NationStates Jolt Archive

I think it is, because at the very least, the surface area of the earth is limited, and we could definitly use a safe cheap method of getting outside earths orbit. I think a space elevator would surpass the safety of riding a pillar of rapidly expanding gasses anyday.

That would be some elevator.....would it even be possible to build?

I like the idea, my only concern is cost, and the feasibility of building a structure that tall.

a lot of research has been going into it, it's been concluded that it could be done with as little as a few billion. that may sound like a lot, but keep in mind that the petronas towers in korea cost around 20 bil and the berring straight bridge being built near spain conecting africa and europe is also way up there.

bah, space exploration = monumental waste of funds at this point. Lets edumacate some people first, get our economy back into shape, finish these stupid wars and then maybe if there isn't anything more pressing to do we can blow money on something else that will break and need replaced in 20 years.

a lot of research has been going into it, it's been concluded that it could be done with as little as a few billion. that may sound like a lot, but keep in mind that the petronas towers in korea cost around 20 bil and the berring straight bridge being built near spain conecting africa and europe is also way up there.

The berring strait is between Russia and Alaska not Spain and Africa

Do you have any articles on it?

Like how much could be taken up in one trip? What would the volume of the elevator be?

The berring strait is between Russia and Alaska not Spain and Africa

I was just thinking that!

I think he means the Straite of Gibralter!

I think he means the Straite of Gibralter!

Or possibly the Straits of Gibraltar?

a lot of research has been going into it, it's been concluded that it could be done with as little as a few billion. that may sound like a lot, but keep in mind that the petronas towers in korea cost around 20 bil and the berring straight bridge being built near spain conecting africa and europe is also way up there.

Petronas towers are in Malaysia, Kuala Lampur to be exact.

The Bearing Strait Bridge, between Russia and Alaska, would cost hundreds of billions, if the cost doesn't go into the trillions, that is.

So would a bridge over the Strait of Gibraltar. It's only 15 km, but it is quite deep, and there is the issue of violent weather where the Mediterranean meets the Atlantic.

[edit] - as for the issue on discussion here.. a space elevator would help put things into orbit, and save the US the billions spent on the space shuttle program.. there is the issue of easy transportation of weapons into orbit..

Hmm... I don't like seeing US and Weapons in the same paragraph anymore.. so no.. i don't support the S.E.

I dont have the specs on their plans or any links to it but Im sure you can google it.

Its very feasible and relatively cheap, especially the money it will save. Rocket launches are pretty harsh on the atmosphere too I hear.

The elevator wont be able to haul much on its first several trips but with each trip the line will be reinforced by more carbon nanotubes. Eventually it will be able to carry tons of material at a time.

And each trip will take about a week.

So would a bridge over the Strait of Gibraltar. It's only 15 km, but it is quite deep, and there is the issue of violent weather where the Mediterranean meets the Atlantic.

Not to mention there is significant siesmic activity at the bottom of that body of water so such a bridge would be an absolute marvle of the field of engineering.

i never said i knew my geography.

NASA says it's concievable, but not yet.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep%5F1.htm

But would you want to listen to the music all that time? ;)

that article is 4 years old, the science of space towers was only tangible in about 92, when a japanese scientist discovered carbon nanotubes, a lot has change in these 4 short years, heck, in half a year we've gona from 1 meter lengths of tubes to 50 km spools!

But would you want to listen to the music all that time? ;)

LOL :D

I'd kill myself! I hope they got sleeping accomadations for us and I hope I got plenty of batteries for my cd player and gameboy advance!

First: Where would be its base? There would be a huge international struggle about that. There would be a huge amount of ground work (ie new highways if in the middle of no-where, demolition and mass traffic if in a major city, and if at sea, huge boats to dock at the bottom.

Second: Imagine a fire en route. Or stuck millions of miles from earth in an elevator shaft.

Third: As mentioned there would be huge deficit on all who funded it.

Fourth: Asteroids. Comets. Space dust. Solar storms.

Fifth: One word: Lawsuits.

Plus, Mariah Carey doesn't have enough material out to keep me listening for a whole week.

All around, an awful idea. But, I am saving this post in wordperfect so that I can look back on it if this crazy idea is enacted. Hi me twenty years from now!!!!

What about a space dumbwaiter?

First: Where would be its base? There would be a huge international struggle about that. There would be a huge amount of ground work (ie new highways if in the middle of no-where, demolition and mass traffic if in a major city, and if at sea, huge boats to dock at the bottom.

Second: Imagine a fire en route. Or stuck millions of miles from earth in an elevator shaft.

Third: As mentioned there would be huge deficit on all who funded it.

Fourth: Asteroids. Comets. Space dust. Solar storms.

Fifth: One word: Lawsuits.

Plus, Mariah Carey doesn't have enough material out to keep me listening for a whole week.

All around, an awful idea. But, I am saving this post in wordperfect so that I can look back on it if this crazy idea is enacted. Hi me twenty years from now!!!!


ONE: It would be on the equator (needed because the rotation of the earth will give it the force it needs to keep the line tight or something like that), and I imagine there would be several constructed in time. Plus its an international privately funded project so use of it will be by those who pay to use it.


B: Good point.

#: The cost is minor compared to savings.

4: Same risks we take with Satellites

Fifth: another word - Billboards

1: it's almost weight neutral, so a moderatly sized mobile oil rig (many are out there just waiting to be refurbished) would do.
2: the space elevator design at present is that as long as theres track in front of you, your good to go, not like elevators from floor to floor where if theres an obstruction at either end, you can't continue. and any fires (highly unlikely) would have to be in the first 3 miles or so, because past the elevation, it's hard for stuff to burn without oxygen.
3: 5 billion isn't huge, a congressmen jested once "a billion here, a billion there, soon you'll be talking real money!"
4: if your going to have fears like why the hell did you leave the womb? you could get shot or die in a car crash, or a bad politician could leave you in a cell to rot for an indefinite period of time. btw, these are all much more likely then the threats you mentioned.
5: what do you mean, lawsuits? you must forgive my lack of idiocy, i don't live in your part of the nation.

my hard drive has a months worth of music, i'm sure i could find 3 days of it i liked, and if you have 72 hours worht of music, a littl bit of repition is hardly noticeble.

All around, an awful idea. But, I am saving this post in wordperfect so that I can look back on it if this crazy idea is enacted. Hi me twenty years from now!!!!

Wordperfect isn't going to be around 10 years from now, let alone 20...

Wordperfect isn't going to be around 10 years from now, let alone 20...
Good Point.

no more problems besides music? because most in-animate cargo won't care, and for populated cars i'm sure they can put some entertainment stuff in there.

The idea's been around for years, and we really don't need it until we start actively sending men and equipment to space. However, with private interest picking up, major space traffic may only be forty years away, and civilian space travel may be less than a decade away. It'll be needed to transport people and equipment far more cheaply than what rockets can do. It's at least forty years away from being constructed, but it may need to be. And from what I've seen in Popular Science magazine, cost estimates are at $10 billion, and that's relatively cheap.

The newest ride at Disneyworld.

If its feasible, I think it should be done. But frankly, I see a real cock-up being made of it. How would it work anyway, you can't just pull an indian rope trick to keep it balanced can you?

