Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

DannyITR · 2004-09-15 13:19:00

I was just reading an article on the space elevator:

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology … ...-1.html

They say it's only going to cost $5 billion to get it started and in 12 years it could be done.

A space elevator would drastically change everything. All space missions would be using the elvator and launch costs would be a fraction of what they are now. New spacecraft could be built in space for missions to Mars and the Moon.

With all the talk about Mars Direct, I was just wondering if anyone had considered building the elevator first as an option? Why use our dated technology of huge and un-safe rockets when something like the elevator might be a possibility. Assuming the elevator was built, are there any cost models for missions to the moon or Mars?

John Creighton · 2004-09-15 13:33:47

Why use our dated technology of huge and un-safe rockets when something like the elevator might be a possibility?

I think you answered your own question.

DannyITR · 2004-09-15 13:41:51

You do have a point but it seems (judging by the articles I'v read) that the technology is there. We just need the funding to build it. Is this not the case?

SpaceNut · 2004-09-15 13:41:55

Even if possible to construct it, IMO it would be the biggest of terrorist target ever and would be the reason for why I would not build one here currently even if it could be done.

Now on the moon or on Mars, that is a different set of problems for designing one but there it could prove your point.

Edit:
here is the link to one of the other forum topics of funding
http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....=29;t=4

and there are others
Space Fountains, GEO Elevator, no nanotubes required
http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....9;t=292

DannyITR · 2004-09-15 13:46:26

I don't think it would be that hard to defend. Located in the Pacific Ocean, a terrorist organization would have either fly a plane into it or plant a bomb at the base. Jet routes can be modified so that any plane heading for the elevator would be noticed way in advance and Navy ships could guard the base with little difficulty.

Once people start being transported it becomes a little more difficult but not so bad that it shouldn't be built. Once additional ones are built using the first one the loss of one cable in a terror attack becomes less (in terms of cost).

John Creighton · 2004-09-15 13:46:58

You do have a point but it seems (judging by the articles I'v read) that the technology is there. We just need the funding to build it. Is this not the case?

I am all for trying to build one. However, when making plans it is important to rely on proven technology as much as possible. Modifications can be made later given new advances.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-15 13:50:38

I don't think it would be that hard to defend. Located in the Pacific Ocean, a terrorist organization would have either fly a plane into it or plant a bomb at the base. Jet routes can be modified so that any plane heading for the elevator would be noticed way in advance and Navy ships could guard the base with little difficulty.
Once people start being transported it becomes a little more difficult but not so bad that it shouldn't be built. Once additional ones are built using the first one the loss of one cable in a terror attack becomes less (in terms of cost).

One would have thought that to be true of the twin trade towers but it was not so.

Edit:
Here is another on the elevator
Another opinion of the Space elevator, Questioning the sanity of the Space Elevator
http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....4;t=399

Space elevator in the media, déjà vu?
http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....5;t=159

John Creighton · 2004-09-15 13:57:38

One would have thought that to be ture of the twin trade towers but it was not so.

Well any future such flights could be shot down.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-15 14:01:09

I do agree if it is definately an attack.

As for there being a cost versus mars direct, We have enough materials to build what is needed it is just the time frame that hurts when going to mars with current technology.

On the elevator side carbon nano tubes are still on short supply.

Palomar · 2004-09-15 14:01:43

Even if possible to construct it, IMO it would be the biggest of terrorist target ever and would be the reason for why I would not build one here currently even if it could be done.
Now on the moon or on Mars, that is a different set of problems for designing one but there it could prove your point.
Edit:
here is the link to one of the other forum topics of funding
http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic … ...=29;t=4
and there are others
Space Fountains, GEO Elevator, no nanotubes required
http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic … ...9;t=292

*Yes, I agree about the terrorist issue.

We've a handful (it seems) of space elevator enthusiasts on the board. I can't recall specifics of previous related conversations, and as for cost comparison between SE and MD...likely it's been touched on, but I honestly don't remember (sorry).

Hmmmm...SpaceNut, you remembered the Space Fountain! I was wracking my brain, trying to recall the name. IIRC, Mad Grad Student is a proponent of it (my apologies if that's an incorrect memory, MGS).

I'm for whatever helps get humans to Mars quickest, cheapest, fastest... :laugh: (whoops...can't forget "and safest!") Really want to see humans strolling around on the Red Planet in my lifetime, and colony walls going up.

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2004-09-15 14:18:06

I also remember seeing another one that had the word must in the topic but have not found it yet.

However did find an even older one.
Space Elevator pilot program?
http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....4;t=394

As for the fountain concept it is sort of like the tether one put forth under this thread.
Tethered Space Stations
http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....5;t=183

edit:
Here are a few other forms of moving your rocket but with out firing it up just yet.

