Slashdot Mirror


Japanese Begin Working On Space Elevator

thebryce writes "From cyborg housemaids and waterpowered cars to dog translators and rocket boots, Japanese boffins have racked up plenty of near-misses in the quest to turn science fiction into reality. Now the finest scientific minds of Japan are devoting themselves to cracking the greatest sci-fi vision of all: the space elevator. Man has so far conquered space by painfully and inefficiently blasting himself out of the atmosphere but the 21st century should bring a more leisurely ride to the final frontier. Japan is increasingly confident that its sprawling academic and industrial base can solve those issues, and has even put the astonishingly low price tag of a trillion yen (£5 billion) on building the elevator. Japan is renowned as a global leader in the precision engineering and high-quality material production without which the idea could never be possible."

12 of 696 comments (clear)

  1. a disaster waiting to happen by loafula · · Score: 3, Insightful

    maintaining geosynchronous orbit while tethered to the ground is not a good idea. there are so many factors that could turn a space elevator into a complete disaster. a cat-4 or 5 hurricane could potentially put so much drag onto the cable that the whole thing tumbles to earth. an earthquake could yank it out of orbit. tidal pulls from the moon could rip it from the ground. lightning damage. i'd love to see this become a reality, but i just dont think that will happen.

    --
    FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
    1. Re:a disaster waiting to happen by Spatial · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those sound like elements to factor into the design, rather than unforseeable or unpreventable disasters.

  2. Engineering efficiency by Kupfernigk · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Without venturing to comment on whether a space elevator is actually possible, the main reason is simple efficiency. Rockets are incredibly inefficient as power sources in any case, but then in addition you have to use almost all the energy produced to lift the fuel some part of the way. Then, having added all that potential energy to your Shuttle or whatever, on the way down you turn it all into heating the air. The result is huge amounts of fuel to get a very small payload into orbit.

    A practical space elevator could use vehicles powered by electric motors, which would get about 70-80% efficiency. On the way down, the motors could be used as generators, getting back probably around 30-50% of the original energy supplied. The total energy consumption might only be a percent or so of that needed for a rocket. The design of the cable with electrical conductors on either side reaching all the way up to geostationary orbit is, of course, left as an exercise to the reader.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  3. Re:No I didn't Read TFA by tomtomtom777 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Technically, a weight in geosynchronous orbit would remain at the same altitude indefinitely with no other forces in effect. A space elevator will require a weight placed in an orbit which will supply tension â" otherwise it'd be pulled out of orbit. It would probably be close to geosynchronous, but not quite.

    Couldn' this be achieved by moving a counter-weight downwards from space while the elevator moves up?

    The total force on the weight in orbit would remain constant wouldn't it?

  4. Re:call me when they have something by F�an�ro · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The TFA states that carbon nanotubes would require a 4x increase in strength compared to present-day materials, and that the past 5 years of research have already brought about a 100-fold improvement ... sounds to me like many stunning advances have already happened and we're well on track to fully-stunned status.

    I thought a millionfold increase in length was also required?

    Does not matter how strong they are if you cannot make them long enough.

  5. Re:call me when they have something by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A space elevator essentially just needs certain advances in materials science. It's a big engineering project, but nothing more than that.

    AI, on the other hand, is something that nobody in the world has any clue how to achieve. They're simply not comparable. We may very well see AI before a space elevator, but it will be because computer technology advances vastly more quickly than space technology.

    And just for the record, I did not claim that FTL is impossible, merely that it's impossible according to accepted physical theory. And that statement is absolutely true.

    --
    If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
  6. To put the cost into perspective... by D4C5CE · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The cross-Britain maglev (16 billion pounds, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Glasgow#Future_Plans) is estimated at approximately twice the price of mankind's rope into space.

  7. Re:Just as a subnote... by watzinaneihm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So for the price of what Wall street caused US government to pay, you could get a space elevator for each country in the world (almost - the smallest ones will have to share ofcourse)

    --
    .ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
  8. Re:No I didn't Read TFA by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you bring net mass down from orbit, you can actually make an energy profit (just on the elevator, I'm not saying that it would offset the costs of hauling propellant, etc, for asteroid miners and such).

    Yeah of course you can't win overall, but nevertheless wouldn't it be totally awesome to bring back a load of minerals from an asteroid and get a "free" lift of your next load of fuel and supplies?

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  9. Re:That's Cheap! by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If the cost to get away from earths gravity, and back into it can be reduced greatly you can suddenly start sending small unmanned craft to do things. It could pay for itself (in savings) very quickly, and perhaps in real money by charging to use it.

    It's not clear that the costs will be greatly reduced. There simply isn't that much demand (or foreseeable need for) "sending small unmanned craft to do [unspecified] things". Even with tourism (the likely largest market in the near term), you'll have a hard time charging enough to recoup your costs as well as operating expenses.
     
    Not to mention that cost specified is almost certainly laughably low.

  10. Re:No I didn't Read TFA by TFloore · · Score: 3, Insightful

    with a space elevator, sending a kg. into space will be way more cheap than what is cost nonadays

    Unless, of course, the unobtainium used to build it turns out to be really expensive.

    He left out the base assumption there, that everyone leaves out.

    Once you pay for the space elevator, the incremental cost for sending a KG of cargo into space is cheap.

    This is the same statement, less clearly made, as the comment somewhere above here that talks about costs of a space shuttle flight. It says, looking at total program costs, the space shuttle costs $1.3 billion per flight as of 2006, but looking at incremental costs, it is only $60 million per flight.

    The unobtanium is, of course, part of the initial cost, and which most people on here seem to think is underestimated in the Japanese announcement.

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
  11. Re:call me when they have something by Nathan+Boley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it would take a guy in the spacecraft a minimum of 4.3 years to arrive at Alpha Centauri

    The ggp's point is that it would not. If you accelerated quickly enough, time would contract enough so that, in the spaceship's reference frame, the trip would take well under 4.3 light years. In fact, it could take an hour ( if the acceleration didn't kill you ).

    What you mean is that, in Earth's reference frame, the trip would have to take at least 4.3 years.