I shall say what I say every other time this topic is brought up (And I feel this is especially relevant with the terrorism threat..)

WHAT HAPPENS IF THIS THING FALLS OVER?!

well, you know how if you swing a rope with a weight at the end of it around you, it seems to defy gravity? well, if you get a long enough of a rope and get out far enough once, it does much the same thing. so in a sense, we will be doing an indian rope trick.

I shall say what I say every other time this topic is brought up (And I feel this is especially relevant with the terrorism threat..)

WHAT HAPPENS IF THIS THING FALLS OVER?!
Well, it needs to be built at the equator, and most of that is surrounded by water. It's possible that it can be built on a manmade island, and if technology continues to advance, it can be connected to the mainland by an underwater highway. It should minimize the loss of life should something happen.

on top of that, it can't

here's some physics of the thing. i'll draw a doodle to illustrat it
earth point where planes hit geo syncorbit end
()-|-----------------------------|----------------------
earth not drawn to scale
but the point i'm trying to illustrate is that the best they can do is disconnect it from earth and it very, very slow drift from the original contact point. understandably if you're a person and want to get on it, you'll be checked over for any manner of exsplosive device you get on. also backround checks would probably done sometime as soon as 2 weeks prior to the trip.

also, to claim that fear of it being destroyed as a viable reason not to do it means the terrorists have won. they use terror, a word very similar to fear, as their main weapon. to give into fear and stop pushing the boundries, then we've lost and they've won. what are you? some kind of scaredy cat?

Don't discuss impossibilities in an uneducated manner. Tell me how this would be possible?

ok, i've already explained the principle upon which the elevator is made taunt. this means any material it is made of most withstand tremondous stress. until about a decade ago, such a material did not exsist and was reffered to as unobtainium, because it had be 20 times stronger then steel to work. now it's reffered to as carbon nanotubes, a substance 100 times as strong as steel and a fifth as heavy. so a material exsists now.

from there it's a game of weight distribution. it's been calculated that positioning the center of gravity just beyond the altitude for geo syncronus orbit is safest. this means several thousand miles of track to the mid point, and several thousand past. so it is very quite long. but also stable without earth contact. so earth side could be severed completey even to the upper atmosphere, and all that would happen is that elevator drift off into space.

now the method of going up and down this thing is not quite like normal elevators. you see you have these crawling thing, with treads like tanks. they latch onto the track and crawl up using motors powered by concentrated solar energy acquired from landside lasers. this is perfectly safe to any planes flying nearby because the crawlers can have complete loss of power and not fall so you can stop the lasers with no fear of passengers. am i missing anything?

Terrorism? Heh, that's easy. In a book (Red Mars), a carbon asteroid/crater was used as the base for a space-elevator on mars. I think the rock's name was Clarke (after Arthur C. Clarke*), but anyway - The cable was made by a massive machine that spewed out the diamond-strength cable like a spider making its web. The cable, being made from and integrated into the comet, was indestructable. However, some seperatists solaved the indestructable part by setting off bomb's on the comet's bottom. The cable and base seperated from the now liquid layer of carbon, and the comet itself went flying into space. The elevator's cable fell to Mars and almost made the equator a physical object!

Pity a terrorist would have to use something equivelent to nuclear weapons first. That, and getting them to the elevator in the first place.

Now I'm a big pessimist when it comes to space-shuttle and such, but space-elevators are near infinitely more efficient and cost effective. A few billion dollars is nothing compared to how much was spent on the Apollo or Space Shuttle programs. But you could be at least four of these on the equator and send people/goods into space like there was no tomorrow. Weight limits would be nonexistent, and space limits would be the only modifier. Of course, we could also build a space-station around the Earth too (like in Arthur C. Clarke's 3001).

*I find this the most logical answer because the construction took place from the comet/asteroid in a geosynchronus orbit. Clarke is credited with pioneering of geosynchronus orbit, among many things.

Good to know that I wasn't the only one thinking of the attack in Red Mars!
Two thoughts though: once you've built the first, is there really any incentive to build a second? The first one will pay itself off because you've just dropped the cost of getting stuff into space. What does the second achieve, other than salving some country's ego? It's not as if the first is going to be clogged with traffic anytime soon.

Also, what about the project to build suborbitals? A suborbital craft would let you cross the world in a couple of hours; *as well* as being a stepping stone into space.

Another purpose for the spacelev.

LAUNCH PLATFORM/DRYDOCK/YARDS.

Not for weapons. For spaceships.

It's a whole mess easier to launch when you're already in orbit, since you don't need to have the solid fuel to escape a planet's gravity when you're not in gravity in the first place.

There could be launch window issues necessitating multiple launch platforms.

And the most effective thing would be to make a very space-heavy platform above GSO (to put the center of gravity for the thing in the outer part of the Geosynchronous Orbit envelope) rather than out a million miles. There'd be too much worry about putting the strap to the Moon, or the Moon ripping the thing out of the ground or something.

You'd be better off throwing the money into anti gravity research.

a lot of research has been going into it, it's been concluded that it could be done with as little as a few billion. that may sound like a lot, but keep in mind that the petronas towers in korea cost around 20 bil and the berring straight bridge being built near spain conecting africa and europe is also way up there.

The Bering Strait (correct spelling) is between Russia and Alaska, the Gibraltar Strait is between Spain and mainland Africa. Are atlases forbidden in America or something?

Look this wont be a lame passenger elevator like in the thirteenth floor. It will be for putting cargo into space. And It will be able to put a lot of it. If the cable were severed at any point it could be retracted by the space station in GEO. Probably with the help of retro rockets.

Terrorism? Heh, that's easy. In a book (Red Mars), a carbon asteroid/crater was used as the base for a space-elevator on mars. I think the rock's name was Clarke (after Arthur C. Clarke*), but anyway - The cable was made by a massive machine that spewed out the diamond-strength cable like a spider making its web. The cable, being made from and integrated into the comet, was indestructable. However, some seperatists solaved the indestructable part by setting off bomb's on the comet's bottom. The cable and base seperated from the now liquid layer of carbon, and the comet itself went flying into space. The elevator's cable fell to Mars and almost made the equator a physical object!

Pity a terrorist would have to use something equivelent to nuclear weapons first. That, and getting them to the elevator in the first place.

Now I'm a big pessimist when it comes to space-shuttle and such, but space-elevators are near infinitely more efficient and cost effective. A few billion dollars is nothing compared to how much was spent on the Apollo or Space Shuttle programs. But you could be at least four of these on the equator and send people/goods into space like there was no tomorrow. Weight limits would be nonexistent, and space limits would be the only modifier. Of course, we could also build a space-station around the Earth too (like in Arthur C. Clarke's 3001).

*I find this the most logical answer because the construction took place from the comet/asteroid in a geosynchronus orbit. Clarke is credited with pioneering of geosynchronus orbit, among many things.


Unfortunately, that nigh-indestructable material you were talking about would cost a lot to produce, if it could be produced at all, given our level of tech.

And there are small rumors floating around that terrorists already have nukes. Many things went "missing" with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

It's just too big of a target--and would be too costly to replace when it was hit.

