Slashdot Mirror
Space Elevator An Impossible Dream?
bj8rn writes "Three months ago, the dreams of a space elevator finally seemed to be coming true after a successful test. An article in Nature, however, suggests that there's reason to be pessimistic. Ever since carbon nanotubes were discovered, many have been hoping that this discovery would turn the dream into reality. Pugno, however, argues that inevitable defects in the nanotubes mean that such a cable simply wouldn't be strong enough. Even if flawless nanotubes could be made for the space elevator, damage from micrometeorites and even erosion by oxygen atoms would render them weak. It would seem that sci-fi will never be anything other than what it is: a fiction."
It would seem that sci-fi will never be anything other than what it is: a fiction.
Never? That's a very, very long time. I would never bet against never. Never always wins. (Especially if you believe in an infinite universe.)
Reason #0 to be pessimistic: A "successful test" isn't a climbing robot. The climbing robot isn't the hard part of the problem. The hard part of the problem is the materials science.
Nor is it the sort of discoveries we've seen in the materials side of the equation; fibers measured in millimeters. That's not a prototype, it's just basic research. Interesting basic research, worthy basic research, and good basic research to be sure, but it's not a demonstration of practicality by any stretch of the imagination.
When someone builds a small footbridge out of these things, I'll be interested. When you can scale that to a mile-long suspension bridge that supports two lanes of traffic in each direction, I'll be optimistic.
We consider ourselves masters of our universe, however there is so much yet to learn.
It always amazes me how a spider can weave a thread which is so strong and flexible yet for all our mastery of the earth we cannot yet reproduce its properties.
I believe we will find a pathway to the stars, whether it is a single tether or an entire webbed tower I don't know but I am not ready to give up on mans' inginuity.
liqbase
I thought the whole point was to be constantly rebuilding the 'string' (ie running repair bots up and down the structure or finding other repairing methods). This doesn't prove that space elevators are impossible. It just means we'd need to make a few more tech advances.
Which is, of course, always the case. But the starry-eyed folk have always known they'd have to engineer some constant repairing mechanism. I just don't see how this is a big deal.
OK, the summary is ridiculous here. It assumes that because one method of making a space elevator might be impossible, that it can't be done, ever in any way.
There is so much that we don't know about the physical universe, that to even say we are beginning to understand what is possible is silly. Faster than light travel? Possible or not? As far as we have observed, not. Does that mean it's impossible? NO! We aren't even sure what time/space is, how can we say what is and isn't impossible? Is a space elevator impossible, just because this one method might be impractical? NO!
Somehow I wonder if the submitter was just trying to sound sensationalistic to make sure his story got accepted. And I just fell in his trap. Oh well. He did seem rather gleeful about the whole thing, though.
Qxe4
Even if it were possible to operate such a large collection of vacuum tubes with the small power supplies available for household electrical equipment, the glass fabrication process has too many flaws to enable mass production on such a scale. It would seem that the "personal computer" will never be anything other than what it is: a fiction.
I have discovered a truly remarkable
This would naturally also make any kind of "power beaming" technology interesting, even if it would be quite inefficient, as long as it could be transformed into significant thrust easily in the receiver.
what a meaningless (parent) post.
Bridging the gap between computer science, robotics, molecular genetics, and biochemistry seems like a bizarre and convoluted route to addressing the problems stated in the article.
First, modeling engineered devices on real world objects, even features of living objects, is not a new concept. Second, we're talking a fairly simple system, a big long ribbon, not a complicated self-regulating autonomous device. Nor is there any reason to make something that would need to be as fault tolerant and robust as possible more complex than it needs to be. So, self-reparing system may sound sexy, but if a simpler mechanism can be devised than inventing an entirely new class of devices and methodologies to fix the problem, that is rightly the domain of material sciences, i fail to see why we'd want to start spouting off ungrounded hype about inter-disciplinary science that at the moment is... to be kind, speculative.
There are lives at stake here!
This isn't science, it's an ill-conceived editorial. Ignore this article and get back to work, my space monkey minions! Soon space will be ours!
Liberty you never use is liberty you lose.
... that treats today's limitations as if they extend into the future indefinitely.
So far as I can see, all the objections mean is that a space elevator cannot be built with the technologies we currently have -- and all of them seem to be of an engineering bent, as opposed to some fundamental theoretical problem. Engineering problems tend to get solved over the long haul.
And even if the problems presented do turn out to be too difficult to construct an Earth-based space elevator, the technology could still be used on the Moon, which presents a much smaller challenge. I suspect that we already have the capabilities required to construct a lunar space elevator -- all that we lack is a permanent lunar base.
Classic. An attempt to refute a statement with an article from a user-editable non-scientific online source on a very controversial subject with questionable citations.
Not that I have any better information...