E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
When Soviet engineer Yuri Artsutanov came up with his concept for an "electric train to the cosmos" in 1960, he thought it'd take 200 years to turn it into a reality. Fifty years later, the 81-year-old is more optimistic: Now he thinks the first space elevator will rise into the heavens 30 years from now.
"It's happening very quickly," he told me through an interpreter today.
Artsutanov is among the optimists who have come to the Microsoft corporate campus in Redmond, Wash., for the 2010 Space Elevator Conference this weekend. (Microsoft and NBC Universal are partners in the msnbc.com joint venture.) The annual gathering brings together researchers and entrepreneurs who specialize in the technologies that could come into play if anyone ever builds Artsutanov's train to the cosmos.
The basic idea is that payloads and people could someday ride vehicles attached to ribbons of super-strong material, reaching orbits as high as 100,000 kilometers (62,500 miles). Similar, shorter railroads in the sky could be constructed on the moon and Mars, creating the outer-space analogs of commuter rail systems. The concept's proponents say the cost of access to outer space could fall to as little as 1 percent of the current cost - if and when such elevators are built.
One of the themes of the conference is that space-elevator technologies could yield payoffs long before the construction of those elevators:
- Next-generation materials incorporating carbon nanotubes are thought to be a requirement for those space elevator ribbons, and could also be used in earthly products ranging from bulletproof vests to aircraft and spacecraft. In fact, up to $2 million in prizes could be won today at the conference as part of the NASA-backed Strong Tether Challenge.
- The elevators would have to be powered by laser-based energy transfer systems - gizmos that could be used by NASA and the military as well. Last year, Seattle-based LaserMotive won $900,000 in another NASA-backed challenge aimed at encouraging the development of lightning-fast robots powered only by light beams.
- Experts are trying to figure out how tethers interact with Earth's magnetic field and orbital debris, in order to make way for a space elevator in the long term. But such expertise can be applied to making space operations safer in the near term as well. Next year, the Naval Research Laboratory is scheduled to launch a tether experiment known as TEPCE to see how small satellites can navigate through the magnetosphere using "propellantless propulsion."
Jerome Pearson, an American engineer who independently laid out his ideas for a space elevator in 1975 and is considered in some circles as the concept's co-inventor, is currently fleshing out plans for a tether-equipped mini-satellite known as ElectroDynamic Debris Eliminator, or EDDE. He envisions a fleet of EDDE satellites that can use tethers rather than thrusters to travel up and down, gathering tons of space junk in giant nets, possibly to be incinerated in the lower atmosphere. That scrap metal from space could also be recycled into new space stations - or space elevators, for that matter.
If the EDDEs work as Pearson and his colleagues hope, Earth's magnetic field could become an outer-space ocean for whole fleets of small craft flying up and down, back and forth. That would pose huge regulatory challenges, and arguably diplomatic challenges as well. "We would have to do flight plans, miss other objects and make sure we're operating safely," Pearson told about 40 attendees at a morning session today.
Is the elevator moving?
Pearson and Artsutanov, who is visiting from St. Petersburg, Russia, are clearly the stars of the show due to their status as creators of the space elevator dream. "This is a time when the two inventors of the space elevator are together," Pearson observed. But there's a big question hanging over the event: When will everything come together to make the concept look less like a dream and more like a reality?
Bryan Laubscher, an astrophysicist who is the conference chair as well as president of Odysseus Technologies, is sticking with his standard answer that it will take 15 years to build the first space elevator. "And next year we'll probably be saying 15 years again, unless we see some breakthroughs in carbon nanotube development," he said.
The way he sees it, materials science is the key missing piece in the space elevator equation. "We have one big problem on the space elevator," he said. "Everything else pales in comparison to that, and that is: materials."
Others might say money is the big problem. Laubscher says it would be far less expensive to operate multiple space elevators than to continue with the chemical-rocket technology that provides the world's only current means to get to outer space. "If that's the only game in town, I predict we're not going to get very far," he said.
But Laubscher's figures also suggest it would take $19.5 billion to design and build the world's first space elevator. That's more than NASA's total annual budget. The space agency may be willing to invest in elevator-related technologies, but the actual job of building the elevator will have to be up to the private sector. And so far, the investment interest just doesn't seem to be there.
