Slashdot Mirror
Space Elevator Conference Wraps Up
slavitos writes "The
Space Elevator: 2nd International Conference,
organized by the
Los Alamos National Lab
and the
Institute for
Scientific Research
has just finished its work in New Mexico.
To be sure, most people still think
it's absolutely ridiculous to even consider building
such a thing.
However, that's exactly what organizers
wanted - an open discussion on the issue, plus
some free PR."
I can't help but think that, if we ever start building this thing, people are going to be like, "There are starving children that need food, and we're spending how much on a frickin' elevator to space?!?!" or "With that much money, we could buy 10 aircraft carriers!".
Seriously, to many people, a "space elevator" is going to sound like the "escalator to nowhere" from the Simpsons - a fairly frivolous-sounding projet, and not as inspiring as rockets. Okay, so it'll make space exploration cheaper - what benefits does it have for ordinary people?
Well, it's a ribbon in a very remote location, without large numbers of civilians nearby.
If you believe it's a terrorist target, then Cape Canaveral must be a bigger target - easier to reach, easier to hit. Is that a good reason to stop sending rockets into space?
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
"Won't this thing make an astonishingly large target for terrorists, or even for enimies in a wartime situation?"
Only if you make it big. Currently plans involve a high tensile line and an elevator rather than the multi-tonne segmented 'bomb on a string' ideas that have entertained through science fiction, and it should be okay as long as you stop the Port Authority from writing their own rules.
"imagine the propagana and demoralising effects a hit on such a target could produce"
As opposed to, say, a large city? Thank Jeebus we don't have a lot of those around.
"I think it's a pipe dream - a nice, exciting pipe dream, but still a pipe dream"
At one time so was manned flight, which is one of the reasons why it's good to have dreamers educated in engineering.
The main problem with rocketry is still the fundamental problem of it essentially being a huge bomb, not to mention the resource drain.
Oddly Draconis
Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
Cities have their vulnerabilities and invulnerabilities. Theres lots of people gathered in one place, for example. They have certain vulnerable systems, such as power and especially water.
On the other hand, cities are extremely robust. Certainly high tech assualts such as bioterrorism could be a great concern, but proven terrorist methods are low tech -- typically delivering a large quantity of explosive in front of a highly populated building. The World Trade Center attack was undoubtedly the most spectacular terrorist "success", but as catastrophic as they were for the structures, if you look at them as an attack on the city, they were remarkably ineffective.As disruptive as they were, NYC basically continued to function even through 9/11, and today it runs more or less the same as it did on 9/10/2001.
The Space Elevator would be a tempting target for terrorists, since it could be attacked using low tech weapons, if they could be delivered. We shouldn't underestimate their creativity in doing this.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I'll bet you didn't like the war in Iraq (going on a limb here, you might have). Would you approve of the US/UN going to war and knocking out several other "innocent" goverments? (for some definition of innocent?) Most starvation is caused by goverments not allowing the food, of which there is more than enough, to get to the people who need it. Generally they have a political gain of some sort to doing so. (you might not see it as a gain, but they do)
As for a space elevator. Well I think private eneterprize should do it, which means get NASA out of the way and loosten up the laws preventing private companies from going to space. (Okay, it isn't exactly illegal, but it is nearly impossible to get the permits) At least in the US this is a problem.
Often, the goal of a terrorist activity is to incite terror - hence the name. Hence the reason 9/11 was such a success for the terrorists. In that sense, NYC - and to a lesser extent the rest of the federated republic of America - does not function the same. The terrorists engendered fear. They attacked the heart of their perceived enemy, and that attack was successful.
An attack on a remote freight elevator that happens to extend out to geosynchronous orbit would not engender the same psychological effect.
meh.
An attack on a remote freight elevator that happens to extend out to geosynchronous orbit would not engender the same psychological effect.
This reminds me of consulting with clients anout Internet security. The common attitude is "nobody would want to hack me". I always tell them that every reason they can think of for them not to be a target, somebody out there will interpret the other way.
Really, if I were a terrorist, I'd be opportunistic. If I had the opportunity to destory a project like this, I would. Is there any doubt it'd get people's attention? After all, that's what it is about.h In fact looked at as part of a campaign, it would make a great deal of strategic sense. The enemy should not feel that anything is safe, especially anything that costs a lot of money. By forcing him to spread his attention over many different kinds of targets, I not only cost him, but I also dilute his efforts. Maybe I'd like to crash a plane into the Sears tower, but chances are its too hard at the moment. Certainly a high profile attack will tighten security in the short run, but eventually efforts will wane, and its hard to police your own side when you have so many places to look after.
Taking this into account, if I hypothetically wanted to attack the Sears tower, and the Space Elevator existed today and was an easier target, I'd go for the SE. In the short run, the Sears tower would be a tougher target, but in eighteen months to two years it might actually become an easier target. You never know, just keep trying the enemy's defenses until they start to collapse.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"We got attacked by 19 guys with boxcutters and one idiot with a shoebomb, therefore we should quail in terror and keep our heads down. Don't build any tall buildings, don't fly unless absolutely necessary, and don't even think about building infrastructure that could open up the solar system to the entire human race. Somebody with scissors might try to cut it loose.
"a large target in wartime"
Flip it around. It's a means to get cargo to space (and maybe the only one) that can't readily be used as a weapon.
The base is fixed geographically. The cargo going up is dead slow, visible, and easy to track.
