Slashdot Mirror

1. Technical description of the interferometer.
2. A detailed paper (PDF file) on the nuller.

Finally, since I haven't seen a one sentence synopsis, a nulling interferometer does a careful job making the on-axis starlight received by two telescopes interfere destructively, while off-axis light from circumstellar emission passes through the system. This instrument is designed to study dust emission analogous to the zodiacal light in our own solar system.

NASA created a catalytic converter system using frikkin' lasers that works at cooler temperatures.

What????

A mothballed deathstar,
a big picture on a skyhook or a mass hallucination?

We never put a man on
the moon ya know.

Disclaimer: I work at NAS, but in no way speak for them.

The kinds of computing work and research (and problems) that we deal with here are traditionally of the shared memory kind. It's a lot more challenging problem space than linking up a few thousand 1U boxes over gigE and calling it a supercomputer (hello va tech); even if the linpack runs are fairly impressive for that type of system. This isn't to say that both sides won't benefit from the partnership, but as far as I can tell, Google doesn't do supercomputing.

For a second there when I saw "Google and NASA collaborating on technology" I had a vain hope that it would be a reference to NASA World Wind. For those unsure (any Google Earth users), NASA World Wind is basically the same thing, only that it was around much earlier and (more importantly) it's open source software. On the down side, no expensive up-to-date imagery.

What in the world are we doing in space? Why spend the time and resources to build a laboratory in space when we have plenty of them on Earth?

The answer is a unique tool called microgravity. Microgravity (also called zero-g) opens a new universe of research possibilities. It unmasks phenomena that gravity on Earth can obscure. Research in microgravity has enabled new insights into what happens inside a fire, how soil grains shift during an earthquake, why certain thick fluids flow easily under pressure, and what is the best way to spray water onto a fire. In this relatively new microgravity environment, experiments continue to yield surprising effects for researchers.

Scientists are putting microgravity to work to understand the growth of proteins as near-perfect crystals (often not possible on Earth), allowing them to decode the protein's role in health or disease. Cells grown in space can also produce longer-lived cultures to help us understand the growth of tumors and perhaps give insight into how we might control this growth process.

To be honest, I think you are trolling if you can't realize what all the space program has brought us in the way of inventions. Dried ice cream and tang are just the tip of an iceburg...

If you really care to, here are a few links (of course, if you wanted to just learn about it, you could have googled it and hit the first few sites that cropped up instead of writing a, rather wordy, response.

I'll leave you a link that's easy to understand. Just the Beginning of Space Innovation

From NASA Human Spaceflight (http://www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/)

Better Main Engines

The space shuttle's main engines operate at greater extremes of temperature and pressure than any other machine. Since 1981, three overhauls to the original design have more than tripled estimates of their safety. Now, a fourth major overhaul is planned that will make them even safer by 2005. The planned improvements include a high-tech optical and vibration sensor system and computing power in the engines that will "see" trouble coming a fraction of a second before it can do harm. Called the Advanced Health Monitoring System, the sensors will detect and track an almost microscopic flaw in an engine's performance in a split second, allowing the engine to be safely shut down before the situation can grow out of control. Also, the engine's main combustion chamber will be enlarged to reduce the pressures on internal components without reducing the thrust, and a new, simplified engine nozzle design will eliminate the need for hundreds of welds -- over 152.4 meters (500 feet) of them -- and potential leaks.

I guess the folks at NASA can read Feynman's study, too. But the fact remains that the SSMEs are one the most reliable components of the entire system, as well as being a great piece of engineering that is held up as an example for new designs. While the engines may not be completely "Well Characterized", they are safe and reliable, and if they'd done everything you suggest, the shuttle engines would still be in the testing and characterization phase today.

