What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Elevator to outter space

An elevator to space has been confirmed and research/construction on it has already begun. The elevator will be used to carry goods and people to an outside space station. The first lift is scheduled for April 12, 2018.

All the information here:
http://www.liftport.com/faq.php
 
It's funny how neurotic a lot of those questions sound... I hope they don't actually have people asking most of them.

"Someone's making a really really long wire! I'm scared!"
 
Would there be drag on the wire itself, causing the speed of the wire to slow down, and thus causing the speed of the station to speed down, causing a cataclysmic crash toward earth?

Oh wait, the wire it moving with earth, so that means it woudn't be working against the earth's atmophere to circle, dragging the space station. If that's so, than wouldn't the station have to be positioned perfectly on the equator?

What about wind effect on the cable, wouldn't it sway a bit, knocking the station around, and potentially cause a crash? EDIT: I just read the part on the page. So what if it's a low wind area, wouldn't the winds be much stronger up in the higher atmospheres?
 
They're talking about having rockets to stabilize it and stuff. Still, even if they do work out the bugs in the plan I don't think that industry will be in much of a position to undertake such a frivolous project by the time they're ready to commense construction. Science fiction is all well and dandy, but shouldn't we be curing AIDS or something?
~Joe
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] (TunaSurprise @ July 11 2005,3:28)]Would there be drag on the wire itself, causing the speed of the wire to slow down, and thus causing the speed of the station to speed down, causing a cataclysmic crash toward earth?
No. As the cable thats outside the atmosphere re-enters it burns up and the part that doesn't burn up falls into the ocean. The size of the wave it would create is in the FAQ. The cable and the station are in perfect sync with the earths rotation. A break is highly unlikely since the cables used are more than 3 times the strengt needed and they plan to continue building new cables once the first one is set and tested.
 
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?) 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. 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. 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.)
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. 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.
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? 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. Between this and those supreme court property law rulings, I can definitely see government mandated relocations of low-cost housing to satellites.
~Joe
 
2018 is going to be a very different time no matter what.
 
[b said:
Quote[/b] ]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
I though the pharmaceutical industry was benefitial...

A big problem that we'll face very soon is the complete depletion of fossil fuels in 10-20 years. This will address that problem by providing a new energy source. Medical research and climatology will continue progressing. This won't make aids research "go away".
 
  • #10
I went to a presentation by half of the two-man team that is the driving force behind this two years ago, and was very excited about it. There are a lot of challenges, but i agree with the assessment he gave: the biggest challenges are political and social. People are always paranoid about things they don't understand, especially really, really large things, that reach into space.

That's not to say that the engineering challenges are insignificant. Carbon nanotubes are very expensive and we are nowhere near able to produce them in macroscopic lengths as would be required for the space elevator. On the other hand, a lot of research is currently being done on CNTs, and any research Liftpoint does is going to provide them with intellectual property that will help fund the project.

Most of the questions being asked here are answered in the FAQ. As for whether this is a good use of financial resources, well, it's a private company. As with any other private company, they're responsible for coming up with those resources and once they are able to, using them as they see fit. This is not a government program.

If it is completed, it will be a boon to technology, science, industry, and international relations. If. The possibilities are endless.

P.S. Amateur expert... you might want to check your sources on the "complete depletion of fossil fuels" in 10-20 years. "Business as usual" will certainly not be the rule in 20 years at our present consumption, but there are huge reserves of fossil fuels presently untapped because of cost or technological barriers. It's better to say that our present view and use of fossil fuels will probably be different in 10-20 years.
 
  • #11
I remembered the 2015-2025 Year estimate from a Time Magazine i read a while back. I don't doubt it's changed since then.
 
