TECH space elevator to be built by Japanese

Richard

TB Fanatic
bullshit or not, smells like bullshit

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=9489

Japanese to build space elevator invented in Russia

Yury Zaitsev – RIA Novosti October 6, 2008

Japanese engineers intend to build an elevator to deliver cargo into space. Japanese authorities are prepared to allocate $10 billion for the project.

The space elevator is expected to cut the cost of delivering cargo into space and is considered one of the most ambitious projects of the 21st century. The Japanese plan to unveil a schedule for the elevator's assembly and commissioning this November.

The idea of a space elevator is over 100 years old. Russia's Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, the founder of theoretical astronautics, suggested building a tower thousands of kilometers high attached to some firmament in orbit. Steel, the most durable material of Tsiolkovsky's time, however, was not capable of bearing even a small part of the expected physical stress.

In 1960, before the first manned flight was performed by Yury Gagarin, Yury Artsutanov, a post-gradate student at the Leningrad Technology Institute, using Tsiolkovsky's ideas, suggested creating a cable-guide connecting a spot on the equator and a space platform in a geostationary orbit at 35,786 km, whose orbit would remain synchronous to that of the location on Earth. Gravity and centripetal force would keep the cable, connecting the platform to Earth, constantly taut, making transportation possible. The time required for cargo from Earth to reach the platform was estimated at one week.

Later, science fiction writer Arthur Clark wrote of a space elevator in his novel, The Fountains of Paradise, attracting attention to the concept. In 1999, NASA and its Scientific Research Institute included it in the list of probable tasks for early third millennium.

A major problem in the construction of a space elevator is to create the cable, which must be extremely durable and light-weight. The durability of carbon nanotubes, invented in 1991, exceeds the requirements for the space elevator, with a far higher tensile yield strength and density six times less than that of steel. A one millimeter diameter strand made up of nanotubes is capable of supporting up to 60 metric tons. Still, the technology for industrial production of nanotubes and the weaving of strands into a thread is in its early development.

Some scientists say the inevitable crystal-lattice defects could decrease the durability of the nanotubes. Even if flawless threads could be produced, the micrometeorites, cosmic rays, and atmospheric oxygen could still damage the cable.

Space junk and the natural vibrations of the giant "rope" could also cause the cable to fail.

Another problem is energy supply. Existing battery technology could not provide the necessary energy for the whole distance. This means that an external energy supply will be needed, possibly a laser or microwave source, which will require corresponding receivers to be installed on the elevator itself. Another option would be to use the elevator's braking energy on its way down.

Let us assume that all the problems with materials and energy are solved. The cable weighing thousands of tons has been manufactured, and needs to be placed into space. There are no carrier rockets capable of doing this, which means the cable would have to be launched into space in pieces, which need to be joined somehow afterwards. Or one could drop down a thin strand from the orbiting platform and splice it into the full diameter of the cable. Neither placement concept seems any easier to implement than creating a suitable material for the cable.

So far scientists have been experimenting in space with cable systems of up to several hundred meters long, made of materials which are far less difficult to produce than nanotubes.

In 1965, Russia's Rocket and Space Corporation Energia, then called the Central Design Bureau for Engineering, led by Academician Sergei Korolev, was preparing the first ever space experiment with a cable system. The project involved creating artificial gravity on the Soyuz spacecraft, which would be connected with the carrier rocket's final stage via a steel cable, both rotating.

After Korolev died, however, the project was cancelled. Development of cable systems was resumed at Energia 20 years later.

A series of experiments with cable systems were performed within U.S., U.S.-Italian and U.S.-Japanese programs. Although some of them failed, part of the planned research was done.

In recent years, scientists at the Space Research Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences have been researching the possibility of setting up a group of orbital cable systems to ensure cyclic delivery of cargo from Earth to Moon. Each system will consist of two space vehicles interconnected with a cable and rotating like a slingshot, with its centre of mass moving along a predetermined orbit. If one of the two space vehicles is "unclogged," the rotational energy released will cause its translational movement, like a jet engine.

