- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
A Space Elevator in less than 7 years
|
|
|
Comments (29)
Structured freedom
Hey Biped Birdy,
I think you posted under the wrong story. How about a guess, shouldn't this be under one of the rants comparing the possibility of freedom of code and the lack thereof in the more conventional creative arts or its rebuttal?
YBT
I think you posted under the wrong story. How about a guess, shouldn't this be under one of the rants comparing the possibility of freedom of code and the lack thereof in the more conventional creative arts or its rebuttal?
YBT
Hi penguinist;
This response is for the right story.
I agree that we need effective collaboration environments. Python creates a great one. Note that Python is mature now, so we don't really need to establish anything. Take computer vision: some work on OpenCV (which is a terrible collaboration environment), some work on their own codebase, some work in Ruby, etc., etc. It is a social challenge of getting people to know / use of them.
Regards,
-Keith
This response is for the right story.
I agree that we need effective collaboration environments. Python creates a great one. Note that Python is mature now, so we don't really need to establish anything. Take computer vision: some work on OpenCV (which is a terrible collaboration environment), some work on their own codebase, some work in Ruby, etc., etc. It is a social challenge of getting people to know / use of them.
Regards,
-Keith
"social challenge"
A more apropos turn of phrase would be very difficult to come by.
A more apropos turn of phrase would be very difficult to come by.
Eternal sloppiness is the price of freedom.
Shades of Arthur C Clarke
4 earlier comments in the full thread.
Keith, I just read the article (fairly quickly so missed some details). I think if you want this "moonwalk" in 7 years you should understand that the teams back then did not work to make a few wealthy investors wealthier yet. They did it for the common good and for national security. I don't think patents were there to get in the way of progress, either. Have you considered how to deal with these issues in the context of a space elevator?
I forgot to ask.. which Edwards and Edwards book are you talking about (sorry if I sound ignorant)... googling... "In 2008 the book 'Leaving the Planet by Space Elevator', by Dr. Brad Edwards and Philip Ragan.." I suppose it's that one.
Looking a bit at the wikipedia article, I see that the idea is to keep the center of mass at geostat orbit. I was originally thinking of something above that orbit height since (without doing much physics analysis right now) I figured the weight towards the center of the earth would match the centripetal accel to keep the object at constant speed around the planet at that higher altitude. [This is essentially the same thing as extending a counter weight towards space.. where once you reach the final position, you effectively have a large mass out in space beyond geostat orbit. I was assuming that counterweight position would be where the actual space station and people largely reside.]
Judging by the confident tone of the article, I assume the weight and tensile strength analysis has been done and people believe we are close to achieving this with nano technology... or at least for the structure to hold itself up all by itself with no added weight or jerking.(??)
It might turn out that we'd get a moon station set up first and have the first elevator exist "on" the moon. Have you considered/researched whether a moon station is more feasible? [Yes, it's a complex problem with many variables and assumptions.]
EDIT: Upon further thinking, while the strength and energy requirements of materials and "rocketing" on the moon are better (shorter, less pull towards moon, etc), the lack of effective atmosphere and surface body of water removes many tools like gliding and parachuting that would might be used a lot on earth. [Yes, the lack of materials on the moon is an obvious and major short-coming as well. We'd have to stock the station rather well over a large number of missions to the moon.] Well, heating up is not a major factor on return trips to moon surface (this argues in favor of moon elevator). If we could get it set up, it would be much cheaper to run. ... So moon citizens may end up with that elevator before earthlings. In large numbers, they would get to see their grey barren planet from far away before we could see ours from far away (lol).
Looking a bit at the wikipedia article, I see that the idea is to keep the center of mass at geostat orbit. I was originally thinking of something above that orbit height since (without doing much physics analysis right now) I figured the weight towards the center of the earth would match the centripetal accel to keep the object at constant speed around the planet at that higher altitude. [This is essentially the same thing as extending a counter weight towards space.. where once you reach the final position, you effectively have a large mass out in space beyond geostat orbit. I was assuming that counterweight position would be where the actual space station and people largely reside.]
Judging by the confident tone of the article, I assume the weight and tensile strength analysis has been done and people believe we are close to achieving this with nano technology... or at least for the structure to hold itself up all by itself with no added weight or jerking.(??)
It might turn out that we'd get a moon station set up first and have the first elevator exist "on" the moon. Have you considered/researched whether a moon station is more feasible? [Yes, it's a complex problem with many variables and assumptions.]
