Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Space Elevators: Low Cost Ticket to GEO?

Posted by michael on from the seven-days-of-muzak-and-seven-more-to-go dept.

Crocuta writes "The current issue of Science News features a cover story that discusses the current developments in space elevator technology. NASA has been working on such devices for many years, but private companies such as Highlift Systems are now jumping on the space elevator bandwagon, no doubt seeing the huge potential profit in a low cost per pound delivery system. PhysicsWeb has a somewhat older, but much more technical article on the formation and structure of the carbon nanotubes that form the basis of the proposed tether cables. With a development like this, we could shoot entire boy bands into space and make the world a better place."

426 comments

  1. Riiiiight... by keep_it_simple_stupi · · Score: 5, Funny

    We have enough trouble getting stuck on elevators between floors in 5 story buildings. Could you imagine getting stuck half-way to the moon? They better be sure to put one of those bright red emergency phones on this bad boy.

    1. Re:Riiiiight... by unicron · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe they've got one of those big ass staircases, like when a roller coaster breaks down.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    2. Re:Riiiiight... by Kenja · · Score: 1

      Depends on who you get stuck with. Rather then being found with the bosses new secretary in a complicated position you get found with a broken man with three kids.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    3. Re:Riiiiight... by unicron · · Score: 3, Informative

      Tits are nice, but I'm all about an oxygen supply.

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    4. Re:Riiiiight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      But would it still have to beep at every floor, or doesn't the ADA apply to space?

    5. Re:Riiiiight... by Kenja · · Score: 4, Funny

      Screw that, install a slide.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    6. Re:Riiiiight... by jmv · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, and by the time you're on the ground your ass is at 2000 degrees (choose your unit)...

      --
      Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
    7. Re:Riiiiight... by Myco · · Score: 1, Troll

      Dumbass, it wouldn't be "degrees" if it were Kelvin. ;)

      --
      My deviantArt site
    8. Re:Riiiiight... by unicron · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but when it comes to the super-fun happy slide, honestly, when are you going to be there again?

      --
      Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
    9. Re:Riiiiight... by dbrutus · · Score: 2

      No. a cut space elevator cable wouldn't maintain its structure but would break up and flutter down like a bunch of black confetti. The worst that would happen is you might breathe in some of this stuff and trigger an asthma event. It wouldn't be pleasant but it wouldn't be catastrophic.

      The elevator car, on the other hand, probably shouldn't be made over a certain weight because if the ribbon is cut over the car, bad things could happen.

    10. Re:Riiiiight... by terrymr · · Score: 2

      acutally although considered obselete degrees kelvin is just as good as kelvins. ?Both are interchangeable. The points on the kelvin scale were originally called degrees it's just that notation practices have changed.

    11. Re:Riiiiight... by cravian · · Score: 2, Funny


      > (choose your unit)

      You may have to, from a range of plastic replacements if you've come down from low orbit on a slide at 2000 degrees...

      --
      The obvious is blinding, that's why no-one sees it coming.
    12. Re:Riiiiight... by merlin_jim · · Score: 2

      Could you imagine getting stuck half-way to the moon? They better be sure to put one of those bright red emergency phones on this bad boy.

      spoiler warning...

      Actually, in Arthur C. Clarke's Fountains of Paradise, a similar situation happens near the end of the book. In this case, the real cable is coming down some guide cables and a crew visiting the end of the cable gets stuck. An emergency vehicle has to be built FAST to bring air and water supplies to the "basement".

      The reason its an emergency vehicle is that the trip from the midpoint station, 20,000 km up, takes something greater than a day to make. The basement was only 600 km up from the ground.

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    13. Re:Riiiiight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether the space elevator cable would disintegrate depends upon its material. Even if the structural material disintegrates, it is possible that it may be sheathed in something else. For example, if fastening to the cable is expensive and complex there might be metal runners for the elevator spanning between the fasteners. You wouldn't want to be on the strip of land where all those pieces of metal are falling...only the pieces which were high enough to reach melting point wouldn't land hard (melted pieces would tend to break up rather than land in one chunk).

      And the weight of the elevator cars is not relevant. It will fall, and whether a motorcycle or cruise ship lands on you the effect is the same -- and the same effect if you're riding it down. A car designed to flutter or glide down is a different matter but is not dependent upon weight -- a Space Shuttle is quite heavy.

    14. Re:Riiiiight... by dbrutus · · Score: 2

      Yes, and if you were around the last time a story on this subject came out, you would have already read the back and forth, complete with references to the space elevator folks who say that they're going to make sure that in case of cut that the cable will largely disintigrate on the way down.

      In other words, it's a real issue that is being studied and they already have real world solutions to make it happen which makes the scary scenarios non-issues.

  2. Repeat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is somewhat a repeat...at least we mentioned the space elevator before and the plans of NASA.

  3. another use for it... by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    what about deep space? if we accelerate the payload up the space elevator wont we also get the slingshot effect of the earth's rotation adding to the energy we are putting into the payload to get it flung toward the outer planets at a much higher starting velocity and while using less fuel?

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:another use for it... by nihilvt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The "slingshot effect" is only useful for trajectory changes. It allows one to save fuel when changing directions. Due to conservation of energy, when you approach a planet and slingshot away from it, you end up with the same velocity on the way out as the way in. You will accelerate as you approach a planet, but you will decelerate the same amount on the way out.

    2. Re:another use for it... by Soft · · Score: 2
      what about deep space? if we accelerate the payload up the space elevator wont we also get the slingshot effect of the earth's rotation adding to the energy we are putting into the payload to get it flung toward the outer planets at a much higher starting velocity and while using less fuel?

      Yes, if the top of the cable is higher than geostationary orbit (which will probably be the case, since the thing's center of mass has to be in GEO itself...)

    3. Re:another use for it... by slide-rule · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just a minor clarification on the parent...

      The "slingshot effect" is only useful for trajectory changes. [cut] Due to conservation of energy, when you approach a planet and slingshot away from it, you end up with the same velocity on the way out as the way in.

      This is correct enough, but for those who haven't taken an orbital mechanics class, I thought I'd chip in a little bit more info. The 'slingshot' effect seems to work since you (the object) is changing frames of reference into- and out of the planet being used. (The other frame being with respect to the sun.) Additionally, you have to do the approach from the 'backside' so the planet pulls you forward on your way by (assuming you want to gain speed; otherwise enter on the front-side to slow down).

      Once you leave the sphere of influence of the planet itself though, and are only under the dominant effect of the sun (i.e., changed frames of reference) you have changed net velocity (speed as well as direction).

    4. Re:another use for it... by Soft · · Score: 4, Informative
      The "slingshot effect" is only useful for trajectory changes. It allows one to save fuel when changing directions. Due to conservation of energy, when you approach a planet and slingshot away from it, you end up with the same velocity on the way out as the way in. You will accelerate as you approach a planet, but you will decelerate the same amount on the way out.

      All true, but you missed two points:

      • in a slingshot maneuver you cannot, indeed, gain velocity relative the planet you approach; you can (and space probes do) gain velocity relative to the Sun, since said planet is moving with respect to the latter;
      • the original poster, I think, did not have a gravitational slingshot in mind, but the effect you would get if the top of the elevator were above GEO, you could launch objects that way.
    5. Re:another use for it... by ENOENT · · Score: 5, Informative

      BZZT!!! No, you're forgetting that the planet has its own velocity, which a spacecraft can steal. When a spacecraft slinshots around a planet, its velocity on the way out is the same as its velocity on the way in, but this the the velocity RELATIVE TO THE PLANET. If the spacecraft approaches the planet head-on, and does a 180 degree slingshot around the planet, then (ideally) its final velocity RELATIVE TO THE SUN is equivalent to its initial velocity plus two times the planet's orbital velocity. Energy is conserved, because the energy gained by the spacecraft is stolen from the planet.

      --
      That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
    6. Re:another use for it... by scotch · · Score: 2

      Insightful? Try (-1: Wrong). The slingshot effect is useful for changing the magnitude of (increasing or decreasing) velocity. Why the hell do you think NASA missions use all those flybys of the earth, venus, mars, etc? The slingshot effect speeds up the probe while slowing down the planet. Don't make me break out my astrodynamics book on you ;)

      --
      XML causes global warming.
    7. Re:another use for it... by p3d0 · · Score: 2
      Um, no. That's not how the slingshot effect works. It's not free energy generated by a planet's rotation.

      I'm not expert, but I think the key to the slingshot effect is that you always receed from a planet's gravity well at the same speed as you approached, but nobody ever said it had to be the same direction. So, to put it simply, suppose a certain planet is travelling at 100m/s relative to the sun, and you are sneaking up behind it at 120m/s. Relative to the planet, you are approaching at 20m/s. After you pass it, you'll receed at the same speed, 20m/s. If you choose to receed from the planet in the direction it's revolving, then you'll leave at 140m/s relative to the sun, having acquired the additional 40m/s at the expense of the planet's kinetic energy.

      Of course, this is a one-dimensional example of a three-dimensional phenomenon, but you get the idea.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    8. Re:another use for it... by Lunkwill_Fook · · Score: 1

      Two notes: First of all, it would still take an enormous amount of speed/energy to escape the overwhelming force of earth's gravity. Not really worth it in the long run to use this to try to give it "speed". Second, on the subject of swingbys: Swingby's do, in fact, increase an objects speed. And they do, in deed, steal rotational momentum from a planet in order to do so. So, hypothetically speaking, it's possible to send enough swingbys past a planet to eventually make it stop revolving (the total mass of the spaceships would have to something like the mass of the planet itself). Just some notes. Discuss.

    9. Re:another use for it... by stereoroid · · Score: 2

      Correct - at geo, the tower's mass would be equal to the orbital velocity at geo. This tower will be going faster the higher you go, the opposite of standard orbits. So there should be a useful whip effect, and timing of release would be as crucial as ever, unless you fancy going from Earth to Mars via Venus.

      And we know that such a tower will need to reach much higher than geo, because its centre of mass will need to be at geo for it to be stable, both during and after construction. Clarke's "Fountains Of Paradise" has a great description of one way of doing this: push an asteroid into geo, mine it right there, and build up and down simultaneously, keeping the centre of mass at geo. (I do mean centre of mass, not centre of gravity - think about it.)

      --
      (this is not a .sig)
    10. Re:another use for it... by bythescruff · · Score: 1

      Also, the point of closest approach to a large mass is by far the most efficient place to burn fuel for a trajectory change. If you combine this with the slingshot effect, which can be used either to speed you up or slow you down, depending on which way you go around, then it takes far less fuel to get where you're going and park when you arrive.

      --
      Chuck Norris: Socialism == a thousand years of darkness.
    11. Re:another use for it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The "slingshot effect" used by space probes is different than what can be done with a space elevator. The obvious use of a space elevator is to go to the elevator's orbital null point, where you simply release and you're in orbit at the same speed as the elevator is moving.

      However, if you release from the elevator at a lower elevation then you're moving slower than orbital velocity...and if you apply enough acceleration to reach a hyperbolic pass then you can use the "slingshot effect".

      However, if you go above the orbital null point -- and you can, because the elevator has to extend upward to have an upward force to counter the downward pull of gravity on the lower part -- then you're going FASTER than orbital velocity. Release at any point here and you're flung outward. This is indeed the same centripedal force as used by a sling (as David's sling, not a rubber-powered slingshot).

    12. Re:another use for it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not "stop revolving". That can also mean "stop rotating". Please use the phrasing "stop orbiting".

      Of course, every time you steal the orbital velocity the planet actually moves in to a small orbit...so you actually are causing a spiral which only causes the orbit to stop when it physically encounters the Sun.

  4. I've said it before by khendron · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And I'll say it again. I *love* the idea of a space elevator. But I do not see how it will reduce the cost of going to space as much as some people claim. The maintenance costs for the tower will be tremendous.

    --
    Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
    1. Re:I've said it before by mikeee · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe. But it's hard to see how they can be worse than the 'maintainance' costs of rebuilding the whole damn rocket every time you launch one.

      Yeah, yeah, the shuttle is reusable, but disposable rockets are actually cheaper than that engineering nightmare, from what I read...

    2. Re:I've said it before by sketerpot · · Score: 3, Informative
      The tower shouldn't be too much more expensive to maintain than the NASA Shuttle fleet, in my estimation. The ribbon itsself would be very strong and placed in an area with very mild weather. And it would manage to lift about a ton of cargo to space every day!

      That would still be very expensive, but immensely less expensive than using the current methods of reaching orbit for comparable amounts of cargo.

      Of course, my estimates are open to dispute, and I could be wrong. But I don't care: the space elevator is cool!

    3. Re:I've said it before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are pobably taking into consideration the lower turnaround times for launches, and other things when making this statement. (at least hope so)

    4. Re:I've said it before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Of course, my estimates are open to dispute, and I could be wrong. But I don't care: the space elevator is cool!

      No worries. Welcome to Slashdot.

    5. Re:I've said it before by mprinkey · · Score: 1

      There is one important point that seems to be often missed. Once a manufacturing process is worked out for the fibers, it will start to become much cheaper. The big cost is hauling all of the first one up into orbit at the beginning.

      Once you have ONE of these in orbit, it will be fairly easy to spawn a second or to really strengthen the first. You can tow small fibers of additional nanotubes as reinforcement to the existing ribbon. This is when things can get very interesting. You can build an enormously strong elevator on top of this first seminal one. With multiple strong elevators servicing a single space station, the system could become more like a train track than an elevator, with multiple cars going up and down simultaneously.

      Multiple elevators would make the entire system more stable and less suspectible to terrorist attack or weather damage. Imagine putting 1000s of tons of material into geosynch orbit per day. Then we can seriously think about wholesale utilization of space and its resources.

    6. Re:I've said it before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But he admitted that his estimates could be wrong, rather than just asserting them.

      Of course, your post is an example of another of the massively redundant posts on Slashdot. Welcome to Slashdot.

    7. Re:I've said it before by sketerpot · · Score: 1
      THANK YOU! Your point is excellent. If nanotubes fibers become cheap--and we probably just need a market for them before they become cheap--We will be able to do all sorts of things. Multiple elevators can make points about terrorists moot (and we'd probably be on the lookout anyway), and then NASA and friends can stop piddling around with ridiculously expensive ways of getting stuff into orbit and focus on areas farther away from the earth the way they should. We could put stuff into orbit on a massive scale without most of the problems that have plagued space exploration for years, and that excites the hell out of me.

      Think about being able to prefabricate modules for space statins on earth and hoist them into space. Want a huge cylinder in space? No worries; just split it up into sections and send them up. Put them together in space. I leave you to think of some more possibilities for this.

    8. Re:I've said it before by DaBunny · · Score: 1
      The big cost is hauling all of the first one up into orbit at the beginning.

      And we can get around that by using a space elevator to...wait a minute...

    9. Re:I've said it before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're making an assumption about how the first one is built. If we only haul up to orbit the "cable" factory then we don't have to haul the pieces of cable up. Park the factory at GEO and build cable up and down.

      As "Fountains of Paradise" suggested, if we nudge an asteroid to GEO, we can put the factory on that. We'd choose an asteroid with the proper raw materials, so what we haul to orbit is the cable factory and the asteroid driver (unless, of course, we've built some of that in space or on the Moon...design your own industrial orbital bootstrap requirements...).

    10. Re:I've said it before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      As far as I know the first fibre of the nanotube lift can be fit into the cargo space of a space shuttle. In fact, that's the way they are planning to begin installing it. For me, making the fiber seems to be a great engineering accomplishment, not putting it to to space.

  5. ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    what happens when the cable snaps?

    1. Re:ok but by Nintendork · · Score: 3, Informative

      This story is a repeat that I've seen at least one other time here on /.. If I recall correctly, the cable is very unlikely to snap, but if a terrorist were to break it, the cable would fall to the ocean and there wouldn't be any devastating impact.

    2. Re:ok but by swfranklin · · Score: 2, Insightful
      ...there wouldn't be any devastating impact

      The people on board the elevator at the time might argue with that statement... :-/

    3. Re:ok but by Nintendork · · Score: 2

      Very true, but I meant to say that it's not going to cause a tsunami or collapse on Manhattan.

      -Lucas

    4. Re:ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the string was snaped on ground, it would actually fly out into space, one would only be able to get half the strong or so to fall to earth, and that would be quite a feat to acomplish.

      The string would probably be designed to break into several 1000M peices upon falling though, so it wouldn't be nearly as bad as people think.

    5. Re:ok but by Lunkwill_Fook · · Score: 1

      Actually, from studying fellow students' design projects and college and doing a little reading myself, that IS the main problem: the cables snap (theoretically speaking) under their own weight. The only way this technology can be feasible is the development of superstrong, superlight, flexible material which, as I as I know, doesn't quite exist yet.

    6. Re:ok but by PhuCknuT · · Score: 1

      Even if it fell in 1 piece, it would do almost no damage. Remember, the cable will most likely be ribbon shaped, and incredibly light, it's terminal velocity will be very slow and it's mass so little (per meter) that if it somehow was cut near the top so the entire thing fell, and wrapped around the earth twice without breaking, it would a) not hit much, considering it's only a meter or 2 wide, and b) just land gently (considering how high it's falling from) on top of whatever it did hit.

    7. Re:ok but by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 2

      The people on board the elevator at the time might argue with that statement... :-/

      na, they would be flung into a higher orbit. IIRC, This whole rig is pulling on the base station. It wants to be in a higher orbit, but the tether keeps it where it is. So if the tether snaps, the station would move into a higher orbit, more in line with its velocity, while the thether would float back to earth, much like paper.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    8. Re:ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which brings us to our next point. The base station is not anchored in space, it is anchored in earth. There is NO leverage from which to pull things (never mind, that you would have to pull them at escape velocity to in the first place.

    9. Re:ok but by zenofjazz · · Score: 1

      Uhm...
      BZZZZT. Wrong. one, the materials used are going to be heavy.. carbon nanotubes will have weight comparable to diamonds... second.. the 1000 mph rotational velocity of the earth is gonna play one hell of a game of crack the whip with the end of the cable. Terminal velocity doesn't count, because it's not "free falling".. it's being dragged down, winched around the planet.
      36,000 miles of cable, gaining 1000mph of lateral accelleration, is gonna be spectacular to watch fall. It will move thru the air fast enough to appear as a flaming line (think about meteorites burning up, - now consider this a 36000 mile long meteorite!) the further the end is out, the faster it's gonna be going, when it strikes.

      --
      -- All That's Evil in the Geek Space ... Allthatsevil.wordpress.com
    10. Re:ok but by zenofjazz · · Score: 1

      but if it's designed to break, then how to you make it strong enough to withstand the required compressive, and expansive forces?
      Compressive force - picture bricks holding up the wieght of a building..
      expansive force - picture a suspension bridge...

      --
      -- All That's Evil in the Geek Space ... Allthatsevil.wordpress.com
    11. Re:ok but by wulfhound · · Score: 1

      Yep, but it's thin and wide... meteorites hit because they're big balls of rock, the heat of atmospheric friction would burn this thing up in seconds.

    12. Re:ok but by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 2

      which brings us to our next point. The base station is not anchored in space, it is anchored in earth. There is NO leverage from which to pull things (never mind, that you would have to pull them at escape velocity to in the first place.

      Again, not a big deal. The 'elevator' climbs the cable to the station. Yes, we still have Newton's laws, meaning that the cable is pulled down. But, the angular acceleration of the station (remember, its being spun in a big circle, and pretty fast to boot) will keep the station from being pulled back to Earth. Sure, there will be a limit to the amount of mass you can haul up this thing, as you will have to keep the inward force on the cable less than the 'centrifugal force' (yes, I know its ficticious, but its a useful concept in this case). Too heavy of a load and it will just pull the cable in, anything less than that and it will just climb.
      As for needing to get to 'escape velocity'... Not true. escape velocity is only for a ballistic projectile. Or, more simply, one that does not have the benefit of continious force. Imagine climbing a ladder, do you hit EV to make it from one rung to the next? No, what if that ladder extended to the altitude of Geosyncronious orbit? Would you need to hit EV to keep going up the rungs? No, it would take a large amount of energy to climb, but you would never need to be going that fast. Technically, one can make it into space traveling at 1 m/s, as long they have some way to keep being pushed up.

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    13. Re:ok but by spike+hay · · Score: 2


      BZZZZT. Wrong. one, the materials used are going to be heavy.. carbon nanotubes will have weight comparable to diamonds..

