Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: mikhael on February 28, 2004, 12:30:38 am
-
No, not the one with Jack. I'm talking Space Elevators (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/space/spaceelevator.html). Slashdot just linked up some interesting stuff, including this interesting piece (http://www.isr.us/Downloads/niac_pdf/chapter12.html) which talks about economic benefits to putting one of these beasties up.
-
I have, as yet, to see a design for an SE that doesn't look like a circa 1915 lift from the Ritz.
For something like this to be truly useful it needs have facilites built around it. Preferably, as a tower, as tall as we can build it. Because, eventually, it will become a center for commerce between those that live in space(stations, Colonies, Luna, ect) and those that remain on Earth. And eventually, as more are built they should be built close enough together that they can eventually be totally enclosed.
The primary benefit of totally enclosing such a device will be protection from unexpected events that might damage or destroy it.
-
This article suggested basing it off a platform out in the ocean. I don't think that's such a great idea. It'd just be too damned inconvenient to use. Sure, the cost savings would take care of that, but couldn't we put it some where attached to a continent? :D
That said, how are you going to enclose a beanstalk whose length is fully 1/4th the distance from the earth to the moon? You would negate the benefits.
I say we build a cluster of 'stalks, like you suggested. That way you could dedicate a 'stalk to a fast people mover, and a couple of stalks to bulk load lifting and the like.
-
Well, i read the ocean thing as being to make it partially mobile rather than save costs..... i.e. moving the SE to avoid collissions with stuff like satellites)
-
Plus it could draw power from the waves :nod:
Best have wiped out global terrorism by the time it's built, mind, or it'll be target no. 1 for plane hijackers the world over
-
If you manage to hit something so thin with an airplane, well then you deserve to. I think that the whole terrorism issue is a more or less moot one. Something so vitally important, you'de have unprecedentd protection around it.
As for building it at sea, well I have to say I just don't see the benefits. Having it on land, you would be able to do everything they says they could do at sea. They could move it around, the could defend it and so forth.
However, my one biggest beef is that I get the impression that the scientists want to make this a force for US domination of space. Seriously, humanity can and will gain so much more through cooperation than through competition. I don't want to see any power; country, corporation, person, control such a thing. A project of this magnitude and more importantly, of this nature, should be an international venture.
Every country who pitches in money to build it should get equal access to it, and all those that didn't should be able to get equal access simply by paying a fee per kilogram to use it.
*If* such a device were to be built, coupled with the US's (governement) desire to control space...well that would be a very unsettling concept. Many people are rolling their eyes about now and thinking how its more anti-Americanism comming from the same old source. But I think its stupid to let *any* one power have control over such thing. It would make the powerful even more powerful, while ensuring that everyone else can kiss any equality they had up to that point goodbye. The goal of humanity should not be to squabble and fight amongst itself, but rather to cooperate and pursue policy that will benefit everyone.
Gotta say, its a very cool concept :):)
-
i didn;t click any links, but i saw something sounding pretty much like your comments in Dutch science mags. the main point for building at sea seems to be that if thet thing comes down, it lands out of the way of the populace.
-
But, competition leads to faster advances. I mean, don't you work harder on stuff if you have competition?
-
Well, there is a certain point past which you can't work, no matter the incentive. I mean, you can only do so much, achieve so much, innovate so much and then you can't do it any faster or better because you're only human.
However, if you had the entire scientific community cooperating on a spefiic project, you would have access to only to more raw material (equipment, people, man hours etc) but also to more and more diverse viewpoints. A breakthrough or a refinement of existing technology would be more likely to occur if you had more minds working on it.
If you were to have individual teams working in, for example, China, the US, Japan and Germany, each o those teams would have to face the same hurdles to get to the final objective. So time would be wasted by solving problems redundantly (in this case, 3 times more than was necesarry). But if all those people were working together, you would only need to solve the problem once and then everyone could just go ahead with other work.
I think what you're suggesting is that competition is an incentive to work harder, smarter, better. But from the article it seems that these guys are doing it for the sheer science of it. I mean, if you need an incentive for scientists to work more or better, just pay them. Most scientists love their science and actually have to go to great pains to secure funding instead of the other way around.
This goes for pretty much all human acievement or innovation.