Going up?
Some of the folks at the Space Elevator Conference insist that interest is perking up: Michael Laine, who went through a gloomy round of financial and legal tribulations as founder of the Liftport Group, told me he's involved in setting up a substantial venture-capital fund for projects that could be seen as spin-offs of the space elevator concept. By the time the 2011 Space Elevator Conference rolls around, there just might be a light at the end of the carbon nanotube tunnel.
Artsutanov's translator, Eugene Schlusser, said half-jokingly that there was an easy way to solve the money problem. "What you need to do is find a military application, and the money will follow," he told me.
Meanwhile, Artsutanov is still hoping that someday, astronauts will ride his electric train to destinations beyond Earth. He told me he hoped space elevators would be used in the 2040s "to colonize Mars - and maybe the moon."
The late science-fiction guru Arthur C. Clarke once said that the space elevator would be built "about 50 years after everyone stops laughing." At the 50-year mark, does Artsutanov think the laughing has finally stopped?
"He was thinking only about the less educated people," Artsutanov said of Clarke's comment. "But in this case, the teachers are only one page ahead of the students. We all need to be educated."
To learn more about the conference, which continues through the weekend, check out Ted Semon's Space Elevator Blog. This afternoon you can watch three teams go after the prizes in the Strong Tether Competition via a UStream video channel. And you can bet I'll be tweeting from the contest as well.
Join the Cosmic Log corps by signing up as my Facebook friend or hooking up on Twitter with @b0yle. If you really want to be friendly, ask me about "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
I think this (according to legend) was tried before, as in the tower of Babel?
Tower of babel was just a building...like the Empire State or Sears Tower. This is a completely different concept. The tether is coming from a space station or satellite high in orbit. In other words, it would be pulling things up into space.
This is stupid. Why would anyone want to go into space for an elevator ride. What a waste of time, money and energy. Maybe we all should stay focused on planet Earth and fixing things here than entertaining this insane idea.
We can't build homes for the homeless, people are starving around the world, and yet government and science want to waste money on something that is totally useless and pointless for the people.
Just give them an iPad or iPhone and give them something to talk about.
This is NONSENES to the nth degree.
Right idea for the wrong reasons:
Yes, a space elevator is not a very good investment of money, but not because space itself should be ignored in favor of unsolvable problems on earth, but because the "starry eyed" science behind it has so many holes. One of the biggest is you can't maneuver out of the way of space junk.
Not spending money on developing off earth capabilities, dare I say a permanent human presence on the moon (Mars is to big of a leap for reasons I wont go into here) we will doom humanity to certain ending, possibly sooner than later.
Earth will always have problems, an endless number of political and environmental issues will always cause problems somewhere some time.
Haha what? There are like five huge reasons this original comment is totally and bizarrely wrong.
AS long as the sheeple control the money, and not the dreamers, we will be mired to this mudball, where it will only take ONE phenomenally stupid accident to make sure there are no more humans in the universe.
From some of the comments I'm seeing here coughChunkyMonkeycough, perhaps that isn't such a bad idea.
If we ever want to expand out into the solar system, and even near stars, we will need a cheap, efficient way to lift payloads into space. Rockets, at least expendable rockets, aren't it.
Woodysr according to the Legend of Babel as you most gracefully put it is pull. You need to take a real look at the "Legend" To give you a little lesson it was a ruler that believed that he was a good and thus he wanted a temple as high as the heavens. So what does that have to do with this, hmm how should I put it, hmm. This troubled scientific fabrication of something that has nothing to show for.
One little meteoroid and poof!
Our whole planet is "one little meteroroid and poof". One 50-mile-wide rock travelling at 17,000 mph could render 5,000 years of human art, history, suffering, triumph and discovery meaningless in a heartbeat. This concept may be our only chance to spread and diversify before that happens. No interest?
Don't forget all those thousands and thousands pieces of space junk, from a wrench the some astronaut lost in space to the abandon rockets and satellites that are traveling around the world.
Don't count on me buying a ticket. I can barely afford to live here on earth!!! And yes SheikhYerbouti poof is right!
