NationStates Jolt Archive

many scientists have concurred that the first nation to implement a space elevator will control all of space. if anyone nation controls all of space, that leaves too much room for corruption, thats why i say we have the UN contruct one so as to not only prevent a space dictatorship, but also to dramatically increase the safety of the human race by spreading it out so as that never could anyone event destroy it.

A novel idea. I appreciate that you have some reasoning behind your proposal. Have you read Mikivity's thread suggesting how to write proposals? You seem to be starting aright according to that.

One consideration here is that what you’re proposing is a research and development sort of issue. I say this meaning that it looks forward to the eventual building of a space elevator. It looks forward to the eventual building of it. This is not something that is toggled ("let's do it") it's something that is worked towards ("let's invest in technology to bring us closer"). This could change the exact approach you might take to resolve this issue. It should definitely affect the wording.

OOC: I hope the other nations here don't come down too hard as they might not see this as "worthy of the UN's consideration" (which, don't get me wrong, is entirely valid...but go easy, guys).

Most NS nations operate at roughly modern technology levels, or at most technology levels no more advanced than might concievably be achieved in the next decade. Many nations regard declarations of ultra-advanced future tech to be godmodding. Given current technology levels, space elevators are a very long-distance project. The UN can't just construct one.

Now, a proposal suggesting a focus on the development of technology that could potentially lead to a space elevator being feasible would be an acceptable idea, though it'd still be very expensive. You may want to rewrite your proposal to reflect this, possibly looking at the writing guides.

I agree the propoal to "create" one would not go far. However a suggestion of the learning of the technology would. How about a proposal requesting the increased spending on space reseach???

Now, a proposal suggesting a focus on the development of technology that could potentially lead to a space elevator being feasible would be an acceptable idea, though it'd still be very expensive. You may want to rewrite your proposal to reflect this, possibly looking at the writing guides.

The expensive only if it is to be build on a short time frame.

I'd have to dig out the link again, but remember that the "International Space Station" (which of course doesn't exist in NationStates) cost ...

Seems to run a couple billion US$ / year.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/intation.htm

The overall cost of the revised ESA programs was estimated to be $2 billion lower (at 1991 prices) than the original $10.8 billion projected for 1993-95. From 1993 to 2000, the total was projected to be about $25.7 billion, down from $29.7 billion.

It isn't clear is the ESA contributions are independent of the NASA contributions, but there are other partners in this "fictional" program as well. I'm going to make an educated guess that the ESA contribution is about equal to the NASA contribution. So double the number and add a bit of change for slop from smaller partners.

The story here is that for a couple of billion / year you actually can slowly work on a space program ... assuming of course that the technology is there.

But instead of setting a goal of getting a ladder constructed in the next 20-years, why not instead start a 20-year research program? Not that far different from the proposed UN SETI program?

I know that people will say, "But there are people dying of AIDS in Africa." They are right, this is very true. But as one of the *two* nations to have actually attempted to address that issue, I'm honestly doubtful that these arguments hold that much sway.

The reason I say this, is $2 B / year sounds like a lot to your common worker, just like $2,000 / year sounds like a lot to a child. NASA's "fictional" budget is around $15 B / year and scheduled to increase to $17 B / year.

Comparing NASA's fictional budget to the budget for a fictional country ... the US, which in FY2005 is (assuming I'm reading this right) $2,400 Billion, granted in this "fictional" projecting a deficit of $364 B is being forecasted.

Basically I'm thinking there are two points to really focus on here:

- Research / Construction Costs can be smoothed over time. There is no rush for a space ladder, because nobody is that close to completing such a project.

- Budgets are big nasty monsters. While it is important to keep an eye on them, sometimes deficit spending can be a good thing, especially if the programs you are borrowing money for have short-term high returns. In the example of the US example, the FY2003 to FY2004 increase is because of a war and homeland security issues (coupled with some tax breaks).

I think if the idea that the Chipmunks were talking about is the focus, "research and development" that this proposal is actually less harmful to our economies than the abundance of "Save the Forests" resolutions. This isn't to say that I'm in favour of the idea, but I also agree with the Chipmunks that at this stage it is just an idea and shouldn't be stamped out til the details are laid out before us.

The core problem with this sort of tech is that it requires a fundamental breakthrough in materials science. We simply don't have materials strong enough to build such a device. Funding research towards the concept is a fine idea, but it's already underway for other reasons. No matter how much money you pour into the project, you still have to be lucky enough to have some bright lad discover a way to make miles-long monofilament molecules of incredible tensile strength.

