digg

Join DiggAbout
All » Science » Space

Space Elevator Test Run watch!

liveleak.com — "Although the day started with difficulties, it ended with a successful 1000 foot space elevator test climb to a tethered 10-foot diameter balloon - LiftPort's first really significant climb. This was supposed to be a 1 mile climb test, but the FAA-required aviation orange paint - applied at 50 foot intervals to the ribbon - contained acetone,

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • DrPaul2008, on 05/04/2008, -48/+21Why we let the government get its incompetent, destructive, parasitical, hands involved in science is beyond me.
    • hstege, on 05/04/2008, -7/+57yeah, they really mucked up those trips to the moon and that atom bomb...

      the government has money and ambitions, and isn't necessarily interested in strict profit -- a good combination for some scientific pursuits.
      • OisinT, on 05/04/2008, -14/+11The government is more corrupt today than it was 40 years ago.
        • DooM, on 05/04/2008, -8/+7Objection, your honor! Irrelevant!
          Sustained.
        • RogerStrong, on 05/04/2008, -1/+19No, the reporting is just better.

          Lyndon Johnson was little better than Bush II - complete with the same incompetence trying to command a war from the White House rather than let the professionals handle it.

          It was Johnson who began America's direct involvement in the ground war in Vietnam. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave the President the exclusive right to use military force without consulting the Senate, was based on a false pretext.

          He used the same fear tactics. "If we allow Vietnam to fall, tomorrow we’ll be fighting in Hawaii, and next week in San Francisco."

          But that was before Nixon, when reporters wouldn't take on a President.
          • OisinT, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3Well *****... can't argue with that. :)
      • DrPaul2008, on 05/04/2008, -4/+7You're naive if you think so. The government only has interest in power, and dominion. Its infringement on the free market has stunted many advances, i.e., the cells phones we could have had 30+ years ago, cars that aren't fueled by oil, or that fly, many medical advances, and the list goes on & on.
        I'm assuming you were being sarcastic about bringing up the atom bomb, or the trips to the moon, but yes, the government's involvement in those efforts were failures. When the government gets involved in any issue, no matter what you think it is, or was, it becomes a political issue. Once the political agenda was over, we scrapped the moon missions to the extent that we've had to re-learn how to do what we did nearly 40 years ago. The advances in nuclear studies have resulted in a lot of good, however, in the hands of our government, it was used to murder countless innocent, civilian, people. Ours is still the only government ever that has attacked with nuclear weapons.

        The free market encourages innovation. Government restriction enables monopolies, and stunts innovation. Those of you who think the opposite just don't understand government, or economics well enough, and have been sold on the bill of goods the government sells.... the government is the disease pretending to be the cure.
        • Dumbledorito, on 05/04/2008, -2/+7Corporate interests don't want a free market. Just look at Microsoft, the US Auto industry, the oil industry, and the pharmaceutical industry.

          The auto and gas industry wanted to keep lead in fuel. Rather than researching cures to diseases that kill millions ever year, profit has driven us to value antidepressants and limp-dick pills over other reseach. The private cell-phone companies want the same market lockouts that AT&T had years ago when you could only buy your phone from Ma Bell and any other equipment was illegal.

          What you seem to fail to see is that whether or not it's government or business, greedy people ruin it for everyone.
          • PeppermintPig, on 05/04/2008, -1/+5You're assuming corporate interests are dissimilar from government interests. Government enables businesses through corporate status, allowing them to avoid accountability, which leads to a lack of innovation. In other words, avoiding giving people what they want by passing laws that reduce the effort they need to exert in order to honestly compete in the market. Politicians in line with these interests are financially backed and supported by corporations, who can oddly enough give huge sums of cash to them in campaigns, well beyond what individuals can offer.

            Oddly enough, it's the greedy people who get into the government and allow corrupt activity to continue. Even people with good intentions tend to ruin things by asserting single solutions when choice is necessary.

          • FreeStater, on 05/05/2008, -0/+4Why is it so hard for people to understand this?

            Businesses, in a free market, can do whatever they wish, but will be held accountable for any damages they cause. They can be as greedy as they want, and aspire to all kinds of world dominion, but without a corrupt government to purchase, they can't enforce anything.

            You people who look at your government officials, who are bought and paid for before you elect them, and the lobbyists who offer them all kinds of money, and come away with the impression that the lobbyists are the problem, rather then the available power to be abused in the first place, are all backwards. Ronpaul2008 was exactly right saying monopolies can only exist with government involvement, and you big anti-corporates, who believe that government regulation is the answer, believe the exact opposite.

