Hurray! It Didn't Disintergrate!

[Brett327]

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.

The problem is that the TLC and Discovery Channel people now make these fantasy shows about all these engineering marvels that they have conceptualized for the future. These things are usually somewhere between science fiction, science wishful thinking, and science nerd wet dream. The real problem is that they've got all you Star Trek dorks drinking their Kool-Aid. It's fine to conceptualize a project made out of nifty carbon nano-thingies, but none of this stuff actually exists. Ohh, ohh, but they do exist, Brett! Alright, all you Poindexters. Making something in a petri dish is not the same as building a huge structure that stretches thousands of miles into space. I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade, but let's be realistic for a change.

Good times,

Brett

 

[Blutonski816]

One reason the space program enjoyed such popularity in the 60s was that it was exciting! Now people are simply hoping that no one dies. We need an inspirational mission, even if it's not entirely practical (i.e. human exploration of Mars) to spark interest in the new generation of future scientists and astronauts. Then maybe we can regain the old momentum that we had. Private exploration may have a place in the future, but 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.

I remember when I wanted to be an astrounaut. I wanted to be the first man on Mars. Then I heard that all we're doing is sending a shapce shuttle up to just do experiments and send astronauts to live in the Space station for months at a time.

Back in the 60's you had the astronauts who were all sh!t hot pilots, and the media made heros out of them for that. That was the kind of astronaut I wanted to be, a well-above-the-curve stick jockey who was being asked to fly an otherwise untested machine all in the name of the Good Ole US of A. Those guys were pioneers and pushed the limits of mankind.
Lately, the test pilots turned astronauts play a rather secondary role to the mission, they just got to keep the thing flying while the eggheads do all the fancy work in the back. Not that I don't appreciate what their work has done for the advancement of science, but I agree; space exploration has become as about exciting as working for a pharmaceutical company.
Back then we had a goal, it was tough to get to, it was dangerous, but any other way and it wouldn't be worth doing. Plus we had the USSR as our "arch rival" to keep us on our toes.

We need a JFK-like goal set for America's plans for space exploration... otherwise NASA becomes little more than an overpriced cousin of NOAA....

 

[brownshoe]

Quiet, you. Learn how to spell Maryland, then realize that he is right despite his obvious sarcasm. The gov't bailed out on funding a shuttle replacement (which was to be an advanced Single Stage To Orbit vehicle) and now we're stuck with the Shuttle or old-fashioned space capsules. As the shuttle never met its original goal, perhaps it's time to move on. This is what we get for underfunding NASA.

NASA deserves all the credit we can give them. The bravest, brightest and the best were on that craft, and more of the same are in the space program. I for one applaud the efforts of NASA and every contractor involved in the space program. As pointed out, many new products and ideas have been introduced to the world through the research done for the space program. I’ve perform contracting work at Goddard and found everyone from the gate guard who issued my sticker to the NASA engineer who was the project manager to be bright and dedicated people.

I hate to say this, but many times in the service of our country you’re going to be asked to perform tasks with equipment that is not 100% ready for that task. Even equipment that was 100% may break when you’re in the air and you’ll still have to finish the task, just like the shuttle crew. Ask any of the aviators here on this site, I can absolutely promise they’ll all have a story to tell, just as you might. I’ve even launched aircraft off the pointy end with which neither the pilot nor I were comfortable, but did so to complete a mission. There is probably not a person here on this site that wouldn’t gladly join the crew for the next shuttle launch, even with the problems. If you’ve never read the book or seen the move entitled “The Right Stuff” do so, it’s great. You’ll see quantum leaps in equipment development and information have been made by NASA in a short time.

And what I meant was that George Patton was a man that accomplished a great deal with the resources he had at hand. As for my oversight in spelling while being in hurry I’ll go stand in the corner for an hour. If I’ve offended earlier, I’m sorry that was not my intention I assure you. As you’ve said the government cut funding, however NASA did not cut dedication. If you want to form a lynch mob, count me in, we can do something next election. But let’s not go to NASA, let’s go to Washington.

Regards,
Steve

 

[McNamara]

Good post, Steve. Curt replies like your initial one often draw fire from arrogant bastards like myself because they leave too much open to speculation. It didn't seem like you had thought out your opinion, but apparently you have. I agree that Washington is the problem. One of my old professors was (still is for all I know) a NASA scientist working at Goddard, so I know the level of talent they've got. They just need more of our money.

Brett, surely after my high-school-level explanation you can see that the physics of the space elevator are basic as hell. The problem, as you stated, is with the materials engineering. But as you also stated earlier, what do we have the space program to thank for if not great leaps in materials science? I don't get my info from TV, by the way; I paid attention in class.

Yes, we do need to be realistic. I'll give you that. I think we have different understandings of what is realistic.

 

[Brett327]

Brett, surely after my high-school-level explanation you can see that the physics of the space elevator are basic as hell. The problem, as you stated, is with the materials engineering. But as you also stated earlier, what do we have the space program to thank for if not great leaps in materials science? I don't get my info from TV, by the way; I paid attention in class.

Yes, we do need to be realistic. I'll give you that. I think we have different understandings of what is realistic.

I think you catch my drift. I don't have a problem with the physics, it's the engineering that is lacking and materials are just a small subset of that can of worms. In the interim, I'll stick to velcro and Tang.

Brett

 

[McNamara]

I think you catch my drift. I don't have a problem with the physics, it's the engineering that is lacking and materials are just a small subset of that can of worms. In the interim, I'll stick to velcro and Tang.

Brett

Heh heh, can't go wrong with Tang. And without Velcro, we couldn't easily steal each others' flight suit patches when drunk at the O Club!

Tell ya what - if you can remember this post in forty years we'll check back and see if there's a space elevator yet. My guess is no.

 

[brd2881]

I got two words....Mars b!tches...Mars! Sorry, couldn't resist a little more comic relief.

 

[AllAmerican75]

Speaking as a kid who, from the first moment I learned what an astronaut was, wanted to be one, the space program is in big trouble. First of all, I don't think anyone would disagree that we need to fund them better. Second, whatever happened to the cool, ball-to-the-wall flying. The moon missions were cool as hell. All the old school astronauts were complete badasses, now astronauts just seem to be high tech handymen. The space program needs to get out of this "low orbit scientific research" bullsh!t and back into the game of exploring space. There needs to be something that the American people can rally around and feel pride in. I'm sure you all know the feeling where you just want to stick your middle finger in the air at sissy nations like France and start chanting "USA, all the way!" or something similar.

 

[McNamara]

"Sissy nations" have a good chance of showing us up on future space technology if we don't get it into gear. Like I care about who does what anyway; I'd much rather live in Paris than, say, Pensacola; but I figure that might get some of you jingoists riled up and motivated.

 

[brownshoe]

Good post, Steve. Curt replies like your initial one often draw fire from arrogant bastards like myself because they leave too much open to speculation. It didn't seem like you had thought out your opinion, but apparently you have. I agree that Washington is the problem. One of my old professors was (still is for all I know) a NASA scientist working at Goddard, so I know the level of talent they've got. They just need more of our money.

Brett, surely after my high-school-level explanation you can see that the physics of the space elevator are basic as hell. The problem, as you stated, is with the materials engineering. But as you also stated earlier, what do we have the space program to thank for if not great leaps in materials science? I don't get my info from TV, by the way; I paid attention in class.

Yes, we do need to be realistic. I'll give you that. I think we have different understandings of what is realistic.

Thank you sir, this is very gracious and much appreciated.

Regards,
Steve