Slow Space Elevator

[Vondy]

Re: Slow Space Elevator

 

There's actually a good STRATEGIC reason to build beanstalks (assuming they are technically feasible) Space is the ultimate high ground, and the first country to build beanstalks will essentially own LEO.

 

The first thing I do with a beanstalk is build more beanstalks, I sell access to space to all people with an economic intrest at pennies on the dollar (except that I don't use my beanstalk to let you build your beanstalk). I quickly establish a monopoly on space exploitation.

 

In the meanwhile my military has basiclly unfettered access to LEO. Maybe they don't send up troops, but they surely have access to every sattelite in orbit. Lust for example, let's go fetch a few enemy spy satellites and re tool them to work for us.

 

No argument on my part. In government terms, strategic motivations have parity with economic ones.

[Nyrath]

Re: Slow Space Elevator

 

Because most ideas do.

And it's more likely to fail than reusable lifting solutions (SSTO, MSTO, whatever) because there's more to it that's unproven and more that's hypothetical. We've built a reusable MSTO, and it was pretty good for a first try. The two catastrophic failures were caused by human error (in the system at NASA, etc, not crew), and not by inherent flaws in the concept.

You are using the term "fail" in a manner I am not expecting.

 

Before the Wright Brothers flew their heavier-than-air aircraft at Kitty Hawk, there were dozens of airplanes prototypes that failed.

 

But the concept of heavier-than-air flight did not fail. The fault was in execution of the concept, not the concept itself.

 

And in any event, the experimenters were not deterred by the hordes of nay-sayers who yelled that heavier-than-air flight was impossible. The point was: the nay-sayers had not done the math.

 

In the same way, one should not be deterred from developing a space elevator. One makes prototypes and does experiments to get more data, and to discover problems with the concept. One does not just say "oh, it's a new concept so it will probably fail" and give up. Instead, you get hard data, crunch the numbers, and base your assessment on that.

 

Using your logic, the designers should not have even started on SSTO vehicles either.

 

I also would suspect that you are one of those who mistakenly think that space fighters are a good idea. It fits the pattern of distaste for space elevators.

[Vondy]

Re: Slow Space Elevator

 

 

I also would suspect that you are one of those who mistakenly think that space fighters are a good idea. It fits the pattern of distaste for space elevators.

 

While this makes sound points in terms of our current technical capabilities and foreseeable political realities, the position is also dependent upon certain underlying technological and tactical assumptions that may not hold true with major leaps in scientific understanding, technological ability, and colonization. I don't want to critique the whole page, but lets just say while I generally agree, I wouldn't be so quick to make pronouncements more than a few generations out.

[Nyrath]

Re: Slow Space Elevator

 

While this makes sound points in terms of our current technical capabilities and foreseeable political realities' date=' the position is also dependent upon certain underlying technological and tactical assumptions that may not hold true with major leaps in scientific understanding, technological ability, and colonization.[/quote']

 

Yes, that's the standard "but maybe a scientific break-through!" thesis. I talk about it here:

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3al.html

 

My take on it is that thesis is very much like an inside-straight in poker: yes, it is possible, but that's not the way to bet.

 

More specifically: if science has advanced to the point where spacecraft do not use rockets for propulsion, it is going to have advanced in other areas to the point where the world will be totally unrecognizable to the players. We are talking about a world where transhuman and post-human people live forever in cyberspace as patterns of digital data as they use nanotechology to disassemble the solar system in order to build a Dyson sphere, while battling alien Matrioshka brains armed with zero-point energy weapons.

 

It ain't gonna be Battlestar Galactica.

 

Now, here comes the Important Disclaimer:

I find space fighters, SSTO ships, and all the other beloved items to be totally acceptable in a Star Heros game. You want it, your players want it, everybody is doing it.

 

The only time I disagree is when somebody crosses the line into the real world, stating that this is actually going to happen in our future.

[Vondy]

Re: Slow Space Elevator

 

 

The only time I disagree is when somebody crosses the line into the real world, stating that this is actually going to happen in our future.

 

:Shrug:

 

You are obviously passionate about the issue. I could care less. I just don't like "authoritative" articles that make sweeping one-size fits all assumptions and thereby raise red flags of dubiety. Like the one you linked to.