            The government which governs least, governs best, and has the least power to sell to the highest bidder.
          • Jackar00, on 05/08/2008, -1/+1soo, how will the businesses be held accountable for their damages if there's no government?
          • DrPaul2008, on 05/09/2008, -0/+3Arbitrator, private protection agencies, the nature of business. That's in an anarchy, with only the free market... However, with a LIMITED government, such as was intended with the U.S. government, one of it's roles could be to protect those who couldn't protect themselves, and make sure that restitution was paid for those who did cause damage. Remember, corporations themselves are only able to exist because the government allows them to. They're a fantasy. There is nothing really there. In other words, in reality, there are only people. People who would be held accountable, and not protected by the some special legal standing that was exclusive to anyone else.

            In the end, justice, and accountability, shouldn't be dependent on who has the most money to bribe a corrupt official with, the way it is now.
        • Jackar00, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1You're right, Pres. Hoover had it all figured out. OH wait!
      • kodek, on 05/04/2008, -3/+2Well, to be honest, the atom bomb was so bad that when it hit the ground, it exploded :/

        /bad joke
    • unreg, on 05/04/2008, -10/+5This hardly constitutes a space elevator test. If it were, then I'd have to claim my climbing the rope in gym class as prior art.

      And kudos for the well though out issue with the line breaking becasue of the paint. That should instill confidence in future elevator riders.
      • DrPaul2008, on 05/04/2008, -1/+8You've gotta crawl, before you can walk. They're in preliminary stages of tests that have been going on for years. They will continue to make ribbons a little longer, and make crawlers that go a little further, and weigh a little more. This is a process.. The end goal of which is to be able to launch cargo into space at a fraction of a percent of what we do today, and with very little danger. Fortunately, they were able to complete these tests despite the needless obstacles the government added, and they're one step closer to reaching their revolutionary goal in 2031.
        • saleem, on 05/12/2008, -1/+1i agree but "fly as you test and test as you fly" is not something new. if they had to coat acetone every 50 feet in real life, that is a VERY important part of the requirements. if they didnt see it coming, that's a huge embarrassment...
    • punkcat, on 05/04/2008, -5/+7because government can pay for it.
      • DrPaul2008, on 05/04/2008, -2/+7They can print dollars with no real value, pass legal tender laws to force people to accept them, and then use it to buy guns, and employ bureaucrats, to pursue more wealth, and power.

        I'm not disagreeing with you... You're right. It's just not a wise decision. It's also very inefficient.
        I just believe a more intelligent society would never allow a political figure the power over its bank of knowledge, the way we have allowed G. Bush to have the final ok over science in this country.
        • Jackar00, on 05/05/2008, -4/+1You're right, we should be using the barter system. Now, how many head of cattle will it cost to enroll you in economics101?
          • FreeStater, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3I guess it depends on what the instructor is willing to take. Very uneducated simpletons like you may charge pigs feet, but would there really be a demand for a class with such an incompetent teacher? The free market would do its thing, and the incompetent would either learn, or die off. The rest of us who have been paying attention for the last say 6000 years could use gold, silver, promisory notes, trade, or any other currency, fiat or not, as we desire, as free people, but wouldn't be forced to accept any. Ah, freedom... what a concept.

            The retards can collect chicken heads, shiny things, or whatever else they wish.
    • jackalsclaw, on 05/04/2008, -7/+2because if they didn't regulate it in some way things would interfer with each other
    • Darph.Bobo, on 05/04/2008, -3/+4I get the impression MANY things are beyond you, Paultard!
  • takeo1775, on 05/04/2008, -22/+20just a thought.
    if you created a big space elevator, would you slow the earth's rotation, like when a skater extend their arms in a spin?
    • CabesMojo, on 05/04/2008, -5/+36No, its mass would be insignificant.
      • strangewill, on 05/04/2008, -1/+10Wouldn't it be technically yes, but so small you'd never realize it?
        • CabesMojo, on 05/05/2008, -0/+5It would be yes in the same way when I take a leak surfing I just raised the ocean levels.
    • Furkle, on 05/04/2008, -5/+15If that was an original thought I might have dugg you up but as it's asked every time one of these links go up that's not the case. Also the answer is no.
      • Shots, on 05/04/2008, -0/+12Actually... YES.
        The earth's rotation would be slowed... but unless you have a very accurate atomic clock, you probably wouldn't notice it.

        And unless we were to use the elevator to "slingshot" payloads... which would also reduce our rotational speed.


        It's like asking... if i can get everybody near me to jump up and down at the same time, will we shift the world from it's orbit?

