free html hit counter Peak Oil Debunked: 247. THE SPACE ELEVATOR

Thursday, February 23, 2006

247. THE SPACE ELEVATOR

Following on from Roland's nanotech post and the posts about industrialising space, it is time again to take a look into the not too distant future and surmise what may be in store for civilisation post peak oil – and contrary to current doomer beliefs, it ain't the stone age by 2025!

By now most people are aware of the modern space elevator concept - a lightweight but ultra strong cable (or more likely a ribbon) reaching to and beyond geosynchronous orbit, allowing climber cars to cheaply carry large payloads into space. The space elevator may sound ludicrous to some people, but the science supporting it is solid and well studied. And as Roland pointed out in his nanotech post, the technology to build the necessary material for the ribbon – structured carbon in the form of the carbon nanotube (CNT) – is rapidly evolving.

Carbon Nano Tube Tether
We know that CNT's have the tensile strength and are lightweight enough to do the job of building a space elevator, and the main issue now is manufacturing enough material at the required strength. For a long time the biggest hurdle was perceived to be the ability to produce any strength CNT at useful levels, and predictions on when this mass production breakthrough would occur were generally estimated to be well beyond the end of this decade. But then in mid 2005 a dramatic breakthrough in CNT manufacturing capability occurred:
A team of researcher from the University of Texas, Dallas, and Australia's CSIRO has come up with a way to make strong, stable macroscale sheets and ribbons of multiwall nanotubes at a rate of seven meters per minute.
This breakthrough was quickly applied to many CNT R&D efforts, and already several companies have further advanced the technology, leading the way for wide scale commercial applications and further progress. Bayer is one such company. From yesterdays press release:
...scientists from Bayer Technology Services have succeeded for the first time in producing high-quality carbon nanotubes on an industrial scale at considerably lower costs than before. They are considerably stronger than steel, enable electricity to travel through plastics and improve the mechanical properties of ceramic materials.
At current production capabilities, it would take less then two years to manufacture enough CNT material to construct the ribbon. The main hurdle remaining is for the product of this industrial scale manufacturing process to reach the appropriate tensile strength, an attribute that is frequently improving. It appears to simply be a matter of waiting for the CNT industry to mature.

Given the leaps and bounds that CNT technology has been making, it is expected that by the end of this decade they will either meet the technical requirements for building the space elevator or be proven infeasible for the job for the foreseeable future. The organisation Elevator: 2010 have an outlook revolving around this notion:
We firmly believe that the set of technologies that underlie the infinite promise of the Space Elevator can be demonstrated, or proven infeasible, within a 5 year time-frame. And hence our name. Elevator:2010. we promise to get an answer for you by then.
The infinite promise of the Space Elevator
The bottom line is that a space elevator would make launch costs negligible – which is the biggest barrier against large-scale utilization of space. It's currently several thousand dollars per kilogram to launch into low orbit, and around twenty thousand dollars per kilogram into geosynchronous orbit. The space elevator would lower costs to around a couple of hundred dollars per kilogram, possibly much cheaper. While this level of launch cost reduction is by no means necessary to industrialise space, it would certainly make for rapid and wide-scale utilization of space, catapulting economies the world over into record levels of prosperity and growth.

Though however important the dramatic cost reductions would be to space industrialisation, the advantages of the space elevator go far beyond making space more economical. Other important capabilities that the space elevator would provide include the following:

- Unprecedented launch turn-around time, with regular operations allowing launches every few days, as opposed to the months long average turn around times for rocket launches.
- Capability of lifting payloads far larger and heavier then previously possible.
- Gentle acceleration into orbit allowing for sophisticated and sensitive equipment, resulting in massive improvements in ComSat technology and a far greater understanding of the universe thanks to precise space based scientific equipment
- Ease of achieving low orbit, geosynchronous orbit, or escape orbit.
Low orbit and Earth's gravity could pull a re-entry vehicle to any point on the planet, geosynchronous orbit and any kind of platform, habitat or lab could be constructed without decaying orbits (unlike the ISS), or simply climb beyond the geosynchronous position and let go of the ribbon at the appropriate time and centrifugal force will catapult a space craft into any desired trajectory in the solar system.
- Space based power supply. A space elevator would easily allow for very large scale solar arrays to be established in orbit, collecting massive levels of uninterrupted and unfiltered solar radiation, and sending the power back to Earth either with microwave beams or down the highly conductive CNT ribbon itself. Theoretically a single space elevator could provide more electricity then any known source of power generation.

