I can only assume from this statement and your prior posts that you have no background or experience in structural engineering whatsoever, and complaining that my objections to your ill-defined concept of a 30 km tall, 200 km long steel truss structure are “ridiculous” is like a smoker patient telling his cardiologist that the latter is uninformed about the impact of tobacco on heart disease. I do have an extensive background in structural mechanics, and while I don’t typically work on large buildings or civil structures I have worked extensively on the design and analysis of very large mobile systems and large flight structures where ground loading and modal dynamics are serious concerns and the structure is often desired to be as light as material strength and element connections will allow, so I have some modest experience to bring to the table on the topic of the limits of structural strength.
I’ll reiterate and expand upon the issues with this massive trust concept, which comprise the following:
[ul]
[li]Footings: Footings or foundation are what anchor and ultimately accept the bearing and lateral loads on a ground-based structure. For most large buildings and massive civil works like dams, the foundation is assumed to be essentially rigid in comparison to the building or civil structure, and is reinforced accordingly. With large span structures such as bridges, footings are separate but generally tied down to some kind of bedrock with the bearing loads being distributed into the surrounding soil that is compacted and reinforced by various means, and the structure is designed to accept the necessary compliance for ground movement and seismic loading. Ultimate bearing strengths can be found in the various AASHTO construction design standards, but the ultimate bearing strength for unconfined basalt is around 50 ksi (~350 MPa), with a tensile strength of about 2 ksi (~15 MPa) and effective shear load resistance of 10 ksi (~70 MPa); however, this assumed a homogenous, unfractured mass of bedrock the length and width of this structure that doesn’t exist anywhere on dry land; realistically for a massive structure it would have to be considered a fraction of this even before applying safety factors and design margin. Steel masses about 0.29 lb[SUB]m[/SUB]/in[SUP]3[/SUP] (7850 kg/m[SUP]2[/SUP]. Assuming in effective uniform fill factor of 2.5%, the bearing stress at the base, assuming it is uniformly distributed is about 29 MPa.[/li][li]Wind loads: the wind loading on a 30 km high wall would be enormous. Furthermore, it woudn’t see a steady loading all the way up but would experience variation in load and direction at different altitudes (wind shear) that will change throughout the day and in different seasons resulting in highly cyclical loads. You might think an open truss structure would be less affected by wind which can pass through it but in fact the mesh effect will actually create local turbulence which will apply highly variable load to individual sections, contributing to…[/li][li]Modal dynamics: Most smaller steel truss bridges and small buildings are assumed to be essentially rigid in all but large seismic events that produce low frequent base vibration conditions. The wind and non-seismic dynamic loads are generally inconsequential to the building structure even when they tear off roof or side panels. For larger skyscrapers and suspension bridges, dynamic loads are of greater concern and the structure has to be extensively analyzed to assure that applied loads do not couple to fundamental structural frequencies resulting in destructive resonance, and that the structure has both sufficient strength and compliance to accept loads in a linear elastic region without being subject to excessive fatigue or overstressing individual connections. Very large structures or those optimized for lightest possible weight will have many more structural modes and will respond more readily to outside impulses, and combinations of adjacent resonance modes that may be individually survivable can result in dramatic overstress or unstable modal behavior, causing the structure to literally tear itself apart. A truss structure on the scale of kilometers in height, having tens or hundreds of millions of individual elements and connections, will have so many individual modes that it would literally be impossible to analyze it accurately using finite element analysis, and probably impossible to design to avoid overlapping resonant modes in adjacent areas. [/li][li]Static and dynamic stresses: Any structure under load is subject to stress, and has to be design so that both the material and geometry is able to accept and distribute the stress in a predictable manner so as to assure that mechanical capabilities are not exceeded. That means that the structure has to both protect the weakest areas more prone to overstress (typically connections, fillets, and other singular geometric features) and provide sufficient compliance to allow the structure to distribute stresses away from high stress areas such as boundary and load application points. Large structures also have to be tolerant of the failure of individual elements (single failure point integrity) so that localized fatigue, overstress, or defects don’t create a cascading failure condition that causes the entire structure to fail. On an upright structure the scale and complexity of this concept I can’t imagine how it would even be possible to assure single failure point integrity to any degree of confidence.[/li][/ul]
In any case, if one desired to build such a massive structure, a static steel truss structure is absolutely not the way to approach it. A catenary-supported and reinforced structure using stored energy elements to provide damping and mediate stress distribution through the structure would be the only way to make this work, and even then would require high strength carbon or synthetic fiber tensile elements to keep the weight to a practical minimum, and the complexity of actually building such a structure under tension is virtually unimaginable. This is not an issue of economics, or even the basic logistics of having enough material and labor to construct a structure of this kind; it is physically unrealizable even if no particular element of it violates basic laws of physics.
Yeah, that’s the theory according to some people. Unfortunately, there are some technology thresholds that have to be achieved in materials science, propulsion efficiency, robustness of hydraulic valves, et cetera before that notion can be credibly justified. While two and three stage vehicles are definitely more complicated, the benefit of having to carry only a fraction of the initial inert mass of propellant storage systems far outweighs the cost and complexity of multiple stages and the extra mass of interstage and separation systems. I honestly don’t expect that to change any time soon.
Reusable single state to orbit (RSSTO) offer the potential for commercial airplane-like spaceflight, but we have yet to develop propulsion systems which can operate in repeated ascents without regular servicing and testing. (Yes, SpaceX has put individual engines through multiple static fire tests accumulating many thousands of seconds of runtime between teardowns; this is not the same thing as flying an integrated stage with nine engines and a complex propellant feed system.) Thus far, attempts at RSSTOs haven’t gotten further than conceptual studies and suborbital proof of concept demonstrations, but there is an incremental path toward RSSTO vehicles with modest improvements in materials and propulsion technology. However, a large cargo carrying RSSTO is probably not going to be operating in the next few decades, and I’m dubious about the economics of partially or fully reusable two stage to orbit (TSTO) vehicles such as the Falcon 9 reducing the costs of spaceflight by anything even approaching an order of magnitude. RSSTOs are plausible in a future where the improved performance of pulse or continuous wave detonation engines with altitude compensating nozzles are a mature technology, advanced thermal protection systems are robust enough to survive orbital reentry without repair or refurbishment, and delicate components such as valves and composite overwrapped pressure vessels are robust enough to survive hundreds of hours of flight time without servicing or inspection, but we aren’t any where close to there at the moment on any of these.
There are concepts for much simpler bulk cargo rockets with relaxed reliability requirements and “shipyard grade” geometric tolerances and construction details such as Bob Truax’s Sea Dragon concept which are potentially viable and worth consideration because the offer the potential for both reduced operating costs and much larger economies of scale in terms of cost per unit payload mass, but there is currently no one looking to buy multi-hundred ton launch vehicles and no one interested in investing the few billion dollars it would require to develop such a system even if the operating costs are in the hundreds of dollars per kilogram payload to orbit.
Stranger