Comments on: The space elevator, a passing fancy https://habitablezone.com/2013/03/04/the-space-elevator-a-passing-fancy/ Fri, 03 Apr 2026 22:41:18 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: bowser https://habitablezone.com/2013/03/04/the-space-elevator-a-passing-fancy/#comment-22981 bowser Tue, 05 Mar 2013 15:18:49 +0000 http://habitablezone.net/?p=30483#comment-22981 The article made a convincing case that with existing and foreseeable technology the space elevator wouldn't work. Convinced me, anyway. And Frank's supposition that by the time it was feasible the need would have been leap-frogged by other technology also makes sense. Convinced me, anyway. And there are surprises. 50 years ago the availability of massive computing power was a ridiculous pipe dream. So, too, the ability to find and identify DNA. Practical light from cool sources (LEDs) wasn't imagined as far as I know. Superconductivity at warmer temperatures was a surprise. Some similar breakthrough in the manufacture and bonding of nanotubes might be possible, similar to the ability to duplicate infinitesimal amounts of DNA. A stronger, bigger cable capable of withstanding or avoiding the stresses which are a deal-breaker now could become possible. I doubt it, and we've been surprised before. (As I sit here typing I remember a reasoned article I read years ago which claimed word processing by computer would never be useful because computing involved numbers, not letters.) The article made a convincing case that with existing and foreseeable technology the space elevator wouldn’t work. Convinced me, anyway. And Frank’s supposition that by the time it was feasible the need would have been leap-frogged by other technology also makes sense. Convinced me, anyway.
And there are surprises. 50 years ago the availability of massive computing power was a ridiculous pipe dream. So, too, the ability to find and identify DNA. Practical light from cool sources (LEDs) wasn’t imagined as far as I know. Superconductivity at warmer temperatures was a surprise.
Some similar breakthrough in the manufacture and bonding of nanotubes might be possible, similar to the ability to duplicate infinitesimal amounts of DNA. A stronger, bigger cable capable of withstanding or avoiding the stresses which are a deal-breaker now could become possible. I doubt it, and we’ve been surprised before.
(As I sit here typing I remember a reasoned article I read years ago which claimed word processing by computer would never be useful because computing involved numbers, not letters.)

]]> By: RobVG https://habitablezone.com/2013/03/04/the-space-elevator-a-passing-fancy/#comment-22980 RobVG Tue, 05 Mar 2013 14:46:20 +0000 http://habitablezone.net/?p=30483#comment-22980 Good post Frank n/t Good post Frank n/t

]]> By: FrankC https://habitablezone.com/2013/03/04/the-space-elevator-a-passing-fancy/#comment-22979 FrankC Tue, 05 Mar 2013 12:30:33 +0000 http://habitablezone.net/?p=30483#comment-22979 As I read this, I was thinking of the early theories that any vehicle traveling over 30mph would likely be destroyed by vibration. So to read the first comment was amusing "Clarke's First Law: "When a distinguished, elderly scientist says something is possible, he is very probably right. When a distinguished, elderly scientist says something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." In generations past, we've seen science magazines publishing articles explaining why heavier-than-air flight was unfeasible, why rockets couldn't function in vacuum, etc." Nevertheless, being a skeptic, I tend to agree that it will probably never happen. It is such a massive project, with so many ways to go sideways. There is no reason to think that we will not solve gravity before we build such a thing. In many cases technology renders big ideas obsolete before they get off the ground, (no pun intended). Certainly this happens more often than any failure to solve obstacles preventing us from accomplishing our goal. A good example is terraforming Mars, a process that would take many hundreds if not a thousand years. The odds are pretty good that we will have ftl travel long before we make Mars into a livable biosphere, probably leaving Mars as "half baked" cheap real estate, suitable only for what resources Mars offers that can't be obtained cheaper from asteroids. As I read this, I was thinking of the early theories that any vehicle traveling over 30mph would likely be destroyed by vibration. So to read the first comment was amusing

“Clarke’s First Law: “When a distinguished, elderly scientist says something is possible, he is very probably right. When a distinguished, elderly scientist says something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.” In generations past, we’ve seen science magazines publishing articles explaining why heavier-than-air flight was unfeasible, why rockets couldn’t function in vacuum, etc.”

Nevertheless, being a skeptic, I tend to agree that it will probably never happen. It is such a massive project, with so many ways to go sideways. There is no reason to think that we will not solve gravity before we build such a thing.

In many cases technology renders big ideas obsolete before they get off the ground, (no pun intended). Certainly this happens more often than any failure to solve obstacles preventing us from accomplishing our goal.

A good example is terraforming Mars, a process that would take many hundreds if not a thousand years. The odds are pretty good that we will have ftl travel long before we make Mars into a livable biosphere, probably leaving Mars as “half baked” cheap real estate, suitable only for what resources Mars offers that can’t be obtained cheaper from asteroids.

]]>