• advanced diagnostic ultrasound
  
• biopsy of human skeletal muscle after prolonged spaceflight
  
• chromosomal aberrations in blood lymphocytes
  
• dust aerosol measurement
  
• spaceflight induced reactivation of Epstein-barr virus
  

http://www.sciencemaster.com/jump/space/shuttle.ph p

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/facts/shu ttlefacts-toc.html

http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/factoids/shfact s.htm

http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/factoids/orbite r.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/spacesta ts.html

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttle.htm

You're welcome.

http://www.sciencemaster.com/jump/space/shuttle.ph p

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/facts/shu ttlefacts-toc.html

http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/factoids/shfact s.htm

http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/factoids/orbite r.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/spacesta ts.html

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttle.htm

You're welcome.

http://www.sciencemaster.com/jump/space/shuttle.ph p

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/facts/shu ttlefacts-toc.html

http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/factoids/shfact s.htm

http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/factoids/orbite r.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/spacesta ts.html

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttle.htm

You're welcome.

This is complete fud. There is lots of interesting research that has/is going on in the ISS. Any attempt to say otherwise is just ignorant.

For some quick ideas see: http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/manufacturing.html

or for a more detailed list of publicized experiments try: http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/list. html

Some of interest I've found:
http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/CGBA- APS.html (Antibiotic Production)
http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/BBND. html (Radiation Damage)
http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/APCF. html (Protein Crystal Growth)
http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/Foam. html (Viscous Liquid Foam/ Metallic Glass)

This is complete fud. There is lots of interesting research that has/is going on in the ISS. Any attempt to say otherwise is just ignorant.

For some quick ideas see: http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/manufacturing.html

or for a more detailed list of publicized experiments try: http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/list. html

Some of interest I've found:
http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/CGBA- APS.html (Antibiotic Production)
http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/BBND. html (Radiation Damage)
http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/APCF. html (Protein Crystal Growth)
http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/Foam. html (Viscous Liquid Foam/ Metallic Glass)

This is complete fud. There is lots of interesting research that has/is going on in the ISS. Any attempt to say otherwise is just ignorant.

For some quick ideas see: http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/manufacturing.html

or for a more detailed list of publicized experiments try: http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/list. html

Some of interest I've found:
http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/CGBA- APS.html (Antibiotic Production)
http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/BBND. html (Radiation Damage)
http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/APCF. html (Protein Crystal Growth)
http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/Foam. html (Viscous Liquid Foam/ Metallic Glass)

This is complete fud. There is lots of interesting research that has/is going on in the ISS. Any attempt to say otherwise is just ignorant.

For some quick ideas see: http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/manufacturing.html

or for a more detailed list of publicized experiments try: http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/list. html

Some of interest I've found:
http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/CGBA- APS.html (Antibiotic Production)
http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/BBND. html (Radiation Damage)
http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/APCF. html (Protein Crystal Growth)
http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/Foam. html (Viscous Liquid Foam/ Metallic Glass)

This is complete fud. There is lots of interesting research that has/is going on in the ISS. Any attempt to say otherwise is just ignorant.

For some quick ideas see: http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/manufacturing.html

or for a more detailed list of publicized experiments try: http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/list. html

Some of interest I've found:
http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/CGBA- APS.html (Antibiotic Production)
http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/BBND. html (Radiation Damage)
http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/APCF. html (Protein Crystal Growth)
http://exploration.nasa.gov/programs/station/Foam. html (Viscous Liquid Foam/ Metallic Glass)

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/

If you don't believe me, take a look at the actual charter, aka 'The National Aeronautics and Space Act'.

Items like "research, development, demonstration, and other related activities in ground propulsion technologies as are provided for in sections 4 through 10 of the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1976" don't necessarily have anything to do with "giant cans that explode out of one end in order to throw chunks of metal into orbit".

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answer s/970603.html
Exposure to vaccuum isn't the catastrophic event hollywood makes it out to be.

"Had this happened within 10 light-years of us, it would have severely damaged our atmosphere and possibly have triggered a mass extinction," said Bryan Gaensler of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). Just yesterday I was looking through a link from a /. article in May; while the solar wind is usually strong enough to push off the interstellar wind (think of it as the sum of solar winds from the rest of the galaxy) at a distance 94 times that of the distance from the Sun to Earth.

What's significantly impressive is that this explosion is strong enough to kick nearly multiple times as hard as the average of what the galaxy usually does to us.

