It's amazing how many people think nanotubes are impossible yet carry workstations in their pocket. If only they knew all the materials sciences work needed to make that happen.
Actually, from my reading, the theoretical strength of carbon nanotubes is far more than what is needed for an earth-based elevator.
The reason the materials sciences advances are still in the future is because there aren't many people working on it. (You should be amazed by the materials sciences technology that goes into your cellphone.) Kennedy said that we couldn't go to the moon without inventing better alloys. Necessity is the mother of invention. Many things are hard if you don't try.
The good news about the nanotubes is that you don't need them until the launch date, after the climbers and everything else are also made.
That assumes you are capable of writing a book, and you are comfortable lying, or are extremely incompetent.
However, imagine you saw a book about how someone could get a fully-functional RC helicopter for $12. Would that be nonsense?
It is pretty amazing how many advanced and cheap technologies exist today and yet still many technical people insist carbon nanotubes are totally impossible. Meanwhile, they have workstations packed into a tiny device they carry around in their pocket.
Of course it isn't strong enough, however, it can be helpful to have some comparable numbers when people throw around $1 trillion for costs of the space elevator and call it a "building".
Note your launch cost analysis is not useful: the entire ribbon doesn't need to be put into space. The best and cheapest way to build the elevator is with a seed string.
You'd still need rockets for humans. The space elevator is just for cargo.
NASA could have built an elevator if they had tried, but they are a political organization as much as a scientific one.
It's true that the materials don't exist, but at the same time, necessity is the mother of invention. There isn't a lot of research taking place for something which is only needed for the space elevator. Meanwhile, there's been a ton of materials science advancement since the 1960s that has put a workstation into a cellphone.
I wasn't asking you to write a research paper, I was just saying you provided no data or analysis.
There is a big difference between a tunnel and a tether. In fact, they are almost opposites of each other aren't they?
You claim the cost estimate is wrong, but unfortunately you don't have any analysis supporting your comment. I suggest you read the book when you get a chance. It talks a lot about the cost, and other interesting issues.
You obviously have done very little reading about the space elevator, AC. It's not a building, it's a tether. How much would it cost to make 50 thousand miles of 3-foot, paper-thin steel? It's not strong enough, but it gives you some idea of costs more than what you are throwing around.
The key to making it cheap is the bootstrapping mechanism that Edwards described in his book. What you do is launch into orbit just a seed string, and the first climbers will be small and actually strengthen the ribbon.
We do need strong carbon nanotube fibers. A number of groups are making them now, but they aren't good enough yet. I think companies like Intel and others could product them of the proper quality if asked and given money.
Once we have some strong fibers, we need to spin them into arbitrarily-long threads like cotton, which we've been doing for centuries.
People aren't making this stuff because there isn't a need. Necessity is the mother of invention. Did you know that we couldn't go to the moon without making better alloys? Kennedy talked about needing improvements to materials sciences in his speeches.
There are other detailed estimates for a space elevator that are around $10 billion. The people who throw around $1 trillion are trying to pick a number so big it prevents people from considering the feasibility. You definitely won't find any detailed breakdown that leads to something so insane.
Brad Edwards book covers all of the problem scenarios you laid out. He explains why it wouldn't be catastrophic if it did fall apart, and what needs to be done to prevent it. I agree we do need to make space more pristine, but we can clean things up, move the tether around, and repair it. It's all engineering work. This could have started in 1991, when carbon nanotubes were first discovered.
Who knows how many kernel bugs are active in Windows on the ship date, but I doubt there are 4,600 of them. You might have to include the usermode code to get a number that large, and if they are working the way they used to: all the bugs would be looked at before a release, and the ones that aren't release critical (feature requests, performance, cleanups, etc.) would be postponed. It wouldn't have 1000s of crashing bugs. Check out the Linux bug list yourself and see if there is a problem.
It is better to compare the kernel ship process to Boeing, not Microsoft. I suspect even the interns at Microsoft care about their bug count more than the kernel developers.
In general, the problems he wants to solve, like intelligent machines, require lots of data, lots of people working together, etc. It is exactly the Linux model, but applied to topics he cares about. While Linux has succeeded in various places, there is still a ton of proprietary code.
Here is a discussion he and I had about it on his website where I tried to bring this up with him:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/ask-...
If someone patented a way to make a web browser go faster, you would be comfortable with that?
Patents prevent people from being able to build on each others ideas. In a world without software patents, the companies that succeed are the ones that take advantage of everyone else's advancements the best. Patents gum it all up.
He assumes that Windows marketshare isn't going to decrease, and implies that Mac is fighting for marketshare with Linux for the market of "Unix based computers."
