Hurray! It Didn't Disintergrate!

[Slammer2]

That's a good question, and definitely worth looking into. Did the article discuss any of the materials engineering obstacles they are coping with?

Some of the interesting parts:

"...It now costs about $20,000 per kilogram to put objects into orbit...study recently performed for NASA, which concluded that a single space elevator could reduce the cost of orbiting payloads to a remarkably low $200 a kilogram and that multiple elevators could ultimatel push costs down below $10 a kilogram..."

"...It would cost about $6 billion in today's dollars just to complete the structure itself. Costs associated with legal, regulatory, and political aspects could easily add another $4 billion, but these expenses are much harder to estimate. Building such an enormous structure would probably require treaty-level negotiations with the international community, for example. A $10 billion price tag, however, isn't really extraordinary in teh economics of space exploration. NASA's budget is about $15 billion a year, and a single shuttle launch costs about half a billion dollars. The construction schedule could conceivably be as short as 10 years, but 15 years is a more realistic estimate when technology development, budget cycles, competitive selection, and other factors are accounted for."

"The biggest challenges to building an elevator are finding a strong enough cable material and then designing and constructing the cable...In 1991, Japanese researcher Sumio Iijima discovered carbon nanotubes. These are long, narrow, cylindrical molecules; the cylinder walls are made of carbon atoms, and the tube is about 1 nanometer in diameter. In theory, at least, carbon-nanotube-based materials have the potential to be 100 times as strong as steel, at one-sixth the density. This strength is three times as great as what is needed for the space elevator. the most recent experiments have produced 4-centimeter-long pieces of carbon nanotube materials that have 70 times the strength of steel. Outside the lab, bulk carbon-nanotube composite fibers have already been made in kilometer-long lengths, but these composite fibers do not yet have the strength needed for a space elevator cable."

Theres some more discussion about the cable material and construction. Its not a bad issue, it has some avaition related things. Has some stuff on Europe joining Russia to build the next space shuttle, Battle stats of Airbus A380 versus Boeing 787 Dreamliner, some stuff about networked space communications between satelites, of course the whole space elevator thing. Some other non-avaition stuff too that we talk about on here like Chinese technology etc.

If anyones interested in more about the cables I can try to type out more later on :icon_smil

 

[Slammer2]

The Shuttle Commander is normally a pilot. How is a pilot giving controls to a pilot a bad thing?

No clue but they ran with that story

 

[highlyrandom]

"For instance, that it could be much better used somewhere else that would be more directly beneficial to America/mankind?"

1. If you subscribe to the thinking that the best means of population control is wealth (look up the numbers), then someone is going to have to get off this rock to allow it. Even if no one ever builds space colonies or whatnot, eventually space solar power is the only way to get the energy density for a world of around 7 billion people to live at a comfortable 2nd-world level (i.e. few famines, adequate medication, medium families). If this isn't a goal you support, consider the alternatives: China expanding its borders and forcing us to go the way of the dodo, or perhaps a global super-government forcing rationing and dumping the space program in favor of the grand social welfare programs of 2050.

2. Granted, the Shuttle isn't all that useful for good planetkeeping (see above). But to suggest that the space program isn't worth the money...we can hit a comet, on time, on target, and would you really want to sit around on our asses if there was a slight chance of pushing one off course? It's not Hollywood science, it's one of two missions we have to be able to do this century. The other is making sure that the end of Earth isn't the end of humanity. You religious types would disagree and say we should let it happen (i.e. asteroid hit), but we won't find out until God either blows up a space colony for its survivalist arrogance or lets a few of us live, Noah's Ark style.

I'm not a wacko, I just don't feel comfortable without a space program.

 

[gregsivers]

I'd be willing to give up Velcro and Tang if it would help relieve a famine somewhere, but that's hindsight.

I'm with Fly on this one. I don't really think thats a good argument, but hey thats just me. The fact that we were/are able to do what we've done is amazing. There have been all sorts of developments from space exploration, including aviation.

 

[Slammer2]

I'm with Fly on this one. I don't really think thats a good argument, but hey thats just me. The fact that we were/are able to do what we've done is amazing. There have been all sorts of developments from space exploration, including aviation.

I've read about how a lot of the technology in the medical field has come from the space technologies. Especially all the scanning equipment. Those have saved countless numbers of lives.

 

[gregsivers]

Didn't we discuss/debate/beat into the ground the concept of space elevators in another thread somewhere? I remember a pretty defined split between those who thought it was possible and those who felt the former group was smoking crack.

I seem to remember that too.

 

[highlyrandom]

Here's another way of looking at it:
If there's a loss of cabin pressure, the fit and capable people put on their own oxygen masks first, and then help the helpless. You do what you can (I'm talking about famines here, not self-sacrifice in wartime) without losing your ability to continue helping.

How's this relevant? 1970s space technology could get us cheap orbital power (albeit for a huge cost, but look at the New World), get Greenpeace off our backs, and find ways to grow huge amounts of food in small areas. The space part isn't as important; Earth orbit is as far we need to go regularly...but it's the scientists working with those technologies that can "teach a man to fish" as the proverb goes. If we lose that capability in favor of doling out only social welfare and food, we can't guarantee that anyone else will care enough to teach the world to grow food properly. Check the average rice yield/acre in twelfth century Japan, and the same figure for India in 2005...I won't give it away, but most of the famines these days are practically planned.

 

[highlyrandom]

Sorry about the weird religious tie-in, but it actually makes a difference

See, to support the above view, you only need to believe in the future of humanity...which is not, as some strict religious views would have, on the level of believing in the divinity of man. On the contrary, the Jewish rabbi, the Christian evangelist, the Muslim jihadist, the Buddhist mystic, etc. need only believe that the children of God who will see the end of the world have not yet been born...and if you aren't religious, you need only believe that your children's children still have a very good reason to exist.

