Slipping The Surly Bonds of Earth
By FrauBudgie Posted in Archived — Comments (42) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Remember those dreamers out in California -- the guys who are working on a space elevator?
Improbable? The Chinese, the Russians and the Japanese are interested in developing one, too!
A "space elevator", affectionately called "the beanstalk" is a kind of tether which stretches for thousands of miles into space, using the earth's rotation to
The current problem is figuring out which material to use for the cable, but there's been some promising research into carbon nanotechnology. Once it's constructed, transport of raw materials would be cheap, and space craft can avoid the gravity well of earth.
Seems that the Chinese are working on one. From a CNN/money article, towards the end of the page (of course, it is CNN, and they deride the effort at the beginning. )
Who will bite first? The Chinese government has made no secret of its ambitious space program and carbon nanotube research. Nor has Japan. "Whoever builds the first elevator will have a virtual monopoly on all future ones," Edwards says. "The political and economic structure of the world could be completely different 50 years from now."
The Russians are interested in space elevators as well. Check out this article from RIA Novosti.
It's so reassuring that Americans can still dream large dreams -- Thomas Edison tinkered with a bunch of wires while theories swam around his brain. Henry Ford dreamed of providing affordable "horseless" carriages. Then there's the improbable stories that the Wright brothers told each other about flying through the air.
JFK wanted to put a man on the moon, and we did it! We not only got Tang out of it, but a generation of kids fascinated with math and science. In 2004, George Bush spoke of putting a man on Mars, and building a permanent base on the Moon. That would have been enough to earn my vote.
Heh! The Liftport Group has been invited to judge at the First LEGO League Nano Quest World Championship. Click here for info. It's not a bunch of brilliant scientists making amazing constructions with little square blocks, it's a serious scientific endeavor, challenging teams of engineers from 38 countries, and children to solve serious problems. The LEGO company sponsors it.
There's just something beautiful about nerds and LEGO's, a company that understands its market niche.
Dream on, guys! I'd kind of like to get off this mudball, too! Maybe y'all can establish a zero gravity gym on one of the platforms with big transparent windows!!!
Click to LiftPortGroup for more.
Above photo is conceptual art from LiftPort.
The space program has always been such an inspiring part of this country. But since we have been to the moon, the media and politics has torn it down so much that the Mars Rovers were not even given the applause they deserve. Such a competition can only serve to strengthen all involved, and it sets an example for the coming generations that they can dare to dream big.
Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. - Douglas Adams
Oh, well. I suppose the legacy of this generation will be the promotion of "social justice" and protection of gay rights!!!
That's why a sucessful; space program has a value far beyond NASA's annual budget.
Kyoto Now! (Because only pollution from the US hurts the planet)
The fact that the cutting edge of space exploration is now in the hands of private enterprise in the US gives me great hope.
I'll bet on our Thomas Edisons and Henry Fords beating China's government anytime.
NASA has always been an inspiration ... even though some think it a boondoggle. Phasing out the Apollo program was one of the greatest tragedies of the last fifty years.
There is some hope, though ... NASA is planning a Mars vehicle to carry humans, kind of Apollo on steroids.
If we don't get back on the space train, the Chinese will.
We sent Senator Glenn back into orbit a few years back ... one down, 534 to go!
I just don't think it will work, at least not in the near term.
- Weather: Icing will be a hard problem, and lightning even worse.
- Radiation: The need for shielding will be immense, requiring either something heavy or some kind of electricity-sucking magnetic field protecting whatever vehicle climbs the cable.
- String harmonics: The vibrations on a 20,000 mile cable will be incredible.
- Orbital debris This is the real biggie. There's a lot of junk up there. Eventually, something with an interstellar origin and staggering relative velocity will contact that cable ... or the vehicle climbing it.
- Birds! Doesn't anyone care about the birds?
--
See the Academy
I just don't think it will work, at least not in the near term.
We've got a long planing timeline - 2031 at the earliest. This should give us time to work out the most egregious flaws.