      BZZZZT!! Wrong. This ribbon is lighter than tissue paper. I don't care about the 1 k rotational velocity at all. It would be slowed down by air drag to just a few miles an hour. Throw a piece of tissue paper out of the window of a fighter in a dive at mach 2. Will the tissue paper stike the ground at Mach 2 and kill someone? No. Of course not. Neither would this.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
    14. Re:ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not "lighter than tissue paper". It's a dense sheet of carbon. It's a piece of rock the size of a piece of tissue paper. That's a lot more dense.

      It also matters HOW it hits the atmosphere. If a piece hits end-on, the nose will ablate off and protect the rest. Like a dart whose nose can melt off -- when the rest slows to terminal velocity then everyone below gets pelted with stone knives.

      If a piece of ribbon flutters together, you could also get a blob which indeed would hit as if it was a big rock. So whatever does not ablate from the surface does still go splat against whatever is underneath.

    15. Re:ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only flung to a higher orbit if above GEO. Otherwise you're falling. If you don't fall below GEO, please make the top of this piece of rope stay in the air for me.

    16. Re:ok but by pokeyburro · · Score: 2

      That's why the carbon nanotubes are such a big deal. In fact, they're THE deal. According to the Science News article, a nanotube strand half the width of a pencil can suspend 40,000 kg. The question, then, is how much such a strand would weigh, per km. If 100,000 km of it (that's how long it needs to be) weighs 40,000 kg or more, you're shot.

      According to "Physical Properties of Carbon Nanotubes", the tubes can have varying densities (makes sense, when you understand what they look like). Let's pick the largest density listed on the page: 1.40 g/cm^3.

      Assume a pencil is 0.50 cm wide. So our nanotube strand is 0.25 cm wide. Cross sectional area is 0.053 cm^2. So the total volume of one strand is 10^8 * 0.053 cm^3, or 5.3x10^6 cm^3. Its mass would be about 7.4x10^3 kg, then. Or in English, 7400 kg. Significantly less than 40,000 kg. This single strand could hold up three more strands just like it, AND bear another 10,000 kg of strains.

      And of course, a space elevator would consist of thousands of these strands. Kim Stanley Robinson was right; this thing would be ridiculously stronger than needed.

      --
      Lately democracy seems to be based on the skybox, the Happy Meal box, the X-box, and the idiot box.
    17. Re:ok but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      The people on board any elevator would say the same... What's your point?

    18. Re:ok but by spike+hay · · Score: 2

      Read the faq on the site. It states that it is very light.

      At any rate, this is as thin as tissue paper. Even lead in the thickness of tissue paper is quite light. And this isn't nearly as dense as lead.

      --
      If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
  6. If only I could outlive the R&D by Docrates · · Score: 1

    Ever since slashdot first posted news about highliftsystems (I'd provide a link to the news story, but I already have all the karma I need), I've devoured every bit of information I can regarding the space elevator. After reading about 1000 pages regarding the issue, I came to the conclusion that it IS possible. Go to the highliftsystems mentioned in the news post and read the PDFs that are there before you start screaming "cold fusion!". You'll probably reach the same conclusion.

    --

    There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
    1. Re:If only I could outlive the R&D by GMontag · · Score: 2

      Somewhat agree, but I have been reading about this since Arthur C. Clarke published 2061: Odyssey Three. I will believe it when I see it working, in person.

      --
      Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
    2. Re:If only I could outlive the R&D by dodald · · Score: 1

      Didn't he say "The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" I hope he wasn't talking about the average person, because if so, we are a long way off.

      --
      101010b 2Ah 52o
    3. Re:If only I could outlive the R&D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To quote Ghandi (though in an entirely different context): First they ignore you, then
      they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

    4. Re:If only I could outlive the R&D by GMontag · · Score: 1

      Didn't he say "The space elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" I hope he wasn't talking about the average person, because if so, we are a long way off.

      Yes and someone in another thread referenced that statement. I was referring to his including a proposal for the elevator, constructed of diamond, in a sci-fi story. Good book series too, btw.

      --
      Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
    5. Re:If only I could outlive the R&D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      after reading alot of science fiction myself, I came to the conclusion that most of it isn't real. Captain Kirk didn't come back in time and kill Hitler, Christopher Walken didn't really see aliens, and anything that happened a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away is for all practical purposes, unknowable to us.

      After after having lived in the real world most of my life since that moment of realization, I came to the conclusion that it IS NOT possible.

      In fact, after you dismiss all the demonstratible impossibilities that prevent it, you still have to come to grips with the reality that the "technology" to do it still needs to be discovered. Having heard of space stations and elevators, but understanding the concepts of neither doesn't build a space elevator any more than having heard of birds and automobiles means you can make a car fly.

    6. Re:If only I could outlive the R&D by 5alligator · · Score: 1
      After after having lived in the real world most of my life since that moment of realization, I came to the conclusion that it IS NOT possible.

      ok, i've wiped the tears from my eyes; i'm sure that's not quite what you meant

      yes, a lot sf is pretty dumb. i gave up on star trek a *long* time ago as well. But, how did you get that post up -- send a carrier pigeon to michigan?

      here, read some of these. They're not science fiction (though, sadly, each is quite short) and may adjust your conception of what is possible.

    7. Re:If only I could outlive the R&D by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in theory it seems an obvious solution to the problem of a gravity well, and when complete would be a sight to behold. however, if you've ever seen a company string a suspension bridge, then extrapolate the length, the tension, the combined weight, and that even in low gravity the anchor in space would be massive. perhaps it would be easier to start from the other end and manufacture the cable up there to lower down here. mine materials from the moon, convert to bucky tubes, and drop them to the earth a strand at a time. either way, it's gonna be awhile.

  7. Those of us already in orbit... by mythosaz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Those of us already in orbit can't wait for the space elevator to be complete. Finally, we can get some cable TV.

    1. Re:Those of us already in orbit... by km790816 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Our tax dollars at work: The guys on the space station are reading /.

      Geeze.....

      --
      A speech...
    2. Re:Those of us already in orbit... by Alsee · · Score: 3, Funny

      Cable TV? Bah. The satellite reception up here is great!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    3. Re:Those of us already in orbit... by Grizzlysmit · · Score: 1

      Hey are you really in orbit, sounds cool, I'd love to to be up there.

      --
      in my life God comes first.... but Linux is pretty high after that :-D
      Francis Smit
  8. WTF is it with Slashdot and this shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I see more space elevator articles here than anywhere else. Do otherwise worthless "nerds" get off on 23,000 mile-long cables?

    1. Re:WTF is it with Slashdot and this shit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, totally hot babes get off on my 23,000 mile-long cable.

  9. Free Electricity by kenp2002 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    With an object that goes through t the ionosphere you would get a constant stream of free electrons surging through the damn thing. Throw a power station at the base and BOOM. Free electricity. The only question I have is if we pull down electrons in the upper atmosphere would there be an impact?

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    1. Re:Free Electricity by i8a4re · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, the free electrons in the ionosphere are a conductive layer that shields us from radiation. So, if you deplete it too much, you'll not only get free electricity, but you could probably get your xray taken just by going outside.

      --

      If I drive fast enough at the red light, it'll appear green.
    2. Re:Free Electricity by mprinkey · · Score: 1

      Do we know that the ion density in the ionosphere will not be high enough to cause a catastrophic discharge? The typical way to "generate" lightning strikes is to fire a small rocket into a thundercloud with a small wire attached.

      The ionosphere is replentished by solar winds so I don't know if depletion is a greater concern than the lightning strike issue. I haven't looked at the numbers though. I may be wrong.

    3. Re:Free Electricity by Captoo · · Score: 1

      I think that's a great idea, if it would work. It could even power the elevator itself. Then we could get rides into space really cheap.

      What if lightning strikes? Carbon nanotubes conduct electricity very well, but they don't last long when they overheat.

    4. Re:Free Electricity by breadbot · · Score: 2, Informative
      According to a paper commissioned by NASA, the column of ionosphere discharged would be minute, on the order of a few centimeters radius at most.

      The reason is sheer length -- even if the cable were as conductive as gold, it would have a resistance from the ionosphere down to the Earth's surface of tens of kilo-ohms (see same paper).

    5. Re:Free Electricity by deander2 · · Score: 3, Informative


      Actually, the "free" energy is taken directly from the rotational inertia of the earth itself. So this would slightly increase the length of our day, but only VERY VERY slightly. When you consider the mass of the earth and how fast it spins, you could power all of humanity for much longer then you could imagine before the earth's day was noticably different.

      Also, the earth's rotational speed changes gradually anyway...

      --
      http://kered.org
    6. Re:Free Electricity by sterlingchap · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here's a NASA article on ProSEDS - a shuttle experiment to generate power by dragging a conductive tether through the upper atmosphere. In the initial experiment, the tether generated twice the predicted current, even though the tether didn't deploy properly. If I understand the physical principle behind it correctly, the higher the field differential between the ends of the tether (i.e, the longer the cable), the higher the current generated. A tether extending over many kilometers would be an outstanding power source -- although it's difficult to predict all the possible environmental implications (still, much less than burning tons of fossil fuel everyday.) Also, as with a conventional dynamo/motor, by feeding electricity into the tether, you can use it for propulsion - raising or lowering a vehicle through the upper atmosphere without expending propellant.

    7. Re:Free Electricity by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      AOD quote sigs rule.

      -B

    8. Re:Free Electricity by freuddot · · Score: 3, Informative

      Useless.

      You'd have the same problem as with any other potential field :

      You get access to particle X at extremity X0 of some energy potential field Y, compared to extermity X1 .

      However, in order to use this energy, you have to put something (a wire) between X0 and X1(the two ends of your elevator). This something(wire) however will receive the same field effect, and will cost you the same exact energy amount.

      In plain terms, you've got to ship back those electrons to the top of the wire, to get electricity. The more easily they came down, the harder it gets to send them back.

      Otherwise, you could do the same in airplanes. Airplanes, while travelling trough the magnetic field of earth build a good potential difference between their wing tips. If you try to use it, though, the wire you put will build the same voltage, preventing you from using this energy.

      BTW, that's also why you can't shield gravity.

      HTH

      J.

    9. Re:Free Electricity by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

      Because we have a limited understanding on gravity. The most likely theory I have heard is that there is a Graviton emmission. We still do not no if it is a wave or particle or both. That's all I know.

      --
      -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    10. Re:Free Electricity by HeX86 · · Score: 1

      Well, lots of lightning, but that would be a good thing right? We could just hang a bunch of clothes on it to generate static electricity from the wind...

      Personally I preffer the idea of just shooting someone out into space using hyperdrive.

      I'm not really concerned about terrorism either. I'm concerned about a drunk hick with a riffle trying to shoot bird off the damn thing.

      jh

  10. Programming error by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Imagine asking for the basement, (floor -1), and getting sent to floor 65535 instead :-).

  11. Arthur C Clarke predicts: by Big+Sean+O · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Arthur C. Clarke popularized the Space Elevator and once said "The space elevator will be built about fifty years after everyone stops laughing".

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep _1 .htm

    --
    My father is a blogger.
    1. Re:Arthur C Clarke predicts: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jerome Pearson said this, not Arthur C. Clarke.

    2. Re:Arthur C Clarke predicts: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      erm yeh, i think it was called "The Fountains of Paradise". but i suppose someone has already mentioned it er.

    3. Re:Arthur C Clarke predicts: by Big+Sean+O · · Score: 1

      Not according to this.

      --
      My father is a blogger.
  12. Repost by LucidityZero · · Score: 0

    Repost. About a month ago.

    --
    Sig.i>
  13. One other thing by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

    "With a development like this, we could shoot entire boy bands into space and make the world a better place."

    Make sure you "forget" to give them space suits, air, food, etc. You would be amazed at how sneak those boy bands can be at making come backs (Mark Wahlberg comes to mind as do the Monkiees)

    Here we come... walking down the street....

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
    1. Re:One other thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Mark Wahlberg comes to mind as do the Monkiees)

      Interesting, as Mark Wahlberg was the lead actor in "Planet of the Apes" remake.

    2. Re:One other thing by susano_otter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Monkees weren't a boy band so much as a postmodern satire of the Beatles. You must be capable of holding a grudge for a very long time, if you're still bitter about their "comeback".

      Mark Walhberg, meanwhile, never really had anything worth coming back for. The moment he realized this, he changed jobs, finding work as a halfway-decent actor. If all the boy bands made Wahlberg's "comeback", music would be a much better place, and movies wouldn't be any worse than they currently are.

      Also, the "let's shoot boy bands into space... without space suits!" comment is older now, but not any more tired, than when it was first made. Remember that you're posting on Slashdot, where we already know you don't like boy bands. Originality is much more important than mindlessly repeating the same inane remarks over and over again. Bandwagoning the editor's own tired "insights" puts me in the mood to space you, ahead of the pop-music chorus line of the week.

      At least the boy bands are paid professionals: they can dance and sing better than you or I, they work hard, they maintain wholesome appearances, and they appear to be having a lot of fun. They're getting paid for something they do well, and it's something they enjoy doing well.

      I'm not moved by the music that's written for them, and I abhor the whole music industry/marketing system that makes boy bands possible and lucrative, but the bands themselves are no more evil than they would be if they appeared under a system of independent copyright-owning artists.

      Imagine a songwriter who believes his work would appeal to a certain demographic--highschool girls, for example. So he amasses some capital, hires a group of clean-cut young men and a choreographer, writes some catchy tunes, teaches them the lyrics, music, and dance steps, and hits the road. They work as a team, and work hard. They get lucky, create some buzz, burn an album, collect some royalties from downloads and webcasts (in addition to the take from their touring), and generally have a good time writing and fronting the music.

      That's not so bad, is it? No different from the independent rappers, emo bands, country singers, folk artists, &c. that will spring up in our hypothetical RIAA-free utopia. I think boy bands will always be with us, and I don't think they will ever be the problem.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    3. Re:One other thing by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      He was also "Markie Mark" of the (eew, shudder) New Kids On The Block (unfortunatly, not chopping block).

    4. Re:One other thing by outsider007 · · Score: 1

      The Monkees weren't a boy band so much as a postmodern satire of the Beatles

      how were the Beatles not a boy band? at first I mean, not after they got all artsy

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    5. Re:One other thing by susano_otter · · Score: 2

      Well, of course the Beatles were a boy band. I'm not disputing that! It's the Monkees that weren't a boy band. They were a subversion of the boy band, and we're waaay overdue for another one.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    6. Re:One other thing by outsider007 · · Score: 1

      in that case you're forgetting about the meaty cheesy boys

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    7. Re:One other thing by susano_otter · · Score: 2

      That's too disturbing, even for a hardened cynic like myself.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    8. Re:One other thing by majestyk2000 · · Score: 1

      Sadly, I know you're wrong on this one. You are thinking about Donnie Wahlberg, who was Marky Mark's brother. I figure I've probably permanently given up all geek props by knowing that, but oh well...

  14. It'll be just our luck... by GeneralEmergency · · Score: 5, Funny


    . ...that when it gets built, the Longshoremen will insist that loading and unloading it is a union job.

    .

    --
    "A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
    GeneralEmergency
    1. Re:It'll be just our luck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you aren't part of the elite, it's not wise to dismiss the unions. China's factory workers are experiencing what things were like in pre-union America. The industrial revolution, where men, and their children, worked until they dropped dead.

      Fool! Is this the society you want?

    2. Re:It'll be just our luck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...that when it gets built, the Longshoremen will insist that loading and unloading it is a union job.

      Youse gotta problem wit dat?

    3. Re:It'll be just our luck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put it in these terms:
      10,500 longshoremen on the West Coast have the power to paralyze the $300 billion in cargo.

      What does this result in? Benefits that would make most white-collar college grads envious.

      Combine that with very good pay (Like, this time it was ~80k each was it?) means they can afford to strike over just about anything.

      Compairing this to the turn of the century or china is totally not accurate.

    4. Re:It'll be just our luck... by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      >they can afford to strike over just about anything

      Yeah, workers only strike when they're livin so good, they stop and go, "Hey .. why not stop working and demand more money!" Please.

      Hey, I have an idea. If they have it so good, why dont you become one?

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    5. Re:It'll be just our luck... by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 2

      If it's so bad, why do they continue to work there?

      The reason is usually circumstance.

    6. Re:It'll be just our luck... by Harinezumi · · Score: 1

      Two words: baseball strike

    7. Re:It'll be just our luck... by pjt48108 · · Score: 1

      The point of the strike is not to complain about work conditions, if you half-witted slashdot readers were actually following this. At dispute is the encroachment of non-union labor into a union environment. I can imagine the longshoremen see this as a threat to their positions. As a citizen, I see it as the McDonaldization of the ports: pay very little, get high turnaround, continue to pay very little, etc. Eventually, the people running the pors are all disgruntled lazy asses with an axe to grind, and little motivation to keep things dockside on the up-and-up.

      --
      Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
    8. Re:It'll be just our luck... by SirSlud · · Score: 2

      Exactly! Imagine what happens when you start employing minimum wage jockies who just got outta jail .. we'll have alot more to worry about than folks getting on planes with little pocket knives ..

      Well spoken.

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
    9. Re:It'll be just our luck... by sowellfan · · Score: 1

      The longshoremen aren't getting paid 'very little'. These guys are getting $100k on average, with the clerks getting $120k average.

      When the left looks at these situations, they only look at the current union members who are holding the jobs right now, they never stop to think of the many capable people who would like to compete for those jobs. If they are willing to do the job for less, I think the employer should be free to hire them.

    10. Re:It'll be just our luck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wrongo.

      At dispute is the encroachment of union labor into a non-union environment. The shipping companies want to create new jobs in a different field, and the union maintains that they have a right to control those jobs. What the union employees do not realize is that the union is agreeing to the condition of laying of the lonshore clerks (up to 75% of employees) whose jobs will be made obsolete, in the interest of maintaining union control over the industry.

      But that's all just a smokescreen. They're striking because the union bosses are "card carrying" official members of the Communist party which wants to help Democrats in the upcoming election, and the strike effects the economy, which is already bad, which reflects poorly on the presidency, which they hope will will be associated to the Republican party.

    11. Re:It'll be just our luck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's *exactly* what they are doing. The unions have (long ago) gone way too far.

      Just try becoming one! Those positions are clung to like the gold they are. Out of 10s of thousands of seekers only a few hundred can get into the elite club.

      But that doesn't give them the right to rob hundreds of billions from everyone else working for a living now does it? If there is any justice in the world, the cargo will go to mexico and be unloaded by people that need the money a lot more than those pamper bottomed union babies do.

    12. Re:It'll be just our luck... by dbrutus · · Score: 2

      The PRC is nothing like pre-union America. The PRC is highly corrupt (on the level of you can't go about your normal life without regular bribes), they think forced abortion, sterilization, and infanticide are useful ways of solving their inability to supply enough material goods to their population, they have a prison slave labor system that is absolutely huge, and they have an illegitimate government that rests on violence, not the consent of the governed.

    13. Re:It'll be just our luck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compairing this to the turn of the century or china is totally not accurate.

      Your ignorance of history is not a valid counterpoint. The Chinese industrial system mirrors pre-union America. It's fact. I'll give you a little history lesson.

      America, like much of the rest of the world during those times, treated it's citizens like livestock. You think microsoft is bad? How about about companies that built whole cities were nothing but series of warehouses packed full of men, women, and children, who lived there when they weren't pulling their 10-15 hour shifts. The government didn't save these people, the government was in the pockets of the industrialists and turned a blind eye.

      What changed things? Americans revolted against that system, and formed unions so they could protect themselves from an America that didn't give a flying fuck about it's citizens.

    14. Re:It'll be just our luck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look here you pedantic twit. I said Chinese factory workers operate under conditions that are reminiscent of pre-union America. I did not say pre-union America was a scale model of the PRC, complete with rice, chopsticks and great firewall.

    15. Re:It'll be just our luck... by dbrutus · · Score: 2

      A great deal of those chinese factory workers *are* slave labor, but I guess that isn't a "condition" of their labor.

      I guess that the party commissar system that runs in those factories to keep the workers in line has some analogue in the US (not likely) and that since those factory based party commissars enforce the 1 child policy (among other enforcers to be sure) that isn't relevant to the conditions of their labor.

      Pre-union labor in the US was tough, in every industrializing nation, the process has been tough but in the free world, they flocked to those jobs because rural life was tougher and earned less money. In the PRC, the same income increase and less brutal conditions prevail (marking the only valid likeness) but the machinery of repression makes the resulting system qualitatively different in terms of toughness and brutality.

  15. heres another low cost ticket to GEO by night_flyer · · Score: 3, Funny

    cant get much lower

    --


    Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
    1. Re:heres another low cost ticket to GEO by JonWan · · Score: 1

      I can hear the sysadmins boss now...

