Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

atitarev · 2004-06-29 06:53:54

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/06/2 … html]Space Elevator

Is this a good idea? In K.S. Robinson's Mars trilogy the first space elevator ended up in a disaster. We don't want it to drop on Earth. I am not against the idea itself, though.

Rxke · 2004-06-29 09:03:32

There are already several topics about the elevator, one started fairly recently.

Hmmm... I wonder, there are no recent breakthroughs in the tech, but all of a sudden the idea gets spotlighted in the mainstream press?

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-29 09:32:26

The reason its getting air-time is because of the X-Prize/SS1 hoop-la, that a "little comapny" can do somthing "really big that the defense contractors can't" and junk.

KSR's Mars books made the cable out of solid diamond if memory serves, big and heavy... a carbon nanotube space elevator will be nothing of the sort, it will be extremely light and made of aluminized pencil lead. If it were to come down, all you would get is a fine dusting of ash, at most.

The elevator punters make it sound like a sure thing... it is most certainly not. While on paper the material is almost strong enough, the functionalized anisotropic CNT composit of the required strength does not yet exsist, and there are still many unanswerd questions about the materials' ability to withstand the high-energy chemical environment of the upper atmosphere, where UV rays from the sun with atomic oxygen, ozone, and other fun things could eat right through even the metal-clad cable.

And then there is the economic question... that there simply isn't enough stuff to lift to pay off that $10Bn-15Bn pricetag without substantial (IE they pay for the whole thing) government financing.

And then you would still need rockets for operating below GEO from the cable, since the cable doesn't move at orbital velocity at those altitudes.

Bill White · 2004-06-29 10:37:27

A while back, we had an extended space elevator thread.

IIRC, I went nuts trying to figure out how much payload you need to lift every day just to pay the capital costs alone, ignoring operating costs.

IIRC, bringing cars back down never paid off. Adding heat shields and dumping them in the atmosphere was very much cheaper, and the thing needed to be run like O'Hare airport to have any hope of financial viability.

The elevator would be worthless without a giant freight forwarding terminal (plus hotels and restaurants for passengers) being built at the same time yet none of the elevator advocates ever seem to factor that cost into their projections.

= = =

Edit: Let us assume the technology arrives. IMHO even with the tech being available, an elevator is a financial disaster unless emigration and permanent colonization occurs simultaneously.

Nothing else will create sufficient demand for its use.

clark · 2004-06-29 10:42:23

Give me some numbers.

Used my own...

Okay, assume a $10 billion principal, at 9% a year. You're looking at 75 million a month in interest alone. With me so far?

If you were to lift 10 tons a day, for 20 days out of a month, you would have to charge $154.29 per pound.

Now how do you find enough cargo to meet this?

Design a Soyuz like device that goes up slowly, decouples from the cable at orbit, then splashes down near the cable (or if possible, the waiting resort). It would cost about 30,000 dollars for a ride to orbit (for a 200 pound person) at this rate.

But even if you just do cargo itself, you don't have to charge pennies- you charge just below rate of the cheapest flyer available. You offer security because there is no rocket that is going to explode. You offer assurance because on the elevator, you know your billion dollar sat is going to reach it's desired orbit. You offer saftey to people who are rich and don't want to die on some fire cracker, but want to go see space.

Of course a space elevator pretty much kills the rocket industry. But that's another conspiracy for another time.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-29 10:49:57

$10Bn at around 9% interest... $900,000,000 a year, just to pay interest, not a single penny to pay down the balence or operations costs or startup development costs. There are hardly $0.9Bn of launches of any kind yearly unless you count Shuttle.

BWhite · 2004-06-29 11:00:33

I propose http://www.janeresture.com/tarawa/]Tarawa for the base. Anchor the cable in the lagoon.

Now we build a world class international airport and freight forwarding terminal. That will cost more than the elevator itself, by the way.

= = =

Still, the lagoon at Tawara. . .

A Japanese financed space elevator. . .

Betio Island, the scene of a nasty fight between US Marines and the Japanese.