I wonder what the tsunami would be like, when the line hit the water...?

not much considering that even though its really long its really light and not massive and would be slowed down some by wind resistance. It could cause sea levels to rise a bit though before its recovered. And ther risk of it being blewed up is no greater than any other space facility coming under threat. Very little. It will probably be somewhere in the pacific on a Oil rig like structure. It'll be damn difficult to sneak up upon. And besides. Even though knocking down a damn big tower would have a lot of shock value and could throw the earth orbit out of kilter. It wouldnt have much of an effect on anything. Terrorists know the best targets to attack are economic ones. They know thats where it really hurts.

And I do believe they are on the edge of a breakthrough which would allow them to mass produce the stuff. It certainly is feasable. And all your concerns can be addressed through redundant safety features. You wouldnt build one of these things without them.

Unfortunately, that nigh-indestructable material you were talking about would cost a lot to produce, if it could be produced at all, given our level of tech.

And there are small rumors floating around that terrorists already have nukes. Many things went "missing" with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

It's just too big of a target--and would be too costly to replace when it was hit.

I wonder what the tsunami would be like, when the line hit the water...?
for starters, this would be so useful to all nations because it would put space travel in the hands of nations with a couple hundred bucks. so terrorists probably attack it. also, it would likely be so well gaurded by it being in the middle of the pacific that nary a few people who disliked, forget hated it enough to destroy it, would be let near it.

carbon nanotubes are actually getting pretty cheap, recently they've been putting off spools of this stuff 5 KM long. also, as long as it costs less the say, 80 some billion dollars it will be a heckuva lot cheaper then rockets.

and to your final point, a cynic actually did some math on that assuming that each meter of track weighed 2 pounds and it all fell down. he was wrong on two variables, the track is about as thin as 3 sheets of paper or thinner, and only half of it will fall to earth, if seperated from the asteroid side. so as you can see, his conclusion of it being like 50 nukes being dropped along the equator was drastically skewed. since it's about centimeter thick and 2 meters wide, wind resistance will be a huge factor to this falling down. so i think it much closer to a few million pieces of paper falling down head to foot around the equator.

the problem whit an space elevator as i see it. Is that it would severly tip the millitary power in the world. If you have an economicaly fecable way to launch millitary unites from space to earth you would hold the intire globe in your hands. Think about it the possibility to land troups any were whitin an hour or two, would mean total domination no one can respond to an invation if they have 2h prepare time Or just bombarding an counrty from orbit no one can defend them selfs effectivly against that.

Becides from that im all for an space elevator. It would give us the tool we need to start industrial use of space and in the long run colonisation of our solar system. this could also open an lot of doors for sience. Whit benefits like these it wouldent even be an problem if the coust for it were 10 times as high as predicted (Btw newer trust coust predictions from construction companies or goverment organisations. I dont belive there have ever bine any goverment project anywere or any time were the coust for building something dident land atleast 50% ower budjet)

About terrorism it´s not rely an treath to an instalation like this. Place an cupple of crusers around it or maby an carrier group and no terrorist and werry few nations in the world could treaten it.

the military threat out gramatically challenged friend has pointed is real one, who ever builds the first one will own space. thats why i think it should be a UN operation. The UN isn't as strong as some nations, but even it can afford a few billion.

the problem whit an space elevator as i see it. Is that it would severly tip the millitary power in the world. If you have an economicaly fecable way to launch millitary unites from space to earth you would hold the intire globe in your hands. Think about it the possibility to land troups any were whitin an hour or two, would mean total domination no one can respond to an invation if they have 2h prepare time Or just bombarding an counrty from orbit no one can defend them selfs effectivly against that.


Bah honestly they still have to travel the distance (yes a large majority of it is in airlessness) BUT the distances are massive to geosync orbit … the time involved for accell … de accel and the overall design. Would just be easier cheaper and faster to launch them from a relatively near base landside.

As for space based weaponry … at least in the US’s case where would the elevator get them that they couldn’t already do with a shuttle if they really felt like it :-P

Bah honestly they still have to travel the distance (yes a large majority of it is in airlessness) BUT the distances are massive to geosync orbit … the time involved for accell … de accel and the overall design. Would just be easier cheaper and faster to launch them from a relatively near base landside.

As for space based weaponry … at least in the US’s case where would the elevator get them that they couldn’t already do with a shuttle if they really felt like it :-P

About space bombardment it´s to bloddy expencive using shuttles or Rockets. there is an reson after all why nuclears are the only weapons that have the capability to reatsh orbit. But if you sudently have an way to transport huge amounts of normal bombs to orbit and use em you have an enormous power.

the military threat out gramatically challenged friend has pointed is real one, who ever builds the first one will own space. thats why i think it should be a UN operation. The UN isn't as strong as some nations, but even it can afford a few billion.
Irony. ;)

I beleive that would constitute a spelling mistake, not a grammar error.

the more argumentation produced, the more problems get solved, so lets continue the process. any more beefs?

Link 1. Noam Chomsky :D (http://memes.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2103)
Link 2. (http://memes.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2421)
Link 3. Particularly good (http://www.portlandphoenix.com/features/top/ts_multi/documents/03049361.asp)

Its an interesting Subject, but your point is mute. America already dominates space. Many countries have the capability to put satellites in space, but only the U.S has the Ability to put men into space. And adequately fund any sort of long term commitment to space. They already won the game with the cold war (This is not taking into account China)

The point is a Space elevator wont make space any more military capable. Do you think that the U.S Balks at shilling out for rocket launches? They love it. You gotta spend money to make money after all, and they are only too happy to throw money at contractors who pretty much is the U.S governement anyway.

Besides if there was ever some sort of need for cheap rockets for launch vehicles they can simply convert Peacekeeper missiles. And the military sometimes does.

The U.S can put troops anywhere in the world in a few hours anyway. Thats why they maintain so many bases around the world. All this aside even without a space elevator other technologies that are in development will bring to reality what you fear. Scramjets for example can put a vehicle on anywhere on the planet in a few hours. They ont exist yet and It would be difficult to shield any occupants from the Fatal g-force involved.
Everybody knows about saddams giant cannon. That could have lobbed shells into the continental U.S, or that could have put satellites into orbit without expensive rockets. This isnt feasable because its not as versatile as a rocket and as I said not enough people profit. Keeping all the money to yourself is against the capitalist idealogy dont forget. You gots to spread it around.

Anyway. I could ramble on but I wont. What I want to say is, space Will be militarized. That cant be stoped.

I am so great. LOVE ME! And also click my clickies :D

oooh. I know a good bump. Exit mundi has a new update :D

Oh No! I've Killed It! Its all happening again!

Oh hey Astrolia. what happened to your post count?

And on topic, I'm against space elevators.

But would you want to listen to the music all that time? ;)
What? You couldn't handle five hours of ABBA instrumentals?

I want to be the First Man to fart on the Space Elevator! :D

But I'll wrinkle my nose and look around like someone else did it. ;)

no more problems besides music? because most in-animate cargo won't care, and for populated cars i'm sure they can put some entertainment stuff in there.

Entertainment? How about the graduation from the Mile High Club to the Zero G Club?

An interesting idea, if they could build it cheap i suppose it would be ok.

