I seem to recall there being more than a few folks in this group interested in space colonization so in case you haven't seen this idea yet here yah go.

http://www.space.com/30272-space-elevator-inflatable-concept-patent.html

For me the most interesting part of this idea is that it might actually have some unintended advantages over conventional space elevators. For one thing it would be significantly lighter and would cause significantly less damage if it fell than a conventional space elevator design. Not only that but it might even be possible to keep it upright in the event a terrorist strike blew out the foundation, something that really wouldnt be possible with a conventional space elevator design.

4669589
I mean, yay Canada, much patriotism... but... it isn't really a space elevator, now is it? It reaches all of one fifth the way to space. It's just a super-tall tower with some kind of high-altitude airport on top.

I get the shaft, but how the heck is that thing at the top going to stay in the air? It is just a giant zeppelin with an airport atop it?
Considering it's 1/250'th the size of any previous proposed 'space elevator', I doubt centrifugal motion is keeping it there.

(Edit: Ahh. It's not even a practical design yet. It's a patent on an undeveloped idea. Bleeeeh.)

4669589

TBH I've always been pretty bleh on space exploration. Other than grabbing resources and maaaaaaybe meeting aliens rarely and eventually I see no appeal in it. Space is by far the most boring future tech to me, yet it is the one everyone seems to care about the most.

4669749
Space is cool.

And resources do matter. If brain-nomming doesn't pan out, we'll need them.

But really, what I'm more concerned over is that a we have all of our eggs in exactly one basket. One really irrational war, one perfectly wrongly aimed blast of gamma rays, one nutjob with a good lab and a degree, one really nasty microbe, and all of it could come crashing down.

4669761

Like I said, only really exciting thing about space to me is mining the moon/asteroids, and maybe the tech that develops along the way. Colonizing planets and landing on rocks is a massive expense for very little reward, though. Unless we had a vast network of planets colonies won't provide much protection against max level terrorists.

And have you ever been to space? You're not bumping into new lifeforms every week, you're bumping into a rock every few years. Imagine four seasons of Star Trek where they just hang out on the ship, then in the season five finale they find a rock. That's more like what space is like.

4669749 Well let's say you have a hard drive with a super important file on it. In the past, the hard drive crashes about every two months, and it last crashed 5 weeks ago.

Wouldn't you want to back up the hard drive?

4669769
Eh, every far-flung bit of self-sustaining humanity is one more insurance policy and one more thing off the checklist of things that can doom us. By preference it would be nice to have humans outside of the solar system, and the more unreachable the better. So your Star Trek thing is quite the positive on that point. But even having any humans offplanet at all reduces the chances of a lot of things utterly wiping us out. There's a whole hell of a lot less things that can scour away everything in a solar system than can extinct a species on one planet.

4669777

If it's between food and buying the hard drive I'd buy the food first.

4669825
One of our enormous failings as a species is that we almost never plan ahead for anything. And it constantly bites is square in our adorable behinds. So I'm not sure if it's something to be endorsed. Especially when we talk about proof against existential threat.

4669829

...You mean addressing our more immediate problems instead of spending trillions of dollars to put a few hundred people on mars so that humans will still technically be alive in case of a massive catastrophy?

Cause I still think curing diseases and addressing our energy crisis and stuff is more important.

4669834
Well, at this point we don't particularly have the infrastructure to be colonizing anything. But I think doing stuff like stopping the neutering of the space program is money well spent. Taking the steps to get there, and reaping the benefits of development along the way.

And it's not like it's one or the other. Let's admit it, it's not like it's NASA vs. World Hunger. It's more like NASA vs. Development of Ergonomic Gold Plated Toilets for the Stealth Bomber Fleet to Improve Pilot Readiness.

4669836

Again, I'm not against space technology. I just don't find exploration and colonization to be the real attraction of it.

If we seriously wanted to colonize space any time soon, or possibly at all, it would be Space vs World Hunger and that's being optimistic about space.

4669838
I am doubtful.
Our civilization, short of the doom of the planet or way of life approaching, will not spend itself to death on a single project, Ancient Egypt style. If an ungodly amount of cash is dumped into research and development, there will be tangible benefits to reap for humanity. A whole hell of a lot of science and technology came out of the glory days of the space program when blank cheques were being written.

To use the world hunger example, do you think that a sudden glut of development on artificial agriculture, or agriculture in marginal conditions, which would be required, wouldn't have real and tangible effects on our ability to feed people in terrible climates?

4669825 Good thing it's not.

4669860

I've acknowledged that space programs develop technology. I'm not against space programs. I just think that space travel itself is boring and that space travel and colonization isn't the end all be all of technology like most people seem to think.

4669864 '

Well yes. The actual choice is buy the food or buy the food cause it's the 18th century and we haven't even invented computers yet.

4669867
Well, after stories like Friendship is Optimal, research on what it all meant, and lots of interaction with certain resident Epsies, I don't really think it's the be-all, end-all of human endeavors either. It all rather ruined my love of grand space sci-fi because I don't think we'll really get there. Or that the future will be anything recognizable.

I still think it's cool, though.
And if we don't replace ourselves with our artificial children, we'll still need it.

4669878 It's simple. Instead of being replaced by robots, we must become the robots first! Transhumanism ftw

4669878

I agree that the point is kind of moot cause we'll either destroy ourselves or our society will be unrecognizable by the time it's actually possible.

I suppose I'd get similar flak if I said flying cars and jet packs wouldn't be that important. Things like self-driving technologies and drones are much more practical and would do more for use than either of those, but that isn't what Hollywood promised us, so...

4669589
I think this concept compares poorly in comparison to a Rockoon.

Besides, it isn't a space elevator: is a booster tower.

4669881

I'm okay with this. Honestly, I think robotics, AI and maybe biology - the direction those go in - is the stuff that's really going to be the most important to the future of humanity, rather than space ships.

4669893
You just want it for the adorable, friendly robot pony possibilities.

And that sort of objectively right and proper thinking is exactly why I love you.

4669911

Well this would improve my life dramatically more than knowing some beady eyed human is on Mars right now.

Ponies are very important, you know.

4669589
Neat.

4669838

Again, I'm not against space technology. I just don't find exploration and colonization to be the real attraction of it.
If we seriously wanted to colonize space any time soon, or possibly at all, it would be Space vs World Hunger and that's being optimistic about space.

I love this argument against spacial spending.
I remember this guy who used to go on rants whenever he heard that NASA had been awarded this much money for its yearly operations, and saying "Why don't they better send that money to kids in Biafra?"
The Biafran history was utter idiocy: Biafra seceded from Nigeria in 1967 citing tribal ego. Unfortunately, Biafra had no resources and was mostly driven by subsistence-agriculture. Then they had a few bad rainy seasons, their only river dried up, and about a million people starved to dead. Then Nigeria retook the territory in 1970. NASA wasn't guilty at all, and all of NASA's money wouldn't have saved this people from their own stupidity.
The only country without rivers nowadays is Kuwait, but they have petroleum both to commerce and to fuel reverse osmosis plants. And I hope Kuwait has long term plants, because they could be the next Biafra.

While I will be the first one to admit that a Lunar colony would be useless beyond ego, the Space Station is quite useful as a research laboratory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_research_on_the_International_Space_Station
Nevertheless, if you are a Yank and live on Florida, Mississipi or Missouri, you may ow your life to the space program and to weather satellites photographing hurricanes well before they hit the coast. Or, if you live in Canada or the Northern US, you could possibly ow your life to an early warning on a blizzard. I know that I most likely ow my life to NASA due to the early warning on Wilma, which made Cancun tuck tail days ahead of landfall, and resulted in Cancun only losing two lives to the most powerful Atlantic hurricane in records. Too bad that Yanks don't listen to their own scientists, as if they did, New Orleans would have been evacuated well ahead of the landfall of that comparatively-pedestrian Katrina, and 1,800 people wouldn't have died.

4669893 Hmm, for me it would be space, robotics and psychology that I would point too as the three big ones. But of course our visions of the future are always heavilly influenced by our own interests.

4669884

I never really got the appeal of flying cars myself. If they are on autopilot the whole way its pretty much just like public transit except you can ignore rush hour traffic. If you can fly it manually then you probably need the skills of a pilot and if you have that plus a bit of cash you can have way more fun with a SuperCub bush plane.

4669702
To clarify the first post: it's not a "space elevator" in the sense of a literal tower to an asteroid in orbit; the real point is to launch from a spot above most of the Earth's atmosphere, which cuts down on the energy cost. The questions, then, are whether you could lift the parts of a rocket up the side of this tower and assemble them there, or lift a whole small rocket; and whether you can keep the tower steady well enough to launch from it. The article makes it sound like you'd fly from the top of one tower to the top of another, which sounds ridiculous because you can't just go from orbital speed to a safe parking speed. The real value of this thing seems to be for launching small unmanned craft to orbit carrying, say, a ton of supplies at a time for assembly into a larger ship. Being able to lift a SpaceX Dragon craft full of (say) water at low cost would help with a Mars mission.