        It would have to be a very very BIG space elevator...
    • CSharpSauce, on 05/04/2008, -24/+6you bring up a good point.....all that wind resistance in space.... its brutal
    • mentaldingo, on 05/04/2008, -0/+9I could do with a few more hours in the day.
    • nycmac247, on 05/04/2008, -1/+20the earth is a lot lot lot bigger than you are thinking of.
    • illt, on 05/04/2008, -2/+6no more significant than you having a gravitationl pull on the earth.
    • Vet4Peace, on 05/04/2008, -0/+7Yes. But by an absolutely miniscule amount.
    • takeo1775, on 05/04/2008, -2/+3I know the mass would usually be insignificant thats why I said a 'big' space elevator. Also I've never seen anyone ask this question, It might sound stupid but the physics behind it aren't.
    • Haecceity, on 05/04/2008, -6/+3Yes, the earth will stop rotating, causing the satellite to fall down. It's a waste of money, really.
    • OneLess, on 05/04/2008, -0/+4I would guess that the effect of large dams such as Three Gorges would be greater.
    • cjh24, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1why dugg down?
  • nomadxx7, on 05/04/2008, -1/+34That is awesome. I remember reading about this idea back in '04 from Popular Science

    Here is the PopSci link:
    http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-04/spac ...
    • Shots, on 05/04/2008, -0/+4I remember reading a book called the Space Elevator by Sir A. C. Clark - And that the idea was originally developed by Yuri Artsutanov in the 60s.
      • nomadxx7, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2Yeah the guy in the PopSci article stated about using carbon nanotubes back in the late 80s to early 90s
      • AmericansRevolt, on 05/04/2008, -6/+2and 40 years from now we might get a balloon on a string to reach 3 miles...
    • IanPR, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2Good memory!
      I cant remember what happened yesterday :P
  • JohnnyHotballs, on 05/04/2008, -3/+164now all they need is space elevator muzak
    • OisinT, on 05/04/2008, -1/+10it needs to be that muzak from that Jurassic Park video game for snes in the 90s
    • santiago1, on 05/04/2008, -1/+8 I vote they use the elevator muzak from System Shock! I STILL always hear that to this day!!
      • jftitan, on 05/04/2008, -1/+2Dugg for the System Shock Reference.... I still have that elevator music in my head.... OK, no it plays on my computer every few weeks. (play list with all SS1 & 2 music) Just brings back memories of that first elevator you get on from the med deck.

        REMEMBER CITADEL STATION!
        • CerMakAlot, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2Interestingly enough, the Citadel is the name of another giant space station in the game Mass Effect. Which also features futuristic elevator muzak!!!
    • cnot3, on 05/04/2008, -1/+3The Final Countdown
    • brad3378, on 05/04/2008, -0/+7How'd you like to get stuck on this thing for 42 hours?
    • trogle, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3still would be Kenny g
    • atgmac, on 05/04/2008, -1/+2And an unreleased apple product. And a camera.
    • nynexla, on 05/04/2008, -1/+1NIN
      • kaelyiesta, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1NIN is too bad ass to be elevator music. Even space elevator music.
    • Iwantawii, on 05/05/2008, -1/+1U2 - Elevation
  • objectnull, on 05/04/2008, -1/+9This is fantastic, but I see it much more of a tip of the iceberg thing concerning what new innovations will be fostered by this technology.
    Also, another short video on the space elevator, it's a little more informative.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2UZDHHDhog
    • jcb1987, on 05/04/2008, -0/+5The narrator sounds way too much like how Al Gore sounds on South Park for me to take him seriously...
    • ZiggyDaZigster, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1"Climbing a ribbon to the Stars" Wow, this is whats its came down to.
    • tand0m, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Lasers that supply power? While I hope for advances like this, I hate when one invention is based on a bunch of technology that may or may not become a reality.
  • Orsenfelt, on 05/04/2008, -2/+14Brilliant idea. Getting closer to everyone being able to get witness earth from space. Bring it on!
    • canman888, on 05/04/2008, -1/+2Arthur C. Clarke strikes back (yes it was he's idea with a space elevator as it was his idea with the satellites)
    • S1ngular1ty1, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I don't think they are going to let people ride on it.
      • rspeed, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Not at first. but eventually. It can't be much more dangerous than sitting on a giant tank of explosives.
  • catachip, on 05/04/2008, -28/+22The space elevator is one of those pie in the sky, popular mechanics ideas that will never be practically implemented. First of all, it would be nearly impossible to create the nanotubule ribbon at full strength (I believe they're at about 1% now). But, even if you did manage to fabricate it, think about the logistics. The ribbon would need to be nearly 100,000 km long, stretching from the Earth (presumably from some ocean base station) to an orbiting satellite. Now, think about that - having a 100,000 km ribbon that is open to be hit with meteors, planes, etc., not to mention errant missiles or other nefarious objects. One thing goes wrong, the ribbon breaks, and you've lost it all (and your cargo or crew).

