Space Elevator

[Onionsoilder]

You misunderstood me. I was saying that the method of using space shuttles to transport things into orbit is expensive, dangerous, and time-consuming. Not the actual experiments in space. I'm highly supportive of those. My point was replacing what will be a scientific marvel when it is finally developed (Elevator) shouldn't be replaced with a crude system like the Space Shuttle.

 

[exhile]

You misunderstood me. I was saying that the method of using space shuttles to transport things into orbit is expensive, dangerous, and time-consuming. Not the actual experiments in space. I'm highly supportive of those. My point was replacing what will be a scientific marvel when it is finally developed (Elevator) shouldn't be replaced with a crude system like the Space Shuttle.

I'm guessing you like those pictures of outer space too. You see, there was a spacecraft called the Venture Star by Lockheed that was suppose to replace the space shuttle. The experimental craft of the Venture Star called the X-33 didn't live up to expecations and the billion dollar project was cancelled. The Space Elevator from my view is going in the direction of the X-33.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

The Space Elevator from my view is going in the direction of the X-33.

OK, but why? And beyond that, why should it matter in Civ, which after all exists in a slightly different universe from us (one in which, for instance, spearmen are perfectly capable of defeating tanks)?

 

[Onionsoilder]

I'm guessing you like those pictures of outer space too. You see, there was a spacecraft called the Venture Star by Lockheed that was suppose to replace the space shuttle. The experimental craft of the Venture Star called the X-33 didn't live up to expecations and the billion dollar project was cancelled. The Space Elevator from my view is going in the direction of the X-33.

Unless we develop a cheap & powerful teleportation system, a space elevator will be the cheapest and most efficent way to move spacecraft componets into orbit. However, since neither currently exist, we have to make do with spaceshuttle-type craft. On the other hand, a space elevator seems much closer on the horizon then a surface-to-space teleportation system, so it's the one most often written/fantisized/theorized about, which is why it's in Civilization IV.

 

[exhile]

Unless we develop a cheap & powerful teleportation system, a space elevator will be the cheapest and most efficent way to move spacecraft componets into orbit. However, since neither currently exist, we have to make do with spaceshuttle-type craft. On the other hand, a space elevator seems much closer on the horizon then a surface-to-space teleportation system, so it's the one most often written/fantisized/theorized about, which is why it's in Civilization IV.

Sorry, but there are no cost or performance numbers to back your claim. NASA is returning to the Saturn based rocket called the Ares V and that won't be online until 2015. By that time, this rocket will be in operation for at least 20 years meaning 2035. Even Russia's Proton Rocket & China's Chang Zheng 5 will be in operation for the next 2 decades. Not to mention, what will be the malfunctions of a space elevator? Rockets explode, they crash, they deploy in the wrong orbit. How many lives will be lost to a space elevator?

OK, but why? And beyond that, why should it matter in Civ, which after all exists in a slightly different universe from us (one in which, for instance, spearmen are perfectly capable of defeating tanks)?

Well, it doesn't matter in terms of game play as you state. It's just a wonder. The only way a spearman would defeat a tank is if it was well promoted and in full health while the tank is in limbo.

 

[Onionsoilder]

Well, obviously there are no performance numbers for a space elevator because there is no space elevator in existence. However, rockets are very expensive because you need fuel to launch the rocket(Usually 80-95% of the weight) and the component, while a Space Elevator would be very light, so you would only need fuel to propel the component itself into space, meaning that, in theory, it would be about 90% cheaper to move components into space with a space elevator then by rocket.

Also, the accident rate on a space elevator should be much, much smaller then with rockets. When something goes wrong on a rocket, usually the mission has to be aborted and sometime the result is even the rocket and everything it was carrying being destroyed. If something fails on a space elevator, it would just stall, meaning technicians could be dispatched to repair it.

 

[rysmiel]

Unless we develop a cheap & powerful teleportation system, a space elevator will be the cheapest and most efficent way to move spacecraft componets into orbit. However, since neither currently exist, we have to make do with spaceshuttle-type craft.

There are much more efficient and cheaper ways of putting large masses into orbit than the space shuttle model. see for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_(rocket)

This concept is workable with WWII-era tech, too.

 

[Onionsoilder]

Your wiki link is broken.

By spaceshuttle-type craft, I meant any rocket-type delivery system.

 

[exhile]

cheaper to move components into space with a space elevator then by rocket.

Yeah!? by how much? Give me a ballpark figure.

Also, the accident rate on a space elevator should be much, much smaller then with rockets. When something goes wrong on a rocket, usually the mission has to be aborted and sometime the result is even the rocket and everything it was carrying being destroyed. If something fails on a space elevator, it would just stall, meaning technicians could be dispatched to repair it.

What if the cable breaks and not just once, twice, three or a rate of a dozen times a year? If the load can't climb the cable, and falls down crashing back to earth, then what?

 

[Refar]

The cable can not break more than once per year, because it would take longer to fix it

Anyway... Spaceshuttles (any currently available delivery system) are stretched to the very limit of they capabilities and clearly not suitable for future projects like Mars (And beyond). I am not sure if they really get decomissioned till 2010 - because no one got something better. But they got no future.
There is at current time no solution for this, but there are ideas to -in theory- overcome the limitations. Space Elevator is one of them and hence as sensible choice as any other Sci-Fi technology for the onset of the "Future Era" in the game.

In terms the Space Elevators feasibility/usefullnes in the real world - i doubt it.
In term of it being in the game - as noted by someone above - i just wish it's ingame effect would be worth building the thing...

 

[Onionsoilder]

Yeah!? by how much? Give me a ballpark figure.

I just did. 80-90% cheaper.

What if the cable breaks and not just once, twice, three or a rate of a dozen times a year? If the load can't climb the cable, and falls down crashing back to earth, then what?

Then the space elevator is a failure, and there is no point in using it.

 

[rysmiel]

Your wiki link is broken.

Sorry; have fixed it in the original post.

 

[El_Machinae]

The Science & Technology forum has a post about the Space Elevator, but it's not super-full of facts and figures.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=293826

 

[buffalo6542]

Omar Al-Khayyam drew up a proposal in 1234, but the king of Milan rejected it, as it made excessive demands on the royal ear to listen to the quantum chromodynamics involved.

Einstein drew up the first modern proposal in 640 BC.

Einstein wasn't even born in 640 BC