Hmmm. I sense a story coming on.

= = =

Diego Garcia is 6 degrees south latitude. That might work as well. That place already has a big airport and freight forwarding infrastructure. :;):

clark · 2004-06-29 11:15:54

Now we build a world class international airport and freight forwarding terminal. That will cost more than the elevator itself, by the way.

This would be an economic boom for the host country, work a deal where they build the airport and help finance part of the construction of the elevator itself...

Imagine $50,000-60,000 costs for a resort stay and a trip to orbit. major companies would be giving away trips at these costs for the PR. Scratch and win? Frequent flyer miles? Mcdondals games? Nike promotionals? Credit card purchase rewards...

BWhite · 2004-06-29 11:37:12

Now we build a world class international airport and freight forwarding terminal. That will cost more than the elevator itself, by the way.
This would be an economic boom for the host country, work a deal where they build the airport and help finance part of the construction of the elevator itself...
Imagine $50,000-60,000 costs for a resort stay and a trip to orbit. major companies would be giving away trips at these costs for the PR. Scratch and win? Frequent flyer miles? Mcdondals games? Nike promotionals? Credit card purchase rewards...

You busy for the next few years?

Remember that program about flooding New Hampshire with Libertarians, or South Carolina with evangelicals?

How many space advocates can we persuade to emigrate to Kiribati?

clark · 2004-06-29 11:43:49

How many space advocates can we persuade to emigrate to Kiribati?

Set up the next FMARS station there and they will be coming in droves. :laugh:

Palomar · 2004-06-29 12:36:53

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/06/2 … html]Space Elevator
Is this a good idea? In K.S. Robinson's Mars trilogy the first space elevator ended up in a disaster. We don't want it to drop on Earth. I am not against the idea itself, though.

*I'm also concerned about this being one huge terrorist target. :bars:

Otherwise, I'm for it. Would be fantastic to see one built and operating!

--Cindy

clark · 2004-06-29 12:42:06

:laugh:

Cindy, you do realize that an elevator like this would allow for the economic exploitation and rape of the solar system, don't you?

It can act as the catalyst to fundamentally change the value of mining the heavenly bodies. Rockets can't do it. But an elevator, it means colonization can really happen. That means land rush. That means strip mining the Moon, Mars, and every other celestial body.

Just something to think about given your position on the matter.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-29 12:58:52

Nah, no, no it wouldn't. The money just isn't there... its still much, much, much much much much much easier to just dig it out of the ground on Earth and refine it. There simply isn't a gargantuan demand for base metals nor could the elevator move substantial quantities of material... and mining in space is way war harder than on Earth for anything other than iron or nickel asteroids.

clark · 2004-06-29 13:05:45

Not the first one, no. However, after the first elevator, it becomes much easier, and cheaper, to establish Elevator #2,3,4,5... That increases capacity to move off Earth.

Where does that lead? To greater exploitation of near space for the use of humans. That means orbiting hotels and the like.

It will be cheaper to figure out a way to mine and smelt metals in space than bringing them from Earth. That leads to asteroid mining and production of fuel on the Moon. That also leads to farming and other consumables being produced off earth for the growing population in near space. That leads to greater power productions requirements to support the population and industry in near space- which again increases and sustains the drive for more resources aquisition and utilization.

The primary barrier to all of this is the cost to get into space. An elevator, and additional, bigger elevator, only act to reduce the cost to access space, putting more people up there. People become that catalyst for everything else.

That's why space communications has taken off- because it get's biggest bang for the buck in terms of providing profit by providing services to a large market. Without a lot of people in space, there is little profit. Change that equation, and then some of the economic arguments make sense.

Palomar · 2004-06-29 13:49:59

:laugh:
Cindy, you do realize that an elevator like this would allow for the economic exploitation and rape of the solar system, don't you?
It can act as the catalyst to fundamentally change the value of mining the heavenly bodies. Rockets can't do it. But an elevator, it means colonization can really happen. That means land rush. That means strip mining the Moon, Mars, and every other celestial body.
Just something to think about given your position on the matter.

