Scientist Sees Space Elevator in 15 Years 503
bofh31337 writes "Scientist Bradley C. Edwards, head of the space elevator project at the Institute for Scientific Research, thinks an elevator that climbs 62,000 miles into space could be operating in 15 years. He pegs the cost at $10 billion, a pittance compared with other space endeavors. 'It's not new physics--nothing new has to be discovered, nothing new has to be invented from scratch,' he says. 'If there are delays in budget or delays in whatever, it could stretch, but 15 years is a realistic estimate for when we could have one up.' NASA already has given more than $500,000 to study the idea, and Congress has earmarked $2.5 million more."
#1 thing not to say about a space elevator cable (Score:4, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:2, Insightful)
-shameless gmail request for a military man... kwishot xatx yahoo-
"Nothing new" (Score:3, Insightful)
While technically true, carbon nanotubes need to be much stronger and more developed before they can be employed in a space elevator with a good margin for safety.
Arthur C. Clark (Score:3, Insightful)
We're almost there (Score:4, Insightful)
He pegs the cost at $10 billion...NASA already has given more than $500,000 to study the idea, and Congress has earmarked $2.5 million more.
Wow, at this rate, we'll have the money in, oh, 1000 years...
Re:Radiation (Score:3, Insightful)
Relatively slow. Once you get out of the atmosphere, speeds of a thousand miles an hour are not unreasonable.
Re:Some cautions (Score:4, Insightful)
I mean, the big thing is that a few million to really take a good look at it and answer these sorts of questions. Compared to the benefits from being able to get stuff to and from orbit for incredibly low costs, and the cool stuff that then becomes possible, that's small change.
Plus, if it doesn't work out, there's a few *other* teather systems that could work as acceptable substitutes, so I doubt the research would be entirely wasted.
Not for passengers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Some cautions (Score:2, Insightful)
If the ribbon fails, what do we do with 62,000 miles of ribbon?
Given the size of the ribbon, and the fact that carbon nanotubes simply burn out re-entering in the atmosphere, this is a non-issue: the lower part of the severed "cable" would vaporize, the higher part would still be orbiting, attached to the counterweight.
The real question is: what happens when some kilo-miles worth of vaporized carbon nano-tube is released in the atmosphere? Is this stuff ecologically-compatible?
Refuting some silly comments (Score:5, Insightful)
And if the ribbon breaks, things generally aren't so bad. The portion of the elevator (including the counter weight) that's further from the earth will tend to move away from the earth. (If you spin in a circle with a rock in your hand, then let go of the rock, the rock goes away from you, not crashing in towards your head.) The nearer part will tend to fall, but it will tend to fall slowly and is relatively unlikely to cause damage. (At least, according to High lift systems, who came and gave a talk last year.) The elevator, since it's so huge, tends to not be terribly heavy. The system proposed by high lift systems
I believe Brad Edwards was involved in High Lift Systems, so I imagine the basic idea is the same.
If geo is ~20K miles, why does the elevator need to be so long? Does this mean that they're now thinking about a lighter counter weight? They used to talk about capturing an asteroid.
A little more humility is in order (Score:2, Insightful)
After thousands of years of using iron and steel we still had bridges falling down in the 19th century.
Composites have been around for a generation and Boeing is only now willing to put them in the majority of a jetliner's structure. As recently as a few years ago aircraft composites were coming up with unexpected problems like delamination.
It could take fifteen years just to write the handbooks about using nanotube fibers in ionized oxygen and in the van Allen belts.
Re:Radiation (Score:3, Insightful)
$10 billion or 10 trillion? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:15 years? (Score:2, Insightful)
The solution? Make the elevator cars disposable. Then you can just keep loading them up and sending them on their way so long as the weight limit on the cable isn't exceeded. When they get to the top, fire a small rocket that sends it into the atmosphere to burn up or just let them pile up until you have enough to make a space station with.
Re:A space elevator will not happen in 15 years... (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly, you didn't RTFA, nor have you heard of all the related advances that are being made. Why is it that people who think they do know better often understand the least?
Re:15 years? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then just go flying off the end and you're on your way to the moon. Or Mars. Screw LEO (Low Earth Orbit).
Supply Elevator (Score:3, Insightful)
The moon base is looking better and better, closer to 'reality' everyday...or every year, I should perhaps say.
