[extropy-chat] Forbes Magazine on Robotics

[Michael Anissimov]

On 8/20/06, Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:

> "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.

Rockets have a "respectable intellectual history and numerous
references and analyses in the literature", but they're still just
bombs with a hole poked in the side.

> 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.

His design is based on conventional materials, but agreed, the
reliability factor is intimidating.

> >It's obvious that rockets won't work for serious space exploration,
> >but then neither will space elevators.
>
> You are certain on this point?

The point is moot anyway, because we aren't going into space.  Not far anyway.

> 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.

Agreed.  Rather than spread out from the Earth, it is far more likely
that we will condense into a sphere perhaps the size of a basketball.
A meter is worlds away when your mind is running at 10^30 ops/sec.

-- 
Michael Anissimov
Lifeboat Foundation      http://lifeboat.com
http://acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog