Scientist Sees Space Elevator in 15 Years

[Ivan Seeking]

...Edwards thinks an initial version could be operating in 15 years, a year earlier than Bush's 2020 timetable for a return to the moon. He pegs the cost at $10 billion, a pittance compared with other space endeavors

"It's not new physics — nothing new has to be discovered, nothing new has to be invented from scratch," he says. "If there are delays in budget or delays in whatever, it could stretch, but 15 years is a realistic estimate for when we could have one up." [continued]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1894&ncid=1894&e=1&u=/ap/20040625/ap_on_sc/space_elevator

 

[TALewis]

You won't hear any argument from me. A relevant anecdote comes from Arthur C. Clarke: Asked when a future space elevator might be built, he replied, "When everyone stops laughing."

 

[Entropy]

I'm skeptical. I don't dought its possible but I don't think by 2020. It just seems too fantastic to be done so near in the future, as arrogent as that might sound.

 

[enigma]

As soon as they start getting the tubes longer than a foot or two, I'll stop laughing.

I do want them to build one: There are just too many difficulties to be overcome for it to be feasible to go beyond TRL 1 for a while.

 

[notal33t]

You can stop laughing!

As soon as they start getting the tubes longer than a foot or two, I'll stop laughing.

I do want them to build one: There are just too many difficulties to be overcome for it to be feasible to go beyond TRL 1 for a while.

=======
The current level of SECRECY in nanofiber research, almosts guarantees your laughter is already being given a few snickers at.
When are the nay sayers going to realize something BIG is about to occur to the human race!

CAN YOU SMELL WHAT THE SPACE CADETS ARE COOKING?

Difficulties be damned.

THIS IDEA WORKS!
Better jump onboard fast or your DEFINITELY going to be left behind saying. :zzz:

WOT HAPPENED

 

[notal33t]

Rotflmao!

I'm skeptical. I don't dought its possible but I don't think by 2020. It just seems too fantastic to be done so near in the future, as arrogent as that might sound.

---
I doubt you realize what happens when folks smell BIG PROFITS!

As for the Space Elevator seeming too fantastic to be done in the near future, just recall how long it took to go from, no manned space flight, to man on the moon. 1959-1969.
As arrogant as this might sound, skepticism is a poor excuse for real scientific method.

 

[hitssquad]

Wars of nerves and rates of national technological development

recall how long it took to go from, no manned space flight, to man on the moon. 1959-1969.

There was a cold war then. There is no cold war now:

• The state of "war without war" or what has been called the "war of nerves" thus in fact is capable of performing much of the function of war. If a nation appreciates that a war is lost before it begins, should it break down under its burden of armaments, a badly organized country may seek to rectify its ways. When all is said, the cost of being prepared for war is a more humane source of natural selection than war itself[13]. It was, incidentally, in this sense that the poet Robert Frost, in his visit to Russian intellectuals, gave explicit thanks to this mutual national competition. And anyone familiar with the reactions of American science and education realizes that they too owe much to Sputnik.

(Raymond Cattell. http://www.efn.org/~callen/ToC.htm. http://www.efn.org/~callen/anmfshtml/section5.7.htm — 'The Functions of War and the Development of a Functional Substitute'.)

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Don't wan'na be the pessimist around here, but I seriously doubt we're
ever gon'na push "space" in an elevator.

In 20 years we can easily have much more advanced, safe and more important - cheap chemicly fueled rockets. In fact, we could have them
now if some mass production policies were adopted. And that's just what
I'd call the default. There are also many other things like effective fusion
reactors and advanced propulsion systems like the scramjet, external combustion, and even small-bomb powered rockets that could become
a reality in 20-30 years and make the whole idea of building something
like a space elevator totally ineffective even if feasable.

Live long and prosper.

 

[russ_watters]

The current level of SECRECY in nanofiber research, almosts guarantees your laughter is already being given a few snickers at.

Two problems with this:

1. You're basically saying that its secret except that you know about it. Uh, yeah, right...
2. It isn't secret.

 

[notal33t]

Oh ye of little faith!


It seems that lack of imagination or plain outright skepticism, hinders the acceptance of most breakthrough concepts, until events overtake skeptics to such a degree that they have to cave into the reality.

Lets just say, that I seriously doubt that folks that know the science, and are jumping on board in droves, and the REAL space cadets at the AIR FORCE ACADEMY, would be joining the growing groups of scientists in the forefront of the Space Elevator nanotech revolution, if this was pie in the sky.

See you at space station GEO One...

 

[notal33t]

Hot War

There was a cold war then. There is no cold war now:

Danged right there's a shooting war.

If America doesn't do the SE you can believe the Euros or Chinese WILL!

Nanotech fullerine tether technology isn't the singular province of the U.S. Use it or lose it.

 

[enigma]

=======

CAN YOU SMELL WHAT THE SPACE CADETS ARE COOKING?

Tech like this would not be black budget. It's not as if you can hide a 30,000km long rope...

 

[Chronos]

Well, from an engineering standpoint, I think it is a hugely complicated project. Frankly, I doubt 10 billion would even cover the design phase. Torsional stress on a structure increases exponentially with length [think tall buildings]. An anology, giant ants are structurally unsound.

 

[Lord Flasheart]

Well, ants are not exactly made of nanotubes/buckyballs.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, ants are not exactly made of nanotubes/buckyballs.

I think you miss the point. An ant that's 1cm long can carry something like a hundred times its own weight, while a much larger ant (not sure how long) wouldn't even be able to support its own structure. The point is that structural support issues scale exponentially: doubling the height of a building requires four times the support structure.

But that isn't even my biggest cause for skepticisim. They call them nanotubes for a reason: they are small. They need to be able to make them many orders of magnitude longer before you can even hang a chandalier from one. Like enigma said - wake me up when they make one longer than a foot.

 

[Janitor]

Scientist Sees Space Elevator in 15 Years

Off by a factor of at least 10. Probably more like 100.

 

[drag]

Off by a factor of at least 10. Probably more like 100.

I believe that if the project is not carried
out within half a century at most, there'll
be no need for it later, because there'll be much
better and simpler options.

Live long and prosper.

 

[notal33t]

Wakey Wakey

I think you miss the point. An ant that's 1cm long can carry something like a hundred times its own weight, while a much larger ant (not sure how long) wouldn't even be able to support its own structure. The point is that structural support issues scale exponentially: doubling the height of a building requires four times the support structure.

But that isn't even my biggest cause for skepticisim. They call them nanotubes for a reason: they are small. They need to be able to make them many orders of magnitude longer before you can even hang a chandalier from one. Like enigma said - wake me up when they make one longer than a foot.

======

Ok! WAKE UP!
Check out:

http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/Nowicki/

Status:
Tethers Unlimited has successfully developed a method of fabricating
long lengths of Hoytethers. Using this process, we have fabricated
over fifty kilometers of Hoytether prototypes suitable for use in
electrodynamic and momentum-exchange tether missions, and tested
them succesfully in several tether deployment systems.

Am I reading what I think I'm reading here?
Just how far along is this approach?
I better shut up or I might get too excited and start jumping up and
down.
==
BTW The Hoytether is either patented or in the process of being patented.

 

[drag]

I beg your pardon, but do you know what an electrodynamic tether is ?
Because if you did, you would not involve it in this discussion.

Peace and long life.

 

[russ_watters]

The Hoytether

That isn't a nanotube, its just an interesting design for a conventional tether. Its nowhere near the same thing and is not something that can be used for a space elevator.

 

[meteor]

Ok, maybe is difficult to develop long carbon nanotube cables, but then there's this proposition of Pearson to construct the space elevator not in the Earth, but in the moon (you don't need a cable with such a high tensile strenght there, as the gravity is less than in Earth)

"Summary - (Nov 18, 2004) Science fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke famously predicted that we'd see space elevators 50 years after people stopped laughing at the idea. Jerome Pearson has been thinking about space elevators since the early 1970s, and he's been watching the growing enthusiasm (and fading chuckles) with great interest. But he knows there are significant challenges in engineering and materials that still need to be overcome, so he's suggesting NASA build an elevator on the Moon first. And the agency is taking the idea seriously."

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/lunar_space_elevator.html

 

[PJH]

This is frankly speaking one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

There will be no space elevators.

- PJH

 

[Darkwander]

What is the point

No offence , but what is the point in making a huge elevator , i would be more impressed if the US build a spaceship or something that they could take us on flight around the world or something , let's face it , most people don't like elevators at the best of times.

 

[enigma]

No offence , but what is the point in making a huge elevator

If it works, it'll cost over 10,000 times less. QED

 

[Lord Flasheart]

No offence , but what is the point in making a huge elevator , i would be more impressed if the US build a spaceship or something that they could take us on flight around the world or something , let's face it , most people don't like elevators at the best of times.

Um, no.

The US has made multiple spacecraft capable of circling the Earth. The Shuttle has been our most recent one, and the ISS follows an orbit that passes over the North American continent as well as Eurasia. Both complexes can go around the entire planet in the time it takes to watch a good length movie.

Secondly, plenty of people use elevators. Why so? To save effort. Normally a health-wary citizen would rather take the stairs for exercise, but conservation and laziness equal less cost, less hardship, in both the Holiday Inn and the Heavens Immeasurable.

What is the point of building a skyhook? We haven't built one yet! Isn't that reason enough?

 

[notal33t]

No more posts to this forum.

It's become obvious to me, that the old line negativist, 'contributors' own this particular forum, and since the only thing capable of penetrating their blinders, is the staid view, commonly referred to as classical physics, I've decided to end any further posting here.
I had somehow hoped this forum would have a progressive outlook, but I've obviously been mistaken. Having received very thinly veiled sarcastic put downs as to my capability to understand the physics involved with the SE and SWCNT tethers, I leave with this parting observation. When sarcasm passes for science, it's a guarantee that true science is not involved.

 

[jimbot]

Already started

There's a company in Washington that's in the early design phase of the elevator. http://www.liftport.com/

 

[russ_watters]

A clever way to sell t-shirts and scam donations indeed, jimbot. That company has 8 employees and 64 "shareholders." Its a scam.

 

[maglifter]

Maglauncher predicted to operate even earlier

George Scelzo of Chicago-based PRT Advanced Maglev Systems thinks a maglauncher might be operational earlier than the space elevator.

see this interesting article: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/01/03/maglev.launches/

NASA thinks he may be right.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Don't think it's gon'na happen either, the track will
just need to be too long and it costs a LOT.
Though, considering current launch costs and
with a reusable launch pad, the many billions this
will cost may still be worth it.

As a sidenote, there was a program on one of the edu.
channels describing a possible future mega-project
of building a vacuum tunnel across the Atlantic for
maglev trains. If it is ever built it could also serve for
the purpose of space launches.

Live long and prosper.

 

[errorist]

A carbon nano tube pipeline from the Equator to geo. orbit could pump massive amounts of H2 and O2 to space to be stored as rocket fuel. The pipeline would only have to be 1/4 inch diameter.

http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=5;t=198;st=0

 

[russ_watters]

This doesn't change the fact that carbon nanotubes are not going to be a useable construction material any time in the forseeable future.

 

[notal33t]

Wakey wakey! Surprise surprise surprise!

I think you miss the point. An ant that's 1cm long can carry something like a hundred times its own weight, while a much larger ant (not sure how long) wouldn't even be able to support its own structure. The point is that structural support issues scale exponentially: doubling the height of a building requires four times the support structure.

But that isn't even my biggest cause for skepticisim. They call them nanotubes for a reason: they are small. They need to be able to make them many orders of magnitude longer before you can even hang a chandalier from one. Like enigma said - wake me up when they make one longer than a foot.

==
I thought to answer by using as a paraphrase.
Skepticism in the defense of science is no vice. (or is it?) :zzz:
It's obvious from your comments that you folks ain't awake!
You sort of remind me of the 'scientists' that argued that rockets could never fly in space because they didn't have air to push against.

