Need opinions and guidance building a space elevator.

[Relic]

Is is anything like that thread where you just buy a special pen and write "this CD sounds great" on a CD and it will make it sound better? Or something like that. Anyone remember that gem of a thread?
I'm writing "the space elevator will work" on a piece of paper and putting it in my pocket. I take full credit for it's invention now.

 

[MakiSupaStar]

Is is anything like that thread where you just buy a special pen and write "this CD sounds great" on a CD and it will make it sound better? Or something like that. Anyone remember that gem of a thread?
I'm writing "the space elevator will work" on a piece of paper and putting it in my pocket. I take full credit for it's invention now.

Exactly.

 

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Is is anything like that thread where you just buy a special pen and write "this CD sounds great" on a CD and it will make it sound better? Or something like that. Anyone remember that gem of a thread?
I'm writing "the space elevator will work" on a piece of paper and putting it in my pocket. I take full credit for it's invention now.

My favourite one still has to be the power cable which makes your amp sound better.

 

[dj150888]

A wee bit of research on LiftPort will show that they've already been involved in some shady financial dealings.

They were illegally selling shares in the company. Mr Laine has said that it was because of a "paperwork error". They agreed to cease and desist certain activities to avoid having a fine imposed on them.

Not really the shining, white knight characters the OP is portraying them as.

Mcglyph, do you have a financial interest in this company beyond your donation? Do you stand to profit in any way from donations or potential future profits of the company? Your comments on here are half way between those of a televangelist and a used car salesman. In fact, the only reason I did some digging into the financial history of the company is because your comments seemed more like a sales pitch combined with a religious conversion, than any attempt to have an open discussion.

By the way, I'm an "INFORMED skeptic". Lunar elevator WILL NOT happen within ten years. I say this with absolute certainty. The technology to begin the Earth Elevator is also more than ten years off.

 

[thepontif]

If the power were cleaner and lower impedance from the SOURCE, it WOULD make a difference. Problem isn't the power cables, it's the context in which they're used...plugged into a $0.20 outlet wired with 100 feet of Romex at $0.05/ft, hooked to crappy power lines. I KNOW that the quality of the power has EVERYTHING to do with how good an amp sounds, and to say otherwise is naive. The lies there are not for lack of technology, they are making true statements but they are only true in a context that doesn't exist. It's really marketing genius, as much as I hate to admit it.

I'm pretty shocked (or unpleasantly not surprised) at how negative the skeptics in this thread are. Most of you don't have a real world clue what you're talking about in anything other than a vague sense, and most of you have probably never tried to engineer anything from scratch. And the first thing on everyone's mind is, "oh, this guy is trying to soak us with some scheme he knows won't work." Whatever. I don't think it will work either. But you don't move forward without trying stuff. And even trying something you KNOW won't work teaches you lessons you can't learn any other way. And it takes money to do that, whether it works or not. How many rockets exploded on the launch pad at what cost per rocket? Hell, Challenger (which SUPPOSEDLY DID WORK) exploded in mid air. How much did Rockwell charge the taxpayers for those O rings again? Complaints, anyone?

If you don't like it, don't give any money. But just leave the guy alone, otherwise. No question, the status quo in America is NOT WORKING, so don't sit in your easy chair and criticize people who are getting off their a$$es and at least TRYING something to move use forward.

 

[DwaynieAD]

If the power were cleaner and lower impedance from the SOURCE, it WOULD make a difference. Problem isn't the power cables, it's the context in which they're used...plugged into a $0.20 outlet wired with 100 feet of Romex at $0.05/ft, hooked to crappy power lines. I KNOW that the quality of the power has EVERYTHING to do with how good an amp sounds, and to say otherwise is naive. The lies there are not for lack of technology, they are making true statements but they are only true in a context that doesn't exist. It's really marketing genius, as much as I hate to admit it.

