Let me ask a couple of simple questions. Can it be built using

>>8924906
>Can it be built using today's technology?

No.

>If it can't, what technology is lacking?

Literally magic materials.

any of the carbon meme materials could do it. the problem is fabrication. because even one atom not in the right place causes significant lost of strength. enough atoms wrong close enough together will cause failure.

i'm talking less than a gram of carbon atoms over the entire structure.

>>8924906

I've just finished reading Arthur C. Clarke's Space Odyssey science fiction series. In the series, especially the lesser-known latter two books, Clarke spends extended time with this idea. But although it's sci-fi, he does annotate his books with substantive (literal in-text citations in some cases) references to published science-fact material, which he takes as his starting point to give his fictional version.

Specifically, in the notes to 3001 (which spends the most time with the space-elevator idea, as massive permanent towers have been erected off the earth's surface), Clarke mentions the well-known allotrope of carbon, C_60, but then goes on to mention that Dr. Smalley et al produced a tubular form, which Clarke and Smalley suggest is a possible material for space elevator, as this poster >>8924977 presumably intimates.

The text of 2061 literally contains, right at the end, the citation of this little article: "Satellite elongation something something, true skyhook". I can't be fucked to reproduce it now (I have it) but it's a little published note suggesting the idea that OP is asking about and which was popularized in the above somewhat.

This is basically all formalized speculation, some of which has been dignified with publication.

>>8924996
Interesting. I only read The Sentinel and I really enjoyed it. Granted, it was only 6 pages long.

Do you recomend the Space Odyssey series?

>>8925065

Yes, I strongly recommend it as a fictional read. Something came over me the past few months where I just had to acquire and read these books (I've always liked the original film), and the latter entries aren't earth-shattering, but good entertainment with good science-fact sprinkled in, as I've suggested.

There's a good pleasure in reading along and taking notes about the factual cultural references, which of course are not limited to science.

>>8924906
>Can it be built using today's technology?
No.
>If it can't, what technology is lacking?
We aren't even remotely close to the materials required and it might be quite possible that we will never get there.

>>8924906

>Can it be built using today's technology?

Yes but no on Earth

File: 1490832403440.jpg (65KB, 600x1189px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 600x1189px

>meme materials
>magic materials

>>8924906
>Can it be built using today's technology?
of course not
>If it can't, what technology is lacking?
as you go higher the tether need to be stronger, thus has to be wider. it would be the widest at roughly 35000km where gravity and centrifugal effect are cancelling each other. when you make the calculations to determine the width of the tether at this altitude with every known material you end up with absurdly huge numbers.
Add the fact that everybody seems to forget that the actual elevator has to be powered to go up and is supposed to support the same payloads as our current rockets to be competitive. The first solution that come to our mind is solar power but it happens to be too weak to power up the device.
I'm sorry I don't really have any real number to prove me right though

We could build one for the Moon with today's technology, not so much Earth.

>>8924906
No
Materials with sufficient strength, climber technology, tech to transfer power the climber on ascent, any of the infrastructure required to actually build the tether and capture/build a counterweight and attach it to the tether

Basically we can't build one right now. We might see one in our lifetimes though, assuming of course that biotechnology extends our lifetimes significantly.
People call it a meme but honestly it would be fantastic if one is ever actually built.

>>8924906
You can build one on the moon using kevlar, so thats something.

After it was built how long do you think it would take for something to fuck up?
A system failure, space debris smashing into it, terror attack, etc.?

>>8925585
>on the moon
Wouldn't it be a better idea to build one of those railgun-style launchers on the moon?

>>8925591
This is the thing I am surprised isn't brought up much. Someone would absolutely fuck with it.

>>8925598

>rail gun style launcher.

That could work with SOME cargo, but anything fragile or living would be turned to putty from acceleration

>>8925605
Couldnt you just build it very long? I guess there is enough inhabitat surface to build it long enough for some smooth acceleration

>>8924906
It can't be built using today's financial system.

>>8924977
You could do it with standard carbon fiber and aerospace alloys.

>>8925605
>anything fragile or living would be turned to putty from acceleration
You're assuming there that you want an extra short gun, but considering the fact that the moon allows for more massive structures as the gravity is weaker, and that the gun doesn't need to be airtight, you could go for a long gun that is still relatively short compared Earth's with a constant acceleration of 1 g that could bring anything to liberation velocity

>>8924913
/thread

Why are people posting?