Do you think it will actually work or its the most ridiculous idea ever?
For those of you who have not heard of this plan.
http://www.spaceelevator.com/
For those of you who have not heard of this plan.
http://www.spaceelevator.com/
The Space Elevator
- Thread starter CatKillaZ
- Start date
Safeway
Lifer
- Jun 22, 2004
- 12,075
- 11
- 81
I agree with waggy. With current technology, it is a bit ridiculous. Once we get the art of making and binding carbon nanotubes together down, it will become a little easier. A space elevator is the way to go if you want cheap access into space. Most of the weight/fuel is for reaching Earths escape velocity. If you can take an elevator to space, moon trips would be cheap! 43
How soon if ever ya think it will be done?
Somewhat offtopic but...
I grew up on the Space Coast in FL and NASA provides tons of jobs and does some great research. However, it spends a ton of money. I believe this money may be better used on trying to save our planet, rather than looking at other planets to live on.
Somewhat offtopic but...
I grew up on the Space Coast in FL and NASA provides tons of jobs and does some great research. However, it spends a ton of money. I believe this money may be better used on trying to save our planet, rather than looking at other planets to live on.
Yeah, we need ridiculous ideas to get things jump started. If NASA were to start with their same old "boring" ideas then people wouldn't be interested and wouldn't want to fund them. People want to see crazy stuff like in sci-fi films.
I think the next definitive step as far as space goes is to setup a base on the moon. The space elevator is an idea of how to make that happen. I think we're set for another big space odyssey before too long. Its been decades since we've had much motivation, and now between Europe and China, I think we might just get it. Not only that, but I think it might play right into the hands of the alarmists ("oh noes, we need to find another planet, we've already completely ruined earth"), and would get people's minds off of other issues (such as our involvement in certain foreign areas).
I disagree. NASA used to be one of the greatest organizations in the US. It used to have real goals that were seemingly impossible at first yet they succeeded. Since then their goals and budget have been raped.
I recall reading that the vast majority of it would burn up in the atmosphere so the damage would be minimal. Besides the cable is pretty tiny, something like one or two meters wide, so if it did hit something it's not like it would take out an entire city.
There are still a lot of kinks to be worked out but it seems like a pretty viable idea. I can see the possibility of it happening within the next 50 years. The estimates on price make it seem like it's a lot cheaper than going back to the moon or to Mars so it might be a nice cheap alternative for NASA to work on.
I am not saying great things were not done. I just believe for the billions of dollars spent they have not reinvented themselves forever. And we still have numerous diseases with no cures. It makes you wonder if the money could be better spent.
silverpig
Lifer
- Jul 29, 2001
- 27,703
- 12
- 81
I participated in NASA's space elevator games last year and have done quite a bit of research into it.
The carbon nanotube bit is only one part of the problem. The second is beamed power. Try hitting a few meter wide target at 60000 km high while compensating for diffraction and atmospheric effects...
The carbon nanotube bit is only one part of the problem. The second is beamed power. Try hitting a few meter wide target at 60000 km high while compensating for diffraction and atmospheric effects...
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
1. The space elevator is an excellent idea - plus investment into the nanotube technologies will have tons of spinoff applications that benefit the rest of us.
2. NASA's budget is puny. It may be a lot, compared to what you'll make in your lifetime, but science spending by our gov't in general is incredibly small, regardless of the lip-service about keeping us the most advanced country in the world.
3. A lot of NASA's missions are dictated by political pressure. i.e. sending a man to the moon or to Mars. There have already been several important scientific missions that have been mothballed in order to divert funds toward these missions. There really is *NO* reason to send humans back to the moon, or to Mars for that matter. Robots can do the same job at a fraction of the price. I saw someone else argue this point; he asked, "what makes a human better than a robot?" The answer was "Humans react faster." His response: "react to what?" Meanwhile, the search for nearby comets, etc. that could represent a grave threat to our species starts to fall by the wayside. But, hey, if we get blasted by a meteor, we'll have a dozen or so people on the moon who can repopulate the earth. Newsflash: even if we have bases on the moon or on Mars, and we know with certainty that something is going to become very smashed into us, they're still not going to transport any meaningful number of people off this rock.
4. I don't think you understand how many missions besides the space shuttle (does the space shuttle do anything useful any more?) Oh yeah, it takes parts to the international space station. Uhhh, has the international space station done anything useful yet? (Other than emphasize to us how precarious it is to have humans working in space.)
The space shuttle and international space station seem to be not much more than eye-candy to the rest of the population who stare up and say "wow." NASA has a lot more important missions that the vast majority of the population have never heard of and no nothing about.
