Space Elevator Going Up 684
Adlopa writes "The
Guardian newspaper reports on scientists' efforts to realise the space elevator, as first described by Arthur C Clarke in his 1979 novel 'Fountains of Paradise'. Advances in materials science mean that 'a cable reaching up as far as 100,000km from the surface of the Earth' is no longer an impossibility and 70 scientists and engineers are discussing the idea at a conference in Santa Fe today."
Seems like (Score:2, Insightful)
Idealism... (Score:0, Insightful)
That said, it is a neat idea, and if we can realise it, then great. But is now the best time to be building this kind of stuff?
Re:Kind of scary. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Kind of scary. (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't mean to sound too condescending, but really, the centrifugal force of earth's rotation makes that impossible. I would have been humoured if you would have stated imagine a 100,000 km cable being hurtled at the moon when I move there. For it to fall to earth would mean the earth would stop spinning...highly unlikely given what we know.
You might be able to argue that inertia from the atmosphere would allow it to operate like a whip, but even that is farfetched. I doubt they would implement such a system without properly addressing such an issue.
Be more afraid of Near [nasa.gov] Earth [nearearthobjects.co.uk] Objects [harvard.edu]. Of course those things fall from roughly 4.7E17 km. Why the hell don't people imagine that?
Re:Idealism... (Score:5, Insightful)
calculating orbits by hand (this was before the advent of the PC, remember), for example. Much of our scientific and engineering achievement today was first written about by Sci Fi authors, including personal computers, world wide networks, men traveling in outerspace, satellites, genetic engineering, waterbeds and much more. I personally hope we continue building what Sci Fi writers write about. Idealism and dreams lead to greatness. Pragmatism and "being realistic" lead to boredom and stagnation.
7 billion USD? (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuck Iraq and let's cough up roughly 12 space elevators instead.
Re:Kind of scary. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not like we're talking about a high tension cable here. The cable's structure will be balanced by gravity -- the center of gravity will rest at the geosynchronous point, meaning that the bottom half will be falling toward Earth while the top half will be moving away at an equal rate. (Disclaimer: my degree is in English and I'm relying on this thing called "high school physics class"...)
Really, it depends on where the cable snapped and what the nature of the accident was...
Re:Idealism... (Score:5, Insightful)
New continents were found, the sound barrier was broken and even space flight was developed at the cost of human life. Yet, it was worth it.
As a species we have become too concerned about safety. We are afraid to such extent that testing new discoveries (medicinal, chemical and physical) are becoming so burdened by the hysterical safeguards, governmental red tape and the associated costs that nothing ever gets done. To my mind, this development threatens the very progess of our species.
Boring is ok with me (Score:5, Insightful)
After watching rockets (and shuttles) explode into spectacular fireballs, boring is just fine with me. Considering the majority of mass on any rocket is used to just get it to a level of orbit, this could be a nice way for us to start working toward the moon (and eventually beyond) again.
The really exciting will no longer be GETTING into orbit, but rather what we can do once we get there.
Re:Kind of scary. (Score:5, Insightful)
Carbon nanotubes are primarily, well, carbon. Burning up would create the same stuff that charcoal makes, CO2. Potentially less toxic than second hand cigarette smoke. There may be some other chemicals in there, but the whole idea is to make the tube out of a single material, the nanotubes, to make it strong. So, yes, research is good, but toxicity is probably not the biggest issue.
Re:Kind of scary. (Score:3, Insightful)
Who modded THAT insightfull?
"Imagine an accident. I wouldn't want it to happen to me!" Is not insightfull.
We get these inane comments with every article about transport.
Electric cars: Imagine getting electrocuted.
Supersonic planes: Imagine a supersonic collision with a building.
Space elevator: Imagine it falling on you.
Ship: Imagine it sinks.
Train: Imagine it derails.
Etc, etc, etc.
We don't need to have those modded up! They're not saying anything original.
Re:Kind of scary. (Score:5, Insightful)
b) Not really. Airborne traffic is smart enough to deal with comms towers, skyscrapers and hurricanes. This thing does not move - all you need to do is fly around it.
c) Yes it does. In order to advance space traffic, we need to get to geosynchronous and LEO MUCH cheaper, allowing us to loft the larger masses necessary for more ambitious space missions. Getting big tonnages out of Earth's gravity well cheaper and more reliably than is currently possible would be a BIG win for space travel.
Re:Defending a one meter wide cable below 60,000 f (Score:4, Insightful)
3 words: Restricted air space.
Re:Looks like the pointy haired boss at work again (Score:5, Insightful)
So how exactly do you come up with a budget for a project that calls for an unknown (but massive) amount of nonexistanium, delivered to orbit no less?
The same way that NASA came up with the budget for the space program in the early 50's and 60's. They had to create a huge number of things that did not exist in order to put a man on the moon. From things as mundane as food and drink and holders that could be used while weightless to as science fictiony as computers small enough to fit in an Apollo space craft. Somehow they managed to not only do all of that, but to budget for it as well. Not only that, all of that R&D was very good for the economy, returning, depending on who you believe, as much as $7 to the economy for every dollar spent.