:laugh:

It's like a bicycle chain, knife or fire. It depends on how it's used -- by whom, for what purpose, etc.

My personal hopes for the future aren't necessarily compromised and/or contradicted by a space elevator, IMO.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-06-29 13:55:31

:laugh:

It depends on how it's used -- by whom, for what purpose, etc.

The same is often said about religion. :;):

My personal hopes for the future aren't necessarily compromised and/or contradicted by a space elevator, IMO.

Well, it is a bit akin to expecting that the West Coast wouldn't have been settled as it has with a railroad.

A space elevator makes the fantasy come true. Well, cheap access to space does, but the elevator gets around the problem with rockets, so it does a better job. KSR dealt with this too... it just keeps coming back, dosen't it? You should probably read the triology, it will give you some different persepectives.

When lots of people go into space, they will have to utilize the resources there. They will have to claim ownership as history has taught us. It can't be escaped, even if you wished otherwise.

Really, the only way to avoid the exploitation of space is to make sure humans never colonize it. Kind of a pickle, huh?

atitarev · 2004-06-29 17:03:00

Wow! Just turned away - 2 pages of posting because of the time difference between the US and Australia.

Would be interesting to see what the outcome will be. From the engineering point of view, it seems feasible, no doubt, if people want someting badly they will damn do it. And it will most definitely boost space exploration but the security concern are high.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-29 17:19:05

Nooope, its still easier just to dig it up on the ground than it is to dig it off of an asteroid, even if it is in a much higher purity. Iron, nickel, zinc... these are things that we have quite a bit of on Earth, with a little recycling and volcanism, the supplies will be essentially unlimited.

Oh, and communications satelites have really been one-uped by buried/underwater fiber optic lines, if you haven't noticed.

There is still no good economic reason to go to space, none at all, other than the the fact that nobody is up there yet.

Grypd · 2004-06-29 17:33:41

I think youll find there is a lot of interest in the resources above our heads. Well if you have read the posts about India you will see that they believe it to be in there countries best interest.

Sure there are lots of minerals still on Earth but they are getting harder and harder to get at each year, Or we dont want the consequences of going for them. By this im talking mining antartica, the bottom of the ocean etc.

Why should we make this world barren just because we find it easier. This is our home you dont make a mess on your doorstep or throw your rubbish over your neighbours fence.

The space elevator seems to be the way to allow full scale human colonisation of space. Even making one will be a great adventure as it will reguire a lot of orbital work, Carbon Nano-tubes need a vacuum to be made. Great lets go for it, when we can.

Rxke · 2004-06-29 23:58:13

Compare the research/building/operations cost of the shuttle fleet to the elevator.

Looks cheap.

Is the shuttle profitable? No, and it never will.
At least the elevator has a fighting chance to become profitable.

Rxke · 2004-06-30 00:01:37

Didn't they build ISS as an 'excuse' for the shuttle's reason of existance, mainly?

They'd build similar 'excuses' for the cable, that will be at least more worthwile. Solar-power fleet, moonbases, Mars bases, etc.

Rxke · 2004-06-30 00:12:58

(ok, I'm on a roll...)

An elevator would make a moon-catapult feasible, at last.

Aluminium is getting scarce, or difficult to mine on Earth, so is 'normal' helium (follow the price of He, it's skyrocketing) I'm sure there are other things you can come up with...

It will still be horrendeously expensive, if we'd try to build a catapult, *today* or 'the day after tomorrow,' 'tomorrow' being the elevator in place... But it will become cheaper to do every year, until it will be economical. Just spend some years on the moon, testing stuff, before committing.

The moon, asteroids,... becoming analogueous to the off-shore , Arctic drilling platforms: hardship, problematic hardware, a crew of hairy-knuckled 'can-do' professionals...

karov · 2004-06-30 06:04:24

Synchronous non-rotating 'skyhooks' could be built on smaller bodies (Mars, Moon - to L1 and L2, asteroids...) using conventional materials. Ask google about Hans Moravec`s articles about this.

