Slashdot Mirror


Space Elevator Prizes Proposed

colonist writes "Space elevator proponents are planning competitions for space elevator technologies, similar to the Ansari X Prize. Elevator:2010 will organize annual competitions for climbers, ribbons and power-beaming systems. In other space elevator news, researcher Bradley C. Edwards recently left the Institute for Scientific Research to work at two companies on materials and technology. Also, the space elevator has caught the interest of Google's founders: 'At a space camp in Alabama last year, Brin talked about creating a space elevator to transport cargo up a special tether attached to earth. Also last year, Brin joined Page in proclaiming they should found a nanotech lab at Google.'"

214 comments

  1. Lab? Isn't that a forum? by mangu · · Score: 5, Interesting
    last year, Brin joined Page in proclaiming they should found a nanotech lab at Google.


    No link to pursue, but one feels that if it's at Google that would be more like a discussion forum than a lab. Unless, of course, they are proposing that Google starts funding a research center. If they follow, for instance, IBM's and ATT's footsteps, that would be a Great Thing(TM).

    1. Re:Lab? Isn't that a forum? by KE1LR · · Score: 3, Insightful
      last year, Brin joined Page in proclaiming they should found a nanotech lab at Google.

      [sarcasm] Today, General Motors announced they were launching a chain of fast-food resturaunts called "MotorEaters" and Coca-Cola began construction on a new factory to produce cruise missiles for the US military. [ /sarcasm ]

      Whatever happened to sticking to what you do best? Perhaps all that IPO money is going to fund an attempt to make Google into a frankenstein conglomerate of all the founders' whims.

    2. Re:Lab? Isn't that a forum? by glpierce · · Score: 1

      "Whatever happened to sticking to what you do best?"

      Think about it this way; they will never spend huge amounts of cash on the search agent - it's not a job that throwing gobs of money at will help all that much. So, if they're going to have billions burning a hole in their pocket, why not let it serve the greater good?

      --
      G
  2. Welcome to planet google by Barryke · · Score: 3, Funny

    Aliens will enter earth via Google. I told you.

    --
    Hivemind harvest in progress..
    1. Re:Welcome to planet google by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, more likely via Lindon Utah. Who but an eevil space alien could handle the Revenue Accountant job? (Earth Defence Missles, locked on!)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Welcome to planet google by Donny+Smith · · Score: 1

      They've entered it already via Brin & Page.

    3. Re:Welcome to planet google by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      No, more likely via Lindon Utah.

      I say we take off and nukethe site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

      Mal-2

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    4. Re:Welcome to planet google by Barryke · · Score: 1
      See, they're even hiring right now.

      Google Jobs: Lunar

      Quote:

      - "The Googlunaplex will house 35 engineers, 27,000 low cost web servers, 2 massage therapists and a sushi chef formerly employed by the pop group Hanson."

      --
      Hivemind harvest in progress..
  3. Haha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    And in other news, The RIAA has donated a large collection of hit music tracks to the prize pool.

    1. Re:Haha! by caswelmo · · Score: 1

      However, the music can not be listened to on the elevator because it is not an "approved" device.

      RIAA Exec: "We are concerned that consumer interests could be threatened by freely distributed music at higher altitudes. By expanding unauthorized recordings past the atmosphere, beings on other worlds may be able to listen to music without the proper licensing. This could potentially destroy civilization & render...... What? Oh, those. Yeah, those are horns. They go well with my hooves & pointy tail, don't you think?"

    2. Re:Haha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're joking, I guess.

      Actually, in Entertainment law, we learned that at least one studio does, in their contracts, have a clause granting them rights for the whole universe. Why? Because an executive watched a space shot where music was playing on the space shuttle or something. Can't have that without the appropriate royalties, now can we? Before that, contracts read something like "anywhere on Earth".

  4. Google Should fund it by cflorio · · Score: 3, Funny

    According to the Space Elevator Book it will only take ~ 5 Billion to build the first one. After their IPO, they can afford it!

    1. Re:Google Should fund it by Louis+Savain · · Score: 1

      it will only take ~ 5 Billion to build the first one

      And a few hundred dollars to buy a small bomb to bring it all down, miles upon miles of it crashing to the earth. The space elevator is a cool idea but not in this hate-filled world. Too dangerous.

    2. Re:Google Should fund it by stud9920 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All the things you could have done with the Iraq $150 billions...You could have easily built five such elevators, plus ITER and the two next generations of fusion reactors to get rid of oil need. Prizes are good and all, but these things can also be fully financed by doing intelligent political choices.

    3. Re:Google Should fund it by Tango42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The best solution to that i've heard is making it in sections that separate in an emergency and all burn up during re-entry. I still wouldn't want to be withing a mile or two of the base station though...

    4. Re:Google Should fund it by magarity · · Score: 2, Interesting

      After their IPO, they can afford it!

      If you have a viable design for a space elevator, you can have your own IPO and raise plenty of cash. That's why there's no real need for artificial prizes. The revenue generated by the thing would be the real prize.

    5. Re:Google Should fund it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Don't you know anything about space elevators? The best material is a carbon nanotube ribbon... if it was broken, it would just sorta drift down, probably not much faster than your average piece of paper.

    6. Re:Google Should fund it by the+pickle · · Score: 1

      There already is a viable plan.

      It's raising the several billion dollars when any revenue is 10-15 years off that's proving to be the problem.

      p

    7. Re:Google Should fund it by powerlinekid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Examples of voodoo science masquerading as legitimate science are all around us: time travel, wormholes, black holes, dimensions curled up into little balls so tiny as to be undetectable, parallel universes, continuum physics, quantum computing, symbolic intelligence, machine consciousness, etc... It is all worthless crackpottery. Yet a few voodoo scientists have managed to amass small fortunes selling some of this stuff to an unsuspecting public, a public that continually thirsts for mysterious things to worship. Hopefully this site will wake a few people up.


      You have to be kidding me. The above is from your site and is absolutely rediculous. Yet at the same time as arguing that black holes don't exist, you make the extraordinary claim that the bible contains the blueprints to an AI system?

      You sir need to get a new tinfoil hat. I believe the old lead one you're using has leaked into your brain.

      --

      can't sleep slashdot will eat me
    8. Re:Google Should fund it by stevelinton · · Score: 1

      This really doesn't happen. A bomb near the bottom does very little, because the bottom of the elevator isn't in tension. Also early models will not carry passengers so bomb checks will be pretty easy.

      A bomb higher up will cause quite a lot of the elevator to come down, if you can find a way to get your bomb to geostationary orbit and explode it close enough to cut the really very strong cable. However: (a) it comes down really slowly, over the best part of a day and (b) atmospheric resistance will, depending on how far it has fallen when it hits the atmosphere, either burn it up or slow it to a gentle flutter well before it hits the ground.

      Terrorism is a risk in the sense that you might lose a $5bn asset, but even then most of it is in space and so pretty hard to reach. It is essentially no more risk than that.

    9. Re:Google Should fund it by modavis · · Score: 1

      >It's raising the several billion dollars when any revenue is 10-15 years off that's proving to be the problem.

      The critical factor "gating" the space elevator is the strength of bulk CNT material. IMHO research on that is already reasonably well funded -- i.e. it's keeping busy most of the people qualified to advance such research. It will snowball as strength approaches levels attractive for extreme engineering here on earth.

      THAT will be the time to start raising billions. Until then, it makes sense to spend some millions on R&D for things other than the ribbon cable itself.

    10. Re:Google Should fund it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geees, next you'll be telling us that the seven churches in Revelation are really the seven layers in the OSI model.

      Read your webpage, laughed myself silly. Hope it was supposed to be funny, because if it wasn't, you better seek some help fast.

      You're not the first to claim to have the key to 'secret' messages in religious texts, you won't be the last, and if you're samrt, you'll found your own church and make lots of money like those who have done so before.

      Good luck making those millions.

      Cheers.

    11. Re:Google Should fund it by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's highly unlikely that anyone will be able to build such a thing without the blessing of a major world power for the following reasons:

      • Strategic Value. A device like this is the ultimate edge in warfare if you can protect it. It lets you put large quantities of mass in orbit allowing things like the infamous space crowbars plan. Every nation is going to want to be part of this - they're going to want it badly. And they won't really want anyone else to be in control of it...
      • You need somewhere to put it. That means cooperation. No government is going to just allow you to anchor the cable in their backyard without some gain; see point 1.
      • Economic value. The space elevator is the key to making asteroid mining useful, and space travel affordable. Again, a highly valuable resource.

      In other words, whoever provides the brainpower, the first space elevator itself will almost certainly be a resource owned by a nation.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. As I understand it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting
    A space elevator is a really long "superstrong" ribbon.

    But then things get confusing. It's pretty obvious one end hooks to Earth, but what do you hook the other to? The Moon? An asteroid?

    Assuming we find a substance strong enough to build such a cable from, don't we then have to worry about the strength of the tethers and ultimately the consequences of altering Earth's rotation?

    I like sci-fi as much as the next person, but maybe this project calls for some long-term planning.

    1. Re:As I understand it... by mangu · · Score: 3, Informative
      It's pretty obvious one end hooks to Earth, but what do you hook the other to?


      An artificial satellite in geostationary orbit, that is at an altitude (close to 36000km) where the orbital velocitiy is the same as Earth's rotation.


      don't we then have to worry about the strength of the tethers


      Yes, that's the main problem.


      ultimately the consequences of altering Earth's rotation?


      No, since the satellite would be rotating at exactly the same speed as the Earth.

    2. Re:As I understand it... by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think it's higher than standard GEO. The centre of gravity of the tether and the satalite is at GEO, so the satalite has the be higher, to counter the weight of the tether below. Depending on the relative masses of the tether and satalite, it could be quite a lot higher than GEO.

    3. Re:As I understand it... by 26199 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, it does have to be higher... since by definition it will be orbiting at the speed of rotation of the earth, anything lower than geostationary orbit is going too slowly and will tend to fall back; anything higher is going too quickly and will tend to move away from the earth.

      The idea is to have enough mass higher than geostationary orbit that this pull supports the rest of the structure.

    4. Re:As I understand it... by cjameshuff · · Score: 5, Informative
      A space elevator is a really long "superstrong" ribbon.
      Correct.
      But then things get confusing. It's pretty obvious one end hooks to Earth, but what do you hook the other to? The Moon? An asteroid?
      Not the moon. And not necessarily an asteroid, or anything. You could build a ribbon that extends far past GEO, and you won't need any kind of counterweight. As long as there is enough mass higher than GEO, the elevator will stay up.
      Assuming we find a substance strong enough to build such a cable from, don't we then have to worry about the strength of the tethers and ultimately the consequences of altering Earth's rotation?
      As mentioned, we have found materials strong enough, the problem is now producing them. And there will be no significant effects on Earth's rotation. Yes, momentum for the payloads will be taken from Earth's angular momentum...but Earth is really, really big and massive. Tidal effects with the moon will likely have greater effects than we could cause with beanstalks.
    5. Re:As I understand it... by mangu · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Depending on the relative masses of the tether and satalite, it could be quite a lot higher than GEO.