    Considering the hundreds of billions, possibly trillions, of dollars that would be required to bring this to fruition (if you could even overcome the science), it would be far cheaper to just use disposable rockets that cost a meer $50-70 million each (or much less if production was ramped up).
    • mediaphile, on 05/04/2008, -5/+17It sure would make for an easy target for terrorism.
      • carpespasm, on 05/04/2008, -6/+46"ALLAH ACKBAR!" *Scissor snip*
      • oneoverzero, on 05/04/2008, -1/+5It would be an easy target, but not an appealing one. Not really symbollic of much, and not many deaths.
      • OneLess, on 05/04/2008, -0/+4Then I guess we shouldn't do it. Wouldn't want to help the terr'ists.
    • rnelsonee, on 05/04/2008, -4/+54Well, I'm glad you're not running things. "Pie in the sky" ideas from the past such as heavier-than-air flight, nuclear power, and landing on the moon were all thought to be impossible by most people, but we still did it. The science will come about - we've only been civilized for about 5,000 years and we've done quite a bit in the last 1,000.
      And cost? The space elevator has been estimated to cost at $6B. That's less than 1/150th of the estimated cost of the Iraq war. And lets talk about savings - the whole reason behind the space elevator is to save money for transporting items into space. Building the elevator would mean material could get into space at $100/lb rather than $10,000/lb (using rockets, which use fuel, which isn't going to be around forever). The thing would pay for itself after you put up 700 tons, which is less than one space station.
      (can't post long links here for some reason, but my figures are easily Googled)
      • catachip, on 05/04/2008, -9/+4I'm not trying to be pessimistic, I'm trying to be realistic. We're trying to get back to the Moon and Mars, a feat in itself that will consume half a trillion dollars and will take 20 years at least even using fully vetted technology we have now. I can't say what will happen in 100 years, maybe we'll have a space elevator by then, but likely not. And don't expect that $6 billion from the war to be freed up anytime soon, at least if we keep on the same path in November.
    • bratterscain, on 05/04/2008, -1/+9I see a Spaceballs episode involving giant scissors.
    • powatom, on 05/04/2008, -3/+20Oh come on - meteors and planes? The odds of the ribbon ever being hit by ANYTHING are so astronomically small it's not even worth thinking about. Why bother going outside? You might get a meteor slamming into your face! And god forbid - never go parachuting, don't you know that a plane might fly into you?

      An actual targeted attack on the ribbon IS something to worry about, but if we just focused on what 'might happen', we'd never get anywhere, would we?

      And besides, investing in a way to get stuff into space without consuming massive amounts of fuel is very worthwhile - we can't send rockets up indefinately. The initial cost may very well be in the trillions (although I doubt it - billions, possibly), but at least it's only a one time cost, and not something you keep needing to pay for over and over again.

      Think of it as a pioneering project. Even if it is never accomplished so we can send stuff up to space using an elevator, the technology could be used for other purposes (construction, in particular - even construction in space).
      • CorrosiveMan, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1"The United States now tracks more than 10,000 pieces of debris four inches wide or larger, but tens of millions of smaller fragments are also whizzing through space at speeds that can exceed 17,000 miles per hour, says Mark Matney of NASA's Orbital Debris Program"
        http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/map-space-jun ...
    • gabrielg01, on 05/04/2008, -11/+2catachip, you don't know what you are talking about (so it would be wiser if you just shut up): most satellite orbits are between 100km and 600km from Earth. This is far closer than the 100,000km distance that you just presumably pulled out of your ass.
      • catachip, on 05/04/2008, -0/+20First of all, I've worked at NASA and have been to seminar talks given by the space elevator group. Second of all, to quote LiftPort themselves: "LiftPort hopes to eventually use carbon nanotubes in the construction of a 100,000 km (62,000 mile) space elevator..." (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator)

        As for satellites, a simple google search would tell you that geosynchronous orbit is over 40,000 km up.