Theoretical and experimental research has shown that, to keep a transport corridor between Earth and Moon functioning, the design should include three cable systems, two in low earth orbits, low circular and elliptic, and one in a lunar orbit. Cargo would have to be transported between the three systems, eventually making their way to the final destination.

Calculations have revealed that this kind of transport system would weigh 28 times less than the cargo it would be capable of delivering from Earth to Moon, while traditional delivery by a rocket requires an amount of fuel that weighs 16 times more than the cargo itself. This concept would be much simpler and cheaper to implement than a space elevator.

Yury Zaitsev is an academic adviser at the Russian Academy of Engineering Sciences.
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20081006/117469160.html

Printer friendly with pictures / without pictures E
 

TJA

Veteran Member
There's at least one company in the U.S. that has been working towards this for years. There's even a some elevator centric contests that I believe NASA has fronted a few million towards prizes. Stuff like climber competitions.

Very interesting concept, if it works out it could very well mean true colonization of space.
 

RCSAR

Veteran Member
That have always been the japs. Are they called something different where you are from?
 

LittleJohn

Membership Revoked
bullshit or not, smells like bullshit

Richard,

I hear what you're saying, but remember...at one time...

  • the concept of a round earth smelled like bullshit...
  • horseless carriages smelled like bullshit...
  • humans flying smelled like bullshit...
  • talking to someone on the other side of the world or even the moon smelled like bullshit...

Personally, I can see NO POSSIBLE WAY this could ever be done...but humans have been proved wrong time and time again...even with something as straight forward as bullshit.

LittleJohn
 

Technomancer

Inactive
its been official for years, just waiting on the technology to catch up, but it should still be a few years til we can start on it
 

WildDaisy

God has a plan, Trust it!
Um, the last time a nation tried to build something that tall, God mixed up their language and scattered them all over the earth. And that building wasn't nearly as tall as this one would be.

What do you supposed God will do to them?
 

ainitfunny

Saved, to glorify God.
The world economy will put the skids to expensive, idiotic adventures like this. Maybe in 20 years but not now. Not anymore.
 

TJA

Veteran Member
Richard,

I hear what you're saying, but remember...at one time...

  • the concept of a round earth smelled like bullshit...
  • horseless carriages smelled like bullshit...
  • humans flying smelled like bullshit...
  • talking to someone on the other side of the world or even the moon smelled like bullshit...

Personally, I can see NO POSSIBLE WAY this could ever be done...but humans have been proved wrong time and time again...even with something as straight forward as bullshit.

LittleJohn

Well mathematically it works. Conceptually they've got some good plans. The only real blocks are producing long enough carbon nanotubes, cheaply enough and in massive quantities. Everything else is pretty much a matter of engineering current tech.



So, the Japanese are now "japs"?
WTF?

Apparently I missed something, perhaps an edit or something I don't see listed? :shr:
 

mole

Doomer Granny
sounds like a mythological stairway to heaven.

I can't wrap my mind around the math and physics involved...known quantities such as the earth's rotation and gravitational forces and the need for stabilization, but then factor in unknown quantities such as changing atmospheric pressures, weather, and space debris...this list just goes on and on. So many variables...no wonder they have been working on it for decades.

:hmm: hmmmmm......


I know better than to start thinking about these kinds of problems before bed!
 

TJA

Veteran Member
sounds like a mythological stairway to heaven.

I can't wrap my mind around the math and physics involved...known quantities such as the earth's rotation and gravitational forces and the need for stabilization, but then factor in unknown quantities such as changing atmospheric pressures, weather, and space debris...this list just goes on and on. So many variables...no wonder they have been working on it for decades.

:hmm: hmmmmm......


I know better than to start thinking about these kinds of problems before bed!