      Right, and don't forget the mass of the cargo. It's an interesting situation, because it's dynamic. The mass of the cargo being raised or sent down will change from day to day, and the altitude of the satellite must be adjusted accordingly. However, to change the altitude isn't that simple. You must make it go faster, so it will start overtaking the Earth, moving east, before it starts rising. There will be ripples in the tether as a consequence, and the cargo pods will follow.


      Also, the cargo will come from someplace and be sent somewhere. What about the launch system at the satellite, to send cargo pods to other orbits and receive them? An electromagnetic rail launcher seems right, but it will add and subtract momentum from the satellite.


      How about creating a simulator for that? http://spaceelevator.sourceforge.net, anyone?

    6. Re:As I understand it... by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      I don't think a simulator is needed. It's simple newtonian mechanics. Lots of it, but each bit is fairly simple. Also, if the mass of the counterweight is big enough relative to the mass of a cargo, won't the problem be too small to worry about?

    7. Re:As I understand it... by Starji · · Score: 2, Funny

      Beanstalk.... You've Solved it!! We just need to find Jack and ask him who gave him the beans. I'm sure there are plenty of Dairy Farmers who would donate a cow to the cause.

      Think of the potential rewards... A goose that can lay golden eggs. That's gotta be worth something. Of course the giants may be a problem, but I'm sure we could take it. We've needed a use for our tactical nukes anyway.

    8. Re:As I understand it... by Bob+Munck · · Score: 1
      It's pretty obvious one end hooks to Earth, but what do you hook the other to?

      An artificial satellite in geostationary orbit,

      No, no forget all that "geostationary" stuff. What holds the Space Elevator up is good old centrifugal force. Whirl a rock on the end of a string around your head: the string is held taut and the rock out at right angles to gravity by centrifugal force. In similar fashion, the Space Elevator will be whirling around so fast that it'll be held taut. Sure, it's only going around once every 24 hours, but it's really, really long.

      (Yes, centrifugal force isn't real, it's virtual. It's the apparent force created on a mass under centripetal acceleration.)

    9. Re:As I understand it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Another way to look at it is that the entire elevator is in geostationary orbit. Its center of mass will be 35,790 km up. Since it has a lot of mass below that distance, it will require a lot of mass above that distance.

      I like this way of looking at it better because it helps clear up a misconception: There is no significant stress on the anchor point. The thing is basically floating such that its bottom nudges the earth. The anchor just keeps it from flopping around or something.

    10. Re:As I understand it... by Stanleverlock · · Score: 1

      DEar ACoward
      Are you by the way related to Noel?

      THe other end is held in place by gravity. This demands an extremely stong material in order to keep from being broken, but the cable will hang there if extended far enough out from the surface of the planet.

      yours truly,

    11. Re:As I understand it... by flewp · · Score: 1

      Once one elevator is built, wouldn't it reduce the costs further for future ones? I mean, I know it would because the technology would have been developed. My question is, wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to get the mass up for the counterweight (or whatever it is) through the first elevator and then move it into position?

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    12. Re:As I understand it... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Assuming we find a substance strong enough to build such a cable from

      Actually, carbon nanofiber layered in a crosshatch pattern to form a wide ribbon, instead of the rope one tends to think of by default, is beginning to look like it might be way more than strong enough. (Do remember, strong enough isn't strong enough; it has to tolerate occasional extreme stress even by its own standards.)

      and ultimately the consequences of altering Earth's rotation?

      Well, y'know, if you were trying to tie to the Moon, maybe. But, it's much more realistic to make an artificial satellite as a far-end anchor, set it in an orbit at extreme distance geosynchronicity, and use that. Once you're in space, it's easy enough to do a little bit of jetting to get to the Moon, or wherever else.

      Will the artificial satellite alter the Earth's rotation or movement path? Only in the way that you have to be a mathematician to appreciate. Think of it a little bit like Roseanne Barr barrelling down a hallway after a twinkie on a remote control car, with the head of a pin tied to her by a strand of spider silk. She's not even going to notice, and the satellite isn't nearly that big or heavy by scale.

      Though maybe I should use an example which is less heavy than the Earth?

      Anyway, right now the real stumbling block is defending the ribbon against weather (both on Earth where it's easy and in space where it isn't; yes, meteorites are weather) and worse, like terrorist attack. Even if the ribbon were as light as what you use to tie packages (and current schemes aren't) then the whole ribbon would weigh more than most skyscrapers, and since most of it wouldn't have time to burn up, it'd also have the kind of velocity that something falling thousands of miles tends to accrue. That, falling across a landscape, is the potential for disaster, even if you house the ribbon in the middle of nowhere (the Sahara, Antarctica, the ocean, whatever; the Earth doesn't have any empty spots big enough to take the whole ribbon without potentially leading to populated areas.) When you consider that current plans are a ribbon eight feet wide and half an inch thick of something with a weight comparable to the stuff in lightweight bikes - lighter than metal to be sure, but nothing like packaging ribbon - the consequences of failure or attack could be absolutely monsterous, the price tag aside.

      I like sci-fi as much as the next person, but maybe this project calls for some long-term planning.

      Why do slashdotters think that just because they haven't seen the plans means that those plans don't exist? NASA, many research institutions and universities and various industrial corporations have been tryihng to crack this nut since the 60s. Do you realize how expensive it is to put a satellite into space, and how much money they're worth? The first company to a space elevator might as well have a license to print money. Believe you me, no small amount of effort and planning has gone into this.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  6. This is one thing I'd like to see before I die. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm almost 40 so I'm probably halfway through my life, but the space elevator is one thing I'd like to see, along with a manned landing on Mars, true artificial intelligence, proof of extraterrestrial civilization, and a Libertarian president.

    If we can get that far without destroying the hope of future generations I think mankind might have a chance to be more successful than the dinosaurs were.

    1. Re:This is one thing I'd like to see before I die. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      If movies have taught me anything, it's that the space elevator is the only thing in that list that won't stand a good chance of wiping us out.

    2. Re:This is one thing I'd like to see before I die. by Stalyn · · Score: 1

      and ironically the only thing you will see is a Libertarian president....

      --
      The best education consists in immunizing people against systematic attempts at education. - Paul Feyerabend
    3. Re:This is one thing I'd like to see before I die. by Robmonster · · Score: 1

      You dont want much, do you...?

      --
      I have no sig yet I must scream.
    4. Re:This is one thing I'd like to see before I die. by jefe7777 · · Score: 1

      before i die, i'd like to see a petrified natalie portman covered with hot grits.

      in person.

    5. Re:This is one thing I'd like to see before I die. by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

      true artificial intelligence

      How exactly do you define true artificial intelligence, and, assuming it's
      possible, would it be useful?

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
    6. Re:This is one thing I'd like to see before I die. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i know getting laid seems very important to you right now but after that there aren't many things left to do/want, except maybe world domination.

    7. Re:This is one thing I'd like to see before I die. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      I'm almost 40 so I'm probably halfway through my life,

      HALFWAY?
      SO OPTIMISTIC.

      SEE YOU NEXT THURSDAY.

      Signed:
      DEATH

  7. Google to buy NASA? by cuteseal · · Score: 1
    Maybe Google should just acquire Nasa, the same way they bought out Picasa :D

    http://www.shuttertalk.com

  8. Welcome to the World of tomorrow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..now if you would mind just stepping into the probulator thankyou.

    1. Re:Welcome to the World of tomorrow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this the probulator you were talking about? In that case I can think of many who would step on it, hard!

  9. I'm not so sure by cflorio · · Score: 4, Informative
    Before jumping to conclusions on how this is not possible, go ahead and pick up a copy of The Space Elevator Book.

    They do have the material, carbon nano tubes. They just can't be made to the length needed, yet. They have ideas on how to avoid the space junk.

    1. Re:I'm not so sure by pikine · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, I think i'll prefer to build one with Lego.

      --
      I once had a signature.
    2. Re:I'm not so sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They have ideas on how to avoid the space junk."

      Sure... they'll just clean up near-earth orbit with a huge space-vac, which was announced as phase three of the competition.

    3. Re:I'm not so sure by g129951 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      "They have ideas on how to avoid the space junk."

      I wouldn't suggest that reducing the total cost to low earth orbit is a bad idea --it's a great idea, that needs to be considered very carefully. I don't think raising a valid criticism or reasonable doubt constitutes jumping to conclusions either.

      I was stationed at NORAD in the early eighties and junk in low earth orbit was a major concern as the shuttle program transitioned from idea to reality. I expect the problem is much worse now. I think "cloud" is a more apt description of the debris field. Yes, stuff re-enters the atmosphere all day every day, so I guess you could say it's a self healing process, but it's a long process.

      The trouble with ideas is that they cost taxpayer dollars even if it turns out to be a bust.

      I don't think most people have any idea what it would take to successfully swing a cable through maybe 20,000 objects at various altitudes, all travelling at 17,000 MPH or so, all day every day without hitting anything.

      There's a long ugly road between this idea and reality.

      Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if NASA didn't fund the programs. It would be O.K. with me if someone with an idea wanted to fund the research themselves or recruit funding from corporate types.

      MADMEN is a similar boondoggle. But, don't take my word for it, ask Duncan Steele, PhD. In 1995 Steele published a book called "Rogue Asteroids and Doomsday Comets" addressing this particular option (throwing material off an dangerous asteroid using a mass driver). Thomas Ahrens and Alan Harris at the California Institute of Technology looked at this very system (page 229). They dismissed it in 1992 because the ejection requirement was "...many thousands of tons..." over a lot of years. What did they come up with in answer to that? A "fleet" of mass drivers throwing stuff off. MADMEN indeed.

    4. Re:I'm not so sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      >I don't think most people have any idea what it would take to successfully swing a cable through maybe 20,000 objects at various altitudes, all travelling at 17,000 MPH or so, all day every day without hitting anything.
      It isn't the velocity relative to ground that is the problem, only differential velocity of ribbon and the junk that is there. You do not mention altitude so I'd appreciate some figures here.

      Earth surface velocity at equator is 40,000km/24h = 1667 km/h. Obviously not all object can travel at 17,000 MPH or so

    5. Re:I'm not so sure by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 1

      You damn hippies and your newfangled plastic toys. Real men would make a space elevator with an Erector Set, using that tiny little wrench the whole way up.