Here I go bringing it back to the space shuttle discussion. This may sound shocking, but unless you subscribe to one of these basic ideas, what the hell are you doing flying airplanes for the Navy? A world that deserves to end shouldn't be prolonged needlessly by a few fearless souls and their flying machines...but of course I don't believe that, and that's part of the underlying patriotism, with all its outrageous claims about making the world a better place.
Think about it.

Sorry, just had a leeetle too much fire and brimstone talk on the radio, switching between NPR and the nearest country station. End novel.

 

[highlyrandom]

And back on topic: I can see it now...
EC-Eileen Collins
JK-James Kelly (pilot)

EC: "Er, you have the controls for a sec."

JK: "I have the controls?"

EC: "You have the BLECHHHHHH(splat)...[heeeave]"

JK: "I guess I have the controls."



Commander Collins, if you're reading this, I'm kidding.

 

[Brett327]

This month in the IEEE magazine there is this huge section on space elevators. Some of those drawings look pretty sweet, but I wonder if its something we'd ever do.

You mean we didn't sufficiently ridicule that idea the other month? And before all you CAPT Kirks out there start writing prodigious tomes about how cool it is and what not, remember these words - not in our lifetimes.

Brett

 

[zuggerat]

sorry i missed all the fun boys.. i just got back from a hot date... what'd i miss?

 

[zippy]

We've got our priorities screwed up. NASA is under budget, and we owe alot to them...for now the government needs a space agenda with concrete goals like Kennedy once gave us. The last two Bushes said big things about exploring the solar system, but nothing materialized from their words.

Well, G.W. Bush spent his first term dealing with a lot of other issues and only just recently announced his big goals (which, he was slammed for in the media as being unrealistic). As for the underfunding of NASA, the cancelled shuttle replacement and nothing materializing from the words of G.H.W. Bush- It would seem that 8 years of the Clinton administration was a large contributer to those things.

 

[zuggerat]

Well, G.W. Bush spent his first term dealing with a lot of other issues and only just recently announced his big goals (which, he was slammed for in the media as being unrealistic). As for the underfunding of NASA, the cancelled shuttle replacement and nothing materializing from the words of G.H.W. Bush- It would seem that 8 years of the Clinton administration was a large contributer to those things.

yeah i second that, nothing materialized under GHWBush because no one in the continental United States trusted him and he was "creepy" in eyes of the American public; no senator or congressional rep is gonna stake his reelection bid on some Los Alamos wackjob's new idea for strapping humans to solid rocket boosters. You'd like to think that your representations will stick their necks out for you when its needed but its never far enough as to put themselves under the guilletine. Yeh W dealt with a lot of stuff his first term, but he really dug himself in with a few choice events in history which im going to leave to the air warriors imagination. Result -> enormous national deficit that we're going to spend the next 35-40 years recovering from, probably not even fully regain from because of assorted projects and whatnot in the next few presidencies. Its just very very poor timing for NASA because now a days theyre a periphery agency. theyve always been on everyones back burner since the Nixon administration. To me its really a shame because when i talk to my grandparents they really had a lot of pride in the program (worked for grumman and helped with the module), now people couldnt give a rats ass... maybe if NASA found them cheap gas on the moon maybe they'd care but prob not... anyways my rant has concluded... flaming is welcome... just not of the rainbow variety... haaaaaaaaaaa haaa :icon_tong

 

[McNamara]

It should be clear that my sarcastic Velcro and Tang comment points out why we may never get anything accomplished with the space program in the future. The problem is the attitude of the public and politicians, who don't realize how much we need the space program. If we don't get off our asses and do something useful with NASA (beginning with upping their budget) we might as well give the money away.

In my opinion we need, at a minimum, two things with regards to space exploration in the short term: to develop an efficient and capable shuttle replacement (the SSTO with a linear aerospike engine would have been nice), and to begin a renaissance in manned exploration of the solar system. The first point is for near-term practicality, and the second because we need to jump-start enthusiasm for space travel. Get some momentum going, and soon the effort will become self-sustaining, with obvious incentives for companies to work on new technologies. The incentive will practically disappear at the rate we're going.

All or nothing. Put in the money AND come up with ambitious goals for the space program to thrive again, or else give up. Right now we're wallowing somewhere in-between those extremes and it's not smart. More on the space elevator next.

 

[McNamara]

You mean we didn't sufficiently ridicule that idea the other month? And before all you CAPT Kirks out there start writing prodigious tomes about how cool it is and what not, remember these words - not in our lifetimes.

Brett

Yes, I read that thread and noticed that you guys did ridicule it. Obviously no one who jumped on the "That's stupid and it won't work" bandwagon never even bothered to research the concept. You're probably right that it won't happen in our lifetimes, but for a different reason.

Here's a quickie explanation: the elevator "cable" (constructed possibly of carbon nanotubes) goes PAST geostationary orbit. BTW, it would have to be geostationary (over the equator) and not just geosynchronous. The weight of the cable is balanced by centrifugal force, as the end of the cable is moving faster than the orbital speed at its altitude. Whatever you want to put up there would leave the elevator partway up the cable at the altitude corresponding to geo orbit, and from that point I imagine it would use its own thrusters to change orbit as necessary. I'm no expert but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night (actually I do know a thing or two about astrodynamics).

So the reason it probably won't happen in our lifetimes is not the physics, which has already been thought out, but because we won't bother to fund it. Just like the proposed manned mission to Mars, the shuttle replacement, and a slew of other projects in limbo, it won't even happen until decades after the technology and need for it is real.