EDIT: Upon further thinking, while the strength and energy requirements of materials and "rocketing" on the moon are better (shorter, less pull towards moon, etc), the lack of effective atmosphere and surface body of water removes many tools like gliding and parachuting that would might be used a lot on earth. [Yes, the lack of materials on the moon is an obvious and major short-coming as well. We'd have to stock the station rather well over a large number of missions to the moon.] Well, heating up is not a major factor on return trips to moon surface (this argues in favor of moon elevator). If we could get it set up, it would be much cheaper to run. ... So moon citizens may end up with that elevator before earthlings. In large numbers, they would get to see their grey barren planet from far away before we could see ours from far away (lol).
I smile thinking of how we don't have to pay loads of money to leave the "hell" hole that is outer space in order to come live in this beautiful environment down here on the surface of the earth. We get it for free!!
Man pays money to put things everywhere, why not up in space? People think of space as a source of resources and money.
The motivation to do a task doesn't matter. The goal of making money in space will not hurt space progress. People can also have multiple motivations. This isn't about making money vs. serving the public good. That is a false choice as you can / should have both. That is what the free market is about, voluntary transactions. Free software is voluntary. People make money, and do good for that money. Can you read the outside world section of my book?
Patents are a cost, but we can pay it. It is billions in a trillion dollar industry -- a rounding error.
The problem is simply that the whole endeavor seems too far out to too many people. Even those who like the idea think it is a 20-30 year idea. Consider going to Steve Ballmer and telling him to create a Linux. How would that go, no matter all the good arguments you would make.
The book is the Edwards and Westling book. The others are not technical. His book walks through every challenge. It is interesting.
Yes, the science has been proven regarding carbon nanotubes. What remains is engineering. The biggest challenge is ribbon repair. So you'd need to put a bunch of people on it.
The motivation to do a task doesn't matter. The goal of making money in space will not hurt space progress. People can also have multiple motivations. This isn't about making money vs. serving the public good. That is a false choice as you can / should have both. That is what the free market is about, voluntary transactions. Free software is voluntary. People make money, and do good for that money. Can you read the outside world section of my book?
Patents are a cost, but we can pay it. It is billions in a trillion dollar industry -- a rounding error.
The problem is simply that the whole endeavor seems too far out to too many people. Even those who like the idea think it is a 20-30 year idea. Consider going to Steve Ballmer and telling him to create a Linux. How would that go, no matter all the good arguments you would make.
The book is the Edwards and Westling book. The others are not technical. His book walks through every challenge. It is interesting.
Yes, the science has been proven regarding carbon nanotubes. What remains is engineering. The biggest challenge is ribbon repair. So you'd need to put a bunch of people on it.
Thanks for the info and article Keith. I may not access the book now and may forget about it, but thanks for that. http://www.amazon.com/Space-Elevator-Earth-Space-Transportat...
I focused on the length (7 years) for reaching the moon. Money is not sufficient motivator. Most who work on this care about the challenge itself, however, regardless of money (true). But the implied threats during the 60s cold war adds to the focus. Of course (OTOH), we have more people now able to cooperate on this project.
Any patent almost exclusive on information (software patents) accessible (otherwise) cheaply is a problem. Linux was not built by people asking for permission or able to pay a few billion dollars. NASA did not have managers and lawyers holding them down too much, I suspect. And anyone seeking monopoly control or squeezing so much to disrupt a particular research group (and this can happen in other ways not related to patent threats) is an impediment, potentially a huge impediment because of how broad patents are (eg, the very low inventiveness bar). Some mega patent holders actually do like to buy up their exclusive teams and play aggressive with others. .. BTW, if "we can pay" for the cost of patents, then that would calm me if in fact someone did pay out those billions and allowed the rest of the world to use and never have to worry about patents again (as concerns this project), but we know very well that is not how patents and the patent business works. [I wrote and incomplete writeup in favor of patent FAIR USE that would make most software patents, independent creations, research, and small commercial activities largely immune to patent litigation http://tofreeornottofree.com/SCOTUS_Amicus_Curiae_Brief__i4i... ]
I focused on the length (7 years) for reaching the moon. Money is not sufficient motivator. Most who work on this care about the challenge itself, however, regardless of money (true). But the implied threats during the 60s cold war adds to the focus. Of course (OTOH), we have more people now able to cooperate on this project.