The nuclear rocket would be great for getting the inital big heavy stuff up into space; primary building materials, the initial spools and anchors, people..etc..
I would think the space elevator would be good (at first) to reserve for hefting non-living things like food, water, and my personal favorite - oxygen, up to the anchor station and transfering them to the moon-base's anchor.
From the earth's anchor-station you basically just give the big 'ol bag of air a nice gentle push (maybe use a 'simple' solar sail, and who cares if it takes a month to make the journey over to the moon anchor (I think it would probably take less); becuase you'll have already sent 1000 ('cheap') other bags of supplies already in transit; a nice, floating convoy of happy consumables/breathables migrating on over to the moon (and back for recycling). Nice perpetual supply chain.
Heck, you could just have a 'snorkle' tube, dipped into the atmosphere, drinking up oxygen and water to fill the supply balloons. Dedicated supply elevators. When they get to the moon, empty them out and send 'em back.
To get the people to the moon base we would use the more-funner nuclear rocket ship (at first).
Now what if the ribbon breaks? you just have to ask, don't you? of course you have to ask; if you didn't you'd be ignorant (which is supposed to be bliss, but were that true there would be more happy people).
Well, if the ribbon breaks, that sucks. Basically you just make sure you have contingency, two elevators/ribbons and a good insurance agent. That way you can keep the lifeline going while we change-out the nanotube-paper-towel-roll on the other elevator.
As for the 62,000 miles of ribbon falling to the earth - the worst place for a break would be right at the anchor. This would mean the entire ribbon would begin falling to earth. This problem could be handled via several means. one way we could do it would be to have some sort of explosive bolt system that would blow the cable into small segments that could burn up in the atmosphere...hopefully (maybe they would be light enough, with enough drag to simply flutter down (let's just not worry about the unfavorable aspects of nanotube particles in the atmosphere for now - we, uh, have a glue that keeps them from turning into horrible carbon dust..yeah).
the other, more conservative method would be to have a quick retract device at the ocean-based-mobile-ground-station (ocean, ground, mobile, station...some oxymorons there) This would spool down the elevator ribbon at a speed that would keep it from 'tipping'. resulting in a straight to the ocean floor descent (imagine a kite's-tail - only vertical).
Perhaps the ribbon could even have parachute points at intervals along it's ascent. Long and short of it - if I can start dreaming up ways to handle this I think a couple physicists could figure something up that would work.
TERRORISTS!!! WHAT ABOUT THEM!? Sure, they crashed a civilian plane into the pentagon. But they didn't crash it into an airforce base, now did they? Why? S.A.Ms.
It sounds wild, but to me the space elevator just seems so elegant; almost natural. I mean, carbon; come on. We all Love carbon right? -(my friend mike for some reason hates carbon, but he's a chemist and that's another story)
I always think of the analogy of space as a tall cliff. You need to get to the top. Do you..
A) catapult yourself up there, try to land on your feet without breaking things and then base-jump back down?
or
B) throw a grappling hook, climb up, and climb down?
can you think of a better non-explosive way to get to space?
Mod parent clueless (Score:2, Insightful)
Insightful, my arse.
Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
that "too cheap to meter" is entirely possible (Score:1, Insightful)
A $10 bn space elevator is possible. It's just that the kind of free hand they'd have to give to the people building it could also produce that "energy too cheap to meter", or rocket ships for $50,000 each that fly to orbit and back on $100 worth of fuel.
In other words, it's possible without a chain of command - where everybody, regardless of technical ability or intelligence or any other sort of qualification, has to be satisfied with the feasibility, safety, and acceptability - up to the elected officials, and through them up to Joe Sixpack, the voter.
It's possible in a society that actually consistently elevates capable men to positions of authority and lets them go ahead with their work.
Re:Correct me if I'm wrong... (Score:1, Insightful)
thanks
Can we do it? (Score:1, Insightful)
To sum it up, we have the mental power, the man power, and the resources to do this in 15 years. What we do not have is the focus or the resolve.
Re:Correction (Score:2, Insightful)
We have the material. It needs refinement, but it exists. It doesn't need to be discovered, no does it need to be invented.
It's like comparing a 386 and a 3ghz pentium. The 386 lacks the power, but it's not such a big step to a current 3ghz processor.