The development of a space elevator also has considerable benefits long before the system becomes operational. By focusing R&D on mass production of high quality CNT's, those involved with space elevator projects will find themselves at the forefront of a leading edge market with a rapidly growing client base.

Efforts towards the space elevator
LiftPort is a private enterprise striving to build a space elevator, and they understand the benefits of developing and marketing CNT's (and other elevator related tech) long before the space elevator is constructed. They have a sustainable business plan involving subdivisions of the company, LiftPort Nanotech and LiftPort Robotics, which will generate income from some of the component parts needed to build the space elevator such as CNT's and robotic balloon systems. So by striving to be profitable long before the space elevator is operational, they strive to stay in the game, as opposed to the unrealistic philosophy of an "all or nothing" long term approach to building the space elevator, which many opponents to the space elevator unwisely claim as the only way. Joe Julian, administrator of the LiftPort web site summed it up nicely in a discussion about space elevator economics:
Everything we do at LiftPort is geared toward finding shorter term "intermediate" businesses that can be profitable. High altitude robotics have a significant potential for observation, communication and science applications. Carbon Nanotubes are more valuable than gold. Beamed energy, communications, education, advertising... all these industries are profitable and they all relate directly to building the Space Elevator.

My concept of the LiftPort Space Elevator


NASA is also taking the space elevator concept quite seriously. In 1999 the NASA Institute
for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) held a workshop to investigate the possibility of developing a space elevator. A manuscript, entitled simply "The Space Elevator", resulted from a six-month investigation, marking the beginning of NASA's continuing research into the concept, and possibly marking the very beginning of a new age for NASA and space travel. From the manuscript's introduction:
The study had the same simple title as this manuscript, The Space Elevator. The study itself was far from simple however. The object was to investigate all aspects of the construction and operation of a space elevator, a concept that up until this time had been confined to the realm of science fiction.

For those of you who are pragmatic and down-to-earth, examine the details of this work and I hope it will convince you that there is an interesting development on our horizon.
In 2001 the NIAC commenced its more extensive and expensive Phase II technical and feasibility study of the space elevator concept, the report of which can be found here (PDF): The Space Elevator NIAC Phase II Final Report.
"The studies were quantitative and detailed, highlighting problems and establishing solutions throughout. It was found that the space elevator could be constructed using existing technology with the exception of the high-strength material required. Our study has also found that the high-strength material required is currently under development and expected to be available in 2 years."
It appears that the NIAC study has also found similar benefits to the space elevator that I listed above:
The return on the $570,000 NIAC investment could eventually become trillions of dollars annually and provide an energy-starved world with clean unlimited power, dramatically improved communications, new resources, new worlds to live on and the ability to understand our planet and the solar system around us at a level impossible with conventional rockets.
As well as investing in research, NASA has added a series of space elevator related challenges to their centennial challenge series, in the same spirit as the Ansari X-prize challenges. We can see how serious NASA is about the space elevator when we take a look at what other developments they are encouraging with their centennial challenges; new space suit parts, techniques for extracting oxygen from lunar regolith, beaming power, telerobotic construction, unmanned aircraft – all techniques and technologies NASA aims to develop in line with it's future ambitions. NASA appears to be placing equal importance to space elevator R&D as to it's current lunar initiative and future vision for space.

Costs
Cost estimates for building a space elevator are often estimated to be around the $10B figure, though some studies have estimated the figure as high as $40B. The development time is estimated to be around 10 to 15 years. These costs are comparable to the development costs and times for the space shuttle system, and considerably lower then the Apollo program. The return on these investments is easily in the trillions of dollars, though ultimately incalculable.

Disbelief
If riding an elevator into space (or for that matter industrialising space or building nano-factories) sounds like an impossible dream, and looking at the feasibility studies of these theoretical technologies is something you consider a waste of time, then at least consider the following quote:

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
--Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.