    6. Re:I'm not so sure by Speare · · Score: 1

      Why am I reminded of the scene in Spaceballs where Dot Matrix vacuums the air from the planet? Heck, it's been so long since I've seen it, I don't even know if that's accurate. I just remember a huge vacuum near a planet, with Joan Rivers' voice over.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    7. Re:I'm not so sure by g129951 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Orbital velocity is 17,551mph minimum for low earth orbit. That's Los Angeles to New York in a little more than 9 minutes and it gets you 16 orbits in a day --that's crossing the Equator on an ascending and descending node (that's where the cable would be) on every orbit.

      And you're right, relative velocities are the bigger problem, and not all of them are moving at the same speed.

      For small objects in near circular orbit it's bad enough, but not all objects are in near circular orbits. Some are in highly elliptical orbits --they travel slower at aphelion than at perihelion (these were called apogee and perigee when I took orbital mechanics 20 years ago) -think "screaming along" (Kepler's equal area in equal time law)

      If you want exact numbers of objects in orbit at specific altitudes you'll have to call NORAD or NASA --it's Saturday and they're probably bored so they won't mind. You might find a NASA site that has specifics, but I'd call NORAD (they own the radars).

    8. Re:I'm not so sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      aphelion than at perihelion (these were called apogee and perigee when I took orbital mechanics 20 years ago)

      They still are. apo = far, peri = near; gee>>Geo, helion>>Helios, jove>>Jovian

      So... apogee is the high point in orbit around Earth, perihelion is the low point of the orbit around the Sun, apojove is the high point of the orbit around Jupiter.

      20,000 objects in a volume the size we are speaking of is not an unavoidable number. Statistics will give you a few decades before it is likely to be hit if you do some active maneuvering. In the meantime, it will have paid for itself and a replacement in not only saved launch costs, but also in increased payload capacity. It's worth the effort.

      I believe that they are also in the tens to hundreds of miles stage in producing monotube tape. Just two or so orders of magnitude to go.
    9. Re:I'm not so sure by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      I don't think most people have any idea what it would take to successfully swing a cable through maybe 20,000 objects at various altitudes, all travelling at 17,000 MPH or so, all day every day without hitting anything.

      This is a bit melodramatic. The space elevator concept is essentially a vertical pole; very few of those orbits would even come within a hundred miles of the elevator.

      That said, yes, junk is a serious issue. Given that the US military has just run recent successful tests zapping mortars out of the air with lasers, and given that US aircraft carriers have automatic heavy-bore machine guns which can cut enemy planes in half in flight, I should think that a series of automated defense points along the cable, paired with redundancy not only in defense but in the cable itself, should provide a reasonable basis for extrapolation.

      There's a long ugly road between this idea and reality.

      Not really. All we need to do is raise our production capacities and prepare the cable to defend itself. Neither of those are fantastic even given current technology. Whereas I agree that 2010 isn't realistic, I doubt you'll see today's teenagers having to wait for middle age for the construction to begin.

      A lot of people have said things like this each time we've laid down some form of massive engineering project. Electrifaction, the telegraph, the rail and highway systems, fiber optic communications, computer connectivity and satellites were all denigrated as borderline impossible by many people with good experience and the appropriate knowledge.

      The truth is, it's just going to take a hell of a lot of money and refinement of what we already have. Don't confuse waiting for new technologies with needing to refine existing technologies. Only one of those is risky.

      MADMEN is a similar boondoggle.

      This is called a straw man. Just because you're aware of one bone-headed project doesn't mean that this one is any less realistic. This is a fallacy. This is a bit like saying that hybrid cars can't be done, because look at the Yugo, what a dismal failure, and it's a car too.

      Honestly. Someone which worked at NORAD should know better.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    10. Re:I'm not so sure by g129951 · · Score: 1

      "This is a bit melodramatic. The space elevator concept is essentially a vertical pole; very few of those orbits would even come within a hundred miles of the elevator."

      Not true. Every satellite in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) crosses the Equator twice on each orbit --once on the ascending node and once on the descending node and there are 16 orbits per day. The Space Elevator proponents suggest it's possible to literally swing that "pole" through the orbits of every object out to a distance of 64,000 miles all day everyday without hitting anything. I don't think it can be done and I stand by my statement. But, don't take my word for it, call NORAD and ask them how many objects they're tracking out to 64,000 miles.

      "That said, yes, junk is a serious issue. Given that the US military has just run recent successful tests zapping mortars out of the air with lasers, and given that US aircraft carriers have automatic heavy-bore machine guns which can cut enemy planes in half in flight, I should think that a series of automated defense points along the cable, paired with redundancy not only in defense but in the cable itself, should provide a reasonable basis for extrapolation."

      This statement is just silly. Like You'd want to make matters worse by shooting at an object in the first place (adding 6000 rounds per minute, moving at a thousand meters per second, to the debris field), and making little pieces out of bigger ones that you might be able to track and avoid. Anything that breaks an object apart in orbit is going to make matters worse not better.

      "This is called a straw man. Just because you're aware of one bone-headed project doesn't mean that this one is any less realistic. This is a fallacy. This is a bit like saying that hybrid cars can't be done, because look at the Yugo, what a dismal failure, and it's a car too."

      No it's not. My original point was that the space elevator is a waste of money, like MADMEN is a waste of money. And yes, it's your money too.

  10. kim stanley robinson by bob_avernus · · Score: 1

    if anybody has read the mars series by kim stanley robinson in his book they created the end out of an astroid which was also cannibalized to make the cable the problem with it was that during a revolution the astroid was detached by explosives and went on a trip around the sun with people in it then the cable started to fall which ended up wrapping around mars like 1.5 times and did major damage to the planet and killed thousands... "and they want to do this on earth?"

    1. Re:kim stanley robinson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Does science FICTION mean anything to you?!

    2. Re:kim stanley robinson by Gest · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of serious obstacles to an elevator but they don't include these. Read the Wiikipedia article and associated talk page.

    3. Re:kim stanley robinson by bob_avernus · · Score: 1

      alot of science FICTION has proven to be facts plus what else do you propose to connect a cable that long to? it would have to have enough mass to hold the cable and connecting the cable would also be very complicated... also about power there was a nasa mission where they strung a cable out from the space shuttle and it collected so much energy that it arked into the shuttle causing some minor damage

    4. Re:kim stanley robinson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      You're obviously referring to the Tethered Satellite experiment. That 20km tether was intended to generate power by running this conductive wire through the earth's magnetic field. Something like a large scale alternator. The damage was caused by a hole in this wire's outer insulation layer, coupled with the fact that the part of the tether giving its strength was able to hold enough air(oxygen) to permit this spark to burn long enough to break the tether. Of course, the satellite and the 19.8km of tether was lost. However, the test for generating power (at the expense of orbit altitude) was a success. This now proven technology can be used for satellite power generation, or even a fuelless orbit raising by applying a current to the tether.

    5. Re:kim stanley robinson by Pentagram · · Score: 1

      Well, that'll save everyone teh trouble of actually reading the book!

    6. Re:kim stanley robinson by bob_avernus · · Score: 1

      the book isn't about the elevators it plays a role in the first book there are 3 more after that though they do have elevators in them they are very good books with alot of science in them even though they are science fiction i looked into them and at the time most of it was based on fact

    7. Re:kim stanley robinson by sketerpot · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Bravo. You've read a science fiction book and assumed that it applies to real life. Perhaps you should read about the actual proposal to build a space elevator instead of just blindly posting "in the mars series it WRAPPED AROUND TEH PLANET!!!".

      I'm sorry if this is unusually harsh, but I'm sick to death of this reply. Whenever anybody brings up the plans to build a space elevator, some bozo says that it's a bad idea because of something that happened in that series. I like to think that most people can tell fiction from reality, but this is seriouslly making me reconsider.

    8. Re:kim stanley robinson by Pentagram · · Score: 1

      OK, three points:

      * Don't reveal plot points like "the space elevator gets destroyed!" It's the climax of the first book.
      * Try to write in sentences. Your stream-of-consciousness babbling is hard to read.
      * A LOT is two words. A--LOT.

      I've read Red Mars and I didn't think much of it. None of the characters seemed very interesting and the sci fi seemed very unrealistic, particularly the terraforming.

    9. Re:kim stanley robinson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine attaching a cable between the moon and the earth.. watch the moon come closer and BANG!

    10. Re:kim stanley robinson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i've emailed KSR a few times. he's a nice guy that writes well, and he has good ideas for his fictional stories. at the time he wrote those books, edwards had not come up with his modifications and breakthroughs to the 'then current' baseline of using a big asteroid as the counterweight. so KSR (stan) used what was available for his stories. since then, we've emailed, and he has actually apologized for the headache this particular concept has caused us.

      it made for a good story, but its not based on science fact. :-)

      take care. mjl
      pres., liftport.com

    11. Re:kim stanley robinson by modavis · · Score: 1

      Elevator cable in Red Mars: ~6 billion tons
      Elevator cable in Edwards proposal: ~700 tons

      Do the math...

    12. Re:kim stanley robinson by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Yes, and certainly hackers don't exist because they were in novels too. In fact, I think I'll write a book about terrorists so that we can also stop worrying about them.

      The effect of a space elevator ribbon crash would be absolutely devastating. People are right to be worried about it. NASA engineers are among the worried. Don't want to hear about it anymore? Stop reading about the Space Elevator.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  11. In other space elevator news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "In other space elevator news..."

    You know you're living in the 21st century when you read words like these.

  12. Google Space Elevator? by Paulrothrock · · Score: 3, Funny
    Would it have the 'o's going up the side of the tether?

    I heard people complaining about how Google's a one-trick pony, but that kind of diversifying probably isn't what they're talking about.

    --
    I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    1. Re:Google Space Elevator? by kidgenius · · Score: 1

      Just like the google search, you click the "O" at the level you want to get off at.

  13. Has Google jumped the shark? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seriously, these guys must be developing some sort of messiah complex if they think space elevators and nanotech have anything to do with their core skills. I met Brin in 2000 and he was getting full of himself then. The last few years of success and money must have convinced these two they're invincible and that any field could benefit from their presence. It's the same "I'm rich because I'm the smartest" attitude that too-young Wall Street traders get after they get rich at the first thing they try.

    The real test if Google is any different from any other flash-in-the-pan will be when they hit some real adversity. Until then, they're just the latest Lycos/Altavista/Inktomi fair-haired boy to make a splash with VC funding and a slightly better idea. The truth is, no search engine has substantially improved once it's been deployed on a large scale. If no one's passed Google on quality, it's mainly because they were the last to get funded before the crash.

    Flame away

    1. Re:Has Google jumped the shark? by netsharc · · Score: 1

      Maybe they'll built the first realistic AI, and an AI-controlled virtual world where you can escape real-life, where people would get addicted and rather stay there...

