WASHINGTON (June 26) - President Bush wants to return to the moon and put a man on Mars. But scientist Bradley C. Edwards has an idea that's really out of this world: an elevator that climbs 62,000 miles into space. Edwards thinks an initial version could be operating in 15 years, a year earlier than Bush's 2020 timetable for a return to the moon. He pegs the cost at $10 billion, a pittance compared with other space endeavors. ''It's not new physics - nothing new has to be discovered, nothing new has to be invented from scratch,'' he says. ''If there are delays in budget or delays in whatever, it could stretch, but 15 years is a realistic estimate for when we could have one up.'' Edwards is not just some guy with an idea. He's head of the space elevator project at the Institute for Scientific Research in Fairmont, W.Va. NASA already has given it more than $500,000 to study the idea, and Congress has earmarked $2.5 million more. ''A lot of people at NASA are excited about the idea,'' said Robert Casanova, director of the NASA Institute of Advanced Concepts in Atlanta. Edwards believes a space elevator offers a cheaper, safer form of space travel that eventually could be used to carry explorers to the planets. More on This Story ยท Web: Space Elevator Conference Edwards' elevator would climb on a cable made of nanotubes - tiny bundles of carbon atoms many times stronger than steel. The cable would be about three feet wide and thinner than a piece of paper, but capable of supporting a payload up to 13 tons. The cable would be attached to a platform on the equator, off the Pacific coast of South America where winds are calm, weather is good and commercial airplane flights are few. The platform would be mobile so the cable could be moved to get out of the path of orbiting satellites. David Brin, a science-fiction writer who formerly taught physics at San Diego State University, believes the concept is solid but doubts such an elevator could be operating by 2019. ''I have no doubt that our great-grandchildren will routinely use space elevators,'' he said. ''But it will take another generation to gather the technologies needed.'' Edwards' institute is holding a third annual conference on space elevators in Washington starting Monday. A keynote speaker at the three-day meeting will be John Mankins, NASA's manager of human and robotics technology. Organizers say it will discuss technical challenges and solutions and the economic feasibility of the elevator proposal. The space elevator is not a new idea. A Russian scientist, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, envisioned it a century ago. And Arthur C. Clarke's novel ''The Fountains of Paradise,'' published in 1979, talks of a space elevator 24,000 miles high, and permanent colonies on the moon, Mercury and Mars. The difference now, Edwards said, is ''we have a material that we can use to actually build it.'' He envisions launching sections of cable into space on rockets. A ''climber'' - his version of an elevator car - would then be attached to the cable and used to add more lengths of cable until eventually it stretches down to the Earth. A counterweight would be attached to the end in space. Edwards likens the design to ''spinning a ball on a string around your head.'' The string is the cable and the ball on the end is a counterweight. The Earth's rotation would keep the cable taut. The elevator would be powered by photo cells that convert light into electricity. A laser attached to the platform could be aimed at the elevator to deliver the light, Edwards said. Edwards said he probably needs about two more years of development on the carbon nanotubes to obtain the strength needed. After that, he believes work on the project can begin. ''The major obstacle is probably just politics or funding and those two are the same thing,'' he said. ''The technical, I don't think that's really an issue anymore.'' AP-NY-06-26-04 0439EDT
Random Thoughts: 1. My office has 3 elevators. Only 1 works on any given day, and it's always full. 2. How much do you have to pay to grease THAT inspector?! (Zing - Thank you... I'll be here all night!) 3. That's a big shaft. 4. What did we leave on the moon that requires returning... to the tune of over $3M?
Its a very good idea and one that needs to be done. A "beanstalk" would make the most expensive part of getting into space as easy and cheap as a bus ride. Biggest problem is that it would be an irresistable target for some dickhead terrorist...
well i think he means that the hardest past of space travel is getting there. if this elevator was attatched to a port type place where other ships could take off from then the hardest part wouldnt be there anymore. simply take the elevator up and jump on your "plane" and head to another elevator on earth or elsewhere. maybe i am way off base on all that, but it would seem cool. if it couldnt be used like that then there wouldnt be much point as far as i see it.
What gixxer said. If we can finally find a cheap, safe, relable way out from the bottom of the gravity well, then that opens the whole solar system to us.
That just seems like the mother of all bad ideas... An elevator to space? Seriously, lets think about this a minute. An elevator.... to space...??? Are we gonna build a stairway, in case of fire? (Yes, I know, "Stairway to Heaven" - haha) Will they play Micheal Bolton instrumentals? old Pat Benetar songs on the piano? That just seems like a joke. Why don't we just build a big spiralling interstate and drive to space? - its only a few miles... parking shouldn't be a problem, there's plenty of room. If it takes 5-10 minutes to get to the top of the Sears tower (that's only 1400 ft), imagine the hell of being stuck on the elevator with a silent fart for 12 miles!!! Thank you - I'll be here all week... Don't forget to tip your waitress...
It needs to be 100~150 miles tall not 12. Its not really an elevator. A better analogy is a tether ball. When its spinning, the weight of the ball and cord makes it stay up. In this case its the rotation of the Earth that provides the spin, and the station on the end acts as the "ball", though you really don't need one there at all. Even 150 miles of fishing line weighs quite a bit. The physics of it are proven, we just needed the technology and will/money to catch up.