The atmosphere doesn't really matter for this in many ways. The design is basically a ribbon, with about 26,000 miles of ribbon outside of the atmosphere and maybe 25 to 30 miles of ribbon in any sort of significant atmosphere and maybe another 50 miles on top of that within some really thin parts of the atmosphere. The liftport people are planning an oceanic platform on the equator in the Pacific, lower percentage of storms was one of the primary driving forces on that choice from what I've read. Space debris could be a problem but they're thinking that micrometeorites won't pose too much of a threat and that the ribbon will be patchable. I think it would also be able to dodge larger pieces of space junk with some sort of ripple effect.

Definitely quite a challenge in many ways and certainly one of the more interesting ideas for lowering the costs to get into space.
 

Richard

TB Fanatic
Richard,

I hear what you're saying, but remember...at one time...

  • the concept of a round earth smelled like bullshit...
  • horseless carriages smelled like bullshit...
  • humans flying smelled like bullshit...
  • talking to someone on the other side of the world or even the moon smelled like bullshit...

Personally, I can see NO POSSIBLE WAY this could ever be done...but humans have been proved wrong time and time again...even with something as straight forward as bullshit.

LittleJohn


yes point taken but most scientific theories or in this case inventions are proved wrong or totally unfeasible

For instance if you were a scientist in 1900, you would have "believed" in the ether which of course did not exist, it was not discovered only invented to "prove" an invalid theory, which was the mainstream idea at the time, every scientific theory will be disproved or modified in the future, especially in physics

Inventions:


Humans aren't capable of building any sort of high tech space vehicle, (and never will be), even if we could it could not be funded, what we have now is just an updated form of basic rocket technology, which is extremely dangerous
the Mars space mission proposals are only refined versions of the technology used to put men on the moon

the shuttle was a complete waste of time and second in danger only to rockets
 

Richard

TB Fanatic
There's at least one company in the U.S. that has been working towards this for years. There's even a some elevator centric contests that I believe NASA has fronted a few million towards prizes. Stuff like climber competitions.

Very interesting concept, if it works out it could very well mean true colonization of space.

colonise what - empty space, the upper atmosphere, the planets, the space between them, what is the point


we should colonise the planet first
 

ainitfunny

Saved, to glorify God.
colonise what - empty space, the upper atmosphere, the planets, the space between them, what is the point


we should colonise the planet first

:applaud: :applaud: :applaud:

Can you imagine our "space explorers" truthfully telling the people of some other planet the kind of suffering, needy, miserable earth they left and expecting RESPECT from the "aliens"?

The people of any other world would probably, rightly SHOOT THEM before we spread our inimical attitudes and ideology to their planet.
 

Richard

TB Fanatic
:applaud: :applaud: :applaud:

Can you imagine our "space explorers" truthfully telling the people of some other planet the kind of suffering, needy, miserable earth they left and expecting RESPECT from the "aliens"?

The people of any other world would probably, rightly SHOOT THEM before we spread our inimical attitudes and ideology to their planet.

the cost of colonising space with humans is so potentially astronomical, using current technology anyway, that it would bankrupt the Earth's economy, if it isn't already due to stupid banking, imagine how much a star ship enterprise would cost even if the technology were feasible, you have to include a massive infrastucture to be able to maintain starships
OTOH the aliens have undoubtedly done it

I think they should continue to send small probes into space, but not bother with sending humans to Mars etc or even orbitting the Earth, not until there is some sort of breakthrough in technology
 
Last edited:

RCSAR

Veteran Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCSAR
That have always been the japs. Are they called something different where you are from?

Yes. They are referred to as the Japanese. You have a problem with that?


Call them what you will. If you don't like the term Japs then talk to my dad about it. He fought them for years and was a POW before escaping to fight again. I'm sure if you want to speak with him he can even give you some non-PC names that were used. When you see jap lampshades made from U.S. soldiers skin and learn what went on you might not be so sensitive.

At the very least the Germans did not target our medics.

Did I mention the railroad we died to build for them? I'm really tired of folks getting upset about what the people of a nation are called that butcherd our troops .