  • #12
http://solutions.synearth.net/stories/storyReader$8
olduvai100yrs.jpg


[b said:
Quote[/b] ]Richard Duncan has recently revised his predictions of the coming fossil fuel energy crisis to an even more urgent status. His most recent calculations using data on both crude oil and natural gas paints an even darker picture. No pun intended. He says the rolling blackouts that started in California this past month (February 2001) are only the beginning. His latest calculations published March 6, 2001 show:

"My previous study put the 'cliff event' in year 2012. However, it now appears that 2012 was TOO OPTIMISTIC.

"The newest study indicates that the 'cliff event' will occur about 5 years earlier than 2012 due an epidemic of 'rolling blackouts' that have already begun in the US. This 'electrical epidemic' spreads nationwide, then worldwide, and by ca. 2007 most of the blackouts are permanent. The 'modern way of life' is history by ca. 2025."
 
  • #13
I meant something like a peer-reviewed scientific publication. I reviewed the links there, and there's not much in it that has been tainted with the marks of science.

The problem with Hubbart curves (which is what the theory that cartoon illustrates is based on) is that they don't really consider technological advancement; which is also why they have to keep revising the projections. The projections are constantly being pushed back, which is why so many of my father's generation no longer pay heed to the alarmists: according to their original predictions, we should already be out of petroleum. So while there's no doubt that things are being depleted that are probably not being renewed, the deadline is constantly being revised.

The great thing about technological advance is it enables greater efficiency and greater utilization of resources. Thus, the GNP of the US has continued to increase, in spite of the fact that the energy consumption didn't increase at a similar rate. There was an article in (i believe) the Wall Street Journal recently pointing out the importance of R&D by citing the fact that the US economy has been able to continue forward in spite of increasing energy costs because of improvements in efficiency.

Anyway, getting back to the space elevator: it's a long-time favorite of science fiction. The Liftpoint conception is radically different in a way that decreases the necessary tensile strength to something achievable by real matter. It also has a lot of other improvements. But to get an idea of the possibilities, check out any of the creative uses that sci-fi has made.
 
  • #14
What if the weight on the space end of the tether causes the earth to wobble on its axis and the violent shaking causes earthquakes and tsunamis.  Furthemore, my CPs would slide off the bench and my drink would fall off the table.
 
  • #15
someone would blow it up. you know it.
 
  • #16
[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.
 
  • #17
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Amateur_Expert @ July 12 2005,10:11)]A big problem that we'll face very soon is the complete depletion of fossil fuels in 10-20 years. This will address that problem by providing a new energy source. Medical research and climatology will continue progressing. This won't make aids research "go away".
The timescale is a little uncertain, but it's clear the days of fossil fuel are numbered. We would do well to invest more money into plasma fusion research, and a space elevator would definitely make microwave-based solar-power stations viable. That would be a boon.

Another technology is thermal depolymerisation; it mimics the process by which the earth transforms organic matter into petroleum, and a recent Discover Magazine article describes how this technology, fully implemented, could supply half the US current consumption of petroleum -- WITHOUT adding carbon to the biosphere!
 
  • #19
[b said:
Quote[/b] (Lauderdale @ July 12 2005,12:57)]What if the weight on the space end of the tether causes the earth to wobble on its axis and the violent shaking causes earthquakes and tsunamis. Furthemore, my CPs would slide off the bench and my drink would fall off the table.
Actually the weight on the space end will be just enough to keep the ribbon balanced. And the moons (along with every other satelite's) gravitational pull already causes the earth to wobble.
 
  • #20
[b said:
Quote[/b] (JustLikeAPill @ July 12 2005,1:04)]someone would blow it up. you know it.
It would be close to impossible to attack this thing once it's up and running. Only a small portion of i would be susceptible to attack in the first place. Secondly, it'll be even harder trying to attack more than one ribbon once there are multiple ribbons installed. Also, It's not like the area is going to be filled with tourists or civilians, anyone who is on site is there because they where assigned. The airspace around it will be restricted, so i imagine in the event of something 9/11-like anything flying in the area unauthorized will be considered a threat and will be taken care off.
 
Back
Top