Space Elevator vs Mars Direct - Anyone compare the costs?

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-17 15:00:32

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.

Good point, I hadn't though that 747 thing through, spur of the moment. It would shut down the elevator, but probably not worth the effort.

3) Even if it did, it's made olut of cardon (read coal) and will easily burn up.

Assuming we use carbon nanotubes. This is still not entirely certain, alot of hypotheticals here. It looks like the best so far, but...

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.

Depending on how it is used. If it launches commercial payloads regualrly it can't be as secure as a military facility. If passengers even less so. It needs to be heavily used to be economical and the wider the variety of customers, the less closed the facility will be.

John Creighton · 2004-09-17 15:03:34

Depending on how it is used. If it launches commercial payloads regualrly it can't be as secure as a military facility. If passengers even less so. It needs to be heavily used to be economical and the wider the variety of customers, the less closed the facility will be.

Interesting dilemma.

BWhite · 2004-09-17 15:06:01

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

9/11 was not done out of envy, at least IMHO.

Bin Laden is chasing that chimerical fantasy, uniting all of Islam into a single entity, a caliphate, that dissolves national borders. Why should Muslims be divided by national identites like Egypt, Jordan, Syria etc. . .

Getting rid of Saddam and the Baath in Syria is one of the items bin Laden needs to accomplish to achieve his dream, so. . . he hits us, we remove Saddam, and he is one step closer to his dream.

Bin Laden played GWB like a fiddle.

Rxke · 2004-09-17 15:10:30

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...

hmmm... Disagree..

It won't have to kill buttloads: add a self destruct, so when it comes down it breaks (but IMO unnecc. anyway, it will break up w/o help...)
And just don't send up massive amounts of peeps in one haul, so there are only say max 100 peeps on the cable...

and about economy: it is cheap, so bringing it down won't be *that* bad... Bad, of course, but not disastrously... By the time peeps go up, there wll already be a second or even third cable in place (that was the orig. plan, anyway...) so peeps in orbit are not doomed etc etc...

And a cable with a big no-fly zone is easier to defend than New York, IMHO...

Don't let them terrorist get away with halting plans.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-17 15:14:03

Bin Laden played GWB like a fiddle.

C'mon Bill, we all know bin Laden is in a holding cell under Dick Cheney's house until they bring him out in mid-October.

Don't let them terrorist get away with halting plans.

Wouldn't dream of it. Just wouldn't want to slip up after getting it built is all.

deagleninja · 2004-09-17 22:08:59

I had really hoped that the better-than-average intelligence level of this forum would somehow make many of us immune to 'terror' propoganda.

Let's look at this in perspective for just a moment. On Sept. 11, 2001 a few hijackers crashed three planes into sensitive targets. It did a lot of damage and 3,000 lives were lost.

Now let's put this into perspective. Millions of Americans have died from heart disease, cancer, car and gun related deaths since then. Are we waging a war on ageing? Cancer? Stupid drivers? Kinda, but these little wars aren't breaking us financially like the war in Iraq.

This administration along with democrats have whipped us into a fearful frenzy so bad that when a space elevator is mentioned, the number one objection is 'gee, terrorists would like to attack that'.

News flash! There will always be terrorists. These are poor undereducated people that have no voice so they use violence as a way to draw attention to their 'plight'.

Does anyone care that over 20,000 civilan Iraqis have died as a result of our need for revenge? How many people have to die before this and other countries come to their senses?

Put another way, if you support Bush's decision to wage war in Iraq then you helped kill the new Space Vision because brother, there just ain't enough money for both.

Austin Stanley · 2004-09-18 01:23:06

Meh... to me it's realy not worth a discussion. We still aren't there with the science to make such a space-elevator possible. Carbon nano-tubes and other such material sciences are making great leaps forward, but we are still quite away from producing wires (be they carbon filmant or otherwise) with the necessary tensile strength. Some of the test look promising, yes, but we have no idea if they will hold up when the wires are extended past the cm length, much less thousand of kilometers. And even if we had that tech behind us, we still would have to figure out a way to produce a wire of unprecendent length, and hang it from orbit. Quite aways to go.

Mars on the other hand is right there. We have everything we realy need to get there, we just need to put it together and go. An unfair comparision, IMO. One option is a mere long-range possibility, while the other is a close range with no technical obsticals bettwen us and success.