In 1895 it was a small minority of individuals pushing to develop heavier-than-air aircraft, while society at large dismissed these individuals as crackpots. Yet against the overwhelming opposition of those insisting that it was impossible, less than a decade later the Wright's flyer took to the air, marking the beginning of a new era. This may not make things seem more realistic to the sceptics, but it should make them realise that every radical new technology ever developed seemed impossible before it became possible. Opening the mind to greater possibilities is the first step towards achieving what seems impossible.

Arthur C. Clarke said it well when during a speech he once gave, someone in the audience asked when the space elevator would become a reality. Clarke answered, "Probably about 50 years after everybody quits laughing." Commenting on this, Pearson, who contributed to NASA's 1999 workshop said: "He's got a point. Once you stop dismissing something as unattainable, then you start working on its development."

Given the serious attention the space elevator concept has received in recent years, as well as the current trends in CNT progress, and the number of business ventures pursuing space elevator concepts, it would appear that almost everybody has 'quit laughing'. Perhaps one of the main challenges now remaining, is not the maturing of CNT technology, or even the engineering challenges yet to be resolved, but the general attitudes towards the space elevator by the public.

Kenneth Deffeyes recently stated, "By 2025, we're going to be back in the Stone Age".
This prediction couldn't be further from our probable future. The ironic thing about this prediction is that by around 2025 the first space elevator should be fully operational, ushering in a new era for humanity that will be as different from our current stage of civilisation, as the industrial age was different from the stone age.

Just as cheap fuel was the catalyst for the considerable growth and progress of the industrial age, cheap access to space will be the catalyst for the near infinite growth and progress of the future. And the space elevator could be the tool for that cheap access to space.
-- by Omnitir

21 Comments:

At Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 7:11:00 AM PST, Blogger Thomas said...

Hey Omnitir
What solutions are envisioned for tranferring angular momentum to the car/satelite/thing riding the elevator?

To increase the angular momentum, you need to supply a torque or a tangential force. The torque seems impossible to me because the elevator shaft is only fixed on the ground. Supplying any lateral force on a 36,000 km lever is no mean feat either.

I imagine you could put a rocket engine (driven by electricity) on the side of the car. You would need to run the engine going both ways.

I assume the elevator shaft will go higher than geosynchronous orbit to ensure that it is hanging most of the way down by centrifugal force, rather than standing.

Interesting, but I am sceptical. Last time I heard, nanotubes were astronomically expensive.

-Thomas

 
At Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 8:47:00 AM PST, Blogger al fin said...

Fascinating stuff, Omnitir. I plan to write some comments on my blog later today or tomorrow.

 
At Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 1:31:00 PM PST, Blogger Quantoken said...

Thomas:

Providing angular momentum as the elevator cart goes up is not a problem. The tether just tilt slightly from the perpendicular position to provide that tangental force.

But the whole concept of space elevator is still completely infeasible technologically, even from a theoretical point of view. Even a tether 3 feet wide and as thin as a piece of paper, when extends to 62,000 miles long, weights a total weight far exceeding the maximum tensile force the tether can sustain, be it CNT or any material you can conceive.

Not to meantion that any material is elastic, meaning when you stretch it with force it extends its length some how. At small length it may not extend too much when you apply a force. But at 62,000 miles long any small tensile force will result in a very considerable elongation of length, there resulting in the center of mass of the tether shift further into space, there for creating a greater tensile force, and there for stretch it further longer. Just do some calculations, you find that this could easily result on the tether being snapped broken at a length far shorter than 62,000 miles.

And not to meantion there is constant wind blow some 10 or 20 kilometers above the ground. (Remember the space kite generator thing?) A 3 feet wide, tens of thousands mile long tether, being blown by a wind at speed faster than highway speed, could easily sustain such strong force that either the whole thing breaks or the whole space elevator be dragged to fall to the ground.

Building a skyscraper high enough to reach the moon could be easier than the space elevator idea.

 
At Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 1:34:00 PM PST, Blogger Roland said...

Hey Omnitir,

Fantastic post! I was surprised to see that the cost was estimated at only $10 billion to $40 billion dollars. This reminds me of CRN's estimate that a $10 billion project could develop nano-fabrication in a decade. How much do we spend on car crashes, again?

But seriously, a space elevator would be great; apart from the incredibly cheap space access, I guess it would also allow us to harness space-based power without microwave beams.

