Science seen as slipping in U.S.

Houston Chronicle ^ | August 22, 2004 | ERIC BERGER

[Doc On The Bay]

--are piling their kids into law school...---a REALLY BAD SIGN for ANY Society!

Historically, Cultures have "Advanced & Prospered" "By Means of" the Technological Advantages a Given Culture has over it's "Adversaries!"

If India, China, Japan, S. Korea become More "Technologically Literate" than us,--WE LOSE.

We are NOW in a "Technology Race;" our Very Civilization is Dependant upon our ability to "Keep Up!!"

The Education of our Children is CRITICAL; If we CANNOT Maintain our Population at a Level of Understanding commensurate with the Current & Expanding Extent of Information, we will Rapidly "Fall Behind," & Become a "Second Class Culture" DESPITE our Military Power.

The LEVEL of EDUCATION--ESPECIALLY in Mathematics & Science--DICTATES the "Success of" our Society!!

"Knowlege is Power!!"

Doc

[balrog666]

Excellent post!

[farmfriend]

Pop quiz to follow? :)

[Aracelis]

Once again, you have demonstrated why you are one of FR's finest

Yeah, but he's too nice...

[Aracelis]

RA, this one isn't worth the effort you're expending here.

Maybe he'll listen to you.

[XBob]

193 - Space Elevator 2010 Contest -

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5792719/


" ‘Elevator:2010’ aimed
at encouraging
technology development
One of the marquee events in a proposed space elevator competition would be a climber race, shown in this artist's conception. The mechanical climbers would be required to lift a payload up a 60-meter cable, with power provided by an intense light beam shining on photoelectric cells.

The project, spearheaded by the California-based Spaceward Foundation, would focus on innovations in fields that could open the way for payloads to be lifted into space by light-powered platforms. Such platforms, also known as climbers, would move up and down superstrong ribbons rising as high as 62,000 miles (100,000 kilometers) above Earth's surface.

If space elevators could actually be built, the cost of sending payloads into space could be reduced from $10,000 or more per pound (455 grams) to $100 or less — opening up a revolutionary route to the final frontier. Like the X Prize for private spaceflight, Elevator:2010 is aimed at jump-starting the revolution

"We firmly believe that the set of technologies that underlie the infinite promise of the space elevator can be demonstrated, or proven infeasible, within a five-year time frame," the Web site for the competition declares. "And hence our name. Elevator:2010. We promise to get an answer for you by then.""
In order to work, the elevator's ribbons would have to be made of materials stronger than any that exist today; carbon nanotube composites are the current favorites. Conventional rockets would launch components of the elevator, which would be anchored to an Earth station to form a bridge to outer space.

Most of the current schemes call for the climbers to be powered by sunlight and/or intense artificial light focused onto photoelectric cells. The climbers would ride on the ribbons like rail cars."

---
NOT ROCKETS !!!! ROCKETS ARE NOT FOR COMMERCE !!!

[RadioAstronomer]

I have my doubts about the "Space Elevator". At Geosync, a satellite experiences gravitational "tugs" (drift) not only in-track but cross-track as well. This drift is induced by; A) the non-spherical shape of the Earth and B) a Moon that does not orbit directly over the equatorial plane. For any satellite in geosync, periodic Delta-Vs must be accomplished for station keeping.

Usually, there is a maximum equatorial ground track distance that falls within an acceptable margin from the desired sub-point. Since geosync satellites tend to drift in one direction, station-keeping usually means using a thruster of some kind to position it at the "uphill end" and let it drift to the "bottom end", re-firing the thruster "pushing" the satellite back to the "up hill" and letting it drift once again over and over for the life of the vehicle. The cross-track drift ends up looking like a figure eight plotted against the ground. This figure eight gets bigger with age as the drift grows. Again, Delta-Vs can keep your bird on station for the life of the satellite.

OTOH, with a Space Elevator, you don't have these luxuries. You must not induce a vibration (or standing wave) in this structure. Remember the Tacoma Narrows Bridge? Even if your structure is strong enough to span the "gap", (23,000 miles in one heck of a gap) you must take into account vibrational stress.