I'm pretty shocked (or unpleasantly not surprised) at how negative the skeptics in this thread are. Most of you don't have a real world clue what you're talking about in anything other than a vague sense, and most of you have probably never tried to engineer anything from scratch. And the first thing on everyone's mind is, "oh, this guy is trying to soak us with some scheme he knows won't work." Whatever. I don't think it will work either. But you don't move forward without trying stuff. And even trying something you KNOW won't work teaches you lessons you can't learn any other way. And it takes money to do that, whether it works or not. How many rockets exploded on the launch pad at what cost per rocket? Hell, Challenger (which SUPPOSEDLY DID WORK) exploded in mid air. How much did Rockwell charge the taxpayers for those O rings again? Complaints, anyone?

If you don't like it, don't give any money. But just leave the guy alone, otherwise. No question, the status quo in America is NOT WORKING, so don't sit in your easy chair and criticize people who are getting off their a$$es and at least TRYING something to move use forward.

shoulda stopped at 1 cup of coffee this morning.

 

[thepontif]

Only had one cup. You?

 

[dj150888]

I'm pretty shocked (or unpleasantly not surprised) at how negative the skeptics in this thread are. Most of you don't have a real world clue what you're talking about in anything other than a vague sense, and most of you have probably never tried to engineer anything from scratch. And the first thing on everyone's mind is, "oh, this guy is trying to soak us with some scheme he knows won't work." Whatever. I don't think it will work either. But you don't move forward without trying stuff. And even trying something you KNOW won't work teaches you lessons you can't learn any other way. And it takes money to do that, whether it works or not. How many rockets exploded on the launch pad at what cost per rocket? Hell, Challenger (which SUPPOSEDLY DID WORK) exploded in mid air. How much did Rockwell charge the taxpayers for those O rings again? Complaints, anyone?

If you don't like it, don't give any money. But just leave the guy alone, otherwise. No question, the status quo in America is NOT WORKING, so don't sit in your easy chair and criticize people who are getting off their a$$es and at least TRYING something to move use forward.

Awful lot of presumption there. First of all, from past threads I happen to know that quite a few people in this thread are involved in science and engineering fields, myself included. Many of us have experience in novel and original research.

The problem ISN'T that the idea seems incredulous, its the fact that the OPs posts read like an advertising speil, not a conversation. As well as this, some of us folk with research experience know that the timescales he is proposing are way off.

Even those without a STEM type background have seen how long engineering projects take to go from proposal to fruition. Applying a little common sense and extrapolation to this makes it pretty clear that 10 years isn't just unlikely, its impossible.

As a sidenote, I'm guessing your background is in some sort of electonic/electrical engineering?

 

[livinitup0]

Unlimited, clean solar power.... Really....

Methinks you should really do some research into current solar technology and how much of an investment it takes to even power 1 home on solar, let alone the world.... And then ask yourself "where is the money going to come from to build this superstructure and who's going to maintain it... Oh... And how exactly will it not destroy life on earth considering it would be so big that it would literally block out the sun? I know, I know... All that stuff is just trivial right? Space elevator!!! Woohoo!!!

Now had you came on here and said "this guy has a new idea to make solar power affordable for everyone... Let's all help!" I'd be the 1st one on board. This is a practical and realistic goal that would have immense and immediate benefits to the world.... And we wouldn't need to wait a couple generations to realize those benefits....AND.... It's one more thing checked off the list of stuff that needs done before your space tubes can even happen.

This is just one example of things scientists should be doing instead of dreaming about putting elevators in space.

A wise man once said that a true genius has his head in the clouds but both feet firmly planted on the ground.

 

[Horny Toad]

Will the space elevator have a 13th floor? If yes, I might toss in a buck.

 

[livinitup0]

If the power were cleaner and lower impedance from the SOURCE, it WOULD make a difference. Problem isn't the power cables, it's the context in which they're used...plugged into a $0.20 outlet wired with 100 feet of Romex at $0.05/ft, hooked to crappy power lines. I KNOW that the quality of the power has EVERYTHING to do with how good an amp sounds, and to say otherwise is naive. The lies there are not for lack of technology, they are making true statements but they are only true in a context that doesn't exist. It's really marketing genius, as much as I hate to admit it.

