Posted on 06/25/2004 2:21:35 PM PDT by Junior
WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) wants to return to the moon and put a man on Mars. But scientist Bradley C. Edwards has an idea that's really out of this world: an elevator that climbs 62,000 miles into space.
Edwards thinks an initial version could be operating in 15 years, a year earlier than Bush's 2020 timetable for a return to the moon. He pegs the cost at $10 billion, a pittance compared with other space endeavors.
"It's not new physics — nothing new has to be discovered, nothing new has to be invented from scratch," he says. "If there are delays in budget or delays in whatever, it could stretch, but 15 years is a realistic estimate for when we could have one up."
Edwards is not just some guy with an idea. He's head of the space elevator project at the Institute for Scientific Research in Fairmont, W.Va. NASA (news - web sites) already has given it more than $500,000 to study the idea, and Congress has earmarked $2.5 million more.
"A lot of people at NASA are excited about the idea," said Robert Casanova, director of the NASA Institute of Advanced Concepts in Atlanta.
Edwards believes a space elevator offers a cheaper, safer form of space travel that eventually could be used to carry explorers to the planets.
Edwards' elevator would climb on a cable made of nanotubes — tiny bundles of carbon atoms many times stronger than steel. The cable would be about three feet wide and thinner than a piece of paper, but capable of supporting a payload up to 13 tons.
The cable would be attached to a platform on the equator, off the Pacific coast of South America where winds are calm, weather is good and commercial airplane flights are few. The platform would be mobile so the cable could be moved to get out of the path of orbiting satellites.
David Brin, a science-fiction writer who formerly taught physics at San Diego State University, believes the concept is solid but doubts such an elevator could be operating by 2019.
"I have no doubt that our great-grandchildren will routinely use space elevators," he said. "But it will take another generation to gather the technologies needed."
Edwards' institute is holding a third annual conference on space elevators in Washington starting Monday. A keynote speaker at the three-day meeting will be John Mankins, NASA's manager of human and robotics technology. Organizers say it will discuss technical challenges and solutions and the economic feasibility of the elevator proposal.
The space elevator is not a new idea. A Russian scientist, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, envisioned it a century ago. And Arthur C. Clarke's novel "The Foundations of Paradise," published in 1979, talks of a space elevator 24,000 miles high, and permanent colonies on the moon, Mercury and Mars.
The difference now, Edwards said, is "we have a material that we can use to actually build it."
He envisions launching sections of cable into space on rockets. A "climber" — his version of an elevator car — would then be attached to the cable and used to add more lengths of cable until eventually it stretches down to the Earth. A counterweight would be attached to the end in space.
Edwards likens the design to "spinning a ball on a string around your head." The string is the cable and the ball on the end is a counterweight. The Earth's rotation would keep the cable taut.
The elevator would be powered by photo cells that convert light into electricity. A laser attached to the platform could be aimed at the elevator to deliver the light, Edwards said.
Edwards said he probably needs about two more years of development on the carbon nanotubes to obtain the strength needed. After that, he believes work on the project can begin.
"The major obstacle is probably just politics or funding and those two are the same thing," he said. "The technical, I don't think that's really an issue anymore."
Wha'd he say? A beginning, but no clear end. Half of infinity is still infinity.
That means, just to carry the cable into orbit, will take about 230 shuttle flights.
When a tug boat needs to get the very large rope to a ship at port it doesn't send the large rope up first. What it does is send up a small rope and once that reaches the ship it attaches a larger rope. When that reaches the ship it sends up a larger rope followed by the tow rope.
That's similar to how it could be done (and if I recall correctly that is the intention) with building the space elevator ribbon. Once the first ribbon is up they have a minimal strength elevator. Then a small, light weight elevator would be lowered down to lash together the individual strands. Each time making the ribbon X amount stronger.
166 - "My understanding is that the cable will be built in place?
A starter thread built upon by a device going up and down adding layers.
Sorry about the terminology, this is well out of my expertise."
That's OK, the basic math shouldn't be. Since 1980 we have only managed to launch a shuttle about 100 times, in 24 years. This project alone, even given it's ridiculously wrong numbers, would still require 50 years, 230 missions, for this one project alone, at a cost of $120+ dollars.
If you can't handle the facts, you're stuck. You'll get over it.
What is the connection in quantum entanglement?
I have read a few pieces on this, but none were clear on this.