Well you probably won't have to worry about getting to buy a ticket. For I would say only the scientists and the elite will get to go. Us peons will be left behind, like always...
So true, Charles. Recall John Glenn's "cosmic carnival ride" on the space shuttle a few years ago. You can be assured that you will not benefit. Your role will be.... to pay the freight. Twas ever thus....
How many years does it take the elevator to get back to Earth from Mars if a kid pushes all the buttons for the floors in between?
You don't build it all the way to Mars. A space elevator is used to get into orbit. Rockets are incredibly inefficient and require a lot of energy (read: fuel). This solves that problem. When he's talking about using it to colonize Mars he's talking about building one there to simplify the process of getting people, equipment, and materials down to the planet's surface and vise versa.
ffs we got Frank Zappa and creationists on the same page: Take yer tower o Babel and shove it up yer nose.
Going to the moon, pocket computers, Toasters and condoms were all once "Sci-fi". Our biggest hurdle ... population. Reduce your carbon foot print ... Get off my planet!
How come you left out Peter Weller (B.B.) in the 8th Dimension? "Wherever you go, there you are!"
How Cool! An elevator to Heaven.
There's a lady who's sure, all that glitters is gold...
The math shows it's possible and the materials are here. Money and someone to try are all that's needed, the universe awaits us.
This will certainly be the most common way to travel between ground and orbit someday. Is that day near? Hard to say. I suspect probably not, but combination solutions (for example, a suborbital launcher that connects to a rotovator) may arrive fairly soon.
There is a large vulnerability to terrorist action - if the tether is broken, down comes the orbital platform and all the tether, possibly into a populated area (unless the platform and attached tether flies off into space). Every advance carries risk, but it needs to be faced.
Let it be understood that I have some major practicality isues where Space Elevators are concerned, but...
"There is a large vulnerability to terrorist action..."
So? The we guard it as best we can. By that logic, we can no longer build anything of value, because somebody may want to destroy it. Where does that stop? (No more tall buildings in NYC?)
"if the tether is broken, down comes the orbital platform and all the tether, possibly into a populated area (unless the platform and attached tether flies off into space)"
If you cut the elevator, the point below that will pretty much fall straight down. Teh remainder of the structure now has a different center of gravity, and will shift into a slightly different orbit.
It's important that you do not think of this as a ground-supported building of some kind. It is in fact, an object (whose center of mass is) in geostationary orbit, but happens to be long enough to reach down to the surface of Earth, and an equal distance out beyond GEO.
"Every advance carries risk..."
Correct. And in the absence of space elevators, more conventional spaceports could be as vulnerable to mayhem as are airports. The only way to have nothing worth attacking by an enemy, is to...have nothing.
The orbital platform would be in geostationary orbit around the earth so it would not come down. The cable would be tensioned over its lenght since it's weight on the ground would be compensated by centripetal forces in space. It could be a problem if it was severed by some space debris. It would have to be fixed on a point on earth somewhere at the equator. There are ways to protect it from terrorists, for example by fixing it on a ship at sea where it could be protected by military ships. Remember, it's not the ship that keeps the cable down but gravity. Doing it this way would also allow the ship to move around with the cable to avoid some space debris if need be. It wouldn't have to move much to to so. The immediate difficulty is in finding a material that will support it's own weight while it is unrolled from space to the ground. In theory, a large, very thin flat cable made of carbon nanotubes should be strong enough. However, so far as I know, no one has yet found a way to make one. As for Mars or the Moon, a space elevator could be built easily since their gravity is not as strong as on earth.
Oops! I should have said centrifugal force. Sorry!
If the break is high enough, it may float off into space; then again it may just come crashing down to earth like a satellite with a degrading orbit. What about the rest of the tether that is still attached to the earth? Fall straight back down? Centrifugal forces, high winds, errant tornados and hurricanes might disagree with that theory. Even a relatively small 10 km segment of a broken tether could cause incredible havoc and destruction. Then, of course, there's the payload. What if the payload was at an altitude of say 30,000 meters? Even with the mythical straight down theory, I wouldn't want to be at the spot on which it crashes.
I don't want to get personal Frank, but you do sound an awful like that guy at BP who said there is no chance of a blowout preventer failing and even if it did, the damage would be minimal. Minimal to whom?
