Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space United States

The Space Elevator - Public or Private? 445

Posted by michael from the deep-pockets dept.
AtomicGoat writes "The Space Review reports that a Space Elevator may not get built without help from the U.S. Government, but the notion that 'the DoD can also provide a sense of fiscal discipline when dealing with large, expensive programs' sounds like an Onion story. Right now a small private company (Liftport), not NASA or the Air Force, is in the lead on revolutionary space travel."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Space Elevator - Public or Private? More

The Space Elevator - Public or Private?

Comments Filter:

  • Sorry (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @12:26PM (#10310237)
    Not public or private. I like my variables protected.

  • "May not get built without help from U.S. Gov..." (Score:5, Insightful)

    by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @12:28PM (#10310255)
    "May not get built without help from U.S. Gov..."

    Of course it needs government support; you can't just put up an X-mile high tower without worrying about security, shared land use, population relocation, etc. These are all things that government does. Without some government muscle, a private space elevator company would be sunk.

    • Re:"May not get built without help from U.S. Gov.. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Log from Blammo ( 777614 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @12:37PM (#10310374)

      A space elevator would not so much be "put up" as "lowered down". The energy and materials requirements for lowering a cable from orbit are drastically different from building a tower to the stars.

      When you lower a cable, it is relatively easy to anchor it to a floating platform in the middle of the ocean. Therefore, there is no worry about equatorial real estate, local population, eminent domain, or other government-dominated nonsense.

      • Re:"May not get built without help from U.S. Gov.. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by El ( 94934 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @12:54PM (#10310595)
        Yes, but you still need to worry about somebody flying a plane into it, either intentionally or accidentally. This is something that aircraft carriers are good for. Last time I checked, not that many private companies owned their own aircraft carrier...
        • When you lower a cable, it is relatively easy to anchor it to a floating platform in the middle of the ocean. Therefore, there is no worry about equatorial real estate, local population, eminent domain, or other government-dominated nonsense.
        What about natural phenomenon, such as a hurricane or two blasting the platform each year?

        • Re:"May not get built without help from U.S. Gov.. (Score:4, Interesting)

          by orac2 ( 88688 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @01:26PM (#10311030)
          Good point -- you build it on the equator for starters: hurricanes don't cross the equator. Second, you pick the place with the most boring, unchanging, weather on Earth. Given platform technology can already hack conditions in the North Sea and Gulf of Mexico, you should be okay for the rest of time. Part of the reason for using a sea platform is so that you can move one end of the elevator cable around (although ribbon would be a better description) so as to dodge orbiting satellites, etc, so there's some flexibility built in.
        • The proposed site isn't really just some spot in the middle of the ocean- it's some spot in the middle of the ocean, on the Equator. Not only does this make it possible to place a station on the cable at a geostationary orbit, but it confers the added bonus of being in a place where hurricanes are actually extremely rare- hurricanes, cyclones, and typhoons tend (but not always) to originate in belts called Intertropical Convergence Zones that flank the Equator, but do not stretch over it- in fact, the Equa

      • Re:"May not get built without help from U.S. Gov.. (Score:5, Funny)

        by fenris_23 ( 634852 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @01:07PM (#10310786)


        Tell that to the victims of the previous attempt at a space elevator [www.wga.hu]. That is what everybody is imagining.


    • Of course it needs government support; you can't just put up an X-mile high tower without worrying about security, shared land use, population relocation, etc. These are all things that government does. Without some government muscle, a private space elevator company would be sunk.

      Not necessarily. Build it on a privately-owned island or some such. No regulations, no permits required, etc. I'd imagine that something like this would best be built along the equator anyways, for technical reasons. I don't know for certain, but I'd imagine that the tilt of the earth could cause problems. Maybe a floating platform, or in an equatorial country that would provide uber-security in exchange for the obvious economic benefits.