(I'm not quite sure on this figure - the power of the wind from our sun should decrease as r^3, ditto the power from the starquake; if r goes down to 1/94, r^3 is reaching for a million?! This would imply the quake is nearly a million times as strong as the average wind from the galaxy; granted there's likely to be drastic fluid dynamics contortions and things that effectively cut that number down to something more 'sane' (depending on how sane you think it is to try to calculate stellar force magnitudes...), but you still have a figure significantly bigger than the entire galaxy!)

And then you get to the quote line from the article "We have observed an object only 20 kilometers across [12 miles], on the other side of our galaxy, releasing more energy in a tenth of a second than the Sun emits in 100,000 years."

combine that with the distance from us (50000 light years = 6 trillion miles = 10 trillion km) and the bit where it says it rotates on its axis every 7.5 seconds and has the strongest magnetic field in the known universe... wow.

Yep, you're right. I distinctly remembered hearing about how Pioneer 10 was the first spacecraft to leave our solar system:

"In 1983, Pioneer 10 became the first spacecraft to leave our solar system. Until its maximum distance from Earth was exceeded in 1998, Pioneer 10 was the most distant human-made object."

But it seems the object that passed it in 1998 was Voyager 1.

Yep, you're right. I distinctly remembered hearing about how Pioneer 10 was the first spacecraft to leave our solar system:

"In 1983, Pioneer 10 became the first spacecraft to leave our solar system. Until its maximum distance from Earth was exceeded in 1998, Pioneer 10 was the most distant human-made object."

But it seems the object that passed it in 1998 was Voyager 1.

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogall ery-solarsystem.html

However, I suggest you google for "celestia" and run that instead for a mindboggling universe trip.

I took a look at the "About Us" section of the SpaceNow website. The people who put together the site don't really seem to have a large team behind them. Judging by their photos, they are also pretty young - maybe just out of college or maybe recent Master's graduates.

My own experience has shown it is incredibly difficult for someone in their 20s and 30s to really make a difference in government policies on space exploration. Society now has about 50 years of experience in space exploration, so there are already many groups lobbying in favor of space exploration out there. Most of these groups are lead by established scientists and engineers who have developed relationships with government leaders over many years. Most of these groups would not give younger people a whole lot of power in terms of directing programs for communicating with the public. I don't necessarily think this is a good thing, but unfortunately, it's just the way things are. With all of these other groups out there, I think the people behind SpaceNow are going to have a hard time getting noticed by the powers that be.

One group that has done a lot to support both manned and unmanned space exploration is The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has been around for quite a few years and has many famous and wealthy people supporting its objectives. They also provide educational information similar to what the young men behind SpaceNow are going to provide. There are also tons of other web sites out there where people can learn about the fundamentals of rocketry - such as the Planetary Society again, as well as the Basics of Space Flight web site from JPL. The Challenger Center also is an important space science education group, at least in the United States.

One thing that the SpaceNow people are trying to do that's a bit different is provide a public forum for discussion. However, there are already forums out there. Even though Slashdot isn't devoted exclusively to space exploration, there are quite a few lively discussions about this topic on Slashdot.

I really do wish the creators of SpaceNow the best of luck. But I think they are going to have a difficult time getting noticed with all of the similar groups out there. The groups and web sites that I have mentioned are based in the U.S., so I don't know how many similar groups are in Canada (I assume the .ca domain means they are Canadian). The creators seemed to all be associated with the same university, so if any of them are reading this, I suggest that they concentrate on getting their message out to their local community first. Some ways to do this are through local museums and planetariums, astronomy clubs, and Cafe Scientifique meetings in their area.

You've been reading to much science fiction. Yes there are some cases where spacecraft use inderect means of communication through a relay but this is not done ad-hoc using some general purpose capability built into every spacecraft. In every case wherwe relay is used the capabilty is plaanned from the beginning. The idea of selecting some random spacecraft to use as a relay to soe other random spacecraft just can't work. The orbiters currently on mars were design specifically to relay. Closer to Earth TDRSS acts as a relay between low Earth orbit and the ground. Notice (1) that TDRSS is the relay, thaey are NOT sending data between randon spacecraft and (2) the data are passed only between LEO and the ground, not through out the solar system or even to geosync. orbit. http://msp.gsfc.nasa.gov/tdrss/oview.html

Once, it was the military who led the way and consumer devices followed; now, it's the other way round, and in fact the military/space people have big problems with obsolescence

It's still quite advanced equipment, though. Sure, we're not talking about gigahertz processors and multi-gigabyte memory architectures. Instead, we're talking about old Sparcs, Pentiums, and MIPS from days gone by. That's still pretty advanced stuff. And when it comes to the batteries, LiON batteries were actually developed for space use. As for the propulsion, arcjets and ion engines are new technologies that have proven themselves in real satellite usage.