I'm pretty shocked (or unpleasantly not surprised) at how negative the skeptics in this thread are. Most of you don't have a real world clue what you're talking about in anything other than a vague sense, and most of you have probably never tried to engineer anything from scratch. And the first thing on everyone's mind is, "oh, this guy is trying to soak us with some scheme he knows won't work." Whatever. I don't think it will work either. But you don't move forward without trying stuff. And even trying something you KNOW won't work teaches you lessons you can't learn any other way. And it takes money to do that, whether it works or not. How many rockets exploded on the launch pad at what cost per rocket? Hell, Challenger (which SUPPOSEDLY DID WORK) exploded in mid air. How much did Rockwell charge the taxpayers for those O rings again? Complaints, anyone?

If you don't like it, don't give any money. But just leave the guy alone, otherwise. No question, the status quo in America is NOT WORKING, so don't sit in your easy chair and criticize people who are getting off their a$$es and at least TRYING something to move use forward.

Please explain to me in factual detail how you KNOW what you're talking about and we don't have a CLUE.

Please Dr.... I'd love to hear your theories and sign up to your newsletter.

 

[thepontif]

"Please, DR." nice...off to a great start.

I find it hard to believe that a LARGE percentage of the people doling out the dismissive comments are, in fact, high level engineers. And to be clear, I did say I don't think it's a realistic project either. My problem is that everyone goes straight to smart-mouth mode. If you're an engineer, and you really know it own't work, why say anything at all? Why not go engineer something that will? Or offer some constructive advice based on your experience? You know it won't work, and you're not an adviser or project manager, or corporate bean counter approving a budget for it, so what reason could there be to say anything negative other than to put it down, just to put it down? There are a lot of technologies that simply can't be realized in any usable form at this point in history that have a lot of money raised and/or spent on them in the name of experimentation.

BTW, I said I KNOW that the power supply of an amplifier has everything to do with it's performance. If you're arguing that basic truth, we should probably not waste everyone's time with a public discussion. But if you want to insist that the source of power for a power source doesn't affect it's performance, I guess we can....

My point from the beginning is a philosophical one. Why do so many people have to be so generally "anti forward movement"? Everyone's an expert, but I don't see too many people putting their money where their mouth is.

On another note, I was careful to word my first post so that those of you who DO know first hand what is involved in such a project wouldn't feel generalized. But apparently, in some cases "most of you" was read as "YOU" and "probably" as "DO". I picked the words I picked for a reason as I always do.

 

[dj150888]

"Please, DR." nice...off to a great start.

I find it hard to believe that a LARGE percentage of the people doling out the dismissive comments are, in fact, high level engineers. And to be clear, I did say I don't think it's a realistic project either. My problem is that everyone goes straight to smart-mouth mode. If you're an engineer, and you really know it own't work, why say anything at all? Why not go engineer something that will? Or offer some constructive advice based on your experience? You know it won't work, and you're not an adviser or project manager, or corporate bean counter approving a budget for it, so what reason could there be to say anything negative other than to put it down, just to put it down? There are a lot of technologies that simply can't be realized in any usable form at this point in history that have a lot of money raised and/or spent on them in the name of experimentation.

BTW, I said I KNOW that the power supply of an amplifier has everything to do with it's performance. If you're arguing that basic truth, we should probably not waste everyone's time with a public discussion. But if you want to insist that the source of power for a power source doesn't affect it's performance, I guess we can....

My point from the beginning is a philosophical one. Why do so many people have to be so generally "anti forward movement"? Everyone's an expert, but I don't see too many people putting their money where their mouth is.

On another note, I was careful to word my first post so that those of you who DO know first hand what is involved in such a project wouldn't feel generalized. But apparently, in some cases "most of you" was read as "YOU" and "probably" as "DO". I picked the words I picked for a reason as I always do.