      (tig)
      • "I'd imagine that something like this would best be built along the equator anyways, for technical reasons." IIRC this _must_ be built at the equator, specifically because of the requirements for a corrosponding point in space at a geo orbit. -nB
      • I suspect that if it requires an air force to protect it, that the government should be involved. The land (privately-owned island) isn't the part that's in danger.

    • Re:"May not get built without help from U.S. Gov.. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by HeghmoH ( 13204 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @12:50PM (#10310550) Homepage Journal
      security

      Private companies don't need governments to take care of their security for them. A space elevator will not be a very tempting target to attack externally. You can only hit the very, very, very bottom, and if you break it, you just lower a replacement for the bottom 0.01% that broke off. The main threat is crazy people somehow sneaking bombs aboard, and governments have proven that they can be just as gloriously incompetent at security screening as anybody else.

      shared land use

      And if the private company puts it in the middle of the ocean, or on an island that they own?

      population relocation

      And if there's no population to relocate, like in one of the scenarios above?

    • Since a few of you are quoting a Wired article, let me remind you all of another article regarding the DOD's stated mission of "Dominating" the space arena and to deny other nations the ability to launch any platforms to space which we would deem to be contrary to our interests. See Wired magazine; "Peace is war" April 2002.

      As you might recall from the article, Rumsfeld and others within the DOD have simply stated that space is too important to allow other nations to participate fully without our approva

  • but they do have a store. I want my liftport lunchbox! (http://www.cafepress.com/liftport.13005720) [cafepress.com]

  • Governments will be involved (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lord Grey ( 463613 ) * on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @12:29PM (#10310269)
    Whether the funding for a space elevator comes from the private or public sector, governments from all around the world will surely be involved. Why? Because the damn thing is so tall. One reference [wired.com] I picked off the 'net says it would extend 62,000 miles.

    That's a little over twice around the planet, people. Anyone who considers disaster scenarios should think about that. If something goes wrong, there's a possibility that the elevator cable would wrap itself around Earth, hard. Countries under the cable's path probably wouldn't like that. Their governments would make a great deal of noise, just considering the possibility.

    Given that the governments are involved to that extent anyway, it's natural to assume that they will also want to oversee construction and whatnot, just to make sure Things Are Done Right. Now, do you want a government with no stake in the elevator watchdogging the process, or one that does have a serious financial stake?

    • Whether the funding for a space elevator comes from the private or public sector, governments from all around the world will surely be involved. Why? Because the damn thing is so tall. One reference I picked off the 'net says it would extend 62,000 miles.

      Well companies from all over the world at least as they are the ones that need to help with the building materials.

    • Re:Governments will be involved (Score:5, Informative)

      by Neil Watson ( 60859 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @12:37PM (#10310381) Homepage
      Actually the cable seems quite safe even if part of it "falls". Please read the FAQ [liftport.com] before such wild speculation.

      • You're right (Score:5, Informative)

        by Lord Grey ( 463613 ) * on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @12:54PM (#10310610)
        It looks like what I knew -- or thought I knew -- about space elevators is a bit dated. Which amounts to "wildly inaccurate" now. For those of you who might want to see some direct comparisons between the current technology and what was believed a few years ago, see LiftPort's Frequent Misconceptions [liftport.com] page. It was enlightening, at least to me.
    • I don't have the reference handy, but I believe that most disaster scenarios have the cable snapping and anything higher than the break being hurled into space (like a mace). Most of what is left will (should!) burn up in the atmosphere. I suppose that if the platform got unstable for whatever reason, it could be let go at the base, sending the entire unit into space.

    • Re:Governments will be involved (Score:5, Funny)

      by mr_z_beeblebrox ( 591077 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @12:48PM (#10310517) Journal
      it's natural to assume that they will also want to oversee construction and whatnot, just to make sure Things Are Done Right.