I do have a few problems with the concept though: satellite/meteorite collisions and sabotage. To avoid the first, the entire sub-geostationary orbit would have to be cleared of meteorites and we would have to institute a "space traffic control" to make sure nothing crashed into it, both of which would be big jobs. As for the second, according to Wikipedia if it was severed below the midpoint (probably by blowing up the platform), it would drift off into space; if it were severed above the midpoint, it would crash down to Earth, creating unimaginable destruction. Still, if it's made of carbon nanotubes it would be pretty strong.

But as you say you've got to be careful with the word "impossible". Of course, whether it's possible doesn't determine whether it will be built or not, but if it could already be done for $40 billion dollars then who knows? Enough people just need to decide that the benefits outweigh the risks.

I hope I'll be able to take a trip to orbit in the next few decades, if not on a space elevator then on Virgin Galactic. Tickets just need to get a little cheaper ...

Has anyone seen the Transatlantic Tunnel?

 
At Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 4:53:00 PM PST, Blogger JD said...

Nice post Omnitir,
There are potential applications of tethers, even if a full-scale earth elevator is proven impossible in the near term. For example: tethers to shift objects between orbits, or a lunar space elevator. I've often wondered about the possibility of combining balloons and tethers. Have you guys seen this?

 
At Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 5:24:00 PM PST, Blogger Quantoken said...

jd:

"Lunar space elevator"? nice idea. The gravity on the moon is 6 times weaker. Unfortunately the moon does not rotate as fast as the earth. Takes one month to rotate one turn. A space elevator tether on the moon would have to be incredibly LONG to work.

Such space elevator is not necessary on the moon. All you need to do is build a horizental rail on which object gain acceleration, then they shot out. You can do so on the moon because it's all vacuum.

 
At Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 6:01:00 PM PST, Blogger JD said...

quantoken:
Yes, you're right about the length of a lunar space elevator. The nice feature of it (and other tethers) is that it can be manufactured with off the shelf materials live Kevlar. More info here.

 
At Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 6:30:00 PM PST, Blogger Omnitir said...

Thomas said:
What solutions are envisioned for tranferring angular momentum to the car/satelite/thing riding the elevator?

Angular momentum would come from the Earths rotation. As the climber ascends the elevator slightly leans to the west due to the Coriolis effect (top of elevator moving faster then bottom of elevator). The horizontal tension applies a sideways pull on the climber, accelerating it eastward providing the climber with the necessary speed.

I assume the elevator shaft will go higher than geosynchronous orbit to ensure that it is hanging most of the way down by centrifugal force, rather than standing.

Absolutely- quite a bit past GEO. GEO is about 36,000 Kms, while the tether will need to reach to around 100,000 Kms with a counterweight at the end.

GEO orbit is the centre of mass, so the total force pulling up the tether beyond GEO must equal the force pulling down below GEO. This is why the tether needs to be as lightweight as possible – otherwise the counterweight would need to be a small asteroid, like in the old sci-fi version of the space elevator.

For an interesting scale drawing (with only the length to scale), take a look at this.

Last time I heard, nanotubes were astronomically expensive.

Yes, extremely expensive. Though 100,000 Km’s of CNT’s, while astronomically expensive, would still be cheaper then it was to design and build the Saturn V’s, the Space Shuttle’s, or the ISS.

 
At Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 6:31:00 PM PST, Blogger Omnitir said...

quantoken said:
But the whole concept of space elevator is still completely infeasible technologically, even from a theoretical point of view.

The extensive research invested into feasibility studies conclude otherwise.

weight far exceeding the maximum tensile force the tether can sustain, be it CNT or any material you can conceive.

This seems to be an assumption on your part. Studies indicate that CNT’s have a tensile strength far exceeding the desired minimum for a space elevator. The main problem is producing these high strength CNT’s at suitable quantities.


Not to meantion that any material is elastic. […]Just do some calculations, you find that this could easily result on the tether being snapped broken at a length far shorter than 62,000 miles.

Elasticity is taken into consideration in the designs. Your calculations no doubt assume a tensile strength far lower then 100 Gpa.


And not to meantion there is constant wind blow some 10 or 20 kilometers above the ground.

