[mikhael]

No, not the one with Jack. I'm talking Space Elevators. Slashdot just linked up some interesting stuff, including this interesting piece which talks about economic benefits to putting one of these beasties up.

[Liberator]

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.

[mikhael]

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?

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.

[aldo_14]

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)

[diamondgeezer]

Plus it could draw power from the waves

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

[Rictor]

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

[kasperl]

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.

[Liberator]

But, competition leads to faster advances.  I mean, don't you work harder on stuff if you have competition?

[Rictor]

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.

[Liberator]

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.

[Stryke 9]

You're forgetting henchmen. Particularly hunchbacked henchmen, or ones who couldn't shoot and hit the ground given ten tries.

[Rictor]

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.

[Stryke 9]

Like what? Only first world nations are in any position to draw any benefit from easier access to space, no matter what.

[Bobboau]

if you don't want us to 'dominate' space, it's not like were going to shoot down any rockets you launch.

[Stryke 9]

No, just legislate against them. Just like we do against stuff like nuclear power, supercomputers, and basically all other high technology.

[Bobboau]

we have made laws forbiding other nations from going into space?

[Rictor]

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.

[Bobboau]

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.

[Grey Wolf]

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.

[Bobboau]