      "President Bush...what an unexpected surprise!"
      "We can dispense with the pleasantries, commander. I am here to get you back on schedule"
      "My lord, my men are working as fast as they can. Dick Cheney asks the impossible of us""
      "Perhaps you can tell that to him personally when he arives"
      Cue the imperial march
    • The sad fact is that neither business or government oversight ensures a higher liklihood of it being done right.
      Govt: it'll take 10x as long, 10x the cost, and a terrific chance that it will suck due to lowest-bidder syndrome.
      Business: it'll take 2x as long, 3x the cost, and a terrific chance that it will suck due to the inexorable greed of someone in the chain.

  • In the long run (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cagliost ( 794083 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @12:29PM (#10310277)
    In the same way that soon after the first aeroplane flights had been made, hundreds were being made: Given the high number of competitors and what we have seen so far, I think it likely that someone's going to win the Ansari X prize. Space flight's going to become cheap, and it won't take long for someone private to get a space evelator line up.

  • fiscal discipline (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @12:29PM (#10310278)
    Well, people may like to make jokes about $800 hammers,
    but the DoD folks are utter geniuses of financial management when compared withother federal agencies such as the FAA
    or NASA.
    • The hammers you refer to weren't a case of padding expenses by the contractor, it was a case of stupid DoD regulations. At the time, they required that if a piece of equipment needed a special tool, the contrator had to make it themselves, not farm it out. As the company in question didn't make hammers, they had to set up a special line just for the few needed and that was the minimum they could charge under the circumstances to break even. And, I gather, they protested ruling because it was simpler and
      • And I'm sure that the markup that they could have received from reselling a Stanley hammer would have exceeded what they made from manufacturing their own.

      • Re:fiscal discipline (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Sylver Dragon ( 445237 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @01:09PM (#10310814) Journal
        The DoD, and much of the government is still very wasteful. This is often because of the idea of zero-balance budgeting. Having had the joy of being around the US Air-Force for much of my early life, I got to talk to a number of people who worked on squadron budgets. Basically, the goal of a squadron's budgeting is to spend as much of the budget as possible, or more (yes, this was possible, but the details are long and boring). The reason for this was that the budget you get next year depends on the amount of your budget you spend this year. If you spend 100% or 120%, you get a bigger budget next year. If you only spend 80%, your budget gets cut next year. So, what do you think most smart people did? They spent as much as possible, and often very friviously. Heck, one guy I talked to got yelled at by the squadron commander because he had worked up a budget that had them saving a bunch of money and about 25% under budget. He was forced to re-pad the budget, just to avoid being cut.
        The DoD may be better than some in the government, but they still have a long way to go before they become a bastion of thriftyness. Let private companies do the space elevator, at least they will have an incentive to save money.

      • Not to mention that DoD has incredible audit trails for all parts. If a gasket on a plane fails, they want to trace all other gaskets of the same design, from the same lot, touched by the same person, etc. They are expensive to maintain, but can be invaluable when things really start to go wrong.

        Those audit trails applied to hammers as well, apparently.

        I spent half a day with a contractor for nuclear sub and carrier parts and he relayed the cost of the audit trail for a bearing that they built. It was ast
  • But deployment...that's another story.

  • Regardless (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Osmosis_Garett ( 712648 )
    Regardless of who is 'in the lead', the US government will likely be heavily involved if not directly controlling a space elevator. Cheap transportation into space is far too lucrative, not to mention useful, to ignore.
  • We, the people of Mars, reclaim this building for us!

    We are tired of the metanacs controlling our lives!
    We must control the entrance into our world!
    Give us back what is rightfully ours!

    (Red/Green/Blue Mars are cool)

  • or... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Tyndmyr ( 811713 ) *
    Not at all... It may prove that its just not possible. Theres been several previous /. articles about this topic, and the issues such as space debris, storms, lack of material strong enough, micro-meteorites, inherent fragility, etc are a substantial jump from anything we can do with current technology.

    Someday perhaps, but DOD, cost effective? Please... Giving something this to the government would probably ruin any efficiency in it, and a private company financing this...could happen, but most likely not

  • I think it's a great idea, but... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ericspinder ( 146776 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @12:32PM (#10310308) Journal
    I couldn't help but feel a little 'spun' by this passage from the space elevator page [liftport.com]:
    The technology is based on Chinese gun powder rockets developed four thousand years ago.
    ...as opposed to the wheel and tackle technology of a lifting system, which the space elevator is a decendant.