Birds
We care about the birds. We also trust they are bright enough to not fly into a ribbon a meter wide and paper thin. Or at least not many of them.
Orbital debris
That is a huge deal as you noted. We think the ribbon can be shaped to resist damage in the regions where debris is thickest. Other strategies could include moving the ribbon from the base (to avoid known satellites) and agreements with satellite operators to move out of our way.
Think of it this way - before there were bridges there were ferries. No doubt the first bridge was viewed by the ferry operators as a hazard to navigation ... fast forward a few thousand years and ferries are expected to avoid bridges.
Okay - that was pretty simplistic but you get the idea.
String harmonics
I'm no expert on this - I defer to our Director of Reseach, Tom Nugent, who feels this is a problem but not an insolvable one.
Radiation
Depends on the cargo. A satellite is expected to operate there and will provide it's own shielding.
People are tricker, granted. Heavy dense stuff is the fix, here. Water would be ideal. This is a problem but radiation itself is a well understood problem.
Weather
Another problem but ... it only affects .2% of the total length. Icing might be mitigated by heating the ribbon with the same lasers that power the lifters. Lighting is an unknown; the first elevator is planned to go in an area that has as little lighting as anyplace on the earth.
Nah - these are technical problems with fixes. The real issues that could keep a space elevator grounded are legall and political. There isn't a context where you can legally operate a space elevator - without that it's just not going to happen.
Brian Dunbar
LiftPort
Remember.
But move forward, too. Light a candle, yes. But also drive a rivet.
~Lileks
Just kidding about the birds. Joke.
Orbital debris: ever see a meteor shower?
I'm not convinced that the harmonics problems on an object of that scale and shape are solvable.
Radiation: I think we'll figure that one out.
Weather: it may be only .2% of the cable, but it's fully 50% of the ends of the cable.
Also, I forgot the terrorists. As I said a few months ago, we have to deal with terrorism before we can go finding new worlds and such. (That link is to the Google cached version, since I'm getting a "permission denied" error when I try to access my old blog entries here.)
--
See the Academy
Just kidding about the birds. Joke.
I got that - my reply was tongue in cheek.
Orbital debris: ever see a meteor shower?
Often. Your point?
I'm not convinced that the harmonics problems on an object of that scale and shape are solvable.
Noted. Please keep in mind that we ourselves are not asking for money to build a space elevator - we'll be doing R+D for another two years before we reach a go/no-go point. And decades of research after that before it's completed. Anything could derail the project and harmonics might be a deal-killer. We'll find out.
Also, I forgot the terrorists.
We haven't.
But there are some aspects of this that make it a hard target.
The proposed base is way the heck in the middle of nowhere. It's off flight paths, sea lanes are close but not that close. They'll have to get there first which ain't easy.
As I said a few months ago, we have to deal with terrorism before we can go finding new worlds and such.
I disagree. We've had terrorism as a problem for a long time now - the ostensible reason for WW I was an act of terrorism by a state sponsored terrorist organization. The term was coined in 1823.
Terrorism is not going to go away - it will be with for as long as there are failed cultures and nation states. Fixing those is the work of centuries, not decades.
Brian Dunbar
LiftPort
Remember.
But move forward, too. Light a candle, yes. But also drive a rivet.
~Lileks
the consequences of the recent Chinese ASAT test are worse than we thought.
At least the main debris cloud isn't really where they want this proposed space elevator to go, but there could always be a future event to change that.
They've got to find it first.
It's in the middle of the ocean, off flight lanes. The ribbon is meter wide and paper thin.
We engaged the attention of a Navy attack pilot. His opinion (and this is just one man's opinion) was that he'd have trouble finding the base in an F-18 - it's a big ocean. Professionals with the equipment found aboard a commercial airliner ... forget it.
This is not to minimize the problem - if terrorists are determined to do bad things, they will. But the level of effort needed is formidable. The more difficult the target the more prep is needed and the more of a target the terrs make themselves. Making it easy for the state to pick them off.
Brian Dunbar
LiftPort
Remember.
But move forward, too. Light a candle, yes. But also drive a rivet.
