A space elevator is a hypothetical structure designed to transport material from a planet's surface into space. Many different types of space elevator structures have been proposed. They all share the goal of replacing rocket propulsion with the traversal of a fixed structure via a mechanism not unlike an elevator, hence its name, in order to move material into or beyond orbit. Space elevators have also sometimes been referred to
as beanstalks, space bridges, space lifts or space ladders.
The political motivation for a collaborative effort comes from the potential destabilizing nature of the space elevator. The space elevator clearly has military applications, but more critically it would give a strong economic advantage for the controlling entity. Information flowing through satellites, future energy from space, planets full of real estate and associated minerals, and basic military advantage could all potentially be controlled by the entity that controls access to space through the space elevator. An international collaboration could result in multiple elevators at various locations around the globe, since subsequent elevators would be significantly cheaper, thus allowing general access to space and consequently eliminating the instabilities a single system might cause.
4 comentarios:
the "space elevator" needs some serious re-designing
esperaba mas bien un enlace al dpto. de quejas de la oficina de anibal...
I found your link via our referrer logs - very interesting post.
I must, however and with some regret, take issue with some of your assertions.
They all share the goal of replacing rocket propulsion
Yes .. and no. We - and when I say 'we' I mean this is the own opinion and not held by Liftport, feel that rockets and fixed tethers (space elevators) have their place in a mature transportation infrastructure. After all, we have planes and trains, trucks and boats, each servicing their own niche.
The space elevator clearly has
military applications,
I must disagree. A space elevator has no more military application than a train. Yes, military payloads can (and no doubt will) be carried aloft, but so to will a train carry military goods. It's utility as a weapons platform is very limited of course.
An international
collaboration could result in multiple elevators at various locations around the
globe, since subsequent elevators would be significantly cheaper, thus allowing
general access to space and consequently eliminating the instabilities a single
system might cause.
We think that natural market forces will create many space elevators spaced around the equator - it would be foolish indeed to place them all in one location and deny access to other ports. It is also possible that more than one entity will build space elevators.
True the first SE company will have a huge economic advantage. But consider that economics is not a determining factor in some large infrastructure projects - if Nation State A sees an advantage in building their own apart from the first SE then they will gather the will to build it.
Hello Brian. Thank you for commenting in our blog! Although I agree with most of your points, I will say viewing fixed tether implementations as militarily neutral at this point in time is a bit naive.
Logistics planning and spending is essential to any coherent war effort. Any technology that allows for the placement of artificial satellites into orbit in a way that in the long run is both faster and cheaper than rockets is a very good candidate for a military application.
Perhaps our terminology differs. A space elevator is, true, an enabler but no more so than trains or commercial air travel.
Via Wired ""
This week is 'March Storm', when 50 to 75 lobbyists will spend three days speaking with staffers from more than 250 offices on Capitol Hill. Some of the lobbyists represent the aerospace industry, but most have been hired by smaller space startups and entrepreneurs.
The big talking point? How the private sector can help the U.S. military build space-based weapons a lot faster and with a lot less of taxpayers' money.
This is, I think overblown. See Jeff Fousts shredding of the Wired story here http://www.spacepolitics.com/archives/000848.html
'The U.S. military still doesn't have the capability to launch a spy satellite on demand', said Marc Schlather, director of ProSpace, the lobbyist group coordinating March Storm. 'We are seeking a cross-pollination.'
The Bush administration, as the Clinton administration before it, continues to push forward President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative -- or 'Star Wars' -- a wide-ranging space weapons program first proposed in the mid-1980s.
Since the '80s, the military has spent an estimated $120 billion trying to develop weapons that could destroy incoming nuclear, biological or chemical warheads targeting American cities.
Maybe this is a cultural thing, or a long standing point of agreement on your blog. I simply do not see a problem with what you've written here. SDI is a valid program - a reasonable response to a potential attack. THe alternative (in the Cold War) was Mutual Assured Destruction. MAD is only workable when both sides are competent. Competence is fleeting - one hundred years after France produced Napoleon they produced the generals who fought World War One.
I have every confidence that SAC did their best to maintain competence, as did PVO and RSVN. But MAD requires they always be right, all the time. That is too much to ask for over the long run - and we came within a whisker of accidental nuclear war several times.
Is SDI valid after the demise of the cold war? I suppose that depends on motivations you ascribe to the United States. But SDI is a defensive system - you can't attack anyone with it. I am sure there is an argument here, but my intentions are friendly, I promise.
At the end of the day, I'm just a guy who wants to work for a company that builds launch systems that lower the transaction cost of getting to space. I'm as non-political as I can be, and utterly pragmatic as to the means to that end. Cheap access to space is the tool that can liberate our species. It will not create and Eden but it will give us options and choices we do not now have.
Publicar un comentario