Arthur C. Clarke's New Space Elevator Prediction
Arthur C. Clarke agrees that we shouldn't use rockets to go back to the Moon.
Explorers, he said, made it to the South Pole before the technology existed to make it practical to stay there. They used dog sleds because that was the best method available. After that first dangerous trip, it took fifty years before people went back. But when they went back, they stayed permanently. Dog sleds were not involved.
Now we are planning to return to the Moon 50 years after Neil Armstrong, but we're planning to do it again with rockets. Rocket technology will not allow us to maintain a permanent presence on the Moon. They are the dog sleds of Lunar exploration.
The Space Elevator is the technology that will make permanent Lunar bases supportable.
I love how he closes the column:
I am often asked when I think the first space elevator might be built. My answer has always been: about 50 years after everyone has stopped laughing. Maybe I should now revise it to 25 years.
He doesn't explain this new optimism. But it would have to be based on recent carbon nanotube advancements and, perhaps, the work of Bradley Edwards.
Hat tip to Instapundit who believes that "the laughter has pretty much stopped."
Comments
What's the problem with rockets anyway? Launch in volume and they'll compete with space elevators (particularly for high inclination orbits and LEO). Further, you need something to build up demand for those space elevators.
Posted by: Karl Hallowell | September 27, 2005 06:02 PM
Rockets are extremely expensive compared to space elevators.
There is little gained in scale when you consider the cost of fuel alone. Even re-usable mass produced rockets require maintenance.
The applications for space by themselves will build demand. You don't build demand for trans-continental travel by mass producing Segways in place of airplanes to cross the country.
I have almost zero confidence government action will lead to a space elevator, and am very worried intrusive action, most likely by some regulatory regime, will make cashing in on it very hard. Considering how many bad ideas both Nasa and Congress have supported, it probably pays to expect them, and try to prempt them.
Posted by: ivankirigin | September 28, 2005 02:13 PM