      What the F$%K is Slashdot?

  16. We'll never fund it by SexyKellyOsbourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As fascinating as it sounds, unfortunately, Congress will never fund such an endeavor -- as far as they concerned, space is a useless void that we now have no reason to explore after the death of the USSR.

    The idea might be feasible -- I prefer the idea of a giant cannon/mass driver/gauss gun to shoot us into space myself -- but the idea of a 100,000km tube supporting an elevator is too farfetched to ever get funding, especially with increasingly conservative US administrations that would rather spend money launching rockets not into space, but into third-world cities, as well as European powers that have their own budget problems due to their social welfare systems that prefer to spend money on Earth and not in space.

    1. Re:We'll never fund it by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      Bwahahaha!

      Oh, wait... that was a troll, wasn't it?

      Hrm.

      Never mind. It's not like I was taking you seriously anyway.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    2. Re:We'll never fund it by Nihilanth · · Score: 2

      and the international space station (which would caust around the same amount of money to complete) is -more- useful than this?

    3. Re:We'll never fund it by Scrameustache · · Score: 2

      If not you, then someone else.

      Maybe the chinese...they could cut on building cost by making the biggest human pyramid ever and sending a monkey up carrying the end of the tether.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    4. Re:We'll never fund it by MyHair · · Score: 1

      As fascinating as it sounds, unfortunately, Congress will never fund such an endeavor -- as far as they concerned, space is a useless void that we now have no reason to explore after the death of the USSR.

      Yeah, that's why international space stations don't get built and why several countries are launching rockets and shuttles and Mars and other space probes and why commercial spaceports are starting to open...uh, what?

    5. Re:We'll never fund it by njchick · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's why commercial spaceports are starting to open. Space has become less interesting to the US government.

    6. Re:We'll never fund it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      um... did you see the report? Millions have already been sunk into the project. Why, the napkin the hairbrained idea was lauched on, being at Nasa, was probably several hundred dollars itself.

    7. Re:We'll never fund it by tpr · · Score: 1

      'spend money on Earth and not in space'
      Funny, but I've yet to see 'Alien Als Space Emporium'. All money spent on any space program is spent on Earth. It employs people - to run the program, build the craft, to make the machines that make the machines that make the craft, to sell food to those people, to farm in order to have food to sell to those people and on and on and on. It's absolutely the same as any other industrial activity.

  17. The Babel effect by L.+VeGas · · Score: 5, Funny

    The problem with something this tall is that it will inevitably be destroyed, and we will be scattered throughout the earth and forced to speak different languages.

    --
    Best Windows Freeware
  18. Some Books to look at.... by CSG_SurferDude · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Some Books to look at:

    The 1979 Hugo and Nebula Award winning novel, The Fountains of Paradise by Arthur C. Clarke.

    AND...

    The Web Between the Worlds, by Charles Sheffield, using the same idea, published about the same time Clarke published his book.

    AND...

    Of course, Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy.

    --

    LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!

    1. Re:Some Books to look at.... by TeamSPAM · · Score: 0

      Speaking of the Mars trilogy. The first space elevator on Mars fell out of the sky in that series. Would really suck if some group of terrorist decided to take out earth's space elevator. If it fell, I would assume that there might be tidal waves associated with all that mass falling into the oceans. This would extend the damage outside the area of where the space elevator comes down.

      --
      Brought to you by Team SPAM! where we believe: "Information in the noise!"
    2. Re:Some Books to look at.... by Bob+Munck · · Score: 2
      These books were written before carbon nanotubes were discovered. They all postulated that space elevators would have to be many meters thick and weigh billions of tons. In fact, the SE proposed by Brad Edwards of HighLift would start out just ten cm wide and one micron thick. If it breaks, it would flutter down.

      Seem to be quite a few replies from people who learn their science from science fiction.

    3. Re:Some Books to look at.... by CSG_SurferDude · · Score: 1

      Not to mention don't even read the parent article where they specifically talk about the lack of damage if/when it breaks.

      --

      LongTail SSH Brute Force analysis tool is here!

    4. Re:Some Books to look at.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GOD DAMNIT!!!!

      IT CLEARLY STATES THAT THIS VERY LIGHT. LIKE TISSUE PAPER. NO DAMAGE IF IT FALLS

      READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE BEFORE YOU POST!!!!!

      # Please try to keep posts on topic.
      # Try to reply to other people comments instead of starting new threads.
      # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
      # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
      # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)

    5. Re:Some Books to look at.... by hman · · Score: 1

      For what it's worth, something like this is postulated in Terry Prattchets's Strata, too.

      That's a book with a very interesting POV, even if you know all about the Discworld series.
  19. Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES! by Art+Popp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ah, so we should stiffle useful technological advances, and live in fear of terror until the problem magically goes away?

    The universe is a big scary place; we won't have the pleasure fully discovering this if we crawl under our beds and hide.

    So when to elevator tickets go on sale?

  20. Risky investment by jukal · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Think of the space elevator structure as a 100,000-km-long highway that will require ongoing maintenance and repair," says Smitherman. It will stretch 2.5 times Earth's circumference.

    How many gazillion of billions do you think it will cost. If not by any accident, how many terrorists does it take to blow it up? There just is not and cannot be such big amount of capital tied into one physical place. It might be possible to build it - once, if you find someone who is ready to BURN that money. Someone who invested all his money into a dot.com in 1999 is worth economics nobel prize compared to this.

    1. Re:Risky investment by Casca · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You build it in the middle of the ocean on an old oil platform. You create a military-like death zone around the platform, say going out 50 miles in all directions. It might be hard to protect something like this built in a city, but in the vast expanses of the ocean, not a problem.

      --
      Casca
    2. Re:Risky investment by Neil+Watson · · Score: 2
      Are you 100% garanteed to detect and destroy a submarine? Can you destroy any missiles fired at it?

      I would love to see the elevator built but he's right. How could it be defended from someone who doesn't care whether he lives or dies as long as the target is destroyed?

      --
      UNIX/Linux Consulting
    3. Re:Risky investment by Casca · · Score: 2

      Hell yes. Active sonar is a wonderful thing. Destroy a missile fired at it? Good luck getting close enough to fire one to begin with.


      How could it be defended from someone who doesn't care whether he lives or dies as long as the target is destroyed?

      I think we could make it reasonably difficult for even the most determined nut to be able to harm this thing. Hell, just make everyone who gets near it have to go through an MRI first, just to pick out the people with 5lbs of explosives packed where the sun doesn't shine.

      If we can build it, we should build it. If you aren't moving forward, then you're moving backwards.

      --
      Casca
    4. Re:Risky investment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If not by any accident, how many terrorists does it take to blow it up?

      Well, hopefully by then, greedy countries will stock fscking over the poor ones, creating the hatred and terrorists in the first place.

      But there isn't much money to be made in that situation, so it ain't gonna happen...

    5. Re:Risky investment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I would love to see the elevator built but he's right. How could it be defended from someone who doesn't care whether he lives or dies as long as the target is destroyed?

      If everyone listened to you, we'd never build houses, cars, airplanes, trains, or even communications networks.

      Sure there are crazies out there, but that's just another design constraint. This thing needs to be able to withstand any weather that nature can throw at it - hurricanes, thunderstorms, suacidal wackos, etc.. Just another engineering challenge.

    6. Re:Risky investment by Storm+Damage · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nothing can be protected 100% completely from attack by terrorists (or anyone for that matter). There is always a risk that if someone really wants to see something destroyed, they can do it.

      That said, however, putting a ribbon to space out in the middle of the ocean, away from any shipping lanes, international flight paths, or human activity at all is a good start at protection. It's HARD to get to a location that far removed from everything without anyone noticing (especially if that location is under constant watch and guard.

      Additionally, this operation, while not devoid of human workers, won't have so many people laboring at the anchor-station or on the cable to make a terrorist attack really that fruitful. There just isn't that much casualty potential (although the capital losses could be considerable).

      But capital is just money. And the neat thing about money is if you spend it on projects which create wealth, you're not really losing it. If the cable can operate for a few years, it will have paid for itself, anyway, and very likely several additional cables will be built to expand capacity. These cables will most likely expand radially from earth all around the equator, under the control of diverse groups of people. We already know that humans want to get out into space and explore it, even at considerable expense. The proposed budget for the cable is not chump change, but nor is it unreasonable when compared to other space projects. America alone has spent considerably more on the Space Shuttle program over the past 25 years, and for that money, we'd be able to lift up as much material (measured by tonnage) in 2-3 years as we have in all the Shuttle missions combined. So the real risk of huge financial loss is if a terrorist destroys the cable in that initial timeframe. Additionally, since most of the cost is in the research, design and development, rather than the construction and deployment, another cable could be built if the first one is destroyed (admittedly, if the first one is destroyed very quickly, there will be a huge political barrier to overcome before a second cable could be deployed).

      Also, since the thing is so cheap to operate, many more nations, companies, and individuals will be able to afford to undertake space-based projects.

      The thing is, if the whole world is given access to space, There won't be that much motivation to destroy the means to that access. If one country or company jealously hordes the cable and doesn't lease out usage to everyone else, that country or company will:

      1. Risk considerable reprisal, both in the form of economic sanctions by the rest of the world, possible military threats, and very likely terrorist threats

      2: Miss out on a fantastic opportunity to enhance the economy of the entire planet, and line its own pockets considerably in the process.

      Therefore, it will be in the interest of whoever builds such a machine to let the rest of the world use it as well, including the deployment of components for the construction of additional cables.

    7. Re:Risky investment by jukal · · Score: 2
      >You create a military-like death zone around
      > the platform, say going out 50 miles in all directions

      Did you forget that you do not need to only cover the land area? You need to look up (and you need VERY big googles) and cover every inch in that direction as well.

    8. Re:Risky investment by ivan256 · · Score: 2

      (admittedly, if the first one is destroyed very quickly, there will be a huge political barrier to overcome before a second cable could be deployed)

      There's an easy solution to this problem that can be summed up with a quote: "Why build one when you can buld two for twice the price" - S.R.Hadden

    9. Re:Risky investment by susano_otter · · Score: 2

      Not only do we already have at least one very big "google", but we already have very big "goggles" as well. Protecting facilities from airborne attackers is already trivial for nations with our level of technology and resources. A full-scale world war might jeopardize the elevator, but only if we were saturated with targets and for some reason the elevator was low on our list of things to defend (I imagine it would actually be right up in the Top Ten Things To Defend, alongside our military command infrastructure, our civil command infrastructure, and our industrial base). Terrorists using passenger planes, SCUD missiles, military surplus helicopter gunships, commandeered Coast Guard vessels, or whatever probably wouldn't stand a chance.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

    10. Re:Risky investment by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 2

      Wasnt there an earlier article on /. about this? Some guys did some research, and came to the conclusion that the price, while daunting, is not *that* high compared to other space travel endeavours, and will pay for itself in a relatively short time. If anything, they might built more once the first one is up... using the first to erect a second one would be quite feasible.

      Also... this thing would be rather easy to defend. The cable doesn't break just like that, and while it is very long, most of it will be at an altitude quite beyond most tin pot terrorists and most conventional weaponry.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    11. Re:Risky investment by sckienle · · Score: 1

      The real problem isn't when the ground base is destroyed. Done properly, destroying the ground base doesn't effect the cable, which is balanced against the ground base rather than pulling against it. I think I've read that at worse, the dynamics are such that the cable and the end station will lift out of earth orbit. The people on the cable in the station at the time can bail out with the life boats, which will hopefully be required and tested prior to starting this.

      OK, so what is the real problem? Most of the designs I've seen or heard about require the cable to be balanced at the top end by some weight in orbit, in one case this is a equal length of cable sent up into higher orbit. Now, what happens if this weight is cut off by a meteor or missile? You have a cable 2.5 times Earth's circumference crashing down to earth. Think about that. The earth's equator being whipped two and a half times by a cable strong enough to withstand the forces required for the space elevator!

      I'm not sure what the energy output looks like, but I would bet the results would not be pretty.

      --
      I don't see things in black and white; I see the gray. Heck, I actually see in color, which makes things more difficult
    12. Re:Risky investment by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How could it be defended from someone who doesn't care whether he lives or dies as long as the target is destroyed?

      How about removing the single point of failure?

      What if the cable split into a few hundred strands, and was anchored in such a way that it covered a good 1KM radius on the ground, with lots of room between the strands? Perhaps a fully-loaded 747 could take out a 747-wide swath of the cable ends, but it couldn't hit enough of them to threaten the overall integrity of the elevator.

      Basically, it's just an engineering problem. A single mass of cable would be pretty difficult to destroy already, and strategies like I've just described could make it even more difficult.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    13. Re:Risky investment by KillboyPHD · · Score: 1

      f one country or company jealously hordes the cable and doesn't lease out usage to everyone else, that country or company will:

      1. Risk considerable reprisal, both in the form of economic sanctions by the rest of the world, possible military threats, and very likely terrorist threats

      2: Miss out on a fantastic opportunity to enhance the economy of the entire planet, and line its own pockets considerably in the process.

      Don't forget 3, which is: If we don't make the Space Cable, The Terrorists Will Have Won (TTWHW).

      --
      Bah weep granah, weep ninny bong!
    14. Re:Risky investment by PhuCknuT · · Score: 1

      The results of a space elevator falling is the loss of a space elevator, not much else. Maybe a few thousand miles of it would reach the ground, the rest would burn up on reentry. And the part that does reach the ground (even if the whole thing fell in one piece) would have a very low terminal velocity, remember this is a ribbon shaped cable that weighs maybe than .1kg/meter (probably less, but i haven't done the math). It would basically float gently to the ground. Unless there was a climber on it, then it would fall pretty damn quick and burn up on reentry.

    15. Re:Risky investment by SashaM · · Score: 1

      Additionally, this operation, while not devoid of human workers, won't have so many people laboring at the anchor-station or on the cable to make a terrorist attack really that fruitful. There just isn't that much casualty potential (although the capital losses could be considerable).

      Can you imagine the tidal wave (not to mention earthquakes) created by this thing falling, wrapping around the equator? I'm too lazy to find it, but the last time this thing was discussed on slashdot, someone posted a calculation of how much energy this thin would store and what would happen if all of it got released when hitting the ground/water, and it wasn't a pretty scenario.

    16. Re:Risky investment by Storm+Damage · · Score: 2

      If you read the FAQ, you would know that a 1km-long section of the cable would weigh in at a whopping 7.5 kg (i.e. it's lighter than tissue paper). Yes, if you calculate mass alone, it holds a substantial amount of potential energy. But that energy is dispersed into the air across a HUUUUUGE surface-area to mass ratio, and the result is it would impact the surface with about as much force as a few tons of loose feathers or ticker-tape confetti.

      Big mess? Yes.

      Tidal Wave? More like a ripple.

    17. Re:Risky investment by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Dunno if you've ever heard of them, but they have these nifty things called "radars" nowaways.

    18. Re:Risky investment by MystikPhish · · Score: 1

      OK.

      Lets ASSUME, that terrorists can get at the cable at some point with a nuclear weapon. It would be nearly impossible to sneak one onto a cargo pod as all that stuff will probably be inspected and loaded by hand... So the best way is to stick a nuke in a plane and then fly it near the ribbon and BOOM. right?

      So lets say they manage to do this at um... around 65000 feet (not likely) and lets say that the weapon manages to vaporize/burn/shred 100 miles of ribbon above the blast. ok?

      So the terrorists have now destroyed about 113 miles of a ***60,000*** mile long ribbon. That's a whopping 0.002%...

      So, assuming that NASA/ESA/Whoever was planning on doing some maintenance at SOME POINT in the life cycle of the cable, and that probably SOME of the maintenance would be on the end closer to the orbiting station, there's probably SOME ribbon repair junk up there.

      So it takes them 7 days to send down a robot with enough ribbon to get the lowest 150 miles reattached and then the ground station can send up the mondo repairbots to fix the cable....

      So how does this prevent the cable from being back in operation in a few weeks, maybe months at most?

      And that's after some terrorists "blow it up" using a nuclear weapon!

      --
      "I'm about to drop the hammer and dispense some indiscriminate justice!"
    19. Re:Risky investment by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      Oh, well, since this is /.:

      3. ???

      4. Profit!

    20. Re:Risky investment by ManoMarks · · Score: 1

      So, let's see, they basically cut the ribbon into two pieces, one dangling from the top and one attached to the bottom. Whoops. The one attached to the ground station, say 50-65000 feet below, falls. Damage is done to ground station and probably a lot of stuff around it, ships and aircraft approaching. The push-pull between the ground and the orbiting station is disrupted. Gone, basically, and what happens? Well, for starters, there's wind currents, ripple effect from the blast, lack of anchor at the bottom, basically massive disruption to anyone on or attached to the ribbon going up. Possibly the orbiting station will lose it's connection to the ground and start to drift. I'm saying that you're looking at a substatial disruption in operations, not to meantion a considerable loss of life. Just the number of lawyers necessary to figure this all out would probably sink any island that it was anchored on.

      --

      That's gotta fit into your schema somewhere

    21. Re:Risky investment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while you're inventing nano-tubes you should just make them very elastic, so a 747 would bounce off of them like a rubber band.

    22. Re:Risky investment by smeg168 · · Score: 1

      yes that huge barrier could have something to do with if it were destoyed on the space side it very well may end up wrapping around the planet wich would kill thousands and massively change the landscape, alot like what happened in kim stanley robinson's blue mars if you will

    23. Re:Risky investment by dbrutus · · Score: 2

      The expensive part is getting the material up. The first cargo up should be several spare reels so you can drop a full sized replacement down. Sure you might lose the cargo and the elevator car but dropping a cable down in one step is going to be much less expensive (and much quicker) than shooting a cable up and then building it up in many stages.

      You could probably just have a control cabin attached to the bottom end with small rockets/jets to move the cable in place when it's lowered.

      Then the control cabin crew could play the ultimate game of moon lander.

    24. Re:Risky investment by dbrutus · · Score: 2

      Actually, that just changes the attack point and complicates the construction engineering. If you can get a catastrophic bomb into or onto the climbing elevator you just blow it at the appropriate point (whether by pressure switch, remote control or timer). There is no engineering solution other than make it so cheap and profitable that we can easily put them up faster than the terrorists can take them down and we have enough security that such events happen infrequently enough that each elevator before it dies is profitable. The 1st one is likely to be much more expensive than any other as subsequent ones can be droped down into the gravity well (parts having been elevatored up beforehand) instead of pushed up out of the gravity well.

    25. Re:Risky investment by dbrutus · · Score: 2

      Ummm... wrong. Terrorists, including the theoretical terrorists who are going to down this yet to be built space elevator, generally come from middle class backgrounds and are well educated in rapidly modernizing countries. They've lifted themselves out of the crap in their own societies and in college reallize just how far down the totem pole they truly are and are ashamed. They lash out at their betters in order to pull them down to their own level.

    26. Re:Risky investment by Enigma2175 · · Score: 2
      Are you 100% garanteed to detect and destroy a submarine?

      Maybe, but who cares? You destroy the base station and the ribbon is still just hanging there. The presence or absence of a tether to Earth makes no difference to the ribbon, it is still balanced. If you destroy the counterweight on the other end, then you have problems. I think the most risk lies with somebody getting an explosive device onboard one of the climbers as cargo (probably not very hard to do if this thing is carrying satellites to orbit) and detonating it as it nears GEO. This could very well destroy the ribbon.

      Of course we can't completely protect a space elevator. But we can't completely protect airplanes, buildings or bunkers either. But that should not prevent us from building it. If the Wright Brothers had known that one day some people would get killed from airplanes crashing into buildings do you think it would have stopped them from building planes? Terrorists are just the demon du jour, it was nuclear weapons in the 80s and in the 2020s maybe it will be germ weapons or orbiting death platforms. It seems people want to be scared of something. Why is it that when anything is proposed it all comes down to "How would the terrorists use it/blow it up?". Not everything in the world is related to terrorism. Of course I believe that structures like a space elevator should be protected as much as possible, but if someone is determined enough, they could certainly damage or destroy it. When someone hates your country enough that they are willing to kill themselves and many other people just to hurt your country, I don't think the answer is to attack their countries and make them hate you even more. A better solution would be to quit acting like such a jackass and maybe they wouldn't hate you so much.

      OK, I got off onto a tangent there, but my point is that we shouldn't let the fact that terrorists could possibly destroy something prevent us from building it.

      --

      Enigma

    27. Re:Risky investment by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
      Sigh.

      No, it won't.
      Read the articles and PDFs at highliftsystems.com.