Pie in the sky. Long, thin, tall pie; but pie nonetheless.

I do recall the space consortium resolution probably being applicable here already ...

Funding research towards the concept is a fine idea, but it's already underway for other reasons. No matter how much money you pour into the project, you still have to be lucky enough to have some bright lad discover a way to make miles-long monofilament molecules of incredible tensile strength.

Then perhaps shifting the idea from research with a goal in mind, towards research in the applied sciences might be in order. The question then becomes, is this something suited to the UN or better addressed through other means?

BTW it is nice to see your nation back in these forums. :)

The speed at which a space elevator, or the necessary technologies, could be developed is directly proportional to the amount of funding thrown at the problem. A massive international effort funded in the trillions of menks would be able to produce a workable system much more quickly than putting four guys in a shed with an erector set.

I concur that international effort is required in this area, as space is the arena for global progress. There are no borders in space, leaving us with two options: first, global free-for-all, or cooperative research and exploration. I'm much more interested in the latter.

To spur the topic in that direction, though, I have a few questions.

The most important issue is how the research will be conducted. My immediate thought is to assign areas of focus to the nations who excel most in that area. Sophista, for example, is on the leading edge of satellite communications technology, and would be able to provide enourmous amounts of support in both the physical positioning and stabilization of the device, as well as the necessary data transmission support. This approach would alienate nations with weaker technology programs, however, and the last thing we want to do is leave anyone out.

Secondly, and this is a bit further down the horizon, but where would we build it when the technology became available? Picking one nation out of 10,000 is no easy task, especially considering the varying degrees of hostility between different nations. Here I would suggest building more than one. Multiple sites would allow more frequent access to space, as well as spread the burden of maintaining ground facilities. The diplomatic issue is another plus in that column.

The speed at which a space elevator, or the necessary technologies, could be developed is directly proportional to the amount of funding thrown at the problem. A massive international effort funded in the trillions of menks would be able to produce a workable system much more quickly than putting four guys in a shed with an erector set.

A true enough principle. But I think there are other factors involved as well. you can't just put a billion scientists in a lab and say "build me a death star". Other than the fact that the death star wouldn't fit into the room, there are feasability issues, materials technology issues, and a plethora of other unforseen side avenues of work that need to be done before the actual making of a death star.

I understand that this work would be faster if more people are working on it I get your point there. I just think we can't think of this as a simple "do or don't do" thing. There are mitigations and dilations in this "direct proportion".

I am intersted in Komokom citing the section of the space consortium resolution that he thinks most applies to this and hopefully that'll give the proposal idea some direction and discussion.

The most important issue is how the research will be conducted. My immediate thought is to assign areas of focus to the nations who excel most in that area. Sophista, for example, is on the leading edge of satellite communications technology, and would be able to provide enourmous amounts of support in both the physical positioning and stabilization of the device, as well as the necessary data transmission support. This approach would alienate nations with weaker technology programs, however, and the last thing we want to do is leave anyone out.

I agree that the nations most compatible with certain areas of research would be best suited for that research. How do you propose this would be included in the proposal? should there be a "to each nation his own" clause or or maybe a committee or something?


Secondly, and this is a bit further down the horizon, but where would we build it when the technology became available? Picking one nation out of 10,000 is no easy task, especially considering the varying degrees of hostility between different nations. Here I would suggest building more than one. Multiple sites would allow more frequent access to space, as well as spread the burden of maintaining ground facilities. The diplomatic issue is another plus in that column.
Very good point, this seems best decided through a committee. So the committee can help disperse the technology appropriately. Maybe not, but those're my first impressions about it.

I agree that the nations most compatible with certain areas of research would be best suited for that research. How do you propose this would be included in the proposal? should there be a "to each nation his own" clause or or maybe a committee or something?

Exactly! :)

A variation of that might be ...

"Calls upon all States, in particular those with major [INSERT] capabilities, to contribute actively to the objective of " ...

How do you propose this would be included in the proposal? should there be a "to each nation his own" clause or or maybe a committee or something?

I'd suggest something along the lines of Komokom's suggestion. Nations bearing significant expertise in an area should devote their resources to developing those technologies for use in the space elevator. Those who wish to contribute but lack a space-cabable infrastructure or equivlant technology could do so either monitarily or through support resources. The construction of microchips requires vast amounts of silicon. If nation A produces microchips like a champ, and nation B can churn out silicon, let nation B provide the resources to nation A, who will make the finished product.