My account died so I had it ressurected

One of the buildings in my university has the Inverse of the Tardis in it.

http://theblueviper.modblog.com/?show=blogview&blog_id=189632

i don't want space to be militerized though :(. i want the space elevator to be used to secure and further humans presence in exsistence. we are the only of god's wonderous creatures that can actively ponder and be marveled by the universes vastness and glory. thats why we need to accelerate space exploration and peaceful development to drastic new speeds wtih the space elevator. think of it! communications satelites so cheap, wireless broad band for 2 bucks a month! electricity generated by solar panels in an orbit closer then venus used by civilians for pennies a megawatt!

i don't want space to be militerized though :(. i want the space elevator to be used to secure and further humans presence in exsistence. we are the only of god's wonderous creatures that can actively ponder and be marveled by the universes vastness and glory.

As far as we know. there´s nothing that says that there cant be other inteligent races out there.

thats why we need to accelerate space exploration and peaceful development to drastic new speeds wtih the space elevator. think of it! communications satelites so cheap, wireless broad band for 2 bucks a month! electricity generated by solar panels in an orbit closer then venus used by civilians for pennies a megawatt!

If everybody haid an cupple of megawats of power to play whit we would boil our planet in no time. So that´s not rely an good idea.

granted that there could be other inteligent life, that would be dandy. but the odds are quite unfavorable for it. and we don't know of there exsistence yet. so we should defend our species. and as to your comment (pupeteer!) have you heard of the status of some of these 3rd world nations with no form of power network, they could really use a cheap international power station fueled by something that prior to cristianity was the physical presence of the dude up stairs. nigh unlimited renewable very safe power, this would be wonderful for so many nations. and the environment too! all power generation moved off world, the environment would be so happy to have it's skies no longer scarred by power plants, rivers flowing free. call me a farmboy, but i think a world with blue skies, flowing rivers, and healthy plantlife is a great way to live.

no one wants to contest my addiction to nature?

How would that work? Wouldnt it block out all our sunnlight? Do solar panels collect light or heat?>

An elevator to space huh?? You know that that would have to be a pretty thick elevator so that it wouldnt fall over or break easily. Wouldnt that make earth look like a giant penis??

Earth... NOW WITH WOOD!!

LOL To the price trillions of dollars is more like it and want to know why i am from boston and we have a little project here called the 'big dig' a 7.5 mile highway thats it, and the estimate is 13.5 billion dollars now thats down here on earth now lets make a 100,000 mile tunnel in space. yeah we gunna go the way of the dodo or soviet russia doing that

a few issues: cost, safety, maitenance.

when those have been perfected, when no one dies in the elevator, when it's built, when we haven't killed the ozone or atmospheric layers, and when it's feasibly possible without murdering too many people's tax dollars and when it stops needing constant maitenance... well... okay.

but it's too unrealistic. i honestly don't think so. nice try though.

haven't already depicted how this is actually a farely cheap project? estimated to cost a third as much as your precious big dig, i know of it to, my sister goes to olin (you will hear of them soon if not already!). As to your question concerning the blotting of the sun. If you had not already heard, the sunlight on earth and thus any energy acquired by it is actually dramatically dampenned by the atmosphere. Now, we are in the process of making solar power a much more viable energy source by removing this pesky atmosphere, but it might have adverse health effects.

of course if you had a space elevator running effectively you could quite simply ship up a few tons or so of solar panels and have them set up to cover the surface area of about, lets say 500 square kilometers, about the size of ireland. now set this up on an orbit perpendicular to the plane of rotation. if you hadn't heard of that, thats the more or less plane that all the planets and even the asteroid belt orbit on, ever notice a model of the solar system and how the planets can be made into a line? thats because there all on the same plane. well if you have something going perpendicular to that, then it won't cross over and it will block the sun very, very little wen ever it does cross between us and the sun. btw, do you know what the surface area of the sun is? cause i think you can fit several earths on it. i don't think blottings gonna be much of an issue.

I dont think its possible to murder peoples tax dollars now let alone later.

It wouldnt make the earth look a giant penis, it would be too tiny.

o.0 anyway, I tihnk it heard the counter balance would be out past the orbit of the moon. Cool.

A space elevator is a great idea. It's simply, it's elegant, and it's cheap. And it's my belief that in time we will build a space elevator and that they will become prolific, and hopefully not limited to just Earth.

A space elevator is a very strange idea, so it takes a little while for one to fully realize it. We're all used to the idea of suspending something with a piece of string; tying a rope to a tree and tying the other end to something like a tire, allowing the tire to swing freely. I fear that some poeple in this thread think that this is how the elevator would work; Tie a cable to a platform in geosynchronus orbit and lower the cable to Earth. Now, don't get me wrong, this is a perfectly normal way to imagine it, working off of our previous experinces, but what in fact is happening with the elevator is entirely the opposite. Imagine instead the cable being tied to the Earth. The cable then, when long enough, is "hung" out into space and from it a platform is suspended in geosync orbit. The cable is kept taunt by the continual rotation of the Earth and the platform stays in place as it is kept right above the equator. Now, I realize that what I've outlined above was probably already known by everyone in this thread, but I really wanted to get the point across that cable is actually connected to the Earth and the Platform is suspended from it.

A space elevator should be controled by an international space pannel. This would be composed of repersenitives of NASA, the ESA, the Russian Space Agency, and the Chinese Space Agency. All of these agencies are peaceful, they do not actively try to militarize space. In fact, the fear of militarized space is baseless. Three of those agencies already have the capability to send men into space, and all have the ability to place nuclear weapons in orbit. If some country like the US tried to use the elevator in a military sense, I'm sure that the Russian and the Chinese would quickly move to do the same, thus preserving the balance and ultimately providing a deterrant to try it in the first place.

As for any dangers inheirent to the platform itself: I can't find any, or rather I can't find any that would seriously increase the risks of space travel we face now. The elevator would actually decrease risk many, many times over. The most dangerous part of any space mission, manned or ummanned, is blast off because that that point the cargo is sitting on top of a enormous bomb who's explosion is just barely controled. With an elevator blast off is eliminated, there is no explosive fuel. The second most dangerous part of any mission facing it is re-entry. But the elevator has no worry for re-entry. The speed of the elevator 'car' can be controled to dramatically lessens, if not eliminates totally, the ram pressure and air friction that requires heat shield to survive. Now somebody brought up the threat of a fire on board the car, how terrible would that be. I agree, a fire on the car could be very, very bad, but how much more dangerous is this senario than what could happen on the shuttle or the soyuz or the ISS? The answer is none. A fire very well could break out on any one of these, and because of that the agencies in charge of those projects go to extreme measures to eliminate the possiblity of fire. The ISS also has a soyuz capsule docked to it all time, such that in the event of an uncontrolable fire or collisons with micro-metorites the crew can very quickly evacuate the station. I see no reason for a sort of lifeboat system could not be attached to such an elevator car. Somebody else also brought up the idea of a collision with an asteroid or comet. This is foolish really. If a comet or asteroid were going to collide with the platform, that means we have a comet or asteroid on a collision course with the Earth itself, which is much more dangerous. So it's not even worth thinking about really. What if the elevator fell over? Well that can't happen. This is why I felt it was important to illustrate the point that the platform is suspended from, and not above the Earth. If you take a bucket filled with water and move your arm in a circle fast enough, none of the water fill fall from the bucket. The platform is kept in place for the same physical reasons. What if the cable breaks? Will it fall then? Try it for yourself. Let go of the bucket while it's above your head and see what happens. The bucket will fly away from where you let go. In a worst case scenario, this is what could happen to the platform, but if it is placed in a geosync orbit correctly, the platform will not move at all and continue orbiting there. As for terrorism, I don't see the appeal. Terrorists desire to kill as many people as possible, to disrupt normal life to bring about change. I don't see how bringing down any space vehicle brings about these goals.