        Please don't presume to lecture other people on their ignorance when you have not confirmed the facts yourself.
      • catachip, on 05/04/2008, -0/+7Also, the 600-1000 km distance you mention is low-Earth orbit, which is not geosynchronous. That is where most satellites are, the shuttle orbits and where the ISS is located. However, these things don't need to be in a constant location above the Earth. For that, you need to be much farther out. The weight of the counterbalance and other concerns require the orbiting portion of the "space elevator" to be 100,000 km out.
      • NotOptium, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2owned.
    • earthforce1, on 05/04/2008, -0/+10The IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) published an article on the space elevator proposal in 2005. http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aug05/1690

      The IEEE is a technical body representing engineers worldwide, and they are not prone to fits of fancy. They actually detail how it could be put up, and it isn't as pie in the sky as you think. There are some technical hurdles to solve, but it isn't a wild fantasy.

    • Dystisis, on 05/04/2008, -2/+0You are of course correct. All these NASA-buttlickers are too arrogant to admit it though.
  • EliColburn, on 05/04/2008, -1/+14Futurama: not just for television any more.
  • Osuperman, on 05/04/2008, -0/+12Finally, a solution to the problem of screaming children who let go of their McDonalds branded balloons!
  • kevinmotel, on 05/04/2008, -1/+32"It collapsed when the city got glassed."
    "But the tower was thousands of kilometers high."
    "Yeah. Well now it's scattered all over the Savannah."
    • Quicksilver4648, on 05/04/2008, -0/+10I swear, I have learned more from video games then anything else sometimes.
      • J3EBS, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1Wrong. You have either learned it for all time, or you have yet to learn it at all. There is no middle ground.
  • headlites, on 05/04/2008, -9/+8While it looks like fun to launch things and play with balloons, I thought the best idea for getting a ribbon/cable in place was to lower it from orbit. Take the thing up in the space shuttle (some assembly required) then lower it toward the earth letting gravity do most of the work.
    • kebwi, on 05/04/2008, -1/+8First, they weren't testing the ribbon, they were testing the climber, so they can use any ribbon-hoisting method they want and remain legitimate. Your point is completely irrelevant because the ribbon wasn't the subject of the test.

      Second, your proposal is a radically different scale of this experiment. The shuttle flies just a little bit higher than the 1000' (or even target 5000') height of this experiment...just a little bit mind you. Why won't you allow them to scale up, starting from low heights and advancing to higher heights over time? Why do you chide them for not jumping straight to space shuttle altitudes? Do you think that's really the right approach to this sort of experiment, no smaller preliminary experiments, just got for full tilt or else be criticized for starting with smaller degrees of the experiment?
    • alittleroy101, on 05/04/2008, -0/+5It's called testing.
    • mexicanmonkey, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3well technically all the work that gravity does to lower it has to equal to the amount of work it takes to get it up there. It'd probably be cheaper to let some balloons carry it up.
      • davidlick, on 05/04/2008, -0/+0Balloons, I think, stop just shy of 62,000 miles.
        • Scaryclouds, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I think you mean feet... 62,000 miles is well outside the Earth's atmosphere, I think only a couple of (man made) satellites even exist beyond such a distance.
      • sirlancelot88, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1I'm glad that at least one digger (mexicanmonkey) actually understands conservation of energy and that gravity is a conservative force.
    • fluxion, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2using super high-strength nanotubes. and then attach it to the earth, and top it off with a space port for the full effect. then they could test the climber by transferring equipment into space for the ISS and the first manned mission to mars.

      at least, that's how i would've done their 1 mile test.
  • carpespasm, on 05/04/2008, -9/+4So they flew a balloon tied to a ribbon 1000ft up? I love the idea of the space elevator, but it's kinda funny that this is where they're at.
    • yetAnotherCroc, on 05/04/2008, -1/+8you obviously didnt pay attention. They had a robot climb the ribbon. That was the real test
    • elipabst, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2The article said the test was supposed to be a mile long climb, but FAA regulations required them to paint stripes on the ribbon, which weakened it and caused it to break. They decided to do a 1000ft climb instead because that was lower than the height for the FAA regulations. Either way they still have a long way to go though.
    • kebwi, on 05/04/2008, -0/+5Yeah, and those silly genome-sequencing scientists back in the 90s. What were they thinking? It was easy to calculate back then that it was going to take hundreds of years to sequence a single genome with their methods of the time?

      Give them a little slack, no pun intended.
  • RickyBennett, on 05/04/2008, -14/+2the is the most retarded thing ever how are thay going to keep things from hitting that and breaking it and or keep plans from crashing from it

    what thay need to do is make a plane that can just fly in to space like what thay have in the aka the space plane
    • yetAnotherCroc, on 05/04/2008, -1/+6its very thin, and the atmosphere is a big place. Besides, they could just make the immediate area a no-fly zone. Spaceplanes use up a lot of fuel and cost more to get into orbit. What happens when the fuel runs out?
    • TheDHC, on 05/04/2008, -1/+3Here we go, i was afraid that this topic didn't have any idiot posters. Thank you
      • Darph.Bobo, on 05/05/2008, -1/+2Amazing isn't it?
        The idiot RickyBennett isn't even capable of mastering 1st grade grammar or spelling but he's the first to question PHD's and scientific theory.