Current designs put the critical wind velocity to roughly 154 mph – meaning cyclonic storm destruction is the concern, not average wind speeds. Avoiding hurricanes (and large orbital impacts) could be achieved by basing the elevator on an ocean platform such as an oil rig – and moving the structure out of harms way.

 
At Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 6:32:00 PM PST, Blogger Omnitir said...

Cheers Roland :)
I too was surprised when I initially learnt of the cost estimates. I imagine that if an Apollo project or Manhattan project level of dedication was put into developing a space elevator, NASA could construct one within a decade – even if the budget blows to triple it’s original estimate. But there are too many sceptics for anything like that to happen…

satellite/meteorite collisions and sabotage. To avoid the first, the entire sub-geostationary orbit would have to be cleared of meteorites and we would have to institute a "space traffic control" to make sure nothing crashed into it, both of which would be big jobs. As for the second, according to Wikipedia if it was severed below the midpoint (probably by blowing up the platform), it would drift off into space; if it were severed above the midpoint, it would crash down to Earth, creating unimaginable destruction.

Collision damage is a real concern. Large objects could be detected the elevator moved out of harms way, but smaller objects could potentially pose a problem. Further study is needed in this area. One possible problem is that due to the extreme tension of the tether, if a single strand were to break, it could possibly cause the rest of the tether to snap as the immense force contained within a single strand could have a powerful recoil effect – breaking the other strands. Again, further study is needed.

As for the damage of a collapsing space elevator – this is a false fear. Firstly, any part of the tether above the atmosphere would burn up on re-entry. What remains would actually drift down to Earth harmlessly with a similar impact to a piece of paper.


I read a brilliant comment on this on slashdot the other day:
“They're going to deploy a massive cushion [wikipedia.org] around the Earth, consisting of a total of about 5000 trillion metric tons of gas. Roughly 78% will be nitrogen, and 21% will be oxygen. If the cable breaks, the lower half will encounter this cushion at extremely high velocities, ripping it apart and causing it to flutter harmlessly to the ground.”

LOL :D

 
At Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 6:33:00 PM PST, Blogger Omnitir said...

For example: tethers to shift objects between orbits, or a lunar space elevator.
For sure. In fact given NASA’s ambitions to utilize lunar resources and establish a cost effective lunar lunch system, the first space elevator may possibly be on the moon. Hopefully LiftPort might be able to bid for the contract if this is the direction NASA want’s to go.

Very interesting article you linked to JD. It’s really great to see so much innovation taking place in aerospace.

Also, balloons are a large part of LiftPort’s research and commercial interest.

 
At Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 9:41:00 PM PST, Blogger BlackSun said...

They already did a test run with a mile long tether.

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn8725.html

Quantoken, haven't you seen enough progress in the past 50 years to realize that this is only a matter of time?

Seriously. The obstacles to this will be mainly political, not technical.

 
At Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 11:15:00 PM PST, Blogger Quantoken said...

Blacksun:
You are talking about a one mile long tether. That's a totally different thing from the 62,000 mile long tether required by the space elevator.
Note that the 100 GPa is only the tensile strength of individual CNT fibre. The actual tether can contain up to 50% of CNT fibre, giving an effective strength of 50 GPa. As an engineering project you normally want a safety factor of at least 5. So the acceptable load is really only 10 Gpa.
Now lets do some calculation. 10 GPa is 10x10^9 Pascal, or 1x10^10 Newton/Meter^2, or about 1x10^9 kilogram/m^2. A tether of 3 feet wide and a thickness of a piece of paper, 0.1 milimeter, has a cross section of 0.915m * 0.0001m = 9.15x10^-5 m^2. Therefore it can support a tensile force of 9.15x10^-5 m^2 * 1x10^9 kg/m^2 = 91500 kg = 91.5 ton.

Now let's say if the tether extends 62,000 miles (about 100,000 km), how much does the tether itself weigh? The volume is length times cross section area, which is 100,000,000 meter * 9.15x10^-5 m^2 = 9150 cubic meter.

Assuming the material is as dense as the water, which is 1 ton per cubic meter, the whole tether has a self weight of 9150 ton, and it can support 91.5 ton of force. Clearly, the tether's strenth is 100 times short in even supporting its own weight!!!