Finally, I'll point you to the reason for manned space travel from a NASA administrator. Actually think while you read it, and you'll probably understand that its main goals are now directed by Congress. It even admits the only real "science" the space station is doing: teaching us how to live together in space for long durations. Yayyy! There's still no point for us to be zooming all over space exploring, when our robots can do it cheaper, better, faster, and with fewer risks. (Unless you need samples back, trips for robots are one-way. 2-way trips are FAR more difficult and expensive.) here
Oh, and a list of NASA missions:
here If you read through them, you'll realize that most of them cost a fraction of the space shuttle program (or space station) and have contributed a great deal more to our understanding of our planet, the solar system, and the universe.
2. NASA's budget is puny. It may be a lot, compared to what you'll make in your lifetime, but science spending by our gov't in general is incredibly small, regardless of the lip-service about keeping us the most advanced country in the world.
3. A lot of NASA's missions are dictated by political pressure. i.e. sending a man to the moon or to Mars. There have already been several important scientific missions that have been mothballed in order to divert funds toward these missions. There really is *NO* reason to send humans back to the moon, or to Mars for that matter. Robots can do the same job at a fraction of the price. I saw someone else argue this point; he asked, "what makes a human better than a robot?" The answer was "Humans react faster." His response: "react to what?" Meanwhile, the search for nearby comets, etc. that could represent a grave threat to our species starts to fall by the wayside. But, hey, if we get blasted by a meteor, we'll have a dozen or so people on the moon who can repopulate the earth. Newsflash: even if we have bases on the moon or on Mars, and we know with certainty that something is going to become very smashed into us, they're still not going to transport any meaningful number of people off this rock.
4. I don't think you understand how many missions besides the space shuttle (does the space shuttle do anything useful any more?) Oh yeah, it takes parts to the international space station. Uhhh, has the international space station done anything useful yet? (Other than emphasize to us how precarious it is to have humans working in space.)
The space shuttle and international space station seem to be not much more than eye-candy to the rest of the population who stare up and say "wow." NASA has a lot more important missions that the vast majority of the population have never heard of and no nothing about.
Finally, I'll point you to the reason for manned space travel from a NASA administrator. Actually think while you read it, and you'll probably understand that its main goals are now directed by Congress. It even admits the only real "science" the space station is doing: teaching us how to live together in space for long durations. Yayyy! There's still no point for us to be zooming all over space exploring, when our robots can do it cheaper, better, faster, and with fewer risks. (Unless you need samples back, trips for robots are one-way. 2-way trips are FAR more difficult and expensive.) here
Oh, and a list of NASA missions:
here If you read through them, you'll realize that most of them cost a fraction of the space shuttle program (or space station) and have contributed a great deal more to our understanding of our planet, the solar system, and the universe.
silverpig
Lifer
- Jul 29, 2001
- 27,703
- 12
- 81
DrPizza: The biggest thing you touched on is in your first point, but you were a bit shortsighted perhaps when you limited your comment to carbon nanotubes. Something like beamed power could have immediate real world impact on people today.
There are a lot of islands just off of the coast of Vancouver which rely on the mainland for power. The severe windstorms of the late fall and early spring often cut power to these islands off for days at a time. Imagine being able to set up a temporary wireless power transmission setup between the island and the mainland which could keep the island at least partially powered until the hard line was repaired.
Then there are also the unknown benefits. Perhaps in the search for a way to channel the beamed power someone might accidentally discover a material which becomes the new teflon or something...
There are a lot of islands just off of the coast of Vancouver which rely on the mainland for power. The severe windstorms of the late fall and early spring often cut power to these islands off for days at a time. Imagine being able to set up a temporary wireless power transmission setup between the island and the mainland which could keep the island at least partially powered until the hard line was repaired.
Then there are also the unknown benefits. Perhaps in the search for a way to channel the beamed power someone might accidentally discover a material which becomes the new teflon or something...
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,311
- 14,718
- 146
Sure sounds like someone's been reading Arthur C. Clarke's The Fountains of Paradise
IF the technology can support such a thing, and IF there is a way to prevent the psycho-terrorists from bringing it down...(what a tempting target it would be...) then I think an elevator would be MUCH better than the current waste of resources involved with launching by rocket.
IF the technology can support such a thing, and IF there is a way to prevent the psycho-terrorists from bringing it down...(what a tempting target it would be...) then I think an elevator would be MUCH better than the current waste of resources involved with launching by rocket.
wouldn't you locate the earth side station on a remote island in the middle of a large ocean?
one with relatively few hurricanes, so i think it would need to be near the equator
maybe Ascension Island
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascension_Island
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter