Okay, I admit that I'm a complete novice when it comes to physics and orbital mechanics, but doesn't this seem just a bit dangerous? Even though it's supposedly "super-strong", I can just see this thing snapping off at some point and miles and miles of it plummeting back to the ground all over people's homes, trees, highways, etc. I'd hate to have to clean up that mess! :-P

even with this break though space elevators will be difficult to implement. how will you build it? a space elevator will have to 62,000 miles long how will you get 62,000 miles of carbon nano tubes from the surface of the earth to space. another problem is space itself. space is a dangerous place even where the ISS is there are thousands of mini meteors zooming by faster than a speeding bullet. also the cost will have to go down it's estimated that it will cost 7-10 billion to build.

You've all been watching to many movies.

To set up the elevator, you would attach one end of the cable to a rocket send it up, and attach the end to a weight in space.
The centrifugal force of the earth spinning would keep it in place.

In case of any problems, all they would have to do is to release the end attached to earth, and the whole thing would fly off into space.

I agree with anonymous

If the cable snaps, the upper part of it will burn up whilst the lower part will gently settle down to the ground like a leaf as the cable itself will not weigh much at all and will be ultra thin.

So yes, you guys have watched way too many hollywood movies.

Agreed, you have been watching too many movies, the key word in this article is 'ribbon,' it's not a cable it is a RIBBON, it's not gonna flatten homes

people who are downing the ribbon read the artical more carefully 1 gram of carbon is all it would take to create a 18 mile long ribbon look into things before you start saying something you dont understand
thank you that is all
and if anyone wants to look into the project more look at Sciencechannel.com

Centrifugal force does not exist by definition. It is a fictitious or pseudo-force. Ask and physics person. If anything if you detached the bottom of the ribbon w/ a weight at the other end, it would either remain in orbit, or gradually deteriorate and burn up in reentry.

I think that it's not going to work because, like a hose/ribbon/cord/cable/chain is what I call a whip effect. The "ribbon" would have some drag from the atmosphere, just like flying a kite the ribbon is going to have drag. I'm sure that the boys at NASA have an equation for that, but it seems to me that with the changes in the wind, it would drag the thing pretty much and change, causing a whip in the ribbon. This is otherwise known as Vibration.

Also, a gram of this stuff can create an 18 mile long bit. but how much can that support? can it support it's own weight? can it support the weight of supplies being sent up? what about wear and tear of the cable? what about decay? how the heck do you get something to be powered and climb the ribbon... NASA had a "Xprize" like event for these things...

seems to me that while a good novel idea, it's not practical.

The skeptics need to watch this little show on the Science Channel called 2057. They go into much greater detail on how this would work. Two quick answers. Flattening homes? Not an issue, even if the ribbon weighed enough to actually flatten a home it wouldn't have a chance because proposed Earth base stations would be located on oil rigs in the middle of the Pacific. Power to climb the ribbon? This would come in a form of an intense red laser powering solar cells attached to the elevator. Please don't dismiss something you do not understand or know nothing about.

One more of the skeptics' objections to flatten: "also the cost will have to go down it's estimated that it will cost 7-10 billion to build". I hope you're joking. First, the cost will not go down; the whole project will almost certainly cost more than 10 billion and then maintenance costs will start. More to the point though, even at more than 10 billion, it's a deal when you look at the monetary and environmental costs associated with traditional launches. And when you consider how casually just one government (USA) drops billions into wars and fruitless economic bail-out attempts, it is hardly likely that NASA or an international consortium of space-faring nations would bat an eyelash at 7-10 billion (or much more!) for a project with the potential of such high yield.

For all of you who think some people have been watching too much TV all I can say is "You will never create anything innovative!" Six hundred years ago the world was flat except for someone who thought outside the box. Two hundred years ago man could never FLY, much less orbit the earth, go to the moon...

Isn't it interesting how the rather common clam shell fip cell phone resembles the communicator of the '60s Star Trek (btw cell phones DID NOT EXISIT BACK THEN)

I don't doubt that one day (provided we manage to escape extinction due to the global climate crises) Space elevators and perhaps even transporters will exisit thanks to the people who dare to dream of a new way of doing things.

A CEO I worked for once had an expresion that is very fitting "Reach for the Stars, but keep a toe on the ground!" Seems to me that someone is attempting to re-invent the toe and there is nothing wrong with that!

Actually, as much as I wish it weren't so, it's not hyperbole to say a space elevator is very dangerous. It's not just fringe amateurs who recognize the potential danger. I've heard many astrophysicists will talk about how dangerous this potentially is, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it. It just means we have to be careful and build safety measures into the design.

There is more then 1 design for a space elevator anyway.. though the second isn't exactly an Elevator.

You have the Skyhook option where the 'earth side' section of the tether only drops to a height that allows aircraft to reach it for a mateing. You also have the full orbital 'tether' which is what is mentioned above. The main tether is kept in place generally by being either magnetically anchored (giant magnets) or 'firmly' anchored to the ground at the equator or as close to as possible. Gravity does the job of keeping that section in place for the most part. The second section is generally a space station or 'disembarkment' point in either L.E.O or H.E.O while coming from that is a 'ballast' weight, which due to the laws of gravity and physics (you can check this your self easy enough) keeps the tether 'straight' and from falling because it's actually trying to pull it 'away' from the earth.

Yes there are dangers with a cable, everything from Air traffic to construction etc etc etc.. But the risk is worth it, after the inital set up costs the actual Earth - Orbit costs are very very little compared to what they are now. Add to that the fact that a lot of the 'energy' used to go up can be reclaimed by running things down at the same time (using opposing force + generators attached to the ribon cable as a car moves down) and you lower the actual upkeep costs even more.

What is important about this is that we NEED a low cost way into space if we are truely going to get off our hind ends and EXPLORE it ourselves.. Sending Robots isn't the same as sending people.. and honsetly if old time explorers had the same attitudes we have today.. the USA, South America, Australia and Many other places would never have been discovered let alone Colonised.

Earth's geosynchronous orbit is 22,000 miles above sea level, so the carbon ribbon won't have to be 62,000 miles long, though still quite a "stretch".

The article states that one gram of the material can stretch up to 18 miles in length. I think many of the reader think they are only going to use one gram. I'm guessing they are looking at using more then one gram if and when they actually try to build it. The article is describing what it's capable of. It will being interesting, but I doubt most of us will live long enough to see it.

Well damn, that scraps My vacation plans!

jay jay...duh you would use a space scissorlift!

Nobody is mentioning the fact that many of your "objections/problems" were addressed by Arthur C Clarke in his book "Fountains of Paradise" back in 1979.

His idea was to take a space station and put it in geostationary orbit at one of the Lagrange points around the Earth. At that point, the station would built both UP and DOWN to the planet surface, keeping a balance of mass. Clarke's book used a mountain in Sri Lanka area, if memory serves. In his book, there was a monomolecular cable similar to what is mentioned here that was "lowered" to the surface and then a superstructure was built around it and lowered downward as each section was completed, much like building a tall building, but in this case, you keep moving the completed sections downward and adding new sections in "orbit". The same would be done to add mass to the counterbalance end for the "space platform".

See more info at http://dvice.com/archives/2008/09/japanese_resear.php

The ribbon would weigh 4 kilos. What's there to be worried about??
Too much science from Hollywood.

Read Red/Green/Blue Mars, if the ribbon snaps it depends where, when complete the elevator will just HANG above the Earth in geosynchronous orbit, the lower end would have to be anchored against weather. Depending on where it breaks you could have a razor thin ribbon, three times as long as the Earth is around slamming into the ground as it winds around the planet.

Theory.Could it work?Would it work? Should it? It's a 'ribbon'.I do not believe,despite what the articles say that it would be practical in any form.And who's actually going to go to a space-station?In the extremely distant future,MAYBE it will happen.But, if space-exploration is what this is all leading to,then let's concentrate on space-faring vehicles.You want to point ot statements made by some author in a book,fine.Let's point to movies and television series.I'd rather ride a transporter than a ribbon any day.

Screw the "Beanstalk, Jack's moving up from the world!

Blah Blah Blah... Space elevator!!! Woo hoo!!! Maybe we will get off this rock yet. Anyone else out there come across the alternate powering method that just jerks the cable and lets the payload ride up? More ideas will be needed before all this is viable, and when we can we will because every major advancement that makes our lives better and more livable and productive came about either because of research for war or space... Personally I prefer space.

Oh... and screw the extreme distant future. I want it now!

Do nothing = 100% fail rate
Try = 50/50 chance
Is your glass half empty or half full? I am more willing to take a chance at stepping forward and leading the rest of the world by example than trying to forcibly impose our will and beliefs upon them.

While the idea of a space elevator is feasible, from easy lifts to space and power generation, it also has major draw backs. Firstly it becomes targetted for destruction for various groups and nations. Secondly If such and attack occurs and succeeds there will be over 75 miles of elevator cable with cars crashing to Earth.

We are probably better off using a nearspace airship as a carrier vessel, like the X-Prize's DaVinci Project concept, for space launches than a long cable.

But if the cable is built why not get the excess carbon from the atmosphere & factories CO2 emmisions to build it?

So imagine a light ribbon under all that tension snapping and whipping around... Monofilament whip, anyone?

