NASA, get a fucking clue...

[Coyote]

THe cable space elevator here on Earth would be too hard, as the article pointe dout, but on the Moon it would work.

Although on the Moon, the gravity is so light to begin with, I wonder how much economic incentive there'd be. I think there was a thought to putting a big electromagnetic railgun there to just shoot things into space, hmm?

But a Moon space cable/elevator would be a engineering precursor to the real treat, getting one built for Mars. Each step we take here should lead to a next step further down, hence the Shuttle as a sort of excersize in treading water, IMO.

[tharkûn]

The small portion of NASA's budget being spent on this stuff is not going to hurt anything, and you never know what might come out of it. But let's face it, the space elevator is problematic for a lot of reasons, not least of which is the huge increase in tensile strength required to make the cable hold together and the potential damage in case of breakage.

How strong would the cable have to be to actually work? Is this TPa range or higher?

[Sarevok]

I think the moon rotates too slowly for a space elevator to work there.

[MKSheppard]

Tommy's point was that it can't hurt to try, because we very well might come up with something workable.

We cancelled Saturn V, and had no space launches for ten years, before
coming up with the hideously inefficient Space Shuttle. Can you imagine
how much farther we would be along in Space if we had simply kept on
improving Saturn V?

We would have had thousands of tons of equipment and material in
earth orbit, and a fully functioning space station that makes ISS look like
a tinker toy.

Instead, we dumped it all to work on a half ass idea "reusable" spaceplanes,
which suck and have been lost twice.

[Tommy J]

Waiting for some super uber technology to fix all
of the problems inherent in space travel is a
sure way to ensure we're all stuck on this rock
forever.

Tommy's point was that it can't hurt to try, because we very well might come up with something workable.

Thank you. But additionally it was that historically many break through technologies have resulted from fringe scientific research.

Mind you -- yes it's stupid to spend the lionshare of your Space Budget on fringe science, but as Mike pointed some spending is warranted.

And by the way people like you who could not find ANY practical applications for the Super conducting Super Collider killed the program.

[MKSheppard]

And by the way people like you who could not find ANY practical applications for the Super conducting Super Collider killed the program.

Two billion dollars simply to tunnel out 14~ miles of tunnels under Texas
with 40 more miles to go before completion? Colossal waste. That money
could have been spent on NASA instead to get a moon base running by
2005, which was a goal of the first President Bush.

[MKSheppard]

THAT is the key to getting us off this rock, 1.5 million pounds of thrust, and
the plans are in the national archives, waiting to be dusted off and reused,
instead of wasting pursuing pie in the sky projects like the Space Elevator.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Its still not cost-effective, Shep. We need stuff like the Space Elevator if we're going to really move on. Though I agree; even the Space Elevator plans, it workable, require heavy lift and here we are designing utter shite like Magnum (which nicely requires dumb fly-back boosters that of course will be tested on STS to keep the vegetable program hooked up to the Congressional ventalator of funding).

[Illuminatus Primus]

And by the way people like you who could not find ANY practical applications for the Super conducting Super Collider killed the program.

Two billion dollars simply to tunnel out 14~ miles of tunnels under Texas
with 40 more miles to go before completion? Colossal waste. That money
could have been spent on NASA instead to get a moon base running by
2005, which was a goal of the first President Bush.

I see we miss the point: he's discussing practical application. What practical application would we have gotten out of a Moon base costing over ten times the SSC? And hate to break it to you, but we do develop application out of physics' research.

Meet the Manhattan Engineering District, cellular telephones, etc.

[SirNitram]

THAT is the key to getting us off this rock, 1.5 million pounds of thrust, and
the plans are in the national archives, waiting to be dusted off and reused,
instead of wasting pursuing pie in the sky projects like the Space Elevator.

Then go get some footwork going to revive it. The way you yap on, maybe you should do something.

If the Elevator can be done, it will outstrip the Saturn V like the Saturn V outstrips a V2. And that's just the stupid little robots climbing up and down a wire. If you can get real elevator physics going(That is, hauling equal amounts up and down), the energy cost will plummet. The only question is whether the carbon fibre to do it exists now.. And I see no reason not to toss some pennies at that.

[SirNitram]

Its still not cost-effective, Shep. We need stuff like the Space Elevator if we're going to really move on. Though I agree; even the Space Elevator plans, it workable, require heavy lift and here we are designing utter shite like Magnum (which nicely requires dumb fly-back boosters that of course will be tested on STS to keep the vegetable program hooked up to the Congressional ventalator of funding).

The upside is it only needs heavy lift once if done right.. Because in theory you can haul the second elevator's stuff up the first.. Et cetera.

Of course, who wants to bet it won't be done right the first few times?

[BenRG]

Although I personally like the idea of multiple space elevators (and a geostationary 'ring' station around the world), they are long-term projects. NASA really needs to get out of its current rut.

My advice (which I cheerfully expect to be ignored). Dust off the archives, build a Saturn-5 using modern technology and use it to launch a semi-expendible crew vehicle like the European 'Hermes', which was supposed to be launched on the Arianne-5 before the project was canned. Although it would be nice for Apollo to fly again, we can't really make do with a three- or four-seat expendible capsule for future deep space and Earth-orbit-assembly projects.

The next big step will be a single-stage-to-orbit space plane. A proper one, too, capable of powered flight both in atmosphere and space. This will probably be developed as an intercontinental ballistic spaceliner. However, a few modifications (and weight reductions) could take it all the way to LEO.

The Space Elevator has to wait until you have the facilities to synthesise several thousand miles of fullerine (C-60) cable and have developed an AI effective enough to track all the objects in LEO (both equatorial and polar), so the cable can be made to 'kink' and avoid collisions. Even those steps are pointless until you have a geostationary space station in the right position from which to start lowering the cable.

[tharkûn]

The Space Elevator has to wait until you have the facilities to synthesise several thousand miles of fullerine (C-60) cable and have developed an AI effective enough to track all the objects in LEO (both equatorial and polar), so the cable can be made to 'kink' and avoid collisions. Even those steps are pointless until you have a geostationary space station in the right position from which to start lowering the cable.

Why on earth would you use fullerenes instead of nanotubes? I know a guy who thinks he could actually manufacture nanotube fibers of infinite length using some new advances in CVD technology. As far as tracking everything in LEO with an AI, um why? Wouldn't it be simpler to just set up several large radars, possibly a globe spanning set, and track them in real time? As far as the space station, actually all you need up in orbit is a counter mass, you can build it strapping debris togethor and throwing on a functional mass later. Building the station is the easiest part, all that requires is time and money.

[Mayabird]

It would be extremely expensive and would take years to dig out the Saturn V blueprints, update them, and build new ones. Everything aside from the blueprints were destroyed. Dies, tools, everything. THOSE will all have to be reengineered and rebuilt, as well as the infrastructure to build the damn things. Back in the Apollo era, they had that infrastructure. NASA also had a bunch of young hotshot engineers, the best of the best, and Werner von Braun. Now they've got a bunch of bureaucrats and old farts, and the hiring practices leave a lot to be desired. As well, there is tons of red tape that wasn't around back in the old days. They spend more time on paperwork than actually building and designing stuff.

And you know what else? There was actually a huge push to get those things built, money be damned. It HAD to be done. Now, if anything goes behind schedule (and it will) it could easily be stopped in the middle of it because some die manufacturer was a few weeks late with a shipment and everything else was thrown out of whack for months.

Me? I'm just glad I've already changed majors out of aerospace.