Any patent almost exclusive on information (software patents) accessible (otherwise) cheaply is a problem. Linux was not built by people asking for permission or able to pay a few billion dollars. NASA did not have managers and lawyers holding them down too much, I suspect. And anyone seeking monopoly control or squeezing so much to disrupt a particular research group (and this can happen in other ways not related to patent threats) is an impediment, potentially a huge impediment because of how broad patents are (eg, the very low inventiveness bar). Some mega patent holders actually do like to buy up their exclusive teams and play aggressive with others. .. BTW, if "we can pay" for the cost of patents, then that would calm me if in fact someone did pay out those billions and allowed the rest of the world to use and never have to worry about patents again (as concerns this project), but we know very well that is not how patents and the patent business works. [I wrote and incomplete writeup in favor of patent FAIR USE that would make most software patents, independent creations, research, and small commercial activities largely immune to patent litigation http://tofreeornottofree.com/SCOTUS_Amicus_Curiae_Brief__i4i... ]
Software patents will not get in the way of the space elevator.
Money is insufficient to building a space elevator because it only allows you get the people and the equipment. You still have to believe in the idea, and make a plan.
Money is insufficient to building a space elevator because it only allows you get the people and the equipment. You still have to believe in the idea, and make a plan.
Keith, I'm sorry, but I being to understand some of Microsoft's problems a little better when I read this:
Long before you ever thought you could actually multiply people that way, Fred Brooks had applied a better and more thoughtful analysis in The Mythical Man-Month. People are not fungible, and projects are not infinitely divisible.
Windows Vista was not the only large-scale project to prove the Brooks's wisdom. Wasn't the first, and won't be the last.
Ample resources are great. Smart and focused management is great. However, every task has a point at which more resources slow it down and make it worse.
Quoting: With a 1,000 person team, 1 man-year of work is accomplished every 2 hours. With 100,000, 1 man-year takes 1 minute and 12 seconds. Work is generally fungible so a 20 year project could use more people and go faster.
Long before you ever thought you could actually multiply people that way, Fred Brooks had applied a better and more thoughtful analysis in The Mythical Man-Month. People are not fungible, and projects are not infinitely divisible.
Windows Vista was not the only large-scale project to prove the Brooks's wisdom. Wasn't the first, and won't be the last.
Ample resources are great. Smart and focused management is great. However, every task has a point at which more resources slow it down and make it worse.
Hi Dinotrac;
I read Brooks' book many years ago.
Brooks' point was about ramp-up time. However, in a 7 year project, there is plenty of time for ramp-up.
The problems with Vista had nothing to do with assigning a bunch of people to a team late. It more had to do with 20 years of accumulated backward compatibility baggage.
No question that more resources slow something down at some point. However that is not a problem with 7 years.
-Keith
I read Brooks' book many years ago.
Brooks' point was about ramp-up time. However, in a 7 year project, there is plenty of time for ramp-up.
The problems with Vista had nothing to do with assigning a bunch of people to a team late. It more had to do with 20 years of accumulated backward compatibility baggage.
No question that more resources slow something down at some point. However that is not a problem with 7 years.
-Keith
@Keithcu -
You propose a 7 year project for something whose technical feasibility is not yet demonstrated, whose architecture has not been developed, and for which an organization does not yet exist.
Sounds like Fred Brooks territory to me.
You propose a 7 year project for something whose technical feasibility is not yet demonstrated, whose architecture has not been developed, and for which an organization does not yet exist.
Sounds like Fred Brooks territory to me.
@Dinotrac:
The Edwards and Westling book has demonstrated its technical feasibility.
It has nothing to do with Fred Brooks thesis. He was talking about how bringing people to a team late doesn't help a project because they need to learn all the details of a new codebase before they can be productive. It is like learning a new spoken language -- that takes months.
So while it can take months or a year to ramp someone up on a project, this is a 7 year project. And it is the year 2011 not 1975, so there is a lot more people with expertise, new technology to depend on, better tools of collaboration, etc.
The Edwards and Westling book has demonstrated its technical feasibility.
It has nothing to do with Fred Brooks thesis. He was talking about how bringing people to a team late doesn't help a project because they need to learn all the details of a new codebase before they can be productive. It is like learning a new spoken language -- that takes months.