The space elevator is a cool idea if you ignore the consequences that a malfunction would cause. At least a malfunctioning rocket limits it field of damage (tho I still don't want to be there when it hits the ground).
I personally would prefer advancing the laser approach; overcoming it's limitations would be a far better use of our scarce resources. I wonder if one laser station could be pointed at different orbiting stations?
Maybe tethered, surface hugging elevators would be a good way to move cargo on earth. Kind of like a tether rail system.
Don't get me wrong, I've loved this idea since I read A.C. Clarke's Fountains of Paradise back in the 80's, but what happens to the "nano-cable" if the thing snaps or is cut by debris or possibly a meteoroid?
According to Wikipedia: A circular geosynchronous orbit in the plane of the Earth's equator has a radius of approximately 42,164 km (26,199 mi)(from the center of the Earth). A satellite in such an orbit is at an altitude of approximately 35,786 km (22,236 mi) above mean sea level. It maintains the same position relative to the Earth's surface.
So suppose the thing snaps at the top. 22,000 miles of nano-cable comes drifting down all over wherever the thing is constructed. Ever try to clean up a completely un-spooled reel-to-reel tape? (For you youngsters, that's an ancient form of recording media which existed back in the 60's and 70's. You know... when the dinosaurs roamed the earth.) Anyway, multiply that mess by several orders of magnitude and imagine the results. Not pleasant.
Where does the Conductor shout "All Aboard!!!!"?
In 30 years, the United States will have a distant memory of having once had a space program. Space elevator? What a scam--only Third World nations will fund space programs, and ya wonder why they do? Because it advances their national interests and increases science and technology. The United States can no longer afford to be involved in anything like science or technology. We need to learn composting for the bull from Congress
An impossible possibility, since the Earth is always moving,so how would an elevator work? I need more info like would it be attached to the Earth and the moon, hard tether or soft, how would over come upper atmosphere turbulence, it'll be a rocky ride, let them go first and if they don't die maybe I'll try it but I need to know More about it
geosynchronous orbit...look it up.
The only problem that I see at this point, in reference to being tethered to the Moon, is that you'd need a way of attaching the tether to a movable connection on the Earth, since the Moon doesn't stay in the same place over the Earth at any one time. Attaching it to a Space Station could be arranged with more stability and proper orbit. Getting to the Space Station could be arranged by intermediate Stations placed over a stationary positions over the Earth and the use of a Space Shuttle Service to progress from the apprpriate intermediate Space Station tethered to a permanent location on the Earth, and then 'Shuttled' to the Orbiting Station that is tethered to the Moon. Fly-by schedules can easily be arranged for Station to Station shuttle service.
Surveyor, I don't think anyone was seriously proposing an elevator all the way from the earth to the moon, which is a lot further away than geosynchronous orbit. But if it works from earth to geosynchronous orbit, the though is that we'd eventually build a somewhat smaller one on Mars (lower gravity, faster rotation), or even one from the Mood to a point between the moon and earth where the earth gravity would be strong enough to keep it suspended in tension.
The biggest expense of space travel is getting from the planetary surface into orbit, once in orbit there are highly efficient propulsion methods that can be used, such as ion drives and solar sails, to reach other planets. Space elevators are proposed as a possible way to reduce that "surface to orbit" cost.
Think of it this way. You're the earth. You're holding a ball tied to a piece of string. That's the elevator's end station. Now turn in a circle holding the string against the same spot on your chest. What happens? From an outside perspective both you and the ball are moving quite a lot, but from the perspective of the hand holding the string the ball is in the exact same relative position, and vice versa for the ball's perspective to you. Relative to the earth the elevator's terminal point (the end of the line) would be effectively stationary, requiring only minor adjustments in its orbit over time.
In actuality the tether doesn't even matter. Gravity is the tether between the earth and what's in orbit above it. The only reason we need a cable is because we've got to have some way to get up and down from the earth to the end station.
The problems with developing the cable currently aren't because we can't figure out how to make it strong enough to "hold" on to the elevator or anything like that, it's simply that a cable long enough to do the job of connecting the ground to the station in space would be so massive that it wouldn't be able to support its own weight given current materials technology. Once we figure out how to get a cable that won't snap itself just because it's so big the actual stresses put on it by an elevator traveling up and down would be inconsequential.