High level engineers? Perhaps not. I'm not one myself, however, since my background is in chemistry, my experience and understanding of CNTs is probably beyond that of any high level engineer not directly involved with them (which is the vast majority).

I took your wording into consideration, and my reply wasn't because I, personally, felt marginalised. The point I was making was that you don't need to know first hand what is involved in such a project to have an educated opinion on it. To use my example before, I'm totally ignorant of most of the engineering challenges that will have to be overcome. However, my knowledge of other factors (namely the material chemistry of CNTs) is enough for me to realise how far beyond realistic the targets the OP is suggesting are.

I'd say MOST people involved in any sort of STEM field have enough understanding of at least one critical factor that has left them thinking that the project is unfeasable. Just like you've expressed your opinion that you don't think it will work (I'm presuming this is an educated opinion) because of your engineering experience...I'm guessing you don't have first-hand experience in space elevators either?

The nature of discussion is that people will share their opinions, positive or negative. I think the nature of how the OP approached the thread has led to some of the replies being a bit sharper than they would have been.

The biggest problem I has with your comment, however, is the insinuation that anyone who isn't in favour of pursuing this project is somehow against technological progress. There are thousands of positions across the spectrum between supporting this business and not supporting any forward movement. What about the countless people who would rather spend the billions of dollars that will be required to get this even into the realms of possibility, in sorting out the problems we have closer to home? Is someone who would rather invest that money into food technology "against progress"? What about someone who would rather invest it in LESS "directly" practical research that answers fundamental answers about our universe, like theoretical physics?

Even with your attempts to avoid generalisation, your post is full of them.

 

[thepontif]

High level engineers? Perhaps not. I'm not one myself, however, since my background is in chemistry, my experience and understanding of CNTs is probably beyond that of any high level engineer not directly involved with them (which is the vast majority).

I took your wording into consideration, and my reply wasn't because I, personally, felt marginalised. The point I was making was that you don't need to know first hand what is involved in such a project to have an educated opinion on it. To use my example before, I'm totally ignorant of most of the engineering challenges that will have to be overcome. However, my knowledge of other factors (namely the material chemistry of CNTs) is enough for me to realise how far beyond realistic the targets the OP is suggesting are.

I'd say MOST people involved in any sort of STEM field have enough understanding of at least one critical factor that has left them thinking that the project is unfeasable. Just like you've expressed your opinion that you don't think it will work (I'm presuming this is an educated opinion) because of your engineering experience...I'm guessing you don't have first-hand experience in space elevators either?

The nature of discussion is that people will share their opinions, positive or negative. I think the nature of how the OP approached the thread has led to some of the replies being a bit sharper than they would have been.

The biggest problem I has with your comment, however, is the insinuation that anyone who isn't in favour of pursuing this project is somehow against technological progress. There are thousands of positions across the spectrum between supporting this business and not supporting any forward movement. What about the countless people who would rather spend the billions of dollars that will be required to get this even into the realms of possibility, in sorting out the problems we have closer to home? Is someone who would rather invest that money into food technology "against progress"? What about someone who would rather invest it in LESS "directly" practical research that answers fundamental answers about our universe, like theoretical physics?

Even with your attempts to avoid generalisation, your post is full of them.

Generalizations still apply to the people they apply to.

What I saw, when I read through this thread, was lots of people who wanted to jump on the "let's make fun of the crazy guy" bandwagon, on the coattails of a few reasonable and educated people, both in favor of the project, and not. I'm not suggesting that these people are, at their human core, against technological advancement. That is NOT what I insinuated. However their comments, in both tone and sometimes content, were in no way part of a solution, but simply inflammatory. I think you may be putting a generalization where there isn't one.

For me, it boils down to the way we talk to each other. I don't know the situation in Ireland, but in this country, you have jerks like Joe Wilson heckling the president during a state-of-the-union speech, or people like Rush Limbaugh calling respectable law students sluts and prostitutes because they have trouble affording birth control on a grad student's budget....men don't have to pay for those prescriptions...what do we know anyway? And how much sex did HE have in college? Please! And these guys are still kickin'! They get away with it! But I digress....