      Sounds like a film plot to you? :)

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    2. Re:Has Google jumped the shark? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      >I met Brin in 2000 and he was getting full of himself then.
      Say, wan't it Brin that wrote the book behind The Postman? Umm, it sure does looklike it.

      >The real test if Google is any different from any other flash-in-the-pan will be when they hit some real adversity.
      I disagree; they already have a real product that is used quite simply because it is of good quality and is also user friendly. That already sets them apart from the dot-coms of yesteryears.

    3. Re:Has Google jumped the shark? by twiddlingbits · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Perhaps these guys just want to invest some of that money in a)neat nifty things like nano-tech b) the Elevator as a type of "philanthrophy", which rich people have always done in the USA, but other than Andrew Mellon who founded a university, it has mostly gone to the arts c) e trying to outdo Paul Allen who has invested in the X-Prize entry from Burt Rutan...a Space Elevator would make the X-prize look like a cheap trophy. Oh, and what do these guys care if Google has a rough spell, they can't spend all the money that they have NOW. I don't see Google hiting any bad lows in the next few years, but there could be some technology hiding out there that trumps then.

    4. Re:Has Google jumped the shark? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's kinda the feeling I had about Carmack. That since he wrote a damn good 3D gaming engine, he can build spaceships. Of course now he's learning that compiling your code in software is easy and free, 'compiling' code in hardware costs major money.

    5. Re:Has Google jumped the shark? by MacJedi · · Score: 1
      the Elevator as a type of "philanthrophy", which rich people have always done in the USA, but other than Andrew Mellon who founded a university, it has mostly gone to the arts

      Just a minor point but don't forget about Johns Hopkins or Duke to name a few universities founded by rich men.

      --
      2^5
    6. Re:Has Google jumped the shark? by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      Good point! These days the wealthy usually do things like buy professional sports teams! IMNSHO, Funding an educational endeavor does a lot more long term good for society than say donating to the local Arts Guild. Of course there are always exceptions to this where wealthy folks donate to very good causes in very big ways, but that rarely get any press coverage. The only really big one I can think of is the Gates Foundation which seems to get lots of press.

    7. Re:Has Google jumped the shark? by randall_burns · · Score: 1

      Well, they _do_ have the money to fund something similar to the X-prize. Now, I tend to agree, they would do _much_ more good putting together some decent prizes of that type than some of the alternatives. They might in time develop skills outside their "core skills". The problem is that they have so much money at this point that they much may get an illusion of success by simply going into an area that other folks with similar fortunes have ignored.

  14. More importantly... by m1kesm1th · · Score: 3, Funny

    If a space elevator is built, what music will it play?

    I suggest some calming Thievery Corporation or maybe Air might be more appropriate.

    1. Re:More importantly... by ScottGant · · Score: 1

      well, if it took a while to take the elevator up, and it had private rooms...then you could play "Love in an Elevator"

      --

      "Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
    2. Re:More importantly... by adrianbaugh · · Score: 1

      To hell with music, I want space elevators with Genuine People Personalities! :-)

      --
      "'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
      - JRR Tolkien.
    3. Re:More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holts, "The Planets" of course.

    4. Re:More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a space elevator is built, what music will it play?

      I think you mean, what Musak will it play.

    5. Re:More importantly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good answer...

    6. Re:More importantly... by Dabido · · Score: 1

      It will play Space Muzak. All those grunge hits, now played on a yamaha organ. Nani-mo hoshii mono ga nai!!!

      --
      Sure enough, the cow costume was hanging up next to the superhero outfit and sailors uniform. (S,Spud)
    7. Re:More importantly... by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      I can think of so many seperate reasons that we need to avoid the band Air Supply, despite their being otherwise borderline canonical elevator music . . .

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  15. Rename "Clarke orbit"? by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Interesting
    From a link from the FA link:
    In 1895 a Russian scientist named Konstantin Tsiolkovsky looked at the Eiffel Tower in Paris and thought about such a tower. He wanted to put a "celestial castle" at the end of a spindle shaped cable, with the "castle" orbiting the earth in a geosynchronous orbit (i.e. the castle would remain over the same spot on the earth). The tower would be built from the ground to an altitude of 35,800 kilometers. It would be similar to the fabled beanstalk in the children's story "Jack and the Beanstalk," except that on Tsiolkovsky's tower an elevator would ride up the cable to the "castle".
    Depending on how it was written, wouldn't this cover at least part of Arthur C. Clarke's idea (and patent) for using geostationary orbits? To fully cover it, the castle would have needed radios, but Marconi hadn't stolen the radio yet... Did it have semaphores?
    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    1. Re:Rename "Clarke orbit"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mr Clarke didn't have a patent on anything to do with space, but he did come up with the idea of communication sattelites (sp?) before most (all?) others.

  16. Forget space elevators... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Google should use their expertise in searching to create their own version of SETI.

    1. Re:Forget space elevators... by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

      There you go! (0.28 seconds) I'm sure that the Martian Embassy will have a link somewhere down in the (about) 139,000 hits.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Forget space elevators... by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

      Why, so we can devote our spare cycles to helping people search for porn?

  17. Cool...but by deanj · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've always like this idea, but I bet some whack-job will try and bomb the thing. :-( ...on the other hand, some other whack-job will probably try and *climb* the thing.... wonder how far he'd be before he'd realize that it wasn't as good of an idea as he thought?

    1. Re:Cool...but by WhiteDeath · · Score: 1

      I wonder if that would count as a base jump?

    2. Re:Cool...but by caswelmo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not that it would be fool-proof, but I'm willing to bet that access to space of this type would be an incredibly precious commodity, both militarily & commercially (not to mention tourism!). As such, I'm betting there would be a no-fly zone 50 miles wide around this thing, with military air support from an internationally diverse force. Plus, I'm sure there would be incredibly hefty ground security as well.

      All I'm saying is, I can hardly imagine some nut getting close enough to do damage (or climb :^) this thing. But then again, if it's used for tourism, we would be hard-pressed to keep some suicide-murdering nutjob from find some way. So perhaps no tourism. Damn! As with all terrorism, the common man/woman suffers & the powers-that-be keep on truckin'.

      Did that just turn into a rant?..... Oops! :P

    3. Re:Cool...but by caswelmo · · Score: 1

      Of course, if they climb high enough, they might just fall up when they let go. :^)

      What, you don't think a 60,000 mile climb is realistic? Whatever....

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

      It will have to be located near Equator, and the US (assuming it will be US-built as opposed to, say, Japan-built) has several islads in the Pacific. It also has the fleet to protect it.

      Moreover defence companies are frequently also into aerospace (Rockwell, Lockheed Martin, Boeing etc.) so I can see a military-industrial angle here.

    5. Re:Cool...but by klang · · Score: 1

      People are climbing everything that seems posible or imposible, so if a space elevator is ever build, people will try to climb it .. good idea or not ..

      Climbing a building without permission, the police will be waiting on the roof, at least that woun't be a problem here .. Climbing high enough to make a base jump and strike two birds with one stone!

    6. Re:Cool...but by CmdrGravy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why would it be any easier to conduct a terrorist attack against a space elevator compared to against the Space Shuttle launch facility ?

    7. Re:Cool...but by isorox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I was thinking of going outside, but some whack-job will try to kill me :-( So I stay in my basement. Trouble is it's in a city, so some whack-job might try to blow up a CBRN bomb near me. Perhaps I'll move to nepal.

      If your attitude is that of the rest of the U.S. Your status as world leader ended on September 11th.

      Do people stop going to Spain on holiday cause of ETA? Did people avoid British cities, train stations, and Norther n Ireland, while the IRA were busy murdering people? Do you avoid driving as you might die (afterall, more americans died in 2001 from car accidents then terrorism)?

    8. Re:Cool...but by sketerpot · · Score: 1

      That would be like bombing a nuclear reactor: don't try it. You won't get near it.

    9. Re:Cool...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If your attitude is that of the rest of the U.S. Your status as world leader ended on September 11th.

      nice, the guy didn't say don't build it because of a whack-job, just wondered if a whack-job would try to blow it up. nice anti-US troll, though. I guess nowadays one can write any message, as long as it criticizes the US somehow it will be modded up to +5 informative.

    10. Re:Cool...but by imaginate · · Score: 1

      This is a very valid concern. As another poster mentioned, it would be at the equator. I would assume that it wouldn't be hard to establish an internationally supported 100 mile "no fly zone" around the base. Supplies and people would need to be brought in by train (or by boat if it was on an island), and any aircraft entering the zone would simply need to be shot down.

      It seems reasonable to me - if something like a space elevator is to provide that much benefit to humanity, it's worth protecting with some extreme measures.

    11. Re:Cool...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Do people stop going to Spain on holiday cause of ETA?

      Wow, you picked a lousy example. The train attack almost certainly changed the outcome of the last election. To someone who promised to pull the Iraqi troops ASAP.

    12. Re:Cool...but by Xel'Naga · · Score: 1
      I was thinking of going outside, but some whack-job will try to kill me

      Quite a dilemma, huh? Fortunately your sig has the solution:

      --
      If someone tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back!

    13. Re:Cool...but by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Interesting
      But then again, if it's used for tourism, we would be hard-pressed to keep some suicide-
      murdering nutjob from find some way. So perhaps no tourism. Damn!


      You're probably right -- the world's only space elevator would be too valuable to let the general public near. Fortunately one thing our first space elevator would be really good at is lifting into orbit materials for the second space elevator. Once there are a few dozen space elevators in place, it would be less catastrophic if one or two of them were lost, so access to them could be less restricted.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    14. Re:Cool...but by isorox · · Score: 1

      Erm, no. The electino was pretty much forgone before the attack, as anyone with any inkling of the Spanish population knows. Besides, as I'm sure you enlightened Americans know, ETA had nothing to do with that attack, and that attack hasn't affected tourism.

    15. Re:Cool...but by isorox · · Score: 1

      "I've always like this idea, but I bet some whack-job will try and bomb the thing. :-("

      That but implies its a good idea on paper, but the problem is someone will try to blow it up.

    16. Re:Cool...but by monk · · Score: 1

      If your attitude is that of the rest of the U.S. Your status as world leader ended on September 11th.

      Thank goodness. It was really starting to annoy me having to be in charge of the world like that. :)

      Actually, this whole "threat level orange" silliness is just the way our lizard overlords keep us too worked up to realize that we are ruled by lizards. The only terror Sept. 11th brought into my life was terror that my own government would reinstitute the Dark Ages as a matter of law.

      The U.S. isn't a hyper power or a super power or anything other sort of power. It's just the place the real powers keep some of their less impressive boardrooms and recruit their security guards.

      --
      [-- Trust the Monkey --]
    17. Re:Cool...but by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Because the shuttle launch facility is on the ground, and is relatively small. It's a lot easier to defend something on Terra with a fence than it would be to stop any missile going at any height, including out of our atmosphere.

      In essence, because the Shuttle facility is 2D in the plane with easy defense and the space elevator is 2D in the plane which we can only reach by riding the cable or flying a plane. Fences don't run out of fuel and can stay in one place.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    18. Re:Cool...but by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Mod parent down.

      There is a hell of a big difference between being afraid to go out to a movie and engineering what would be mankind's single largest, heaviest and arguably most complex building in history.

      Skyscraper builders, airport builders, shipping hubs, nuclear plant builders, and other creators of systems which could be subverted have an ethical responsibility to create systems which are resistant not only to attack but which when fail do as little damage as possible. You'll note, as a recent example, the way the Twin Towers collapsed; they caused comparatively next to no collateral damage to the surrounding buildings.

      That is because engineers figured out smart ways to reduce and mitigate risks. This is no different. If the space elevator were to collapse with some form of sideways momentum, it could leave a scar that traversed an entire continent. Whereas America is reeling (still!) from the attack which cost thousands of lives, such an impact even accidental could cost potentially tens or hundreds of millions of lives.

      Go ahead and look down your nose at the US all you like. Nobody's launched a serious successful terrorist attack against us from the outside since the British burned down the white house, and that was during war, when we were expecting that sort of thing. We have restarted our economy, and you seem to think we're a hell of a lot more afraid than we actually are.

      Traffic didn't even dim when the potential bombing of the Golden Gate Bridge was announced. He probably had a few thousand people worried, and I'll bet a few hundred even stayed home that day. But we don't cower in our basements in any way.

      I often wonder why so many people outside the nation have such wildly incorrect and frequently conflicting views of Americans. I've had the pleasure of travel, including throughout Europe and a few parts of Asia. Aside from things like language and the stuff we eat, people are people pretty much everywhere you go, no different coast to coast except in how well they're educated and what their economic opportunities are.

      For all the time a certain subset of people spend talking about Americans as isolationist xenophobic predjudiced freaks who are war-mongering cowards, one wonders if the people speaking that way ever realize how thoroughly fit the stereotype they're attempting to apply to others.

      Grow up. Americans are no different than you are; we just have a lot of resources and a fucking idiot for a president. It gets old watching people from other nations kvetch about things with no basis in fact as a way to lambast their personal punching bag.

      Try travelling some time. I used to really hold a grudge against a few nations in the way that you seem to hold a grudge against us. Then, I visited France, and my eyes opened. It's just Paris. And, for the US, it's just New Jersey.

      Get over yourself.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    19. Re:Cool...but by isorox · · Score: 1


      That is because engineers figured out smart ways to reduce and mitigate risks. This is no different. If the space elevator were to collapse with some form of sideways momentum, it could leave a scar that traversed an entire continent.


      Fud. We're talking about something that would fall like a sheet of tickertape, and would only fall below the severing point (e.g. 30,000' if a plane managed to hit it). The bulk (above severing zone) would "fall" upwards.

      We're also talking about a target arround 1m wide - pretty hard to hit.


      Go ahead and look down your nose at the US all you like. Nobody's launched a serious successful terrorist attack against us from the outside since the British burned down the white house, and that was during war, when we were expecting that sort of thing


      Well yes, Pearl Harbour wasn't America-proper at the time.

      As for this grudge you feel I have, it's all in your imagination. Sure you're cry babies with limited knowlege of other countries, but then that's the same about most people. 90% of Europeans have never traveled outside the EU. The only reason we have more passports per capita is because it's easier to get to other countries (France for the afternoon? No problem!)

      If you really visted PAris, you'd appreciate it's a stinking shithole, not as bad as London, but pretty bad.

  18. Rotovator(tm) by Baldrson · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Such prize awards might have a wonderful side-effect.

    Hans Moravec's Rotovator(tm) picks up hypersonic (near mach 12) payloads from an altitude of 100km and slings them to orbit.

    Current proposals for implementation of the Moravec's design rely on a hypersonic air-breather of advanced aerodynamic design like the Boeing DF-9 (that exists only on paper).

    Is there anything likely come along in the near future that could take paylods to 100km and mach 12?

    Probably the same thing that is driving the bureaucrats to make all this noise about space elevators now:

    The prospect that centralized space programs will be left behind by the emergence of a competitive suborbital launch industry with the emergence of suborbital space tourism and prizes like the Ansari X-Prize.

    A key to the Rotovator(tm) is getting hub mass in place to keep it out of the atmosphere while it picks up mass from 100km@mach12 -- but that mass can be any old space junk (what is the dry weight of the International Space Station?) -- at least at the hub where it counts the most for high strength materials like carbon nanotubes. However, you can do a Rotovator(tm) with off-the-shelf commercially available fibers and still have a factor of 2.

    Nice thing about Rotovators(tm) is that they can be built with much lower capitaliztion over a much shorter period of time using existing commercial materials. All you need is a bunch of mass orbiting near earth, some quite-doable tethers, and sufficient manuverability and speed in the atmospheric leg to hook up with the tether as it reaches the nadir.

    Modest prize awards toward early milestones of a space elevator could end up enabling the Rotovator(tm) as well.

    1. Re:Rotovator(tm) by dargaud · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm very skeptical about this rotovator thing:
      • the end of it will go at hypersonic speed in the upper atmosphere: how many rotations before it falls apart from ablation ?
      • If it picks up an object and raises it, then itself must come down: basic energy conservation. How does it raise its orbit before the next pickup ? Only classic rocket engines would work, which need gas. Back to square one, you could have used that gas to raise the playload in the first place (yeah, yeah, you'll be able to use a more efficient engine like an ion drive, but still).
      • When you bring the last 2 points together, you can figure out that atmospheric drag will bring the rotovator down. How much each orbit ?
      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    2. Re:Rotovator(tm) by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

      I havn't read anything about the Rotovator, nor did I know the idea existed before I read this thread. However, I'll attempt to answer your questions, based on what I know about physics.

      The atmosphere at 100km is very thin, so there won't be nearly as much drag. In fact, the 100km boundary is called the "karman line". It's considered the boundary between air and space, because anything past that limit will not experience very much drag at all. So they would have to beef up the end of the tether, but not by very much.

      Raising orbit can be done in one of a few ways. Since the Rotovator is a tether, you could use a tether electrodynamic system to raise orbit. (See this month's issue of Scientific American.)

      Also you assume that the centre of gravity will be in geostationary orbit. If the centre was slightly further away, the Rotovator would have the tendency to "drift away", so to speak. It would then remain in place because the effects of drag and raising payloads would balance this, much like the counterweight on a space elevator. With a space elevator you have the constant pull of the tether. With the Rotovator you have the periodic pull of the tether when it brushes up against the atmosphere.

      Of course, I'm just pulling these ideas out of my ass. By all means, google the Rotovator and read more about it if you're still interested. I think I'll do that too, I'm thinking this idea could actually work.

      Bork!

    3. Re:Rotovator(tm) by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Actually, the Rotovator is a waste of time. Once you have a cheap way to tow things into space, a large railgun is a far cheaper and more practical way to accelerate things, especially given that you no longer have to wrestle with significant atmosphere. Mach 12, in the eyes of a large railgun, would me moderate, perhaps even below average, and the energy cost would be dramatically lower.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  19. Don't know if this would be such a good idea... by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 3, Funny
    The 'muzak' in normal elevators is allready driving me crazy :

    Imagine going upwards for alot of miles ; in the meantime having to listen to Julio Iglesias' songs, performed by some guy on a synthesizer. NOOOOOO !

  20. Deus Ex by intx13 · · Score: 1

    Hmm, a guy named Page discussing the foundation of a nanotech lab... Nah, I'm sure it's fine...

    1. Re:Deus Ex by blackomegax · · Score: 0

      i'd have gotten that without the title :)
      google is already well on thier way to quiet world domination :)

    2. Re:Deus Ex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I've long believed Deus Ex to be some what prophetic. The War on Terror taking place, the increase in policing and the general political situation. Nanotech research is progressing along the lines set out in the game as well. I toured a real life nanoscience lab recently - it was startling and slightly scarey to find just how far along a lot of the work is - most isn't discussed in public becuase of the huge potential to make money or for other reasons. Add in a lead character in the game called JC and perhaps there is something a little more than normal going on here.

      What better way to reach a reasonably intelegent, mass, open minded audiance these days than a computer game?

      Truely scarey and a modern day 1984 sytle warning to the technological and geek culture.

      Then again perhaps I'm just paranoid.

  21. Of course Google is interested in a space elevator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How else would employees get to Google Copernicus Center?

    • Google Copernicus Center is hiring
    • Why a lunar location?
    • What are the challenges?
    • Searching the heavens
    • New rules. New tools
    • Life in the Googlunaplex
    • Thrust yourself to the forefront of search
  22. google should rename themselves by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 2, Funny

    to Cyberdyne Systems.

    1. Re:google should rename themselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.

      They're going to be so big and powerful, so bleeding edge, so keen on research which is uninhibited by moral or legal constraints...

      They should rename themselves The Union Aerospace Corporation

  23. Google Nanotech by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 2, Funny

    They just want to make the Pigeons smaller so they can fit more into a 1U server case and make google faster.

    --
    Beep beep.
    1. Re:Google Nanotech by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I thought google didn't even use cases. Besides don't you think they'd be in a terminal room? That way they can share results in a P2P fashion (pigeon to pigeon) as well as entering the rankings into the terminals.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  24. Tell you what... by Jozer99 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Tell you what; to get things moving, I will start a challenge: The first commercially viable space elevator constructed before August 28, 2005 at a height of more than 100 km will win $1000000 from me.

    1. Re:Tell you what... by Tango42 · · Score: 1

      You are going to feel so stupid if someone goes and does it... unlikely, I admit, but it would be funny.

    2. Re:Tell you what... by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

      Well, if you do manage it, then come to my house and bang on the door until I come out. Here is my address: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue District Of Columbia Feel free to hop the fence and scream a lot, I don't mind. The men in black suits will take you to collect the money.

    3. Re:Tell you what... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that you Mr. Kerry?

    4. Re:Tell you what... by SpammersAreScum · · Score: 1

      Ha! Little do you know the real secret behind Area 51 -- it's already done. They were going to announce completion on 1 Jan, but they may move that up before you retract. ... 'Scuse me; someone's pounding on the door ... [Replies pointing out the technical flaws in the above will be cheerfully ignored.]

  25. Usual Elevator slashdot posts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Here we go. Another Space Elevator post. Cue lots of post about

    1) What musak should be playing in the elevator. This is the height of modern humour people, make as many jokes as possible.

    2) Fear of terrorist attacks, despite the obvious difficulty of trying to snap a super-strong cable. And since when did Terrorists attack where they were expected?