The elevator would be instrumental in aiding our exlporation of the universe. Launches are cheaper as the require no fuel. Ships are more easily and more rapidly built in orbit. Probes can be launched at a fraction of the cost from the platform itself. Science is easily performed on or from the platform, and what we learn from it will be invaluable.

A space elevator would be a tremendous aid to our ability to explore, and man must explore. Humans are creatures designed to explore. From our earliest days, our ancesters explored thier surroundings. If not for them, humans would only live on the continent of Africa. If not for the great explorers of the 16th century, there would be no United States. If not for the expidition of Lewis and Clark, perhaps America would only stretch to the Mississippi instead of the Pacific. And now we have covered our world. But the Earth is only a craddle, it was only ever meant to prepare us for our eventual entry into space. It is man's destiny to find his place among the stars. Constrained to the surface of a planet is no place for an intelligent species. We must explore or face inevitable exstinction. The space elevator provides us with a cheap, effective way to pursue this goal, and it is because of that instinct to discover rooted deep within the souls of every man, woman, and child, that I have no doubts that space elevator must and will be built.

The way it would be built is to actually have a paltform be sent to geosynchornus orbit, then luanch a building prob that would go up from the earth up and down several, several times spitting out re-inforced carbon nanotubes like a spider building a web, the "string" being only a few inches thick when complete would be held taught by the centripetal force of the rotation of the earth, this elevator would be located on the equator (so sorry america, its not yours heh) and it would be luanched up and down by very large lasers using the energy from a laser beamed onto a sort of solar panel to propel the elevator up and down, the strength of the laser need only be weakened or strengthened when wanting the elevator to move up or down, the volume and capacity will vary depending on the mission or payload the elevator takes up to the paltform, the elevator can be used to deliver shuttles to the platform, then luanching them from the platform conserving fuel and effort (and money) when luanching in a zero grav environment. thanskf or reading, u can find the article in popular science a few months back.

I do have a question and this may have already been addressed (but I'm too lazy to go find it). The thing that concerns me about the safety of such an elevator (which I still think is an amazingly good idea, even though I do have this concern) is the scenario as outlined in Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars books. It's not so much the platform I'm worried about, although it certainly would suck to be on it if the cable breaks. It's the cable itself.

If it became unhooked from the platform, would it remain extended or would it come crashing down on the earth, winding up like a yo-yo around the planet?

i already mentioned this, and the design of it is such that it is comparable in thickness to a piece of paper, so windresistence would slow it down dramatically, also, it's incredibly light. so it's like a hole lot of really slow, light weight stuff falling, think like a foot wide snow flake stretching around the world, really freaking wierd, but harmless.

i already mentioned this, and the design of it is such that it is comparable in thickness to a piece of paper, so windresistence would slow it down dramatically, also, it's incredibly light. so it's like a hole lot of really slow, light weight stuff falling, think like a foot wide snow flake stretching around the world, really freaking wierd, but harmless.

Ah. Good. Then I have no reservations about this whatsoever.

Perfectly feasable. At the bottom of this article most concerns are addressed.

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021005/bob9.asp

Are you making sense? I cant tell what you trying to say. When radiation passes through something else is looses some of itself in that material. (Or something like that) it would absorb heat and that would mean less heat for the earth, the atmosphere has nothing to do with it. Any other sorta material would be some kinda quantum phase shit. And If we had that the last thing we would be thinking of using it for would be solar panels. Im not even sure what your on about here im fact im not even sure what Im on about, but it sounds kickass.
From the moon you can blot out the earth with your thumb. The sun is big, but a small object close in to it could cast a shadow over the entire earth. Which would make us colder

True you could situate it above the ecliptic plane. But how would get the energy back to earth? A grand extention cord? Actually there are proposals for a giant mirror in orbit around the earth which would project energy back to recieving stations on earth using Microwaves. But whatever it would do it would certainly block the view.

You could set something up above the ecliptic plane and beam it back using something like a MAser (Microwave laser) But all this wouldnt be feasable. Think of the contruction difficulties, and having to use so much power to convert the energy into focused microwave radiation. And that much of it? You could probably use it to destroy the planet if ya missed :D
By that time fusion will probably be 50 years old. And available to Third world countries. Hell by that time all third world countries of interest will probably have been annexed, the only ones left. Failed states periodically hit with "Natural" Disasters to keep thier population and uppity factors down.

The Space elevator cant be infinitely large. You can only fit so much cargo onto it at a time. Even if you build more than one. It will be best used to construct large space stations to be used For manufaturing other stations, craft and satelittes (SP?) in space. Anyone who needed to get there could take a scramjet. It'll do well to get a space based economy going. And where theres economies theres a military interest. It would suck to have space militarised, but how else could the super rich protect their investments. Hell, it sucks to have the ground militarised, let alone the air.

And If I may so so to All these people terrified by terrorists? Obviously when an Idea this radical (But by no means new) comes along you would be naturally suspicous. But Im tired of hearing everyone procliaming they dont let the terrorists get to them. But every time someone tries to make a change to the world the first thing to be said (But what about terrorism) Terrorist's are overplayed and overrated. Your more likely to die in a Airplane crash than die in a terrorist attack whic is ironic because Airplanes seem to be a terrorist favourite point of attack.


And I still dont quite understand the part about it falling back to earth. The cable is still attached to the earth right, and althought the majority would be in space and more or less wegihtless (Although still possesing intertia and momentum and all that) some with weight would be on the earth, so wouldnt it be pulled down in the counter balence were cut loose?

thats jolly, cause i want to get to sleep, me pop's making his blue berry pancakes in the mornin' and wants me to do some learning.

which is a lesson to the rest of you guys! learn how to cook, the women you want to keep will not be turned off by it.

And I still dont quite understand the part about it falling back to earth. The cable is still attached to the earth right, and althought the majority would be in space and more or less wegihtless (Although still possesing intertia and momentum and all that) some with weight would be on the earth, so wouldnt it be pulled down in the counter balence were cut loose?

I think, at least as I'm understanding it, the material of the cable itself that would be attached to earth is not particularly dense. So, should it fall back to earth, it would burn up in reentry through the atmosphere. I think this might leave a bit of cable at the earth attachment point that wouldn't experience enough friction to combust, but probably not a whole lot of length and certainly nothing that would cause a global catastrophe.

OOC: Space elevator, huh? This will be a great step forward! Then we can start building space colonies, and Zakus or GINNs, and Gundams, w00t!

IC: It's an interesting idea, however I dont think we should pursue this right now because we should deal with all this (potential) terrorism first

How exactly would the space elevator work? It sounds like it would need a lot of work and resources.