Linux desktop marketshare is taking off and will take marketshare from Windows. Look at OLPC, Ubuntu at 6 million users and doubling every 8 months, the recent news of an Indian state moving to free software, etc. Each doubling of users will double engineering resources to cause Linux to pick up further steam. Sure, Linux will dominate the embedded space, and it is well on its way to doing that already, but it will also own the desktop space as soon as its last 10,000 bugs are fixed.
Mac marketshare might grow somewhat from its piddly levels today, especially given its new ability to run Windows, but people buy PCs for the price and the choice and while Apple's outlook might be somewhat positive, their marketshare will never hit double-digits.
I can't see the Mac OS having long-term importance. Once Linux swallows Windows, obsoleting the Mac OS will be just a snack. If a Mac of the future is running FireFox, OpenOffice and tons of other free software, why not just run the whole stack and throw out the few, tiny, proprietary Apple pieces? Is anyone even a fan of Quicktime?
This is very well written, but also very wrong. Ubuntu and Fedora and SUSE have the artists, the frustrated hackers (who are these idiots who don't know how to write simple software?) the testers who help diagnose and prioritize and fix the problems, the translators, etc. etc.
All software is hard, yet wikipedia has built good software and even created a loosely knit community to pack an encyclopedia full of interesting and up to date stuff. The Linux kernel is small, fast, clean, reliable. Its the user mode code which needs to be fixed (rewritten). Your specific complaint is that the people who build GUIs need to build better GUIs. We all know what needs to happen and it is happening. I think people are rejecting your attitude of assuming its hopeless and are getting excited and getting to work! BTW, I've been to focus groups and I didn't learn anything I didn't already know.
BTW, I run Gnome and think its much more polished than Windows XP. I like the SVG icons, the extensive themability, the object based UI, the applets, the pretty buttons, the dictionary, etc. etc.
Sure the GAIM config UI blows, but someone will build a UI in Java or C# which talks to the protocol libraries and create a slick UI.
Everyone who thinks Linux won't reach primetime needs to realize: you ain't seen nothing yet! Linux users will double 6 more times on its way to 1 billion PC desktops. The next few doublings of marketshare will bring tons more geeks to our party. Convert your geek friends first!
Slashdot Mirror
It's amazing how many people think nanotubes are impossible yet carry workstations in their pocket. If only they knew all the materials sciences work needed to make that happen.
Actually, from my reading, the theoretical strength of carbon nanotubes is far more than what is needed for an earth-based elevator.
The reason the materials sciences advances are still in the future is because there aren't many people working on it. (You should be amazed by the materials sciences technology that goes into your cellphone.) Kennedy said that we couldn't go to the moon without inventing better alloys. Necessity is the mother of invention. Many things are hard if you don't try.
The good news about the nanotubes is that you don't need them until the launch date, after the climbers and everything else are also made.
That assumes you are capable of writing a book, and you are comfortable lying, or are extremely incompetent.
However, imagine you saw a book about how someone could get a fully-functional RC helicopter for $12. Would that be nonsense?
It is pretty amazing how many advanced and cheap technologies exist today and yet still many technical people insist carbon nanotubes are totally impossible. Meanwhile, they have workstations packed into a tiny device they carry around in their pocket.
Thanks for the steel numbers!
Of course it isn't strong enough, however, it can be helpful to have some comparable numbers when people throw around $1 trillion for costs of the space elevator and call it a "building".
Note your launch cost analysis is not useful: the entire ribbon doesn't need to be put into space. The best and cheapest way to build the elevator is with a seed string.
You'd still need rockets for humans. The space elevator is just for cargo.
NASA could have built an elevator if they had tried, but they are a political organization as much as a scientific one.
It's true that the materials don't exist, but at the same time, necessity is the mother of invention. There isn't a lot of research taking place for something which is only needed for the space elevator. Meanwhile, there's been a ton of materials science advancement since the 1960s that has put a workstation into a cellphone.
I wasn't asking you to write a research paper, I was just saying you provided no data or analysis. There is a big difference between a tunnel and a tether. In fact, they are almost opposites of each other aren't they?
You claim the cost estimate is wrong, but unfortunately you don't have any analysis supporting your comment. I suggest you read the book when you get a chance. It talks a lot about the cost, and other interesting issues.
The numbers come from this book: https://www.amazon.com/Space-E... Their research is more serious than your unsupported opinion.
Definitely these are some interesting problems that people have already written about and studied.
You obviously have done very little reading about the space elevator, AC. It's not a building, it's a tether. How much would it cost to make 50 thousand miles of 3-foot, paper-thin steel? It's not strong enough, but it gives you some idea of costs more than what you are throwing around.
The key to making it cheap is the bootstrapping mechanism that Edwards described in his book. What you do is launch into orbit just a seed string, and the first climbers will be small and actually strengthen the ribbon.