-
Umm, the USA at least, and China, can have teams of hundreds or even thousands working toward a goal, because we've got the manpower.
If the money is over-flowing, scientists seem, to me at least, to start to think that they are over-important, and lose some of their ethics. Ethics are the most important thing a scientist can have, after an idea and the drive to pursue it.
-
You're forgetting henchmen. Particularly hunchbacked henchmen, or ones who couldn't shoot and hit the ground given ten tries.
-
Well, if you consider ethics to be the most important thing a scientist can have, those ethics would most likely oppoise granting one nation dominion over space.
And as for the teams, I never intended to mean actual numbers. If the US has 500 people working on it, and China has another 400, the 900 together will achieve more than either team would, in less time, with less money and with better results. That was the point I was trying to make.Sort of like the International Space Station, an invention such as a Space Elevator should be one where all mankind can reap the rewards.
-
Like what? Only first world nations are in any position to draw any benefit from easier access to space, no matter what.
-
if you don't want us to 'dominate' space, it's not like were going to shoot down any rockets you launch.
-
No, just legislate against them. Just like we do against stuff like nuclear power, supercomputers, and basically all other high technology.
-
we have made laws forbiding other nations from going into space?
-
Why is dominate in quotes? Its not the voice of my imaginary friend telling me its time to put on the aluminum foil hats. The Pentagon has openly declared they want supremacy over space. The ultimate high ground I think they called it.
I mean, like Stryke said, if the development of current technology is being discouraged by the US government, is it a stretch to imagine that priniciple being applied with equal or greater force to space?
As for wqho could profit, well I think its only a matter of time before you start having mining being done in space and so forth. Thats a huge profit right there. Access to new resources and environment conducive to the research of new technologies is a huge asset, one which should be shared amongst humanity.
Not to mention the obvious military applications such as surveilance sattelites, space based weaponry, missle defense, anti-sat. weaponry, communication and all that. Whoever controls the elevator more or less controls space. Whoever controls space will, now and especially in the future with the evolution of warfare, have a major advantage over...everyone.
-
japan, Russa and the EU all have there own space programs, if it's so important any one of them could increase funding for there own space program.
I find I do my best work when I'm in competition with someone.
-
The current American manned space program isn't in very good shape. The last real innovative push was probably the Apollo program, or maybe the early part of the shuttle program. The successor to the shuttle was cancelled, and the shuttles themselves are grounded at the moment.
We really need competition. At least then we can push the "national pride" angle. So right now, I'm cheering on the Chinese space program. If they can reach the moon, maybe NASA will actually do something with the manned space program.
-
:nod:
-
Stryke is correct, in this matter, the US Government actively opposes certain technologies because certain groups in this country fear what could happen should such things as cheap electricity from nuclear power or a multitude of other tech that should be mainstream become available to the general public.
Certain parties don't want cloning or genetic research to proceed because they consider it to be playing God. This is of course laughable, God created from nothing, we are simply reproducing or slightly altering His work.
-
Rictor: How does moon mining benefit people who can't afford a multibillion dollar miner? What good is fancy new space-age technology to people who don't have electricity? These things are not common to an incredible majority of the planet's population, and things aren't going to change. I mean, are you really imagining a Cambodian space program here or something?
**** surveillance sattelites, with a basic conception of rocketry and the ability to send a few tons of cheap material up the very poorest of countries would have access to a crude MDW that could be far more effective than nukes. Pissed off at your neighbor? Just drop a manmade "meteor" on their capitol city.
Naturally, such is impractical and ludicrous, but it's almost precisely the pretext the US would probably put sanctions on any countries developing new space programs and restrict use of an elevator.
-
Wait, this isn't just a secret project in Alpha Centauri? That's exciting, really. I can't wait for mankind to reach its hands further up and out of our cradle. :)
-
Originally posted by Rictor
If you manage to hit something so thin with an airplane, well then you deserve to.
The target is always at least the size of the projectile. if the plane is 40 feet across, then it can be off by 20 feet to the left or right and still hit it.
-
What's wrong with building half a space elevator? Then you'd only have to make really strong cable one eighth of the way to the moon. You could have like, a floating platform or something... oh wait, we don't have antigravity, do we.