This is also a false delima, there is no reason we could not do both (well except for the fact that we could not actualy BUILD a space elevator yet).

--------

As for the terrorist issue. Not building something because you are afraid the terrorist will blow it up has to be some of the stupidest reasoning I have every heard. Lets not build any more tall-buildings, they are only targets! Lets not have any more children, bad people may kill them! Lets not earn and more money/buy stuff, thives will only take it. If you think like this, the "terrorist have already won." (God I had always hopped I would never have to say that).

Seriously you can't let concurns like terrorisim prevent you from going forward with a project. Be prudent and take it into acount, but continue to go forward. And a space-elevator should be pretty defensible. The plans everyone seems to be discussing calls for one isolated out in the middle of the ocean, making limiting access pretty simple. All cargo going up (or down I suppose) the elevator would of course be inspected and weighed to to the nearest hundreth of a gram. It is going into space where these sort of things are vital important. A terrorist smuggling some sort of bomb or weapon on board is pretty far fetched. And all passangers would have extensive background checks as a matter of course. Concurs about terrorisim are overblown.

deagleninja · 2004-09-18 06:50:21

While I agree that the science isn't quite there yet, it is on its way. Perhaps we are being a little too optimistic talking about it already, but that's only because a space elevator will be nothing short of a revolution in transportation. It will truly make us a space faring species.

Thanks you Austin for your comments on terrorists. We, as a people and nation, have much bigger concerns and issues than terrorism.

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-18 06:54:28

This administration along with democrats have whipped us into a fearful frenzy so bad that when a space elevator is mentioned, the number one objection is 'gee, terrorists would like to attack that'.

Deagle, that is far from the number one objection, for example as Austin mentions the materials aren't there yet. The economics of it are also largely dependent on what you want to use it for. Further, no one here is suggesting we not build a space elevator or anything else because terrorists might attack it. But be aware it could happen, along with countless other scenarios.

Stop thinking in black and white, ones and zeros. The world is more complex than that.

deagleninja · 2004-09-18 07:01:33

Black and white? Ones and zeros? Since when have I done that? The best scientists in the world working on this problem agree that the tech is 10 or at the most 20 years away. We all seem to agree this is going to have to be a government project so when is a good time to start talking about it?

Ahh, I know what will make you feel better! Have an angry virtual chinaman! :rant:

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-18 07:08:19

Ahh, I know what will make you feel better! Have an angry virtual chinaman!

:laugh:

Black and white? Ones and zeros? Since when have I done that?

Perhaps I'm misreading you, such is the bane of text-only communication. The impression coming across is "terrorists might try to attack the space elevator" gets interpretated as "terrorists are gonna destroy it, guaranteed, we shouldn't even build the damn thing." While I've said the former I've never even thought the latter.

War in Iraq or space initiative, as though there are no other factors is another example.

Or perhaps I've strayed too far into John Kerry "nuance" land, where only I know what I mean.

deagleninja · 2004-09-18 07:22:55

Bush Jr laid out the most impressive space program plan for our country since Kennedy while staying fiscally responcible enough to get it through Congress except, perhaps, in times of record government overspending. And there's the catch.

The plan is pretty good. Or at least it is something if you know what I mean. However, the timing was about 2 years late.

My statements about Iraq may be rather black and white, but some things aren't gray. This war is the main reason for us being so overbudget. Yes there were the tax cuts and the creation of a new government organization, but we could have afforded all these things including the 'Space Vision' thingy had we not gone to war in Iraq.

And there it is.....hot and steamy on our plate. Man I don't want to eat it, do you???

/\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
/___\ 'We have rockets now big eye!' :rant:

Cobra Commander · 2004-09-18 07:36:51

And there it is.....hot and steamy on our plate. Man I don't want to eat it, do you???

Not at all. But I don't want to leave it sitting on the table, festering and rotting either.

My statements about Iraq may be rather black and white, but some things aren't gray. This war is the main reason for us being so overbudget. Yes there were the tax cuts and the creation of a new government organization, but we could have afforded all these things including the 'Space Vision' thingy had we not gone to war in Iraq.

That's just it, we have all sorts of increases that happened, but you choose to focus on Iraq because you find it the most objectionable. One could just as easily say we could afford the 'Space Vision' if we stopped building roads in Afghanistan, subsidizing farmers, paying people not to work, fighting AIDS in Africa or any number of other things. The NASA budget is just over half of one percent of the total federal budget and the "Space Vision" doesn't propose increasing that by a tremendous amount percentage-wise. The Iraq war is expensive, war is expensive, but it doesn't automatically break down to Iraq=no space vision money.

ANTIcarrot. · 2004-09-18 09:11:11

The meterial problems are going to be solved by someone. The promise of a material 100x - 1000x stronger than steel is simply too good to pass up. Such materials are going to be wanted/needed for the next generation of missiles and fighter jets, not to mention the successor to the A380 and the 7E7. It would probably be the basis for very good body armour and light weight cannon barrels.

The good news is that this means the material will be developed by someone. The bad news is that it may end up as a classified or strategic technology.

Given the current technical and scientific enthusiasium for the project, that may be one of the main problems it has to face.

ANTIcarrot.

deagleninja · 2004-09-18 11:05:51

Well yes, I won't lie, I find this war in Iraq to be the sadest joke ever played on the American public. Bush should be hanged for sending 1,000 Americans and 20,000 civilians to their deaths needlessly. There is no connection between Iraq and 9/11. The public is too stupid or just plain apathetic to care. Re-elect Bush and I promise you this will be another Vietnam.

Can we afford an extra billion on top of the trillion we have already spent on this war? Yes, but tell it to the politicians who are going to vote down the 'space vision'.

Palomar · 2004-09-18 11:22:58

Austin Stanley: As for the terrorist issue. Not building something because you are afraid the terrorist will blow it up has to be some of the stupidest reasoning I have every heard. Lets not build any more tall-buildings, they are only targets! Lets not have any more children, bad people may kill them! Lets not earn and more money/buy stuff, thives will only take it. If you think like this, the "terrorist have already won." (God I had always hopped I would never have to say that).

*Spare me the theatricality.

I think everyone who has mentioned the possibility of a space elevator being a terrorist target has more brains than you're giving credit for. Sorry you apparently feel the need to talk down to us as if we're children.

Unless, of course, you believe a space elevator could never, ever be even remotely considered a target?

We're simply discussing possibilities.

No one here, based on my reading, is suggesting that we not do this and not do that "because of."

--Cindy

Grypd · 2004-09-18 12:05:29

The space elevator will be one of the wonders of the 21st century when built it will revolutionise the access to space. But it wont be built or even started until we have got the materials to make it and at the moment we have yet to engineer the required substances though we have a fair idea of the direction to go to do it.

Collision with the Space elevator if by accident or by hostile purpose will be a great threat for the surrounding area so the elevator will have defences to protect it. A fairly decent security control at the base will ensure no devices can be put on the elevator cars and the actual cable will have the equivalent of super powered shotguns to destroy anything that gets too close. But should we not build it of course not, the country that operates a space elevator will control space and that is too important for a minor possibility of hostile action to stop it.

Austin Stanley · 2004-09-18 15:45:54

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.

I'm sorry if I came across a little bit rude, but my comments were in direct response to comments like this one. Which was EXACTLY the attitude I was talking about.

I'm all for taking terrorist considerations into acount, but they are no reason hold back a project. And I would also say that the potential for terroist launching a succesfull attack on a facility isolated out in one of the most deserted parts of the ocean, where all cargo to and from would be searched carefully, and security is omni-present, is pretty far-fetched.

---------

Back to the material side of things, we still have a ways to go, and it is not certian that we will get there. Most of the elevator proposolas I have seen call for wires with tensile strengths in the 120kPa range, while most of the studies conducted on nano-tubes so far are about half of that 60kPa. Quite aways from the 300kPa. And the problems of manaufacturing such tubes on such a large scale haven't even begun to be tackled.

On the plus side, most of the research being carried out on carbon nano-tubes is being done by chemical companies and universities, so the technology is fairly certian to be open to the public. Heck, outside of some radar absorbant coatings, most military materials technology is open to the public. Even the fabled chobam armor is no real secret. The exact make-up of the armor is, but there is nothing realy special about that ceramic composite armor that prevents someone else from making something like it, just the cost to develope it. And since the private need for such armors is rather minimal, no-one else has bothered to do it.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-18 19:08:23

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

That is why I put the next set of lines, as a means to proceed with developement as soon as materials could and to provide the safety margin do to construction size but to remove all possibility of such acts.....