Redundant point about the tidal forces, I'm afraid. Tidal forces are the only forces acting on the structure, which is otherwise in free-fall about its center of gravity (which is in geosynchonous orbit--think about it). If the designers didn't have to compensate for tidal forces, the material wouldn't have to be so strong. Overcooked pasta would have sufficed.
172 - "OTOH, it would be a place to sequester all that nasty greenhouse carbon."
Great idea, and we could build it in place, right over Hollywood!!
That's a common misconception. It can do no such thing, however. What quantum entanglement produces is long distance correlations, and as statisticians say, correlation is not causality.
It actually can't be built anywhere in the US. It would need to be built on or close to the equator.
Actually, it's just the opposite. It CAN'T be used to transmit information (Or you can't know what the information is). I'm not going further, other threads and articles make the point.
182 - "When a tug boat needs to get the very large rope to a ship at port it doesn't send the large rope up first. What it does is send up a small rope and once that reaches the ship it attaches a larger rope. When that reaches the ship it sends up a larger rope followed by the tow rope."
I am very familiar with the procedure, having participated. So, just what size rope do you recommend to attach to pull the rope in Normandy, France to the rope in New York City?
2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke
2010: Odyssey Two by Arthur C. Clarke
2061: Odyssey Three by Arthur C. Clarke
3001: The Final Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke
as well I've read the book that was referenced in this thread dealing with space elevators
The Fountains of Paradise by Arthur C. Clarke
what I loved the most was that there was a competing book on exactly the same subject that came out at the same time.
The Web Between The Worlds by Charles Sheffield,
When Clarke's publisher threatened to sue for "stealing" Clarke's idea, Clarke went and got a copy of the other author's manuscript. He recognized that it was an original work and worthy of publishing. He even went so far as to write the forward for Sheffield's book. Clarke's book is still in print, but Sheffield's is not, but I still think they both brought a lot to the idea. Clarke actually liked Sheffield's solution for connecting the bottom of the elevator to Earth over his own. Now that is a true scientist.
I actually have a photo-copy of a photo-copy (ad infinitum) of his original paper on geostationary satellites with his hand written notes. I know it isn't worth anything, per se, but I treasure it, none the less.
I also have a personal connection to 2001, the movie. My Dad was involved with a major wholesale drug company and they sponsored some of the first cross promotion ads for a big movie, namely 2001. They ran big ads in one of THE 2 big magazines, Look Magazine (where Kubrick worked for some time), tying in things like vitamins and Tang with long duration space missions with the planned release of 2001 in early 1967. Unfortunately, in January 1967 the Apollo 1 fire happened and the movie studio had second thoughts about releasing the movie right then. They decided to postpone the movie for several month. Unfortunately, the magazine ads had already been bought and paid for. My dad even hosted a dinner with Stanley Kubrick, Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood, even though the movie had been postponed. I still have some keepsakes from that dinner. Ah well.
How much of a distance and how do you turn it into "travel"? And how do you travel across long distances and multiple frames of reference without violating causality?
To date the demonstrated distance is a few centimeters. They mentioned spanning the galaxy. From what I read there was no limiting distance.
The current pace of technological growth is no guarantee of future technological advances.
True. Though it certainly points to the continuation.
Given that the universe is finite, I don't believe that the potential of technology is infinite.
The Universe exists finite. But existence is infinite. Man's ability to create new knowledge is infinite. New knowledge generally leads to advances in technology.
Are you alright?
Heinlein beanstalk ping.
Captain Ahab, harpoon in hand, upon approaching the asteroid.
"We're gonna need a bigger rocket..."
I was a kid in '67. But I read Popular Science religiously, and knew all about the movie before it came out. Read the book before I saw the movie too.
I remember I rode the train from Oklahoma (The Santa Fe Chief - before Amtrak) to Chicago for some family stuff. They had an early limited engagement of 2001 in the city, and I begged for days for them to take me. Unfortunatly I had to wait till it came to home town Oklahoma.
What is the connection in quantum entanglement?
Actually, it's off topic to the thread. It was in reference to faster than light communication/information transfer.
Briefly, two entangled particles that are separated by distance and both have a positive (or negative or opposite spin charge). When the spin of one particle flips the entangled particle's spin at a distance flips instantaneously. The potential to harness that could lead to faster than light communication over vast distances.
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.