Space Elevator
- Thread starter PMN1
- Start date
I think we're looking at carbon nanotubes for strength. So cost is a major factor. But let's set cost aside.
See a space elevator by itself is not the most useful thing in the world. You need a reason, and heck just the infrastructure needed to hook it up and build down from it's asteroid anchor alone is pretty substantial.
So before we're looking at a space elevator we need at least one major space station in orbit. Plus probably a heck of a lot more stuff going on, to hit the kind of critical mass you'd need to for a sufficient reason for one. This probably requires either fairly large mining operations on the Moon or via capture and drag/mass driver from the belt, or a very large exploratory arm, or O'Neill colonies and other colonization projects.
I could a space elevator on the Moon first for a couple of reasons; it would be much cheaper and more useful at early stages if you're conducting mining operations, and is probably as close to ideal as you get without going to Mars to test out the space elevator basics.
See a space elevator by itself is not the most useful thing in the world. You need a reason, and heck just the infrastructure needed to hook it up and build down from it's asteroid anchor alone is pretty substantial.
So before we're looking at a space elevator we need at least one major space station in orbit. Plus probably a heck of a lot more stuff going on, to hit the kind of critical mass you'd need to for a sufficient reason for one. This probably requires either fairly large mining operations on the Moon or via capture and drag/mass driver from the belt, or a very large exploratory arm, or O'Neill colonies and other colonization projects.
I could a space elevator on the Moon first for a couple of reasons; it would be much cheaper and more useful at early stages if you're conducting mining operations, and is probably as close to ideal as you get without going to Mars to test out the space elevator basics.
Last edited:
Anaxagoras
Banned
Electric Monk said:
Set cost aside? Well, everybody in AH does anyway, so why not?
Actually, though, a space elevator probably IS the most useful thing in the world. Currently, we launch satellites and everything else by rocket, which is hugely expensive (and, if you're a passenger on a spacecraft, very dangerous). A space elevator would reduce launch costs to very low levels, allowing the economic development of space to proceed must more effectively than it otherwise would.
And since a space elevator would have to extend out beyond geosynchronus orbit, it also provides the ideal means of launching interplanetary vehicles out of Earth's orbit. The main difficulties we experience in launching probes to other planets would be solved.
In short, the cheap access to space that a space elevator would provide would open up an entire new economic reality for the human race, and bring the dream of human exploration and colonization of other worlds much closer to reality.
Here's a question (actually 2):
When will it be technologically feasible for us?
When will it be economically feasible?
When will it be technologically feasible for us?
When will it be economically feasible?
Aldroud
Banned
All things space elevator related:
www.liftport.com
15 years, several billion dollars, and we're not sure physics allows the necissary strength for the materials. BUT! It might just work.
www.liftport.com
15 years, several billion dollars, and we're not sure physics allows the necissary strength for the materials. BUT! It might just work.
Anaxagoras said:
Some people are suggesting $10 billion dollars (i.e. less than NASA's annual buget) and 10 years, this seems a bit low but even if you increase by a factor of 10 then its still working out cheaper than the ISS.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/elevator_update_020819.html
http://www.elevator2010.org/site/primer.html
http://www.isr.us/SEHome.asp?m=1
http://www.liftport.com/index.php?id=1
Something else that happens is, materials are now a lot stronger so single stage to orbit craft probaly become possible to help start off the construction and once you have one elevator going........
In addition the stronger but lighter materials should have an impact outside the space business.
Last edited:
Max Sinister
Banned
The material is the main problem. I wouldn't fund it until I knew that such a material existed, and I like the idea very much.
Then there's the question: Where to put it? It has to be at the equator, so you have to decide between South America, Africa and SE Asia. At the moment, Africa's a bit unstable, South America has elected left governments, and SE Asia has many Muslims. I feel the current US government at least won't like either...
Then there's the question: Where to put it? It has to be at the equator, so you have to decide between South America, Africa and SE Asia. At the moment, Africa's a bit unstable, South America has elected left governments, and SE Asia has many Muslims. I feel the current US government at least won't like either...
This space elevator was bought to you by the Microsoft-Nasa coalition...
I think not.
I think not.
Aldroud
Banned
The current, 'serious' proposal is to use a spot on the ocean in the Pacific. It's been monitored for the last 20 years and is a dead spot as far as storms go. There hasn't been a single lightning strike in the time it's been under observation.
The idea is the ribbon (it's a paper thin ribbon, not a cable) is affixed to an aircraft carrier sized base ship. This allows the ribbon to flex a bit and the ship can compensate. US Navy would be tasked with defending the platform.
The idea is the ribbon (it's a paper thin ribbon, not a cable) is affixed to an aircraft carrier sized base ship. This allows the ribbon to flex a bit and the ship can compensate. US Navy would be tasked with defending the platform.
Hendryk
Banned
I find it surprising that a sea-based touchdown spot would be prefered to a land-based one. After all the point of a space elevator is to handle large amounts of traffic to and from space; it's going to be a hindrance if everything has to be carried by boat to the elevator. One will have to install docking areas, warehouses, passenger terminals, etc., all on floating platforms. Plus no ship, no matter how large, will be as stable as solid ground, especially in the equatorial region; just because there hasn't been a storm in that particular spot hardly means there will never be any, and tropical storms in the open sea can be nasty indeed.Aldroud said:
Flocculencio
Donor
I, too, think Singapore would be the best place to build a Space Elevator. The Singaporean government would probably be very willing to participate in such a project.
Flocculencio
Donor
PMN1 said:
Why not?
Singapore's politically stable, an extremely good US ally (we built them a naval base), wealthy and already a global trade centre. Plus it's just one degree above the Equator and in a geologically stable region.
Besides it needn't be in association with the US or Europe. I could easily see, say, the Japanese, Singaporean, Australian and Indian governments working together on this. We'd have the money, the skills and (with India and the Aussies on board) the resources to do it.
Flocculencio said:
Yes countries other than Europe and the US could do that but I cant see the Europe or the US relying on Singapore or any other country remaining friendly and stable for something that would end up being so important.
The Russians, Chinese and Japanese keep using their northern launch sites for conventiona launch vehicels despite the obvious disadvantage to launch performances to the money making orbits while ESA went to French overseas territory.
With space elevators you dont have much alternative to an equitorial site which is where the floating site comes in.
Hendryk
Banned
By definition, if it's built in international waters, it won't be on any country's territory, and short of the US annexing Ecuador there's no way around the fact that the Americans don't have anywhere remotely close enough to the equator to build it on.PMN1 said:
So if one rules out Africa for chronic instability, that leaves Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Indonesia and Singapore. It's pretty obvious how the last option would appeal to India, China, Japan and Australia, among others.