Another shuttle plan for space, There using a speed rail system to space
http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....23;t=50

Rail Gun inside near vacuum tube, Railway technology to Heaven
http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....5;t=153

Mountain launch tracks revisited,, Alternative to fuelled rocket boosters.
http://www.newmars.com/cgi-bin....=5;t=50

deagleninja · 2004-09-16 23:59:09

I believe Dr Zubrin put the cost of Mars Direct at $50B. Assuming he and space elevator builders are equally optimistic, then Mars Direct would cost more.

I believe that a space elevator could be built in 10-15 years, but I don't think it will. Most of the population is very ignorant about such matters and won't believe it's possible and therefore won't support funding it.

The aerospace industry and its lobbiest are very entrenched in our space program. I don't think they'd like a space elevator anymore than Enron wants solar powered cars (or Fox wants quality television)
:laugh:

Rxke · 2004-09-17 02:01:40

Most of the population is very ignorant about such matters and won't believe it's possible and therefore won't support funding it.

I dunno...

When I explain the idea to people, they *all* are impressed, and supportive, even the "anti-spaceflight" peeps, they think it'd be great to at last have cheap way to go up, not multi billion rockets ("that money should go to the poor" etc..)

deagleninja · 2004-09-17 08:56:24

Yes Rxke, you are correct, but when I talk to people about the benefits of our space program they are very supportive too even if they never gave the idea much thought. However, these incidents are before politicians put 'things into perspective' with domestic issues.

Funny thing is, based on random people I've talked to, most everybody is for an ambitious space program. This leads me to believe that the public does actually want an ambitious space program, it's politicians that don't. Most funding bills are killed in the House where representatives have little stake in programs centered in someone else's state so they feel free to attack it.

I've long said that we need to centralize our space program for this reason. Only bills that focus on national involvement need be put before the House (like Nasa's outreach program for schools). Bush could show he is a true leader for the space program by changing the laws so that NASA is guarenteed a steady, minimum budget that increases with inflation. Only additional funding should come before the public.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-17 10:59:35

Those that are not for space are not able to see the jobs or the income from working on such projects directly since they themselves are not part of it. They hear of the large sums of money spent but see very little in actual hardware for it. It is the intangables that they can not be seen, that is where all the money has gone.

deagleninja · 2004-09-17 13:27:57

Good point SpaceNut. But I just read Cindy's post and Im a little curious why everyone thinks that a space elevator would be such a great terrorist target? Terrorists struck at the Twin Towers because it is a symbol of our greed and the Pentagon because it is a symbol of our over-bearing military. So why would they strike at a symbol of hope?

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-17 13:32:18

But I just read Cindy's post and Im a little curious why everyone thinks that a space elevator would be such a great terrorist target?

Because if it fell it would kill a buttload of people and severely screw with the economies of Western countries aligned with America.

It seems so obvious, yet...

deagleninja · 2004-09-17 13:37:58

But that's the thing. It wouldn't kill a 'buttload' of people being based in the Pacific (fish yes, but people no).

For as difficult as it would be to pull off, I just don't see poor terrorists trying to take down something that won't further their causes. There are much better targets in the US.

John Creighton · 2004-09-17 13:46:40

But I just read Cindy's post and Im a little curious why everyone thinks that a space elevator would be such a great terrorist target?
Because if it fell it would kill a buttload of people and severely screw with the economies of Western countries aligned with America.

Hmmm….I heard people say before that a carbon nanotube elevator would fall pretty softly. Anyway, targeting a space elevator would be targeting Americas biggest system of technology dominance. Look how excited they got in Serbia after shooting down a stelth fighter.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-17 13:47:30

But that's the thing. It wouldn't kill a 'buttload' of people being based in the Pacific (fish yes, but people no).

It's long enough to make landfall many times over, the toll could be quite high.

For as difficult as it would be to pull off, I just don't see poor terrorists trying to take down something that won't further their causes. There are much better targets in the US.

All you'd have to do is load the carriage up with semtex, send it up the line and blow it around halfway. If you can't get enough on with smuggling, then hijack the facility. 20-30 might be able to pull it off, depending on security forces, maybe less. It's cut off from immediate support, being out in the Pacific as you say. For resources similar to the 9-11 attack you could potentially do alot more damage.

If I were a desperate terrorist, it would be on the list. If Homeland Security gets its act together, it could be quite tempting from that perspective. They look for soft targets with high returns, crashing a space elevator would qualify.

deagleninja · 2004-09-17 13:58:19

John-I heard that too, about it falling softly, can't remember where though. But your point about the stealth fighter kinda proves my point. They want military and finacial targets, not scientific.