We do need strong carbon nanotube fibers. A number of groups are making them now, but they aren't good enough yet. I think companies like Intel and others could product them of the proper quality if asked and given money.
Once we have some strong fibers, we need to spin them into arbitrarily-long threads like cotton, which we've been doing for centuries.
People aren't making this stuff because there isn't a need. Necessity is the mother of invention. Did you know that we couldn't go to the moon without making better alloys? Kennedy talked about needing improvements to materials sciences in his speeches.
There are other detailed estimates for a space elevator that are around $10 billion. The people who throw around $1 trillion are trying to pick a number so big it prevents people from considering the feasibility. You definitely won't find any detailed breakdown that leads to something so insane.
Brad Edwards book covers all of the problem scenarios you laid out. He explains why it wouldn't be catastrophic if it did fall apart, and what needs to be done to prevent it. I agree we do need to make space more pristine, but we can clean things up, move the tether around, and repair it. It's all engineering work. This could have started in 1991, when carbon nanotubes were first discovered.
With rockets it is still $100K - $1M per pound to get to the moon. We need a space elevator.
Who knows how many kernel bugs are active in Windows on the ship date, but I doubt there are 4,600 of them. You might have to include the usermode code to get a number that large, and if they are working the way they used to: all the bugs would be looked at before a release, and the ones that aren't release critical (feature requests, performance, cleanups, etc.) would be postponed. It wouldn't have 1000s of crashing bugs. Check out the Linux bug list yourself and see if there is a problem. It is better to compare the kernel ship process to Boeing, not Microsoft. I suspect even the interns at Microsoft care about their bug count more than the kernel developers.
Last I checked the Linux kernel had 4672 bugs. Something is clearly wrong with the release process. Imagine if it took an airline 1-2 years to return your lost luggage?
In general, the problems he wants to solve, like intelligent machines, require lots of data, lots of people working together, etc. It is exactly the Linux model, but applied to topics he cares about. While Linux has succeeded in various places, there is still a ton of proprietary code. Here is a discussion he and I had about it on his website where I tried to bring this up with him: http://www.kurzweilai.net/ask-...
If someone patented a way to make a web browser go faster, you would be comfortable with that? Patents prevent people from being able to build on each others ideas. In a world without software patents, the companies that succeed are the ones that take advantage of everyone else's advancements the best. Patents gum it all up.
He assumes that Windows marketshare isn't going to decrease, and implies that Mac is fighting for marketshare with Linux for the market of "Unix based computers."
Linux desktop marketshare is taking off and will take marketshare from Windows. Look at OLPC, Ubuntu at 6 million users and doubling every 8 months, the recent news of an Indian state moving to free software, etc. Each doubling of users will double engineering resources to cause Linux to pick up further steam. Sure, Linux will dominate the embedded space, and it is well on its way to doing that already, but it will also own the desktop space as soon as its last 10,000 bugs are fixed.
Mac marketshare might grow somewhat from its piddly levels today, especially given its new ability to run Windows, but people buy PCs for the price and the choice and while Apple's outlook might be somewhat positive, their marketshare will never hit double-digits.
I can't see the Mac OS having long-term importance. Once Linux swallows Windows, obsoleting the Mac OS will be just a snack. If a Mac of the future is running FireFox, OpenOffice and tons of other free software, why not just run the whole stack and throw out the few, tiny, proprietary Apple pieces? Is anyone even a fan of Quicktime?
This is very well written, but also very wrong. Ubuntu and Fedora and SUSE have the artists, the frustrated hackers (who are these idiots who don't know how to write simple software?) the testers who help diagnose and prioritize and fix the problems, the translators, etc. etc.
All software is hard, yet wikipedia has built good software and even created a loosely knit community to pack an encyclopedia full of interesting and up to date stuff. The Linux kernel is small, fast, clean, reliable. Its the user mode code which needs to be fixed (rewritten). Your specific complaint is that the people who build GUIs need to build better GUIs. We all know what needs to happen and it is happening. I think people are rejecting your attitude of assuming its hopeless and are getting excited and getting to work! BTW, I've been to focus groups and I didn't learn anything I didn't already know.
BTW, I run Gnome and think its much more polished than Windows XP. I like the SVG icons, the extensive themability, the object based UI, the applets, the pretty buttons, the dictionary, etc. etc.
Sure the GAIM config UI blows, but someone will build a UI in Java or C# which talks to the protocol libraries and create a slick UI.
Everyone who thinks Linux won't reach primetime needs to realize: you ain't seen nothing yet! Linux users will double 6 more times on its way to 1 billion PC desktops. The next few doublings of marketshare will bring tons more geeks to our party. Convert your geek friends first!
And when it happens, will you be surprised, or not?