So while it can take months or a year to ramp someone up on a project, this is a 7 year project. And it is the year 2011 not 1975, so there is a lot more people with expertise, new technology to depend on, better tools of collaboration, etc.
The bottom line is that there are four practical bars to a working space elevator:
1) Materials science,
2) Engineering those materials into a workable solution,
3) Expense of the project, when cheaper alternatives exist, and
4) Location, and all the geo-political issues that comes with it.
If the sum of those issues exceeds the alternatives that work now, we will not get serious consideration of the project. Material and engineering have to advance to a point where it reduces the cost to such a low level that location and political issues become tolerable. To highlight this, just imagine a working space elevator becoming the target of terrorist activity. Until the collateral losses (loss of the elevator vehicle, a destroyed tether ripping apart nearby structures, etc.) of such an attack are low enough, it will never be built.
1) Materials science,
2) Engineering those materials into a workable solution,
3) Expense of the project, when cheaper alternatives exist, and
4) Location, and all the geo-political issues that comes with it.
If the sum of those issues exceeds the alternatives that work now, we will not get serious consideration of the project. Material and engineering have to advance to a point where it reduces the cost to such a low level that location and political issues become tolerable. To highlight this, just imagine a working space elevator becoming the target of terrorist activity. Until the collateral losses (loss of the elevator vehicle, a destroyed tether ripping apart nearby structures, etc.) of such an attack are low enough, it will never be built.
Is it Led. Zeppelin (Stairway To Heaven)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcL---4xQYA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YZb8s7Kxa4&feature=related
or is it David Bowie (Space Oddity) !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKE3FSPJu-4&NR=1
Thou shall not escape Earth but with power.
So, enjoy Zeppelin' and think about Bowie's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcL---4xQYA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YZb8s7Kxa4&feature=related
or is it David Bowie (Space Oddity) !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKE3FSPJu-4&NR=1
Thou shall not escape Earth but with power.
So, enjoy Zeppelin' and think about Bowie's
@keithcu --
Sigh.
The book was born from his experience with the development of OS/360 and trying to make up time as it fell behinds.
As with any lesson, you are entitled to learn as little or as much as you please. Ditto with application of lessons learned.
I suspect, however, that few people will need to develop a new mainframe OS. The book's value might just lie in one's ability to apply some or all of the lessons learned to other situations.
Sigh.
The book was born from his experience with the development of OS/360 and trying to make up time as it fell behinds.
As with any lesson, you are entitled to learn as little or as much as you please. Ditto with application of lessons learned.
I suspect, however, that few people will need to develop a new mainframe OS. The book's value might just lie in one's ability to apply some or all of the lessons learned to other situations.
@JaseP:
Your four challenges to the space elevator are wrong. Edwards has already researched all of the topics in his 2003 book, including terrorism.
@Dinotrac:
Don't sigh at me. You are the one mistaken and who doesn't respond to the points I make.
I understand his thesis but disagree with its relevance to a 7 year project. As I mentioned earlier, I read the book.
If I wanted to build a SE in 1 year, Brooks work would be more relevant.
@Dinotrac:
Don't sigh at me. You are the one mistaken and who doesn't respond to the points I make.
I understand his thesis but disagree with its relevance to a 7 year project. As I mentioned earlier, I read the book.
If I wanted to build a SE in 1 year, Brooks work would be more relevant.
@keithcu --
Didn't realize I was tasked with a point by point assignment. As such, I'm certainly not obligated to respond point by point.
As to technical feasibilty, we may not be defining it the same way. However I think @JaseP summed it up perfectly well.
I think of it like the electric car. Seems feasible. Already doable for certain uses, yet... that battery breakthrough we all know is just around the corner has been around the corner for the last 40 years.
It could happen tomorrow or it could happen in 50 years or it could happen never. Hard to make a 7 year plan for stuff like that -- and GOSH! -- we really are back at Fred Brooks, because you end up just applying resources to solve a problem that won't be solved in 7 years, no matter what you throw at it.
Didn't realize I was tasked with a point by point assignment. As such, I'm certainly not obligated to respond point by point.
As to technical feasibilty, we may not be defining it the same way. However I think @JaseP summed it up perfectly well.
I think of it like the electric car. Seems feasible. Already doable for certain uses, yet... that battery breakthrough we all know is just around the corner has been around the corner for the last 40 years.