They attacked us and we fought back and won! I will call them what I will. Thats the option of the winner.
 
Last edited:

TJA

Veteran Member
colonise what - empty space, the upper atmosphere, the planets, the space between them, what is the point


we should colonise the planet first


You don't know much about what's out there it seems.

Although I do agree with you about the costs of colonizing space using current technology, which why it hasn't happened yet, which the space elevator is not, which is why I said 'if it works out'.


I'm still a little baffled by Warandra's 'Jap' comment, anyone know what Warandra is talking about, I searched the original post and the original article and didn't find the term. In fact it didn't appear until Warandra introduced it to the thread as far as I can tell. Just wondering if Warandra is seeing stuff that isn't there and getting upset by it or did I actually miss something.
 

Richard

TB Fanatic
You don't know much about what's out there it seems.

Although I do agree with you about the costs of colonizing space using current technology, which why it hasn't happened yet, which the space elevator is not, which is why I said 'if it works out'.

it won't, but if I'm proved wrong I will admit it

there's a lot of empty space out there, our solar system planets and moons are uninhabitable/hostile, the other cosmic bodies are too far away for us, its futile even attempting to get men out there, yes send a few little probes with silly little plaques, maybe the aliens will have to step in and show us how to develop technology, it'll probably take us at least another 10,000 years, by which time the next ice age would have destroyed humans
 
there's a lot of empty space out there, our solar system planets and moons are uninhabitable/hostile, the other cosmic bodies are too far away for us, its futile even attempting to get men out there, yes send a few little probes with silly little plaques, maybe the aliens will have to step in and show us how to develop technology, it'll probably take us at least another 10,000 years, by which time the next ice age would have destroyed humans

Richard, there's IS more to life than immediate financial gain. There is stuff which has to do with dreams, and hopes, faith and the possibility of the future. To give up because you don't think something is possible before attempting it is a philosophy that would have us still walking around clutching bone tools, since it is impossible to transmute rocks into metal....

In the grand scheme of things this stuff is cheap. Cheaper than medical plans, cheaper than military adventures, less than the money spent to protect marine biology, and so on. The best bit about this particular story is that it is being done by someone else, with their money. You don't even have to pay for it! So.....why the whining?
 

FireDance

TB Fanatic
This idea has been out there forever. I'm not sure why, but I always thought it was highly stupid. I'm sure you can DO it, but I think there are other ways that would be a little more cost effective. What's it going to cost to train an elevator repair person? Will there be a trade school for this?
 

Richard

TB Fanatic
Richard, there's IS more to life than immediate financial gain. There is stuff which has to do with dreams, and hopes, faith and the possibility of the future. To give up because you don't think something is possible before attempting it is a philosophy that would have us still walking around clutching bone tools, since it is impossible to transmute rocks into metal....

In the grand scheme of things this stuff is cheap. Cheaper than medical plans, cheaper than military adventures, less than the money spent to protect marine biology, and so on. The best bit about this particular story is that it is being done by someone else, with their money. You don't even have to pay for it! So.....why the whining?

All I'm saying very simply is:

Space exploration, apart from sending out a few probes and the Hubble type telescopes etc, is too costly and simply not feasible, whats out in space anyway, a few dead planets, comet clouds, asteroids, stars trillions of miles away,

there is no point to putting humans on the solar system planets or moons, all of them are inhospitable

maybe the space elevator is cheap, but doesn't sound practical or feasible in practice to me, I'd rather people spend their money on something useful

I think we should explore our own sun by use of probes and telescopes, we should not however attempt to send a man to Mars

we should not have illusions that we can invent interplanetary craft that would cost trillions even if we had the brains to invent the technology

again I say the only hope is that the aliens show us, the hunt for ETs should start on Earth not by the SETI project

anyhow, you sound like a Brit, may I enquire your nationality
 

Dobbin

Faithful Steed
It's a lot easier to conceptualize if you understand a "geosynchronous" orbit.

