="color:black">4</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Spartansniper450|<span style="color:black">50</span>]] 16:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSrOkk7jRbk At 1:19-1:20 look a the elevator when the slipspace expands] --[[User talk:JacktheBlack|Jack Black]] 21:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::And at 3:06 you can see the tower on fire and broken.--[[User talk:JacktheBlack|Jack Black]] 22:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| It wasn't destroyed in the screenshot that has been posted, they clearly say it had not completely collapsed, it was just damaged
| |
| | |
| == HAlo 3 odst ==
| |
| | |
| will the rookie visit the space tether in odst?
| |
| | |
| == Too far south ==
| |
| | |
| If New Mombasa is near Mombasa, Kenya, it is too far south to build a space elevator. For a space elevator to be remotely practical it needs to be at a near 0 degree inclination with respect to the earth's rotational plane.(ie 0 degrees latitude).
| |
| | |
| I know this is science fiction, but still. At the latitude of Mombasa, the space elevator wouldn't go straight up, but would instead be noticeably tilted north by centripetal pseudo-force.[[Special:Contributions/75.82.133.73|75.82.133.73]] 00:38, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| It is also built in the future, they're racing to build an elevator within the next ten years. One built in 2130 or whenever it went up would conceivably have some magically plot device that allows it to be built at an odd location.
| |
| [[User talk:ProphetofTruth|ProphetofTruth]] 06:29, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Feasibility ==
| |
| | |
| Is the scientific impossibility referring to the tether itself or the lower support structure? Because I don't see what's the problem with the tether; it's pretty much similar to the real-world space elevator designs, it only has those support rings around it. I don't see how they make it impossible if the tether works the same way.
| |
| | |
| Of course, if it's referring to the larger support structure that surrounds the tether on the lower part, it's fine. That thing looks pretty infeasible, and clealy incapable of supporting its own weight, as it's not attached to any kind of counterweight like the tether.--[[User talk:Jugus|Jugus]] 12:58, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| I hope that answers your question.--[[User talk:Plasmic Physics|Plasmic Physics]] 13:23, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Ditto--[[User talk:Plasmic Physics|Plasmic Physics]] 14:00, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::I would say that the trivia entry makes a few assumptions about the role of those rings near the tower's base. Based on the explosion, it seems more likely that those rings are designed to hold the structure ''down'', not up. In this case, their compressive strength would be irrelevant; their tensile strength would be of greater import depending on how much of the tension they were absorbing. It seems likely that based on their appearance, the rings would likely have been used either to shield the structure, or as a multi-level anchor to allow the tether to be anchored to the ground more securely than if it were simply fixed to a single point on the Earth's surface (perhaps magnetically, as in a space fountain). When the tether snaps, the center of the support structure explodes, but the majority of the tether is lifted away, implying that the explosion was due to the tether's failing ''tensile'' strength, which caused a whiplash which destroyed the tower. The 2 remaining kilometers of the tether certainly would not be enough to cause a compressive failure given the nature of the materials no doubt required to build such a structure. Simple stone has a compressive strength of 40 MPa, sufficient to support a vertical structure at least 2 kilometers in height. Any space elevator material would require a tensile strength of at least 62.5 GPa if the elevator were to be built as a passive structure with no active support system.<br /><br />Alternatively, something else could have exploded within the tower to cause the collapse, but in that case, it still leaves us with no clue as to what purpose the structure at the base served, so it cannot be assumed that it was a compressive support.<br /><br />In any event, an orbital elevator of that design is ''entirely'' unfeasible with modern predictions. Those rings continuing up the column serve no visible purpose based on the elevator's configuration, and likewise appear to have no obvious attachment points to the tether. The physical destruction wrought by their scattering also implies that they are quite heavy, making such an elevator even more unfeasible since this dead weight would drastically increase the tensile strength required for the cable. Thus, if we are going to point out that the support structure seems "infeasible," then there are many other things that should be listed, the support structure ranking rather low on that list. I also fail to see specifically how ''quantum'' physics have anything to do with the tower's compressive strength. Compression takes place on the atomic level, as atoms and molecules are forced together, and is more within the realm of chemistry and standard elementary physics than quantum mechanics. [[User talk:The one092001|The one092001]] 06:33, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :I should probably have mentioned that I'm refering to the Halo 2 model, as you can see it is considerably taller than the tallest structure encountered during gameplay. The revised Halo 3 model seems not be particularly objectionable. I see your point, although I'm concerned with the rate of change in load with respect to cross-sectional area. It seems that the total load should exceed the compressional strength at the base, which should cause barreling and ultimately failure. As far as I'm aware, mechanics on the atomic scale is quantisized, I should know since I'm majoring in Quantumn Nanoscience at the moment.--[[User talk:Plasmic Physics|Plasmic Physics]] 07:13, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :
| |
| ::The structures do appear to be noticeably different, although the Halo 2 model actually appears to have a sturdier, better-constructed base with thinner, more closely clustered rings than the ODST model. In the Halo 2 model, we can see that the base support struts are enormous, with at least three (possibly more) branching out from the bottom-most ring along with what appears to be a central support and anchor continuing straight down into the Earth. Given the size of the structure we can see in the image with Regret's carrier as a comparison, the base is just short of 5 kilometers tall, but given the sheer density of the supports, seems quite sturdy. Given their angle, they also do not support the weight of the tower vertically, and flare out toward the base for greater thickness. Rather than explode, it is more likely that the struts would buckle outward, if they were overwhelmed. The tapering present in at least some of the struts does seem to make this unlikely, however.<br /><br />It is impossible to definitively say how many rings are on the Halo 2 model since it disappears into the clouds, but we can see at least nine, and the ODST model has ten. Compared to the base, this puts the total height of the structure at likely around 15-16 kilometers, assuming ten rings. Accurate calculations are impossible given the lack of information as to the tower's mass and construction. However, modern carbon fiber epoxy has a compressive strength of greater than 1 GPa, more than 25 times that of stone which can already support a vertical tower of 2 kilometers. Specifically, SP Systems SE84LV with Toray 300S fibers has a tested compressive strength of 1.3 GPa, more than enough to support such a tower.<br /><br />This comparison is directly in conflict with the ODST elevator. According to the article, the tether snaps 2 kilometers above the surface, but this snapping point is halfway up the ring structure, far above the support base. This means that the ''entire'' structure is shorter than five kilometers, which given the same materials as mentioned above, would make construction of the tower even easier. Although the support struts here are significantly thinner, and the rings proportionately larger and farther-spaced, the two ring support columns are tapered, which would give greater strength relative to their weight. In any event, the greatly reduced height (and presumably, mass) of the structure makes compressive strength much less of an issue.<br /><br />Finally, if the support base is used as an anchor, then it would not even need to support the entirety of its own weight, since it would be supporting itself against the tether, although we have no evidence of that.<br /><br />And unless a demonstration of exactly how ''quantum'' mechanics preclude the construction of such a structure can be provided, it is much more logical to accept the Newtonian physics equations that traditionally govern structural engineering, since rarely do we ever calculate strength down to the quantum level as no structure should ever be built so close to its compressive failure point.[[User talk:The one092001|The one092001]] 22:38, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
| |