Great news I just heard on the world news last night. Supposedly a company has finally decided it's time to move into the future and build a space elevator.
For those of you not aware of the concept, a space elevator is basically an extremely tall elevator that reaches from the planet's surface out into orbit.
It will be tethered somewhere out in the ocean and supposedly will extend about 60,000 miles out. That second fact is something I thought odd. I assumed geostationary orbit would be the best, as then you would not have to be concerned with the thing drifting away from the location it is over top of on the ground.
For those of you thinking "Ha! That sound bogus, a 12 mile high skyscraper." that is not the case. It will be a superstrong ribbon made of carbon, probably somewhere from inches to a few feet in diameter. The elevator will grasp onto it and pull itself up with wheels, similar to the way a roller-coaster grasps the track at an amusement park. And all of the major scientists asked believe it is well within the ability of the company (whose name I forgot) to pull off.
Supposedly, this will reduce the price of sending objects into orbit from $20,000 per pound down to $400 per pound.
Unfortunately, construction will not start until 2018, 13 years away. I just hope it isn't cancelled before then, as many major projects are.
ID:186718
 May 11 2005, 6:18 am
|
|
It seems this was brought about by the commercial production of carbon nanotubes, which they say would have the strength to handle it. A quick Google search came up with this at the top: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/ space_elevator_020327-1.html
| |
This sounds like one of the those tubes from Futurama. Well that is just what I think =P. Anyways, it sounds cool.
| |
1 problem I see....
The elevator would follow earths rotation, which would cause a problem, cause the space ships would have to follow the elevator using up costly ammounts of fuel. | |
Strawgate wrote:
1 problem I see.... Uh, don't you think they could put the space ships in geosynchronous orbit too? Like they do with satellites? <_< | |
Interesting. Although it'd probably be pointless sending people up on it. They'd all want to see how Earth looks from space, but the cord would end up killing that 'naturally beautiful' look Astronauts talk about.
One things for sure, I'd hate to fart in that elevator. =P | |
They are hoping for a materials breakthrough. If carbon nanotubes can be extended about ten times longer then they currently are, then they easily have the tensile strength required.
Actually, you tether it to a sattelite in gesynchronous orbit and it wouldn't fall, nor would it require any fuel. The sattelite and cable are already under gravitational acceleration, and that can't get any faster. | |
I watched a TV show on this. I didn't think they'd actually do it. This is cool.
| |
this reminds me of Robert A. Heinlein's scifi book Friday (1982) where the opening scene was set at a 'beanstalk'- the term he used for these elevators. Apparently in that future timeline, there were several of these placed around the world with some kind of spacestation/docking-port tethered to the ends out in space. very neat concept.
heck, i would not be surprised if http://www.heinleinprize.com/ or http://www.heinleinsociety.org/ has something to say about it regarding his use of beanstalks and this new news. | |
I know the concept has been talked about for many years but it was thought not possible till it was economically possible to produce carbon nano-tubes on this scale.
Think about the possibilities though. You can cut out nearly all the need for fuel for getting out of earth's gravitational pull. This is a really cool concept, I hope it doesn't get nulled. | |
boggle my mind! I mean, that's great that carbon fiber can (apparently) resist the stresses involved, but how do you set the whole thing up? I mean it's not like you can jusy tie one end off and rocket the other to the moon. Conventional building equipment seems wholly inadequate. And I can't imagine that the varying atmospheric, gravitational and temperature bands will make anything easy.
I guess it's like trying to conceptualize how the hell they planned to build the first skyscraper before it was really possible..... | |
well there will be some means of energy expended to raise/lower the elevator- though most likely not rocket propellant, i agree. :)
one 'big' issue will be where to develop. Heinlein's beanstalks were placed around or near the equator i think (i'd have to re-read the book to recall), and that makes sense from a construction point of view- at the equator is the largest amount of 'spin' needed to keep the beanstalk upright due to centrifical force if the 'station' on he outer end is big enough. another problem will be air-traffic safety. routes will likely need to be changed where-ever the elevator is built. and i would imagine it would need to be defending fairly well - several dozen kilometers of elevator crashing down would make the WTC tower crash look like a toy building knocked over by an upset child. | |
That's why you build the elevator out in the ocean. At least then all you get is a tsunami. Umm...
And, technically, the energy expended is the SAME as you expended using a rocket, assuming that they're just as efficient. Except that after a while, you have more stuff coming down then up (Mining the moon! Whee!), and that can provide lift for the up going end. | |
digitalmouse wrote:
i would imagine it would need to be defending fairly well - several dozen kilometers of elevator crashing down would make the WTC tower crash look like a toy building knocked over by an upset child. Yeah. There's a sequence in Kim Stanley Robinson's excellent Red/Blue/Green Mars series where the Mars space elevator (they called it the Line IIRC) comes crashing down* and wraps itself around the planet, causing a massive disaster. It's a pretty frightening prospect. -_- *Due to a terrorist attack by an extreme environmentalist group - "reds", as they're known, because they want to keep Mars in its original state. And "greens" want to completely change the environment, by terraforming Mars to be like Earth. Amusing colour reversal there. =P | |
Jp wrote:
That's why you build the elevator out in the ocean. At least then all you get is a tsunami. Umm... Yes, that is where they plan to build the earth-end. And, technically, the energy expended is the SAME as you expended using a rocket, assuming that they're just as efficient. Energy expended would be of little consequence. They are planning to make it solar powered so it can be set up and forgotten. The solar energy will not be lessened by the atmosphere, however, as it sounds like the equipment for that will all be at the space end of the cable and relayed down to the elevator itself. Still, I would think they would need quite a large surface area to collect enough to lift such great weights as will be present on the elevator. I say just slap a nuclear battery on the thing and let it run off that for decades. At this point, it would be much cheaper and very feasible to launch all our nuclear reactor waste at the sun. Nuclear power all around without the waste people keep whining about. I have said we should launch it at the sun all along, and if this comes into reality there will be no more excuses. Except that after a while, you have more stuff coming down then up (Mining the moon! Whee!), and that can provide lift for the up going end. Another space elevator on the moon would be much cheaper than the earth-based one, or so I would think. Go out to the end of one elevator, shoot off to the end of the other, and down to the other surface; great times ahead for humanity. | |
A space elevator would be nice, but last I heard it was still firmly in the realm of science fiction. To my knowledge we don't have the materials technology yet to build such a thing.
I believe the length is based on calculations of what it will take to keep the cable from falling back to the ground. In a geostationary orbit, the top of the cable would be fine but the lower parts would have stresses pulling them closer to the earth.
It'd be awesome if true, though I'm quite skeptical any company has this capability.
I wonder if they're banking on a breakthrough in material science that will open up the door for this one. Still, 13 years is more promising than it sounds, because it means they're not rushing headlong and they're being realistic about the prep time for such a venture.
Lummox JR