Well I guess there's those that see, and those that can't see!

 

[russ_watters]

You sort of remind me of the 'scientists' that argued that rockets could never fly in space because they didn't have air to push against.

Well I guess there's those that see, and those that can't see!

There's a reason you put "scientists" in quotes in that sentence: they weren't. Sorry, this isn't even close to the same thing.

 

[errorist]

Well the Japanese have made them a few centimeters long now. Now how many times are they longer than wider? I know they are but a few H2 atoms in cross section.

 

[Invader_tech]

You have to think too, the governments of the world have technollogy that can be well 50 years into the future, they simply decide not to tell us. During the time of when the U.S. first started testing hydrogen bombs, they did it withought the public knowing, and as a coverup the U.S. publicly made it look as if it was difficult to lift a few pounds with their powerful rockets, whilst they were in fact at the same time sending several kiloton bombs up with ease.
It may sound incredibly difficult to us now, but for all we know, they might have had this planned out 20 years ago. And so, I am open to the possibility that it CAN happen

 

[Kenneth Mann]

This seems like an incredibly difficult and ambitious idea. I'm not sure that the proponents recognize this by orders of magnitude. I don't say that it is impossible, but that it will be very, very, very difficult and expensive. Sometime back, I undertook a small exercise to determine very crudely how much effort would be required. I decided that it could be possible someday, but that it would be a long time off.

First, its length wouldn't be to Earth-synchronous altitude, but roughly twice that far. Reasons and implications of this are:

a) Earth synchronous altitude is necessary for the cable's platform to orbit the planet at the same rate at which the planet turns (to keep the cable roughly straight). As the cable extends down, however, this (one revolution per day) rate is not enough to sustain the cable in orbit, it will go from weightless to progressively heavier as the cable extends down, to the full weight at surface level. This imposes not only an enormous tensile strength requirement on the cable, but also a huge weight on the orbiting platform (or whatever is there) at synchronous altitude. To keep this weight from pulling the 'platform' down, the cable would have to be balanced by a roughly equal cable beyond that platform, so now we have a cable roughly sixty thousand miles tall.
b) The platform is now being pulled in both directions (an equal amount, in order to balance out the forces and keep the platform from being pulled down). This means double the tensile strength requirement. My intuition is that this will probably require something orders of magnitude stronger than 'nanotube' structures. (I leave it to others to determine.)
c) Orbital characteristics will cause the cable to try to wrap itself around the Earth like a maypole, especially as it is being dropped and extended from the platform. This will add additional loads and complications.
d) In order to stabilize the platform(s) in orbit they will possibly have to first be linked with an additional series of cables that circle the Earth (at synchronous altitude. This would add the need for a set of cables roughly two hundred thousand miles long. The saving is that this cable would be weightless, and not add the strain of its weight.
e) As the cable comes into the atmosphere, additional problems will accumulate.
From this I feel that the cost will be a lot higher than proponents estimate, (more likely, closer to ten trillion dollars than to ten billion). It would probably be easier to build a suspension bridge to Hawaii, but that's just my feeling.

KM

 

[hitssquad]

First, its length wouldn't be to Earth-synchronous altitude, but roughly twice that far.

The anchor is relatively massive. That is why it is proposed as flying at an elevation of 30,000 miles instead of 44,000 miles.
http://www.google.com/search?q="30,000+miles"+anchor+elevator

 

[Kenneth Mann]

Sounds interesting, but I can't imagine the governments of this planet allowing anyone to drag a large asteroid anywhere near to us; especially after the what the dinosaurs apparently went through.

Maybe we should first try this on Mars where it will be easier to prove the concept out, and get a handle on the ultimate costs. If it can be made to work there then we can better determine if it is worth the very high price that would be entailed here. I still think the price will be in the trillions, not 500 billion, and definitely not 10 or 15 billion.Besides, Mars has a couple of small moons that might be suitable; and easier than pulling in an asteroid.

KM