Japanese construction giant Obayashi announces plans to have a space elevator up and running by 2050 - Polidicks

[QUOTE=_Kent_;46050769]I hope this happens, but every other science fiction promise of the past 50 years has failed almost without exception, so I find it hard to be optimistic.[/QUOTE] We go to space regularly, make power directly from the sun, create new, normally impossible elements in laboratories daily and destroy particles moving at 90% of the speed of light. We've put probes on mars, have a worldwide network that lets me communicate with you in under a second, we've got vast repositories of knowledge that's updated by the minute and our phones have touchscreens, cameras, microphones and wireless connections to the entire globe. We're already living in the future bro.

[QUOTE=Empty_Shadow;46051794]We go to space regularly, make power directly from the sun, create new, normally impossible elements in laboratories daily and destroy particles moving at 90% of the speed of light. We've put probes on mars, have a worldwide network that lets me communicate with you in under a second, we've got vast repositories of knowledge that's updated by the minute and our phones have touchscreens, cameras, microphones and wireless connections to the entire globe. We're already living in the future bro.[/QUOTE] And this is happening exponentially... [editline]23rd September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Aphtonites;46048277]I hope I'm not the only one who thinks that 2050 sounds a little optimistic for a project of this scale.[/QUOTE] Economical growth is formed from increase of productivity, and currently a large precentage comes from increasing efficiency, manufacturing more sophisticated goods and new technology. At current annual economical growth of 4% it takes 17.6 years to double the world economy and during the remaining 36 years the world's GWP will be 4.1 times larger than the current one (if nothing devastating happens). And the current annual global population growth is about 1.1%, so lets assume that 1.1% of the economical growth goes to keep the new population atleast the same level of wealth. So we still have 3.9% to be 'used' elsewhere. And im just saying that system 4 more 'larger' can spare more resources and efforts than the system of current size to specific projects. The first years will be used on planning and developing materials and techniques, and setting up industrial scale production of the carbon nanotubes until the actual construction can be started. But mostlikely the project will suffer some delays. Also this, but with nanotubes: [IMG]http://www.tommytrc.com/sparkatopia/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/y2Rurl.jpg[/IMG]

7 days to travel up-wire to the far reaches, eh? Well the transit cars better damn well have a pantry and internet connection for the journey to whatever space station they build at the end of it. I mean, if you're gonna have a space elevator, it's gotta have something at its destination.

[QUOTE=ironman17;46052361]7 days to travel up-wire to the far reaches, eh? Well the transit cars better damn well have a pantry and internet connection for the journey to whatever space station they build at the end of it. I mean, if you're gonna have a space elevator, it's gotta have something at its destination.[/QUOTE] Major usage would be cargo.

My concern is that since something like this has to be on the equator, and that all orbits cross the equator it means that absolutely every single object put in orbit so far has the potential to hit it eventually.

[QUOTE=paul simon;46051437]How the fuck are they going to actually erect the structure when it's built? :v:[/QUOTE] From Geostationary orbit downwards and upwards at the same time, most likely starting with smaller guide lines before placing the real cables the trams will hang from. A space elevator relies on tension, not compression. Edit: And as for my previous comment, sure computers are amazing and a vital part of modern life, but most people honestly and ironically expected economically viable space colonies, unlimited fusion power, and an end to manufacturing labor as we know it by now. Instead, we have Chinese sweatshops, most of the world still burning coal, and no human presence beyond very near Earth orbit for 40+ years now. Don't get me wrong, all of these things are feasible and so is the space elevator, but there is not enough willpower either in government or by corporations to get it done.

[QUOTE=Empty_Shadow;46051794]We go to space regularly, make power directly from the sun, create new, normally impossible elements in laboratories daily and destroy particles moving at 90% of the speed of light. We've put probes on mars, have a worldwide network that lets me communicate with you in under a second, we've got vast repositories of knowledge that's updated by the minute and our phones have touchscreens, cameras, microphones and wireless connections to the entire globe. We're already living in the future bro.[/QUOTE] You know what I would like to see ? A working mech suit, like the one in Aliens, Avatar or Matrix. Fascinating that still nobody made anything similar, the concept doesn't look like something that couldn't bee done with current technology. There are some exoskeletons that were made few years ago, it's cool but nothing mind blowing like a real mech suit.

[QUOTE=AntonioR;46052834]You know what I would like to see ? A working mech suit, like the one in Aliens, Avatar or Matrix. Fascinating that still nobody made anything similar, the concept doesn't look like something that couldn't bee done with current technology. There are some exoskeletons that were made few years ago, it's cool but nothing mind blowing like a real mech suit.[/QUOTE] I honestly don't think we're close to create walking mech suits. But suits using wheels for movement are more feasible. See the Kurata [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d3/KURATAS_-_Suidobashi_heavy_industry_rideable_robot.jpg/576px-KURATAS_-_Suidobashi_heavy_industry_rideable_robot.jpg[/t] I know the Kurata is pretty much a giant toy, but still. The tech is here. Is just a [I]big[/I] victim of Awesome But Impractical

If I see one more comment about micrometeorites... These threads are kinda boring to read because it's all been discussed before. Everything that most of you have brought up has been considered, and dealt with by engineers. The only technological challenge in building a space elevator at this point is making the carbon nanotube ribbon. The only thing worth noting about this article is that this is an incredibly ambitious press release to stir up investors. It's highly unlikely that Nanotube technology will be at the point that we can build a space elevator by 2050, at it's current rate.

[QUOTE=Sprockethead;46049500]The chance of a random object randomly hitting a thin cord is effectively nill. If something ever hits it it can be assumed with practically 100% accuracy that someone aimed for it.[/QUOTE] Can I see some math on this? Or at least something that puts it into perspective.

[QUOTE=Sableye;46049546]one question i have about this is, how the hell do you get it up there? i mean you can't just build it straight, which means you have to have a station and some kind of cable assembly system, but then how do you lower a cable to earth from space and how do you go about doing that without pulling the entire station down from atmospheric drag obviously building a station at geosyncronus orbit would be the only solution but that doesn't work out because it requires like 3x the material and the forces exceed carbon nanotubes, building it in LEO is better because you can also avoid space junk higher up but then there's still the problem of atmospheric drag durring construction.[/QUOTE] atmo drag is going to exist always though, not during construction. To construct it you would have to anchor it near geo and then lower it down. [editline]22nd September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Hypershadsy;46053187]Can I see some math on this? Or at least something that puts it into perspective.[/QUOTE] dug up the slide [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/XiBWvho.png[/IMG] I know this says interplanetary flux but it still applies. So basically, if you take a region of space and draw a 1x1 meter box, on average one 1-gram micrometeorite will pass through that box once every 1,000,000 years. In other words, should it be looked into? Yes. Is it a deal breaker? Far from it. This number seems really low, but even on the off chance that micrometeorite mass should be in kg, that drops that number down to once every 1,000 years, which is still ridiculously small.

this is ludicrous, they should be building a giant catapult instead

[QUOTE=SirLemon;46048498]That other guy brought up a good point, what if it falls? That could kill thousands, destroy chunks of the world, etc etc. Why do we even need a space elevator? There's nothing worthwhile in space as of right now. Until technology can reach the point where we can easily leave the solar system, there's no point.[/QUOTE] How short-sighted are you?

Theoretically we could add armored "Ring stations" around the actual cable with maybe a couple centimeters of some dense material to minimize the chance of an object hitting it without putting strain on the actual cable as well as being easily replaced.

Surely there will be some sort of force field to protect it, even if its just a magnetic field, to keep rocks and debris from hitting it.

[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;46053155]If I see one more comment about micrometeorites... These threads are kinda boring to read because it's all been discussed before. Everything that most of you have brought up has been considered, and dealt with by engineers. The only technological challenge in building a space elevator at this point is making the carbon nanotube ribbon.[/QUOTE] "Don't bother talking about this, it's all been figured-out by engineers." Anyway, as far as I know it would be effectively impossible to stop objects of a faction of a milliliter to collide with the elevator. Even if damage is minimal, it would be gradual and I've never heard of any talks of how they would repair or replace parts of the structure if it became damaged enough. Hell, even if they could somehow mitigate that decay over time, even with extremely careful observation it would be impossible to track and destroy every object a few centimeters big that could potentially hit and badly damage the cable. Perhaps there would be multiple cables running in parallel? If one of the cables is severed perhaps the others could still be able to support it until it's repaired? That would still complicate things but perhaps having 6 cables in a hexagon formation would give the structure enough redundancy.

I dont see how this is even physically plausible to build and be ready in 2050 considering that they would need to build about 7km a day for a straight 12410 days to reach the height of 96000km

I hate that stomach feeling you get when a lift starts to move up or down but having that for 7 days? Geez.

[QUOTE=Tmaxx;46053612]Surely there will be some sort of force field to protect it, even if its just a magnetic field, to keep rocks and debris from hitting it.[/QUOTE] Nope. Magnets don't repel rocks. And even if all space debris was metallic, it's travelling at >7km/s. You'd need a power source comparable to the sun to maintain that kind of magnetic field.

I hope to visit space some day before I die/become a senile degenerate old man

[QUOTE=Shirky;46053723]I dont see how this is even physically plausible to build and be ready in 2050 considering that they would need to build about 7km a day for a straight 12410 days to reach the height of 96000km[/QUOTE] It probably wouldn't be done from a bottom-to-top or top-to-bottom manner. It would probably be done around layers, where we connect a cable from space which will be dropped down to earth. Then from that very small cable we lift and connect additional layers to the cable.

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;46053655]"Don't bother talking about this, it's all been figured-out by engineers." Anyway, as far as I know it would be effectively impossible to stop objects of a faction of a milliliter to collide with the elevator. Even if damage is minimal, it would be gradual and I've never heard of any talks of how they would repair or replace parts of the structure if it became damaged enough. Hell, even if they could somehow mitigate that decay over time, even with extremely careful observation it would be impossible to track and destroy every object a few centimeters big that could potentially hit and badly damage the cable. Perhaps there would be multiple cables running in parallel? If one of the cables is severed perhaps the others could still be able to support it until it's repaired? That would still complicate things but perhaps having 6 cables in a hexagon formation would give the structure enough redundancy.[/QUOTE] Sorry. I don't mean to be a buzzkill. It's just frustrating seeing post after post of people going "It can't be done because of <reason>". 90% of the time, had they done even the tiniest amount of research (like reading the wikipedia page), they would realize that they are wrong. Kind of like this post: [QUOTE=Shirky;46053723]I dont see how this is even physically plausible to build and be ready in 2050 considering that they would need to [B]build[/B] about 7km a day for a straight 12410 days [B]to reach the height[/B] of 96000km[/QUOTE] Sorry Shirky I don't mean to pick on you specifically. But the bolded parts of your post make it seem like you think they are actually building a structure from the ground up. They aren't. They're weaving a ribbon, and are going to drop it down to earth from GEO. The reason it ~theoretically~ can be done by 2050 is because you can weave the ribbon in sections and stitch it together at the end. 10 factories each weaving 10km of cable a day could finish the job in under three years.

This seems like the kinda structure where you don't wanna have any kidnapped planes flying around :v:

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;46053655] Anyway, as far as I know it would be effectively impossible to stop objects of a faction of a milliliter to collide with the elevator. Even if damage is minimal, it would be gradual and I've never heard of any talks of how they would repair or replace parts of the structure if it became damaged enough. Hell, even if they could somehow mitigate that decay over time, even with extremely careful observation it would be impossible to track and destroy every object a few centimeters big that could potentially hit and badly damage the cable. Perhaps there would be multiple cables running in parallel? If one of the cables is severed perhaps the others could still be able to support it until it's repaired? That would still complicate things but perhaps having 6 cables in a hexagon formation would give the structure enough redundancy.[/QUOTE] To address your hypothesis: The prevailing theory is that autonomous crawlers will scour the ribbon, detecting holes and reweaving the ribbon. If this can't be done for some reason, then you resort to having two ribbons running side by side. (No reason to have 6) The cable can be divided into segments, so if one breaks, it can quickly be replaced. [editline]22nd September 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Mezzokoko;46053853]This seems like the kinda structure where you don't wanna have any kidnapped planes flying around :v:[/QUOTE] A space elevator would basically be a crowning achievement of mankind. If it gets built, it [I]will[/I] be on the equator. Most likely this means it will be on a platform in the middle of the ocean. You can rest assured that the controlling military will be enforcing a no-fly-zone within 100 miles of the thing, with a significant military presence defending what's basically the most expensive asset on the face of the earth. Another interesting note is that space elevators are magnitudes easier to build if you already have one. The first has to be built with rockets. The rest can be built by ferrying supplies up the first elevator. Most likely multiple elevators will sprout quickly, to the point where losing one is a non issue. Destruction at the base is hardly catastrophic too. It's pretty trivial to go lasso and bring it back to the correct location if someone ever manages to snap it at the base.

[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;46053863]To address your hypothesis: The prevailing theory is that autonomous crawlers will scour the ribbon, detecting holes and reweaving the ribbon. If this can't be done for some reason. Then you resort to having two ribbons running side by side. (No reason to have 6) The cable can be divided into segments, so if one breaks, it can quickly be replaced.[/QUOTE] Well, the "6" figure would be there to give it extreme redundancy. Could also increase the amount of cargo you could lift up. If we intent to keep the cable running for a very long time, building additional cables along the first one in an optimal configuration could account for even the worst case scenarios. Also, once the first cable is secured it would be exponentially faster to secure additional cables and lift up material for the counter-weight. [QUOTE=FunnyBunny;46053863]Another interesting note is that space elevators are magnitudes easier to build if you already have one. The first has to be built with rockets. The rest can be built by ferrying supplies up the first elevator. Most likely multiple elevators will sprout quickly, to the point where losing one is a non issue. Destruction at the base is hardly catastrophic too. It's pretty trivial to go lasso and bring it back to the correct location if someone ever manages to snap it at the base.[/QUOTE] Ah, Ninja'd. Though from what I understand, if it's snapped at the base the whole thing gets ejected in space.

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;46053895]Well, the "6" figure would be there to give it extreme redundancy. Could also increase the amount of cargo you could lift up. If we intent to keep the cable running for a very long time, building additional cables along the first one in an optimal configuration could account for even the worst case scenarios. Also, once the first cable is secured it would be exponentially faster to secure additional cables and lift up material for the counter-weight.[/QUOTE] Faster, but it's not really worth it. You could either build 6 cables and never touch the thing again, or you could build 2 cables and do maintenance on it when necessary. 96,000 miles of carbon nanotube is not a trivial thing... Why waste 6 cables on a single lift when you could have 3 lifts. Also, more cables != more crawlers. Crawlers can move up and down the same cable with some maneuvering. Or if you're already dedicated to two cables, then crawlers could be constantly going up one, and down the other. You could fit hundreds on a single elevator. As far as the mass goes... you might have a point. I haven't done the math but I feel like crawlers moving cargo will be pretty trivial compared to the tension forces of keeping an asteroid attached to the earth.

[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;46053911]Faster, but it's not really worth it. You could either build 6 cables and never touch the thing again, or you could build 2 cables and do maintenance on it when necessary. 96,000 miles of carbon nanotube is not a trivial thing... Why waste 6 cables on a single lift when you could have 3 lifts. Also, more cables != more crawlers. Crawlers can move up and down the same cable with some maneuvering. Or if you're already dedicated to two cables, then crawlers could be constantly going up one, and down the other. You could fit hundreds on a single elevator. As far as the mass goes... you might have a point. I haven't done the math but I feel like crawlers moving cargo will be pretty trivial compared to the tension forces of keeping an asteroid attached to the earth.[/QUOTE] My idea was more that additional cables would more easily support the weight the severed cable without resorting to stronger materials. If you have two cables and one breaks, if you want the other cable to support it you're effectively doubling the amount of tension that the cable needs to endure. If you had much more redundancy, if one cable breaks the tension would be shared amongst many more cables.

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;46053895] Ah, Ninja'd. Though from what I understand, if it's snapped at the base the whole thing gets ejected in space.[/QUOTE] This is a common misconception. When people think space elevator, they think of spinning a mass on a string. There's a false idea that the nanotube ribbon is the only thing keeping the counterweight from flying off on an escape trajectory. Imagine a satellite in geostationary orbit. Theoretically, you can stretch a wire from the ground to the satellite. When you cut that wire, the satellite doesn't go flying off, it just stays in that same orbit. In reality, the center of mass of the space elevator has to be [I]a little bit[/I] further than GEO, simply for the purpose of keeping the nanotube ribbon stretched tight. Literally the bare minimum you need, and hopefully nothing more. What this means is that when you cut the ribbon, the orbit will change, but not by much. I'm pulling numbers out of my ass here, but I bet your eccentricity will be under 0.1 after a ribbon cut. The best thing? Since the ribbon cut was instantaneous, only the space elevator's apogee changes, it's perigee stays exactly the same. Which means it's incredibly simple to move it back into its appropriate orbit. Since GEO speeds are ~2 km/s, the space elevator station needs about 100 m/s of deltaV in order to place itself back in the correct orbit. And the cable comes dangling back down towards earth. Which means that if someone crashes an airliner into it, 99.999% of the cable will be intact, and the tip of it will be floating 36,000 feet above sea level. Pretty easy fix, in reality.

What kind of tonnage do you think the elevator can lift? Currently, rockets have to blow up tons of fuel just to lift significantly fewer tons of payload into space. Like most of the weight of a spacecraft is it's fuel and not even nearly the things we humans care about like life support modules. I think if we hooked the elevator up to a dedicated nuclear power plant, it would be a more elegant way to get things into space. Exploding fuel is so crude.

That's cool and all... But would look fucking ugly.