4671173 I dont think you would need to lift the rocket itself up to the top of the tower, just the fuel, passengers and cargo. Space X is within a couple of years or less going to work out the kinks to allow its rockets to land on a sea going barge. Same technology easilly applies to landing a rocket on the top of this landing platform.

4670549

I don't think you read my post.

Also:

if you are a Yank and live on Florida, Mississipi or Missouri

If you live in Florida, Mississipi or Missouri then you are not a yankee.

4670622

Honestly, I don't think flying cars will be a good idea until they can drive themselves, otherwise I'd imagine the death rate from automobiles would skyrocket.

They stole my idea! Well, not exactly but same general principle. They could probably push another 10k out of it. So, on to the review. Getting your spacecraft up is a good thing, but it's not the main problem. You have to get your payload up around 7-8 km/s to actually orbit the planet. A single stage isn't going to do it for anything really worthwhile. You need multi stage rockets even at this height for large or GEO missions and I doubt the balloon would survive that. You can't really translate sheer forces to compressive easily. I can see this getting cubesats into LEO for basically nothing, but that's about it.

What I would suggest is throwing an orbital cannon and/or mass accelerator on the top of this thing, and the worlds largest airship as a pontoon to serve as recoil mass. That would let you get more force to throw your rocket clear without destroying your launch pad. Even then stage 1 is going to be mostly an aerodynamic powered falling machine.

4669867

You're probably right, space travel probably is boring and will be impractical until we solve mortality. Personally, though, I know I'll want to elbow room eventually. and I definitely want the new toys a space program will bring.

4670549

And now we're getting into game politics. If we want a government that provides the largest net payout to the largest number of individuals, then we have to manipulate the game to promote that outcome. Which means we need good science, good predictive tools, and we need to leverage away from current perverse reward structures. And the only way to do that last thing in the USA is to get the campaign finance reform amendment passed. So, i guess my point is to anyone who complains about government allotment of resources- have you called your senator and bugged him about passing campaign finance reform?

4671719
A) Calling a Senator in Mexico about US laws is as useful as getting a Master's degree in philosophy.

B) And I believe that the main thing that the United States need is compulsory, Federal-controlled quality education. No more letting near-illiterate Bible-totters hold an opinion over the discoveries of the greatest minds that Humanity has had.

4671883

A) yes, generally complaining about other countries is fairly useless.

B) Which all spirals back in on fixing the meta.

4671719

Getting your spacecraft up is a good thing, but it's not the main problem. You have to get your payload up around 7-8 km/s to actually orbit the planet

This ignores that today rockets start their journey at the bottom of a bowl of soup we call the atmosphere. The tyranny of the rocket equation means that for every second a rocket has to spend fighting against the atmosphere is time for which they have have to carry extra fuel for, then they need more fuel and bigger engines to compensate for that extra fuel and so on and so forth.

Rockets are INCREDIBLY inefficient, that's just the nature of their design and why SSTO's are seen as infinitely more preferable than rockets if we could just figure out the damn materials sciences to make them work. But this plan could change that drastically by starting rockets from an altitude where they are above most of the atmosphere and need only worry about attaining escape velocity and not fighting their way through the soup.

4671719 I wonder if you can stick solar panels on the side of this thing to power the rail launcher? Anyhow, interesting to see what the long term cost (in stuff, not money) of this vs a rail gun/scramjet combo from the earth's ground.

4672812

SSTOs? In any case, I think I think you're missing my main point. My point isn't that the height doesn't save fuel. I understand that it does. having less atmosphere is exponentially fuel saving. My point is that those fuel savings likely aren't enough to make the orbital equation work.

Let's break it down. For the sake of simplifying the equations let's pretend there's some theoretical rocket that brings the payload to the same 20 km in the first stage. We'll also assume we want something similar in profile to the Saturn V, since my argument is that it probably wont be able to handle heavy transLEO loads.

So, at the point where the theoretical rocket and elevators flight profiles have to synch up both payloads are 20 km up. However, the rocket is moving at 811 m/s. The elevator has to catch up. It has less mass and drag to deal with- only 600,000 kg for the second and third stages. There's still a significant mass needed for the remainder of the first stage, but I'm ignoring it to err in favor of the elevator. Assuming it takes the same 8.9 seconds of ignition on the launch pad, that's 54,725,710 newtons of force on the pad to "catch up" with the rocket. There's no way in hell a 20,000 km tower made of anything other than unobtanium is going to withstand that force without buckling. Now, if you ignore the third stage altogether (and the 48k km and 2760 m/s you need to get from the elevator to the second stage) the second stage still puts 4,900,000 newtons of force on the structure. This moves the launch from laughable to implausible.

If the payload is going to overcome its own inertia and gravity on the platform then it's going to have to apply force to the structure. Without significant aerodynamic lift, the alternative is to accelerate it off the edge and let it fall until it can get enough vertical momentum- reintroducing issues it was built to overcome and then some. The structure will need to withstand either sheer or compression, as well as the heat of the backblast. There simply is a maximum payload that can be launched from a platform like this, which is why they specifically slated it for single stage missions.

sources:
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravitation_escape_velocity_saturn_v.htm#.VeIs8ZeXf-U
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V#S-II_second_stage

4673442 SSTO, single stage to orbit. Pretty common aerospace term. And using a saturn V for this would be pretty laughable when you can just use a smaller Space X style rocket to land on the platform and then ferry, fuel, cargo and passengers up too it via the elevator itself.

4673049

It could probably produce much more electricity than it could reasonably use, but transmission costs would be unworkable- 20,000 km is 1/2 the way around the planet. If you want to go that route it would be better to modularize it and install a transient electrokenetic accelerator (railgun) in each module. Now, that would get the payload moving but the cost of replacing rails after each shot would more than negate the savings.

4673481

Oh, we don't really have a SSTO system right now. This system and a light spacex type launcher might make that a reality for LEO. How practical this would be for geosynchronous insertion is yet to be seen. I would love to see more specs on it.

4673757 I didn't think about sending energy down. Thought of just keeping it up there. That was a minor question you answer for me before I asked. Didn't realize the "rails" would needed to be replaced often but should have. That would be less costly on the ground but still a pain with the tech I know of. Don't think carbon nanotube tech is where it's at for this, yet. If that even what they are building this thing with. Also this kills most of my Kerbal Space Program mod ideas...

This thing really needs to get 60km to 80km up or so because don't really see the long term befits other than this project being a test for bigger and better things. Guess that's why I don't work at Thoth Technology. Should see what they are like and get a passport. Neat little dream.

4673481
The first problem here is terms:
A space elevator is this:

Second comes from the concept itself: a 10% saving is kind of reasonable for a payload going into Space Shuttle orbit (~250km in altitude), but it isn't a big difference if your payload is going higher. Remember that LEO ends at 2,000km.

Third, comes from the why: the cable that raises the elevator cabin would weight far more than the rocket, thus severely limiting the useful payload of the platform. Add to it the weight of the elevator's support system (winches, motors, pulleys and structural support), and the useful weight of the rocket might as well be zero.

Fourth, why again: why bother number-crunching like mad if you could just lift a rocket under a helium balloon far more economically, and may go as high as 30km under the balloon than on top of the tower?

4674085

The first problem here is terms: A space elevator is this:

Pedantry is a problem yes but fortunately not a significant one.

Second comes from the concept itself: a 10% saving is kind of reasonable for a payload going into Space Shuttle orbit (~250km in altitude), but it isn't a big difference if your payload is going higher. Remember that LEO ends at 2,000km.

Read the article again, they project 30% savings in fuel. And those savings escalate as they allow for more optimized rocket designs than the stuff designed to take off from the surface.

Third, comes from the why: the cable that raises the elevator cabin would weight far more than the rocket, thus severely limiting the useful payload of the platform.

Even more traditional space elevator designs dont envision raising cargo or passengers with a cable. Your elevator cabin would crawl up a set of tracks on the side of the space elevator rather than be pulled up or would use a magnetic propulsion system similar to a mag lev train.

I suggest picking up a copy of Clarkes book on the subject of space elevators, Fountains of Paradise.

4671883

And I believe that the main thing that the United States need is compulsory, Federal-controlled quality education. No more letting near-illiterate Bible-totters hold an opinion over the discoveries of the greatest minds that Humanity has had.