I think a much better idea is to work on inventing more efficient energy sources and better propulsion systems.

step 1: we get a start point in geosyncronous orbit, kind far out there, but we have GPS satelites out there already, it's been done before and not past the moon.

Step 2: we lower a wire made of a material known as carbon nanotubes, 100 times strong then steel and 5 times as light.

Step 3: once we reach earth with this wire, we send up little devices that will add more and more wires making wider and wider and bit thicker.

Step 4: we establish power generation systems at or near ground base to transmit the energy in condensed form, possibly laser to be recieved by solar panels of a sort. it could be nuclear power because we could just ship the nuclear waste to jupiter or something for pretty near next to nothing.

step 5: we expand the midpoint out at geo sync to become a notable facility, sort of like an aiport place where you've gotten off the plane and starting to go places.

step 6: you begin to extend the cable past geo sync for things wanting to outside earths orbit, this is because past geo sync orbit if a point is being kept at the speed of earths rotation it's going quite fast, so you only need to give a push out the door and it's on it's way to where ever you want it.

The result of this is that you now have a safe, cheap, and environmentally friendly space transport system. the research has really taken off in recent years so that i would not be surprised if all the stuff is ready to be built in as little as 3 years. since i started researching the subject in 8th grade we couldn't get carbon nanotubes longer then a centimeter, now we have 5km spools and i'm going into 10th in a few weeks.

the space elevator is also predominantly made of the most prominent resource on earth, carbon, no lack of that, so the resources should cost a negligable amount.

a better propulsion system would most likely involve lots of things burning and exploding, thats not safe.

i like this conversation, it's all predominantly scientific so theres no temper flaring going on. i'm glad no ones sad that space travel is taking a dump on gods face.

Wait a minute ...

What about the physics?

Escape velocity: 1/2 mv2 = GMm/R

This means that in order for an object to leave the gravitational force of Earth, that object must be travelling 40200 km/h or 25000 mi/h.

How is this rectified in an elevator?

An elevator shaft is, in essence, a big stick. If you put a stick that big at the equator and extended it out into space, the sheer force of a planet spinning at 1600 km/h (1000 m/h) would snap it right in half, unless you had supporting structure - like the guide wires used on high tension wire towers - and those wires would have to be thousands of miles long and, since the Earth is not flat, be placed on massive platforms ...

The mind reels just thinking about it. It's a stupid idea.

it would be a good idea but the cost and gravity and having the elevator work and where it would be built. would take a while anyways.

few things, escape velocity is only for something that hasn't got continual force, like if it only had one momment of powered flight, and then stopped. rockets need to reach escape velocity to leave orbit, things ont he elevator don't. they still recieve all the energy, it's just much more easily controlled and produced since it doesn't have to carry it with it.

on to the tension question, your right, tension is tremounous, and to conventional materials, you probably couldn't build it, but theres a substance, discovered 13 years ago, called carbon nanotubes, 100 times stronger then steel, it's been calculated that it can take the stress the elevator would undertake twice over. also, it doesn't need support cables, since it's being pulled up. and support cables connecting it to the earth would in fact reduce structrual integrity.

but you were right on one issue, the mind reels with what you could do with this sort of structure, how much it could help humanity. far from stupid.

Wait a minute ...

What about the physics?

Escape velocity: 1/2 mv2 = GMm/R

This means that in order for an object to leave the gravitational force of Earth, that object must be travelling 40200 km/h or 25000 mi/h.

How is this rectified in an elevator?

An elevator shaft is, in essence, a big stick. If you put a stick that big at the equator and extended it out into space, the sheer force of a planet spinning at 1600 km/h (1000 m/h) would snap it right in half, unless you had supporting structure - like the guide wires used on high tension wire towers - and those wires would have to be thousands of miles long and, since the Earth is not flat, be placed on massive platforms ...

The mind reels just thinking about it. It's a stupid idea.

Point 1) Escape velocity is relevant for unanchored objects in air or on the ground. The elevator's cantilevered off the nanorail, so the only issue is if that rail can take the strain.

Point 2) You do realize the reason geosynchronous orbit has a name and a following is because at that altitude, anything orbiting the planet stays over the same point on the planet all the time unless it's somehow jarred out of position. Basic mechanical physics can teach you that.

Point 3) Carbon nanofiber's a bit more flexible than you'd think, and quite a good bit stronger too.

we really ought to run this topic for all it's worth, i mean theres not much flaming going on, and thats kind of unusual for these forums.

Well if i want to goto space ill ride a bunch of gas up there any day.

Anyone know how long it would take a loogie to hit the ground??

Anyone considered about space debris? Tha material the elevator is constructed out of is going to have to be VERY and I mean VERY tough to firstly resist an inital impact and then over time, multiple impacts from meteors etc.

It's a possiblity to use an combination of an early warning system and simple shotgun-style projectile or laser weapon to destroy most debris though. Also how about using magnetic induction to lauch your elevator pod up into space? A-la the mag-lev train.

Any power issues could probably be solved by either solar sails (which could absorb "cosmic rays", they sound fictional but are real) or more advanced solar paneling (I think conventional solar panels lose efficiency past about 90 degrees centigrade and it's a bit warmer than that up there :) )

And by the way some of you guys' ideas are pretty good, especially the slightly mental ones, I work for BAE Aerospace as a design engineering manager so I actually try to build this kind of thing :D

No offence guys, but I think you've all forgotten something. Okay, assume the space station is at Geosync, then all the cable hanging from it is also rotating at the same rate, therefore, it is rotating too slowly to stay in orbit unsupported. Objects in a lower orbit have to move faster to stay in orbit. Therefore, all of this weight is pulling on the anchor asteroid, pulling it towards the earth. Now, to solve this, the cable must extend past the Geosync point. Past this point, the cable is rotating too fast for its altitude, and due to centripetal effect wants to fly away. So what is needed is a length of cable that will counterbalance precisely the weight of the lower half.
This means that the cable will be perfectly balanced, and if you get the maths right it will hang literally meters above the earth anchor.

This extra section has its benefits, all spacecraft leaving the endpoint would get a free boost into a higher orbit.

As for power, at the geosyncronous point set up some conducting cables a few kilometers long, set them spinning, and as they slice through the magnetic field, they will generate a current.

We havnt forgotten anything. We werent the ones who've done the math and Known that It can work.

The thing would need to be constantly maintained, the lift itself could be used to put down more lines. They would know if anything big was gunna hit it. They have monitoring stations for this sort of thing to protect satellites. They can track anything bigger than three centimeters. And a Free line into orbit would help reduce space junk and perhaps start a program to clean up the existing junk.

And Teton Im not sure what your trying to say. And I'm no physics buff. But would the fact that the earth is not just spinning but also orbiting around the sun affect what your afraid of? Keep in mind that the eearth is spinning so fast that on the counterbalence at the end there would be a lot of pent up intertia. Like spinning a one of those balls on a rope dog toys around above your head, it would stay up there as long as you kept it spinning.

