Space Elevator Going Up

Adlopa writes "The Guardian newspaper reports on scientists' efforts to realise the space elevator, as first described by Arthur C Clarke in his 1979 novel 'Fountains of Paradise'. Advances in materials science mean that 'a cable reaching up as far as 100,000km from the surface of the Earth' is no longer an impossibility and 70 scientists and engineers are discussing the idea at a conference in Santa Fe today."

Comments

Re:Idealism...

[ericman31]

Most of the "Golden Age of Sci Fi" writers were/are scientists and engineers. The things they wrote/write about actually have some basis in physics. Heinlein spent days and sometimes weeks

calculating orbits by hand (this was before the advent of the PC, remember), for example. Much of our scientific and engineering achievement today was first written about by Sci Fi authors, including personal computers, world wide networks, men traveling in outerspace, satellites, genetic engineering, waterbeds and much more. I personally hope we continue building what Sci Fi writers write about. Idealism and dreams lead to greatness. Pragmatism and "being realistic" lead to boredom and stagnation.

Re:Idealism...

[Eric Ass Raymond]

So the terrorists have already won: we can't build something because someone might blow it up?

New continents were found, the sound barrier was broken and even space flight was developed at the cost of human life. Yet, it was worth it.

As a species we have become too concerned about safety. We are afraid to such extent that testing new discoveries (medicinal, chemical and physical) are becoming so burdened by the hysterical safeguards, governmental red tape and the associated costs that nothing ever gets done. To my mind, this development threatens the very progess of our species.

Re:Kind of scary.

[Pharmboy]

But there is another problem: if it burns, will the resulting particles be hazardous for us to inhale?

Carbon nanotubes are primarily, well, carbon. Burning up would create the same stuff that charcoal makes, CO2. Potentially less toxic than second hand cigarette smoke. There may be some other chemicals in there, but the whole idea is to make the tube out of a single material, the nanotubes, to make it strong. So, yes, research is good, but toxicity is probably not the biggest issue.

Re:Kind of scary.

[wulfhound]

a) Carbon nanotubes are strong but very, very light. They have a high surface area per unit mass. In the lower atmosphere, the cable would float to earth like a piece of fishing twine; in the higher atmosphere it would just burn up.

b) Not really. Airborne traffic is smart enough to deal with comms towers, skyscrapers and hurricanes. This thing does not move - all you need to do is fly around it.

c) Yes it does. In order to advance space traffic, we need to get to geosynchronous and LEO MUCH cheaper, allowing us to loft the larger masses necessary for more ambitious space missions. Getting big tonnages out of Earth's gravity well cheaper and more reliably than is currently possible would be a BIG win for space travel.

Re:Looks like the pointy haired boss at work again

[ericman31]

So how exactly do you come up with a budget for a project that calls for an unknown (but massive) amount of nonexistanium, delivered to orbit no less?

The same way that NASA came up with the budget for the space program in the early 50's and 60's. They had to create a huge number of things that did not exist in order to put a man on the moon. From things as mundane as food and drink and holders that could be used while weightless to as science fictiony as computers small enough to fit in an Apollo space craft. Somehow they managed to not only do all of that, but to budget for it as well. Not only that, all of that R&D was very good for the economy, returning, depending on who you believe, as much as $7 to the economy for every dollar spent.