Why do we concern ourselves over matters such as this, when their are more important things to be done in the world, like feeding the starving, curing the sick, destroying France?

The Holy Empire of Ghetalion understands the over pressing needs for efficient space access. Our scientists have been aware of carbon-nanotube technology for quite some time now and have had the fortune of experimenting with the exotic material. This has lead us to the following realizations:

1.) A space elevator will reduce the amount of fossil fuels required to launch multi-ton satellites into space, allowing for an extended global surplus for oil production.

2.) Routine maintained can be performed upon important telecommunication and government satellites without the need to rely on the current (and very expensive) means of space travel. The alternative to this is to allow the satellite to re-enter orbit, burn up, and then launch a new one to take its place.

3.) Necessary and critical experiments on gravitational effects and quantum physics within the confines of space can now be performed at a faster and safer rate, opening humanity to a totally new field of science experimentation.

4.) As we move simultaneously with this new carbon-nanotube technology, we will discover how else to implement it to increase our understanding of the world and how to use it for the necessities of humankind.

Had the populace of 19th century England been aware that Michael Faraday was attempting to invoke the ‘magical spirits’ of electromagnetism, surely they would have wondered why the statesmen decided to give funding to a man to play with rocks and metal wire.

The Holy Empire of Ghetalion moves to support this issue and seeks to sway the world council into appreciating the benefits of this idea.

I recently did an A-level project on space elevators, and in my research I came across the fact that carbon nanotubes have the tensile stength etc. to make such a project feasible. I cant remember the exact figures, I'll have to dig them up, but anyway, we do have the materials that are strong enough. Nanotubes created in the lab are at present less than 10mm long (again I'm not entirely sure of my facts), but scaling up is just a matter of time. Around 20m is enough per strand to bundle them together, like a bridge cable.

Dont forget also, that this cable has to extend beyond geostationary orbit to a point at which the the pull of the higher section minus gravity is equal to the pull of the lower section plus gravity. I am talking about pull relative to the geostationary point, not relative to earth.

Something this size requires a massive anchoring point, like a mountain, and so really will have to be an international project. No one nation should have the monopoly on cheap orbital access.

Something this size requires a massive anchoring point, like a mountain, and so really will have to be an international project. No one nation should have the monopoly on cheap orbital access.

That's the logic behind our suggestion that more than one elevator be built when the technology reaches that level. If one elevator can bring the kind of benefits you mention, imagine what we can do with five?

Something this size requires a massive anchoring point, like a mountain
Sophista lacks the geography for a proper anchoring point, but we would be more than willing to lend our space launch facilities and support services for the development of such a project. We've recently made significant investments in government aerospace programs, and imagine they'll be quite helpful to an international effort. Perhaps we should add a clause to the resolution that sets up a survey team to search out proper anchor locations.

If I remember our last discussion on this subject the lift is being built on one of our beaches. ;)

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

A beach? That hardly sounds geographically stable. Unless you're talking about volcanic islands where you could bury the anchor in a "shit ton" of rock, I think the shifting sands and constant battering from the sea would put the elevator at undue risk. A coastal mountain range sounds like the best idea, where a seaport could be built to bring in goods, but still leave the elevator defended from the elements.

Okay so it wasn't literally a beach… :p

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Ah, the elusive beach-but-not-really-a-beach land mass. Clever.

In my humble opinion, propositions such as this are defunct, for the simple reason that the member nations of the UN are all on varied technological levels. Though modern tech nations could support this, as it in some way applies to them, what of all the future tech nations who have technologicaly far exceeded this innovation, or less-than-modern nations, who would have no concept of your proposal, and perhaps even burn you at the stake for heresy? I think we should leave technology out of UN propositions, and focus on political, social, and trade issues which are applicable to most, if not all, member nations.

I disagree. It's a safe bet that most of the nations who frequent this forum are on a modern-tech level, or use selected technologies that could feasibly be developed within the next decade. There is variation, of course, but that kind of variation exists in the real world as well. Japan has amazingly advanced robotics programs, while America excels in chemical engineering. Still, there are nations like Kenya and Thailand that lack these kinds of programs.

Granted, in the NSUN there are a large number of future-tech wonks, but those kind of people don't stop in here all that often, and thus find themselves excluded from these kind of discussions. Most UN resolutions favor present-tech nations, and that will remain the case until there is a massive shift in the types of people that come in and involve themselves in the resolutional process.