      For example:
      Environmental Impact: In any large program the environmental impact must be
      considered. We are examining the impact of a catastrophic failure of the cable and
      how to mitigate this occurrence. If the cable comes down the worst case is that it
      will burn up on re-entry. The influx of material is small compared to natural infall or
      our current space operations      . The debris will be most likely be large pieces of cable
      but may include individual nanotubes. Our initial tests show that carbon nanotubes
      will not dissolve in lung fluids. The next test is to understand the inhalation rate and
      possibility of damage once inhaled.
      --
      Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
    28. Re:Risky investment by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

      The thing is, if the whole world is given access to space, There won't be that much motivation to destroy the means to that access.

      All it needs is for one maniac to declare that the space elevator is an abomination against allah, and that's all the motivation they need right there.

      The exclusion zone idea fails when the attacker doesn't care about their own lives. Can the elevator protect itself against a ballistic nuke travelling at hypersonic speeds? It doesn't matter that a satellite will instantly pinpoint the launch site; they want to be martyred anyway!

      Securing the elevator will probably be at least as hard as building it.

    29. Re:Risky investment by Storm+Damage · · Score: 2

      Very few people who are truly that crazy have access to hypersonic ballistic nukes. Add to that the difficulty of hitting a ribbon one meter wide and a fraction of a milimeter thick with a ballistic missile. The chances of someone taking it out at far range are fairly slim.

      Like I said, the danger can't be reduced to 0 possibility of a successful attack, but it can be reduced to a level low enough to justify the investment.

    30. Re:Risky investment by majestyk2000 · · Score: 1

      'What if the cable split into a few hundred strands, and was anchored in such a way that it covered a good 1KM radius on the ground, with lots of room between the strands?'

      That's actually a damn good idea. They could hire thousands of teenage girls to braid the thing right up to orbit!

    31. Re:Risky investment by roybadami · · Score: 1
      I assume you have to intentionally misbalance it somewhat, so that it's still under considerable tension at the bottom. Reasons:
      • You can tether it at the bottom, to prevent it drifting up; the only way to prevent it drifting down is to expend fuel on booster rockets on the counterweight
      • You almost certainly want to keep the entire structure in tension, so the tension at the bottom must exceed the largest load that the structure will carry, otherwise the load would place the lower portion in compression
    32. Re:Risky investment by Enigma2175 · · Score: 2

      Certainly it would have to be under some tension, but even with the tension in the line I doubt the base station being destroyed would be catastrophic. The ribbon might have some backlash from the sudden release, but it should stay intact.

      --

      Enigma

    33. Re:Risky investment by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

      Very few people who are truly that crazy have access to hypersonic ballistic nukes. Add to that the difficulty of hitting a ribbon one meter wide and a fraction of a milimeter thick with a ballistic missile. The chances of someone taking it out at far range are fairly slim.

      I have to confess that I have no idea whether they do or they don't - after all, the US and UK are about to fight a war on the basis that they do, or at least will soon, have strategic weapons.

      And the beauty of a nuke, if you can call it that, is that you can miss by miles and the pressure wave will still take our your target very effectively.

  21. Re:Oh great, one more reason for Bush to intervene by Docrates · · Score: 3, Informative

    After a cruise through tropical waters, you arrive at a large, anchored platform in the middle of the Pacific Ocean

    The very first few lines of the article. The anchor would be a modified oiling platform, not a tower in ecuadro, Brasil or Peru (which, BTW, are NOT anti-american). This platforms are located outside any countries jurisdiction.

    --

    There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
  22. More info by Truckle · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here are some more links to info on our very own Slashdot:

    Here
    Here..
    Here..
    and Here

  23. I can just hear the laughter by airrage · · Score: 2, Funny

    I can just hear the laughter from outer-space:
    "GLeebob, come here quick look what those silly humans are trying. Yup, they're trying the ladder-thingy. Remember when we tried the ladder-thingy..Ooooh, that was a dumb-idea. What will they do next, human-pyramid? Come on humans, bang those rocks together..."

    --
    "This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
    1. Re:I can just hear the laughter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooooooooooh look, Iraq has nukes! This is going to be coooooooool!

    2. Re:I can just hear the laughter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silly Asses.

  24. This is stupid beyobd measure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, isn't this like the 10000th time this has been posted on /. over the years?

  25. Re:Oh great, one more reason for Bush to intervene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US already has property closer to the equator than anywhere in India. Whip out your atlas and take a look at Jarvis Island or Baker Island - They are a ways south of Hawaii.

  26. Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YHBT! HAND!

    SWEET! I got a bite from someone with a UID < 30k! It'll look great on my troll resume.

  27. Really good NASA article by Tidan · · Score: 5, Informative

    Here's a nice sized (15MB) report done by NASA. They talk about all sorts of problems that need to be worked out to make get this project off the ground http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_repor t/pdf/472Edwards.pdf

    --
    free ipod? yeah.
    1. Re:Really good NASA article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They talk about all sorts of problems that need to be worked out to make get this project off the ground

      Nice.

  28. Re:Oh great, one more reason for Bush to intervene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The equator DOES NOT pass through India or Venezuala ..

    The equator passes through 13 countries: Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Sao Tome & Principe, Gabon, Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Kenya, Somalia, Maldives, Indonesia and Kiribati.

    Equador and Brazil are both relatively close .. and relatively friendly.

  29. Why not just use a Honda Civic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the stupid racers "ricing" their civics out, I'm sure if you combined a few of them together with some tape we'd be able to launch everything cheaply out of the earth.

    Shit, even if we don't succeed, we'll have a few less ricers to wory about!

  30. Erlang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    If the system software were written in Erlang, that won't be a problem.

    Of course, those kitten-fucking pigs'll use Java, dooming millions to an icy grave in the sky...

    1. Re:Erlang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...dooming millions to an icy grave in the sky...

      I've already started the screenplay for "Space 'vators." Sigourney Weaver can play the tough chick battling the evil alien and the unresponsive elevator. "Come on, God damn it!!!"

      "In space, no one can hear you scream between floors."

  31. Wow... I had a dream! by azteca79 · · Score: 1

    This is weird, the other night I had a dream that I was in Paris, near the Eiffel tower and I saw a cable going up to the sky, and I remember one slashdot story I had read about a space elevator.

    This is real, I really had this dream about 2 days ago.

    --
    EHC
    1. Re:Wow... I had a dream! by TheWickedKingJeremy · · Score: 1

      Wow... I had a dream!

      *golf clap*

      --

      my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
    2. Re:Wow... I had a dream! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, wow that is so weird!!

      I had a dream the other night too, that I was reading an article on slashdot about a space elevator, and someone posted an article about how he had had a dream about the Eiffel tower and he had seen a cable going up into the sky, and had remembered a story that he had read on slashdot about a space elevator.

      This is real, I really had this dream about 2 days ago.

  32. Elevator + Orion = Fun! by peacefinder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why stop with one seemingly improbable concept?

    Once the elevator is built, use it to haul pieces of an Orion craft to the top and assemble it there. When it's ready, let it go, flinging it out of Earth's magnetic field. Once clear, light it up and go see the solar system.

    This way there's no radioactive contamination of the atmosphere, minimal risk while getting the "fuel" in orbit, and it's a handy way to get a crapload of plutonium out of our hair.

    Saturn in fifteen years, anyone?

    --
    With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
    1. Re:Elevator + Orion = Fun! by breadbot · · Score: 1

      Just make sure you have a good driver up there!

    2. Re:Elevator + Orion = Fun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why stop with one seemingly improbable concept?

      GOD?

    3. Re:Elevator + Orion = Fun! by Alsee · · Score: 2

      When it's ready, let it go, flinging it out of Earth's magnetic field.

      I have a better idea. How about we build the spacecraft out of WOOD, that way we don't have to worry about Earth's magnetic field at all?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    4. Re:Elevator + Orion = Fun! by peacefinder · · Score: 1

      Heh. Maybe some genetically engineered bamboo?

      Seriously, the reason I mentioned the magnetic field is because (theoretically speaking) if one sets off an Orion pulse unit (also known as a fission bomb) within the magnetic field, it pretty much guarantees that most of the radioactive debris eventually falls into the atmosphere. (I read Mr. Dyson's book, y'see...)

      Lighting it off in orbit would drop a small, but non-trivial, amount of radioactive crap on the planet. (A ground launch would, of course, be much worse.) It seems to me that it would save ever so much argument if it were to be boosted out of the field first. An elevator would make this step relatively easy.

      --
      With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
    5. Re:Elevator + Orion = Fun! by Timmeh · · Score: 2

      For those who are confused: Just a while ago there was this book review. "Project Orion: The True Story of the Atomic Spaceship" By George Dyson. Looks like an interesting read, I'll have to pick it up next time I'm at the library.

  33. Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES! by Lord+Apathy · · Score: 2, Informative

    Well to be truthful, if it matters, it won't really matter. If the thing is made of "nano tubes" some fucker flies a plane into it all we will do is hose it off and go right back to business.

    --

    Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification

  34. out of curiosity... by Nate+Fox · · Score: 2

    Discovered in 1991, carbon nanotubes are long molecular tubes of carbon atoms that resemble cylinders of minuscule chicken wire (SN: 12/16/00, p. 398). The bonds between carbon atoms in this configuration are so robust that, weight-for-weight, carbon nanotubes are at least 100 times as strong as steel. They are, in fact, the strongest material known. A carbon-nanotube string half the width of a pencil can support more than 40,000 kilograms, Edwards notes. That's equivalent to the weight of 20 full-size cars.

    How much could spiders' silk hold if it were that thick? I've heard that its quite a bit stronger than steel, but is it more than 100?

    1. Re:out of curiosity... by (trb001) · · Score: 3, Funny

      How much could spiders' silk hold if it were that thick?

      I can't answer that question, but I *can* say you'd need a lot of friggin spiders...

    2. Re:out of curiosity... by Nihilanth · · Score: 2

      they're creating spidersilk in the udders of goats now, it's called "biosteel". Hooray for genetic engineering! It's really inefficient to harvest silk from spiders, because they're too territorial. The protein from spider silk gets mass-produced in a milk-producing creature, where it can be harvested in huge quantities. Thing is though, from what i remember, biosteel biodegrades (go figure).

      I still want my bulletproof spidersilk trenchcoat, though.

    3. Re:out of curiosity... by Snar+Bloot · · Score: 2
      So....would you envision 1 really huge spider to spew out that silk, or a whole shitload of normal spiders.

      Sounds like a bad sci-fi plot...earth overrun with zillions of spiders as a result of a space elevator project gone awry.

    4. Re:out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How much could spiders' silk hold if it were that thick? I've heard that its quite a bit stronger than steel, but is it more than 100?
      I don't know about the relative strengths, but even if they weren't too far apart, it's sounding like manufacturing carbon nanotubes in commercial quantities is going to wind up being an easier nut to crack than manufacturing spider's silk.

      The thing I'm unclear on is how a bundle of nanotubes are bonded to each other. Is there a molecular attraction between them that I'm missing or must they be mechanically woven into strands that in turn are woven into rope? It seems like it could be an awfully long time before we'll be able to buy nanotube shoelaces for $2.99 at WalMart.

    5. Re:out of curiosity... by slide-rule · · Score: 1

      I *believe* (and may be corrected if wrong) that the aphorism you refer to is about spider silk having a better *ratio* of strength to weight than steel, not that it has a better tensile strength. Since I'll wager spider silk is a lot lighter than an equivalent diameter carbon nanotube, you're question is a bit mis-worded.

    6. Re:out of curiosity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think I'd want to run into a spider that big!

  35. I knew it by Docrates · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The minute I saw it on slashdot, just like the last time, I knew people would go into the "this is just impossible" mode without at least giving it a shot.

    Ok, I'll bite. READ THIS (warning, it's a pdf file), and once you do, say it again. I'm not saying this paper is wrong, but it's enough information to realize that there's no one thing preventing it form happening. Not even money, as it would all cost about the same as the International Space Station. The one thing that doesn't exist as of yet is the nanotube wire, which feasbility is clearly only a matter of time. So if the existance of the Space Elevator depends on the existance of a 90,000 Km long nanotube wire (the fabric industry is used to threads this long, again, read the paper), then there's no doubt that it will become a reality.

    The space elevator is doing for me what the apollo program did for my parent's genration: It's giving me an overdose of inspiration.

    --

    There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
    1. Re:I knew it by dubiousmike · · Score: 2

      I hear you. I got the same feeling from reading Clarke's book when I was 12.

      And of course, in the age of instant gratification, I want it now!

    2. Re:I knew it by rworne · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The minute I saw it on slashdot, just like the last time, I knew people would go into the "this is just impossible" mode without at least giving it a shot.
      Considering all the bullshit these "people" believe on a daily basis, I would not doubt that at all.
      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    3. Re:I knew it by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 2

      It inspires me also. Good post.

      Some people worry about terrorists attacks but that shouldn't stop us from building it.

      In fact, if done correctly as an multi national effort, with Russia, China, etc, an attack on the elevator would be an attack on all nations involved.

      Besides, screw the mile high club and start working on the zero-g club!

      --
      Live web cams
    4. Re:I knew it by David+Roundy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Ok, I'll bite. READ THIS [highliftsystems.com] (warning, it's a pdf file), and once you do, say it again.

      This is just impossible! :)

      But seriously, I did read it. Well, really just the section about nanotubes, and if the rest of the paper is equally fallacious, I think that would serve as pretty conclusive evidence of the imposibility of the space elevator. Using a combination of an overestimate of the strength of nanotubes with an underestimate of their density, the author uses a strength/mass ratio that is twice as large as the UPPER bound on the strength of nanotubes (which is the ideal strength). In practice the ideal tensile strength is typically many times higher than the yield strength. In case you're wondering, this is based on density functional calculations I performed myself--far better than the crude estimates refered to in the paper. And yes, I did just check his source. It's a review paper that refers to an extrapolation of a strength based on a strain from a tight-binding molecular dynamics calculation which the authors recommend taking with a grain of salt.

      On the experimental side, noone has yet (to my knowledge) produced a composite based on nanotubes which is actually particularly strong. Even if these composites are developed (and probably eventually nanotube composites will surpas carbon fiber composites), they are guaranteed to pay a major hit in strength/mass due to the mass of the epoxy. Look for more like a factor of two over carbon fiber composites, rather than the factor of 50 or so advertised.

      As mentioned in the paper, the mass of cabling needed is extremely sensitive to the strength/mass ratio. I don't know the relation (since I haven't looked up the Pearson paper), but he mentions that if you diminish the strength/mass ratio by a factor of 50 (using kevlar) from his fictitious nanotube ratio, the mass goes up by about a factor of 100,000. With an overestimate of the strength of nanotubes of at least a factor of two, probably much more, it seems highly unlikely that the cost of the elevator (already estimated to be rather high) will be within reason, and for all I know there may similar "rounding up" going on in the rest of the paper.

  36. What's Really Going On Here by Baldrson · · Score: 0, Troll
    If you thought defending infrastructure like The World Trade Center required giving up your rights, what do you think you'll have to give up to defend gargantuan centralized infrastructure like this?

    All this talk of a huge centralized project is just a response to the inevitability of NASA being shown to be what it is: A social control device to impede the dispersal of life long enough for bureaucratic structures to adapt to the freedom promised by cheap access to space. As pressure builds from the best news since the transistor that has recently come out of India combined with the real response to it from the West coming out of Texas, we'll see more and more of this kind of talk from the bureaucrats.

    --
    Seastead this.
  37. Blew it in Bolivia by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 2

    Well - he blew it in Bolivia. I bet he'll try again, though.

    --

    Stop the brainwash

  38. We already have a space elevator . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and it's called my penis. Grab onto it, show me a picture of Cindy Crawford, and you'll be in LEO in the the bat of an eye.

  39. *ding* by joe_bruin · · Score: 5, Funny

    top floor: shoes, ladies ligerie, space. please mind the gap.

    1. Re:*ding* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah! The first steps a doozy!

    2. Re:*ding* by Dannon · · Score: 2

      You realize, of course, that the muzak industry is going to make a killing.

      --
      Good judgment comes from experience.
      Experience comes from bad judgment.
  40. NO PICTURES by mcrbids · · Score: 2

    Does anybody remember a /. article a while back link to this story about how carbon nanotubes cannot handle bursts of common, ordinary light?

    Yes, that's right! A standard camera flash will cause carbon nanotubes to explode!

    Check out the link, there's a neat video showing this effect at work.

    I can just see it now, on the front page of the newspaper... Tourist arrested for carrying terrorist device and it's just a FLASH CAMERA!

    Yeah, I'm excited that the technology to do this is just now barely within our reach - but it'll be a while before it's squarely in our grasp.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:NO PICTURES by Krieger · · Score: 2

      Mod parent up... I do remember that... I'm curious what the destructive power of a large nanotube cable would be, especially since the small ones created visible explosions (not large, but visible).

      It's almost as much fun to ponder as what would happen if the cable snapped and fell ala Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy.

    2. Re:NO PICTURES by Nihilanth · · Score: 2

      i can't imagine it would be too dificult to surround the carbon nanotubes with an opaque sheath. i mean, really. I doubt they would build a structure that would explode if you took a picture of it, especially when you consider things like, oh, i dunno, lightning.

    3. Re:NO PICTURES by jakobk · · Score: 1

      Only single-walled nanotubes ignite, while multi-walled ones don't.

  41. On the other hand... by Scratch-O-Matic · · Score: 2

    you and the secretary could get it on, and it wouldn't have to be a quicky.

    --


    Evil is the money of root.
    1. Re:On the other hand... by HedRat · · Score: 2, Funny

      You'll probably wish it had been a quicky after listening to two weeks of "The Girl From Ipanema".

    2. Re:On the other hand... by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      you and the secretary could get it on, and it wouldn't have to be a quicky.

      For 7 days? Who do you think you are, Sting?

  42. Doubt it by geek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I watched someone talk about their plans for doing just this on TV about a month ago. I can't remember what show exactly.

    Basically it was a ribbon that started somewhere in the Pacific on some island and went straight up into space attached to an anchor. The ribbon was paper thin but wide and incredibly strong. The reason for it being thin was because of wind resistence which is a major factor especially when its an area with tropical storms. It also had to be a no fly zone since if a plane clipped it, either the ribbon would go or the plane would be cut in half.

    It sounded all well and good but the price was hefty and implimenting it sounds near impossible. It would save us a lot of money in the long run considering how much space shuttle launches cost. I just can't see it being reliable. You wouldn't catch me riding on it, thats for sure.

    One thing I do know, if they get it to work then it'll be one of the greatest engineering feats ever. I hope they can do it, but I doubt they will.

    1. Re:Doubt it by Jeremi · · Score: 2
      I just can't see it being reliable. You wouldn't
      catch me riding on it, thats for sure.


      Consider that the alternative is riding into space on an exploding bomb. Maybe you'd be happiest just staying on the ground. ;^)

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  43. go spacenoids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sig Zeon!

  44. It's easy by theonomist · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cars will be drawn to the top of the elevator by a team of trained mules, hitched to a rope of a length roughly 1.8 times the circumference of the Earth. We anticipate only minor difficulties obtaining a right-of-way through most nations (with the possible exception of Sweden, because they're lame).

    The mules will be fed and cared for by dedicated and highly trained staffpersons. At the end of their useful lifespan, most retired mules will be adopted by loving families everywhere. Unclaimed mules will be shot, as will be unclaimed members of loving families. Irresponsible and gratuitously hostile critics, who clearly do not have the best interests of humanity in mind, will be shot also.

    On special occasions and international holidays, children of all races, creeds, colors, and nationalities, clothed in their quaint and colorful native garb, will be invited to throw superballs and apples from the top of the elevator. They will be charged only a nominal fee for this unique privilege. Highly sophisticated surveillance technology will enable all the world to enjoy the festivities!

    We are now accepting investments in this historic, one-of-a-kind investment opportunity, not to be missed by the progressive and forward-thinking investors of our great nation. We anticipate incalculable earnings; we also anticipate neglecting to calculate them. Please give us all of your money right now and I promise you'll not regret having been so easily gulled.

    --
    "Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive" -- hey, that's me!
    1. Re:It's easy by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2

      Cars will be drawn to the top of the elevator by a team of trained mules, hitched to a rope of a length roughly 1.8 times the circumference of the Earth. We anticipate only minor difficulties obtaining a right-of-way through most nations (with the possible exception of Sweden, because they're lame).

      that must be why they still give the ratings of rocket ships in horse power. Each shuttle booster was something like 1.2 million or billion horsepower right? Plus the shuttles main engines, that should equal out some somewhere around 4 million or billion mules.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  45. And if it fell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We could have a kewl ribbon around the earth with a nice little bow....