    Queue, the correction hordes...

  • International Waters (Score:3, Informative)

    by Sean the Impaler ( 799604 ) <(moc.llehtaews) (ta) (naes)> on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @12:34PM (#10310341) Homepage
    But the platform would be built on international waters, and the elevator will reach into space, which no government owns. I don't see why any government should have to get get involved, if the LiftPort Group can get this off the ground without any government help, all the more power to them!

  • What it might be like ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by YetAnotherName ( 168064 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @12:35PM (#10310347) Homepage
    Private: the elevator attendant (a Valued Associate) is your Customer Interface to the Space Elevator. The individual is in his/her teens, wears plenty of Company Issued "Flair," and beams incessantly as you say at what altitude you want your spacecraft released.

    Public: the elevator attendant (a Civil Servant) only grudgingly speaks to you. The individual, dressed in a simple brown uniform, is in upper middle age, and won't release your spacecraft from the elevator without a 29B/6 form that's been stamped.

    • A few more bits (Score:5, Funny)

      by edremy ( 36408 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @12:52PM (#10310566) Journal
      Private: When you call to find out why you got released at 50 miles altitude rather than geosync, you're treated to 20 minutes of "Press 1 if need help finding the space elevator, press 2 if you need..." interspersed with a "Best of ABBA" tape. Upon listening to your problem, the help desk staff will ask you to make sure your guidance computer is plugged in. Shortly after this you crash and die horribly. The drone on the other end of the line continues by asking "Is the flight yoke attached?"

      Government When you call to find out why you got released at 50 miles altitude rather than geosync from the Halliburton(tm) Space Elevator, your call has a bunch of mysterious clicks in the background before being cut off entirely. After you die horribly in the crash, it's announced that you were a terrorist who crashed the elevator deliberatly. The president goes on to bomb Syria, even though you'd never even been there.

  • *Ding Ding* (Score:5, Funny)

    by XaviorPenguin ( 789745 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @12:36PM (#10310363) Homepage Journal
    *ding ding*

    2,756,234th Floor, Troposphere; Hardware, Automotive, and Lawn & Garden

    Please watch your step as you exit and Thank You very much for shopping at Wal-Mart.
  • a Space Elevator may not get built without help from the U.S. Government

    In other news, physicists report that a space elevator may not get built without help from the universe itself ...

  • Risks and Rewards (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cephyn ( 461066 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @12:37PM (#10310379) Homepage
    Great to see space elevator research is starting to pick up. I think its safe to say now that its the only cheap way to space. Governments will have to be involved, as will many companies. Wherever the anchor is will be a huge decision that could completely turn around a 3rd world nation -- or political instability could make it impossible. There's not many "safe" equitorial sites with lots of room for support organization -- look at a map.

    The safety issue could really kill it though. If it starts to wrap around the earth, watch out. There has to be a way to "cut the cord" at this and and hope it flies out into space. Of course, a release mechanism like that is a liability in and of itself. So that's a very tough, maybe the toughest, hurdle.
    • There is no real safety issue. The Earth has a nice, thick atmosphere that will incinerate whatever pieces of the elevator end up going fast enough to be dangerous.

    • Re:Risks and Rewards (Score:4, Funny)

      by Jerf ( 17166 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @01:28PM (#10311050) Journal
      There has to be a way to "cut the cord" at this and and hope it flies out into space.

      " Hope "?!? Not a big believer in physics, are we?

      I sure hope you don't aren't flung into space today by the centripetal acceleration of the Earth's rotation today. Good luck with that.
  • The post makes this sound like it is a done deal that this will be done commercially. However, the FA says the following:

    While a project as risky and expensive as a space elevator would seem to be solely in the realm of government, private investors could play a role. Already one company, LiftPort, is trying to commercially develop a space elevator.