~Lileks
How will you use it?
You're relying on security through obscurity. To wit: if it's used, there will be something that leads people to its location.
It's a big ocean, with a 360° approach. Will the base be in deep water, or shallow?
--
See the Academy
You're relying on security through obscurity.
Only in the example that a pilot using the resources of a commercial airplane would be hard pressed to find it without external aid. It is a big ocean and finding something the size of a ship by visual means is surprisingly difficult, even when you have a good notion of where it is.
Or so says our naval aviator.
The conception of the base is that it's mounted on a mobile platform - something like a deep sea oil rig. It's expected to be able to move to accomodate the ribbon dodge-em scheme. It's expected that we'll confine our base to a defined box - say a few hundred kilometers on a side. This box is located 400 miles west of South America, deep water.
But, clearly it's location will be known.
It's not that terrs could not destroy any target they wanted to - but raising the bar so the level of effort needed increases also raises their profile, making it easier to be detected.
The real answer is to have multiple layers of security; we know this.
Remember.
But move forward, too. Light a candle, yes. But also drive a rivet.
~Lileks
Sorry, I can't take this seriously any more.
--
See the Academy
I'm sorry to hear that - but I'm sure you gave the idea a good bit of thought and read up on the source material before making up your mind.
Brian
Remember.
But move forward, too. Light a candle, yes. But also drive a rivet.
~Lileks
Note 46 not 23 the dynamics require it and you expect people not to notice its there ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Note 46 not 23 the dynamics require it and you expect people not to notice its there ?
The ribbon is a meter wide and paper thin.
It is not that we expect people to not notice; more that we expect it to be visually hard to see until you get close.
Remember.
But move forward, too. Light a candle, yes. But also drive a rivet.
~Lileks
Painted black ? As to its being mobile you are gonig to need a mountain to be an anchor for this thing.
The inventor of the geosynchronous satellite wrote a book on this 30 years ago.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I lost interest. The wishful thinking just doesn't end.
--
See the Academy
It's possible that I sound too glib, that I've got answers for all of your objections. Possibly I am, and I do - I've been at this since 2003 and, really, none of the objections are new, and not a little thought has gone into this.
So? Accuse me of wishful thinking and I won't deny it; I'm a glass half-full kinda guy. But what you're not seeing here is that the people closest to the project at LiftPort are the more realistic about our prospects.
We see the pitfalls and the obstacles probably better than you do. We also know there are answers to these - you yourself said
I just don't think it will work, at least not in the near term.
Which implies you feel it will work at some point in the future. I"m merely pointing out there are answers to your objections.
You've lost interest and that's fine. But do so as an informed adult not because I've turned you off with my wishful thinking.
Brian Dunbar
Remember.
But move forward, too. Light a candle, yes. But also drive a rivet.
~Lileks
Painted black ? As to its being mobile you are gonig to need a mountain to be an anchor for this thing.
Black is the default color (if you will) for CNT.
When I say 'mobile' .. perhaps it's better to think of the platform inducing oscillation in the ribbon by moving around in a defined box a few hundred kms on a side.
Clarke posited using an asteroid as the counterweight. Brad Edwards revisted the idea in 2002 and realized that you don't need a chunk of metal or rock at any given point - as long as the total weight above GEO is large enough. Extend the ribbon past GEO for a total length of 100,000 kilometers would do the trick.
The inventor of the geosynchronous satellite wrote a book on this 30 years ago.
Read it in high school a few years after it was published - 'Fountains of Paradise' is a great novel.
Brian Dunbar
Remember.
But move forward, too. Light a candle, yes. But also drive a rivet.
~Lileks
Now you are proposing a 150,000 km cable.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
100,000 kilometers, yes.
Brian Dunbar
Remember.
But move forward, too. Light a candle, yes. But also drive a rivet.
~Lileks
If the thing ever breaks it will crash into the ground like dozens of atomic weapons. The liability will be off the scale.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
If the thing ever breaks it will crash into the ground like dozens of atomic weapons. The liability will be off the scale.
