[extropy-chat] Forbes Magazine on Robotics

[Keith Henson]

At 04:13 PM 8/20/2006 -0700, Michael wrote:
>Here is a better alternative to the classic space elevator vision:
>
>http://discuss.foresight.org/~josh/tower/tower.html

"And the stationary skyhook is among the more sedate of the blue-sky 
earth-to-orbit schemes, with a respectable intellectual history and 
numerous references and analyses in the literature."  As an engineer I 
would estimate that 100km towers supporting an EM accelerator are much more 
difficult and offer no growth ability.

>Or:
>
>http://www.launchloop.com/

I think Keith Lofstrom (who is one of my favorite people) would agree with 
me that the launch loop will take post-nanotech engineering.  It requires 
just too much reliability when you have hundreds of km of 50k/sec ribbon 
with 50 Gw hours of energy stored in it, all moving in a vacuum.

>It's obvious that rockets won't work for serious space exploration,
>but then neither will space elevators.

You are certain on this point?

>We will need to look towards
>other solutions, many of which aren't very fleshed out at the present
>time.

I think in the long run people will upload and not bother going into space 
or anywhere else for that matter.  Space elevators are like O'Neill 
colonies, something with a very short window if they happen at all.

Keith Henson