-
I'm neither a scientist nor an economist, so don't start asking me about the benefits to third world countries. Personally, I'm satisfied with taking an educated guess that there would be some. And unless you are one of the above, don't start pretending you know either.
I'm talking about the nature of such an endeavor. I don't know about you, but in the better, brighter future that I wish for, you've got countries trying to get away from nationalistic chest-beating and you've got humanity working internationally to advance our race.
I don't know about you, but I don't want to spend th rest of my days living in a Cold War environment that has become the normalcy. China, Japan, the EU, the US, Russia and possibly the likes of India and Pakistan, in constant competition and constantly trying to sabotage each other's effort at, well, everything. Thats like cars at a racetrack trying to win the race by bumping the others into a ditch. You end up with one winner, but everyone else is worse off.
Why does there have to be a race? Why does one country, your country, have to be THE BEST. Who cares. Why do you want to be able to look down on everyone else 'cause they don't have a space prgram or running water or 120 TV channels. How about, instead of spending $500 billion yearly on tanks and guns, the US used that money to feed, clothe and educate every person who needed it. If you did that, do you think you'de have *anyone* wanting to attack you, kill your citizens, destroy your buildings and so forth. Hell no. Same goes for China, for Russia and many others. Feed your people, give them healthcare, let them live life without having to work 15 hours days in order to get a moldy piece of bread so their kids don't starve. Buy a gun and you can keep one terrorist from blowing himself up. Buy a loaf of bread for 1/1000th of the price, and you get the same effect.
How long do you think humanity can keep this up, this struggle for supremeacy over everyone else? 50 years? A hundred? And then what? Let the age of the Empire pass, its a thing of the past. You've got one world. Thats really as simple as it gets. One world, and one people. You think that some poor ****er in Somalia doesn't have the same hopes and dreams as a soccer mom in California? A line on a piece of paper dividing the world means nothing. Its an illusion, designed to keep humanity fighting amonst itself so that a handful of people can wield ultimate power. This military, economic, political, cultural competition is not sustainable. Sooner or latter, its going to end in disaster.
****, that sounds very idealistic, but if you never strive for better then you have right now, you're never going to get any better. Strive for the best and though you will not reach perfection, you will progress. And no, I'm not a hippy :D:D
-
Originally posted by icespeed
What's wrong with building half a space elevator? Then you'd only have to make really strong cable one eighth of the way to the moon. You could have like, a floating platform or something... oh wait, we don't have antigravity, do we.
Got zeppelins, though ;)
-
Wow, Rictor, way to completely ignore everything we have ever learned about politics and human nature in the past ten thousand years. Good luck with that, y'know. I think I'll stick to predictions of the future that don't involve people suddenly ceasing to act exactly the way they have for millennia for no apparent reason and working together like some Disneyized hivemind.
-
:blah: :blah:
I hate you. You must see that.
Seriously though, no I am not expecting any significant change to come about overnight or without an enermous effort. I'm not saying that tommorow Rupert Murdoch will wake up and look out at the sun rising and give all his money away.
But saying that change in humans is impossible is a defeatist attitude. I mean, I find it hard to believe that you think that. Change has happened before, it is now happenening and I percieve that the pace will keep up if not quicken in the future. You can be both a cynic and an idealist. My previous post laid out what I would like to happen, and what will probably at some point happen.
Its purely a matter of opinon, but I believe that now and in the near future, humanity society will undergo a change like never before.
But, you know, think what you like. I'de much rather have a world of cynics than a world a sheep.
-
[color=cc9900]Oh, the world will most certainly be unified. What I'm worried about is that I'll have to adopt an American accent.[/color]
-
Terribly emotional, aren't we.
Change is possible, certainly. But change in the fifty years you're talking about... no. At absolute "best", in fifty years we'll be seeing a wide-scale collapse of society which might lead to something nice after a couple centuries of Dark Ages. Or may follow a cyclical pattern and deposit humanity right back where it is now. More likely, things will be more or less business as usual in fifty, a hundred years (at about two hundred, things get hairy, and the survivability of the race as a whole is open to conjecture). And while it would technically be possible for humanity to unify, given a lot of time and some very specific circumstances, people won't, simply because there's no immediate need to on the part of those who are benefitting from the current order of things, who just so happen to be the ones who'd be key in starting a change in affairs. It's a fundamental trait of people to grab what they can, altruism doesn't come very naturally to us except in extreme situations and it's often percieved as freakish in the modern day.