If this is going to be true than it won't be built. Y'all would be right to prevent this from happening and I, at least, won't be party to a system that has a catastrophic failure mode.
We do recognize that everything will break, someday.
We think the failure mode will not be as bad as that. Yes, the kinetic energy stored in a SE will be great. But it won't strike all in one piece - the stress of shock from a failure should cause the ribbon to fragment; the ribbon won't survive re-entry heat ... we think what will happen is bits of ribbon fluttering down, light as paper per kilometer.
More study is needed of course. But we're hopeful. Please recall that it's not in our best interests to build something with such a horrible failure mode.
Brian Dunbar
LiftPort
Remember.
But move forward, too. Light a candle, yes. But also drive a rivet.
~Lileks
I demand the issue of the birds be raised again, I'm sure I could find allies among those charming people in Europe, and I know my compatriots the Chinese will be worried about the birds.
Protect the birds!
The Romans never allowed a trouble spot to remain simply to avoid going to war over it, because they knew that wars don't just go away, they are only postponed to someone else's advantage -Niccolò Machiavelli.
Protect the birds!
We'll be sure to engage some wildlife experts - maybe we can hang some warning signs so the birds know to sheer away.
Brian Dunbar
LiftPort
Remember.
But move forward, too. Light a candle, yes. But also drive a rivet.
~Lileks
probably with minimal government involvement. Some governments will need to give permission, but the US government can stay out altogther. If the Chinese government becomes involved, it will only slow things down.
The space programme is inspiring, and has been for over 100 years. I happen to live in the village where HG Wells set War of the Worlds. From Wells up to the 1950s people believed that space travel would come about because a backyard inventor would solve the problems. But the moon landings were a government programme. Conventional analysis tells us that all those SF writers underestimated the monster cost of space travel. It was so expensive that governments had to get involved.
This is completely backwards. It was so expensive because governments got involved.
Here is a rather dated statistic from the 1990s. To conduct a launch NASA required the presence of 27,000 people with distinct roles. McDonnell Douglas could do it with three. NASA, of course, required 'safety protocols'. But when you complicate processes to the point of needing 27,000 people you make things less safe, not more safe.
The three big costs are personnel, energy, and the capital cost of the launch technology. Bring any one of those down and the others will follow. Capital cost, for example, is high mostly because the production lines are so short. (Pork allocation also means that different parts need to be built in different states, but expensive as that is, I doubt it even doubles the cost. Short production lines are much more significant).
We know that the private sector could cut personnel costs in excess of 99%. Automatically that brings down the price of the launch and increases demand, thus increasing the length of production lines. Combined with taking the pork out of the process the private sector could bring down the capital cost by 50% in a decade, with much greater savings to follow, as demand goes up.
Bringing down the energy cost is more complex, though the space elevator system is a good idea. Nobody really knows how long this will take as it requires scientific a breakthrough. But we do know that it will happen much more quickly if there is competition and a large and thriving space exploration sector. It is bound to happen once people are actively engaged in solving the problem, as they would be if the other costs were brought down.
NASA has been described as the most inefficient nationalised monopoly in history. As you can imagine, that was a title won against some very stiff competition.
So the simplest solution is this. NASA and ESA should be abolished. Their budgets should be wound up, their scientists and engineers fired, and their physical assets auctioned. I am not exactly sure who would buy up the asets or hire the engineers, but I am sure that the space industry would thrive immediately the profit-destroying spectre of government monopoly was removed from the scene.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Hi, Guentin,
probably with minimal government involvement. Some governments will need to give permission, but the US government can stay out altogther. If the Chinese government becomes involved, it will only slow things down.
The US government will be involved, to a degree. Consider that the space elevator company must be based somewhere, and that the US is where you want to be if you need financial backing. Also launch companies based elsewhere have steep barriers to climb if they want to do business with American companies.
It is also nice to use existing American laws and regulations to operate under - and we can't operate in a legal vacuum.
To conduct a launch NASA required the presence of 27,000 people with distinct roles. McDonnell Douglas could do it with three.