    *TRYING*

    For a commercial startup to get the mass amounts of funding needed for a venture like this seems VERY unlikely to me. With the current cynicism sur

  • DoD Fiscal Discipline?!? (Score:3, Funny)

    by billstewart ( 78916 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @12:39PM (#10310407) Journal
    ... is like "military intelligence" or "jumbo shrimp".
    • The DoD budget is huge, and they build really expensive things, but in the big picture DoD and Nasa are really the only entities experienced in building things of this magnitude (and even space stations and supercarriers are peanuts compared to this thing). The DoD is actually pretty good at getting things done efficiently, its just that the shear magnitude of the transactions sound insane. Having dealt with both, I'd say that private industry is more likely to screw you (government executives don't get bon

  • Step 1: tethered balloon (Score:5, Interesting)

    by The Fun Guy ( 21791 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @12:42PM (#10310439) Homepage Journal
    One of the companies that has been referred to in discussions of the X-Prize is going to use an inflatable balloon system. Ultimately, they plan on having a LEO space station supported by helium-filled balloons. (Insert usual joke about helium balloons. Insert usual technical rebuttal showing how It's Not As Silly As It Sounds).

    If this system has potential, why not use this as the initial lift phase of a space elevator? Unspool out the first piece of carbon nanotube cable and leave the initial lift balloon tethered to its end. Hoist another spool, and splice it onto the end; inflate another balloon and send it up farther. Keep adding lengths until you reach the LEO altitude of your inflatable space station, then send it up along the tether. You'll end up with a string, supported at multiple points by small balloon and on it's end by a really big balloon.

    That space station would help to support the weight of the tether, and could either serve as a launching point for the cable which would go out to GEO, or as a device to catch a cable lowered down from GEO.

    The inflatable space station people claim tremendous efficiencies in lift because of the passive nature of the lifting force of balloons (negative buoyancy) vs. rockets (thrust). Why not use this approach to leverage the space elevator cable?

    By the way, I'm thinking that all of this, once complete, would merely serve as the scaffold to support the climbers, splicers, etc., with which the final Space Elevator cables would be built, connecting ground to GEO.
  • Those are _VERY_ dangerous words historically.

    I don't see that Nasa has "helped" space development much-especially the last 25 years. I can easily believe the world would be _further_ into space development without the various destructive government policies the last few decades that have turned the United States from an industrial powerhouse into a major debtor nation.
    What the DoD ought to be more worried about is making the US into a technologically effective nation again(the US has a trade deficit even in high tech goods now).

    Now, whoever creates a space elevator is going to instantly become a major, global power--and the DoD has reason to be concerned about such issues--but there are a lot of other pressing issues the DoD is also ignoring(i.e. the US borders just aren't very secure).

    Unless the US government seriously gets its act together, I doubt very much it will have much of a constructive role in space development-this isnt' the government of Franklin and Jefferson any more-and is more like what they warned us against.

  • Breakage (Score:2, Interesting)

    by n4KdR4zr ( 138966 )
    According to the http://www.liftport.com/faq.php#science2b [liftport.com] FAQ the cable will break if it gets struck by lightening or hit by a Category 5 hurricane. Basically their argument seems to be that this won't be a problem because they'll build it where there isn't any lightening or hurricanes. That sounds kind of risky to me considering the massive amount of money involved. I mean huricanes I can see but isn't there lightening everwhere?
  • If the DoD wanted to do something constructive:
    they could sponsor some prize awards for some basic pilot projects here.

    I've seen some folks claim that there is the potential to make a Roton or something similar work on the level of capital private corporations have-it just may be happen in the US government gets out of the way-or is distracted by other things.
  • Aint that how that free enterprise thing works?
    Aint America great!?

  • http://www.gizmonicsinc.com/elevator/
    http://ww w.americanantigravity.com/highlift.html

    I would love to see something truly this revolutionary in my lifetime.

