NationStates

So in one of those random debates that I'm sure happens to everyone, a group of my friends got a little heated into the concept of space elevators, and more importantly the implications the construction and utilization of a space elevator would have on the world. Assuming that carbon nanotube technology allows us to build a space elevator in the next 30-50 years, would we? Would this open up space for the entire world, or provide a monopoly to a private corporation or nation? Being as they are much easier to create on the equator than anywhere else, would nations such as the Congo, Uganda, Ecuador and Malaysia receive alot of attention and even grow economically if resources such as rare minerals from asteroids and helium-3 or other energy resources are brought down from the elevator?

These were the kinds of questions that were asked and I'm very curious as to what NS forum users have in forms of answers to these questions.

I don't quite understand the physics behind them, but from what I've read it looks like launch loops would be better.

I've speculated on this stuff m'self... which is really the best we can do.

One thing that would be important to remember is that even though carbon nanofibers are immensely strong, the proposition of a space elevator would still entail tension forces of unfathomable magnitude. Striking a balance between lightweight, immense tensile strength, and a degree of redundancy and mutual support that would prevent a snapped cable from essentially laying waste to the equator several times over would be... a difficult proposition at best. I'd figure it would likely require carbon nanotubes woven together like wool into a string, probably several of them with smaller bracing cables between them in order to divide the strain and prevent catastrophic failure.

It isn't specifically easier to build a space elevator on the equator. Its imperative to build a space elevator on the equator, as there would need to be a counterweight station in orbit (to prevent packages going up from pulling the elevator down, and giving a launch point). At the same time, it is important to note that the continents themselves move, and even a small difference could destabilize an already fragile system to the point of breakage, therefore, a landbased... base... would be a bit out of the question. So I'd be figuring that the best idea would be to have the base mounted on a floating platform on the ocean. This would also help avoid any trade issues that might arise, as the anchor platform might even be located in international waters.

For the construction itself, the sheer amount of carbon and specialized engineering required would likely involve a multinational effort of unprecedented scale, since you're essentially making an extremely strong series of cables around 35,800 kilometers in length. It would likely cost less to cover the entire US in solar panels.

That being said, the elevator would mostly be used for sending stuff up, as it'd be easy as heck to send stuff back down. A canister with a parachute. Wee.

Wisconsin9 wrote:I don't quite understand the physics behind them, but from what I've read it looks like launch loops would be better.

More feasible, aye.

Godular wrote:

Wisconsin9 wrote:I don't quite understand the physics behind them, but from what I've read it looks like launch loops would be better.

More feasible, aye.

What would be the implications of massive, global array of launch loops if they are a better alternative? And wouldn't space elevators still be more efficient in bringing heavy cargo up and down from space in short spans of time, rather than flying them up and using large amounts of fuel and flying them down while risking contamination or burnage from coming down from LEO?

Altergo wrote:Being as they are much easier to create on the equator than anywhere else, would nations such as the Congo, Uganda, Ecuador and Malaysia receive alot of attention and even grow economically if resources such as rare minerals from asteroids and helium-3 or other energy resources are brought down from the elevator?

Save for an alpacalypse, we'll be there before them... Most of our space research is centered on our north-facing coast.

In terms of the Political implications, some huge corporations such as Google have already talked about a space elevator. Google's research department, "Google[x]", actually attempted to plan one out, I believe they eventually dropped the project but the fact that a corporation was willing to even think of this is worth thinking about.

You do realize a lever arm that long would create...issues, right?

Edgy Opinions wrote:

Altergo wrote:Being as they are much easier to create on the equator than anywhere else, would nations such as the Congo, Uganda, Ecuador and Malaysia receive alot of attention and even grow economically if resources such as rare minerals from asteroids and helium-3 or other energy resources are brought down from the elevator?

Save for an alpacalypse, we'll be there before them... Most of our space research is centered on our north-facing coast.

I was just quoting those nations for the fact that they lie on the equator and therefore provide essential real estate for creating a space elevator that could last on the long term

Space elevators, launch loops, any other system drastically reducing the costs of transporting mass into orbit would have major economic impacts. With the amount of money needed for development and construction, only those with incredibly deep pockets would be able to afford the up-front costs initially. Once one was completed, I would imagine several more would be built by competing powers. The economic and military implications are too great for everyone else to allow someone to have a monopoly on it (look at the growth of satellite navigation programs, then multiply many times).

Once such a system is up and running, then we'll finally see an off-Earth boom.

Wisconsin9 wrote:I don't quite understand the physics behind them, but from what I've read it looks like launch loops would be better.

More practical I think. Unlike a space elevator, which won't stay up without getting all the way up (to hold it's own weight), a launch loop would still be useful even if it can't launch vehicles to orbit. It could launch vehicles with a second-stage booster to get to orbit. The horizontal component of the launch trajectory is nearly as important as the vertical component, to enter Earth orbit.

Some issues to be resolved. A cable moving at Mach 50 obviously can't be exposed to the atmosphere. If the power goes out for one second, the cable touches the sheath and there is one mighty whip-crack. A rain of white-hot metal. And no more launch loop.

Building a space elevator would require significant investment of resources and R&D and as such likely be funded by a national or international orginisation. The EU, USA, or possibly a international collaberation between nations like the F-35 or ISS. Obviously Russia and China wouldn't be involved with a European or American project, but may attempt to build their own. Also there would have to be economic and or political incentives to build one, so a timescale would likely be in centuries not decades.

There is no way Africa is getting one unless the continent has a serious reversal in fortunes, which is unlikely. Location could be near Hawaii for an American lead project, or near the UK for a europe based project. It's also likely that an artificial island or series of islands be constructed within 12 miles of the elevator to secure local airspace and establish sovereignty.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:Building a space elevator would require significant investment of resources and R&D and as such likely be funded by a national or international orginisation. The EU, USA, or possibly a international collaberation between nations like the F-35 or ISS. Obviously Russia and China wouldn't be involved with a European or American project, but may attempt to build their own. Also there would have to be economic and or political incentives to build one, so a timescale would likely be in centuries not decades.

There is no way Africa is getting one unless the continent has a serious reversal in fortunes, which is unlikely. Location could be near Hawaii for an American lead project, or near the UK for a europe based project. It's also likely that an artificial island or series of islands be constructed within 12 miles of the elevator to secure local airspace and establish sovereignty.

What? Russia and the US collaborated over the ISS. The F-35 was developed solely by the US. Collaboration is spelt collaboration. A space elevator cannot be located in either Hawaii or the UK. How would someone be able to construct islands from the pacific seabed? Why would they when the base for a space elevator design will most probably have to move, rather than be in a stationary point?

I'm really confused as to what points you're trying to make here.

This is a a reason why we won't have to store nuclear waste for millions of years. Elevate it and kick it into the sun.

Altergo wrote:Assuming that carbon nanotube technology allows us to build a space elevator in the next 30-50 years, would we?

I'll start my point by saying that, generally speaking, people are the problem instead of technology. So, whether one will be built or not will hinge on (1) the potential material gains from it from the only people or institutions potentially willing to invest vast sums of money in it and (2) the willingness of leaders and politicians to spend vast amounts of public money and resources on such a future instead of on the army to further their interests abroad or a welfare programme to bribe a significant part of the population into voting for them again. I mean, in the United States and Europe the space programmes have had to reduce their ambitions and aims because those governments don't have much money anymore and prefer to spend it on short-term, emotionally-popular stuff (welfare, foreign military interventions, waves of refugees resulting in part from those foreign military interventions, and this endless obsession we have with trying to turn millions of children into theoretically-educated know-nothings because we don't want our precious children to work with their hands). In short, if it's possible technologically we'd still have to find a use that would be (1) profitable for corporations and politicians and (2) easily defensible on a political level to general populations that feel entitled to free money and resources.

Altergo wrote:Would this open up space for the entire world, or provide a monopoly to a private corporation or nation?

There will likely be formal treaties and an international body to regulate it, but as it always goes whichever nation is strongest and most powerful will have the first and the most access.
And nations that are currently in a bad state in any way, from Greece to Somalia, will probably not get any access at all except in cooperative international schemes.

Altergo wrote:Being as they are much easier to create on the equator than anywhere else, would nations such as the Congo, Uganda, Ecuador and Malaysia receive alot of attention and even grow economically if resources such as rare minerals from asteroids and helium-3 or other energy resources are brought down from the elevator?

If the equator is the easiest place to build one of these things, then the authorities worldwide would pick a country that's safe, peaceful, and unlikely to seize the thing, charge heavily for its use or destroy it. So, the Congo (sheer chaos and bloodshed, the thing would end up being destroyed by some paranoid cannibalistic war lord soon enough) and Malaysia (they have a reputation worldwide for being stingy and liable to try to renegotiate an arrangement to improve the benefit to themselves) are unlikely choices. Places like Tanzania, Kenya and Indonesia are also unlikely for the same reasons. So, perhaps Ecuador, or Brazil, or some island near the equator but far from the world's major powers (Nauru, Kiribati, et cetera).

Chemaki wrote:How would someone be able to construct islands from the pacific seabed?

Leave it to us. If it's land in the sea you want, it's the Dutch you need.

Altergo wrote:So in one of those random debates that I'm sure happens to everyone, a group of my friends got a little heated into the concept of space elevators, and more importantly the implications the construction and utilization of a space elevator would have on the world. Assuming that carbon nanotube technology allows us to build a space elevator in the next 30-50 years, would we? Would this open up space for the entire world, or provide a monopoly to a private corporation or nation? Being as they are much easier to create on the equator than anywhere else, would nations such as the Congo, Uganda, Ecuador and Malaysia receive alot of attention and even grow economically if resources such as rare minerals from asteroids and helium-3 or other energy resources are brought down from the elevator?

These were the kinds of questions that were asked and I'm very curious as to what NS forum users have in forms of answers to these questions.

I don't know why people assume that technological development only lines the pockets of the rich. Vaccines were a huge leap of technology, and look how much that helped all the non-rich people out there.

Anyways, to answer your question, I think a space elevator would simply benefit everyone. The rich become richer, the middle-class become richer, the poor become richer. And yes, this would definitely benefit nations at the equator, although I doubt there would be any space elevators in The Congo or Uganda anytime soon. As I recall, a space elevator must be built within 30-ish degrees of the equator (correct me if I'm wrong). This opens up Brazil, India, Australia, and even some American and European territories like Diego Garcia and French Guiana. I think the First World will build a space elevator long before the Second- or Third Worlds.

Chemaki wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:Building a space elevator would require significant investment of resources and R&D and as such likely be funded by a national or international orginisation. The EU, USA, or possibly a international collaberation between nations like the F-35 or ISS. Obviously Russia and China wouldn't be involved with a European or American project, but may attempt to build their own. Also there would have to be economic and or political incentives to build one, so a timescale would likely be in centuries not decades.

There is no way Africa is getting one unless the continent has a serious reversal in fortunes, which is unlikely. Location could be near Hawaii for an American lead project, or near the UK for a europe based project. It's also likely that an artificial island or series of islands be constructed within 12 miles of the elevator to secure local airspace and establish sovereignty.

What? Russia and the US collaborated over the ISS. The F-35 was developed solely by the US. Collaboration is spelt collaboration. A space elevator cannot be located in either Hawaii or the UK. How would someone be able to construct islands from the pacific seabed? Why would they when the base for a space elevator design will most probably have to move, rather than be in a stationary point?

I'm really confused as to what points you're trying to make here.

Well it COULD be anchored in Hawai'i, but I'd guess they would aim for simplicity and go with a sea base near or on the Equator

Altergo wrote:Assuming that carbon nanotube technology allows us to build a space elevator in the next 30-50 years, would we?

Not very likely UNLESS it's to build orbital docks - so to use interplanetary-only spacecraft.

Would this open up space for the entire world

No. Just for the corporation, conglomerate or national agency that built it.

would nations such as the Congo, Uganda, Ecuador and Malaysia receive alot of attention and even grow economically if resources such as rare minerals from asteroids and helium-3 or other energy resources are brought down from the elevator?

It's not like places which are just hosting logistic platforms grow a lot. Especially since the planetary transportation system have developed so much that there's a thing called globalisation.

Asteroid mining is anyway bollocks - and even assuming it were profitable, it doesn't require a space elevator to bring down stuff. Going DOWN the gravity pit is easy, and you just need a disposable thermal shield and a parachute.

WestRedMaple wrote:Well it COULD be anchored in Hawai'i, but I'd guess they would aim for simplicity and go with a sea base near or on the Equator

Kourou ftw.

Risottia wrote:

WestRedMaple wrote:Well it COULD be anchored in Hawai'i, but I'd guess they would aim for simplicity and go with a sea base near or on the Equator

Kourou ftw.

The anchor would have to be floating, lest even minor movements such as an earthquake or volcanic eruption cause the whole thing to disintegrate. It may be constructed of carbon nanotubes, but it will still be enormously fragile.