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."

Comments

Never?

[brundlefly]

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.)

Re:Never?

[nfarrell]

There is plenty we don't know and many breakthroughs left in the universe, but I think it's human arrogance to think we're capable of omnipotence.

Sure, carbon nanotubes are neat, and gave us the impression we could build stronger structures and materials than previously. But why does their existance mean we're sure to find something equally strong AND able to withstand being a space elevator cable?

Don't get me wrong - saying 'never' is unwise, but it's almost as bad to assume humanity will be capable of everything one day.

Re:Never?

[soupdevil]

An infinite universe is no guarantee that everything will happen. There are many infinities. For example, there are an infinite number of numbers between three and four, but none of them are five.

Re:Never?

[telbij]

Personally I'm of the opinion that we can eventually master all aspects of the universe.
Sure it may take 1,000's, 1,000,000's, or perhaps even 1,000,000,000's of years.

And I'm of the opinion that unless there's some mass societal changes, no one's going to be doing serious science in 100s of years.

Re:Never?

[Ibag]

I'm sorry, but what? In what geometries (where betweenness has an actual significance) which contain the integers in their natural ordering have five between three and four? I have studied quite a lot of math, including at the graduate level, and I have come across nothing that leads me to believe that your comment is any more that pseudo-intellectual gibberish intended to sound insightful but which is actually devoid of any real meaning. What vies on infinity could impact the discussion at all? Do you mean that if we view the number line as a giant circle which loops back upon itself that five is between four and three? If this is the case, I contend that betweenness is meaningless, as any number is then "between" any other two numbers.

There is a time and a place for mathematics to be deep and mysterious. If you throw around comments like this, nobody will care when we reach one of those times.

Of course, if this was just an attempt at humor, forgive me. My anger should be directed at the moderators!

Successful Test?!?

[Tackhead]

> 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.

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.

unwarrented negativism

[phantomfive]

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.