The platform will not come down.
And how do you know that. There is always the murphy's law that states what could happen will happen. The scientists only have this in theory, and they for sure do not have a working model. So as to have the platform, which the platform could be nothing but a tethered ball. You are working with g-force and gravity. So to blatantly say "The platform will not come down. " Is a all out con-gesture on you part. Until this tethered ball thing actually gets put up, all we have is speculation. Con-gesture, hope, fantasying, or what ever you want to add to this ever increasing list of ideology's. SO if and when this.... Platform is up out inti space, we shall see..
Remember the 1938 World Fair? By the end of the century ground-clinging automobiles would be obselete; we would all be flying to our offices. It seems that the ground-clinging autos are still here, though there is one (again) that wears wings when its owner wants to fly. The energy requirements of the space elevator probably exceed its value. Also, how many payloads would we be sending up on the thing?
Often necessity precedes advancement. There is no need for flying automobiles, that is why you don't see them. There is however a need for this space elevator. It would save billions in the long term by not relying on massive amounts of rocket fuel to get things into orbit.
As for payloads....as many as needed.
The energy cost, in terms of electricity, for raising a ton up to geosynchronous orbit would be about $30. The main cost is in constructing it, as it would have to go beyond geosynchronous to act as a counterbalance, about 30,000 miles straight up. That's a lot of super-strong material. The cost of construction would have to be amortized over several years, with interest, and that cost, divided over all the traffic it would carry, would be most of the ticket cost.
Currently the only space technology that makes economic sense is communication and observation satellites, everything else can be done far more cheaply here on earth. If we ever want to make space manufacturing or space tourism or asteroid mining economically feasible, the cost of going up to orbit must come down dramatically. The space shuttle was supposed to reduce costs, but didn't reduce costs nearly enough, nor can any other rocket based plan. It is not yet clear if the space elevator can reduce travel costs enough, considering the high cost of construction, but I'm hoping that someday it will.
HAL, I'd love to have a flying automobile but no government would allow it. Imagine, millions of flying automobiles crossing frontiers anywhere all over the world with who knows who or what on board. It would be a security nightmare. And all those companies building cars would go out of business or would have to retool globally to build flying cars. And cities would die because millions of people would prefer to live out in the country and commute to work in Supercars. Those three reasons are more than enough to kill the need for flying cars.
I agree with Michel on all but one point, flying cars will not kill cities (centers of filth and greed that they are). Much to my disappointment. We still have the option to commute from rural areas to the cities, but most don't. Too many people would hate to be that close to nature.
there are flying cars.http://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play?p=flying%20car&tnr=21&vid=165862703904&l=115&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts1.mm.bing.net%2Fvideos%2Fthumbnail.aspx%3Fq%3D165862703904%26id%3Ddccc3791e54464e5719c2173f4e84114%26bid%3Db9pD%252f8zDBitm%252fw%26bn%3DThumb%26url%3Dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww.youtube.com%252fwatch%253fv%253dEHXnLCIgNug&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DEHXnLCIgNug&sigr=11a8tp3k6&newfp=1&tit=First+Flight%3A+%26quot%3BFlying+Car%26quot%3B+Terrafugia+Transition+Roadable+Aircraft
I love the idea of a space elevator. However I don't believe that right now is a good time to talk about it or spend money on it when the economy the way it is and along with all the other problems going on right now. Just my opinion!! You know what saying says that goes with that. <G>
Well, building a space elevator could actually be GOOD for the economy. It would create a lot of jobs in many different related fields. Afterwords the existence of a space elevator could spur further expansion into the solar system--since it would negate the main cost of space travel, which is getting up there in the first place. This expansion could itself create even more jobs and in fact would probably ultimately lead to the creation of a true space industry ranging from silly things like tourism all the way to potentially world altering activities like asteroid mining.
Further it would save tons of money in the long term when it comes to getting things and people into space. So it's a fiscally responsible investment.
As for "all the other problems", there will always be "other problems". If people waited for all problems to end before doing things nothing would ever happen.