So yes, some stuff is behind the commercial market. But there's still plenty of highly advanced techology that's been rated for space use. :-)

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Does your book of quotations say anything about twenty two thousand miles?

"We give names to features near the rovers for convenience," said Dr. Tim Parker, a JPL geologist working on the rover mission. "But it's important to remember they're all unofficial."

It's sad to see that such a piece of uninformed disinformation could make it past the Yahoo and LA Times editorial staff. It is nothing but a dumb rant from a clueless journalist. Then again, in science reporting that is nothing new.

Oh..
On first sight I found "husband hill" and "Mc Cool Hill" to sounds quite "out there".
But you're right

Yea, I know it's hard to come up with 4000 names, but look at this picture.
It almost looks like some highschool kid didn't know his geography and just made up names to be funny...

What about these mystical sounding names, which require (mostly Latin) study to actually 'get'?
These names seem more like graffiti or like a dog marking each corner for his new territory.

They did. http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spiri t/20041104a.html.
Here is a direct link to the image http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spiri t/20041104a/04-RA-04-Lutefisk-A298R1_br.jpg

They did. http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spiri t/20041104a.html.
Here is a direct link to the image http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/spiri t/20041104a/04-RA-04-Lutefisk-A298R1_br.jpg

....on the web page and collect a big list of proposed names. Filter out dupes and obsene references and then build an online queue of names.

You could almost automate the process. Optical software on the rover identifies rocks (that's what it is for). Ground based software associates identifiers with submitted names.

NASA HAS laid out its plan to replace the space shuttle with a flexible combination of vehicles capable of heavy lifting and manned space flight. This system will be capable of everything from missions to the moon and mars as well as launching and servicing large scale observatories or space stations.

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/cev.html

Why do people not understand that the recent plans NASA has laid out are about much more than just going to the moon? It is about establishing a fleet that will serve the many needs of future missions.

Thee most obvious reason something would be a dominant body would be if it had moons. Neither of those do.

You fail it.

Who elsewould like to see 10 billion taken out of that moon landing money and put towards a few swarms probes to Titan to confirm this. Something to researhc this, and the JIMO mission are what i'd really pushed up schedule. Life outside our planet is the type of scientific and philisophical question that we should make all strides to answering. Jupites moons and Titan are the only places we essentially have left in our immediate solar system that might contain life. We really owe it to ourselves to research these to their final conclusion. I'd be happy to expand humanity into the solar system once we know we're not the only thing on it.

--Greg

The only trouble with that is that our own Moon is bigger than pluto. Our satellite has a radius of 1738 km versus 1195 km for the Kuiperplanet.

Compare NASA's moon factsheet with their pluto factsheet

The only trouble with that is that our own Moon is bigger than pluto. Our satellite has a radius of 1738 km versus 1195 km for the Kuiperplanet.

Compare NASA's moon factsheet with their pluto factsheet

"Dark age ... the Powerhouse Museum's Matthew Connell with an ancient clay tablet that will probably outlive the 1980s tape in his right hand."..

This is more like what we need to preserve everything!.

First off, CN is cyanide; please use proper terms
Sheesh, what are you, the Acronym Police? I'll use whatever I please. It's not that hard to tell when I mean cyanide vs Carbon Nanotubes, unless you're an idiot.

Current designs call for half what you claim they need.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1 .htm

"The desired strength for the space elevator is about 62 GPa. Carbon nanotubes... appear to have a theoretical strength far above the desired range for space elevator structures."

Second, that is a false statement. Even individual tubes aren't that strong.

http://www.liftport.com/faq.php

What are some frequent Space Elevator misconceptions?