For me, it's a matter of people seeming to have less and less of a sense of responsibility for anyone's comfort but their own. It pisses me off, and sometimes I feel the need to say something about it. I think when you have something constructive to offer, you should offer it.

And when you don't, you should keep your mouth shut....

I'll leave some space before and after that one for those who want to quote it....although my mouth has technically been shut the whole time.

 

[DwaynieAD]

what's the best space elevator for metal?

can we record in space?

can we gig in space?

important questions.

 

[dj150888]

Generalizations still apply to the people they apply to.

What I saw, when I read through this thread, was lots of people who wanted to jump on the "let's make fun of the crazy guy" bandwagon, on the coattails of a few reasonable and educated people, both in favor of the project, and not. I'm not suggesting that these people are, at their human core, against technological advancement. That is NOT what I insinuated. However their comments, in both tone and sometimes content, were in no way part of a solution, but simply inflammatory. I think you may be putting a generalization where there isn't one

Well your words were "Why do so many people have to be so anti-forward movement". I don't see any other way to interpret that apart from as an insinuation that, generally, the people you are speaking about have a problem with moving forward.

For me, it boils down to the way we talk to each other. I don't know the situation in Ireland, but in this country, you have jerks like Joe Wilson heckling the president during a state-of-the-union speech, or people like Rush Limbaugh calling respectable law students sluts and prostitutes because they have trouble affording birth control on a grad student's budget....men don't have to pay for those prescriptions...what do we know anyway? And how much sex did HE have in college? Please! And these guys are still kickin'! They get away with it! But I digress....

I live in Northern Ireland....our history with differences of opinion is a touch more severe than heckling the president or calling names. I think the key is remaining respectful throughout. Piling on the OP with insults isn't conducive to an intellectual discussion, however, nor is pandering or not sharing a relevant opinion just because someone mightn't like it.

For me, it's a matter of people seeming to have less and less of a sense of responsibility for anyone's comfort but their own. It pisses me off, and sometimes I feel the need to say something about it. I think when you have something constructive to offer, you should offer it.

And when you don't, you should keep your mouth shut....

I'll leave some space before and after that one for those who want to quote it....although my mouth has technically been shut the whole time.

I can dig the sentiment behind that, but it doesn't lead to much discussion. If only people who agree chime in, the discussion doesn't really go anywhere. In these days of political correctness (some of which is totally merited, some of which is blatant reactionism with no benefit to society), sometimes people focus too much on the way a message is passed on, compared with the actual message. I think the core message is the more important part. I'd rather a slightly uncomfortable discussion which highlighted the shortcomings of my proposals (even if no solutions are forthcoming), than a lovely, friendly one that left me totally unaware of any flaws. At least after the brief discomfort, I'd know what I needed to change.

Not that I'm arguing for being intentionally rude, politically incorrect or insensitive of course.

 

[thepontif]

Well your words were "Why do so many people have to be so anti-forward movement". I don't see any other way to interpret that apart from as an insinuation that, generally, the people you are speaking about have a problem with moving forward.

I suppose I didn't word that well. Maybe I should have said, "Why do so many people have to use such apparently anti-forward movement language...."

I live in Northern Ireland....our history with differences of opinion is a touch more severe than heckling the president or calling names. I think the key is remaining respectful throughout. Piling on the OP with insults isn't conducive to an intellectual discussion, however, nor is pandering or not sharing a relevant opinion just because someone mightn't like it.

I'm not sure I follow you here. Just being clear, are you suggesting I'm piling on, pandering, not sharing a relevant opinion, or none of the above? As for differences of opinion in Northern Ireland, I hear you. My point is, though, things here are deteriorating in that way.