Quantoken

 
At Friday, February 24, 2006 at 2:30:00 AM PST, Blogger Roland said...

They're going to deploy a massive cushion around the Earth, consisting of a total of about 5000 trillion metric tons of gas. Roughly 78% will be nitrogen, and 21% will be oxygen. If the cable breaks, the lower half will encounter this cushion at extremely high velocities, ripping it apart and causing it to flutter harmlessly to the ground.

Lol!! that's hilarious.

Thanks for the airship link JD. I remember seeing a picture of that the other day as I was browsing for commercial spaceflight operators. I've often wondered why nobody had done something like that. You'd have a long time to look at the view!

I wonder what kind of solar-electric propulsion it uses once it gets up there?

Can't wait for my first trip into orbit, whether it's in a rocket, an elevator or a balloon. :-)

 
At Friday, February 24, 2006 at 4:08:00 PM PST, Blogger Omnitir said...

Quantoken
Note that the 100 GPa is only the tensile strength of individual CNT fibre. The actual tether can contain up to 50% of CNT fibre, giving an effective strength of 50 GPa. As an engineering project you normally want a safety factor of at least 5. So the acceptable load is really only 10 Gpa.
The theoretical tensile strength of an individual CNT fibre is actually at 300 GPa. Your calculations demonstrate that currently the CNT industry is incapable of producing the required material. All indications suggest that this will not always be the case.

From the NASA NIAC Phase II report: We must remember that in the current process only the outer nanotubes are being functionalised and attached to, the inner tubes are not being fully utilized. Understanding this implies that by finding a method to utilize the inner shells would enable production of material performing close to theoretical maximum.
[…]
By combining these techniques the resulting material should have a tensile strength near theory of 150 Gpa for 50% loading.


Your argument seems to be analogous to saying in 1895 that the most powerful motor is 2 BHP and therefore cannot produce enough thrust for heavier-then-air flight. So therefore heavier-then-air flight will never happen. But 10 years later a 12 BHP motor exists and flight becomes possible.

I acknowledge that there are many difficulties to overcome with building a space elevator. But to say that it is impossible is premature – we just don’t know. And it is certainly theoretically possible.

 
At Friday, February 24, 2006 at 5:31:00 PM PST, Blogger Quantoken said...

Omnitir:
Talking about theoretical limits. Theoretically internal combustion vehicles should have a 100% efficiency as theoretical limit, the whole industry spend the last hundred year and get no where near that limit.
You can of course talk about other theoretical thing, like in principle we can fetch methane from the Neptune, and do other exotic things to resolve the energy crisis. But really the only thing that can help us is something that is practically possible in the immediate future. There are many things theoretically possible but they remain theoretical.

As I demonstrated, the strength of current CNT is 100 times short of becoming practically useful in building a space elevator. Even if you reach the theoretical limit of the tensile strength it is still way too short.

 
At Friday, February 24, 2006 at 9:25:00 PM PST, Blogger BlackSun said...

Sure, Quantoken. You're right. It couldn't be built with today's materials. My point was that it is foolish in the extreme to base the workability of a concept on current materials.

The semiconductor industry has created the self-fulfilling prophecy of Moore's Law. Naysayers keep insisting that the paradigm will end. But it doesn't. In fact, progress is accelerating.

Just because exponential growth hasn't yet hit the energy and materials industries doesn't mean it's safe to conclude it won't. We're all just speculating. But the history is on the side of continued breakthroughs.

Here's a link to a 10-page excerpt from Kurzweil's "The Singularity is Near." If he's even half right, the space elevator's not the only "impossible" thing that will be built.

http://blacksunjournal.typepad.com/bsj/2005/10/ray_kurzweil_on.html

There are three things that I can see that would kill the space elevator:

1) Warfare or economic collapse that destroys western governments, or that takes away funds from universities and research centers worldwide.

2) A better, cheaper method of access to space is developed.

3) Political demagoguery that causes people to lose all hope for a better future. Governments would have to give up on technology en masse.

Otherwise, it's happening.

 
At Sunday, February 26, 2006 at 12:36:00 AM PST, Blogger merper said...

The ironic thing about this prediction is that by around 2025 the first space elevator should be fully operational, ushering in a new era for humanity that will be as different from our current stage of civilisation, as the industrial age was different from the stone age.