It's also important to remember that money invested in spacecrafts, the ISS or to go to the Moon or even Mars is invested down here, not out there. It pays good jobs to people who then use their money to build houses, buy food and send their kids to school for a good education.
Excuse me, I'm doing all I can today to increase my Carbon Footprint! "Carbon Footprint!" This phrase ranks up there with "The Bottom Line" is...., and we "Have to Move Forward" (Name the Issue); "We have to be Diverse and Forward Thinking"; "Live Simply so That Others Might Simply Live" and a ration of other phrases spread about by profound thinkers and the Media who quide them.
China and India are out of the starting gate on this - China is building a series of dual-purpose military and commercial bases ringing India and into the Pacific. Virtually the entire Communist Chinese commercial fleet is part of the Communist Chinese Military. (Part of their Navy....) The largest of these dual purpose seaports is being constructed just off the coast of India on the island nation of Sri-Lanka.
For a Primer on what can happen when Socialist /Communist nations have spats, here are two for the enlightened: "Sino-Vietnamese Border Conflict of 1979" - and read the Wickopedia Account and the Global Seurity.org account among others. (Yes Alice, Communist China once upon a time invaded Communist North Vietnam - to "punish" North Vietnam for invading Cambodia in an attempt to put a stop to the Genocidal slaughter being carried out there by the Communist Socialist Pol Pot.) Next search for "Sino-Soviet Border Conflict of 1969" - again go to the Wickopedia account and others.
About four years ago the United Nations scientific section issued a report detailing that Global Warming was primarily due to animal flatulance especially from cattle and other farm animals. In a short period of time since then that idea morphed into "carbon and "carbon dioxide" as the main culprit. We are fed more of this pablum than the law allows.
Is it any wonder that scientists are seeking to build a remarkable construction to rise above the stench that the Globalist Socialist Marxist Control Freaks in our nation and body politic are attempting to inflict upon us with "Cap and Trade" and a host of other "crisis" of the moment scare scenarios?
Let me ask you something: do you believe in the idea that actions have consequences? I'm guessing the answer must be yes, it's among the first things we learn as children. If you touch a stove, you burn yourself. If you breathe in water while swimming, you choke. If you push something from a high place, it will fall and break. Etc.
Now, assuming that you have in fact answered yes, why is it so hard to believe that altering the composition of our atmosphere might in fact have consequences? Is this really such a wild and crazy idea? If you say it is, what is your reasoning?
I'm not trying to be mean here, I just don't get it. The concept is pretty simple. Its pretty well understood how sunlight interacts with our atmosphere. There are other examples in the solar system that demonstrate the reality of greenhouse gasses (Venus...). And surely you can't argue the fact that we DO pump tons of C02 and other gasses into the atmosphere.
So I just want to know your rationale... Why is it a bad thing to not mess with the only home we've got? Why are you against this?
What does this even have to do with socialism or Marxism or whatever? Last I checked China doesn't care one fig about the enviroment and they're the last major communist government in existence. So if they don't care about it than it doesn't seem very likely to me that it actually has anything to do with communism or socialism or whatever else you're terrified of.
I'll admit it. I'm frustrated. Every day I read all these posts of people like you who just seem so against this and I just...I just don't understand why. I love this planet. It's my home. It's a great place to live...why do you villainize me and others for wanting to protect it?
Even if you don't believe that C02 causes greenhouse warming for whatever reason, surely you can see how just pumping it into the atmosphere can't really be a good thing? Do you love smog or something?
Sigh...
I do nothing about my carbon foot print either, I would love to increase it. I see there is a need to offset the the crazy global warming people. Man made Global warming is a lie and is about making money. I believe the sun is the culprit to any real warming trend and there is nothing (well not much) that can be done about that. the atmosphere could be seeded with particles to block the suns energy, wrong amounts could trigger an Ice Age. P.S. an Ice Age is way worse than some measly global warming. Cant wait for the scientist to say we are in a cooling trend and insist we must buy SUV's to save the planet.
