The Speculist

I can think of a few problems with the Space Elevator concept without too much effort:

1. Perception: The concept is implausable to the average Joe. You and I can agree the science is sound and with additional research, we could build it. Try explaining that to the politicians on the Hill. And your non-geek friends.

2. Speaking of politicans, NASA contracts are notorious pork projects. No politician is interested in supporting something that will see their districts lose aerospace contracts. Lots of vested interests in this swamp.

We may wish this was not the case, and that good ideas prevail. The grown up world doesn't usually work like this. But it should.

3. Security threat: Could something like this be sabotaged? Remember the rule of new technologies: New technologies will be held up to a higher standard of safety, its impact on the environment, etc. than the technology it replaces.

Remmeber the Red/Blue/Green Mars trilogy?

And, consider this, if gasoline were invented tomorrow, it would be banned. We'd still be riding horses, or bikes. Or anything else not run by an internal combustion engine.

That said, I would love to see a commercial space elevator project started. If the government doesn't do it, we might see it done privately. I would rather see that than NASA doing it, I think.

JasperPants

The NASA study I read described the breaking of an elevator as catostrophic. Depends upon where the break occurs of course. but imagine 20 miles of battleship chain falling to the Earth.

The study suggested because of that an elevator would have to be based at Sea with all of the problems that might be associated with anchoring such a beast in the water it may not be all that easy.

The other thing to remember is that the elevator is generally assumed to require a captured asteroid of some size to act as the upper end balance to keep it taught. You're gonna have to get that somehow.

Rischwarz:

Some of those concerns are "old school." Edwards would still place the base of the elevator at sea. He'd use the equatorial Pacific because the weather is calm. Cat 5 hurricanes coming monthly into the gulf of Mexico kinda highlights this concern.

An asteriod is quite unnecessary. That old idea was based on the notion that whatever material (they didn't know what it would be - some called it "fictionite") that would be strong enough for the elevator would also be heavy - steel on steriods.

It's widely assumed now that if we do this, we'll have to use carbon nanotubes - a strong but relatively light material. An asteriod won't be needed. And since this elevator won't be pulling against an asteriod (a smaller man-made counterweight will be used instead), anchoring at sea (or anywhere else) won't be nearly as difficult to do.

Read Edward's report.

Here are the other two Speculist posts on the subject:

The Imminent Arrival of the Space Elevator

Space Elevator Update

Another problem here is the manager of that space elevator will be competing with private industry. If the space elevator is owned and operated by a private company with no unusual political power to squeeze out competitors, then we're fine. But if it's NASA or some other government agency, and the US government decides to restrict or eliminate private competition in order to save face (IMHO much as was done in the 80's to protect the Space Shuttle's commercial business from private competition), then we have a problem.

Karl:

Agreed. The cost of any space program is a barrier to entry anyway. Being able to regulate other competitors out is ridiculous in this caase.