The other issue is the electrical potential that will be present between the top of the elevator and the bottom. How do we discharge/ground that safely?

I know I am sounding like a wet blanket here, but like the Orion project, IMHO, the Space Elevator (although intriguing), will remain a "paper" project.

NOT ROCKETS !!!! ROCKETS ARE NOT FOR COMMERCE !!!

We are using rockets for commerce as we speak. Someone is making money for getting all those satellites up there.

BTW, Look for part two (and possibly a part three) to my previous post tonight and tomorrow, should there be a part three.

[RadioAstronomer]

His ability to think in the long term, over many centuries, is a gift that you have. But it is shared by a small percentage of the population.

You honor me. :-) I humbly thank you.

[XBob]

196 - Helium3 may indeed be worth going to the moon.

If, we ever figure out how to make a fusion reactor. (We have been trying for 50 years and haven't figured it out yet). But perhaps someday we will.

So, at $10,000 per pound, how about give me a general WAG, at the cost to build a helium3 factory on the moon, and a transport system to bring the helium3 safely back to earth.

You need not include the costs to invent and build fusion reactors on earth, for this question.

Feel free to round off to the nearest Trillion$.

[RadioAstronomer]

RA, this one isn't worth the effort you're expending here.

Actually it is. I am getting all kinds of freepmail telling me they are really looking forward to my next part. :-)

However, I post and write in haste since my time is limited. My grammar and sentence structures are atrocious after rereading my own work. Sigh.

I will take the time to "clean it up" and repost with both or all three parts combined.

[XBob]

196 - Note - my WAG for just getting us back to the moon today, (like our original moon shots) is $500 billion. And that is just to put another jeep on the moon and a couple of astronauts.

[RadioAstronomer]

Once again, you have demonstrated why you are one of FR's finest.

Thank you. :-)

[RadioAstronomer]

Excellent post!

Thanks. :-) Part two to follow.

[RadioAstronomer]

196 - Helium3 may indeed be worth going to the moon.

That may be just one of the products that is useful, however, the gravity well is what makes the Moon so attractive.

Have to run dang it, will post more tonight.

[longshadow]

The cross-track drift ends up looking like a figure eight plotted against the ground.

Analemma, perchance?

[XBob]

207 - You made some compelling arguments against the space elevator, but you limited them to scientific arguments.

There are lots of engineering and commercial arguments too.

"NOT ROCKETS !!!! ROCKETS ARE NOT FOR COMMERCE !!!
We are using rockets for commerce as we speak. Someone is making money for getting all those satellites up there."

True, but this is not 'space' travel - Low Earth Orbit is exactly that - essentially high flying rocket planes, which utilize earth's gravity for continuous propulsion, once the rocket engines burn out.

You need to get out of your limited thinking about rockets for space travel. Carrying your own fuel supply with rockets for long distance travel is just not feasible on any commercial scale.

And I don't think that Laura Bush has a neckless to sell to buy a moon rocket (like Queen Isabella).

[js1138]

I would agree that we don't have the technology for a commercial space elevator just yet, but I think that some of your concerns are addressable. The counterweight would be considerably beyond the geosynch point, and the tension could overcome any tendencies to drift. the tether would be a flexible fabric. I think vibrations could be damped, although I am not an engineer. It looks like a rather straightforward problem.

Exectrical generation is an interesting side effect, but the fabric would be carbon. Perhaps the electrical potential between points on the ribbon could be harnessed to run the elevator.

[XBob]

217 - How would you dampen the mechanical vibration in a hurricaine/typhoon?

Though out of my area, it seems like with a carbon fiber cable we would create a permanent lightning bolt.

[js1138]

vibration dampening is an engineering problem (which I am not qualified to solve). But all bridges and buildings are designed to withstand the highest expected winds. That is why there are only a few examples of major buildings and bridges failing.

[Doctor Stochastic]

But all bridges and buildings are designed to withstand the highest expected winds.

Unexpected winds do bad things though. Kobe (Japan, not Bryant) experienced vertical movement during an earthquake; this was a new unexpected feature.