        He also believes saying something is "retarded" it makes him look smarter and superior!
    • Akufen, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Proofread much?
  • jcb1987, on 05/04/2008, -12/+2So, how do they plan on extending the thing past Earth's atmosphere? Balloons sure as hell won't work...
    • yetAnotherCroc, on 05/04/2008, -0/+5geostationary satellite probably
    • kebwi, on 05/04/2008, -0/+12Yet another comment suggesting that no one involved in space elevator research has actually given it more than two minutes of thought or a napkin's worth of calculation. If you are genuinely curious about how they think it can be done why don't you just look it up and learn about it instead of making ridiculous accusations? Welcome to the internet age where you never have any excuse for asking dumb questions about topics which are easily researched on the web (and this is definitely one of those topics. Have you even *looked* for an answer to your question?).

      I find space elevator nay-sayers to be much like creationists. They criticize a particular idea or concept with a bunch of arguments which they think sound clever and insightful, but to anyone who has actually researched the topic in a little depth, their arguments are unfailingly hollow and naive, and serve only to illustrate how uneducated they themselves are for asking such absurd questions in the first place.

      Do you really want to know "how they plan on extending the thing past Earth's atmosphere [without balloons]", your quote? You want to know? Then for goodness sakes, look it up.
      • alittleroy101, on 05/04/2008, -0/+6I want to copy-paste your comment whenever people ask these ridiculous questions.
  • chrisduser, on 05/04/2008, -1/+4Space elevator... does it stop at an geosynchronous orbiting space city before coming to a stop at the moon docking station?
    • shadowmoose, on 05/04/2008, -2/+1Actually it is meant to reach geo orbit with an enormous weight/space station on the end. But your moon comment is just silly.
    • fluxion, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2it's actually just a regular elevator inside a skyscraper that extends into space that's attached to other giant skyscrapers spread around the circumference of the earth and are tied together by a giant ring around the planet
  • keatonkeaton998, on 05/04/2008, -9/+98This is the most disorienting, upside down, unclear, and confusing video I've ever seen. I have no idea what's going on and it's incredibly frustrating that there is no sound or narration.
    • desertDenizen, on 05/04/2008, -2/+2An ascender is climbing a ribbon to a balloon.
    • cannonball, on 05/05/2008, -2/+2RTFA
    • Intamin, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1While the lack of narration is rather stupid, all it is is a small "elevator" without payload or carriage asecnding the ribbon as described in the article to a height of 1000 feet. The other cord is the safety line just in case the ribbon breaks, so they won't have to get another balloon.

      Hope that helped a bit. :)
  • Hydroseeds, on 05/04/2008, -4/+26Wow.
    That video was really, really boring.
  • WRXFiles, on 05/04/2008, -3/+40You kids who are questioning how good an idea this is need to get out more.

    Try reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fountains_of_Para ...

    This book was written by Arthur C Clarke. Remember him? He is the same guy who in 1945 committed to paper the idea of communications satellites. Think about how we use satellites... Had he patented that idea, he would have been the wealthiest man the world has ever known.

    What's Clarke's first law? Well, if an elderly scientist says that something is possible, he is usually right. When an elderly scientist says something is impossible - he is usually wrong.'

    This is now just a technological challenge, and if we don't destroy ourselves first, it will be built.
    • Hraes, on 05/04/2008, -5/+2He also predicted Myspace and Facebook in that story.
      • Hraes, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Why the hell am I being buried? I'm not joking. He describes a personal profile that everyone updates to match their current interests, allow everyone else to view their interests, and track their friends.
    • pixelate, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Dugg up. Might as well post them all!

      1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
      2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
      3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
  • AmericansRevolt, on 05/04/2008, -8/+0ive been following the space elevator stories, but after seeing this video i have lost all faith in the project. these guys made a 1000' long kite. yay. i wouldnt even trust my dog to go up in that jerry-rigged contraption. it looks like space elevator technology is still 100 years away from being feasible if you go by this video.
    • RandaII, on 05/04/2008, -1/+8God your parents must of been ***** high when they made you.
      • dpds, on 05/05/2008, -1/+0Your parents should have tried that at the anger of having you.
    • kebwi, on 05/04/2008, -1/+1My only serious qualm with you is your perceived ability to extrapolate from this article the remaining time required for this research? Anyone would agree that this experiment represents an early stage of this overall project. I just don't understand your claim to be able to predict how long it will take to finish it? How did you come up with your 100 year figure? Why not 20 years? Or 50? Or 1000? Please explain your precise methodical math and justify your 100 year calculation.