  • DoD Fiscal Planning Process (Score:5, Informative)

    by Apollo Jones ( 673555 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @01:12PM (#10310849)
    Not sure I would be so quick to dismiss the DoD budgeting process or their fiscal responsibility. A few anectodal popular press examples of fiscal excess should not be taken as the rule. (It is actually debatable if the Gov't really did purchase $800 hammers etc, or "padded" the cost of these items to cover larger non-public expenses). So, the DoD method of Planning, Programming, and Budgeting is actually very robust and has a good deal of merit. The system is widely refered to as the PPBS. It has been around since the 1960's and was first introduced by then Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. "The PPBS is a cyclic process containing three distinct but inter-related phases: planning, programming, and budgeting. The process provides for decisionmaking on future programs and permits prior decisions to be examined and analyzed from the viewpoint of the current environment (threat, political, economic, technological, and resources), and for the time period being addressed." There is both a 5-year and a 10-year horizon for this planning and budgeting. There is a connection between this process and the "big budget." And overruns, well that is another story. :) For the really curious, here is the process. http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/html/704 57.htm [dtic.mil]

  • Question the companies legitimacy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Blitzenn ( 554788 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @01:23PM (#10310990) Homepage Journal
    I have to question the legitamacy of the company altogether. The write-ups are of an amateur nature. Verbage and use of the language is poor in many areas and I would question that any company looking to fund that large of a project would present it's foundation of material in this way to the public. Examples are in the FAQs answering questions such as if a ribbon breaks; "Honestly, it will make a little bit of a mess". and other things they say in describing the strenght of the ribbon; "3-5 times as strong as needed", what about correct english as in 3 to 5 times stronger than needed. Some of it seems written at a 5th or 6th grade english level. Certainly not collegiate level as you would expect. And the frank public statements regarding liability would shun and serious potential investor in the group. Of course you can always send in your paypal donation. I see they did take the time and effort to get the 'take your money' part of the website right. Careful here, you might have been scammed.
    • Your example of incorrect English usage is a little peculiar.

      > and other things they say in describing the strenght of the ribbon; "3-5 times as strong as needed", what about correct english as in 3 to 5 times stronger than needed.

      I think your suggested correction is the incorrect phrase. Do you say "twice stronger than needed" or "twice as strong as needed". The "3 to 5 times as strong as" phrase translates directly into a mathematical value, e.g. between 300 and 500% of the strength needed. "3 to 5 t

  • For everyone who thinks they know... (Score:5, Informative)

    by bobetov ( 448774 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @01:30PM (#10311074) Homepage
    ...what a space elevator is, how it would work, and so forth, but really doesn't, check out this link [liftport.com]. This is the NASA-sponsored report that basically declared it open season on space elevators. It's fascinating, in-depth, and answers questions such as "how do we build it" and "what happens when in falls/gets holes in it". A must-read for space buffs.

  • Let's see, can I summarize it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Featureless ( 599963 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @01:44PM (#10311207) Journal
    1) This is a great idea; Nasa should scrap the shuttles and build one.

    2) The government shouldn't have a space program. (Maybe the government shouldn't have too many programs at all.) This will be an outrageously expensive boondoggle, and we should just let private industry handle it.

    3) Dude, when is private industry going to get around to doing that?

    4) When it's good and ready.

    5) Dude, private industry wouldn't even build the interstate highway system - a fulcrum of America's economy. What makes you think it will build a space elevator?

    6) Communist.

  • wireless (Score:3, Funny)

    by spoonyfork ( 23307 ) <spoonyfork&gmail,com> on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @01:58PM (#10311365) Journal
    Someday these things will be wireless.

  • And for those of us missing the big picture... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WisconsinFusion ( 781006 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @02:07PM (#10311491)
    Ok, I flipped through the site and couldn't find answer, so I'm going to ask it here and absorb the flames. What holds the orbital end up? Before you say "Nothing... it's in microgravity.", I know. But anything thing that tugs on the ribbon is going to pull the endpoint towards earth. It seems to me that that should have been the first question answered on the FAQ.
    • Since you had a good question, and no one has answered: I found this in the LiftPort FAQ:

      Because of conservation of angular momentum, payloads going up the elevator will pull it down.