Geosynchronus means that a satellite is orbiting around the earth's mass, but the rotation of the earth matches the rotation of the satellite around the earth. Thus, the satellite appears in the air above us, and NEVER moves.

Now if you string something between this "stationary" object and the surface of the earth, you can then connect the two. Problems with this string are the weight of the string (as you approach the earth, the tension increases) and the mass attraction of the string to the satellite (the satellite has it's own gravity.) Thus, without affecting either satellite or the earth, the string is under tension caused by it's own mass. At some point along the string the tension is a maximum and decreases as you move to either end of the string.

Build a little extra strength into this string and you can use it to "pull" objects up to the satellite. But this extra strength has to match or exceed the weight of the object as it just leaves the earth. As the object rises, it's apparent weight decreases until it gets close to the satellite. Then it's weight goes negative as it is then attracted to the satellite.

You can make the satellite any size and it won't affect it's ability to be a landing point. Conversely, you can ADD to the satellite's weight through the string/cable/whatever and it won't make a difference either. In fact, once the string/cable/ whatever, is in place, you can subtract mass from the satellite until it's gone and the cable will remain pointing towards the heavens, suspended by only it's own centrifugal force.

The string/cable/whatever could then be used as a launch platform. You climb the string with a climber of some sort, and as you leave the end of the string to the void of space, your last velocity as the climber leaves the string will be your "excape velocity" from earth.

I think I got this right. Dern engineer's mind.

Best,
Joe
 

nuance4u

Contributing Member
The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space

Gerard K O'neil, physicist, wrote about using an elevator to space in 1977. I read his book "The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space" when it first came out and was fascinated by it.

I had forgotten about it though until I saw this posting.

Jeff
 

TJA

Veteran Member
Considering all the things that people waste money on the relatively small amounts spent on space exploration don't really matter. One of the few things I fully back NASA on is the idea of prizes for accomplishing set goals. The space elevator prizes are a good example, 4 million dollars put up, that never gets paid out if the goals aren't met. Sounds like a good deal to me, especially since the quest for that four million will likely drive many more than 4 million dollars in research and development by private individuals and companies.

Unless you think that private individuals and companies shouldn't 'waste' their own money on whatever they want to. Consider that people in the US alone spend more money on their pets in the course of a year than NASA spends, seems that there are plenty of places to look to in regards to sensible spending rather than NASA and there are certainly a lot more places to be looking before private industry working on space access is even glanced at.

Now as for public funds such as NASA, do you honestly believe that NASA"s roughly 14 billion dollar budget will actually make a difference anywhere else if it isn't spent on space exploration. The department of Social Services spends what, 600 billion to 650 billion each year? Are you seriously going to tell me that if they spent 614 billion to 664 billion it will actually make any real difference?

As for whats out there, how about more clean energy than most can possibly imagine. If NASA had gotten it's act together after Apollo instead of focusing on the silly shuttle and that waste of a space station the U.S. could be the one supplying energy to the rest of the planet right now, enough energy so that every single person alive right now could potentially live with the same high standards of living that most in the U.S. enjoy. Instead we waste our time arguing about oil. One space advocate once stated that it is basically raining soup out there and we don't even know what a soup bowl is. How about raw materials. There's enough metals out in the asteroid belt alone to supply more than double the current annual demand here on earth for something like 50,000 years, without any (as in zero) recycling being done in that time. There's also the insurance of getting humanity off of just one rock and safeguarding the race from any number of planetary collapse scenarios.

As for uninhabitable/hostile, so what? That's simply an engineering challenge. Pretty much 90%+ of the places people live on Earth would be uninhabitable/hostile without what humanity knows and the fact that we change our environment to suit us, even if that change is something as simple as building shelter and skinning an animal for it's fur. The basic technology to live almost anywhere in the solar system exists right now, it's just a matter of fine tuning it and getting it where it needs to be.

