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.'"

28 of 214 comments (clear)

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

    Aliens will enter earth via Google. I told you.

    --
    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.

  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 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
  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. 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 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

    2. 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)?

  13. 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.

  14. 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 !

  15. 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.
  16. 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?

  17. 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
  18. 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?

  19. 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!
  20. 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.

  21. 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!