I can dig the sentiment behind that, but it doesn't lead to much discussion. If only people who agree chime in, the discussion doesn't really go anywhere. In these days of political correctness (some of which is totally merited, some of which is blatant reactionism with no benefit to society), sometimes people focus too much on the way a message is passed on, compared with the actual message. I think the core message is the more important part. I'd rather a slightly uncomfortable discussion which highlighted the shortcomings of my proposals (even if no solutions are forthcoming), than a lovely, friendly one that left me totally unaware of any flaws. At least after the brief discomfort, I'd know what I needed to change.

Not that I'm arguing for being intentionally rude, politically incorrect or insensitive of course.

I agree with this, and I am often NOT a fan of political correctness, though it has it's place. I don't think that anyone can do anything they set their mind to. I think some people are not smart enough or talented enough to do anything they want to do, and tough luck. They should focus on their strengths, of which there are probably MANY. They should be told this by someone who cares about them. My kids are super talented in many ways, but don't give them a basketball! Again, I digress.

I also don't mind uncomfortable discussions. Or I wouldn't continue to post. And I am certainly not suggesting that people with valid arguments don't speak up just because they're negative. Notice that before, I said, "constructive", not "negative". But I think if you go back and read some of the posts, you'll see what I mean that a lot of it is just smart-a$$ed filler, and that's what I think could be left out.

 

[thepontif]

what's the best space elevator for metal?

One with two bass drums

can we record in space?

No.

can we gig in space?

Yes but you have to take the elevator in the kitchen when you load in.

important questions.

True.

 

[DwaynieAD]

Yes but you have to take the elevator in the kitchen when you load in.

l.o. effin l.

 

[mcglyph]

A wee bit of research on LiftPort will show that they've already been involved in some shady financial dealings.

They were illegally selling shares in the company. Mr Laine has said that it was because of a "paperwork error". They agreed to cease and desist certain activities to avoid having a fine imposed on them.

Not really the shining, white knight characters the OP is portraying them as.

Mcglyph, do you have a financial interest in this company beyond your donation? Do you stand to profit in any way from donations or potential future profits of the company? Your comments on here are half way between those of a televangelist and a used car salesman. In fact, the only reason I did some digging into the financial history of the company is because your comments seemed more like a sales pitch combined with a religious conversion, than any attempt to have an open discussion.

By the way, I'm an "INFORMED skeptic". Lunar elevator WILL NOT happen within ten years. I say this with absolute certainty. The technology to begin the Earth Elevator is also more than ten years off.

Hello. Uh, nope didn't say anything about night in shining armor. Nothing, not in six pages of thread.

I feel very strongly about the project and as of now there isn't any money to be made for YEARS. As for your assertion, well one thing is certain if you are set to do some grand thing, some amazingly difficult, challenging thing, and you are going to need a metric butt tonne of assistance, be it financial, orgainizational, etc, you probably would want to at least have a goal. A goal far enough out, to still be shall we say tangible. In the case of this project perhaps you might pick ten years. And of course if you died before the thing was accomplished then you could hope that this thing you are trying to do, might have been spurred just a bit by whatever type of help you and your compatriots could give. The other option might be to say we don't think it's ever going to happen, for 50 years, at which point it'll be so easy, so we will just wait patiently.

As previously stated by me, and a few others we all agree the from earth elevator is really far in the future, comparatively.

Congratulations on being an INFORMED skeptic/cynic. I'm happy you are. Really happy, as getting people motivated to do anything is
rather difficult, even when it might benefit them. So, now you have checked out some financials, and clearly because there are some financial questions, you don't want to deal with Liftport. Ok.

Here's the thing about open discussions. It's my thread. I want the discussion to pertain to talking about the space elevator, it's uses, new ideas, other relevant topics. If you are bashing the idea outright, being a, "internet opinion machine", then I'm going to do my best to get you to at least look into the thing you so easily dismiss. Simple. In the instances where someone has come in with a questioning or inquisitive manner, I have treated them as such. As far as discussion there have been I believe three different posters who have had discussion type input. One of which who was talking about an arch. I believed he was serious, and responded in kind.