Indeed the Earth with its immense gravity lies near to the upper limit for building space elevators.

Single massive rope rotating in the interplanetary space or in certain key possitions (libration or resonance points) could be used as momentum exchange mechanism without the crafts to have to use fuel en rote. Simply transforming the velocity of the ships in rotational momentum of the rope or vice versa for accelerating. Catch the ship in one radius -- release it in another!!! Even without change of the V, just redirecting it, i.e. change in the vector component of movement is sometimes enough...

I think that equipped with such very long 'spokes' the big ( when colonised?!) asteroids - Vesta, Pallas, Ceres - could serve as perfect way stations between the inner and the outer Solar system. Indeed a base for their future native economies!

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-07-01 15:13:46

The space elevator could pay for itself by launching solar power satellites. Maybe.(All figures rounded for simplicity)

If you launch ten tons a day for 300 days a year you can put up 10,000tons in around three years. At $0.01/kwh, a 5GW SSPS would produce $438M per year.
(5*10^9)*24*365.25*0.01*0.001

Based on GCNR's interest rates, this would cost $1.8B to launch. If a seperate company does this, then they'd only pay 9% on that $1.8B, which is $162M. Hence a profit is made by the second company, and the first covers its costs.

Again, these are EXAMPLE FIGURES ONLY and deliberately ignore certian costs (like construction & GTO) to show how such a thing might be done. They still show it's possible to make a profit though, and with margin enough to make up for some defficiencies in the calculations.

The thing is that ANY low cost launch system requires lots of cargo in order to remain low cost, and all the organisations that promote such assume that low cost will open up new markets of opertunity, which others will then take advantage of.

Of course the government might build one of these for a few reasons:
*Allow the army to deploy 'no supply chain' ACS-2050 systems.
*'Secret' orbital DEW.
*Speed development of gasless economy; and all the foreign policy benifits that would entail.
*Enviromental concerns.

ANTIcarrot.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-01 16:09:17

Unfortunatly it is still easier to build an array of comperable output on the ground for less money than it takes to make it spaceworthy, make recievers or tranciever station satelites, and then the cost of launching a giant array made in bite-sized chunks, which you must then pay to assemble on orbit.

Space solar power still doesn't make economic sense, even if it were a simplistic array launched on a HLLV.

Edit: Oh and don't forget, a single-rail elevator like the CNT ribbon proposed cannot launch one payload per day, it would take several days at reasonable speed to reach altitude.

Edit Edit: Oh oh, and don't forget either how much trouble it would be to transmit energy the whole 40,000km to Earth's surface.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-06-29 06:53:54

Re: Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

#2 2004-06-29 09:03:32

Re: Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

#3 2004-06-29 09:32:26

Re: Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

#4 2004-06-29 10:37:27

Re: Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

#5 2004-06-29 10:42:23

Re: Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

#6 2004-06-29 10:49:57

Re: Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

#7 2004-06-29 11:00:33

Re: Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

#8 2004-06-29 11:15:54

Re: Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

#9 2004-06-29 11:37:12

Re: Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

#10 2004-06-29 11:43:49

Re: Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

#11 2004-06-29 12:36:53

Re: Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

#12 2004-06-29 12:42:06

Re: Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

#13 2004-06-29 12:58:52

Re: Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

#14 2004-06-29 13:05:45

Re: Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

#15 2004-06-29 13:49:59

Re: Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

#16 2004-06-29 13:55:31

Re: Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

#17 2004-06-29 17:03:00

Re: Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

#18 2004-06-29 17:19:05

Re: Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

#19 2004-06-29 17:33:41

Re: Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

#20 2004-06-29 23:58:13

Re: Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

#21 2004-06-30 00:01:37

Re: Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

#22 2004-06-30 00:12:58

Re: Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

#23 2004-06-30 06:04:24

Re: Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

#24 2004-07-01 15:13:46

Re: Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

#25 2004-07-01 16:09:17

Re: Space elevator in the media - dÃ©jÃ vu?

Board footer