Cobra-But aren't you forgetting an important point? Terrorists are poor for the most part. They don't have their own air force, they had to use our 747's to attack us. What chance do they have against a lone aircraft carrier in the region?

Now folks, I'm not saying that it is impossible to get past an aircraft carrier and tight security at a space elevator, but you have to admit that it is very very unlikely.

We can't live in fear over what a terrorist may or may not do. And we certainly can not miss a chance to build a space elevator (or two) because someone might decide to blow it up. If we change our goals and plans because of terrorists then they win.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-17 14:06:57

Deagle, I'm not saying that a space elevator is an oh-so-perfect, irresistable terrorist target nor am I saying that materials allowing we shouldn't build it if the economics work out.

I am saying that it would be a viable target potentially capable of causing destruction well beyond the loss of the elevator itself. Terrorists don't need an air force to bring it down, all they need to do is get a bunch of plastic explosives in or on the passenger car.

Or they could hijack another 747 and fly it into the cable, but that's old hat and since we're looking for that sort of thing they'll probably try something else.

The space elevator would be an economic target. It would be an Infidel target. It would be a giant whip that could smack down on the world, real wrath of Allah stuff. I'm not suggesting that it can't be secured, merely that it would have to be.

All of which assumes that we can build it and it makes sense to in the first place, uncertain on both counts.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-09-17 14:28:34

A quick reality check. According to a technical analysis of the problems involved:

1) A *real* space elevator could be grounded at possible one or two spots in the entire world. You don't put it where you wants, you put it where physics and weather says it has to go. With the second or third you might get more choice, but not the first.
2) A space elevator will hang, not stand. If you fly an aircraft into it at 10km high, and you cut it, only ~10km will fall. The rest will not. The elevator will probably have enough spare spool to compensate for this easily.
3) Even if it did, it's made olut of cardon (read coal) and will easily burn up.
4) The base of it will amount to a military airbase in the same way the NASA facilities in Florida do. Terrorists have yet to pull off that kind of attack successfully.

http://www.isr.us/Downloads/niac_pdf/co … tents.html

ANTIcarrot.

Palomar · 2004-09-17 14:44:36

Good point SpaceNut. But I just read Cindy's post and Im a little curious why everyone thinks that a space elevator would be such a great terrorist target? Terrorists struck at the Twin Towers because it is a symbol of our greed and the Pentagon because it is a symbol of our over-bearing military. So why would they strike at a symbol of hope?

*Well, that's some of the problem. It's a symbol of hope to us. I doubt terrorists would care to try and see it that way. Anything connected/associated with America is to be destroyed, apparently. :-\ Besides, most of these radical religions fervently believe "the End Times are upon us," so they feel they have nothing to loose; world's coming to an end anyway...and they're happy to lend a hand in ending it all. Including squashing our hopes and aspirations.

As for why they struck the Twin Towers: Their envy, not our greed. IMO. They wouldn't turn down an opportunity to have the kind of might and wealth we do. Envy.

--Cindy

John Creighton · 2004-09-17 14:49:40

Besides, most of these radical religions fervently believe "the End Times are upon us," so they feel they have nothing to loose; world's coming to an end anyway...and they're happy to lend a hand in ending it all.

That would make an interesting movie plot. That is some radical group of people got tired of waiting for the end of the world and followed a man the claimed that he was instructed by god to fulfill the prophecy.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-09-15 13:19:00

Re: Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

#2 2004-09-15 13:33:47

Re: Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

#3 2004-09-15 13:41:51

Re: Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

#4 2004-09-15 13:41:55

Re: Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

#5 2004-09-15 13:46:26

Re: Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

#6 2004-09-15 13:46:58

Re: Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

#7 2004-09-15 13:50:38

Re: Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

#8 2004-09-15 13:57:38

Re: Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

#9 2004-09-15 14:01:09

Re: Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

#10 2004-09-15 14:01:43

Re: Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

#11 2004-09-15 14:18:06

Re: Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

#12 2004-09-16 23:59:09

Re: Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

#13 2004-09-17 02:01:40

Re: Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

#14 2004-09-17 08:56:24

Re: Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

#15 2004-09-17 10:59:35

Re: Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

#16 2004-09-17 13:27:57

Re: Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

#17 2004-09-17 13:32:18

Re: Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

#18 2004-09-17 13:37:58

Re: Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

#19 2004-09-17 13:46:40

Re: Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

#20 2004-09-17 13:47:30

Re: Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

#21 2004-09-17 13:58:19

Re: Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

#22 2004-09-17 14:06:57

Re: Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

#23 2004-09-17 14:28:34

Re: Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

#24 2004-09-17 14:44:36

Re: Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

#25 2004-09-17 14:49:40

Re: Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

Board footer