A similar unification to the one you're going on about was attempted very recently, and was a catastrophic flop. Take a long look at the history of Communism, and try to figure out why (hint: it ain't anything to do with the specific Commie ideology, that was so vaguely termed they might as well have replaced the Communist Manifesto with the general idea of equality). It hasn't even been twenty years since that was shown up for the mistake it was in everywhere but Cuba, and already this stuff about how the world's gonna change overnight is cropping up again? Since when has the basic order of things ever changed that much?
And on a fundamental level, there really isn't much "change as it never happened before". People in large numbers, particularly over a broad timescale, act in a few infinitely predictable ways. What signs exactly are you seeing here that would lead you to believe that within the next generation human nature will be suddenly altered entirely?
Odyssey: Nah, it's in the US's best interests to maintain the pretense that it's not an imperial state. Empires get overthrown, after all. ;)
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
It hasn't even been twenty years since that was shown up for the mistake it was in everywhere but Cuba, and already this stuff about how the world's gonna change overnight is cropping up again?
Originally posted by Rictor
Seriously though, no I am not expecting any significant change to come about overnight or without an enermous effort.
...yep.
Originally posted by Stryke 9
And on a fundamental level, there really isn't much "change as it never happened before". People in large numbers, particularly over a broad timescale, act in a few infinitely predictable ways. What signs exactly are you seeing here that would lead you to believe that within the next generation human nature will be suddenly altered entirely?
How about this. In prosperous, peaceful countries, prosperous, peaceful people are looking at the world as not liking what they see. Throughout history, if the population of Nation A was generally well off and not being opporessed, you could depend on them to go with the status quo. So, essentially, people cared little for others so long as they themselves were fed and clothed.
But now, where are you getting the most organized, most devoted, the most effective resistance to oppression, poverty, imperialism, exploitation and militarism? In the First World. North America and Europe. So, these hippy kids with their hemp and their picket lines, they're well off, and yet they're not content. They wan't everyone to be well off. I mean, count the number of activist groups currently operating in the US. Or the number of authors, directors, musicians, columnists etc, all pushing for social change.
Thats just one example. I mean, it seems like a pretty big shift to me. Just look at the anti-globalization movement. You can just chart the rise of globalization and and rise of the anti-globalization movement. The more you get, the bigger the outcry becomes. Over the past ten years, its become "the agenda" for a ton of people.
Originally posted by Stryke 9
Odyssey: Nah, it's in the US's best interests to maintain the pretense that it's not an imperial state. Empires get overthrown, after all. ;)
The secrets out dude. Everyone in the world knows.
-
The "hippie kids" you describe are not a new phenomenon. There were millions more of them a few decades ago. And an awful lot of the old flower children wear business suits these days...
And actually, there've been movements for social change in the rich countries throughout recorded history. Quite a few of them were more radical than the current one, and quite a few were more popular. While at the moment Europe does indeed look to be gearing up for something or other, it doesn't look like that and none of this is unprecedented.
There is one new factor that isn't exactly the same as something that happened a few years ago, only less so... telecommunications. Internet, phone lines, mass media, stuff like that. Bigger than ever, stretches over much of the world. Except the really poor places, of course. That might have some impact, it remains to be seen. But the insurmountable human spirit or a bunch of pissed-off college students aren't going to do much- the insurmountable human spirit seems to founder when it comes to actually doing something, and college students are only interested so long as all their friends are protesting, too. I know exactly of what I speak there, and I can tell you definitively that the overwhelming majority of those people speaking out you hope will change the world aren't for ****. Cattle. Mindless. It's disgusting how quick they are to shy away from anything that might actually workto bring about change- in the end, they're as afraid of change as anybody else. As they maybe should be- I mean, they've got an awfully cozy little niche there as the self-righteous weekend warriors, what'd they protest if anything they wanted actually happened?
-
why was this forced into a political thread, can't we just talk about the technical feasability of a space elevator.
how much would it take to string a cable of some sort into a geosycronus altitude, or maybe higher
-
I remember reading something that metallic hydrogen would actually be the best for that purpose, considering the fact that it's extremely strong and light. Pain to make in a lab though.