Oh wait, I think I see what your saying. The cable itself would be half way to the moon. 1/3 the distance to be more precise. Half way down would be the station. At the end would be the counterbalance. They already thought of that. And the current idea wouldnt work. the cable would be effectively neutral. Read that link on the top of the other page. It can answer a lot of your technical questions.

I have to say that I prefer the idea of a skyhook - a rotating beanstalk - to the static space elevator idea. It just seems so much more gloriously absurd.

Please explain this skyhook.In as much detail as possible with no talking points excluded as to extend the life of this thread :D

Please explain this skyhook.In as much detail as possible with no talking points excluded as to extend the life of this thread :D

I'll take the coward's way out and provide a link to a website:

http://jolomo.net/sf/skyhook.html

There are much better resources out there, but I do not have the time to track them down right now.

I also like the old Russian term for the orbital tower - "heavenly funicular". If that doesn't pique the interest of would-be engineers, I don't know what would.

a moving sky hook would produce electrical energy up the yin yang, what your describing would be a marvelous world wide fire works display, but little else.

a moving sky hook would produce electrical energy up the yin yang, what your describing would be a marvelous world wide fire works display, but little else.


Call me stupid, but I fail to see why this would be a problem.

I'm all for space exploration and think NASA should get more funding and do more research, but I have 2 words for this plan PIPE DREAM!!!!!! I know NASA isn't behind this idea and it is some nut.

Its an interesting Subject, but your point is mute. America already dominates space. Many countries have the capability to put satellites in space, but only the U.S has the Ability to put men into space. And adequately fund any sort of long term commitment to space. They already won the game with the cold war (This is not taking into account China)

Aside: I think you mean "your point is moot"... :)

The US arguably does not have the ability to put men in space. Only slightly arguably, admitedly, but they are shying away from using shuttles and don't have much (at least publicly acknowledged) in the way of Mercury/Gemini/Apollo-style capsules in easy operational use, as far as I'm aware.

The Russians are currently carrying the burden of both resuppling the ISS and sorting out the crew-changes.

The Chinese (as you point out, I think) have joined the club with a successful manned orbital flight (not sure how far out in orbit they have the capability for, but I'd suggest at least as good as the Russians.


Onto other points made by others about the construction, no-one seems to have clarified (apologies if I've missed it) that the construction would be most likely be simultaneously in /both/ directions from a geosync satelite, to keep things stable until the lower end reaches Earth, then the anti-Earth end bolstered up with a little bit more mass as security counterweight.


On the subject of terrorist attacks, some people suggest terrorists won't attack it, because it is not logical to do so. Don't underestimate the how illogical (at least from 'our' point of view) terrorists could be. And if some modern-day Luddite activist group wants to show the world what it can do?

The above method of construction would guarantee that whatever bits were still attached to the anti-Earth end (the counterweighted end) would effectively float up (in extreme circumstances, flung out of Earth's orbit), but whatever is below (including the geosync satelite if the tension at the Earth end overcame what remained of the tension from the other) could come down. It'd all depend on where and how the system broke as to how it would actually act, but the worst case scenario would be severing a significant part of 'outward' cable and allowing the whole thing to wrap itself around the world a couple of times, though if it was a light material then all but the cars and the other 'heavy' bits would probably have less damage than you'd expect. (There'd probably be a contingency to react against some degrees of damage by purposefully detonating an appropriate section of cable, with the inevitable risk of losing some more passengers/node-residents, to at least keep the geosync station more or less stable, as it will have been at each point in construction prior to completion.)


As far as fears that either the elevator or a power-generation facility would plot out the sun, the former almost certainly wouldn't (except close to the ground where it would create s shaow much like any mast does, give or take the ground/sea-based support facility is) and you'd have to have a huge solar array to block the sun out for the entire Earth (as one person suggested), effectively a radius (completely filled) almost the size of the Earth itself. To create even a local Solar Eclipse it would need to subtend the the same angle that the Moon does. The Moon may be a fair bit further away, but it is the size of Australia (if I remember my childhood astronomy books correctly) and a space-collector even a fifth the size of .au should be quite a bit of overkill.


I like the idea of a space-elevator. I'm not sure I'd look out of the window/stand on the balcony/look the the the glass-bottom of a cabin, but imagine riding slowly (compared to rockets) up the cable, gradually losing apparent weight as you got closer to the geosync point, then riding 'down' the outside cable to the counterweight station where you can 'launch' interplanetary probes out into the deep, dark black yonder just by 'dropping' them outwards (carefully-timed, of course...)

(Then again, imagine being at the counterweight station when some idiot, fanatic, chance space-debris occurence or technician/computer tasked to counter-acting such an aforementiond accident or attack on another bit of the cable has to snip the cable, sending you careening around the solar-system... Not a pretty thought, and these are probably the main reasons why it'll take a lot of effort to pursuade people that it should be done...)

The server is Fucked. the Jolt move was a waste of time! I'm sick of losing what I type.

i have no opinion on astrolia's comment, i'm too new.

i wonder when the daily show will do a story on the space elevator?

June issue of Discover, they go into detail on how the space elevator can be built. It would be much cheaper to develop than a new space shuttle.
They figure 24 billion max for an elevator and over 250 billion for a new space shuttle.
Launching stuff by shuttle costs $10,000 per pound.
With the SE, its only $10 per pound.
THey have the nanocarbon tubes composites to do it they're just trying to figure out how to go from a reel of 5 km to one a thousand or so km.
nanocarbon tubes (less than the width of a human car) can hold up entire car.

June issue of Discover, they go into detail on how the space elevator can be built. It would be much cheaper to develop than a new space shuttle.
They figure 24 billion max for an elevator and over 250 billion for a new space shuttle.
Launching stuff by shuttle costs $10,000 per pound.
With the SE, its only $10 per pound.
THey have the nanocarbon tubes composites to do it they're just trying to figure out how to go from a reel of 5 km to one a thousand or so km.
nanocarbon tubes (less than the width of a human car) can hold up entire car.

I read the exact same thing. However...if it's $10 per pound, how will they charge for passengers?Same rate?Some would consider it worth it, but others would consider it prohibitive. Just a thought.

I read the exact same thing. However...if it's $10 per pound, how will they charge for passengers?Same rate?Some would consider it worth it, but others would consider it prohibitive. Just a thought.
Let the market decide.
Lassez Faire

also, the price it would take per pound would be considerably higher for the first elevator then proceding ones, mainly because the first will be the most exspsensive. even the power supply for following elevators could be acquired more cheaply by sizable solar arrays covering a pixel sized area of the sun delivering energy back. it works well, and it makes you look atractive to members of the sexual prefference you prefer.

There wouldnt be a lassez faire system, assuming it wasnt commerical. Its not so big that one could afford to send up any old satellite whenever they felt like it.

A space elevator has so much potential to be awesome. The greatest aspect of it is that for it to be even remotely feasible, it would have to be an international project instead of some nationalistic military extension. I'm all for it. More funding for scientific research!

The only problems I'd Foresee of this, besides possible terrorist activities, or natural disasters of sorts, would be all the garbage in earths atmosphere, and in orbit.. Maybe what they should do if this were to become a reality, would to find a way to clean the mess up...
One, reasone why multiple Space Elevators would come in handy, is if they did make a space station surronding earth, (Thinking of Saturn anyone?) They could act more like, Anchors, or Platforms to make sure the Space Rings, wouldnt some how, get out of orbit, and come crashing back into earth.
But, like the old saying.
"What Goes Up, Must Come Down."
Its just a matter of "when".