      When an elevator ascends the ribbon, it must be accelerated eastward because the Earth's rotation represents a larger eastward velocity the higher you go. The required eastward force on the ascending elevator would have to be provided by a corresponding westward force on the ribbon, possibly requiring rockets at intervals alo

  • how about promised business? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by perlchild ( 582235 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @02:10PM (#10311522)
    Let's see
    The government likes to send things into space
    The government isn't likely to develop a new technology to send things into space cost-effectively
    There is a company that wants to develop a new technology to send things into space

    How about the government just promise to use those guys if they prove to be cost effective? I mean a lot of the problem with public funding has to do with people funding things that do not work, or go over budget, in effect, allowing subsidies to make companies take on some of the worse fiscal aspects of public funding.

    Why not just reward people who do the right thing, once it's proven they can do it?

    And yes, right of ways, air corridors and related ideas are all things the government can help with. But, let's agree to do it as indirectly as possible, lest
    1) the project be tainted by political ideas
    2) the project become less efficient

    These people want to turn a profit, let's lend em the money to do it, and promise them clients, that's what new businesses need. Let's not promise to bail them if they fail, and perhaps, they'll only try once they're sure.

  • Funny that. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Fallen Andy ( 795676 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @02:39PM (#10311906)
    I thought *Arthur* owned this idea. Hey, he invented it. I don't care who makes a space elevator , if it
    can be made then

    a: it will cost.
    b: It will make the historical thing about the panama
    canal look seriously easy. Go become a good historian (hint: don't invest).
    c: It won't happen real soon.

    But, we can do some of this technology slowly.
    Perhaps not on the same scale , but Arthur himself
    understands that atomic bond limits make it unlikely that we can do it as far as we'd like to see.

    He likes to dream. That's why we love him. Heck. He did get it right a few blinks of a chickens
    nose ago, and couldn't patent it.

    Never underestimate how much we love Sir Arthur.
    If there was any justice in the world he wouldn't
    be an ill man in a wheelchair. He'd be a passenger
    on spaceshipone. He deserves it. Please Mr. Rutan,
    you know he wouldn't care if he got back to the
    ground breathing...
    I for one would *love* Arthur to be our first hacker in space. But I'd love to suggest that he
    has to take the ashes of his New York nemesis
    up with him. Even though Ike hated flying.

    Hey, Arthur. Consider it your revenge.

    Do slashdotters understand this old timers joke or
    not?

    • Clarke not the first (Score:3, Informative)

      by Namarrgon ( 105036 )
      Clarke wasn't [nasa.gov] the first, Yuri Artsutanov was:

      As early as 1895, a Russian scientist named Konstantin Tsiolkovsky suggested a fanciful "Celestial Castle" in geosynchronous Earth orbit attached to a tower on the ground, not unlike Paris's Eiffel tower. Another Russian, a Leningrad engineer by the name of Yuri Artsutanov, wrote some of the first modern ideas about space elevators in 1960. Published as a non-technical story in Pravda, his story never caught the attention of the West. Science magazine ran a sho

  • Liftport in the lead? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LS ( 57954 ) on Tuesday September 21, 2004 @04:36PM (#10313205) Homepage
    According to who is Liftport in the lead on space elevator technology? As far as I can tell, this company is just a few of geeks who played with lego mindstorms [liftport.com] and set up a fancy webpage. Their site hasn't changed in a year, and their team consists of mostly administrators [liftport.com] who write blogs about unpacking and filing things. Their Liftport group umbrella has almost as many companies as employees. What have these people done that makes anyone think that they have more of a chance of building a space elevator than my kid brother Joey?

    LS

Slashdot Top Deals

Perfection is acheived only on the point of collapse. - C. N. Parkinson

Close