Still it really boils down to costs. There are plenty of people working on ways of lowering those costs. The space elevator concept is simply one of those ideas. Granted it is one of the more interesting and challenging ideas but the potential pay off is incredible. Mars has the raw materials needed to support people and we have the technology to get there and use those materials and build whatever we need to survive there. Unfortunately with launch costs up to $10,000 per pound that's not going to happen. Lower the costs so that someone could get to Mars for less than $50,000 and you will certainly see a bunch of people heading out.

I guess it simply boils down to whether or not your the type of person who looks to the future, tries to make investments towards making that future a better place or someone who would rather turn inward and belittle the efforts of those that would like to. Because that's what current space exploration really is, it's an investment that will let us someday make the soup bowls we need to tap into the resources out there. In the grand scheme of things the money currently spent on space exploration is extremely small, especially considering the potential pay offs.

As for the aliens, if they're out there, screw them. Nothing we have needed any 'help' from them and we certainly don't need any help from some B.E.M or gray or whatever to take ourselves to the next step.
 

Richard

TB Fanatic
As for whats out there, how about more clean energy than most can possibly imagine. If NASA had gotten it's act together after Apollo instead of focusing on the silly shuttle and that waste of a space station the U.S. could be the one supplying energy to the rest of the planet right now, enough energy so that every single person alive right now could potentially live with the same high standards of living that most in the U.S. enjoy. Instead we waste our time arguing about oil. One space advocate once stated that it is basically raining soup out there and we don't even know what a soup bowl is. How about raw materials. There's enough metals out in the asteroid belt alone to supply more than double the current annual demand here on earth for something like 50,000 years, without any (as in zero) recycling being done in that time. There's also the insurance of getting humanity off of just one rock and safeguarding the race from any number of planetary collapse scenarios.

As for uninhabitable/hostile, so what? That's simply an engineering challenge. Pretty much 90%+ of the places people live on Earth would be uninhabitable/hostile without what humanity knows and the fact that we change our environment to suit us, even if that change is something as simple as building shelter and skinning an animal for it's fur. The basic technology to live almost anywhere in the solar system exists right now, it's just a matter of fine tuning it and getting it where it needs to be.



none of this is ever going to happen, it is simply not feasible, you've been reading too much science fiction, but maybe the aliens have done it and we can learn from them rather than screwing them
you think we're the only beings in the universe?

our best hope is the aliens

OK if I'm reincarnated in a million years and we're doing planetary engineering and the star trek universe exists, then I'll eat my words
if it doesn't then you can eat yours
 
none of this is ever going to happen, it is simply not feasible, you've been reading too much science fiction, but maybe the aliens have done it and we can learn from them rather than screwing them
you think we're the only beings in the universe?

our best hope is the aliens

OK if I'm reincarnated in a million years and we're doing planetary engineering and the star trek universe exists, then I'll eat my words
if it doesn't then you can eat yours

Well, in the last 50 years we've managed to turn the impossible (space flight) into a serious commercial reality (satellite communications, resource monitors, weather, position location and so forth). That lot probably sounded rather far fetched back in 1950 too.

And the indirect benefits such as compact integrated circuits and composite materials are black magic as far as someone from the 1950's is concerned.

You don't have to terraform Mars to make a case for space exploration.

All I'm saying very simply is:

Space exploration, apart from sending out a few probes and the Hubble type telescopes etc, is too costly and simply not feasible, whats out in space anyway, a few dead planets, comet clouds, asteroids, stars trillions of miles away,

there is no point to putting humans on the solar system planets or moons, all of them are inhospitable

maybe the space elevator is cheap, but doesn't sound practical or feasible in practice to me, I'd rather people spend their money on something useful