P.S. there is nothing better than having a clean earth, but Global Warming lies (oh yeah the models don't really work) so Climate Change Lies are not the way to do it. who makes the money from any carbon tax? where would the money go? are you paying a company to offset your carbon foot print? I guaranty the CEO is making a bundle before anything is offset. You want a cleaner world? Do it! even I recycle. The earth was warmer before and all was fine. temperatures fluctuate. stupid regulations on maintaining the earth temperature within 2 degrees is ludicrous. Its a waste of time, tax payer money and just makes some rich politician richer. Green tech costs more, even if its cheaper just because its green. only thing green about it is money. tax breaks (that expire after so many years) for reduced pollution implementation, would be great. a carbon tax that makes everything cost more is dumb. saving the world great, doing it so some fat cats get richer, is bad. look at Al Gore. he is so concerned about the planet that he will not give you any info from his "movie" (with incorrect data by the way), not even a clip. you can watch a trailer, but no info. you want the info? your going to PAY. if he cared all info would be posted on his website for free (donations excepted or something). But he just pushes his agenda so he will get more money. Go check the web site yourself. A environmentally friendly electric car that you charge with a giant coal burning power plant??? how does that work exactly to help the environment? bring clean tech to reasonable prices and saving the earth will not be an agenda, it will just happen. P.S.S on the carbon tax... Think about it... trees need carbon dioxide (CO2) to live! and that is what we all breath out. they going to tax how much we breath? carbon cannot be removed entirely from the environment or we would all die. oh yeah, space elevators to orbit maybe possible. to the moon, probably not (only one side faces the earth (bonus)) but how fast is its orbit? to mars (a second or third rotating celestial object, in the equation, all rotating around the sun at different speeds) good luck!
maybe they meant there could be separate space elevator systems set to geosynchronous orbit at the moon and mars. I see no way to connect them together. And the moon, would be tough to get geosynchronous, though I'm not a scientist so don't know for sure. I would guess for the moon you would have to use a Libration point (Lagrangian point) to make it work. So elevator location would be maybe limited to one somewhat unstable location. and just found out the moon is in Libration with the earth and wobbles allowing us to see 59% of the moons surface from earth, so even a Libration point might not work. maybe it could be set up and used for a short period as the wobble is about to switch directions.
Ecto,the only way to increase your carbon footprint is to use up more resources.If your only reason is to counteract the crazy global warming people then you would be wasting those resources.On a planet pushing seven billion in population wasting resources is somewhat less than reasonable,doncha think?
Could maybe work. Why not think a little sci-fi? It's gotten us a long way. Most of you use some every day: your cell phone.
Space elevator huh ? O.K. well, I just wish they could come up with an electric train that transports ordinary people across the country, and do it on time at a reasonable cost ! What happened to the space-time continuem(?) and the idea the space and time travel would have to go hand in hand ? Sb269
starburst,
The train is much more reasonable. The proponents of the "space elevator" grossly oversimplify the problem in order to make it seem reasonable. Geostationary orbit is 23,000 and change above the earth. That's a long elevator ride. The ISS is NOT in geostationary orbit, the communications satellites are. In order for a structure to be in geosynchronous orbit at ISS-heights, it would have to be powered and moving at incredible speeds (much faster speeds than the surface of the earth rotates.). It would not be maneuverable at all. It could not avoid "space junk" as the ISS has to do frequently. It would theoretically possible to harness centrifugal force to assist with moving the orbital craft, but then that would demand a tether far, far stronger than any material known. And lastly is energy consumption. The tether can't be built from the the ground up, it must be constructed in space and dropped down. The energy consumption to get components into space is clearly prohibitive.
The "alternative" is to have an ISS-like structure in variable orbit over the earth which dips a tether down a short ways into the atmosphere. A scram jet or similar would then zoom up with cargo, attach to the tether, and start an elevator toward the station before returning to Earth. Unfortunately the tether, the scramjet, the elevator, and all operations would take place at re-entry speeds and temperatures. We currently can't even figure out how to send a radio signal from a capsule under those conditions.
As a theoretical problem, this is fun for scientists to play with intellectually. But it will never happen. Things that exceed a certain level of complexity eventually always fall victim to systems engineering problems.
EPIC FAIL.
Communication satellites are in geosynchronus orbit, and they are not powered, but they do move at incredible speed. It just so happens that they are in orbits that precisely match the rotational period of the earth.
Back to school...one that actually TEACHES about the world around you, and not the unfunded mandated tests or latest PC load of bovine fecal matter.
