Is it possible to build a space elevator today? Yes: https

File: 1418515491292.jpg (87KB, 1067x650px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 1067x650px

There are some important questions. First, how much would it cost to do something like this?

We need to send about 160 million kilograms of material into space (See Birch's boot strap estimates in part 2: http://www.orionsarm.com/fm_store/OrbitalRings-II.pdf)

We have rockets available at $2000/kg costs to LEO today in "mass production" mode, which is only about 10-20 launches per year. Compared with the couple thousand launches necessary for a space elevator, $2000 is an unreasonably high upper bound for launch costs.

We also need to include the cost of materials. A space elevator is about 98% steel and aluminum, 1% kevlar, and 1% other such as superconducting magnets. Most of the mass (98%) cost around $1/kg, with an average cost per kilogram of no more than about $10 per kilogram.

Summing the above up, we get about $430 billion in launch costs plus another $1-2 billion in material costs.

In other words, we can have a space elevator for less than $450 billion - significantly less than one year worth of DoD spending, one bank bailout, many times less than a variety of pointless wars, etc. This is well within our reach financially in other words.

File: 1431375478362.jpg (24KB, 316x286px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 316x286px

What do we get in return for this $450 billion investment?

Virtually unlimited value. For example, with a space elevator we can reliably launch our nuclear waste into the sun. We've spent $100 billion building a waste repository in Nevada, but it was ultimately decided not to even use it. Now it costs only a dollar or two per kilogram to get rid of all of the nuclear waste in the world.

Second, we have immediate access to viable asteroid mining industry. Because the cost of delivering payloads to LEO drops to about $1/kilogram, we can not retrieve asteroids with trillions of dollars worth of minerals for mere tens millions of dollars in addition to having an easy viable way of returning those resources back to the surface.

We acquire the ability to deploy profitable solar power in orbit above cloud cover and with the ability to return said power back to the surface with near zero loss by running power transmission cables down the elevator.

Just how profitable?

With increased luminosity in space, enhanced exposure time, and the ability to deliver base loads, solar panels pay for themselves in only 1-2 years while having a 20 year life time.

In other words, if you put $5 trillion of solar panels into space, you get your $5 trillion back by the end of year two and a $5 trillion income stream each year thereafter.

In other words, the US could cut everyone's taxes, both personal and business, income, capital, death, or otherwise, all to 0%, not even cut any benefits or current spending, and pay off the national debt within a decade.

I don't see how this is better than a classical space elevator. With the classic elevator, you are gradually increasing your orbital velocity as you move up it, allowing satellites to adjust where they want to go from the top with ease. With this orbital ring elevator, once you go up you still need to exert all that energy gaining orbital velocity for the satellites, so it would make negligible difference than if you just launched from the surface. Also, is it really possible for any solid material to change orbital direction that rapidly (at the spots where the elevator meets the rings) without the material breaking? The classical elevator needs materials that have good tensile strength, while the orbital ring needs a material that can withstand extreme bending. Was this taken into account? Is kevlar strong enough in this sense?

>>8692931
That's cool and all, but how do you get into orbit with a space elevator that only goes up 300 kilometers?

What happens if you lose power?

>>8693221
Orbital height starts at around 100km so I dont see the problem

>>8692939
So how do you return asteroids from orbit using a ring that's moving at faster than orbital velocity?

Do we having bearings that work in the range of KILOMETERS PER SECOND.

>>8693244
You need velocity to stay in orbit. How does this orbital ring get you up to orbital velocity?

>>8693251
dude did you even watch the vid, the ring is in orbit so that the lift can stay still on its track.

My question is how would something dismount the lift to the ring if its moving so fast? or would you just use the ring as its support?

Also im getting a halo ring kind vibe!

>>8693263
I don't watch youtube videos. I only read papers. The ring must rotate at faster than orbital velocity, otherwise it falls down.

So how does one go from the surface of earth to orbital velocity using the ring?

>>8692931
>>8692934
>>8692939
Pls be my dictator

>>8693507
>> wanting a brainlet for a dictator
OP hasn't done any math

>>8692931
>Is it possible to build a space elevator today?
no but a launch loop is feasible today

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop