4 ms·

Yes, people are still working on it. It's not going to get built if no one tries.

by CountHackulus 11y ago

meddlepal 11y ago
Some things aren't worth trying because they are batshit insane.
- zatkin 11y ago
  It might be more cost effective to build a really long, narrow elevator into space vs. paying $450 million per launch of a rocket/large spacecraft.[1] And keep in mind that launching a large spacecraft usually carries less than 12 individuals. [1] http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#10 http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttl...
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    Not really this is like saying that It would be more cost effective to build jumbo jets instead of sail boats in the 15th century. Even if an alien descended from the sky and gave you the materials to build it we don't have a single analogy as far as the actual engineering and construction process goes to even begin drawing blue prints. So yeah in the "long run" it might be more cost effective but it's irrelevant you can say the same thing about any hypothetical technology but you can't stop spending money in the mean time if nothing else we need to be able to be really good at launching extremely heavy payloads and building stuff in micro-gravity before we can even begin to start dreaming about how to build a space elevator. We also need rockets that can go out quite far and come back with a huge payload like a small asteroid for the anchor and even most likely have to master asteroid mining for the raw materials for any potential space elevator. My bet is that it may become feasible around 2250-2500 (yes I know this is a 250 years window :)) if it's possible at all (because when all said and done even carbon nano-tubes aren't good enough they are a good candidate and most likely will be used but we need much stronger composites than what carbon-nano tubes alone can offer).
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  See also: horseless carriages, flight, splitting atoms.
  - ju-st 11y ago
    fusion power?

Yes, people are still working on it. It's not going to get built if no one tries.

meddlepal 11y ago

Some things aren't worth trying because they are batshit insane.

zatkin 11y ago
It might be more cost effective to build a really long, narrow elevator into space vs. paying $450 million per launch of a rocket/large spacecraft.[1] And keep in mind that launching a large spacecraft usually carries less than 12 individuals. [1] http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#10 http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttl...
- dogma1138 11y ago
  Not really this is like saying that It would be more cost effective to build jumbo jets instead of sail boats in the 15th century. Even if an alien descended from the sky and gave you the materials to build it we don't have a single analogy as far as the actual engineering and construction process goes to even begin drawing blue prints. So yeah in the "long run" it might be more cost effective but it's irrelevant you can say the same thing about any hypothetical technology but you can't stop spending money in the mean time if nothing else we need to be able to be really good at launching extremely heavy payloads and building stuff in micro-gravity before we can even begin to start dreaming about how to build a space elevator. We also need rockets that can go out quite far and come back with a huge payload like a small asteroid for the anchor and even most likely have to master asteroid mining for the raw materials for any potential space elevator. My bet is that it may become feasible around 2250-2500 (yes I know this is a 250 years window :)) if it's possible at all (because when all said and done even carbon nano-tubes aren't good enough they are a good candidate and most likely will be used but we need much stronger composites than what carbon-nano tubes alone can offer).
ceejayoz 11y ago
See also: horseless carriages, flight, splitting atoms.
- ju-st 11y ago
  fusion power?