Elevator To The Moon

[Plaything48]

It seems more than likely that this will happen since its just got endorsement from Bush, and whatever quibbles you've got about the impracticalities of it and so on, it wont make much difference, because you'd be going head to head against a team of 70 great scientists. If you've got broadband you can download an animation(approx. 5mb) of the elevator.

http://www.isr.us/video/SE-INTRO_Final-1stream-384.wmv

ALso, you can read an article from the telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main..../19/ixconn.html

[FC Mellon]

Plaything48...it is not 'The Elevator' I mind so much...it is 'That Shaft' which concerns me. ;?)
$$$$...'yikes'...$$$$ 8?{

[Pooeypants]

I've heard about the Space elevator but to the moon...??

[Plaything48]

At first it will just be to space, but soon after, they'll extend that to the moon.

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Plaything48,)
It seems more than likely that this will happen since its just got endorsement from Bush, and whatever quibbles you've got about the impracticalities of it and so on, it wont make much difference, because you'd be going head to head against a team of 70 great scientists. If you've got broadband you can download an animation(approx. 5mb) of the elevator.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

That Dubya has endorsed something tends to make me suspect it. And in the case of Dubya's moon and Mars initiative, I think it pretty clear that it's campaign twaddle with no serious thought to doing anything extensive or expensive.

As to a geosynchronous elevator, that idea has been around for a while. Although there are practical reasons why such a thing would be desirable, there are also practical obstacles, especially involving materials science: basically, humans don't yet have materials that could support their own weight, much less haul freight, in a structure sufficiently long.

[Pooeypants]

Actually, the practical material is here, made from buckyball strengthened wire, it's got the right tensile strength and can be mass produced within the decade.

[G. Adams]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Plaything48,)
It seems more than likely that this will happen since its just got endorsement from Bush, and whatever quibbles you've got about the impracticalities of it and so on, it wont make much difference, because you'd be going head to head against a team of 70 great scientists. If you've got broadband you can download an animation(approx. 5mb) of the elevator.

http://www.isr.us/video/SE-INTRO_Final-1stream-384.wmv

ALso, you can read an article from the telegraph.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main..../19/ixconn.html<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>


Appreciate the link to the vid but can you get articles from a real paper next time please? I mean come on, it'll be the Daily Mail next.

[white rice]

Why don't they build that elevator in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory? It's almost as realistic as this idea.

Any bets on when some wiseguy will to try to blow this thing up?

[Pooeypants]

Check this link before you make more unappropiated assumptions.
And this one from NASA.

And I like this bit from it:
"During a speech he once gave, someone in the audience asked Arthur C. Clarke when the space elevator would become a reality.

"Clarke answered, 'Probably about 50 years after everybody quits laughing,'" related Pearson. "He's got a point. Once you stop dismissing something as unattainable, then you start working on its development. This is exciting!"

[Plaything48]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Appreciate the link to the vid but can you get articles from a real paper next time please? I mean come on, it'll be the Daily Mail next. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Theres nothing wrong with the telegraph!!

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
basically, humans don't yet have materials that could support their own weight, much less haul freight, in a structure sufficiently long. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Try doing some research on carbon nanotubes: 100 times stronger than steel, and lighter than aluminium. As Ive said before, don't bring the science practicalities into this, because the scientists have overcome most of the objections you can think of.

[white rice]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
Check this link before you make more unappropiated assumptions.
And this one from NASA.

And I like this bit from it:
"During a speech he once gave, someone in the audience asked Arthur C. Clarke when the space elevator would become a reality.

"Clarke answered, 'Probably about 50 years after everybody quits laughing,'" related Pearson. "He's got a point. Once you stop dismissing something as unattainable, then you start working on its development. This is exciting!"<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

I'm skeptical because of the way our space agency is handled and the overall fragmentation of the international community involving the International Space Station. I am familiar with the costs and technology involved, but it takes politics and NGOs to move such a great effort. Take the concept of Maglevs. It offers cheap, noise free, non-poluting, and fast transportation over long distances. The technology is over ten years old, but the first one to span over a long distance just opened in Shanghai. The indifference to a great alternative for mass transportation was because there was no need or tangible benefits for the average person to agree to spend the effort and money on such a thing locally.

But let's say one does get built in our lifetime. That is one big potential target for terrorism. How long would it have to last in order for it to pay off itself? Would the current political climate be better or worse in that time? And who could realistically pay for the bill if it came to one or two countries shouldering the burden, and who would have rights over it? It's easier to knock it down than to build it up again.

[Pooeypants]

It is our destiny to spread ourselves to the stars as once we've exploited all natural resources here, and totally ruined the climate cycles, we'd want to move on to another planet and repeat the destruction. As long as the USA doesn't keep on wanting a monopoly on space, we'll get a viable joint space effort, but perhaps only time will tell.

[white rice]

The US wants a monopoly because it gives disproportionately on spending and technology to almost every joint public space effort out there. We had to spoon-feed the Russian space agency to keep it alive. I admit that that attitude isn't condusive for international efforts, but as an American I want to see something tangible out of my tax money.

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (white rice,)
The US wants a monopoly because it gives disproportionately on spending and technology to almost every joint public space effort out there. We had to spoon-feed the Russian space agency to keep it alive. I admit that that attitude isn't condusive for international efforts, but as an American I want to see something tangible out of my tax money.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Well, if the wealth weren't shared out so disproportionately, the US wouldn't have to spend disproportionately.

[castille]

Frankly, I think space travel is a load of crock, and our money could be well spent on Earth.

Whats the point of billions of dollars on some space station?

Oh wait....I remember. Peoples egos. If the US cuts its space program and China is proud to be the foremost space nation, then the American ego will be dashed to pieces.

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
Frankly, I think space travel is a load of crock, and our money could be well spent on Earth.

Whats the point of billions of dollars on some space station?

Oh wait....I remember. Peoples egos. If the US cuts its space program and China is proud to be the foremost space nation, then the American ego will be dashed to pieces.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
You spend billions each year on weapons which would probably never see action. They're quite pointless as well, except it helps to boost ego ofc.

[castille]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Pooeypants,)
You spend billions each year on weapons which would probably never see action. They're quite pointless as well, except it helps to boost ego ofc.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Actually, we do need weapons. Most people simply assume weapons not used are useless. They say stupid things like "Dont worry, when the enemy invades, we can build 10,000 tanks in 2 minutes".

Well, thats what the French said. And look what the well-armed Germans did to them.

Even nukes, to a degree, are not useless. If Russia is the only country in the world with nukes, then you sure bet they're going to be the Master of the world. However, I believe 10,000 nukes is going too far. Russia and the US needs to cut down to 100 nukes; enough to send 10 million people to their deaths, which is deterrant enough.

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)

Actually, we do need weapons. Most people simply assume weapons not used are useless. They say stupid things like "Dont worry, when the enemy invades, we can build 10,000 tanks in 2 minutes".

Well, thats what the French said. And look what the well-armed Germans did to them.

Even nukes, to a degree, are not useless. If Russia is the only country in the world with nukes, then you sure bet they're going to be the Master of the world. However, I believe 10,000 nukes is going too far. Russia and the US needs to cut down to 100 nukes; enough to send 10 million people to their deaths, which is deterrant enough.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
So most of your defence budget is used for reservicing tanks?