I read the exact same thing. However...if it's $10 per pound, how will they charge for passengers?Same rate?Some would consider it worth it, but others would consider it prohibitive. Just a thought.

Lessee, I'm just coming back down in mass{1} again after hitting 15 stone{2} so that makes means I'm around 210 pounds with clothes on so I'd be paying around US$2,100, sans luggage{3} to get into space, or GB£1,150 at todays exchange rate{4}. I think that's a fairly good price. Save 25 squid a month on an APR of 6.05% and (if I have my maths right) after only 40 months I've saved enough to afford the upward leg, and another year or so of saving should allow for the horizontal travel and various extras as well. (And the price per kilometre of upward travel is much much lower than the price per kilometer of nominally horizontal travel that my bus fare was this morning!)

Of course it'll not be so cheap (or even possible) in 40 months time, but if I start saving now I'll probably not have to wait too long to get a ride whenever it is built{5}

{1} Given "weight" is best used only under conditions of 1G
{2} Hey, I'm British, I don't weigh myself in pounds, I pay for things with them instead... :)
{3} Easier to get through the security check, and there'll be space-tuxedos for rent up there, by the time I get to go...
{4} Or EU€1.715,00 at today's exchange rate but the possible future currency.
{5} Assuming that I'm not dead, though at least the fitness restrictions will be more relaxed than a rocket-trip would require so I can afford to be getting old

...so I'd be paying around US$2,100

Forgot to add that of course each pound of person requires an uncertain number of pounds of life-support equipment that may be factored into the price of a manned ascent, but even if that increases the price by a factor of 50, I think I'd be willing to shell out for that.

UNfortunately, the big mark-up will be the one orientated by the supply-and-demand factor, of course, which means that the richest n% of the population will sieze the oportunity and drive the price up, probably to get as quick a return on initial investment as possible but then (if it reaches that stage) providing a lucrative income for the operators. Even the cargo proportion of the operational income will be affected by that factor.

thats why we have to make sure a government builds it first, cause the people have control over that, organisazations on the other hand are the only form of dictatorships that are government approved. unregulated capitalism rocks, don't it?

it would be cool if we had one, imagine some of the space craft we could assemble in high orbit with this thing! it could be city sized and have all kinds of cool functions, deep space exploration, moderate colonization, planetary exploration with smaller vessels docked in it, it would be incredibly nifty.

Terrible idea, it would have to be flexible due to atmospheric conditions, as a stiff elevator would easily crack under little pressure when it was that tall. Being flexible, it would also have to have something to keep it stabilized, something at the end that moved at the same speed as the earth. The weight held by the lower portions would be so tremendous that there is no way a base could be built in practical size and cost. Also, the wiring, construction, the putting in place of a malleable elevator is also very improbable, lacks rationale.

Lol, Its easy to tell that you hav'nt read this thread.

Terrible idea, it would have to be flexible due to atmospheric conditions, as a stiff elevator would easily crack under little pressure when it was that tall. Being flexible, it would also have to have something to keep it stabilized, something at the end that moved at the same speed as the earth. The weight held by the lower portions would be so tremendous that there is no way a base could be built in practical size and cost. Also, the wiring, construction, the putting in place of a malleable elevator is also very improbable, lacks rationale.

New Astrolia is right, you haven't really read about this, but a lot of the details are spread around, so here's a brief summary, padded out with other details, that may or may not be totally accurate but should at least be along the right lines.

To summarise, the structure wouldn't be built upwards like a tower, it'd be dangled downwards from space. The "something at the end that moved at the same speed as the Earth" would be a satelite sitting in Geosync orbit, which would remain (more or less) the centre of gravity throughout the whole construction period by paying out an equal length of tether spaceward as the Earthward-bound one was lowered. (Once the lower end of the tether is steadily on the ground, or whatever structure is built to accomodate it, then a bit more mass would be conveyed to the upwards end in order to keep it taught by an amount sufficient to privide any further tension necessary to overcome the lateral pressures of a turbulent atmosphere that may buffet a fraction of a percent of the lowest part of the down-ward tether.)

Whereas the bottom of a tower needs to be bulky enough to both support bulk of the tower above and to provide stablisation in compression, need a tower that needs to drastically flare out towards the bottom, a tether only needs to be able to withstand tension (and thus can be more flexible without the risk of falling over if it flexes too far over) and as you get higher and (possibly) need bulier bits of cable to support the increased weight of the ever-increasing length and cross-section of the lower cable, you're actually getting into lower and lower gravity zones, so the cable actually doesn't need to get as thick as quick, if you see what I mean, in an upward direction.

(NB: I'm not a qualified space professional or engineer, but I like to think I've picked up enough of these things to at least pretend to be an armchair-expert. Please feel free to point out errors in my assumptions, I'm always willing to learn from anyone who seems to have a sound and inteligent basis to their corrections.)

since this would make construction in space carbon-cheap in comparison to current methods, what you have built in space?

I'd have a space vessel capable of supporting a population on par with some small towns, hundreds of people, lots of different functions, a bay wtih smaller ships for orbit and atomosphere travel and what not. the ultimate in spacial exploration and colonization.

since this would make construction in space carbon-cheap in comparison to current methods, what you have built in space?

I'd have a space vessel capable of supporting a population on par with some small towns, hundreds of people, lots of different functions, a bay wtih smaller ships for orbit and atomosphere travel and what not. the ultimate in spacial exploration and colonization.

In a certain type of world, there'd be a 'rim' constructed around the geostationary levels (go on, calculate the length it'd be, long isn't it... :) ) and other elevators started from different spaces (now that material is easier to get there in the first place) and there'd be massive space-ship docking bays all round and a lot of people could live in space (make the girdling rim wide enough to give people a large area and you could fit 100 million people or more people up there, though I'm not sure why you'd want to...).

However, that's far future. I think the immediate short term goals would be:

1) Launch of satelites into near-geosynchronous orbits (a bit of a shove to get them away from the gestationary node then a retro-blast to park them in the desired orbit). Launch of satelites into more difficult orbits (e.g. LEO) and very difficult ones (Polar) might have to wait a bit.

2) Slingshot/'fuelless' launches of interplanetary probes from the Anti-Earth node.

3) Crew accomodation, possible a 'breaking the ice' rich tourist or two to improve the financial standing once safety has been further assured.

4) Construction and testing of space technologies in situ. (Ion propolsion, solar sails, massive antennas, other things that are either normally very difficult to launch in one piece/self-assemblable or could do with a helping hand from a technician.)

5) Carting up of sufficient radiation-absorbing material to make: a) a lifeboat/refuge; b) a long-term living area... Then we can start seeing a burgening population up there.

6) Then we start creating super-sized space mission vessels of the like we can only dream of now, plus hotels the size of ocean-liners and various other interesting things...

Well, something like that. Maybe not exactly, and it all depends on a certain longetivity and no practical problems (or disasters) cropping up along the way...

what stinks is that earth is too tiny to make ringworld, but we're on our way.