Re:Defending a one meter wide cable below 60,000 f (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:caution: atmospheric EMF (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:harnessing the public interest (Score:3, Insightful)
This just means we have to reverse the viewing of the 'launch' to be from a camera mounted from the object. It'd be really neat to see the world as this climbs up above it.
As for tourists, I imagine this could put that miniscule 'Space Needle' to shame.
How cheap is... (Score:5, Insightful)
The estimate of 7 billions $ seems very, very, underestimated.
And I suppose all known NASA locations are not consider as potential site to build this escalator, most of them are much more to near regions where tropical storms are likely to happen. Because, what would happen to a nice 1 meter large, paper thin, 100 000 km long light weight ribbon under a tropical storm? For sure, it will be hard to align the laser beam on the vehicles.
Re:Idealism... (Score:2, Insightful)
Mod this parent up...way up! This is indeed the present human course that will threaten us the most.
Re:Not an impossibility? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because it's made of carbon doesn't make it easy to build. I don't know of any organism that makes diamond either (although if I did, I probably wouldn't tell anyone anyway :-) ).
Re:restricted airspace (Score:2, Insightful)
For these very obvious reasons, the air space around the elevator would be restricted and so would the sea lanes. Remember, this though would be far out in the Pacific, very very far from anywhere (hundreds of miles - not a 15 minute jog). It's not like you could sneak up on the thing.
I'd like to see those Lear Jets that could evade F-16s in any air space, let alone over the open Pacific. It's not like they can pretend to be Clint Eastwood in Firefox and dive down a canyon or something. Shoulder mounted missiles? Fired from where? A guy bobbing in a life preserver who swam out there?
Besides, terrorists could blow up airplanes, mine harbors, poison water supplies, gas subways, fly planes into more buildings, put truck bombs on major bridges or in garages of major business buildings... If we're going to worry about the sky falling, we might as well just hang up our guns and slink off into the sunset.
Re:caution: atmospheric EMF (Score:5, Insightful)
Not unless you made it out of superconducters! Even the best conductor we know is going to have a significant amount of resistance along the kinds of lengths we're talking about.
And depending on the exact carbon nanotube technology they settle on, the elevator won't be all that conductive to start with... it could very well end up being less conductive than the air around it...
Re:what i really want to know is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:1st lift (Score:5, Insightful)
Access and Traffic (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:restricted airspace (Score:1, Insightful)
Er, no.
In other words: "I do not know the precise location where it crashed (how could I?). I know it is somewhere around the east coast of the U.S.A. because that is where all the action was going on, and I assume that it crashed in water because that would explain why no one found any piece of it."
1) Why would the terrorists fly the plane over water? There are no buildings to hit in the middle of the ocean.
2) Why have no Air-traffic controllers come forward to say they saw the plane over (as you say) the water? In fact, as I recall, the ATCs had the plane on radar up until close to the Pentagon hit.
3) Why has no one come forward to say they saw the plane blow up/crash. Unless it was FAR out to sea (see #1- WHY?), a mid-air explosion and crash would be easily visible from shore. In addition, the East coast is the most heavily populated part of the US, so it's unlikely to have been missed.
4) Why has no debris been found on the beach? No luggage, flotation devices, oil slicks, bodies....
5) What about the jet pilot(s) who shot the plane down? Ordered to remain silent, you say? People have disobeyed orders for less than the guilt caused by killing a few hundred people.
6) If the plane was hijacked, and flown off course for so long, how come none of the passengers pulled out a cell phone (like flight 90) and phoned home? "Hey, we're supposed to flying west, but we're over the Atlantic and there are fighter planes all around us..."
7) Again, why the cover-up? To 'save' one General's reputation?!? Insane.
Once more- apply Occams razor. WHich is more likely:
A plane crashes into a building in such a way that it (the plane) is incinerated.
or
THOUSANDS of people, from Air Traffic Controllers, to beachcombers, to military pilots, to the passengers on the very plane itself, are in on a MASSIVE conspiracy to hide the truth.
Really, now.
Re:7 billion USD? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:harnessing the public interest (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually you do. It's the whole point of having the cable there at all. You need something to push off of. The only alternative is to throw stuff backwards really fast. The purpose of building a cable is to avoid that method.
Re:restricted airspace (Score:3, Insightful)
I would dare say it's built like a fort.
The idea is good the article is bull@#$%. (Score:2, Insightful)
> At about a third of the way along the cable -
> 36,000km from Earth - objects take a year to
>complete a full orbit.
Should be : 24 hour to complete a full orbit
>The biggest hazard could be space junk, but Dr
>Edwards said the floating platform would be moved
>around to steer the cable out of the way
Hmm. I would like to see them:
1. Tracing space junk ~0.01-1mm in size
which flies around with a speed ~10km/sec.
2. Moving platform fast enough on the ground
to avoid collision at the altitude
~200 -1000 km . At those altitudes junk
has the maximum density.
> Edwards, who estimates it would take about $7bn
> (4.4bn) to turn the concept into reality
This thing should weight no less then ISS.
Most of it flies much higher orbit:
36,000-100,000km compare to ~500km for ISS,-
READ: more expensive to get there.
Now check the web about ISS price tag.
Reminds me the story with cheap Space
Shuttle for $5.6 +/- 1.0 bn.
Either article is bad or this guy is full of @#$%.
Pessimist is a well informed optimist.