 

Some of the tactical arguments are, from my perspective, strident, dismissive, and fail to consider obvious scenarios other than "open space." No horizon to hide behind? Come on. We have planets, moons, and asteroid fields. Nor do we know what future solarpolitical realities or political morays will look like. It doesn't require a great deal of thought to come up with tactical scenarios where a small, quick, agile, short range ship could be useful. Not for dogfights, but that's not all fighters are used for. Not to mention, tts easy to launch rockets if you don't plan on putting boots anywhere. But what if you do? And what if you don't want to risk your capital ships at that point in time.

 

As for the technology issue, I'm not so confident as to speculate about what is and isn't possible. Scientists frequently make proscriptive statements later proven to be wrong by other scientists or engineers. There are several speculative technologies that could change the equation that don't require exotic matter to work. As we advance we will have more options. Does our tech base and scientific understanding today look anything like it did in 1890? Not a good bet? In the short term, no. But I don't expect to see military warships of any sort in space in my lifetime anyways, so why bet on the short term at all?

 

I'm not a prophet. I don't know what will happen. I don't care, or have, to bet one way or the other. If saying "it will never happen" helps you sleep at night, more power to you.

[Nyrath]

Re: Slow Space Elevator

 

Well, :shrug right back atcha

The site I linked to is my own, obviously, but if you read much of it you will discover that it is mostly composed of quotes from scientists who actually know what they are talking about (unlike me).

The motive being that to make scientifically accurate RPGs/computer-games/SF-novels/whatever, you have to use accurate science.

 

If you do not, then there is nothing stopping you from having your space fighters being propelled by rainbow-colored unicorns in the engine room (providing thrust via prismatic flatulence), attacking Marvin the Martian's space scow with your dreaded atomic-powered spitwad shooter.

 

If there are no rules, then you have to live the consequences of no rules.

 

I've noted about three fallacies in your rebuttal of space fighters, but since this is already covered in detail in my site, I'll leave it at that.

[Cancer]

Re: Slow Space Elevator

 

About the only concrete, foreseeable cause I can see at this time to build a ribbon-type elevator in the next 25 years would be a rock-solid detection of an Earth-killing asteroid collision to come in about 200 years. There is not, on anyone's plausibility list, enough lift capacity in any form of rocket program to lift the enough mass up there to make the "gravity sled" that is the only plausible way right now to deal with a 10-km rubble-pile asteroid.

 

I agree with what Vondy and others have said: right now, I don't see enough potential for fat CEO bonuses to build the thing. R&D continues, which is good, but there's not enough "low hanging fruit" profit for anyone to go for building it.

 

Now, if it turned out the cable manufacture was done in, say, Colorado, and that state were to move its Presidential primary date up to, say, mid-December, then money would get spent on the cable manufacture. After all, it worked for corn-based biodiesel and Iowa, even though that is a net energy sink.

[Vondy]

Re: Slow Space Elevator

 

Well, :shrug right back atcha

The site I linked to is my own, obviously, but if you read much of it you will discover that it is mostly composed of quotes from scientists who actually know what they are talking about (unlike me).

 

And...?

 

The appeal to authority aside, I was wholly equivacable on the technological issue and, in general terms, agreed with your underlying premise. My issue was with the absolute, proscriptive tone of the article in the absence of actual refutation of a plausible theories via experimentation. We can only attempt to predict what future scientists and engineers will develop over several centuries, and that, in of itself, is a crapshoot. Indeed, that brings me to my next point...

 

The motive being that to make scientifically accurate RPGs/computer-games/SF-novels/whatever' date=' you have to use accurate science.[/quote']

 

Tangential point: I had no idea this discussion had anything to do with building RPGs or science fiction. Thus, what follows has nothing to do with futurism, which to me, amounts to reading tea leaves.

I have no essential argument with the underlying logic of this statement. I do however, have an issue with what it assumes: that science fiction is about what we know we can do. Science fiction is, at its heart, rooted in plausible speculation - not established scientific fact. Let me reiterate that: at its heart science fiction is speculative. Even hard science fiction. If you look at many works universally regarded as hard science fiction they relied on the plausible theories in the era they were written. Even when those theories were later disproven these works continue to be hard science fiction because they were plausible speculation based on what we knew at the time. If its 100% scientific fact its not science fiction - its reality.