I think we should explore our own sun by use of probes and telescopes, we should not however attempt to send a man to Mars

we should not have illusions that we can invent interplanetary craft that would cost trillions even if we had the brains to invent the technology

again I say the only hope is that the aliens show us, the hunt for ETs should start on Earth not by the SETI project

anyhow, you sound like a Brit, may I enquire your nationality

The biggest engineering problem in space exploration and exploitation right now is the cost of getting "stuff" into low earth orbit - it requires horrendous energy expenditure since you have to lift not only the payload but the fuel to lift the payload as well. If you could solve that problem, either by lowering the cost to orbit or by sourcing the materials from elsewhere (the moon perhaps) then the potential uses of space explode, from zero-gravity factories to energy to mining. Thus there is a vast "payoff" to the one that solves it. In many ways this is analogous to the invention of the reliable steam engine back in the 1700s - suddenly entire new industries became feasible.

As has been pointed out earlier, most of the Earth is inhospitable, or at least very uncomfortable. Try running around London in January with no clothes on and you'll appreciate this :) - it is in human nature to improve our lot, however, so thanks to a lot of development work and Marks & Spencer we no longer have to turn blue....

We already HAVE interplanetary craft that work really rather well - we've landed on several of the local planets already, but the best reason to send people was given by (I think) Buzz Aldrin, who said that the thing most people asked him was what did it FEEL like to stand on another world. It's tough to get a robot to answer that.

Why do we try to do anything we haven't done before?
 

TJA

Veteran Member
none of this is ever going to happen, it is simply not feasible, you've been reading too much science fiction, but maybe the aliens have done it and we can learn from them rather than screwing them
you think we're the only beings in the universe?

our best hope is the aliens

OK if I'm reincarnated in a million years and we're doing planetary engineering and the star trek universe exists, then I'll eat my words
if it doesn't then you can eat yours

Oh it's not really feasible at this time, mostly due to launch costs.

I don't doubt that there are aliens out there somewhere but the jury is still out in my book as to whether or not they've ever come here. Pointless anyway since last I looked there aren't any alien travel offices offering any sort of colonization deal. As for the 'screw them' mentality that is more directed at the attitude that humanity can't possibly do something like colonize the solar system without outside help.

While I may have in fact read too much science fiction setting up a viable colony on Mars could easily be done with current technology and it certainly doesn't require planetary engineering. The only real obstacle is that $10,000 per pound to low Earth orbit figure.

Something tells me that if you were around in 1897 you would have also said something along the lines that 'mankind will never fly'.
 

tanstaafl

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I probably don't what I'm talking about here, but I think a huge problem to overcome would be the energy absorbed by the cable. The Shuttle did an experiment with a cable and more than adequately proved that you could create power from extending a cable (in the Shuttle's case, it wasn't particularly long, either) out of the Shuttle bay towards the Earth. I don't remember the details, but it seems to me the experiment ultimately failed because it was TOO successful (that is, it burned out the equipment).

You might think that carbon nanotubes would not conduct electricity and therefore the above would be irrelevant, but my brother recently told me that ham radio operators are starting to use carbon antennas. Clearly if radio antennas made of carbon can carry a signal, then other things made of carbon can possibly carry other forms of energy. Even if you could figure out a way to deal with things like that, you still have to wonder what the effect on the Van Allen belt and the magnetosphere would be since nothing is free. For example, using planets for a space probe slingshot effect actually slows a planet's rotation a minute amount.

A space elevator sounds so seductively elegant, but it may be one of those things that sound a LOT easier to build than is actually the case.

As to the debate about colonizing space ... GO L-5! (historical reference of sorts)
 

H2O

Senior Member
TJA - Thank You

You have articulated all of my arguments already, and in a concise and polite way. My arguments for NASA have always been that the technology that gets developed winds up being far more valuable then anything that was being planned at the time and in ways that would not have been dreamed of had researchers been looking at obviously profitable expansions of the current technology. Plus the truth is we will not know what we can make us of from space until we find a way to send manned missions; which means sucking it up and spending the money for the technology and taking serious risks (astronauts are truly heroes facing a very lonely death to expand our knowledge) without any guarantee of a payout - but knowing that in the past the effort has always proven to be profitable overall.
 
Top