This is a good thing in wartime. Combatants can agree it's not a threat, and leave it alone.
Display some adaptability.
It sounds like the conference was a success. Critics were given some podium time, and Arthur C. Clarke updated his now famous prediction to a bolder "10 years after everybody stops laughing". (He originally said "50 years after everyone stops laughing".)
At LiftWatch we're putting up reports by people who attended, as they become available. Blaise Gassend, one of the speakers, posted some good notes on the first two days of the conference.
While the space elevator visionaries gathered in Santa Fe I feel it falls to me to point out a glaring hypocricy in the way that that conference was organised.
Despite the cost saving benifits of the elevator approach to accessing space, they are still advocating the ongoing use of shuttles as can be seen at the bottom of their about page.
Karma police, I've given all I can, it's not enough, I've given all I can, but we're still on the payroll.
To take it out in a big way you would have to load a bomb onto a elevator car and take it up to quite high altitude, taking maybe a few days or a week, before detonating it. Needless to say, with sensible security practices at the embarkation point this is unlikely to be a problem.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"The Space Elevator would be a tempting target for terrorists, since it could be attacked using low tech weapons, if they could be delivered. We shouldn't underestimate their creativity in doing this.
Why? Why would they want to strike it? Would it cause a big commotion? No. Would virtually anyone even know it happened? No.
And here's the big reason why terrorists would NEVER bother going after the space elevator:
Would it even bring it down? No.
Terrorists would likely strike the elevator far below GEO - remember the elevator is almost 100,000 km long, and they'd be striking it within the bottom few km. This would do nothing. The operators would be like "Oh, jeez, those stupid terrorists tried to do something again, the elevator's drifting. OK, spool out another km of cable." The ONLY place that striking it would do ANYTHING is if you struck it near GEO, and if terrorists develop the technology to do an orbital strike at GEO, I've got a feeling they'll target other things besides the space elevator.
The second main reason that attacking the Elevator would be useless is that even if they broke the first cable, this wouldn't even be that impressive. The marginal cost for deploying a second cable is trivial (the Conference notes said $2B, but I think they'd win out far more than that due to economies of scale - plus they doubled several things like power distribution which wouldn't be necessary for a 'backup cable'. The ribbon itself was estimated at $400M).
You could imagine it on the news. "Elevator cable #21 was damaged beyond repair today by an explosive package concealed within a launch satellite. Consortium members have already stated that a replacement cable has been moved into position and unspooling has already begun. Full operation is expected to resume in a few weeks."
I mean, seriously. Saying the Space Elevator is a tempting target for terrorists is like saying the International Space Station is a tempting target for terrorists. Sure, it might be. But it's not like it would EVER happen.
Eat at Joe's.
All valid conclusions, but your premise is off.
No tower. A ribbon extends to, and past GEO, for one. Read the report - google for NIAC final report or highlift
Display some adaptability.
The pacific ocean near the equator is fairly calm, and is most likely where it would be anchored. Oil rigs are built to survive some of the harshest ocean conditions imaginable, and the cable base station would be a similar structure. Plus, there are ways to avoid a disaster. Just off the top of my head I came up with one, i'm sure there are others.
You put enough weight on the cable to equal the tension that's holding the low end down, then detach the end. Then the weight climbs up above the storm, rolling the cable behind it, and when it's all over lower the cable and reattach. It would be tricky but there's no reason it couldn't be done. You could pull the end right out of the atmosphere and use ion engines at each end to keep the orbit stable indefinitly while detached.
Just because it is a huge target doesn't make it accessible to terrorists, or any other kind of enemy.
The WTC was accessible in part because it was in the middle of a city. If this thing was built in the middle of Nellis Air Force Base (for example), just getting within sight of it would be a challenge.
The space elevator makes so much sense it's amazing we even made a space shuttle at all.
The way I look at it is this. We have been shooting humans into space atop monolithic, ubelievably dangerous explosive devices. A rocket is an explosive device.
If space were a cliff and we wanted to get on top, the current way we are doing it is by laying a board over a fulcrum, sitting a guy on one end and dropping a volkswagen on the other. Boing! he flys through the air and rolls to a stop atop the cliff. How does he get down? he jumps and hopes to land on a soft spot. Lots, LOTS can go wrong, and death is almosts as likely as success.
The space elevator is the equivalent of (rather than launching someone up) throwing a rope and hook up the cliff face, securing it, and then weaving a rope ladder.
Higher success, cheaper (no volkswagen involved), and safer (though less exciting and dramatice albeit).
True, destroying the Space Elevator would be a big demoralizer, and thus a big draw for the terrorists. Destroying elevator #6 of 27 wouldn't be such a big deal, though. That's why one of the first projects given to Space Elevator #1 should be the lifting up into orbit of Space Elevator #2, and so on.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Has long been the leader in absolute dollars, though the US may have surpassed them last year.
However, per capita or as percent of GNP, the US is very low on the list. It depends how you count.
We give a lot away, but a lot of that comes back as those countries contract with american engineering firms, or buy american arms, and I just don't like the indignation of the parent post, where the assumption is that we are great, we save the world, we are selfless, and they just hate us anyway... biting the hand that feeds them.
America profits FROM the world, from doing business around the world. Which is great, by the way! Let's just face facts and not act all indignant and hurt like we should get less stink-eye from the world.
-pyrrho