      You pessimism about the project seems predicated on your own 100 year calculation. Perhaps if you discovered that you were in error on that point it would alleviate your consequent negative attitude about the project as a whole.
      • AmericansRevolt, on 05/04/2008, -2/+1perhaps if you discovered pussy that stick would fall out of your ass
        • Darph.Bobo, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1No he's right and YOU'RE wrong!
          Just maybe if you quit worrying so much about pussy, some of that blood might come back to your other head.

          BTW, I see by your username you're encouraging Americans to revolt, obviously you've done the same drive-by research with that issue you did with the space elevator.
  • yumlum, on 05/04/2008, -4/+3great video
  • thechr0nic, on 05/04/2008, -0/+7blah blah blah... all I want to know, is when I can jump from this.. and if it would qualify as a skydive or a base jump.
    • davidlick, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Hmmm...SpaceJump????
    • J3EBS, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Building? No. Antenna? No. Skyscraper? No. Earth? No. You, my friend, are now in skydive mode.
      • thechr0nic, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1The S stands for 'span' (kinda like a bridge) a skyscraper is a building :D
  • Kishoba, on 05/04/2008, -8/+2The FAA couldn't have been any bigger douche bags for the experiment. Seriously, I know the government thinks they own the air, but this is just absurd that you would sacrifice an experiments like this one's outcome because you are going to require paint on a ribbon.
    • CSharpSauce, on 05/04/2008, -1/+8... you're completely right... why would the FAA require safety measures for the air when the only thing up there are planes /*eye roll*/
    • Kishoba, on 05/07/2008, -0/+1Yes because we know planes take up all air space at all times at can't be diverted even for an experiment of this magnitude. Learn some actual logic you f'ing moron.
  • spikehay271, on 05/04/2008, -1/+3To protect from lightning, it would be possible to attach a large helium balloon to the space elevator, at above the altitude that lightning strikes. Like over 100,000 feet. Then dangle down cables to act as lightning rods. UV lasers would work, too. You couldn't protect from micrometeoroids, but the chances of one of those being big enough to take out the whole cable is pretty small. Obviously you'd need robots to be able to repair parts of the cable.

    Nanotubes should be a viable material for space elevators in the future. All of this isn't feasible now, but someday...
  • slapded, on 05/04/2008, -6/+1shopped
  • siozzia, on 05/04/2008, -6/+4the altitude of space is not 100,000 km but rather 100 to 690 km

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_atmosphere

    this is definitely doable, each problem can be systematically solved over time.
    • LeggoMyEgo, on 05/04/2008, -0/+6I am thinking you don't understand geosynchronous orbit, nor what a space elevator is.
  • bugaloobob, on 05/04/2008, -1/+4This being on the Internet, was anyone else expecting it to burn up or just blow away or some other "surprise" ending, or was that just me?
    • MrObjectional, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1This being on the Internet, was anyone else expecting a joke, or a a rickroll, or some other "surprise" ending to this comment?
      • alittleroy101, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1This being on the internet, was anyone else not surprised by the unnecessary use of "quotes"?
        • iJump, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1This being on the internet, is it Hammertime yet?
      • dpds, on 05/05/2008, -0/+0Thank you for the image of Rick Astley performing songs on a space elevator platform as it rises to the heavens.
  • DarkSideofMoon, on 05/04/2008, -2/+10Tripod. Ever heard of it?
  • mydingaling, on 05/04/2008, -3/+8In space elevators, no-one can hear you fart.
    • Darph.Bobo, on 05/04/2008, -0/+6At least you have your priorities straight.
  • itsgotyou, on 05/04/2008, -0/+10No thanks. Wake me up when the have the space escaltor running.
    • agentshiro, on 05/05/2008, -0/+3That's the great thing about escalators, when they break they just become stairs!