  46. I have a better idea: #@ +1; Innovative @# by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    "With a development like this, we could shoot entire boy bands into space and make the world a better place."

    With a development like this, we could shoot The Chump-In-Charge into space and make the world a better place."

  47. Re:Oh great, one more reason for Bush to intervene by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1

    like when we needed oil in the 70s, we just annexed saudi arabia. Oh wait, we didn't.
    In the 80s when the japanese auto makers were killing us in the markets, we led a coup there. Hmm, we didn't do that either. Kuwait? We put back the same government that was there before saddam attacked. Check your history... when have we EVER installed a pro-american government in order to obtain resources? We have done so for other reasons, mostly to replace totalitarian dictatorships with democracy. But we have never done this to get resources.

  48. Nah... by McCart42 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sounds like more of a Shelbyville idea...

    --
    "I may be quite wrong." - Socrates
    1. Re:Nah... by jemoody · · Score: 1

      I've sold space elevators to Brockway, Ogdenville and North Haverbrook, and it's put them on the map!

  49. First is the Hardest, Sending one to Mars by brandido · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One of the things that I find interesting about the whole process of the Space Elevator principle is the idea that after the first one, it is possible to relatively easily spawn of daughter cables, so that if the first one took 2.5 years, subsequent ones would take less than a year. Not only does this provide for additional capacity, it raises the possibility of selling cables! It also makes the first entrant into the Space Elevator arena almost automatically dominant.

    Additionally, you can create a daughter cable, and then use the cable to sling the entire daughter cable to the red planet - suddenly, we have a means to get to Geo Earth orbit, a way to sling stuff to Mars (using the cable) and a way to get down to the surface of Mars, and back up! This is probably the most feasible way that I have heard of to explore Mars.

    --
    First Falcon-1 to orbit, then Falcon-9. Then I can die a happy man.
  50. Hmm by ShooterNeo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Couple of points :

    There are obviously enormous difficulties with building this cable, with having it survive lightning strikes, deliberate damage ( could a single guided rocket with an armor piercing molten jet warhead destroy this wire in one hit? If that happened, wouldn't the $10,000 missile have caused 50 billion worth of damage or more...everyone knows that a project like this is going to cost 10 times the current estimate), the mechanical wear as the spacecraft slowly claw there way up...

    A far simpler and cheaper solution is a massive ground based laser array. (which incidentally is how they are proposing to power this thing...why not skip the cable and build a much bigger laser). The beam would vaporize propellant attached to the bottom of the spacecraft, eliminating perhaps 90% of the danger of rocket travel (the rocket blowing up has always been the biggest risk...if it uses a nonvolatile, inert propellant) and reducing the cost to a tiny fraction of current expenses.

    Since the laser system would be a large array, it would not have to be built to nearly the quality standards that a manned spacecraft has to be constructed to since if one of the lasers burns out, blows up, ect the rest of the system picks up the slack.

    1. Re:Hmm by f97tosc · · Score: 1

      A far simpler and cheaper solution is a massive ground based laser array. (which incidentally is how they are proposing to power this thing...why not skip the cable and build a much bigger laser). The beam would vaporize propellant attached to the bottom of the spacecraft, eliminating perhaps 90% of the danger of rocket travel (the rocket blowing up has always been the biggest risk...if it uses a nonvolatile, inert propellant) and reducing the cost to a tiny fraction of current expenses.

      Hum. There is obviously a huge difference between the two propulsion systems. The space elevator version would use electric motors, powered by solar cells, which in turn got their power from a laser.

      What you are saying is that shooting the laser on a more traditional rocket would make it 90% more efficient. Could you elaborate on that...? I don't think I buy the quality argument either. The risk of normal rockets is not that they loose some fraction of their output and then fall down. Rather, they tend to fail rather violently when something goes wrong. I don't think an array of extremely powerful lasers will change that.

      Tor

    2. Re:Hmm by f97tosc · · Score: 1

      Ups, I misread your comment a bit. Please ignore my previous post.

      Let me start over. If I understand the idea correctly, the main advantage of your system is that you claim that it is safer than today's rockets.

      But really, safety is not the main problem of today's rockets. The main problem is that it is so darn expensive to get something into orbit, even when everything works. The space elevator suggests a (still unrealistic, I agree) way to dramatically reduce these costs.

      If the laser ignited propellants could lift at the same cost then clearly your solution is much better, but is that indeed the case? It is not like such a propulsion system has anything to do with the elevator propulsion system. It seems to me that you have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. Sure, this is simpler and safer, but does it address the problem that the elevator is designed to solve?

      Tor

    3. Re:Hmm by ShooterNeo · · Score: 2

      1. The actual propulsion system is ON THE GROUND. That means : it can weigh any arbitrary amount, take up lots of space (so you can easily maintain it), you can add tremendous redundancy (no reason not to have a duplicate or triplicate copy of everything). It doesn't have to endure the stresses of launch and reentry, and once one spacecraft is up you can start it right back up and launch another one right after. Thus, in reality only one engine is used to power the entire space program rather than needing one for every spacecraft. 2. More than 95% of the mass of the space shuttle is the fuel. This fuel has to both act as propellant and to supply the energy involved. In addition, you get an infinite series when calculating the amount of fuel needed (because every gram of fuel added means you need more fuel to carry that fuel and so forth) : this is why the number is so large. In a laser launch system, the energy comes from a big electric power plant on the ground, converted to light. This light heats the inert propellant at the bottom of the rocket to far higher temperatures than burning hydrogen can achieve, and does so in pulses generating a shockwave parallel to the rocket (so no nozzle is needed to focus the force). Only a tiny amount of propellant is needed...most of the mass of the rocket would be payload. This means less energy is actually needed, even with losses due to conversion and scattering as the light goes through the clouds. (because in current rockets most of the fuel is needed right at takeoff, when the mass of the rest of the fuel must be lifted as well as the payload. This is GROSSLY inefficient) Its not the energy that costs all the money, anyway : its building spacecraft that can handle the enormous stresses involved and maintaining them. This technology would greatly reduce the main stresses on the system (no longer does the spacecraft have a huge, complex, expensive engine system that must somehow contain millions of pounds of explosives. Instead there is just a big block of material, some gas attitude thrusters, gyroscopes, fins, and a reentry burn engine.

    4. Re:Hmm by ShooterNeo · · Score: 2

      The cost with todays rockets is a direct result OF THE SAFETY ISSUE. Go read up on what they do to the space shuttle after every flight. Its actually cheaper to build a whole new rocket than to try to be absolutely certain you can reuse the current one. (which is partly why the Russians can do it so much cheaper) For commercial satellite launches, 5% of the BLOW UP OR DON't MAKE IT.

    5. Re:Hmm by f97tosc · · Score: 1

      For commercial satellite launches, 5% of the BLOW UP OR DON't MAKE IT.

      Which would indicate, that if they could be made perfectly safe, there would be a 5% decrease in average cost (no longer need for the now customary insurance worth 5% of the launch cost).

      The idea of an elevator is to reduce costs by say 90 or 95%.

      Tor

    6. Re:Hmm by ShooterNeo · · Score: 2

      That statistic was just to show that WITHOUT the extremely expensive work put into the space shuttle, it might blow up 5% of the time. So it HAS TO BE DONE with current chememical rockets (because 5% death rate is an unacceptable risk) If the system were not nearly so complex, expensive, and requiring so much maintanence it would be a LOT cheaper. Not to say that it wouldn't still be relatively expensive for ordinary people to go to space, but it would be at least within the ballpark.

  51. worried about terrorists? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember this article?

    http://slashdot.org/science/02/04/26/1213220.sht ml ?tid=134

    I'd be more frightened of the thing blowing up at the crack of dawn... er firecracker of dawn?

  52. Impractical for the near future by wpmegee · · Score: 2, Informative

    For example, the base tower would have to be 31 miles high, according to this article. Which is 90 times higher than the current tallest structure on earth, the CN Tower in Toronto, Canada is only 1/3 of a mile (about 170 stories) high.

    There is also talk about using carbon nanotubes to make up the cable. The pricetag, 40 billion dollars (see 2nd link).

    1. Re:Impractical for the near future by leoc · · Score: 1

      FWIW, the CN Tower is not the worlds tallest structure, it is the worlds tallest free standing structure. There are towers that are taller, but they are held up by cables.

      --
      STFU about slashdot bias.
  53. Frivolous waste, just for a GEO by sharkey · · Score: 1, Troll

    NASA spends $1,000,000 plus to built a space-pen, the Russians use a pencil. Now, they are building a space elevator to get down the street to buy a cheap car that couldn't hit 55 if it was droped out of a plane.

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    1. Re:Frivolous waste, just for a GEO by Soft · · Score: 2
      NASA spends $1,000,000 plus to built a space-pen, the Russians use a pencil.

      Oh, that urban legend again? Pencils are hazardous in weightlessness; both NASA and the Soviets used them at first, then both switched to the SpacePen when it became available.

    2. Re:Frivolous waste, just for a GEO by mlong · · Score: 2
      NASA spends $1,000,000 plus to built a space-pen, the Russians use a pencil. Now, they are building a space elevator to get down the street to buy a cheap car that couldn't hit 55 if it was droped out of a plane.

      That's an urban legend. See for yourself

      --
      //m
    3. Re:Frivolous waste, just for a GEO by TaoJones · · Score: 1
      NASA spends $1,000,000 plus to built a space-pen



      Nope, urban myth. The "Space Pen" was developed by Paul Fisher (the founder of the Fisher pen company).
      NASA didn't spend a dime on it. Thank you for playing, please try again when you have a clue what you're talking about.
      __


      Smile, it's National Random Knife Attack Day!
      Unknown

      --
      "Fear is the rootkit of democracy.." Blarkon
  54. Seriously though.... by mao+che+minh · · Score: 1
    Are there any comprehensive articles floating around the web detailing the potential savings that such systems would deliver when compared to conventional rockets? (google searches are delivering hundreds of articles about the technology and the companies eager to continue their development, but nothing concerning costs) Pardon me for my laziness if I missed an obvious link in the article.

    A thought/question I had though: would the best places to build such elevators be at the poles or the equator? I am having a hard time picturing it in my head, but a globe tilted to one side spinning through an airless void - I can't see how the positioning of such a system in one location on the globe would be more favorable to any other. Weather systems, perhaps, which would rule out Antartica (the Winter storms there are so violent that they generate the great Summer waves of California and Alaska - but I guess a site full of geeks already knew that).

    1. Re:Seriously though.... by alwayslurking · · Score: 2, Informative

      Equator, since (a)the Earth is an oblate spheroid and the Equator is higher than the poles (b) slingshot effect wouldn't apply at the poles. Same logic explains the Russian sea launches which allow rockets to save a chunk of fuel by getting as equatorial as possible and the French using Guyana for Ariadne.

  55. Re:Oh great, one more reason for Bush to intervene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Panama

  56. Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    [voiceover="tom selleck"]
    Can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of low Earth orbit space elevators...

    [voiceover="tom selleck", tone="enraged"]
    SHOVED UP YOUR ASS?!!!
    [/voiceover]



    (damn Taco, what happened to &lt & &gt?!!)

  57. Re:Oh great, one more reason for Bush to intervene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what the fuck resources are there? a fucking obsolete canal system?

  58. Short term option by alwayslurking · · Score: 4, Informative

    You don't need to tether the end, you can still get some very healthy benefits with a partial elevator. Deals with a lot of the security issues too. Cargo craft only need to fly to the low end and ride the rotation to the top where they can slingshot off. Using the Earth's magnetic field and solar power means it's self-stabilising too. More detail and better writing at; Free David Brin Short Story

  59. One obvious benefit of this... by Scratch-O-Matic · · Score: 2

    it will be much easier for NASA to make fake photos of future "moon missions."

    --


    Evil is the money of root.
  60. Re:Oh great, one more reason for Bush to intervene by Nihilanth · · Score: 2

    who says this is going to have anything to do with the government? Just because NASA tends to have a monopoly on the endeavor currently? I'm sure a private enterprise would erect the structure faster and far more cost-efficiently than NASA could.

  61. Re:Oh great, one more reason for Bush to intervene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chile, 1973. The USA has overthrown many democratically elected governments in order to oust socialist parties.

  62. Repopularizing space travel by Zathrus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ok, as much as we all laugh at Lance, or whatever his name is, from N'Sync trying to go into space, I think it was moronic of everyone involved not to make sure this happened, that he got up there and back safely, and had one hell of a good time.

    The entire space program has been gradually fading from world view, and particularly from the Western world. Yes, there are programs still going on at NASA and ESA and even in China, but it's nowhere near what was hoped for in the 1960s and 70s. Putting a high profile celebrity into space would bring a lot of attention back to the space program. Would it be fleeting? Of course. That's what media attention is nowadays. But it would probably enspire a lot young kids to go to space, just as the early US and Soviet astro/cosmonauts did nearly half a century ago.

    1. Re:Repopularizing space travel by airdrummer · · Score: 1

      hey, the ultimate incentive 2 get liberals onboard is 2 remind them that the only name 2 appear at the top of every manned lunar lander is... richard m. nixon

  63. Maybe... by tomthebomb · · Score: 0

    Oh my god, next thing we will have is space amusment rides. "Freefall 7 miles!"

  64. Re:Oh great, one more reason for Bush to intervene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > mostly to replace totalitarian dictatorships with democracy.

    Like when we set up our friend Somoza in Nicaragua, and our buddy Noriega in Panama, the beloved last Shah of Iran, and the wonderful Pinochet in Chile? Oh yeah, that's democracy for you, and all thanks to the US! While I see your point, it's more accurate to say we've installed whatever government we could that opposed Communism. Which often resulted in a totalitarian dictatorship.

  65. Re:Oh great, one more reason for Bush to intervene by mother+pussbucket · · Score: 1

    Mohammed Reza Pahlav: the shah of Iran. Made us lots of friends.

    Is that you Ollie?

    --
    Yes, it's true. This man has no dick.
  66. Re:Oh great, one more reason for Bush to intervene by Iguanaphobic · · Score: 2

    Before the canal. Study history in any other country and you'd know about the French, the private sector and how lawyers got a bad name. Study history in America... ???

    --
    Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power.
  67. Wierd coincidence by David+Price · · Score: 2

    With a development like this, we could shoot entire boy bands into space and make the world a better place.

    To the author: are you channeling the Rice University Marching Owl Band today? We just performed a show in which we advocated the launching of boy bands into space. Is this a great-minds-think-alike thing, or did you spend some time at Reliant Stadium this weekend? :)

    1. Re:Wierd coincidence by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      No, it's just Slashdot repeating the same tired old joke over and over again.

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  68. uh oh... by pitc · · Score: 2, Funny

    hopefully venus doesn't think we're trying to mate...

    --
    aoeu
    1. Re:uh oh... by Thugwold · · Score: 1

      But Mars might think we are gay...

  69. Re:The Babel effect by mlong · · Score: 2
    The problem with something this tall is that it will inevitably be destroyed, and we will be scattered throughout the earth and forced to speak different languages.

    Or it will just get blown up/flown into/cut down by terrorists.

    --
    //m
  70. Why it can't work (repair delay, debris, current) by Tsar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Think of the space elevator structure as a 100,000-km-long highway that will require ongoing maintenance and repair," says Smitherman.

    How unrealistic can an analogy be? If a crack forms in some remote stretch of interstate, there's no danger of the rest of the interstate system suddenly ripping away and falling into space. Repairs would have to happen instantaneously without ever breaking an almost unimaginable ribbon tension. And this wouldn't be a very rare occurrence, either, as the ribbon would present a surface area of five to eleven million square meters on each side (5 to 11.5 cm wide, 10^8 meters long). And remember that it's on the equator, which every piece of orbiting debris crosses twice during each orbit.

    And the only mentioned solution for lightning strikes (one of which could be fatal to the ribbon) seems almost totally unworkable, and doesn't take into account that a 100,000-kilometer-high conductive tower would generate its own lightning. Remember the ill-fated (but educational) Space Tether Experiment? And the tether was only a mile long. A space elevator's ribbon would intersect a huge chord of Earth's magnetic field, including both Van Allen Belts. Seems to me that, even if the ribbon didn't immediately blow like a giant flash-bulb filament, you still couldn't get within a hundred yards of the base due to the continuous electrical discharge.

    Don't get me wrong--I've dreamed about space elevators since I was a kid reading about Clarke's hyperfilaments, but the more I think about it, the more unworkable it seems.

  71. Highlift Systems FAQ by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 5, Informative

    Will the wire generate power?

    Yes, but only in the milliwatts.

    Tim

    --
    Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
  72. Re:Oh great, one more reason for Bush to intervene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks, but do you have a witty mnemonic for that?

  73. I'll bite. by eraserbones · · Score: 1

    > when have we EVER installed a pro-american
    > government in order to obtain resources?

    I believe the fellow was referring to Panama, a country that didn't even exist until the US decided that they wanted to build a canal there.

    Come to think of it, I believe the equator runs through Columbia. Time for a second helping?

    1. Re:I'll bite. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      "...Panama, a country that didn't even exist until the US decided..."

      You're right. At the time Colombia owned that territory, and the government refused to allow the US to build the canal. So the US helped a group of rebels who opposed the Colombian government. We asked that they give us full rights to the canal (which Carter later overturned) and the revolution was a success. Voila, a new country called Panama, friendly to the US with a fancy new canal.

      The movie "The Tailor of Panama" comes to mind. :-)

  74. For Mr. Show fans. by ellisDtrails · · Score: 1

    Space Elevator
    It goes way up
    Space Elevator
    Taking cargo to space
    Space Elevator
    Watch it go UP AND DOWNNNNNN

    (thank you)

    --
    GetTheJob.com : Nothing but Real Jobs.
    1. Re:For Mr. Show fans. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People don't want songs about things that haven't been invented yet!

  75. In related news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cadbury, Nestle and Hershey have all offered their facilities as locations for the elevator base.

  76. Re:Oh great, one more reason for Bush to intervene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about the Shah?
    What about the Mujahadeen?
    What about Nicuargua? (You know, the whole "Panama" thing...)
    I'm too lazy to look up the specifics on Latin America. Just be warned -- Don't fuck with United Fruit! (Dole, that is.)

  77. Ground Control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to Major Tom,
    your circuit's dead
    there's something wrong.
    Can you hear me Major Tom?

  78. Nuclear waste disposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, great way to ditch nuclear waste.. Just lift it up and launch it slowly into the sun!

  79. Cheaper Solution by DaytonCIM · · Score: 5, Funny

    Instead of spending billions to perfect a safe, efficient delivery method why not just unravel the world's largest rubber band ball; tie them all together; and shoot the boy bands (one at a time for greater distance) into space?

  80. Someone is forgetting about planets spinning, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Planets and moons would pass in between Mars and Earth at some point...how to keep the string from winding around Mars like a ball of string? Haha!

  81. and another Riiiiiiiiiight... by n9hmg · · Score: 2

    and what, pray tell, do you think the units are on the Kelvin scale?
    I've heard some shorten "degrees Kelvin" to ?Kelvin, or even "Kelvins", in case that's what you're driving at, but it's still degrees, just as "60 Fahrenheit" is short for "60 degrees Fahrenheit".

    1. Re:and another Riiiiiiiiiight... by Myco · · Score: 2
      Okay, whatever you say. I've gotta go now, I'm gonna walk like 1.5 degrees kilometer to the pub for a few degrees liter of beer.

      Idiot.

      --
      My deviantArt site
    2. Re:and another Riiiiiiiiiight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kelvins are Kelvins, degrees Fahrenheit are degrees Fahrenheit, degrees Celsius (or centigrade) are degrees Celsius. It's in the chemistry and physics books, you should have yourself a look-see.

    3. Re:and another Riiiiiiiiiight... by oasisbob · · Score: 1

      Ok... I bite. Kelvin is an absolute scale so saying "300 kelvin" (kelvin is a lowercase word) is not a shortened version of "300 degrees kelvin." Saying "degrees kelvin" is just plain wrong.

      Anyone want to draw a cartoon with an angry tree explaining this?

    4. Re:and another Riiiiiiiiiight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unless you start at the ordinal point of the universe and believe there is only 1 dimension in the universe, there is no relation between Kelvin and Kilometer (except they're both metric.) Degrees Kelvin is identical to degrees Celsius minus 273. It's an arbitrary measurement of scale, ie. a *degree*. Just because there is no such thing as below zero Kelvin doesn't change that. Some fools may try to feel superior by claiming otherwise, but they only show their ignorance of languag, and the practical measurement of temperature.