And in 1969, they predicted we'd have moon bases and would have gone to mars by 2001. Look, I am as much anti-doom as any other sane person, but saying stuff like the first elevator will be operational in 2025 is almost as silly as saying we will be in a stone age in 2025. You need to stop making the space based posts sound like an inevitabilty when, in fact, it is only an option and one that very few people(if any) are lobbying for. Present it as a viable option and you will seem more sensible.

In 1969 they predicted that we would have moon colonies by 2005. Instead, everyone got iPod nanos and cellphones and a nearly defunct manned space program. In 2025, who knows what we'll have developed.

 
At Sunday, February 26, 2006 at 2:36:00 AM PST, Blogger Omnitir said...

saying stuff like the first elevator will be operational in 2025 is almost as silly as saying we will be in a stone age in 2025.

My exact words were “by around 2025 the first space elevator should be fully operational” – I’m completely open to the possibility that it won’t happen, but looking at the evidence, it seems probable that it should happen.


And in 1969, they predicted we'd have moon bases and would have gone to mars by 2001.

Who predicted this? NASA scientists, or Stanley Kubrick?

In 1969 NASA was focused on it current lunar initiative, and had only preliminary plans for establishing a reusable launch vehicle in the decades to come. They have never had plans for moon bases by 2001. Just because popular culture presented this image and it did not materialise does not mean NASA or technology in general has failed us, and it certainly does not mean current plans will fail.

On the other hand, who is predicting space elevators by around 2025? Not Hollywood, not even sci-fi authors. No, real world scientists, the best in their field, working in the leading edge of developing technologies are predicting this space future I’m posting about on POD.

You need to stop making the space based posts sound like an inevitabilty when, in fact, it is only an option and one that very few people(if any) are lobbying for.

Your misconception about this issue is the perfect example of why space developments need more coverage. It is certainly not a fact that “very few people if any” are lobbying for space. There is a plethora of investment and R&D going on ATM, paving the way for the things I’m discussing in these posts. The private sector is rapidly growing, and the world’s space agencies all have ambitious projects on the go.

Provided the world keeps going and all this end of the world doomer talk is as ridiculous as it sounds, the utilisation of space in the near term is indeed an inevitability.

In 1969 they predicted that we would have moon colonies by 2005. Instead, everyone got iPod nanos and cellphones and a nearly defunct manned space program. In 2025, who knows what we'll have developed.

Again, who predicted the moon colonies? While the fiction writers were predicting jet packs and flying cars (which is what most people listened too), the leading scientists and innovators were predicting advanced communications and I.T. - and that’s exactly what developed. Today’s fiction writers seem to be predicting mostly doom, but the scientists and innovators are the ones predicting revolutionary technology breakthroughs and the exploitation of space. These are the people that seem to have the most realistic grip on what will be developed, and their predictions are the ones that I’m trying to open people’s eyes too.

 
At Tuesday, April 4, 2006 at 7:23:00 PM PDT, Blogger Kotulic Bunta said...

Omnitir - good job, you've done very deep and wide-covered info survey. I've read everything accessible 'bout the elevator and came to very similar conclusions. I have a Ph.D from nuclear physics, so I am not a complete layman in physics. ;) [even this is of course also about material science]

Quantoken - I appreciate your critical insight, it is good if people are critical to what they read. However, do you believe more to your own very simple calculations than to sophisticated calculations of several tens of prestigous scientist?
The elevator is not a vision of one excentric man, this is a well based concept of many high quality teams. For example, in your "demonstration" you completely neglected the very important fact, that the ribbon will not be a homogenous body, but rather a tether consisting of many individual "wires", thus significantly decreasing the overall volume (and weight) of the ribbon. The real calculations of its weight are around 800 to 1000 tons, and those calculations are not the one-line of yours. Please, take no offence, but your criticism should be really better established; and before you comment you should read at least the basic works cited in the Omnitir's article - he selected the most useful ones.
Scientists really would not shame themselves by such a trivial mistake.

 
At Thursday, November 2, 2006 at 1:56:00 PM PST, Blogger TraderGordo said...

They can call the first one "WATER WOBBLE FOOT" (anagram for Tower of Babel Two)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home