    3) Fear of accident, 'what if the thing fell to Earth?!!?!! it would slice through everything!!!". As if the brilliant scientists who are developing the elevator didn't think of this.

    And don't forget, under no circumstances whatsoever should the story be discussed.

    1. Re:Usual Elevator slashdot posts by Bob+Munck · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the kid who pushes all million buttons, or the problems with digestive gases.

    2. Re:Usual Elevator slashdot posts by gobbo · · Score: 1
      And since when did Terrorists attack where they were expected?

      Guess you weren't among the millions of people who saw a plane attack on the world trade center months before 9/11 -- on The Lone Gunmen pilot episode! You can review the weird prescience of this show here.

    3. Re:Usual Elevator slashdot posts by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      1) Agreed.

      2) It wouldn't be that hard to snap a superstrong cable. Please differentiate between tensile strength and resistance to incindiary devices. A carbon nanotube ribbon would catch fire when presented with even a mediocrely-sized bomb. You think they can hurt a skyscraper, but not a ribbon cable? Do you honestly think the ribbon, which has serious weight concerns, will be more resistant to bombs than hundreds of millions of tons of gridded steel and slab concrete?

      As far as when terrorists attacked where expected, well, let's see. They took a third stab at the same building, attacked our capital and the hub of our military. I'd say that's pretty damned predictable.

      3) So what if they thought of this? There isn't a good answer yet. We're allowed to discuss unsolved problems, y'know.

      If you don't like geeks discussing technical issues of a proposed system and making bad, repetitive jokes, why the hell are you on SlashDot?

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  26. Interesting. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Mod parent up!

    1. Re:Interesting. by Class+Act+Dynamo · · Score: 1

      I watched Rod Paige and his underlings (Principal and Assistant Principles) dismantle our wonderful honor's program and demean the teachers they did not like; teachers who had been there for twenty and thirty years. This idea behind this was that the honor's program catered to the elite and left too many out. I did agree with that assertion to some extent, but certainly destroying it was not the answer.

      --
      My other computer is a Jacquard loom.
  27. Re:sigh - not this again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    >he entire concept of a space elevator is ridiculous and has been debunked many MANY times.
    Right, and what were these alleged theories? Are you even remotely capable of pointing out one that has even the slightest shred of credibility?

    >Apart from the cost (several hundred billion)
    That is easily on par with the cost of several recent US-led conflicts in the world. Just the latest increase (not the total, just the increase) in the US defence budget is higher than 100 billion USD. The money is there. Also there are other countries in the world than the US too you know.

    >and the technical impossibility of putting it into place
    Care to tell me what these imossibilities are? Or did you mean impossible as in going to the moon?

    >there exists no material with even one hundredth the strength required to withstand adjustments that are needed due to the earth's tilt
    Feel free to attept explaining this too.

    >It's all good in theory
    OK; so it is good in theory but still, somehow, impossible? Neat.

    > if somehow we could put one up and keep it static, but we can't
    Syntax error dude.

    >The physics just don't work that way
    And what physics would that be?

    BTW IAAP (phycicist), so feel free to be as technical in your arguments as you wish.

  28. fix by zogger · · Score: 1

    All that star wars laser jazz they are developing. Seems like a good way to get target practice with it once it's fully built, let the guys take out pieces of space junk. ZZZZAAAP!

    NORAD, huh? Got any "fast movers" stories you can neither confirm nor deny? ;)

  29. Moron! by leonbrooks · · Score: 4, Informative

    You don't have the first clue how it all works, do you?

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Moron! by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      > The space elevator is a cool idea but not in this hate-filled world.
      You don't have the first clue how it all works, do you?

      In many ways, I think that your answer makes the gp's point. s?he makes that point that security will be an issue. The faq, that you point to, says as well. In this day and age of 911 and GWB's generation of 1000 of new recruits for Al Qaeda, security will be an issue.

      Now, that does not mean that we should not build it, but security is an issue for anything from the USA.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  30. Is beaming power the best? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In there proposed competition they have a 10kw searchlight, at 25% efficiency, giving about 500w of power (I'm guessing after conversion from light back to electricity).

    Is beaming the power the best way of doing this? Is there no way we could have some cool [sic] superconductor material in the ribbon to transmit power. Room temperature might not be needed.

    I think the floor in my proposoal is that not all the layers in the atmosphere are cold; isn't there one layer that's actually very hot.

    Ok, why not microwaves, or something a little less inefficient?

    1. Re:Is beaming power the best? by matthewr84 · · Score: 1

      It did seem like they put a bunch of unnecessary constraints in. The assumption seems to be that there could be no better power source than artificial light/photoelectrics, so why bother with anything else. They even interviewed other space elevator folks whose existing designs wouldn't qualify for this. Seems like it would be better to just let people try any crazy way they can come up with to accomplish the goal of getting up rather than insisting everyone stick with the photoelectric idea.

  31. The truth about Google by SlashCrunchPop · · Score: 3, Funny
    I guess I can now break the news that Brin and Page intend to stack up the entire Google data center into the world's largest rack. With the jurisdiction problem out of the way they will finally be able to do what they wanted to do in the first place. Start their X-rated Go-Ogle portal. Domain Name: GO-OGLE.COM Registrar: GO DADDY SOFTWARE, INC. ... Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK Creation Date: 10-mar-2002 ... Registrant: Glen Analise ... Administrative & Technical Contact: Shires, Glen REMOVED_TO_PROTECT_THE_GUILTY@spies.com Everybody knows that John Glenn is Sergey's favorite astronaut and that Sergey is a sucker for mathematics, so don't tell me you are surprised to find out Sergey uses such aliases.

    Who's your Daddy now?

  32. But... don't tell me... by leonbrooks · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...all of the details are still up in the air?

    Mods: please don't get too highly strung, go ballistic or hit the roof over this.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:But... don't tell me... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      LOL

      Yeah, these guys seem like space cases at times :)

      But more seriously, until they get some serious funding this is all pretty thin. I suspect they have a long ways to go.

      I hope not!

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  33. She'll probably be quite willing to do that... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...in about 40 years... picture it. (-:

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  34. Excuse me, but WTF?? by Transcendent · · Score: 1

    Brin joined Page in proclaiming they should found a nanotech lab at Google.

    Talk about a huge leap of focus here...

    why doesn't Yahoo! start getting into genetic engineering now? ...same logic...

  35. Floor 11,947 - Lingerie, Housewares. by zenneth · · Score: 3, Funny

    The only problem with space elevators is those people who like to push all the other buttons for the other floors.

    --
    The Chronic *WHAT* les of Narnia!
  36. They will learn to seperate "Google" by Goonie · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sooner or later, they will probably, like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs did, start to seperate their private enthusiasms from Google. Gates and Jobs both own private stakes in a number of companies and organisations, Jobs most famously with Pixar and Gates with an images company which I can't recall the name of just now.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:They will learn to seperate "Google" by C60 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe you're thinking of Corbis, a stock photo agency.

      His investment company is called Cascade Investment LLC, and needless to say, he's all over the place.

      Some other investments of his (or at least of cascade investment):

      ICOS Corporation
      Teledesic
      Corixa
      Seattle Genetics
      Pain Therapeutics
      Alaska Air
      Boca Resorts
      Liberty Satelite and Technology
      Canadian National Railway
      Otter Tail Power
      Schnitzer Steel Industries
      Avista Corp
      Cox Communications
      Newport News

      Like I said, he's all over the place, steel companies, medical companies, stock photo agencies. I'm sure that there are a lot more companies not listed here. Having lived in Seattle for the last 14 years I keep hearing of both Cascade and Vulcan (Allen's pet money sink) investing in some random crap on what seems a daily basis.

      The above informatio is of course stolen from the results of random and assorted Google searches. How apropros.

      Links to the above sites and resources are left as an exercise of the reader.

      --
      Karma: 0 (But I wield a mean +10 Vorpal Apathy)
  37. A bit premature? by jfengel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Ansari X-prize seeks to reproduce an effort that had already succeeded, and been substantially surpassed, by several governments.

    A "space elevator", on the other hand, is totally unlike anything ever done before. As I read in a Slashdot post some years ago (referring to nanotubes, the favorite among space-elevator aficionados), "When somebody has built a 40,000 millimeter bridge across a creek on campus, then we can start to talk about a 40,000 kilometer bridge straight up".

    The fact that we have not yet achieved one millionth of the task (and in fact fall several orders of magnitude for that) suggests to me that, much as I would love to see a space elevator in place, the job today belongs to materials scientists who are looking at shorter-term goals.

    An eye to the future is great, but experimenting on climbers is like practicing the high jump: if you're jumping twice as high today as last year, I wouldn't start drawing any exponential curves. The ribbon is the really, really hard part, and we're currently so far away from it that research energy is better spent elsewhere for a while. 2010 is way, way too close.

    Maybe with enough motivation we could get that 40,000 mm bridge by 2010, but somehow I doubt you're going to raise $10 million to build a bridge. The X-prize shot somebody into space for that kind of money.

    I'm prepared to be wrong. I'm a software developer, and I've learned that as a consultant I can say, "Your project is doomed" with 95% accuracy before I've even heard your name. Being a nay-sayer is easy. But the real trick is being able to spot the 5% that will actually be profitable, and there are a lot of projects more immediately deserving of this kind of money.

    1. Re:A bit premature? by rcw-home · · Score: 1
      ...as a consultant I can say, "Your project is doomed" with 95% accuracy before I've even heard your name.

      You say "your project is doomed" to anyone with a project? :)

    2. Re:A bit premature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, its not premature.

      take a step back for a moment. what if the SE were never built? what if some unforeseen problem arose that ensured that it never COULD be built? what if we put in a lot of time/effort/money into its development and found that the SE was impossible? would it have been a wasted effort? no.

      it would have still yielded some really amazing science, and if it were done my way (www.liftport.com) there will be some really valuable commercial applications as a result. the CNT technology alone is worth the effort. beyond that, the robotics, solar techologies, and laser systems are extremely valuable - and all have commercial terrestrial applications that will make living here on earth a better place (and hopefully make me/my staff/my shareholders a pile of cash along the way).

      so its not premature, its time to start - now -and we have. if youd like to understand it better, look to the money trail. we think we can earn a lot by doing the fundamental research in some of the key technologies. we think we can pave the way, and ultimately, if its possible at all, we plan to be the pioneers of this revolution. it wont be easy, by any means, but the time to start is today. (actually, we started over 2 years ago.)

      you are right, the ribbon is the really hard part. but if you dont start, you cant possibly finish. and even if you never get 100gpa material, and you only get 12 or 37 or 95... you still have fundamentally changed the world.

      its worth the risk, and time and cash and talent of hundreds of really skilled/talented people.

      please reconsider your position.

      thanks for listening, take care.
      mjl
      president, liftport group.

