Posted on 11/03/2007 5:48:24 AM PDT by Neville72
One hundred and eighty-two years ago this month, New York Governor DeWitt Clinton boarded the Seneca Chief and traveled 500 miles from Buffalo to New York City to mark the opening of the Erie Canal. It was the beginning of an enterprise of immense economic and political significance in that it expanded the reach of American commerce and established New York as one of the world's leading financial centers.
It is easy, in retrospect, to think the canal's success was ordained from the beginning. It wasn't. In 1810, when DeWitt Clinton, then mayor of New York City, first proposed building the 363-mile, 83 lock canal, Gouverneur Morris, responded by saying "Our minds are not yet enlarged to the size of so great an object." Another Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson, was more biting in his criticism, writing to Clinton, "It is a splendid project, and may be executed a century hence. It is little short of madness to think of it this day."
Jefferson's reasoning was solid. The project was budgeted to cost $6 million -- a sum then equal to three-fourths of the federal government budget. In fact, the scale of the project was so massive that it was determined it would be the biggest public works project since the Great Pyramid and would consist of digging and removing over 11 million cubic yards of earth. It is no wonder that many decried it as "Clinton's ditch."
Fortunately, Clinton persisted and while he wasn't able to persuade the federal government to support the idea he did win over the citizens of New York and in 1817 the state legislature approved the funding for the project.
Amazingly, the canal was completed on October 26, 1825 -- two years ahead of schedule. More impressive still, the state's debt off was paid-off in a decade's time.
With this little bit of history in mind, let me now introduce you to a modern-day equivalent of the Erie Canal: the space elevator.
To many, the idea of constructing an elevator into geosynchronous orbit might be, to echo the words of Jefferson, a splendid project a century hence but little short of madness today. Nevertheless the idea is beginning to elicit consideration from a growing number of serious scientists.
In its simplest form, the elevator would consist of a ribbon of super-strong carbon nanotubes be tethered to a large platform located near the equator and attached to a space structure at the other. To get from earth to space a cab would climb the ribbon. (Further details can be found at www.spaceelevator.com)
Without question a great many obstacles must be overcome in order to achieve this vision, but they are just that: obstacles. They are not barriers. Ironically, as with the Erie Canal, the greatest barrier may not be technical in nature but rather political -- namely, our leaders (and perhaps our country) have lost their ability to think big.
But like the Erie Canal, a space elevator would be more than just a testament to good old-fashion American ingenuity and know-how. It would have broad, practical economic and political ramifications. For instance, just as the Erie Canal lowered the cost of shipping a ton of flour from $120 to less than $6, a space elevator could similarly open up space by radically reducing the price of hauling the equipment and supplies into orbit. Today, it costs anywhere between $10,000 and $20,000 to launch a single pound of material into space. With a space elevator, replacing and updating the communication and satellite infrastructure upon which modern society is now so dependent would be fast, inexpensive and easy.
Beyond this, if America is serious about establishing a permanent presence on the moon -- and, ultimately, Mars -- this country will need a dramatically more efficient process for delivering cargo and personnel into a space. Our present system of using individual rockets is about as efficient as hauling flour by horseback.
It has been estimated that a space elevator can be built for $12 billion. It is a large amount of money to be sure, but so too was the Erie Canal. Thanks, however, to some farsighted and courageous leadership a profitable canal was built and, in the process, it turned the course of history. How fitting then if on October 26, 2025 -- the bicentennial of the opening of the Erie Canal -- America could send a group of people into space on an elevator. It is possible but first we must enlarge our minds to "so great an object."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Uldrich is an author and a futurist. His latest book, Jump the Curve: 50 Strategies for Helping Companies Deal with Emerging Technologies, is due out in February 2008.
I’ve got an old mule and her name is Sal
Fifteen miles on the Erie Canal
She’s a good old worker and a good old pal
Fifteen miles on the Erie Canal
The “space elevator” is a great idea, but it cannot happen without a better “heavy lift” orbital rocket system than the “space shuttle”. One has to come before the other.
what sort of music would be playing in this elevator?
What happens if a plane flies through this “nano-cord” or a terrorist manages to cut it?
It's a lousy idea. You'll need lateral thrust to get the elevator moving at orbital speed.
The author conveniently overlooks the fact that the Erie Canal was probably a failure from a commercial standpoint. It wasn’t very long before the railroads rendered it obsolete.
Another bad idea depending on not thinking about the whole (sort of like the prius, wind generators, biomass fuel).
cb, bsase with honors, ut 1970.
The music of the spheres...
I want to boat down the Erie Canal some day.
How come?
Same here. I’d like to do the same on the Mississippi River, too.
Low bridge, everybody down
Low bridge for we’re coming to a town
And you’ll always know your neighbor, you’ll always know your pal
If you’ve ever navigated on the Erie Canal.
They're called "flight plans" and "flight corridors". Of course, terrorists are another story. I suspect any such engineering project will probably have some of the best anti-aircraft protection in the world.
Wow, what a revelation. You'd better write Arthur C. Clarke immediately, and let him know.
Hint--it won't be built from the ground up.
See post 15.
Wife and I and another couple sailed from Two Harbors, MN to Rouge Steel on Lake Erie some years ago. We were guests aboard an Interlake steamer. The 5 am transit through the Soo Lock was very neat. Chow on board was enormous...
Somebody's been ignoring potential energy and the amount that would have to be stored in form of Mass in orbit in order to pull up the mass in the cable car. You're really just storing up all the energy you would otherwise expend putting the usable mass in orbit. Plus, each use would degrade the orbit of the space structure and require energy to maintain the orbit, probably more than would be required to put up what you wanted in the first place(efficiency losses).
One efficiency you have forgotten is that ground energy can be used for running the lifts and, if necessary, navigation. Think nice LONG wires. Ground energy is dramatically cheaper than rocket fuel, safer, and does not have to lift itself.
Hint--after it's built, and as the elevator rises, it will need to be provided with lateral thrust to get it going from 1000mph at Earth's surface to 17,000+mph at orbit.
Without that constant lateral thrust, your ribbon will take on the shape of a giant letter "C".
Fortunately, your kind is a minority compared to the visionaries who look at life from the other side and think about how things can be done.
But, please don't let me discourage you...you are needed to anchor the other end of the bell curve. If it wasn't for folks like you, we might already be in space and be exploiting faster-than-light travel.
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.