Comments on: Interview with Dr. Bradley Edwards

By: thermal skeptic

thermal skeptic — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 01:25:10 +0000

I think there could be a major problem with thermal cycling of the elevator ribbon and the effects that it will have on the length due the thermal coefficient of expansion. I believe the variable nature of the thermal cycling and the time scale of the cycling will be on par with the natural frequency of the ribbon, presenting a hazard. Just thought I would add another wrench into the works.

By: rio

rio — Fri, 28 Oct 2005 07:57:06 +0000

I’d to sponsor a space elevator. Genuine and Interested builders, please contact me.

By: Tony

Tony — Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:58:18 +0000

I am. And I have worked on the Bigelow Space Station and the Boeing ISS team.

By: Money

Money — Sat, 22 Oct 2005 06:38:45 +0000

There is a lot of technical rigor/skepticism in these replies. Are any of you degreed engineers?

By: Tony

Tony — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:20:15 +0000

“Radio has no future.” Writing to Niagara Falls Power Company: “Trust you will avoid the gigantic mistake of alternating current.”"I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible.” “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement.” All these things were said by Lord Kelvin. Reid, is he, by any chance, related to you?

I know Arthur C. Clarke, the father of the GEO sync SAT, is too wise to say anything that appears this stupid (after a century) especially about stationary space tethers.

Let’s just say that every question brought up here has been answered before by Brad Edwards in his many publications. I wish some of you here, would read some of his work, before commenting here. I wish more, was asked and said, about the current state of the art of carbon nanotube production, and more importantly, advanced composite matrix production. And there is still work to be done in this area if the tether is too become a reality. The devil is in the details. I guess we will see how far tether technology has come this weekend in the Tether Competion in Mountain View, California.

I know there have been advances, but everyone seems reluctant to talk about them, possibly due to their trillion dollar implications, not to mention the Mars real estate options that are up for grabs.

“It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday, is the hope of today, and the reality of tommorrow.” – Robert H. Goddard

He invented that “old” 1930′s technology mentioned above, called liquid fueled rockets.

I doubt he would ever bet against space tethers. His first liquid rocket paper was titled “A METHOD of reaching Extreme Altitudes” not “THE ONLY METHOD of…!”

By: KeithCu

KeithCu — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:46:46 +0000

The seed ribbon is put up with rockets or the space shuttle.

The problem with the idea of using existing technology and ‘just doing it’ to get going on something inspirational is that NASA’s plan isn’t inspirational.

Tib, your analysis is inaccurate: I’m not ignoring the problems, Dr. Edward’s book addresses the big ones. If you are a skeptic as Dr. Edwards was, you should read the book. Furthermore, I see nanotech as a framework in which lots of challenges can be solved. How do we prevent atomic oxygen from destroying it? Maybe we need to coat it with something.

You argue we should wait till nanotubes are ready, but what if they become ready in 5 years? Do we reset NASA’s 15 year plans? Furthermore, I think the space elevator is the first killer app for nanotubes. I don’t think we should necessarily wait for something to be widespread before we use it in space. That is not forward thinking.

By: Reid

Reid — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 05:27:25 +0000

Frank – take a look at the illustration on top of this page. Is that a thin ribbon that will “float” to the ground?

This isn’t going to be just a few measly ribbons extending all the way to GEO and beyond. There’s going to be mass attached.

By: Reid

Reid — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 05:22:45 +0000

mikem – that is about the stupidest argument I have ever heard. I don’t build buildings. I build space structures and, I know a helluva lot more about that than you possibly could. My designs are flying over your head even as you read this(as are my arguments, apparently). If you have substantive counterarguments to the ones I have made, make them. Otherwise, take your little gotcha’ games out to the playground where they belong.

Tib – spot on.

By: John P

John P — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 00:35:17 +0000

When this is ready, can we book certain politicians on it for a one-way trip?

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 20:55:08 +0000

Reid: There may well be very long sections of the ribbon intact and reaching the ground/water. They will not be falling fast since they are made of a wide thin ribbon. More like floating than falling. If there is a concern it would be that a strong ribbon, several hundred of feet long (or more) will wrap things like planes, birds, trees, trains, ships, etc. The length will depend on how high the break occurs. Perhaps the anchor/platform should have some way to spool the ribbon in case of a break.

