Posted on 03/15/2006 8:16:35 AM PST by Neville72
For the 2006 midterm elections, Republicans should propose an idea so big that it stretches to the stars. Republicans should commit the government to building a space elevator by 2020.
A space elevator would essentially be a 62,000-mile cable stretching from the earth's surface out into space. Because one end of the cable would be in high orbit, gravity would prevent it from falling back to earth. Once the cable was in place, space travelers would board an elevator-like device and ride up the cable.
The 62,000-mile cable would endure tremendous stress from supporting its own mass, so the primary challenge in building a space elevator lies in constructing the cable out of material strong enough not to break. Fortunately, scientists have determined that carbon nanotubes, which are over one hundred times stronger than steel, could be used for the cable. Unfortunately, no one yet knows how to fashion mile-long strands of carbon nanotubes — but we are close.
The benefits of space elevators
Space elevators could make going into orbit as cheap as flying across the Pacific. They could make space vacations financially feasible for many Americans.
Space elevators would also give the U.S. the high-ground in any future military conflict. With the elevators we could easily launch or destroy spy satellites. They would also help the U.S. set up a "Star Wars" missile defense system. Finally, space elevators would allow the military to deploy inexpensive non-explosive kinetic weapons that could be dropped from orbit on our enemies.
Space elevators would do far more good for the environment than fulfilling the Kyoto Treaty on global warming ever could. The elevators would make it possible for the U.S. to put cheap solar power collectors in space. Space elevators would also permit us to mine helium-3 from the moon. Helium-3 could make an ideal fuel for fusion power.
Most importantly, however, space elevators could save us from going the way of the dinosaurs. Sixty-five million years ago an asteroid probably crashed into the earth and wiped out the dinosaurs. Space elevators would greatly facilitate the detection and deflection of earth-bound asteroids. Space elevators would also make it far easier for humans to colonize space and thus survive any world-destroying disaster. As Robert Heinlein said "The earth is just too small and fragile a basket for the human race to keep all its eggs in."
Why should the government build it?
Usually, the marketplace is far superior at developing technologies than the government. But even free market supporters should favor the U.S. government building space elevators.
As Glenn Reynolds has written, President Bush has called for America to return to the moon by 2020, and it would be much cheaper to do this with space elevators than conventional rockets. So, given that the U.S. government is going to spend tens of billions of dollars on space exploration anyway, we should all support the government in spending this money in the most beneficial manner.
Furthermore, a private corporation that built space elevators would not be rewarded by the market for reducing the risk of human extinction. Markets, therefore, provide suboptimal incentives to build space elevators, so the government has a legitimate role in helping to finance them.
Why should Republicans propose building space elevators?
I admit it: part of the reason I want Republicans to make space elevators part of their 2006 campaign is that I am a Republican and fear that otherwise we will lose considerable power in the midterm elections. A space elevator proposal would be visionary, pro-defense, pro-environment and easy to understand, so it could attract significant support for Republicans.
It would be difficult for Democrats to enthusiastically support a space elevator proposal. The left-wing environmentalists view the threat of global warming primarily as a means of combating capitalism, and they would be horrified by any proposal that could reduce the harm of global warming without curbing commerce.
The Democrats would be uncomfortable with the militarization of space that U.S.-owned space elevators would allow. They would undoubtedly prefer that space elevators be built not by the U.S. but by some international coalition. Such Democratic opposition to a U.S. space elevator would allow Republicans to portray Democrats as being not only weak on defense but also hypocritical on the environment.
James D. Miller writes "The Game Theorist" column for TCS and is the author of Game Theory at Work.
Economically, this gives us space manufacturing and moon mining.
Militarily, this gives is Rods From God.
It's the next big leap forward.
When I first read this I thought it was just a joke. But he has some good points and figuring out how to make carbon nanotubes in large volume would be a great benefit for all. As SciFi'ish as it sounds it may not be a bad idea.
Not a bad idea.
He's fission for a compliment.
The voters won't get it, and the late-night comics will have a field day. Bad idea, all around.
Is is posible to build such a device? Why does it not fall back to earth what holds up the other end?
I like the idea. It would be a boon for inexpensively getting things to and from space.
Go here for lots of good info:
http://www.elevator2010.com/site/primer.html
In the upper right corner of the page click the "Intro Movie" link for a good 2 min. presentation of the concept.
Think of it like a ball on a tether -- swing it around and the tether is straight and rigid. The ball doesn't fall anywhere but traverses a predictable path around the point of anchoring. For the Space Elevator, the anchor would be on the equator and the top would be in geostationary orbit directly above. Payload to the top would go up somewhat slowly, but "free" since the earth's rotation provides the energy.
Imagine getting tons and tons of material into orbit at basically no cost.
"Is is posible to build such a device? Why does it not fall back to earth what holds up the other end?"
The physics of the concept work just fine. Think of swinging a rock on a string.
However, whether it can be practically built is another matter altogether. Carbon nano-tubes or not, I doubt it's practical feasibility.
Building the elevator is fine, but this paragraph is ridiculous. It would not be 'easy to understand' for semi-literate voters who can barely find the beer aisle at Wal-mart, and who unfortunately make up about 80% of the populace. The idea will simply be laughed at if it is put out as our big bold proposal.
> Is is posible to build such a device?
Maybe. The materials tech is *just* about there.
> Why does it not fall back to earth what holds up the other end?
Centrifugal force. The center of mass of the elevator is in geostationary orbit; everything below that point is "hanging down," and everything above that point is "hanging up."
> Imagine this carbon rope breaking when you are about 150,000 feet up. That's a long time to fall.
Not really. Joe Kittenger did that, or close to it, by jumping out of high-altitude ballons wearign a space suit. Broke the speed of sound on his way down.
I think it needs a better name.
Space Elevator is accurate, but not inspiring. If one wants to capture the public's attention and build enthusiasm, then something with a more captivating name would probably be better, IMHO.
OTOH, Space Elevator does have the advantage of association with a reliable, everyday product that has a proven and trusted track record.
Ronald Reagan's missle defense was ridiculed as "Star Wars".
The topic under discussion will be ridiculed as a "Magic Beanstalk" no matter what we want to call it.
Orbital tether?
Starlift?
Astroglide? (heh heh)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.