    3. Re:A bit premature? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "When somebody has built a 40,000 millimeter bridge across a creek on campus, then we can start to talk about a 40,000 kilometer bridge straight up".

      The two pursuits are not comparable. The elevator is not like a bridge. A bridge distributes force to the loading points, the space elevator relies almost entirely on tensile strength. They're not even similar structures!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:A bit premature? by jfengel · · Score: 1

      True, but the point is clear: the longest carbon nanotube structures are still seven or eight orders of magnitude too short, and the longest ones with sufficient strength for a space elevator are another order of magnitude on top of that.

      That's such a massive leap that I'd like to see people aim at more practical structures, which are still far from a given, before turning their heads to something that may prove too difficult even if the materials science can keep up with it.

    5. Re:A bit premature? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The point is not clear because [almost] no one says we're going to build one of these today, because we can't make enough tubes. Once we can, building a traditional structure out of them isn't going to teach us much of anything useful in such a project - we're better off just doing a bunch of large-scale tensile strength tests.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  38. Security yes, crashing down and damaging stuff no by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    Security here's a joke. You can't carry a screwdriver onto an aircraft, but you have a clear path to drive a vehicle laden with explosives straight into the international or either of the two domestic air terminals. There are also many clear paths for driving a vehicle onto the strip, impeded only by a pipe-and-cyclone-mesh gate - and of course you then have a choice: do I drive under a stationary but full aircraft and blow it up, or chase one out onto the tarmac, or wait until one's ready to land and then nip out in front of it, or charge up the ground-level departure gates and self-destruct under a full passenger lounge? Either way, nobody's even going to realise what you're up to, let alone empty or divert a 'plane, before it's all over. If you rolled half a dozen light trucks through each terminal (two into the buildings, three under 'planes and one onto the strip), you'd kill thousands and effectively shut the airport to jet traffic for days, possibly weeks.

    A space elevator would be damn hard to hit with an aircraft, and dead easy to defend even with current technology. With a nuke power station near the base, StarWars-type energy weapons would be able to nail anything within about 50km of it in atmosphere, and the meteor/junk defences would do that for you more or less automatically above that. To get it with a missile, you'd basically have to nuke it, although a big chemical head targeted on a vehicle on the elevator might do it. If it breaks near the ground, it does insignificant harm and would be relatively easy to repair. If it breaks well up into space, it's much harder to fix but still does negligible damage to anything on the ground.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  39. Where the prize... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for putting a huge Honking Asteroid, I mean "natural" satelite, in geosychronis orbit. And how fast will it be going when it hits the ground :)

    But seriously, putting up a bounty on a collective dream isn't such a bad idea.

  40. Thou Shalt Not by scovetta · · Score: 1

    Thou Shalt Not Disparage The Good Name of Google!

    --
    Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
    1. Re:Thou Shalt Not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "TSNDTGNoG"
      I don't get it....

    2. Re:Thou Shalt Not by scovetta · · Score: 1

      If you rearrange those letters you get
      TNG DOS TNG

      Which is obviously a double-reference to Star Trek, as well as MS-DOS. I don't get the correlation though...

      --
      Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
  41. busted cables? by positroniumman · · Score: 3, Informative
    now i thought that the amount of stresses in the cable meant that any type of space elevator would be unlikely without some very strong new material.

    for example, say i wanted to lift a 100kg man up to 380 km (ISS height). This would put a force of 1000N(the man) + 380km *area * density (of cable).area of say 30 cm^2 gives a force of 1000 +1140* density. failure is usually measured in stress (force per area) soooo lets see.....

    with
    material/stress/density steel 250Mpa 7850 kg/m^3 nanotubes 63GPa 3520kg/m^3 calculated stress steel = 2.9Gpa calculated nanotubes = 1.3 GPa

    SO nanotubes may handle the stress, but noone can make 380 km of nanotube rope yet. Even that much kevlar would be tough. and this is without incorporating the added stress of accelerating the man (starting his trip up the rope).

    In short, new materials are needed!

    1. Re:busted cables? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are right, new materials need to be created - and they are being worked on in labs around the world right now.

      i wont lie and tell you that its easy - its dang hard. but there are a lot of people working on this, and we think this problem will fall. maybe it will fall faster than some of the others. there are plenty of commercail applications that could benefit from being stronger or lighter or both - and CNT makes that possible. so there are hundreds of labs around the world, working on this problem. they may not know of or care about the SE, maybe they are working to make airplanes fly better by making a strong/light wing, maybe they are making a more fuel efficient car by making the body lightweight and strong... whatever the application, they are working to make CNT a commercial reality. whatever thier original prupose, its still a lot of people, whether they know it or not, that are working toward one of the key breakthroughs for the SE.

      it will happen. and probably sooner than you think.

      take care. mjl
      president, liftport group
      www.liftport.com

  42. Re:sigh - not this again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm gonna have to agree with the parent, it seems to be feasible. However, I've always thought that the main problem with this sort of thing would be the immense electrical charge difference in the various levels of the atmosphere, first encountered during TSS1R.

    http://www.skyrocket.de/space/doc_sdat/tss-1.htm

    Maybe some kinda lightning pole all the way up?

  43. I wonder... by Anonymous+Writer · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ... what kind of muzak they're going to play in those things.

  44. You forgot (4) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    4) People lamenting people who post cliches.

    What are you trying to do, post a meta-cliche? At least, people who post the (1), (2), and (3) that you mentioned, get -1, Redundant. Unfortunately, people who post the "cue lots of post about..." like you often get "insightful". Stupid mods, you should get (-1, Offtopic), of course.


    And don't forget, under no circumstances whatsoever should the story be discussed.


    Oh, you mean like you did?

  45. Big Generator???? by thermopylae300 · · Score: 1
    Earth spins one way. Satellites can spin another way. Long wires will be able to put them really close to one another...

    Don't we have the makings for a really big generator?

    --
    Before the invention of eruptions, lava had to be carried down the mountain by hand and thrown on sleeping villagers.
    1. Re:Big Generator???? by edremy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yes. SciAm just had an article on this. (I'd link but the site's throwing a wierd error)

      Basically, you fly a satellite which is a conducting tether with some great big batteries in the hubs. Run the tether through a strong magnetic field like that around Jupiter and you get instant power.

      Of course, you also get drag since the energy is coming from the motion of the satellite through the magnetic field, so you lower your orbit. Later, run a current through the wire at the correct time using the stored power and you can boost your orbit.

      Effectively, you get orbital manuvering capability for free- no fuel needed.

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    2. Re:Big Generator???? by legirons · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Earth spins one way. Satellites can spin another way. Long wires will be able to put them really close to one another... Don't we have the makings for a really big generator?"

      Earth spins, while a lump of rock infinitely bigger than any space-elevator orbits around it, conveniently dragging the entire mass of 7 earth-bound oceans behind it causing them to move in a regular, predictable manner, right next to large empty bits of land, and in the same country (not to mention the same planet) as the places where power will be used.

      Yet if nobody has bothered to install any serious tidal-power generators yet "we'd rather burn coal", how much less likely is it that anybody will conjure up something complicated involving artificial satellites.

      It's like all the "why don't we put nuclear power stations in space and beam the energy back" comments... we already have a nuclear reactor in space, it already is beaming energy back, and nobody except for the israelis and a few australians are bothering to collect it.

    3. Re:Big Generator???? by dasunt · · Score: 1

      Re: Satellite with tethers generating energy and later using energy to "lift" an orbit up.

      There was a SF short about this I remember. Where basically there was a space station that had funding problems for orbital fuel, and solved it in this manner.

      Forget the name and author of the peice. Anyone remember?

    4. Re:Big Generator???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? You're going to interrupt the natural flow of currents around our scare shoreline ecosystems and wetlands? That could do untold damage to species we don't even know exist yet.

      Just another capitalist raping the earth for his own profit.

    5. Re:Big Generator???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can just build tidal generators in the spots we've already killed off with oil spills...

  46. Who's going to insure this turkey? by grikdog · · Score: 1

    Technology schmecknology. When that wire whips down and slashes a swath from Moline to Atlanta, who picks up THAT tab? Dream on.

    --
    ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
    1. Re:Who's going to insure this turkey? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it breaks won't part of it float off into space or even remain in its orbit?

  47. Re:sigh - not this again by Morphine007 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've always thought that the main problem with this sort of thing would be the immense electrical charge difference in the various levels of the atmosphere

    Hrm... yes... very large potential difference across a conductor, sounds like a possible method of power(assist)ing this thing? IANAP though, I'm sure one can point out why this wouldn't work.

  48. Learn some Geography, gringo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    When that wire whips down and slashes a swath from Moline to Atlanta, who picks up THAT tab?


    I could imagine it splashing a swath from Quito to Belem, or from Nairobi to Singapore. But I really doubt it would be built on such an inclined orbit as to allow the falling wire to reach those cities you mention.

  49. we're almost there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well, o.k... so our robot can 'only' climb 150ft right now... but soon (within weeks) we'll be able to climb 5000ft... so maybe 100km might be a little tricky by next year, but we will certainly be working towards that goal, now that we know you've promised $1m for it.

    and it will be commercially viable, i promise. we already have uses for it, and it can only go a few hundred feet.

    if you really have $1m, let me know. my contact info is all over my website www.liftport.com

    we really are working on this stuff, and we really think weve got something good. we are planning a big public demonstration in seattle soon, so keep watching, and get your checkbook ready, i plan on claiming your prize money - next year might be a little tough though - it might be a little longer than that. :-)

    take care. mjl
    president, liftport group

    1. Re:we're almost there... by DaCool42 · · Score: 1

      Technical in your FAQ: Centripetal acceleration is acting on the upper two-thirds pulling it outward, and the lost angular momentum is replaced very quickly (essentially as fast as it is lost). Centripetal force is the force is pull inward. Centrifugal force is the ficticious force pulling outward. In actual fact there is only centripital force pulling in against momentum.

      --

      ----
      All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
  50. Sergey Brin related to David Brin? by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

    Sergey Brin speaks publicly about space elevators. David Brin (science fiction author) speaks publicly about space elevators too. Does anyone know if these two fellows are related? It just seems too coincidental to me.

    Remember, you are special, just like everyone else.

    1. Re:Sergey Brin related to David Brin? by CaptainAvatar · · Score: 1

      I have wondered that myself, but I think it is just a coincidence - Sergey was born in Moscow, and his family emigrated to the US in 1979 according to this. David was born in the US in 1950. Still could be distantish relations, but if you google (what else?) on "david brin" and "sergey brin" then you only find 4 pages of hits with both names, all of which seem to be coincidental. So if there is a relation, they are keeping it well hidden!

      --
      The real Captain Avatar is a fictional character, so I suppose he doesn't mind if I impersonate him.
  51. Re:Security yes, crashing down and damaging stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Perhaps they could set up a power station that derives further energy from your ability to trivialize non-trivial engineering issues.