    5. Re:and another Riiiiiiiiiight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. You are so cool. I wish I could be just like you.

    6. Re:and another Riiiiiiiiiight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lmao! Mod parent up!

  82. Re:The Babel effect by bitflip · · Score: 1

    ...and on /., we'll debate which language is the best one...

  83. Microscopic != Macroscopic by Pauli · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One thing I never see mentioned by all these proponents of nanotubes as a structural material is that extrapolating the strength of nano-scale covalent bonds to macroscopic dimensions is overly optimistic. "Calculations suggest... based on flexibility... 100x as strong as steel" sure. There are all sorts of materials, if you remove all the defects on an atomic scale, that are super strong. But saying that it is inevitable that we can scale up something from 1 micrometer to 100,000 kilometers is a bit of a stretch. If you made the cable out of solid flawless diamond, it would be stronger than out of nanotubes, and we can already make bigger diamonds than we can make nanotubes. I think a space elevator would be great, but don't hold your breath. There are a lot of details to be worked out in the materials science area before it is really a possibility. But nanotubes do hold promise, just not as much as everyone here seems to think.

    1. Re:Microscopic != Macroscopic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since I did my thesis on space tethers and therefore happen to know a little bit about the subject I'd thought I'd comment.

      The "calculations" used to support the space tether take the macroscopic imprefections into account. And they've made "perfect" specimens up to 8 inches long which is long enough to cancel out any imperfections, the minimum length needed for this is only a few milimeters. Finally, no diamond would not be as strong, even if it could be used(it wouldn't because it is so brittle). Diamond is stronger in compression but not in tension. I've read the last few NASA reports on the subject and the cost was calulated to be slightly less than $20 billion, but they then doubled it for good measure. If I remember correctly about $8 billion of the original 20 was for unforseen costs.

      This is pretty clear in my mind since I was reading it around the beginning of the fall semester last year, when Congress announced the emergency spending measures. I thought, "Hey, they could buy two space tethers for that(total $80 billion)."

  84. Forget the space elevator.. by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 3, Funny

    .. and get on board with my idea for space rubberband.

    Inspired by RoadRunner cartoons and a 6 pack of beer, I was able to sketch out a design that would launch anything we wanted into space without fear of terrorist attack.

    1) Dig hole 2 miles deep.
    2) Build giant rubberband
    3) Stretch giant rubberband over hole
    4) Put cargo on top of rubber band.
    5) Tie Star jones to rubber band
    6) Drop Big Mac in hole
    7) Jones drops. At the low point, right when the rubber band stops stretching, special release latch disengages Star Jones from rubber band thus saving Star Jones for next launch.
    8) Cargo goes shooting up into space
    9) Star Jones eats Big Mac making increasing thrust for next launch.

    Yeah, I know I know.. after a few launches I would have to switch it up with KFC, Taco Bell and BK.

    [Sadly, a coworker had to help me with the physics]

    Anyone know the email to Nasa so I can get them working on this?

    --
    Live web cams
  85. Re:Why it can't work (repair delay, debris, curren by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hmm sounds like a great new source of electricity!

  86. I welcome our new insect overlords! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a silver lining to giving up our civil liberties in the war on terrorism : they're inadvertantly making stupidity a crime. (Along with everything else).

  87. "Boy Bands" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Argh, please stop using this phrase. Bands play instruments!

  88. Because no one will ever by fred911 · · Score: 1

    pay just to ride an elevator. It will be lots cheaper.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  89. Must go slow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you accelerate beyond the tension strength of the ribbon, you will either pull the orbiting object down to earth.

  90. To the Batcave! by MyHair · · Score: 1

    No, you just slide down the carbon nanotube ribbon like it's a fire pole or the secret passageway to the Batcave.

    Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee ee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeee

  91. Re:The Babel effect by WhiteKnight07 · · Score: 1

    cut down by terrorists

    I can see it now. A guy with a pair of scissors. *snip*

    --


    We're going to make information free Mr. Anderson, whether you like it, or not.
  92. Fix this! by mustangdavis · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    And what do you do if an airplane runs into this elevator?

    I don't know of anything that could go and get the people except a space shuttle ... and don't tell me they could prep a shuttle fast enough to go save the people ... Besides that, do you really think the government is going to pay to save these people when their are "charities" that the politicians "have no association with" to donate to?

    C'mon ... the government won't allow us to have hover boards and floating cars like in Back to the Future Part II because of safety reasons ... what makes you think that they'd really allow one of these things to be built? With a hover board, you are 2 inches from the ground ... with a space teather, you are over 2 levels of atmosphere from the ground ... er some really big number!

    And remember Superman the movie? What if you were Lois Lane on the Eifel tower, but this time, you are in a space elevator ... and there is no Superman ... they'd NEVER get insurance for this thing!

    And what if we ever wanted to tear it down? Oh, that's right, we'll just pull it into space so that earth can have 4 moons ....

    Although it is a cool idea, it just isn't safe and it isn't practicle. They'd be better off spending the money trying to develop "beaming" technology or some other alternative method for getting people into space.

    --
    HallmarkOrnaments.Com
    1. Re:Fix this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, if a plane ran into it, the people on the plane would die and the elevator might feel some minor disturbance but not much.

      Imagine a bird flying full speed into a 10 pound strength strand of monofilament. Very bad news for the bird, but the monofilament just gets a new color. This is actually a very good comparison at first, if the supports ever get truly large it will be more like a bird flying into a brick wall.

  93. Re:Someone is forgetting about planets spinning, e by brandido · · Score: 1

    This would not be a string from the Earth to Mars, it would be a Space Elevator on Earth, and a separate one on Mars. Both of these would provide for low cost movement from planet surface to space and back. The Elevator on Earth would not have a problem with the moon, however the Mars one may - not sure. In Red Mars, this was dealt with by initiating a side-to-side oscillation in the elevator to miss the moon. While this would create additional strains on the cable, they might be within the capabilities. Addtionally, there is talk of putting an Earth based elevator on a ship at sea (think Sea Launch) to enable movement of the cable to avoid thunderstorms or large scale space debris.

    The subject of small space debris hitting the carbon tube structure is a problem, but the designs deiscussed include for a couple of solutions: (1) the cable is thicker where there is a higher proportion of the orbital debris (2) The cable is actually slightly curved so that it will tend to deflect incident debris (3) the maintenance of the cable would include for cable crawlers that would routinely make runs up/down the cable to repair damages from debris.

    --
    First Falcon-1 to orbit, then Falcon-9. Then I can die a happy man.
  94. Re:Why it can't work (repair delay, debris, curren by breadbot · · Score: 5, Insightful
    For answers to all these problems, see this paper. In short:
    • Yes, a crack across the ribbon would be bad. But you can make the ribbon be several loosely-coupled parallel sub-ribbons that give a little but don't separate completely when one of them breaks. And yes, you'd have to repair it pretty quickly. At altitudes with lots of space debris, you can make it extra-wide and extra-strong for redundancy, and add only a fraction of a percent to the mass of the overall cable.
    • Lightning strikes can be avoided by going to the right place on the surface of the earth. Parts of the equatorial Pacific receive lightning strikes less than once every few years. And a mobile base station could move the bottom of the cable out of the way of small storms. There are also possible lightning rod approaches for typical storm altitudes (weather balloons, for instance).
    • Shorting out the ionosphere -- given the sheer length of the tether, even if it were as conductive as gold, the resistance between the ionosphere and ground of tens to hundreds of thousands of ohms.

    So yes, there are many challenges to overcome, but they all, fortunately, seem surmountable.

  95. Re:Oh great, one more reason for Bush to intervene by el_gregorio · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I know a few Native Americans who might disagree with your final sentence.

    --
    "You want a toe? I can get you a toe by three o'clock... with nail polish."
  96. Kelvins by togofspookware · · Score: 1

    I think Kelvins are different because they start at zero, so the number of Kelvins is directly proportional to the temperature.

    What's 2 farenheits? That's not an absolute temperature, just a relative one.

    --
    Duct tape, XML, democracy: Not doing the job? Use more.
    1. Re:Kelvins by Moofie · · Score: 1

      You're right, although there's an analogous scale, zeroed at absolute zero, which uses the Fahrenheit degree size. It's called DEGREES Rankine.

      Kelvins are just weird. Don't ask me to explain science history...it's FUNKY. Although if I could go back in time and kill the guy who invened the pound mass and the BTU, I would.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  97. Re:Oh great, one more reason for Bush to intervene by cmallinson · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    ...if you look at all the countries near the eqautor, they're rife with anti-Americanism. If you think Bush will let haters of American gain the high ground, forget it.

    Bush will not see it as a problem. The scientists will pick the best place in the world for the elevator, and Bush will gather evidence on the "terrists" that live there. The country will be declare a threat to international security, bombed to oblivion, and a new government will be installed (note: a new installation may not be necessary - I hear a patch is in the works). This new government will allow the US full control of enough land to maintain the elevator, and maybe offer a deal on Oil.

  98. Metric to discover stupid people for filtering? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suspect people who are acting stupidly, exhibit and are drawn to, certain patterns within communication, that would allow one to design a filter that could identiy them for filtering.

    For example, in political discussions you often see insult loops where people exchange generic insults. To avoid being exposed to that sort of noise, one can filter out threads that contain words like "republican" and "democrat". I sometimes read political newsgroups and have found that filtering those two words from subject headers wipes out a lot of the stupidity.

    I'm guessing there are similar loops in the discussion contexts of slashdot. The subthreads that develop about grammar and spelling, and personal insult threads. Such things could be filtered without too much trouble.

  99. Re:Oh great, one more reason for Bush to intervene by Synn · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Jeesh. Your country massacres a few native tribes and shoves the rest onto reservations and they never let you forget about it...

  100. The gov't doesn't have to fund it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The site was throwing around numbers like $10 billion - well within the reach of a large corporation. Heck, Microsoft could pay for this baby with cash.

    1. Re:The gov't doesn't have to fund it by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 4, Funny

      Microsoft could build this thing *OUT OF* cash!

  101. Will not scale... by smackdotcom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm a huge space enthusiast. Huge. I love just about anything that promises to bring the cost of space access to a reasonable (read: below $200 per kilogram) levels. I've been following the X-Prize competition with great interest.

    That said, I can't get behind this space elevator push. First, the economics of it won't scale to meet a wide range of demand fluctuations. What if you build it and then find out that demand for it is only a tenth of what you had predicted? There's no way to scale down the sunk costs involved--it's an all or nothing sort of proposition.

    Second, it would represent a prime terrorist target. No set of defensive systems could hope to cover against every possible means of attack. Missiles, bombs, lasers, and who knows what else. And we haven't even covered the subject of action by a hostile nation-state, which could presumably marshall far more impressive resources to the task of bringing down a cable.

    Third, it represents completely unproven technology. Better to go with a multistage rocketplane or some variation on that theme. Design one that can be built with the equivalent of off-the-shelf parts and build it with a multi-purpose role. A launch vehicle that could also effectively double as a system for high-speed transoceanic delivery would have great commercial and military applications, and would be developed that much more quickly and economically.

    In short, the space elevator is a nifty idea in many respects, but it won't happen until the construction of such a system is relatively trivial. When one business guy turns to another and says: "You know, we're paying a lot of money for pilots for our launch vehicles. Maybe we should just build an elevator and get some high school kids to run it."

    --

    In a world without walls, there is no need for Windows.

    1. Re:Will not scale... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I won't bother to address your other points as they are pure speculation, but I think anything built to survive the multitude of ~ 15 km/s debris strikes something like this would have to endure over its lifetime willbe able to take anything shortof a large nuclear explosion. If terrorists have megatonsize nuclear weapons we've got bigger problems than them downing the space elevator in the middle of the Pacific

  102. Energy by MindStalker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One of the papers on their talks about the high about of energy a climber will require and how the energy should be transmitted by laser (as nanotubes are very good conductors the resistance over that huge distance is just too much). Anyways there is absolutly no talk about conserving energy. As technically if you had a climber at the top, and assuming it used some sort of rollers to climb up and down. The energy generated by the rollers on the way down should be the same energy required to get back up. (Minues electrical resistance and stuff) Is there any way to save this huge about of energy? It seems such a waist to not atleast try.

    1. Re:Energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      another part of the paper mentioned that the dead climber empties would act as the counterweight on the top of the cable.

    2. Re:Energy by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      The counter weight they are referring to is weight outside the geo orbit. This is for holding up the cables. Its been pretty much concluded that the cable itself can't be used to lift climbers. So these guys will pull up a cable then be put out of orbit far enough to hold up the cable they just lifted. Freaky hu?

  103. Re:Why it can't work (repair delay, debris, curren by redbaron7 · · Score: 1
    And remember that it's on the equator, which every piece of orbiting debris crosses twice during each orbit.

    Also true of ALL Great Circles around the Earth!

    What you mean is that more things in orbit pass over the lower latitudes than higher latitudes, because all orbits pass over the Equator irrespective of inclination, but only highly inclined orbits pass over the higher latitudes.

    RB

  104. Some questions and thoughts by Frodo2002 · · Score: 1

    So, I will keep trying to post some thoughtful questions and ideas on these space matters and hope for some intelligent replies.

    1. I am curious what would happen if there was a space debris or micro-meteorite collision. The articles did not leave me with any comfortable feelings in this regard. The possibility of the cable simply snapping after a collision was glossed over. For those of you who think that 20000km of falling cable is nothing, read Kim Stanley Robinson's account of the falling cable in his Mars Trilogy.
    2. Another curious point: Every modern idea for a cable seems to have dispensed with the idea of towing a large asteroid into geostationary orbit to make sure that the final cable's centre of mass is in geostationary orbit. Now they want to extend the cable an extra 60000km outwards to produce the same effect. So, saves the trouble of towing an asteroid, but raises two issues:
      1. Lots of extra cable to manufacture
      2. Tremendous strain on the cable. A shorter cable with an asteroid on the end seems a far more stable and less stressful configuration to me.
    3. What about wind. You are going to have to contend with the jet stream blowing one way in the stratosphere and some other wind (whose name I don't remember) blowing in the opposite direction above it at about 400km/h or something like that.

    Well, there are some thoughts. Any comments?

    1. Re:Some questions and thoughts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for micrometeorite survival try reading about the HoyTether by Dr Robert Hoyt.

      Try http://www.tethersunlimited.com/ .

      I don't think 20,000 km would fall, depending on how the space end of the tether is anchored (asteroid or more tether) only a few thousand km (maybe up to 10,000) could fall back to Earth. Besides theres notmuch around the equator I'm worried about tether falling on.

    2. Re:Some questions and thoughts by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 2

      The thing is that towing asteroids around doesn't seem like anything we're all that likely to do until we have a space elevator as a jumping-off point.

      Tim

      --
      Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    3. Re:Some questions and thoughts by LBU.Zorro · · Score: 1

      I just can't take it anymore.

      This is about the 100th post claiming that a SF story is a good basis for physics extrapolation.

      Please stop, I'll pay you to stop.

      Right.

      Point 1.

      In order for ANYTHING to be carried up the cable the cable can't be in balance, all those who said it is, they're wrong. If it were in balance it would be like trying to climb a kids helium balloon, you stay still and the balloon comes down to you. Admittedly with the inertia of the cable you'd be able to get off the ground but the cable will be going down faster than you can climb it.

      At the point the cable is attached to the base station nore tension than the total mass of the climber and cargo is required, and that was mentioned to be 13 tonne climber, 20 tonne cargo (although these values might be wrong...)

      So we already have over 33 tonnes of tension on the cable, of course to accelerate the climber we need even more tension, so its likely to be 40 tonnes.

      The previous article mentioned much less than that, but anyway, the point is that the cable will be under tension...

      The reason for this is so that you can pull climbers up this cable.

      So.

      In order to have 20,000 km of cable fall to earth (with a total mass of 150 tonnes - 7.5kg per km, you do the maths) you must cut it 20,000km.
      80,000 km of the cable flies out into space due to all that tension, 20,000 km of thermally weak cabling drops to earth. (The reason for avoiding lightning storms is not that it can't conduct, its that the resultant heat would destroy the cable, noting that re-entry would do the same)...

      With the cut of the cable the anchor platform would drop by several metres as the tension tonnage (lets say 40 tonnes) is suddenly gone, then the cable is yanked down towards earth, (this is ontop of gravity). The lowest parts of the cable survive intact, probably several miles of it. However this causes almost no damage / injury at all since its like dropping a piece of string out of an aeroplane, it just won't hurt. There is the possibility of a paper cut type thing, but it is very low since rectangles don't cut straight down, they spin and flutter due to turbulence and irregulaties in the material and airflow.

      Terminal velocity of the cable in atmosphere is less than that of a piece of string, outside of the atmosphere, it'll pick up a great deal of speed before hitting the atmosphere, but that will cause it to burn up, leaving carbon nano-tube / carbon dust.. The rest of the cable, say 150 miles or so from the intact chunk to the burn out portion will be torn by sheer stressing and twisting so that a number of smaller chunks will fall to the earth, reaching a slower terminal velocity than a piece of string.

      All in all there will be some intact cable, 150 miles of ripped up cable, and thousands of miles of destroyed cable.

      Kim Stanley Robinson's space elevator used conventional materials, weighed in at the billions of tonnes and impacted on a planet with very very low atmosphere, hence less burnout, higher terminal velocity and basically fiction, the destruction would have been great, but being a story, I'm not too stressed.

      What people fail to realise is that 1 km of this ribbon weighs only 7.5 kg!!! It is amazingly light.

      Imagine if the cable was made from a 5cm wide piece of paper (ignoring the fact that the paper is actually heavier)... Would you be worried if that fell from orbit? Do you understand the weight to length ratios and the sheer unfrightening and non-destructive impact of it *should* it break???

      It would be a financial disaster, but loss of life would be close to zero, unless a climber was going up and fell, but even then recovery should be possible, plus the odd paper-cut. (Ok so decapitation would be possible, but if you get under cover there'd be no problem)

      Next, you could tow in a large asteroid, but that raises a few more issues.

      1) What if something went wrong as it was towed??? Well that's your asteroid impact for you right there...
      2) So you have a million tonne + asteroid in a NEO that you want to move, so you move millions of tonnes of equipment to do this. A little costly.
      3) If I were a terrorist, if I could get that asteroid to hit, that'd be a tsunami alright, and a major major terrorist event, imagine it hitting the twin towers instead of a plane, well there goes the towers, and the city..

      Stress is identical, tension is required either way, one uses a massive lump of rock just beyond the geosynch orbit, another uses the mass of a long cable extending thousands of km past the geosynch orbit.

      Manufacturing economies of scale, ie its easier to build more cable that to build another anchor device and move an asteroid into place, plus the losses when a cable snaps is much much less, you don't have to put the asteroid back into orbit.

      If you had looked at the crossectional area of the proposed cable you would notice that it is much like a sheet of paper, hence some winds will barely affect it, others will cause it to sway, but the overall windresistance to total length / tension is tiny, and can be easily compensated for.

      One last thing I'd like to reiterate, is that SF books are not the best source of information regarding real life, being a SF fan myself I understand that its cool, but it doesn't have any great bearing on the real world, and some stuff that seems 100% plausable just isn't.

      If you are interested in orbital tethers, space elevators, sky-hooks etc. The do a google search on them, there are loads of ideas, analysis etc.

      Been fun, hope this helps to address some things, and please, please, read the article before you post, visit the sites, research.. If you're not a troll going for FP then you have the time... It does mention these things in it, and its tiresome to have to post it again...

      This was all covered to death last time this story was posted...

      Z.

  105. Energy from this Idea, Part II by Lunkwill_Fook · · Score: 1

    Okay, rehashing somewhat of an idea posted earlier but with a different spin: The idea has always been that we could generate trillions and trillions of watts of power by harvesting solar power directly from space through satellites the problem being that we lack an efficient method of sending said power from the satellite down to the Earth where it could be used. So, what's stopping us from, if this technology succeeds, from sending the energy straight down cables like the one theoretically to be used to haul up more space junk? Wouldn't that be an even BIGGER boon to the world?

  106. It aint gonna happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While some science fiction authors who have been paid by NASA in the past to image propoganda may believe what they read in Astounding! or Analog (remeber when that was a "high tech" word), even if they could fix something in geosyncronus orbit so that the lift line didn't wrap around the globe, they still have to overcome gravity to pull you up. You don't think you're going to use a pulley and dumb waiter to get to space. In other words, you have to expend just as much energy to go up. Until we invent anti-gravity (which would make elevators pointless), that means rockets. So now you have a rocket on a tether that can't use the advantage of an inclined plane. PS. something in orbit has no (very little)weight. Remember Archimedes boast that if he had a big enough lever and a place to stand, he could move the earth? It's true. The thing is, when you're on the ground and the rope is tied to a space station, you outweigh it.