      RIP Mitch
  • novenator, on 05/04/2008, -6/+1Hey, I had this idea back in 1980 when I was a young tot! My vision had a larger tether from a station on the ground attached to a permanent, large satellite in orbit (ideally massive enough to counteract the effects of gravity on the tether). This thing could be like a utility corridor, with pipes for food, air, water, 2 tubes for personal travel, etc. Too late to patent you think?
  • Apocolypse007, on 05/04/2008, -1/+26I cant wait to see the time lapse video of the guy who gets stuck in the space elevator for 48 hours and keeps opening the doors just to see planes and birds passing by.
    • kingofkolt, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2...or the spoof follow-up to that video where the guy is stuck in the space elevator with diarrhea and the unfortunate folks at the LiftPort Station get rained on.
  • gamben0, on 05/04/2008, -2/+1This is just a lame video of an air balloon.
    There were also words on the page. Maybe they said something.
    • AmericansRevolt, on 05/04/2008, -0/+0hey be careful they will bury you for reading the article. btw- it said they had to 'run to the hardware store to buy up all the string they could find, so they could have a safety line on the balloon' ... this was a ***** experiment that has gotten nobody ANY closer to a space elevator... unless you want to count the use of non-acetone mixed paint haha.... i said earlier that this video makes it seem like we are 100 years away from reaching space via a string. after watching and reading it again i think it might be 200 years.
  • break99, on 05/04/2008, -0/+5shaka, when the walls fell...

    ST:TNG: Darmok
  • jc730, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2Pshhh... I built that in Civ IV already.
  • Mossman85, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1Where can I buy one?
  • Quicksilver4648, on 05/04/2008, -0/+5How much longer till we have one like this?
    http://images.wikia.com/halo/images/7/7b/SpaceElev ...
    • Lewand, on 05/04/2008, -0/+2I guess when the Protoss take over the world?
      • agentshiro, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Dugg for Starcraft! And then I just got sad cuz SC2 is still in hiatus...
  • TBBucs, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1I totally forgot about this thing. Glad to see that it's coming along.
  • Texas04, on 05/04/2008, -0/+3Did Digg just kill LiveLeak?
  • SmilinJoe, on 05/04/2008, -1/+0Don't wanna be a passenger in the elevator if it broke: (1) come crashing to Earth or (2) get flung past the moon..
  • xDynaBlade, on 05/04/2008, -0/+6What an awful video. I don't even know what happened.
  • rock774, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1I hope they don't play elevator music !
  • SillyDigger, on 05/04/2008, -0/+1This is just another investment scam like Stratellite, TransOrbital/TrailBlazer and The Phantom.game system.
  • rhedrick, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1What we'll probably see is a heavy lift rocket take ~25k miles of this stuff up to geosynchronous orbit. There, the nanotube tether will be 'lowered' towards the Earth with a counter weight on the other end to balance the load. Once the tether reaches the ground they'll anchor it.

    Now that the tether is in place, LiftPort's little climber will ascend with another tube, until they have a cable with enough carrying capacity to efficiently transport to geosynchronous orbit whatever they like. After the first cable is complete, they'll probably put up two more, one for maintenance and one as a backup.

    Once there are a couple of these cables reaching past geosynchronous orbit, they'll start building a permanent space station - a big one. Really big. A spinny one with artificial gravity.
  • rhedrick, on 05/05/2008, -2/+1Thus spoke Zarathustra.
  • dscottie, on 05/05/2008, -0/+0Bet you some asshole still got off at the 2nd floor
  • WeaponMit, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2LAME... try again when the ribbon consists of nanotubes.
  • swedishvolvo, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1Will this not speed up or slow down the rotation of earth? It sounds neat but I don't see how this will not effect the speed of the earths rotation at least a bit. Changing the speed of earths rotation is not a good idea.
  • tand0m, on 05/05/2008, -0/+1What will stop these several ton payloads pulling themselves up the elevator from just pulling the orbiting satellite out of the sky?

    It's a little thing I call Newton's Third Law of Motion
    • WeaponMit, on 05/05/2008, -0/+2Your little thing called "Newton's Third Law of Motion" is the reason why the theory makes sense. Take a single thread in your hand and swing it in a circular motion, you will find that this act results in nothing. Tie a counterweight to the end of the string, paper clip whatever. Now swing the thread with the counterweight in a circular motion. You now find that the string is pulled tense and can now be used as roadway for an imaginary climber to ascend. Same basic concept, however if the counterweight existed in our atmosphere it wouldn't work. The counterweight will exist outside of earth's atmosphere.
  • oldcyborg, on 05/05/2008, -3/+1Without Pix, there is no story...this is all bs....... (I believe this can be done, but there certainly is not an iota of proof in this story.
    String from town???? gimme a break, will you!!!!!

    Cyborg
  • oldcyborg, on 05/05/2008, -4/+1The Mars trilogy, among many others, have been here for years. I mean many years. WTF is the big deal today. I see nothing, I know nothing..... schultz-Hogans Heroes.... Thats how old this is. I am ***** about this......

    Cyborg
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.