[b said:
Quote[/b] (seedjar @ July 11 2005,5:19)]Yeah, I can see it, but I have my doubts. I'm not at all comfortable with beaming solar power back down to Earth with microwaves (we can't even tell aid facilities from military installations in our bombing runs - do you really want somebody pointing tens of megawatts of microwave energy at a reciever just outside your city?)
You're comparing apples to oranges. You would have a geosynchronous satellite beaming to a fixed point on the ground. Extensive testing would be done before microwaves are beamed, and the system would include some failsafe, so that if the beam wanders off-target, some sort of dead-man's switch would trip, shutting down the beam. And I am guessing power would be collected in remote areas, deserts, in the middle of the ocean, etc.
[b said:
Quote[/b] (seedjar @ July 11 2005,5:19)]And this won't just open up upper-atmosphere industry - it's a perfect platform for space-based weapons as well. We've got a lot of other things to worry about, like infectious disease, civil unrest, and the climate.
With the dangers already posed by what we already have, space-based weapons is only an incremental threat. At any rate, the problem is a matter of politics at this point, not engineering. The threat of space-based weapons is ALREADY there. If you would object to this because of that, you should object to the entire space program.
[b said:
Quote[/b] (seedjar @ July 11 2005,5:19)]The space elevator will do us no good if the population is wiped out by something like ebola or a more virulent HIV. It may aid pharmecutical production, but I have my doubt that it will revolutionize development.
A lot of scientific discovery is through serendipity, and that mainly comes from just doing something, and then seeing what becomes of it.
I think it WILL revolutionise some industries.
[b said:
Quote[/b] (seedjar @ July 11 2005,5:19)]The US won't have the infrastructure to do anything with a space elevator if the climate goes wonky and we have to annex Canada just for farming space. (No offense Canadians, but you can't tell me you don't see the possibility.)
Why would we have to annex Canada for agricultural space? It would be far cheaper to buy the produce from them, than to wage a war, and put in place an occupying garrison. If that became a major source of export revenue for them, they would be more than happy to oblige us.
[b said:
Quote[/b] (seedjar @ July 11 2005,5:19)]It just strikes me as lacking a little in foresight... there are a bunch of big problems on the horizon; the last thing we need is some crazy multi-billion dollar project that might help us make some more bucks off of totally nonessential industries.
This group is seeking sponsorship from private individuals, and unless you wish to dictate to individuals how they spend/invest their own money, it's not your concern. It's very likely that as the project becomes more and more a certainty, governments will eventually also invest money. But they may not even want government money; it comes with too many strings. Think about the Ansari X Prise, and ShaceShipOne. Space exploration is slowly being privatised, and private industry will be far more efficient at spending dollars and maximising return on investment than the government will.
[b said:
Quote[/b] (seedjar @ July 11 2005,5:19)]I think it's a cool idea and all, don't get me wrong, but it's still more of a big toy than a necessity - it's just not a good time for this kind of thing. Maybe if we had the technology for, say, agricultural and residential satellites, then it would be an important step... but we're really putting the cart before the horse, if you ask me.
Sometimes, it makes sense to build a cart, and then wait for a horse to come by. Who knows what technological developments are blocked now because of the hideously expensive entry cost into orbit? Just like the movie, if you build it, they will come.
And the website commented that you could get enough velocity off the end of the elevator to make it to Mars in a matter of weeks. Hello, Martian exploration and colonisation!
[b said:
Quote[/b] (seedjar @ July 11 2005,5:19)]And besides, how many people are really going to be crazy and healthy enough to work up there? I mean, I'm crazy enough but I'm in terrible shape and falling apart from arthritis, asthma and ulcers at 20. How many people will want to move to space and give up a nice comfy life on the surface?
I think, at least initially, a LOT of people would gladly go up there.
[b said:
Quote[/b] (seedjar @ July 11 2005,5:19)]This strikes me as something that the proliteriate will suffer for. No CEOs or governors will be moving to mansions in the sky any time soon. It's going to be the lower class laborers who're the guinea pigs in this science project.
So, why are the untra-wealthy now paying tens of millions of dollars to spend a few days on a cramped space station? If they start building apartments in space, only the ultra-wealthy will be able to afford to live there. And the workers who support the whole thing.
But working in space is a totally different deal from working on the ground. You can't just hire illiterate illegal immigrants to weld your station together. You need educated labor, at least at a level of an intensive technical school. These people will be highly in demand, and they will be well-paid and well-compensated. Plus, labor issues were taken on by the US government 100 years ago. You're not going to have Pullman towns in space. Between labor law and the litigious nature of modern society, these laborers will be well-treated, and well-compensated.
[b said:
Quote[/b] (seedjar @ July 11 2005,5:19)]Between this and those supreme court property law rulings, I can definitely see government mandated relocations of low-cost housing to satellites.
~Joe
It'll ALWAYS be more expensive to build housing in space.
Joe, have you ever heard of
Democratic Underground? I bet you'd really like that place.