By: mikem

mikem — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 19:19:05 +0000

Reid: I simply point out that you obviously do not have even an amateur understanding of what has been achieved in structural engineering and that therefore you should refrain from judging others’ appreciation of the engineering challenges involved.
A mile high building is the ‘holy grail’ of structural engineering and your casual reference to it as having been achieved, even duplicated, says tons about how seriously your derisive remarks should be taken.
Imagine, in a discussion of the challenges of manned space exploration, having a derisive opponent “throw out” the latest ‘manned landings on Mars’ as an example of how little we have achieved so far. How seriously would you then take his criticism of your ability to discuss the challenges involved in traveling to the nearest star? How much training and experience would you assume he had? How long could you listen to him go on about others’ lack of training without laughing?

By: Tiburon

Tiburon — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:56:08 +0000

Reid – I agree with you. I am very happy with the choices Michael Griffin has made. Use existing technology and just do it! When I listened to his addresses on the topic. I too think “it’s about darn time!” I agree with the assessment that the space shuttle program set us way back in our exploration fronteer. I think Griffin said it was just barely possible when they did it and now it has spent more time parked in the VAB soaking up budget then actually working and nowhere near meets the targeted cost saving goals that were promised at its beginning. And the big hold up now is falling foam – FOAM! – Oh or Pete’s sake – just strap an old Apollo command module on the top and send it somewhere inspiring. I think we should learn our lesson from that and not dump money into a HOPE it works scheme but put it into what does work, actually doing it inspires.

Here are some stats I am concerned about. In 2001 the US gratuated 70,000 engineers, while China and India graduated 600,000 and 350,000 respectively. The US spent more on Liability Lawsuits than on R&D. What a shame. If we don’t do something to inspire our youth into the sciences SOON we will be left back. I think moon, mars, etc. can do that better than going around and around and around and around in LEO. Hubble has been the best benefit, in my mind, of the whole post Apollo program.

Skylab was a joke and only inhabited for less than a year – what a waste. The Russion – US docking mission was just politics (but at least Deke Slayton finally got his turn in space) – no technical merit at all. The ISS does provide some benefit but does not excite the future generation very much. Low Earth Orbit does not inspire like Apollo.

So here is my compromise – work in labs on your carbon nanotubes until you can build expansion bridges out of it or something else. Surely it must have more commercial uses than just the space elevator. Once that becomes a “proven” technology then move on to a space elevator then but spend the majority of the current tax dollars on currently proven technologies or technologies that have most of the hurdles behind them and only a few hurdles in front to overcome.

By: Reid

Reid — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:10:09 +0000

And, incidentally to the question of burn-up. Objects coming in from space burn up because they are moving at 17,000+ mph when they hit the atmosphere. The whole idea behind this elevator concept is that the structure would be stationary with respect to the Earth. You have to be very high up indeed on this beast before a reentering section would attain the velocity of a typical chunk of space debris.

By: Reid

Reid — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:31:35 +0000

Tiburon – some good commentary. But, I want to reiterate my position. We have the technology in hand, right now, to go to the moon and establish a colony. We do not need to sit around dreaming of better ways and imagining that all the technical challenges are minor. We do not have the luxury anymore of embarking on speculative projects that would delay our ascent right now. Research and further exploration of ideas is fine and good, but the priority now is to use what we have and just f-ing do it.

By: Reid

Reid — Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:19:44 +0000

mikem, I threw out a number without consideration as to the height of the tallest skyscrapers and, you did me one better and established that they are even less tall than I said, making my argument even stronger, then you use that one little factoid to try to question MY engineering creds? That’s a mighty weak horse to pull your wagon. The analogy of the space elevator to the greatest skyscraper ever constructed is an obvious one. I have no idea why you are questioning this unless you are seeking solace in denial.

Nathan, are you suggesting that the surviving components from a catastrophic failure of this elevator would be, what, just a few feet? Do you have a problem with my description of “miles and miles” that would survive to come scything down to the Earth? Explain.