Shenanigans. Three people cannot launch a rocket with the degree of safety and attention to detail that is needed for a successful launch. Rutan did it with a crew of around fifty - I'm not sure how many SpaceX used but it's more than three. Tossing silly numbers around does not help.
For those that are serious about lowering the launch cost I suggest reading 'LEO On The Cheap' by John London. Google and you'll find a free copy to download. It's good bock by a pro with tons of suggestions.
So the simplest solution is this. NASA and ESA should be abolished. Their budgets should be wound up, their scientists and engineers fired, and their physical assets auctioned. I am not exactly sure who would buy up the asets or hire the engineers, but I am sure that the space industry would thrive immediately the profit-destroying spectre of government monopoly was removed from the scene.
That's a) not going to happen and b) not a good idea. A valid use of the state is exploration and to promote research and development. NASA does this and does a pretty fair job at it.
Besides - state organizations never go away - hoping they will is just crazy talk.
Brian Dunbar
LiftPort
Remember.
But move forward, too. Light a candle, yes. But also drive a rivet.
~Lileks
1. Sure, you have to be based somewhere. US legal system is pretty good, though it is not the ideal one in which to be a tort defendant. As for raising money, it is not bad, but for big bucks I would advise London or Hong Kong in the current climate, but these things change. Bloomberg, for one, seems to recognise that NY is at a certain competitive disadvantage at the moment and may be able to get something done about it. I hadn't actually realised you planned to have the Earth end in the ocean. I had rather assumed Kenya or the Andes. I believe there is a high equatorial monuntin in Indonesia too.
2. Three people cannot launch a rocket with the degree of safety and attention to detail that is needed for a successful launch.
I should stress I was talking about unmanned. My source is Adrian Berry The Next 500 Years, though he is talking about events of the 1990s.
That's a) not going to happen and b) not a good idea.
a) agreed. State agencies hang around long after they have ceased to be of value. b) Disagree very strongly. They just get in the way. There would more real money and a wider variety of options currently being pursued if neither existed.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
As for raising money, it is not bad, but for big bucks I would advise London or Hong Kong in the current climate, but these things change.
We're not even raising money for the serious effort yet - that's a few years off. Where we are based may yet change - we're flexible as to how it gets done.
I hadn't actually realised you planned to have the Earth end in the ocean. I had rather assumed Kenya or the Andes. I believe there is a high equatorial monuntin in Indonesia too
If it does become a land-based system then road/rail access becomes terribly important; having to build basic infrastructure just to get to the anchor site is going to add to the startup costs. This might trump other considerations such as high mountains. As we say "we'll see".
But yes, the current plans envision a seabase. This adds to the cost, but not, perhaps, as much as building a land base with it's associated infrastructure.
I should stress I was talking about unmanned.
Okay - go ask Elon Musk how many people are involved with launching Falcon. Or SeaLaunch. It takes more than three people to launch a rocket ... unless your source is talking about some kind of automated deal where they roll off an assembly line like Ford Escorts and require only a machine to prop them up and begin the countdown.
Currently they don't. One assumes Musk is watchful about his costs - it is - literally - his money being spent.
They just get in the way. There would more real money and a wider variety of options currently being pursued if neither existed.
We'll never know. But I am curious to see your answer for who sponsors exploration if not the state. Not a lot of profit motive in, say, exploring the Kuiper Belt.
Brian Dunbar
Remember.
But move forward, too. Light a candle, yes. But also drive a rivet.
~Lileks
You wouldn't just be destroying an institution, you would be destroying some fifty years of experience. No corporation is going to invest in the technology needed for man space flight, there is no profit in being the first to land on the Mars, aside form some lucrative advertisement deals.
I'm all in favor of efficiency, but let's not sacrifice everything to the alter of privatization. NASA is a symbol of our country, it signifies that we as a nation, through our own technological prowess was able to put a man on the moon.
I also have a hard time believing the American people are going to let you take away NASA, much like old faded jeans. There kind of useless, been used up, but there still yours dammit.