Generally speaking, trying to force people into centrally planned institutions because you find their opinions intolerable is a bad idea. I'd rather see some states and school districts teach stupid things than risk having someone dictate the One Correct Belief System while blithely saying the people who disagree should not be allowed to have an opinion. Put another way, do you want to risk the same people you have such contempt for being the ones who get to run that cool new mandatory education program?
4673757
Replacing rails after each shot? Although I'm seeing a critique of the US Navy's current railgun project, and it does say the parts are wearing out quickly, as far as I know a railgun doesn't need that much maintenance. Maybe you're thinking of a coilgun?

4674254

I may have overstated the frequency of repair, as you generally don't have to replace rails after every shot. on the other hand, if the rails are even 1/4 km long you'll still need 80,000 modules. It's likely the odds will catch up with you and you'll need to replace a few rails each launch. What you really need to make it efficient is a halbach array discarding sabot that can keep the process from applying friction to the launcher. Or, you know, just use a dirigible for the first stage. I don't know how fast one designed for ascent could lift a payload, but it's as fully reusable as the tower and likely cheaper to build. It can also have a 30k km cruising altitude. I'm willing to bet you could "pop" it out of the atmosphere even higher, though, like holding a rubber ducky under the bathwater and letting it go, momentum will let it clear the surface. Actually, I want to build this now and attach a gopro to it.

4674186

Pedantry is a problem yes but fortunately not a significant one.

Try to Google "Space Elevator".
It's you versus the world.

Read the article again, they project 30% savings in fuel. And those savings escalate as they allow for more optimized rocket designs than the stuff designed to take off from the surface.

30% indeed... for a demonstration launch, which would be a parabolic launch to the edge of space (88km). A parabolic launch there does not constitute either entering an orbit, or going high enough to the lower limit of LEO (160km).

Even more traditional space elevator designs dont envision raising cargo or passengers with a cable. Your elevator cabin would crawl up a set of tracks on the side of the space elevator rather than be pulled up or would use a magnetic propulsion system similar to a mag lev train.

Elevator cable: up to a handful of grams per metre, especially if they use synthetic cables.
Tracks: At least a couple kilograms per metre in monorail configuration. Quite a bit higher otherwise.
Maglev tracks: no less than 50~100kg per metre.
So they would be very, very stupid if they put something other than a cable on this elevator.

And it is all a moot point anyway, as I don't believe this design is defensible against a much cheaper balloon launch.

4674254
And thus, the States will continue descending into an idiocracy/theocracy.

4671883

Federal-controlled quality education.

So you want to trust the United States federal government... with sometihng quality?

4674759 4674641

So you want to trust the United States federal government... with sometihng quality?

And thus, the States will continue descending into an idiocracy/theocracy.

I'm not a fan of the federal government of the U.S. of A. but I don't latch onto the idea every part of it is a evil, self-serving hive mind monster that can't tie it's shoe. That leads to being paralyzed and hopelessness: "I'm too small to change this beast!" It's modular and people make the idea real - not the idea itself. It's complex, corrupt and dying like every other country in history. Wonder if it'll keep the same name after it falls and reborn or splits?

I got a question (though it's not limited to two of you): What else could this "Inflatable Space Elevator" be used for?

4674641

Elevator cable: up to a handful of grams per metre, especially if they use synthetic cables.

Tracks: At least a couple kilograms per metre in monorail configuration. Quite a bit higher otherwise.

Maglev tracks: no less than 50~100kg per metre.

So they would be very, very stupid if they put something other than a cable on this elevator.

Or dont bother to read the book that wrote the book on space elevators and educate yourself. Whatever, its all good.

4675016

I'm not a fan of the federal government of the U.S. of A. but I don't latch onto the idea every part of it is a evil, self-serving hive mind monster that can't tie it's shoe.

I don't think they're horribly evil and demons from hell. I just think they're completely fucking incompetent.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

4675025 Don't worry about my overly dramatic err... words. I'm more curious about the uses of this project.

4675019

Or dont bother to read the book that wrote the book on space elevators and educate yourself. Whatever, its all good.

No, it's not good.
You sent me to read a 37-year-old fiction book, and you ignore the science ever since. Nobody has spoken seriously about a tower-based space elevator in this century. Nowadays, the concept would be that of a ribbon being lowered to Earth all the way from GEO.

Since you seem to believe in the news-website www.space.com, try typing "Space elevator" on the search function there. Get yourself an education.

4674759
4675016