 

If you do not, then there is nothing stopping you from having your space fighters being propelled by rainbow-colored unicorns in the engine room (providing thrust via prismatic flatulence), attacking Marvin the Martian's space scow with your dreaded atomic-powered spitwad shooter.

 

Again, are we talking about science fiction, or predicting science emerging from the here and now. These aren't one and the same. In terms of science fiction, there is a world of difference between plausible speculation (such as particle combustion chambers, cold fusion, and the like) and science fantasy / space opera where science equals magic. But again, this discussion is giving me vertigo. What are we talking about? Are we talking about theoretical science (the provence of science fiction) or applied science and technologies currently in development - like people working towards a space elevator.

 

If there are no rules' date=' then you have to live the consequences of no rules.[/quote']

 

Science fiction runs a gamut from hard science to space opera. Insofar as there are internally coherent principles driving it, it doesn't matter if it survives contact with contemporary scientific understanding. Its called a literary conceit. Indeed, most science fiction, including hard-science fiction, makes some sort of literary leap. Even if its just assuming a current plausible theory we can't test will work.

 

I've noted about three fallacies in your rebuttal of space fighters' date=' but since this is already covered in detail in my site, I'll leave it at that. [/quote']

 

My criticism was directed at the narrow underlying assumptions the argument on your site is framed on, not the argument itself. As a result, directing me to the article is circular reasoning - ergo, epistemological handwavium. It seems reflexive rather than considered as a response.

 

Your article only address the technological aspect of potential space conflicts. It completely brushes aside political motivations, strategic realities, goals of both attacker and defender, "home turf" (which is critical when reaction mass is considered), force parity or non-parity, and the highly varied tactical realities / scenarios that can crop up. Even in our modern world, technology isn't the only consideration in weapons development. And this list of variables that could change the equation is far from complete. You made no effort to address this critical failing in your article, but rather, just point to it as though its authoritative. Its not. I regard your article as incomplete at best; pointedly silent regarding several critical factors at worst. At best you can say: "If we limit our consideration to technological factors alone..."

 

But we can't. The world doesn't work that way. And thus, we can easily propose scenarios in which fleet actions in open space aren't the most desirable strategic choice to make for one or both sides.

[Nyrath]

Re: Slow Space Elevator

 

*sigh*

 

Tangential point: I had no idea this discussion had anything to do with building RPGs or science fiction.

Well, you might have been tipped off by the fact this is a thread in a forum about the HERO games RPG, in the section about their science fiction game.

 

You apparently did not bother to read the index page for my website. You complain about its authoritative tone and its emphasis on science to the exclusion of political motivations and other soft factors.

 

If you had perused the index, you may have noticed that the context was presenting the scientific equations which define the outer parameters of what is theoretically possible given the laws of physics. This was intended for science fiction authors and game designers who want a little more accuracy in their works.

 

Soft factors like political motivations are up to the author, they are out of the scope of my site. If the author wants scientific accuracy, the soft factors can constrain the solution more narrowly than what is allowed by the laws of physics.

 

Moving outside the laws of physics removes the scientific accuracy, but such non-hard-science authors wouldn't be reading my web site in the first place.

 

As I stated above, such scientific inaccuracy is perfectly permissible in an RPG. Most game masters have better things to do than calculate the delta vee of their spacecraft.

 

You also complain about "absence of actual refutation of a plausible theories via experimentation". Yes, this is a concern, but paradigm breaking surprises in the fundamentals of physics have grown scarce enough so this is not a major concern. e.g., physics predicted that the 1959 Russian Luna-1 probe would go sailing past the moon. There was a chance that it would splatter on one of Eudoxus' crystal celestial spheres, but as I mentioned earlier, that's not the way to bet.

 

And again, if there was such a paradigm breaking surprise, there is a 50% chance that it would make things worse for your desired outcome, instead of better.

 

Yes, "soft" science fiction is more concerned with speculation than scientific accuracy. My website is for hard science fiction. If you do not prefer hard science fiction, you would do well to avoid my site, and the others like it. But I take exception to any attempt to outlaw hard science fiction.

 

As to why we were talking about hard science fiction in the first place, if you will take a peek at the start of this thread, it was about the scientific feasibility of a space elevator. Which means you should have avoided this entire thread in the first place.