We're able to waste hundreds of billions each year on the DoD, yet no one has the vision to invest in research, which has always given us economic paybacks? America has turned into a nation of non-thinking conservatives!
Buy that man/woman a tall, cold, refreshing adult beverage!
In the last 30 years "science" has become a dirty word in this country. When was the last time you saw a parent encouraging their child to expand their mind? We've probably seen 10,000 times as many encouraging them to play football/basketball/baseball. Athletic achievement is great, but, in the long run, WHAT DOES IT DO TO FURTHER OUR CIVILIZATION?
Well well well, it seams that they want you to believe that there will be an elevator going out into outer space.... If you look it up you will also find that this Elevator" thing has been around for at least 50 years. So when they say "will be in 30 years" All I will say we will see.
Lets say it does go. My question is what will they do when they go out there? It can not hooked to anything big....
The elevator would have a space station of some type at the uphill end, where spacecraft can depart for the outer solar system, in much the same way as an Olympian can throw the hammer, taking advantage of the earth's rotation.
Oh Bevis Do you really know how much a "Space station" really weighs? If there were anything as you put it " at the uphill end" it would be something very small like a platform of scientist value. And maybe just maybe this would be able to gather cosmic information. But to be some type of launch facility to launch anything out into outer space. Just the thrust of the space craft coming into contact with the platform will disrupt the g-force keeping the platform out on the tension of the tether. There for creating something like a whiplash effect on the cable. An there for destroying the footing the would be connected to what ever on the ground. Safe to say that would really such... So this would be only a observation platform to where those who could afford to, go out and look.
Oh Charles... where should I begin? First off, therefore is one word, not two, as in your brain is there for a reason, therefore you are able to think. Secondly, if such an elevator and top end platform were built, the platform or space station or whatever would be placed at the geosynchronous point (or just outside of it) so that it's mass wouldn't matter. It would basically float there, motionless. Just outside the geo-s point would provide enough "tug" to tension the nano-cable and make up for it's mass in the total system. Thirdly, once constructed by running materials and fuel up the elevator (instead of launching them from the surface as we do now) a traditional liquid hydrox fueled rocket would be released to some distance from the top "station" before being ignited to launch to Mars, or wherever. No "thrust" effects on the elevator, no "g-forces", no "whiplash", no problem!
ah' finally a way to get rid of the illegal mexicans!!.. let's build it tonite.!!!!!
oh, foolish me, they will probably be the ones hired to build it.!
Too many problems with a physical tether. But what about a laser "cable" that is its own source of power? Program cargo containers to advance along the laser from one point to the other, up or down. That way no human need be on board to brake or dock the vehicle. I'm not sure how far current lasers can reach but we could have relay substations to keep it going.
Lasers transmit a lot of power, but don't produce nearly enough thrust. Someone once proposed a rocket where the exhaust was heated by a ground based laser, but it didn't work out too well - the exhaust plume tended to interfere with the laser beam, and the thrust wasn't any better than conventional rockets.
Laser cable??? Explain, if you'd be so kind, how a laser can "lift" anything, besides in the manner of heating exhaust materials for thrust, as CM has described.
Of course, if this were the Captain Kirk of the USS Enterprise in the 23rd century we'd have the "tractor beam", but sorry, we ain't there yet!!
And what does all this have to do with the space elevator???????????
There are some serious very physical flaws with this logic. Anything being "lifted up" would have to gain forward speed... and that alone would stretch the "super strong" cable out of shape.
A rocket will still be needed to push the elevator forward as it ascends.
A descending elevator causes opposite problem...
One would need a very strong RIGID frame to pull this off. And the rigid frame would cause addition unforeseen problems.
The momentum would be transferred from the orbital tower to the elevator cars, both going up and going down, causing the tower to bow slightly. Since even a relatively slender cable would be far more massive than the elevator cars travelling on it, the deflection would be much less than you'd think.
It might be necessary, on occasion, to use rockets to adjust the position of the tower slightly, but highly efficient ion rockets could be used, and the required fuel easily hauled up the tower.
There would be no "down elevator". You drop pods into the atmosphere and slow them with parachutes. Gemini program, anyone? Sometimes I'm ashamed.