"Nothing is strong enough to make a Space Elevator."

Carbon nanotubes (CNT), discovered in 1991, are almost certainly strong enough. Theory says that they are 3-5 times as strong as we need them to be, and laboratory measurements of their strength, though very difficult to do and not yet definitive, have shown more than half the strength we need.

The longest nanotubes thus far are measured in centimeters, not kilometers, and certainly not 100,000 km.

We don't need and are not counting on individual carbon nanotube molecules running the entire length of the space elevator or any significant fraction thereof. The individual fibers in a string or rope are only a few millimeters long, yet the rope has a large fraction of the theoretical strength of the fibers. This is even more the case with MOLECULES, several orders of magnitude smaller than a fiber. A diamond is said to be the "hardest substance in the world" because of the strength of the carbon bonds that make it up, but a diamond is not a single molecule. Likewise an SE could be made with CNTs just a few centimeters or millimeters long. (In fact, a CNT several centimeters long is a wonder; they're single molecules!)

Sorry for the repost, some of the stuff got cut off before due to my Slashdot noobness. Feel free to mod my other post out of existence.

I still see a lot of comments from naysayers that are based on outdated technology and SE specs. A lot has happened in the last year or two, guys. White papers dealing with everything from cable design (a ribbon seems to be the answer) to weather to electrical charge have been published.

There are still technical problems, some of which we probably don't even know about yet. But there is a design for a cable of 40 - 60% CN that should be strong enough. CN mass production facilities are being built. NASA is taking the concept seriously enough that their guys are writing white papers.

It ain't pixie dust anymore.

Detailed info and links below. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1 .htm

"The desired strength for the space elevator is about 62 GPa. Carbon nanotubes... appear to have a theoretical strength far above the desired range for space elevator structures."

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology /space_elevator_020327-2.html

"The hurdle to date, Edwards said, has been the commercial fabrication of carbon nanotubes. Both U.S. and Japanese firms, among others, are ramping up production of carbon nanotubes, with tons of this now exotic matter soon to be available. "That quantity of material is going to be around well before five years time. It's not going to take long," he said."

http://www.liftport.com/faq.php

Frequently Asked Questions regarding the SE endeavour, from LiftPort Group

(a LOT of very good info here, here's a couple regarding points I've seen here)

What are some frequent Space Elevator misconceptions?

"Nothing is strong enough to make a Space Elevator."

Carbon nanotubes (CNT), discovered in 1991, are almost certainly strong enough. Theory says that they are 3-5 times as strong as we need them to be, and laboratory measurements of their strength, though very difficult to do and not yet definitive, have shown more than half the strength we need.

The longest nanotubes thus far are measured in centimeters, not kilometers, and certainly not 100,000 km.

We don't need and are not counting on individual carbon nanotube molecules running the entire length of the space elevator or any significant fraction thereof. The individual fibers in a string or rope are only a few millimeters long, yet the rope has a large fraction of the theoretical strength of the fibers. This is even more the case with MOLECULES, several orders of magnitude smaller than a fiber. A diamond is said to be the "hardest substance in the world" because of the strength of the carbon bonds that make it up, but a diamond is not a single molecule. Likewise an SE could be made with CNTs just a few centimeters or millimeters long. (In fact, a CNT several centimeters long is a wonder; they're single molecules!)

"The elevator would be susceptible to a terrorist attack. "

First of all, it's important to point out that there will be more than one Space Elevator. We plan to build a second one immediately (using the first to make it much cheaper) and expect that the second will immediately be used to build a third, fourth, etc. An attack on any one ribbon is unlikely because of the anchor stations' isolation and the relatively small number of casualties that would result. Terrorists are unlikely to be able to break the elevator anywhere higher than 15 km or so; it can then be simply flown back down to the anchor by moving some of the counterweight mass a bit further out and will be back in operation in a couple of days.

The first anchor will be located in the equatoria

I see a lot of comments from naysayers that are based on outdated technology and SE specs. A lot has happened in the last year or two, guys. White papers dealing with everything from cable design (a ribbon seems to be the answer) to weather to electrical charge have been published.