    1. Re:It aint gonna happen by Le+Marteau · · Score: 1

      You don't think you're going to use a pulley and dumb waiter to get to space.

      Why not? Why not a series of pullies and dumbwaiters, like standard elevators. Might have to get on a new elevator every now and again, but why not?

      In other words, you have to expend just as much energy to go up

      I don't think so. Let's reduce the problem to putting a man 100' above the ground. Elevators can do this now for pennies worth of electricity. How much would it cost to use a rocket to put a man 100' off the ground. Millions of dollars, no?

      --
      Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
  107. Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES! by ErikZ · · Score: 2

    Most likely they'll have many Anti-air systems around the elevator. Anything flying gets within 10 miles, and it shoots it down. Period.

    It will start warning you 20 miles out though.

    --
    Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  108. overdose of inspiration by dpilot · · Score: 2

    Bad analogy.

    I was one of those people inspired by Apollo. Stayed up late on Sunday night that Summer when I was thirteen watching the fuzzy time on the surface replayed, with Walter Cronkite commentaries.

    Fast forward a few years, and watch it all rot.

    Maybe an elevator would do better, maybe it will finally get us access for good. I hope so. I fear not.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  109. Red Mars sez stay clear of the equator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My favorite part in the novel "Red Mars" was when a faction of the Mars colony severed the counterweight at the top of the Mars elevator... the cable fell down, wrapping itself several times around the entire planet, completely annihilating everything in a 10 km swath about the equator.

    If we ever build this thing on Earth, I sure hope we include explosive charges every 100 m or so in order to break it up if it should fall; otherwise I predict a drastic drop in real estate prices near the 0th parallel...

    1. Re:Red Mars sez stay clear of the equator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the article before you make uninformed comments. It specifically says that an epoxy with a low melting/burning point should be chosen to bind the ribbon, so that if it does break, it will burn up in the atmosphere on re-entry.

      It DOES mention possible health problems with carbon nanotube DUST from above re-entry. It may not be too healthy to inhale it - similar to large quantities of asbestos.

  110. Party time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One word: Bungee!

    1. Re:Party time by Lunkwill_Fook · · Score: 1

      Of course, as soon as you jumped off the satellite, you'd float off into an orbit around the earth until you finally began reentry and burned to a crisp.... but, hey, some parties are just like that, you know?

  111. Name one? How about the Panama Canal? by peacefinder · · Score: 1

    Sorry, fella, but we did it. I'm really fond of the ol' USA's principles, but our actions have at times been *far* short of our ideals.

    A quick Google for "panama canal overthrow" gives this page at the top of the list: http://www.boondocksnet.com/ai/ail/panama.html ...from which I take this quote: "In 1903, after Colombia rejected a treaty for U.S. control of the canal zone, the United States sponsored Panama's revolution for independence from Colombia. The United States and Panama quickly agreed upon a treaty in which the United States guaranteed Panama's sovereignty and, in exchange, Panama ceded perpetual use, occupation, and control of the Canal Zone to the United States. Work on the canal began the following year."

    If you don't believe me, check it out yourself at any library. It should be easy enough; talk to a reference librarian if you have trouble. I doubt you'll find any reputable historian that will deny this event. (And while you're at it, see if you can figure out what happened September 11, 1973. Hint: It's relevant to your comment, it happened in Santiago, Chile, and it likely involved the CIA.)

    At any rate, even the looniest government shouldn't be tempted to do such a thing for a space elevator, because they can just build a floating platform. Heck, they can even contract it out to Halliburton! :)

    --
    With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
  112. This is inefficient by spineboy · · Score: 2

    Why, 'cause you have to expend a fair amount of energry just lifting fuel up as your craft ascends. not to mention heating loss thru the atmosphere/clouds. Just ask yourself what's more efficient riding a bike under your own leg power or having someone shoot a hot laser at your waterpack to propel you by steam....I don't think so..

    As far as I've read the "cable" or ribbon will only be at its max diameterseveral inches - our guidance systems aren't that good -the current (USA) tech can hit stuff on te order of magnitude of a jet. The ribbon version of the cable is 1 meter wide by a FEW MICRONS!.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
    1. Re:This is inefficient by ShooterNeo · · Score: 2

      Energy loss isn't where the cost is. Out of the $400 million or so a shuttle launch costs, only a tiny fraction of that is fuel (can't find the figure, but I know its under 10 million). I'm saying that a laser rocket system would have far lower operating and engineering costs because the rocket isn't a giant bomb that you try to engineer to not blow up ahead of time (that is, massive effort has to be put into testing and refitting the space shuttle for each flight, as well as documenting every nut and bolt with more paperwork than the mass of the unfueled shuttle) In addition, it would require far less energy than rockets because the energy source is on the ground, and the mass of propellant would be far smaller.

  113. practice on mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they should practice building 'em on mars where they won't destroy quite so much stuff when they fail...imagine the energy of one falling. I think Larry Niven gets credit for the mars idea

  114. Actually, he's right... by mindstrm · · Score: 2, Informative

    The units on the Kelvin scale are officially known as "kelvins".
    Google sez:

    kelvin (K): A unit of thermodynamic temperature, taken as one of the base units of the International System of Units (SI). The kelvin is defined by setting the thermodynamic temperature of the triple point of water at 273.16 K. Note 1: The kelvin was formerly called "degree Kelvin." The term "degree Kelvin" is now obsolete. No degree symbol is written with K, the symbol for kelvin(s). Note 2: In measuring temperature intervals, the degree Celsius is equal to the kelvin. The Celsius temperature scale is defined by setting 0 C equal to 273.16 K.

    Note how there is no degree symbol when writing a tempetature in Kelvins.

    From:
    http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/temps.htm

    we can see
    The kelvin (K) temperature scale is an extension of the degree Celsius scale down to absolute zero, a hypothetical temperature characterized by a complete absence of heat energy. Temperatures on this scale are called kelvins, NOT degrees kelvin, kelvin is not capitalized, and the symbol (capital K) stands alone with no degree symbol.

    1. Re:Actually, he's right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note how there was; and the only possible explanations for the change are 1) to save on typing, thus making the absense of "degrees" an abbreviated notation or 2) some idiot wrote a textbook or report and there was a typo, and in order to cover it up made up a story about Kelvins not being degrees, and some idiot teacher or whatever believed him, in large part because they thought it would make them sound smarter than everyone else saying "degrees"

    2. Re:Actually, he's right... by Myco · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yeah, exactly. Funny thing is, I assumed most people around here knew this. I've seen more than one /. post point out this exact fact before -- there's no such thing as a "degree Kelvin." Someone who understands this would realize that my intial post was a joke -- the parent post said "2000 degrees, choose your unit" (or something like that), and I was lampooning the self-righteous pedants who always point out that Kelvins aren't degrees.

      So of course, this being Slashdot, I get flamed and modded down by geniuses who don't know a fucking winking smiley when they see one.

      Sigh... well, not like it matters. Excellent minus 2 is still Excellent, in all probability. And if not, well, it still doesn't matter.

      --
      My deviantArt site
    3. Re:Actually, he's right... by mindstrm · · Score: 1

      Or... it was just a clarification.

      It's not a degree because it is an absolute measurement relative to reality.

      We talk of degrees centigrade because the scale is not really based on zero of anything. The placement of zero is arbitrary. yes, it has a well defined place in physics.. but it's still not based on zero of anything. It is a relative measure. So we say something is 20 degrees on the centigrade scale, or fahrenheit, or whatever... meaning it's 20 units away from whatever we chose for the base.

      The kelvin scale, being based on absolute 0, is a true measurement of temperature, so we masure in terms of units of temperature.

    4. Re:Actually, he's right... by kcbrown · · Score: 2

      Hmm...so to write "two hundred thousand Kelvin", you'd write "200KK"? :-)

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
  115. Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES! by Firethorn · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Also, the plane could only hit a few miles up. The 'elevator' is more a suspended rope. All they'd have to do would be to extend the cable down further. This would probably also be done for 'routine maintenance'.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  116. Tether =/= elevator (no electricity) by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 2
    Actually, the tower won't generate electricity by magnetic induction in the way that the tether did. The reason is that it rotates at the same speed as the Earth -- and as the Earth's magnetic field. No field lines get cut. That's why all those "free energy from magnets" nuts are, well, just nuts. The tether generated a nice voltage, but only because it was whizzing through the field pretty rapidly in LEO.

    There would be electromagnetic induction due to the space environment outside the magnetopause (the boundary of Earth's magnetic domain; outside that, the Sun's field dominates), but that's a much smaller effect (because the field is so much weaker out there than just over the surface of the planet).

    1. Re:Tether =/= elevator (no electricity) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Speaking of the magnetopause, it isn't exactly radially symmetric about the earth, right? Doesn't it get deformed by the solar wind and such. So the side towards the sun would have field lines that are more dense than the side that is away from the sun. Thus, I would think that as the space elevator passes from one side to the other it would effectively pass through plenty of field lines. I don't know if it would be as big a problem as with the tether, since I don't have a good grasp on the relative scales in question. But I just thought I would mention it.

  117. Re:Oh great, one more reason for Bush to intervene by trbogie · · Score: 1

    We are blaming Bush for that too? Have to update my "Blame the Bush" calendar.

  118. Boy bands=act of war! by docbrown42 · · Score: 1

    With a development like this, we could shoot entire boy bands into space and make the world a better place.

    Yeah, but what if the aliens consider that an act of war and start shooting back

    I mean, if we dont want them here, why should the rest of the universe?

    --
    Ed Wedig
    Graphic design services
    docbrown.net
  119. Not just spinning, but different orbital positions by Ra5pu7in · · Score: 1

    The planets do not all run at exactly the same point in their orbits at all times. There is no way to "run one to Mars" since the distance between Earth and Mars is not consistent and there are times when Mars is on the far side of the sun. Our space elevator would have to stretch, pass through the sun occasionally and avoid the moon, Mercury and Venus as well.

    That said, it is only necessary to stretch the elevator from the surface of a planet or moon to a point outside the gravitational field from which "space launch" is possible. This would remove the need for huge fuel tanks to lift craft away from the planet -- that work being done by the elevator.

    --
    I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
  120. shouldn't it be two elevators? by bob_jenkins · · Score: 2

    Shouldn't all the drawings have two elevators, one going up, one going down, with the cars being transferred one to the other at the endpoints? Two-way traffic on a single string would be a pain. The redundancy wouldn't hurt either. Heck, why not have a dozen elevators all within a stone's throw of one another.

    1. Re:shouldn't it be two elevators? by Maran · · Score: 2

      "Heck, why not have a dozen elevators all within a stone's throw of one another."

      Is this a stone's throw down here, or up there?

      Maran

  121. Nuclear Waste by spirality · · Score: 1



    Might be a good way to get rid of nuclear waste...

    I mean, we don't shoot it into space now because if we had a "Challenger" like incident with nuclear waste aboard we'd be pretty fucked.

    With a space elevator that all changes. We can get it into orbit then blast it into the sun!

    -Craig

    1. Re:Nuclear Waste by tres3 · · Score: 1

      I thought about that in regards to a previos article in space.com (that I linked to from slashdot somewhere) and wrote the author. His reply (and my message) follow:

      Tres:

      Thanks for your message.

      The Sun as a locale for tossing nuclear waste has been advocated in the
      past. One issue raised, however, was the prospect that cans of waste would
      be super-heated en route to the Sun. That heat load might bust open the
      canisters. Nuclear waste would be spread into free space - with the solar
      wind blowing the material everywhere - some of it back to Earth.

      The key is always going to be lower launch costs. It's hard to tell how the
      nuclear waste issue and space may mesh in the future.

      Time will tell...

      Meanwhile, thanks for your message...I'm glad the story was of interest.

      Leonard
      SPACE.com

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Tres Melton
      To: ldavid @-unspammed-@ hq.space.com
      Sent: 8/23/02 5:47 AM
      Subject: RE: Moon Seen As Nuclear Waste Repository

      It seems to me that the problems of transporting the material to Nevada
      would be the same as transporting the material to a launch site. It
      also seems to me that if you could get the material out of the Earth's
      orbit then a more appropriate target would be that huge nuclear reactor
      in the middle of the solar system: the sun.

      Regards,
      Tres

      --
      Restore America: Dr. Ron Paul for President!
  122. A different Approach by tres3 · · Score: 1
    If it is going to cost $10 Billion to build one 100,000 KM or $1 billion / 10,000 KM and since geosynchronous orbit is 35,000 KM that turns out to be $3.5 billion to get to that point. Since the cable will only be 1/3 the distance it should only have to be 1/3 the thickness for the needed strength making it 1.6 billion to reach geo-synch. If we were to build a cable that was 265,000 KM it would encircle the Earth at the altitude of geosynchronous orbit but have no stress due to gravity and could therefore be thinner just as the shorter cable is. At one third the thickness for the cable that encircles the Earth and the drop down to the Earth we should be able to build a ring that encircles the Earth and a single drop for the same cost as building a single elevator that is 100,000 KM high. We should then be able to build additional drops for a 'mere' 1.6 billion dollars. Isn't this what they call economies of scale people??? This can't be anymore science fiction than the original plan.

    Just a thought.

    --
    Restore America: Dr. Ron Paul for President!
  123. Space Elevator Action! by fastdecade · · Score: 1

    So Elevator Action will finally have a worthy sequel --- I can't wait to shoot those light bulbs and watch them fizzle out in total silence. And finally when I reach the other side of the solar system, I'll fly into the horizon in a red spaceship ;-P

    That'll make Pacman 2130, "Pac in 4D", look pretty lame.

  124. Use incoming raw materials? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A typical elevator uses counter-weights of some sort. If the elevator is used to deliver fuel in exchange for ore or even ice, the power could be balanced fairly well after the initial costs.

    1. Re:Use incoming raw materials? by zenofjazz · · Score: 1

      Some things to consider. 1) carbon nanotubes are conductive. VERY conductive. 2) using solar power (collected at the upper end) to run payloads up and down the elevator. 3) selling solar power, using the elevator (or superconducting cables attached thereto) as a transmission line (avoiding all those scary microwave antenna farms that sci-fi writers dream up for solar power transmission) 4) depending on how things are designed, the energy it takes to lift one elevator car can be recovered in part from the energy lost as by a down-traveling car. all in all, a do-able, interesting alternative method to get to space.

      --
      -- All That's Evil in the Geek Space ... Allthatsevil.wordpress.com
    2. Re:Use incoming raw materials? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conductive? When we short out Ground to the ionosphere we'll have plenty of power...never mind about the occasional thunderstorm passing through.

      If we generate power from cars going downward -- remember what will happen when we have industry in space. We'll be taking raw materials from the Moon (what, you think we won't drop an elevator to the Moon?) and asteroids and sending stuff down to Earth. Cars moving down will be heavier than those going up, so we'll indeed generate energy. Only highly technical items and people will go up, as massive things we can build in space from what is already in space. The same raw materials as on Earth are easily available up there.

  125. Re:The Babel effect by iabervon · · Score: 2

    Nonsense! There's no way that a 100,000-mile-tall tower would have any effect on language.

    Er, that is to say, there's no way that a 100,000-kilometer-tall tower would have any effect on language.

  126. Re:Oh great, one more reason for Bush to intervene by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

    Good riddance. There's never enough beer at socialist parties. And the chicks are always ugly.

  127. Re:ok but -- Cable Break Scenarios, etc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. The problems with cable-break for space-elevators are significant, but they vary, depending upon where the break occurs....

    Recall that the CENTERPOINT of the cable is what is in orbit.. the cable itself descents and ascends from that point.
    A break below the centerpoint would result in the cable mass above the break being "flung" spaceward, where it does little damage. However, anything below the break will be falling, at trans-sonic speeds, and will do SIGNIFICANT damage upon impact with the surface of the planet. That being said, if security is such that terrorist attacks can only be made at the attachpoint of the cable, on teh ground, then the damage to earth is virtually non-existent, you just lose your umpty-billion dollar elevator (and any passengers, frieght, etc)

    the worst possible break condition would be for a break AT or just below Geosynchronous, as you would wind up with 36000 miles worth of cable accelerating, and playing "crack the whip" thru the atmosphere, and creating a VERY spectacular light show as it winds around the earth...

    If the friction is sufficient, the cable might burn up, as it passes thru the atmosphere, but if it doesn't, you can expect it to wrap 1.5 times around the earth (approx).

    -Jazz

  128. What the Physics behind this? by TheLastUser · · Score: 1

    I don't get it. If the climber pulls on the rope won't it pull the far end into a lower orbit?

    And what's this bit about centrifugal force allowing us to send stuff to Mars? Won't gravity just cause the thing you relaesed to just drift around the Earth with the thing it was attached to?

  129. why stop at boy bands by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fling slashdot into space to stop reporting lameness and thus feeding lamers. I'll stick to QA3 since none of you can run it.

  130. Re:Why it can't work (repair delay, debris, curren by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah -- if you don't know what you are talking about,
    then sure these are "surmountable"

    your "solution" is to make it stronger -- somehow.

    duh -- right.

  131. Blame Jack Valenti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's what the Nazi prison guards said.

  132. Re:The Babel effect by blowhole · · Score: 1

    I vote Cowboynealese

    --
    "Ask me about Loom"
  133. new job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i wonder how much i can get paid to say which floor sir

    lotsomail@machus.net

  134. Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES! by decoydog · · Score: 1

    20 miles? I was thinking more 100+ miles out or whatever US Carrier battle groups use. 20 miles ain't but a couple of seconds for a missle to travel.

  135. Re:The Babel effect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just when I was getting used to using WSDL and SOAP XML over HTTPS with CMP EJBs to... OH NO! It's already begun.

  136. That's a long time... by mtec · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...to pretend the other people aren't there.

    (Like we do in elevators now)

    --
    Cake or Death? Cake Please!
  137. Re:Frivolous waste, just for a GEO...BUSTED! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thou shalt not spread B.S. on /. (without getting found out).

  138. At $10 billion it's cheap by Goonie · · Score: 2

    Rubbish. 10 billion is a small fraction of the cost of the ISS, and a space elevator would be *much* more useful. If this indeed turned out to be feasible, it'd get funded in a heartbeat.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  139. One minor problem by Jeremi · · Score: 2

    Sure, it all sounds like it will work, but have they thought about how they plan to deal with the Vermicious Knids?

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  140. Hellish insanity by bfinuc · · Score: 1
    No kidding folks, what happens when (not if) the satellite goes down? A titanic amount of energy is involved in this project. It would all be released in one big bang when the cable wrapped itself around the Earth. Geosync orbit is about 23,000 miles, isn't that about equal to the circumference?


    "What the hell I don't live on the Equator" doesn't work, most of the cable would fall on the ocean, which has waves. (Insert gratuitous comparison to Hiroshima, Saudi oil reserves here.)


    On the other hand, let's do the energy calculation. Where's all the energy for this disaster going to come from? Rocket fuel? Or has someone come up with an infinite extraterrestrial source of buckytubes?

    heh

    --
    I bragged about my Karma at a job interview but I didn't get the job.
  141. How many Mb/s? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if the carbon tubing will have more bandwidth than the MUD drills?

  142. OT: That's a long time... by FasterThanLight · · Score: 1

    Maybe we could construct a ladder? Ooh! I can see the tops of the trees already! Cake or Death... Long live Eddie Izzard... his stand-up is a must-see.

    --
    They're a little melty, but damn are they exquisite!
  143. +5 Insightful? Total drivel! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everything in the post is complete and utter nonsense. So of course it gets a +5 insightful. Only on /. do the lowest common denominators get upheld the highest.

    You just want it to work so much that you are willing to totally ignore such obvious flaws. Well that explains the existance of Linux I guess.

  144. Re:Risky investment - most of the cable goes UP. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the cable was broken by terrorists, lightening or some other force near the earth surface, only the part of the cable BELOW the point of impact will fall. Everything else will be pulled outwards from earth. That's why the cable is there to anchor the whole system.

    (Note this is all implied by the previous poster's comment about only worrying about 1 km of cable falling, but I thought I'd make the point explicit for those of you wondering why only 1 km would fall.)