Euler · 2004-09-19 03:06:18

Most of the elevator proposolas I have seen call for wires with tensile strengths in the 120kPa range, while most of the studies conducted on nano-tubes so far are about half of that 60kPa.

I think that the current record for a carbon nanotube is 63kPa. However, you have to remember the you need a carbon nanotube rope with a tensile strength of 120 kPa, and ropes of nanotubes are much weaker than individual nanotubes.

The cost estimates are also extremely optimistic. even if we has the materials, it would cost much more than that to build the elevator.

Grypd · 2004-09-19 05:33:39

The costs of making a space elevator will be in the tens of Billions but it all depends on the materials that will make the thread of the space elevator. It will be done but not for many many years it was said that the first space elevator will be possible in about 2050 and not really before. This is of course unless someone creates something really really good before then.

Shaun Barrett · 2004-09-19 07:59:02

Grypd:-

... it was said that the first space elevator will be possible in about 2050 and not really before.

It was said that heavier-than-air machines would never fly.
It was said, by the Commissioner of the U.S. Patents Office in 1899, that "Everything that can be invented has been invented".
It was said, by the British Astronomer Royal, Richard Wooley in 1956, that "Space travel is utter bilge".

I don't see why it should be extraordinarily difficult to create a braid of continuous carbon nanotubes, with an arbitrary number of tubes to suit the purpose, and which will closely approach the maximum theoretical strength of such a material.
I admit we can't do it today. However, there's no new physics involved in this; it's just another chemical engineering problem. And humans are great problem-solvers .. it's what we do .. it's our job!

A little more optimism here, gentlemen, please!!

Grypd · 2004-09-19 09:21:55

SNIPET: It will be done but not for many many years it was said that the first space elevator will be possible in about 2050 and not really before. This is of course unless someone creates something really really good before then.

If you read my statement I was simply noting that we have people who try to professionaly see what will be possible in the future, They do this to see what a company should invest in to take advantage of this new and improved technologies. It was from them that I got that quote as they believe material science and the other necessary techniques will be improved enough by then to create the really strong material that is needed. You see it is not just Material science that is needed it is also the ability to make that material in long enough lengths and how we can deploy it. But like everything and these professional fortune tellers will tell you it just takes one genius to change everything by there inspirational thought. And the likelihood is that when this is discovered it will be by someone thinking and working on something totally different and just stumbles onto it.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-20 05:44:28

Well here is the view of spacereview on the issue Elevators and exploration Does a space elevator fit into the Vision for Space Exploration?

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/229/1

Shaun Barrett · 2004-09-20 07:38:43

Thanks, SpaceNut.
Despite my support for the space elevator over some time, it still seems surreal to me to see it discussed like that. It's like the future has arrived early!
I love it!

Hi Grypd!
If I've caused any offense, I apologise. I was composing that post in a cheerful and positive frame of mind, simply pointing out that technology can move fast enough to be embarrassing to 'the experts' sometimes.
It's just that I'm in a hurry (I'm 49 years old) and take great delight in reminding myself, as much as anyone else, that the rate of progress is accelerating.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2004-09-17 15:00:32

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

#27 2004-09-17 15:03:34

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

#28 2004-09-17 15:06:01

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

#29 2004-09-17 15:10:30

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

#30 2004-09-17 15:14:03

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

#31 2004-09-17 22:08:59

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

#32 2004-09-18 01:23:06

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

#33 2004-09-18 06:50:21

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

#34 2004-09-18 06:54:28

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

#35 2004-09-18 07:01:33

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

#36 2004-09-18 07:08:19

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

#37 2004-09-18 07:22:55

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

#38 2004-09-18 07:36:51

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

#39 2004-09-18 09:11:11

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

#40 2004-09-18 11:05:51

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

#41 2004-09-18 11:22:58

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

#42 2004-09-18 12:05:29

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

#43 2004-09-18 15:45:54

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

#44 2004-09-18 19:08:23

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

#45 2004-09-19 03:06:18

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

#46 2004-09-19 05:33:39

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

#47 2004-09-19 07:59:02

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

#48 2004-09-19 09:21:55

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

#49 2004-09-20 05:44:28

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

#50 2004-09-20 07:38:43

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

Board footer