It could happen tomorrow or it could happen in 50 years or it could happen never. Hard to make a 7 year plan for stuff like that -- and GOSH! -- we really are back at Fred Brooks, because you end up just applying resources to solve a problem that won't be solved in 7 years, no matter what you throw at it.
@keithcu
Well, I'm not buying (and, God forbid, actually reading) a book just to dispute its findings,... So let's just say that research isn't reality, and leave it at that. Particularly on terrorism,... they're like cockroaches, they always find a way to survive and infest. I will never buy an intellectual argument that discounts it as a danger. A space elevator would be too tempting a target... And there are so many potential vectors of attack (air, ground/sea, underground/undersea, maintenance, cargo/passengers, etc.).
And besides, Dino and I agree so RARELY, that I MUST be right!!!
Well, I'm not buying (and, God forbid, actually reading) a book just to dispute its findings,... So let's just say that research isn't reality, and leave it at that. Particularly on terrorism,... they're like cockroaches, they always find a way to survive and infest. I will never buy an intellectual argument that discounts it as a danger. A space elevator would be too tempting a target... And there are so many potential vectors of attack (air, ground/sea, underground/undersea, maintenance, cargo/passengers, etc.).
And besides, Dino and I agree so RARELY, that I MUST be right!!!
Quoting: [...] besides, Dino and I agree so RARELY, that I MUST be right!!!
I beg to differ, anytime one agrees with dino the presumption must be that both participants are in error. Until fairly recently that was a rule you could bank on. Something akin to if it's associated with khess, skip it.
Nickles, has the economy tanked that far that you can discern between discards. Get out of the trash pile I will send some aid. Will a few dimes do you?
YBT
@Dinotrac:
The electric car is not like the space elevator, and not like Fred Brooks.
Brooks: people (ramp-up learning) problem
Electric car: chemistry / physics problem
Space Elevator: ignorance of feasibility / lack of leadership problem
@JaseP: You don't be able to dispute Brad Edwards' research. Terrorism can be easily stopped. Edwards plan puts it hundreds of miles offshore. Al Qaeda is much too primitive to attack something like that. For them high-tech is bombs in shoes.
The electric car is not like the space elevator, and not like Fred Brooks.
Brooks: people (ramp-up learning) problem
Electric car: chemistry / physics problem
Space Elevator: ignorance of feasibility / lack of leadership problem
@JaseP: You don't be able to dispute Brad Edwards' research. Terrorism can be easily stopped. Edwards plan puts it hundreds of miles offshore. Al Qaeda is much too primitive to attack something like that. For them high-tech is bombs in shoes.
Patents are easily worked around: simply leave the USA out of the Space Elevator project.
As for "terrorists", please get a grip. You don't see countries like Malaysia and China refusing to build skyscrapers because they're afraid a terrorist might bomb it. Protecting a SE is easy: build it in the ocean on a floating, anchored platform, and have some armed security around it. AA missile launchers and a couple patrol boats are all you need. The SE needs to be on or near the equator anyway, and there isn't much land on the equator that's politically stable.
As for "terrorists", please get a grip. You don't see countries like Malaysia and China refusing to build skyscrapers because they're afraid a terrorist might bomb it. Protecting a SE is easy: build it in the ocean on a floating, anchored platform, and have some armed security around it. AA missile launchers and a couple patrol boats are all you need. The SE needs to be on or near the equator anyway, and there isn't much land on the equator that's politically stable.
Quoting: Terrorism can be easily stopped. Edwards plan puts it hundreds of miles offshore. Al Qaeda is much too primitive to attack something like that.
Yet, Somali pirates have managed to hijack commercial shipping vessels from small boats with outboard motors... Now imagine the same thing, but with scuba gear and bombs,... Just like Al Qaeda and the USS Cole... I remain unconvinced. Sorry.
Don't get me wrong, a Space Elevator would be awesome. I just don't see it happening within the next 30 to 40 years. If I live long, maybe I'll see it in my 70s or 80s...
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
Keith, you have obviously thought long and hard about free software and its role in creating a better future through collaboration. There is a dichotomy however. The very nature of freedom enables participants to explore and work in whatever direction they choose, so freedom does not automatically lead to "working together". Some of the best success stories (Linux Kernel, Wikipedia) have succeeded because some structure had been put in place which has focussed the energies of a community around a specific problem/solution domain.
Perhaps the solution to your "social challenge" consists in the establishment of structured collaboration environments.