  145. Mailing list by reitoei1971 · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's and interesting, informal dicussion group for this kind of thing at space-elevator@yahoogroups.com

  146. Re:Why it can't work (repair delay, debris, curren by toby360 · · Score: 1

    An alternative solution, would be to monitor the cable for cracks, when one is found, send a reinforcment elevator which would attach itself above and below the the identified area, and i suppose those fandangled nano bots would fix up the tear. The fix-it elevator could then be sent either up or down again. Assuming the wire is built to sustain a substantial amount beyond its own weight, this shouldnt be a problem. In the book series "Red/Blue/Green Mars" a space elevator is constructed on mars and eventually falls, causing enormous destruction and wrapping itself several times around the planets circumfrence. Bet that if your on the tail end of that fella when it falls you'll at least be in for one heck of a ride before you go!

  147. Moo by bob_jenkins · · Score: 2

    This would let us put cows in orbit! Imagine, fresh milk in space.

  148. Eyelids of the Morning and boy groups in space by bfinuc · · Score: 1
    There is a connection, bear with me...


    "By his neezings the light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning"

    It's a quote from the book of Job, but it comes to mind from a book I read some decades ago called "Eyelids of the Morning: The Mingled Destinies of Crocodiles and Men" which is by and about a biologist who went to Lake Turkana (then Lake Rudolf) in East Africa and shot 500 crocodiles...

    Anyway he hired locals (Turkana) to help him and though they were Flat-Earthists (and presumably Creationists) he explained to them in the course of some argument about whether the other side of Lake Turkana was the End of the World that the Russians had fired off a rocket with a dog in it that had gone around the world which they assumed meant off the End of the World, and their reaction was that it was certainly a great form of punishment, but wasn't it a waste just for a dog?

    OK maybe it IS off topic, just free associating from the idea of boy groups in space...

    --
    I bragged about my Karma at a job interview but I didn't get the job.
  149. Physics question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Something I haven't seen being discussed is the fact that the objects as they move from the surface into the orbit will have to gain additional kinetic energy on order to keep the same rotational speed. That energy will be drawn from the satellite on the far end of the cable decreasing it's rotational speed. Will they have to put some kind of engine on that satellite to keep it on the geosynchronous orbit? Or am I missing something?

  150. Mod Parent Up - Funny! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Ok, it's a joke, that's why I'm posting as an Anonymous Coward.

  151. 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, but my degree kelvins goes to 11..

  152. Flamewar Temperature by TwP · · Score: 2

    The irony of a flamewar about "degrees" vs. "degrees kelvin" is truly humorus.

    It has also been a long day of staring at poorly designed C++ code <sigh>, so maybe it's not that humorus.

  153. Lockout =! Strike by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 2

    This is a pretty funny post, but it bugs the crap out of me that everyone thinks this is a strike. It's not. The port owners closed the ports after a work slowdown of 50%.

    In other annoying news, President Bush mispronounced the word "nuclear" 473 times during his speech the other night.

    1. Re:Lockout =! Strike by Enigma2175 · · Score: 2
      In other annoying news, President Bush mispronounced the word "nuclear" 473 times during his speech the other night.

      And he must have said "September the 11th" at least that many times as well. AFAIK, "September 11th" and "The 11th of September" are correct, but I don't think that phrases like "On September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability" or "The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger." are proper grammer. And even if they are, they still grate on me like sandpaper on skin. I hope that Bush will eventually learn to speak the language, but he seems to do just fine making up his own words and phrases so I suppose that my hopes will go unfulfilled.

      --

      Enigma

    2. Re:Lockout =! Strike by roybadami · · Score: 1

      Maybe he's becoming a Brit...

      In British English, we would always say September the 11th even though we would write it September 11th or just September 11.

      Though we'd generally prefer to say the 11th of September (which we would write 11th September or 11 September).

  154. because ... they're made of wood? by WhiteDragon · · Score: 1

    Donald Moffitt has an execlent novel called Second Genesis in which interstellar starships are created from genetically engineered trees grown in orbit.

    --
    Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
    1. Re:because ... they're made of wood? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2

      interstellar starships are created from genetically engineered trees grown in orbit.

      Perchance, were any of the trees named Tsunami?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    2. Re:because ... they're made of wood? by WhiteDragon · · Score: 1

      no, but one was named yggdrasil :-)

      (I am spending my twenty seconds... ... ... ...)

      --
      Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
  155. Re:ok but -- Cable Break Scenarios, etc by dbrutus · · Score: 2

    Yes, this is a repeat, and they pretty much have determined that this stuff will break up into small pieces with the biggest problem being breathing it in when it lands.

  156. why not high speed earth transport? by HAIL-AD2 · · Score: 1

    They should create a massave array of these things around our planet to use as high speed transport systems, that or we could use it for higher speed internet :)

  157. Parachutes for the elevatornauts... by billstewart · · Score: 1

    I don't know if a parachute for the whole elevator would make sense (probably, but might be weight issues.) But parachutes for the passengers would probably work. The case that matters most is when the elevator's below the break, which means that at least for Earth-based causes of failure, it's at a relatively low altitude / speed. If you're going individually, bail out with breather equipment once you start to get some atmosphere.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Parachutes for the elevatornauts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're going to hope you and dozens/hundreds of other passengers can get parachutes on and exit below 30,000 feet? That's six miles..if you're falling at only 60 MPH you have six minutes.

      If I'm riding in a Coach seat, I'm trusting the elevator. If I'm riding in a space suit, I'm in an ejection seat. If I'm not trusting the elevator, I'm riding in the cargo bay inside my space suit inside my reentry-capable ship.

  158. a curious worry by buckybrain · · Score: 1

    In using this elevator, could we eventually raise the planet's polar mass-moment of intertia incrementally so that by the conservation of momentum, the planet begins to spin slower?

  159. Launching satellites from elevator by billstewart · · Score: 2
    One application for space elevators is launching satellites. GEO is an obvious application, but it's high enough up that latency to Earth is annoying, an d for any given frequency band it gets a bit crowded up there. However, since an elevator substantially reduces the costs of lifting weights to orbit, it's also a really convenient way of launching LEO satellites for altitudes like 300-1000km (e.g. replacing Iridium / Teledesic /etc.)


    It's not as easy as it seems, because if you just chuck a satellite out the door, that puts it in an orbit designed to bash into your cables, but you can lift a rocket with maneuvering-orbits quantities of fuel rather than escaping-the-gravity-well quantities of fuel, which is a big win, and use it for a "bus" to deploy small satellites. (It's too bad you can't just chuck stuff out the door - there are lots of things you can do with a bunch of cheap nanosats.)

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  160. Re:GET SOME PRIORITIES! by ErikZ · · Score: 3, Funny

    Eh?

    How many missles travel at 24,000 miles an hour?

    --
    Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  161. Know your audience. by phriedom · · Score: 1

    Lance Bass might be able to bestow "cool" upon NASA as far as young teenagers are concerned, but Congressmen and their constituents are a slightly harder to impress.

    --
    Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
  162. Re:The Babel effect by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 2

    The cool thing is that, should somebody detach the thing, it'll fall up

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  163. Re:Oh great, one more reason for Bush to intervene by 5alligator · · Score: 1

    saving 10,000 miles counts as a resource

  164. Hyper Whiplash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What would happen is the ribbon snapped 100km up? Wouldn't the earth (equator) get hit bay a 100km long hyper-sonic whip?

    1. Re:Hyper Whiplash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

      SR-71 Blackbird, does Mach 3ish I think (prob more, memory is naff today), it has titanium skin and is designed with gaps in its airframe so that the frictional heat expands the skin to fit properly.

      What makes you think that this carbon nano-tube cable is capable of withstanding 'hyper' sonic speeds and not burning up, the the article bloody mentioned that it was to be a LOW MELTING POINT epxoy???

      IDIOT is the kindest thing I can say about you.

  165. What about atmospheric friction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this an important problem?
    How does it affect the stability of the elevator?

  166. back-of-envelope calculations by pwarf · · Score: 1

    If you are talking about the distance to geosynchronous orbit, it's 36,000 kilometers, not miles.

    Also, "1000 mph of lateral accelleration"?
    Wrong units for accelleration and I am not sure where this figure comes from, but I certainly now agree (after doing the calculations that I thought would prove you wrong) with the point of your post: there would be "whipping" of the ribbon as it fell.

    Some back of the envelope calculations:
    At the moment of breakage, each segment of the cable will be motionless compared to the atmosphere around it. In order to conserve angular momentum, the higher pieces will undergo angular acceleration to counter the decrease in angular momentum associated with a decreased moment of angular inertia about the center of the Earth. Angular momentum is the product of the rotational inertia and the angular velocity. Rotational inertia is SUM(MiRi^2). (Sorry about the poor notation.) Let's assume the designers are smart enough to have a fail-safe that disconnects the ribbon near the geosynchronous orbit level in the event of breakage (lower would make sense, though, as some portion of the cord could be held up by the platform at the far end of the cable). This puts the cable length at ~36,000 kilometers (~22,000 miles). Thus, the end of the cable is currently moving at one rotation per day at ~42,000 kilometers above the center of Earth. (36,000 km + ~6,000 km for the radius of Earth.)

    To calculate the starting rotational inertia, the integral of mr^2 needs to be taken from the surface of Earth the breakage point (let's use the worst-case scenario given good planning of right at geo-synchronous orbit). Assuming the linear density is constant with distance from the Earth (not true, but it makes the calculation possible without more detail than is available), the rotational inertia is the linear mass density of the ribbon times ((42,000km)^3)/3 - ((6,000km)^3)/3 or (the linear mass density times 2.462*10^13 km^3).
    The final rotational inertia (when the whole thing is at rest) is much easier to calculate. It is the total mass times (6,000 km)^2 or total mass times 3.6 * 10^7 km^2 times the mass.
    To compare the two figures, the first should be changed to units of total mass of the ribbon. This can be done by dividing the result by the length of the ribbon, giving an initial inertia of 6.8 * 10^8 km^2 times the mass of the ribbon. The ratio of these two inertias is approximately 19. Thus, neglecting air friction, and assuming the whole ribbon hits the ground at once (without being held back by the connection Earthside), the ribbon would be going at a linear velocity 19 times that of the surface of the Earth. This is approximately 19 * 1,600 km / hour or 31,000 km / hour.

    Obviously, neglecting air friction and neglecting the slowing of the ribbon due to the Earthside connection is inappropriate, but the calculations show that there would be considerable "whipping." (I started this post to disagree with zenofjazz about the whipping, but now see how wrong I was.) However, Due to the surface area, I would think that the majority of the ribbon would burn up in the atmosphere, regardless of how many pieces it broke into. I would imagine that all of the ribbon more than a few miles up would disintegrate due to the horizontal acceleration relative to the atmosphere. I don't have any figures to back this up, though.

    An interesting side-note: What would be the behavior of the carbon nanotube ribbons be upon exceeding the tensile strength? Would they shatter? If so, this improves the chance of them burning up and increases the friction, thus further reducing the final air speed.

    Sorry about the some-what incoherent post. It's late.

    1. Re:back-of-envelope calculations by zenofjazz · · Score: 1

      Thanks for correcting my errors.. was posting with no reference materials in front of me, and worse, am terrible with the Kilometer/mile thing. Glad to see your numbers agree with my "gut-feel" thoughts... Don't know characteristics of carbon nanotubes either to heating... do have a feeling it would have one heck of a time dissipating the heat from friction.

      --
      -- All That's Evil in the Geek Space ... Allthatsevil.wordpress.com
    2. Re:back-of-envelope calculations by pokeyburro · · Score: 2

      KSR described the destruction of the Martian space elevator in - um - Green Mars, I think. Or maybe Red Mars. Anyway, his research seemed to be pretty good, so if you want to believe a fictional account, the elevator, severed at the top, would be dragged down to the planet by the weight below, falling faster and faster over a period of days. It would wrap around the planet 2.5 times in the Earth's case, and fall faster than it could burn up.

      When it hits, it demolishes anything in a lane several meters wide. The lane will trace the equator, of course. Countries affected would include Borneo, Malaysia, a few Indonesian islands, Kenya, Uganda, Congo, Gabon, Brazil, Colombia, and Ecuador.

      Anyone in the forecasted strike zone would be well advised to get the hell outta there. But come back in a few days. Once everything's cooled off, you're now in possession of your very own diamond mine.

      I suspect the authorities would try to work things in such a way that any material harvested from the fallen cable would be used to pay for construction of the replacement. That would be the biggest damage - financial loss of cheap transport between Earthside and space.

      --
      Lately democracy seems to be based on the skybox, the Happy Meal box, the X-box, and the idiot box.
    3. Re:back-of-envelope calculations by PhuCknuT · · Score: 1

      There is no reason for this to ever happen. It would need to break at the top to fall like this, and then magically stay in one piece and not burn up on reentry even at the tremendous speeds you predict, in order to do any damage at all.

      And this doesn't take into account the simple things that could be implemented to prevent it falling in the first place. For example, there is no reason for more than the length to geosync orbit to fall. All you need to do if the cable is severed about that is cut it again on purpose at the geosync point, and then only the lower half falls. And the lower half falling isn't necessary either. Instead of cutting it, keep a booster rocket parked at geosync and in the event that the cable is severed above that, disconnect the bottom and launch the booster to drag the cable away. Or park a couple small climbers at geosync and you can send them scrambling down the cable to cut it strategically, leaving the pieces in orbit to be collected or cutting them off so as they approach reentry so they can burn up, and not "whip" around. There are endless ways to stop it from falling and doing any damage. All these damn "what if it falls" posts are talking about the destruction like we're going to see it start to fall and just sit there like fools waiting for it to land instead of doing something to stop it (which is technically much easier than building it in the first place).

      Please excuse the rambling, I am sleep deprived.

    4. Re:back-of-envelope calculations by PhuCknuT · · Score: 1

      For it to "Whip", it would have to break near the top and then we'd need to just sit here on our asses watching it fall. I have a little faith that someone with the knowledge to build something like a space elevator could implement a few simple safety protocols.

      For example, if it breaks above the geosync point, all you have to do is either cut it at the geosync point, so that only the part below that falls, or better yet keep a booster parked at geosync to tow the bottom half away in the event of a break.

    5. Re:back-of-envelope calculations by pokeyburro · · Score: 2

      The Martian elevator didn't burn up. Earth's atmosphere is significantly more "there" than Mars', so maybe it would be enough to burn it up, or maybe it still wouldn't be enough.

      Also, the Martian elevator was a long strand counterbalanced by an asteroid at the far end. The cable was effectively cut just beneath the asteroid, thus making it horrifically off-balanced.

      Even so, I really like your idea of failsafes, particularly chopping the cable up. I'm not sure boosters could brake the cable enough to prevent serious damage - maybe they could. You'd certainly want boosters along the cable anyway, to push it out of the way of any really big rocks or satellites.

      --
      Lately democracy seems to be based on the skybox, the Happy Meal box, the X-box, and the idiot box.
  167. Re:Risky investment - most of the cable goes UP. by Storm+Damage · · Score: 2

    I was not concerned about only 1km of cable falling. It seems obvious to me that there is the potential for a lot more than that to fall (although no nearly enough to wrap around the earth). The point of noting the weight of a 1km section of cable was to emphasize the immense surface-area to weight ratio this material has. It's lighter than tissue paper. It doesn't really matter how long a section falls, because it's going to have the falling properties of a crepe-paper streamer.

    Additionally, those concerned about the cable wrapping around the planet, remember that the entire structure is revolving at the same tangental velocity as the Earth's rotation, with it's center of gravity on a stable GEO. If it falls, it will fall more or less straight down (give or take a bit for winds). Most likely the part that does fall will land in the surrounding oceans.

    What is not known is if or how the cable will disintigrate into individual nanotubes. If this happened, there may be some danger related to inhalation of the particles. Research is being conducted into this issue, and the designers are working on a way to insure that in the event of a catastrophic failure, the material tends to break into rather larger pieces, which couldn't be inhaled.

  168. 747 wouldn't matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If someone crashed a 747 into the cable, the part of the cable below the crash point would fall to the ground. The rest would... just hang there the same way it always has. In order to create a real catastrophic failure you'd need to snap the cable thousands of miles up into space, which would be much harder to do.

  169. Good target for terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Space elevator... good idea... at least until some islamic terrorists decide to fly a rocket into it :(

  170. btw, rotational inertia by hokanomono · · Score: 1

    I wonder why nobody talks about this: If they pull up an elevator cabin on the 100,000km rope, where does the cabin get the rotational momentum from? If it just pulls the rope, the rope will be pulled to the west. Even assume that the cabin makes it's way up and arrives at the top station 100,000km away from earth, it will have reduced the tops rotational momentum.

    The top will rotate slower than the base station at earth, which makes it more "light" (in the inverse sense of gravitation). The elevator would be biggest pendulum in the solar system -- unfortunately not in a homogenous field. I don't have enough time now, to make a Legendre-Equation for it.

    --
    This sig is a true statement, but I cannot prove it.
  171. Bungie!!! by mustangdavis · · Score: 1

    Hmmm ... I hope my cord doesn't rip ....

    --
    HallmarkOrnaments.Com
  172. Ouch! by Physics+Dude · · Score: 1
    This is the MATH POLICE! Please put your hands in the air and slowly step away from your calculator...

    First off... looks like you used PI=3.4 Ouch!
    (0.25/2)^2 * 3.14159 = .049 ... let's say 5e-2 cm^2 or 0.05 cm^2

    Next, you have made a mistake converting your cable length ...

    The line is 100,000 km long which is 1e10 cm ... so the volume is 5e8 cm^3 (you're only low by a factor of a hundred).
    Using your 1.4 g/cm^3, we find that each strand would then be 7e5 kg.

    700,000 kg is NOT significantly less than 40,000 kg.

    Thanks for playing! :)

    1. Re:Ouch! by pokeyburro · · Score: 2

      Ow. Ow ow ow.

      First of all, I used the right pi. I supposed a pencil was 0.50 cm wide, halved that to get the width of the nanotube strand listed, then halved that again to get its radius, 0.125 cm, which I rounded to 0.13cm (for ease, though, not for signifidigits). pi*r*r = 3.14 * 0.0169 = 0.053 cm^2, as I said. Close enough to your figure. Hey, who knows what kind of pencil they use at Science News...

      Of course, I then said the line was 10^6km long, or 10^8cm long, which means in my universe there are 100 cms to the km for some reason. So yeah, I should burn for that. Meanwhile, though, you might want to run away from that 700000-kg carbon strand falling out of the sky. Yeck. Maybe a carbon nanotube strand is even less dense than a single nanotube? Or they don't use chiral nanotubes in such strands? Surely one of my assumptions had to be wrong...

      --
      Lately democracy seems to be based on the skybox, the Happy Meal box, the X-box, and the idiot box.
    2. Re:Ouch! by Physics+Dude · · Score: 1
      My, oh my. Who would have guessed... From your original post it seemed that you were actually trying to determine something usefull, but from the trailing diatribe of your last post, it's obvious you're living in a universe of your own.

      "First of all, I used the right pi." blah blah blah ...

      Time to re-read chapter 0 of any science text for proper rounding technique and handling of significant digits. :)

      "Of course, I then said the line was 10^6km long, ... ... NOT! :)

      Not only did the original article clearly state that the length would need to be 100,000 km, but so did YOU!

      From YOUR post: "If 100,000 km of it (that's how long it needs to be) weighs 40,000 kg or more, you're shot." ...And you CLEARLY made the final comparison to 40,000 kg! ... and then went off on how "this thing would be ridiculously stronger than needed."

      Just in case you really believe you had a "10^6km" figure anywhere in your original post, here's a link.

      You're not very good at weaseling either. :)

      Cheers!

  173. Conserv. of angular momentum, momentum by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    Don't forget to take into account conservation of momentum and conservation of angular momentum. Those space elevators aren't going to be all that rigid, so you typically will find that the energy won't transfer -- your space elevator will either bend or (most likely) simply break. The worst possibility would be if your space elevator *doesn't* break, because in that case all that energy also gets applied to the ground end. Next thing you know, you'll have the ground end tear free, and then you've got a problem with it progressing out of orbit, ripping its cables through the air, trees, ground, and whatnot. A major problem.

    Indeed, I seem to remember that Carl Sagan's book (involving a space elevator) had an event like that.

    Not a good thought.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  174. Wouldn't it be easier... by dcmeserve · · Score: 1

    ... to build a thousand 100-km rail guns
    to launch cargoes into any orbit you want,
    IN PARALLEL, rather than a single, 100,000km
    serial cable?

    --
    "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
  175. You don't need an elevator by StoatBringer · · Score: 0

    You need a Space Mountain :)

    --
    Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress
  176. worse yet, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they are watching broadcast TV...