NASA Funds Sci-Fi Technology

Michael Huang writes "Wired News profiles the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC), the $4 million-a-year agency most famous for Bradley Edwards' study of the space elevator. Lesser known studies include weather control, shape-shifting space suits and antimatter-powered probes to Alpha Centauri. Remember, 'if it's not risky, it's not going to get funded'."

Re:I hope they keep their funding...

[ziggy_zero]

As Buckminster Fuller said, we should focus more on "livingry" rather than weaponry.

Re:I hope they keep their funding...

[red floyd]

The idea of the space elevator is about 35 years old. Yuri Artusanov (spelling?) came up with the idea circa 1968, and Arthur C. Clarke ran with it in "The Fountains of Paradise". The anchor point's name of "Clarke" in the Mars series was a tribute.

The Fountains of Paradise

[DeepBlueDiver]

I believe this concept (or one very similar) Arthur C Clarke aired in his book 2061.

He was just re using the concept he presented for the first time in "The Fountains of Paradise" (1978).
Great book, BTW.

Re:I hope they keep their funding...

[xmath]

Quoting the site:

The first space elevator would reduce lift costs immediately to $100 per pound, as compared to current launch costs, which are $10,000-$40,000 per pound, depending upon destination and choice of rocket launch system.

Plus, if you look at their studies it seems they have figured out pretty much everything already. The only technical detail they're waiting for is a sufficiently strong carbon nanotube composite to make the cable of, and they're already making good progress there. After that, apparently it becomes just an engineering/funding problem.

Of course the studies could be mistaken, but still it's definitely not in the pure "Sci-Fi" category anymore. With a bit of luck, we'll still live to see it built. :-)

for those who don't get the above joke...

[funny-jack]

Actually, Mr. Fuller had domes [bfi.org]. The balls [imbris.net] referred to above have his name in honor of the domes.

Re:hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd blame you for not reading the whole report, but then it is a bit lengthy. ^^; Point one is that I believe the initial design took alot larger margin then 10% in my recollection. And point two is, that they were always planning to drop it from orbit.

Incidentally an airplane collision wouldn't do all that much, the plane likely would get wrecked, and the cable severed, whereafter it likely will remain hovering at near the same altitude it got cut. Reconnecting it might be to difficult though, Or maybe not, who knows.

Quickshot

Re:I hope they keep their funding...

[Saige]

Cause, of course, we haven't seen every single technical article that describes the space elevator in any sort of techincal detail mention that it would be a wide but extremely thin ribbon that, were it ever to break or be cut, would float down with not even enough kinetic energy to hurt a person. That coupled with the fact that any sections not far enough into the atmosphere to be slowed that way would, upon reentering the atmosphere and building up a bit of heat, disintegrate.

In other words, if their engineering ideas are even close, the only place we'll see a big disaster caused by a space elevator cable coming down is fiction.

Re:hmmmm

[MisterLawyer]

Well the best hope in my humbel opinion is the research may lead to better materials for seatbelts and bullet proof vests ..... the world needs a better 10 micron seatbelt....

To clarify a little something for any non-physicists out there: Seat belts [howstuffworks.com] are designed to distribute force evenly across the strongest parts of a vehicle occupant's body (the hips and chest). We already have materials strong enough that 10 microns could restrain an accident victim, but a 10-micron seat belt would cut through your flesh, probably down to the bone in the case of an accident.

In other words, the world does not need a better 10 micron seat belt.

Re:I, AlGore created the internet.

[the eric conspiracy]

I, AlGore created the internet.

Many posts on this board accuse me of saying I only "invented the internet". This is patently false, I am greater than that, I said that "I took the initiative in creating the Internet" as the following interview with Mr. Blitzer will show.

BLITZER: I want to get to some of the substance of domestic and international issues in a minute, but let's just wrap up a little bit of the politics right now.

Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to this process?

GORE: Well, I will be offering - I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.

But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

During a quarter century of public service, including most of it long before I came into my current job, I have worked to try to improve the quality of life in our country and in our world. And what I've seen during that experience is an emerging future that's very exciting, about which I'm very optimistic, and toward which I want to lead.



Go play basketball with your buddy.

More at Defense Tech

[noahmax]

There's a whole bunch more on NASA's way-out research over here [defensetech.org].