  52. It's just a long, strong cable. by Stoutlimb · · Score: 1

    We've strung many cables much longer than the space elevator across the atlantic. We just have to make one shorter, and a little stronger, and then hang it straight down from a satellite.

  53. A freight elevator, maybe.... by artson · · Score: 1

    I haven't been following this very closely, but putting the difficulty of carbon nano-tubes aside, how much thought has been given to the radiation hazard?

    I don't think I'd want to take that trip without substantial shielding. It sounds reasonable for freight - not people or livestock.

    --
    In times of trouble, the smell of frying onions usually gives confidence and comfort.
    1. Re:A freight elevator, maybe.... by modavis · · Score: 1

      Yes, the 200-kph climbers in the Edwards scenario would spend ~4 days in the Van Allen belts -- for which "substantial" shielding could mean 10-12" of metal. (Apollo astronauts went through in 30 minutes).

      Looks like freight-only until the climbers are much, much faster.

  54. Garbage disposal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hmmm, one problem that can be solved is where to send our trash. Just catapult all of it to the sun! No more nuclear waste in playgrounds, useless RIAA CD donations, junk cars, junk planes, analog cell phones, life prisoners, you name it!

  55. Re:Security yes, crashing down and damaging stuff by VagaStorm · · Score: 1

    With unlimited access to people that dos not care aboute returning from a mision, it will always be posible to do a massive amount of damage :( Is almost more important to stop people from "not careing aboute returning from a mision" as it is to stop the "brains" that are behind the shit.

  56. Babysteps by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think the idea of building a space elevator the instant we can is fundamentally flawed.

    A space elevator would be an insanely profitable project, one that has tremendous implications for things like power generation, communications, space exploration, tourism, and precision manufacturing.

    No doubt about any of those things.

    But, before we go building a space elevator, wouldn't it be a good idea to give it a few thorough evaluations here dirtside?

    There are countless questions that people are going to want to ask - is it strong enough? What if it breaks? Are C-tubes durable enough? Will it conduct electricity and "short out" the ionosphere? What about storms? What about terrorists? Do C-tubes wear out?

    The first, best use of C-tubes would be a good bridge. If you had a suspension bridge built with pencil-thick C-tubes, people would get used to the idea that something to small would be so strong.

    I figure the best place would be to build a suspension bridge over the straight of Gibraltar. Can you imagine how beautiful and spider-web like such a bridge would/could be?

    That would provide major economic boon to North Africa, provide cheap tourism for Europeans, and provide an excellent proof of the viability of C-tubes as a building tool all in one.

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

      The first, best use of C-tubes would be a good bridge. If you had a suspension bridge built with pencil-thick C-tubes, people would get used to the idea that something to small would be so strong.

      How many pencil-thick C-tubes? After all, gigantic suspension bridges are made of wires smaller than that woven together into gigantic cables.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  57. The next step for what we call "civilization." by mhollis · · Score: 1

    Or else we're finished would have to be some kind of a geostationary site that collects energy from the sun directly.

    The reason why I surmise this is based on a few reflections I made about modern society and what we're doing. Here are a few starting points (certainly not the defining factors of what makes our present society tick):

    1. Since 1900 our civilization has grown almost completely dependant on fossil fuels

    2. These fossil fuels are not replaceable and the current "replacements" for these fuels cannot sustain us with a growing economy that is ever more dependant on power (mostly electricity). By "replacements" I mean the "renewable" sources like alcohol from corn and methane from large human and livestock slurries
      Solar and lunar energy (these would be those not included above) like wind, photovoltaic, tide, hydro and (perhaps) geothermal energy may add to what we have but would never allow us to grow at our present rate.

    For those of you who think that our dependency on fossil fuels is not as great as it is, try to follow the source of energy in the average corporate office from the power strip all the way back to its source. Very small quantities aren't made from either oil, gas or coal. All have a finite lifetime on this planet.

    I'm no expert in microwave energy but I do recall that one could send a satellite up and "beam" power down to this planet using microwaves (which would not use a cable like Clarke suggested in his book "Fountains of Paradise." But it occurred to me as I was heating a pretty cold cup of coffee some time ago in my microwave that this kind of power transfer from space is likely to cause heating of the air around it, adding to global warming.

    Thus, were we to attempt to use microwave-transfer, we might make a bad problem worse -- and by the time that kind of energy transfer would be profitable, we'll most probably have a pretty serious global warming issue. The only particular advantage with this kind of power transfer over typical global warming sources is that it probably doesn't add carbon to the atmosphere.

    Thus it is my proposition that the only way we'll be able to continue to grow as a civilzation into the next millenium is to innovate so that we may be able to bring cheap energy down these kinds of long pipelines to outer space. I agree that the technology just isn't there yet. But I strongly suggest that we had better be about the business of making it possible.

    And, to think. You first heard about this theory of the continuance of our civilization on /.

    --
    Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
    1. Re:The next step for what we call "civilization." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consider the amount of solar energy that the Earth receives daily. The amount of energy a solar farm would beam down to Earth (with microwaves) is peanuts in comparison, considering the power we'd need.

    2. Re:The next step for what we call "civilization." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, our society is dependent of fossil fuels, but we won't be running out anytime soon. We'll probably reach our peak production within a few years (where all the easy to get oil is gone), which will threaten world economies - but (hopefully) it's not the end of civilization.

      Nuclear energy, and possibly fusion someday are viable options.

      Your right about microwaves though, they would agitate the water vapor in the atmosphere, and while this couldn't substantialy effect global warming (compared to the millions of tons of CO2 produced every year) it would effect the local weather. More importantly though, the atmospheric heating would waste a lot of energy. Furthermore, I'm willing to bet that the distances involved would spread the beam out over a large area - requiring a large and expensive collection dish.

      Transmiting the power using actual cables is outright infeasible. Not only is the distance far enough to create significant losses, but to transfer power on the scale to replace fossil fuels would require a huge bundle of cable - which will weigh many, many tons. (insert Kim Stanley Robenson doomsday wrap-around scenario here)

      A much more practicle solution is the use of a Free Electron Laser (FEL) Beam to transmit power, which is exactly what the agency who conducted the Phase I research suggests.

      Everything you need to know from the offical site here.

    3. Re:The next step for what we call "civilization." by mhollis · · Score: 1

      Anonymous Coward writes: our society is dependent of fossil fuels, but we won't be running out anytime soon.

      The reason why I wrote what I wrote is because I am looking forward to the next 1,000 years. Our civilization has records (many incomplete) that date, more or less. back to 5,000 years ago and one can see, over time, a continuous improvement in the technology we use to hold our societies together with a few "dark ages" causing a hiatus in further development in certain areas.

      I have never come across any study that suggests that our current power sources will last for 1,000 years. In fact, everything I understand suggests that the cost of the delivery of the power that runs today's technology will steadily increase for the next several hundred years, which should put a serious damper on growth.

      I do appreciate your links to the Institute for Scientific Research. It's a fascinating site.

      Both of our comments strongly suggest that the future for human civilization probably will start to devolve on some mountanous spot on or near the equator. I wonder if it's time for me to start investing in land in Ecuador...

      --
      Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
    4. Re:The next step for what we call "civilization." by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Sorry. Microwaves heat food by exciting water molecules, not air. Whereas this is on a larger scale, given the tremendous amount of atmosphere encircling the planet, I'd be surprised if this amounted to even a hundreds of a degree a decade. That's the sort of things which can be easily turned around via technical means. Asphalt and concrete covering such a large portion of the surface of the planet should have a far larger impact than this.

      Besides, you could easily just beam the power to a collector satellite at the top of the elevator and bring the power down in a huge conduit cable (perhaps as light in a fiber optic cable, so we don't have to worry about ionospheric charge.)

      And, to think. You first heard about this theory of the continuance of our civilization on /.

      No, I first heard it in a 1970s Larry Niven book. That said, there are many older examples. Vannevar Bush is the earliest person I'm aware of to have raised this observation.

      You're not even in the right ballpark, son. Here's a hint: just because you don't know about it doesn't make you the first, and making wild claims like that embarrasses everyone who watches.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
  58. Life-Imitates-Art Dept by sys_spud · · Score: 1

    Buried in the msnbc version of this story is the quote:

    "Details of the ribbon and power-beaming competitions have yet to be fleshed out, and the financial foundation of the entire challenge depends on sponsorships yet to be announced. The Silicon Valley mechanical design company where Shelef works, http://www.gizmonicsinc.com/, is listed as an initial sponsor."

    For all you followers of MST3K, Gizmonics Institute was where Joel worked before he was banished to the Satellite O' Love...

  59. Cool, man by Vinnie_333 · · Score: 1

    It would be cool to climb the space elavator and smoke pot.

    --

    "We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
    1. Re:Cool, man by mbstone · · Score: 1

      We can't allow that. You'd probably push all 32,768 buttons just for fun, making the sucka stop at every floor.....

  60. BEST POST EVAR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  61. Re:sigh - not this again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "BTW IAAP (phycicist)"

    Two college courses under your belt don't count. At least no until you can spell your chosen profession, physicist!

  62. Elevators aren't shuttles by BK425 · · Score: 1

    It strikes me as a way cooler idea, having a private incentive for space elevators. It's the difference between making current space travel more economically efficient compared to making the next generation more economically efficient. Only, the next generation is cooler because it isn't the current one. It's really not even comparable. The energy benefits of elevators come at the cost of materials science. And commercializing that material creation is a different matter then taking existing aerospace technology and make the use of it commercial IMHO.

  63. Punctuation...check it out by cuberat · · Score: 1
    Man, I'm not a grammar or spelling nazi but reading your comment gave me a headache.

    Here's hoping your admiration of Robinson's works do not extend to mimicking his writing style. :p

    --

    I'll tell you what the 'effect' is! It's pissing me off!

  64. You haven't been following his budget obviously by Baldrson · · Score: 1
    Carmack's projected budget is an order of magnitude lower than Burt Rutan's.

    On the other hand, Carmack's wealth (I'm guessing) is an order of magnitude lower than the Google founders and TWO orders of magnitude lower than Paul Allen's.

    There really isn't any excuse for the Google founders to do anything but put up prize awards (perhaps with a demand for some piece of the action of the winner). That goes an order of magnitude more for Allen, Ellison, Balmer and Gates.

    It should be the guys like Carmack that are out there trying to win the philanthropic prize awards put up by the really big money.

    That it took an Iranian family to get the X-Prize fully funded (if only for a limited time) it says something very about the West's big money.

    1. Re:You haven't been following his budget obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What it says about the Wests big money:
      don't feel morally restrained how you deal with those jerks. Feel free to hack their systems and pirate their software at will. You can't steal from theives.