The Romans never allowed a trouble spot to remain simply to avoid going to war over it, because they knew that wars don't just go away, they are only postponed to someone else's advantage -Niccolò Machiavelli.
You wouldn't just be destroying an institution, you would be destroying some fifty years of experience.
Uh, no just the institution, and the barriers it creates to progress. I wasn't proposing to kill all the people and wipe the files.
No corporation is going to invest in the technology needed for man space flight, there is no profit in being the first to land on the Mars, aside form some lucrative advertisement deals.
If there is no profit - ie advantage - in going, then let's not go. Space is simply not going to be explored if there is no profit in it. But there is profit. The trouble is, NASA is destroying all possibility of companies making a return on their investment. Anything they create carries the risk of being undercut by an inefficient, loss making, bureaucracy.
I'm all in favor of efficiency, but let's not sacrifice everything to the alter of privatization. NASA is a symbol of our country, it signifies that we as a nation, through our own technological prowess was able to put a man on the moon.
You seem happy to sacrifice successful space flight on the alter of government ownership and meaningless symbols. This is not going to happen out of sheer bravado and American taxpayers will not pour money down the sink forever. The focus needs to be on investment not pork and nationalistic symbolism.
I also have a hard time believing the American people are going to let you take away NASA, much like old faded jeans. There kind of useless, been used up, but there still yours dammit.
I hope you are wrong. But if you are right, then America will probably get left behind in the exploration of space. That is the wonderful thing about international competition. Once the market gets big enough to support competing efforts - and we are pretty much at that point already - one country pursuing mindless policies is not fatal to humanity.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
No corporation is going to invest in the technology needed for man space flight,
Really? SpaceDev, SpaceX, Paul Allen invested some 20 million in Scaled to launch SpaceShipOne, Virgin Galactic ...
Brian Dunbar
Remember.
But move forward, too. Light a candle, yes. But also drive a rivet.
~Lileks
Well, of course he used a corporate vehicle to do this and other fundings. But he's the primary shareholder, he's spending his money. Not the money of public shareholders whose interests are looked after by the SEC.
If this whole venture has commercial potential, I'm not seeing any reason why it won't follow the pattern of most such innovations requiring huge investments: namely, the initial wave of investors get the tech developed and open up the markets. They then get their heads handed to them when it turns out that they overinvested in what is actually an uneconomic proposition. A second wave of investors then picks up the pieces for three cents on the dollar and operates them profitably.
How much capital have you guys lined up so far, and from whom?
Not the money of public shareholders whose interests are looked after by the SEC.
Noted but .. SpaceDev and Virgin Galactic are public companies.
How much capital have you guys lined up so far, and from whom?
I'm not sure that I'm allowed to say. Sorry.
Brian Dunbar
LiftPort
Remember.
But move forward, too. Light a candle, yes. But also drive a rivet.
~Lileks
as a governmental or quasi-governmental endeavor for the same reasons the British stayed in North America despite the fact tht it took quite some time to ever get any real benefit from it; if we're not there in a dominant or at least competitive role, someone else will be. The Russians still have ambitions, the Chinese are very agressive, the Japanese and the EU have capabilities; we can't cede it to them.
Some of the space endeavor has become nothing more than drayage, although very complex and expensive drayage, so steps should be taken to privatize com and weather sat insertion and the like. Beyond these, though, only defense and technology development provide a reason to go into space beyond being able to say you did it; the province of the very, very rich.
In Vino Veritas
Exactly why not? When your competition gets interested in doing something that you know has no conceivable returns commensurate with the cost, then you always want them to proceed, full speed ahead. ;-)
By the way, I really enjoy your posts on how state government works. Please keep them coming. (It's only slightly less bad in large corporations, of course.)
If the Chinese or the Russians put something up there that can disable our com sats or GPS sats, or something we have there that we mere mortals don't even know about, that's a real issue. In pure economic terms, of course you're right, but some of this isn't about making money; it's about staying alive.
And thank you for the kind words!
In Vino Veritas
I have nothing to add, but I too think this is important, romantic stuff.