-
No kidding. Isn't that the **** that forms in the cores of stars and stuff?
I imagine it wouldn't be too terribly hard to build a simple "rope bridge" out of hardened steel cable that just bends with all the massive forces that'd be hitting it. I really doubt their claim that it'd take "all the steel in the world", or even a really globally significant amount of it, looking at the amount of steel that goes into one small city, even. Regular use'd make maintaining the thing slightly less expensive than the chemical rocket avenue we use now. Basically all you'd really need would be a really long ubercable (the sort they use on suspension bridges, only, y'know, bigger and stuff) and a big cart with a motor capable of dragging a couple tons up and down the pipe on a daily basis, nothing fancy or high-tech or expensive beyond the billions range.
The trick would be getting the top end up, of course. Can't just tie one end to a rocket and launch the sucker, though that would be funny. Best way I can think to do it would involve lifting all the hundreds of tons of reinforced steel that'd be involved up in a space shuttle type thing, along with another few tons of geosync sattelite to keep the thing up there and serve as a drydock for launching whatever goes up, and then just snaking the thing down from up there and hoping the guys on the ground can catch it and plant the bottom end before a high wind picks up.
...Yeah. Me, I was always a magnetic catapult kinda guy, anyway. Of course. I mean, it's basically a giant gun, how could I say no to that?
-
I read a book once called "Red Mars" (it's a trilogy) and in it they built the cable from an asteroid the put into orbit around mars.
Seemed pretty reasonable to me...but of course later, some terrorists blow up the cupplings that held the thing in on mars and the asteroid....well I suppose you can see what I'm getting to.
-
Originally posted by Stryke 9
...Yeah. Me, I was always a magnetic catapult kinda guy, anyway. Of course. I mean, it's basically a giant gun, how could I say no to that?
Wasn't the US Army developing something along those lines?
-
Probably. They're into finding all sorts of wacky ways to kill people.
I'm not entirely certain why there aren't any applications for 'em yet, except that they soak up a lot of power...
-
so we need somethng strong enough to be able to hold up to its own weight when its roughly 36,000 kilometers (yes 36 million meters) long for the cable. haveing the upper dock slighting higher than geosynchronous will ensure that some tension is in the line (wouldn't it?), though during early construction it would have to be right on geosynchronous.
so the first thing would be to get a giant satalite space station thingy up directly above the equator somewere, then launch a huge ****ing spool of some imposably strong material and slowly lower it to a ground (or sea) base somewere. suposedly then it would be a relitivly simple proces of sending little robots up and down the thing trailing cable behind them maybe welding them together avery few miles.
I'm thinking magapult would be better, for cargo atleast
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
I read a book once called "Red Mars" (it's a trilogy) and in it they built the cable from an asteroid the put into orbit around mars.
Seemed pretty reasonable to me...but of course later, some terrorists blow up the cupplings that held the thing in on mars and the asteroid....well I suppose you can see what I'm getting to.
Red/Green/Blue Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson? I loved those books. :)
I wonder how hard it would be to control how fast that spool of wire drops down, Bob. Supposing it unspools and accelerates due to gravity, it would inevitably end up burning up if you didn't control its descent and slow it down heaps.
-
You wouldn't have to just drop it, Steak. That's not what "unspool" means.
-
But can they control the rigidity at will? I mean, once you're dropping it down it would take a long while. In that time, you'de almost certainly get winds blowing it every which way. If it was too rigid it could rock the orbital platform. Too flexible and you have the world's largest whip. Or, so is my understanding.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Red/Green/Blue Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson? I loved those books. :)
I wonder how hard it would be to control how fast that spool of wire drops down, Bob. Supposing it unspools and accelerates due to gravity, it would inevitably end up burning up if you didn't control its descent and slow it down heaps.
Those are it. Haven't ever finished the third (blue mars) it was getting boring. Seemed alls they talked about was politics, sex, and the politics was communism.
-
[color=66ff00]Forget about steel or any other common element, they're using carbon nanotubes, the reason is that a ribbon conisting of carbon nanotubes can theoretically take a force of 100 gigapascals steel isn't even remotely capable of dealing with that kind of force.
It's still conjecture though as they can only create nanotubes of a few centimeters long that can take this amount of force. Give it a few decades.
[/color]