There are still technical problems, some of which we probably don't even know about yet. But there is a design for a cable of 40 - 60% CN that should be strong enough. CN mass production facilities are being built. NASA is taking the concept seriously enough that their guys are writing white papers.

It ain't pixie dust anymore.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1 .htm

"The desired strength for the space elevator is about 62 GPa. Carbon nanotubes... appear to have a theoretical strength far above the desired range for space elevator structures."

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology /space_elevator_020327-2.html

"The hurdle to date, Edwards said, has been the commercial fabrication of carbon nanotubes. Both U.S. and Japanese firms, among others, are ramping up production of carbon nanotubes, with tons of this now exotic matter soon to be available. "That quantity of material is going to be around well before five years time. It's not going to take long," he said."

http://www.liftport.com/faq.php

Frequently Asked Questions regarding the SE endeavour, from LiftPort Group

(a LOT of very good info here, here's a couple regarding points I've seen here)

What are some frequent Space Elevator misconceptions?

"Nothing is strong enough to make a Space Elevator."

Carbon nanotubes (CNT), discovered in 1991, are almost certainly strong enough. Theory says that they are 3-5 times as strong as we need them to be, and laboratory measurements of their strength, though very difficult to do and not yet definitive, have shown more than half the strength we need.

The longest nanotubes thus far are measured in centimeters, not kilometers, and certainly not 100,000 km.

We don't need and are not counting on individual carbon nanotube molecules running the entire length of the space elevator or any significant fraction thereof. The individual fibers in a string or rope are only a few millimeters long, yet the rope has a large fraction of the theoretical strength of the fibers. This is even more the case with MOLECULES, several orders of magnitude smaller than a fiber. A diamond is said to be the "hardest substance in the world" because of the strength of the carbon bonds that make it up, but a diamond is not a single molecule. Likewise an SE could be made with CNTs just a few centimeters or millimeters long. (In fact, a CNT several centimeters long is a wonder; they're single molecules!)

"The elevator would be susceptible to a terrorist attack. "

First of all, it's important to point out that there will be more than one Space Elevator. We plan to build a second one immediately (using the first to make it much cheaper) and expect that the second will immediately be used to build a third, fourth, etc. An attack on any one ribbon is unlikely because of the anchor stations' isolation and the relatively small number of casualties that would result. Terrorists are unlikely to be able to break the elevator anywhere higher than 15 km or so; it can then be simply flown back down to the anchor by moving some of the counterweight mass a bit further out and will be back in operation in a couple of days.

The first anchor will be located in the equatorial Pacific 650 kilometers from any air or shipping lanes. The ribbon would also have restricted airspace around it. The ribbon and anchor would be protected like any other valuable piece

That is already going to happen in a mere 63 million years.

I thought NASA was already funding this...

There it is.

NASA's concept seems like a better implementation because the launch loop requires a much longer track and an evacuated launch tube. With this design, the launch track just gets it up to a high velocity, kicks in the rockets to go the rest of the way to orbit. It costs a little more per kg, but it's a lot more in the realm of feasibility.

NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate is already funding space elevator research - John Mankins who was formerly a big cheese at ESMD is a space elevator advocate. One of NASA's Centennial Challenges is to directly foster space elevator work. A Space Elevator is at the moment an idea. Building a space elevator with current technology and expertise may be even less practical than sending humans to Mars with current technology and expertise - much further work is needed but for space elevators the unanswered questions are arguably more fundamental. People love to criticize NASA and point out how company X, Y or Z already has capability A without considering that there are fundamental reasons e.g. to do with energy, systems scaling etc which mean that going to Mars is vastly more difficult than say a suborbital hop. Companies working on prototype space systems and tackling problems in innovative ways should be encouraged by they do not yet provide a certain path towards desired goals like putting people back on the Moon.

Milky Way won't collide with another galaxy for several million more years, when Andromeda MAY hit us.

Don't panic! That's billon, not million:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/ga laxy_collides_020507-1.html

Reassure your children:

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/featu res/F_When_Gallaxies_Collide.html

Don't show them messy pictures like this:

http://www.noao.edu/outreach/current/collide_hilit e.html

An artist's rendition on their picture of the day:

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_ feature_411.html
--
fu