Hoi Chumma....

if its that big of a deal of snaping thats a prob for you just put some rockest on the station in orbit so that if it does it can fire them to keep in place or even pull the ribion completly out of the earths air space

with the reclaimed energy of the return trip mentioned above and the likely addition of solar panels on the orbiting platform, cost for a trip up might be as low as $300-$1000, and that's probably only needed for mantainance costs and marginal profit. Compare that to the $500,000,000 (500 million) pricetag of getting people into space by conventional means. Or even just putting up a satellite costs a bare minimum of 6 million, and thats using fancy spaceX flights. The choice is obvious. We should be willing to spend any amount of money to get an elevator up - the future demands it.

Easy space exploration is NOT a thing of the distant future, it is base and quaint to say so.

sorry for reviving a dead thread.

It saddens me grealty so read some defeatist comments. Montecchi is absolutely correct in saying that no attempt is absolute failure. We are so far behind in our vision of where we should be by now. yese this does sound fantastic, and it may not work, but we absolutely mst keep dreaming and acting on the better dreams.

I've got an idea on how to move the elevator its self, it's so simple that I'm sure it has been thought of before, but I've never seen it addressed anywhere. Does anyone know how I would submit it? Ottis(at)ymail.com

actually these ribbons would be braided together to make the cable,... but the issue is that you would need so much of the carbon that it would be ridiculous to even try besides the amount of carbon needed you also have the issue of space junk and the whole burning up in the Atmosphere,...

"The ribbon would weigh 4 kilos. What's there to be worried about??
Too much science from Hollywood."

4 kilos would be the weight of a single carbon nonotube, not the ribbon. The ribbon would undoubtedly consist of many thousands of these nanotubes, causing the overall weight to be thousands of kilograms. But remember, this ribbon will be much stronger than a cable and cables can hold thousands of kilos.

One comment above sent me for a whirl:

"I don't doubt that one day (provided we manage to escape extinction due to the global climate crises) Space elevators and perhaps even transporters will exisit thanks to the people who dare to dream of a new way of doing things."

What climate crisis? Seriously. Do some research. There's no crisis! There's a proposed belief that CO2 may have a strong impact on global temperatures. But no evidence. Ice core data shows CO2 rising because of Temperature changes, not vice versa, and thats not heresay, its fact. There's a lot of evidence CO2 has a very small impact, and what were experiencing (and just how severe this 'warming trend' is that were experience is also hotly debated) is not due to CO2.

Keep listening to Government agencies like Al Gore and the IPCC who are in it for power and tax money, you're being totally misguided.

Look at any study not focusing on Human-made CO2, and it will astonishing how little creedence they give to the CO2's impact on temperature. You can look at studies of other planets or early Earth history. Now we have Human-made CO2, and they use the most extreme models possible to show CO2 impact. Yet even with these models, CO2 at the current levels .0038% of our atmosphere is almost negligeable.

Quit acting like the "Global Climate Crisis" is a fact. Thats no differeing then saying Suddam had WOMD still. They're both erroneous scare tactics.

One comment above sent me for a whirl:

"I don't doubt that one day (provided we manage to escape extinction due to the global climate crises"

Keep listening to Government agencies like Al Gore and the IPCC who are in it for power and tax money, you're being totally misguided.

Look at any study not focusing on Human-made CO2, and it will astonishing how little creedence they give to the CO2's impact on temperature. You can look at studies of other planets or early Earth history. Now we have Human-made CO2, and they use the most extreme models possible to show CO2 impact. Yet even with these models, CO2 at the current levels .0038% of our atmosphere is almost negligeable.

Quit acting like the "Global Climate Crisis" is a fact. Thats no differeing then saying Suddam had WOMD still. They're both erroneous scare tactics.

One comment above sent me for a whirl:

"I don't doubt that one day (provided we manage to escape extinction due to the global climate crises) ."

What climate crisis? Seriously. Do some research. Keep listening to Government agencies like Al Gore and the IPCC who are in it for power and tax money, you're being totally misguided.

Look at any study not focusing on Human-made CO2, and it will astonishing how little creedence they give to the CO2's impact on temperature. You can look at studies of other planets or early Earth history. Now we have Human-made CO2, and they use the most extreme models possible to show CO2 impact. Yet even with these models, CO2 at the current levels .0038% of our atmosphere is almost negligeable.

Quit acting like the "Global Climate Crisis" is a fact. Thats no differeing then saying Suddam had WOMD still. They're both erroneous scare tactics.

I am also not a physicist, but a station tethered to earth will not just stay in place with the alleged centrifigal force. Gravity will want to pull on the tether within its grasp, which will in turn pull on the rest of the tether. There will need to be some sort of propulsion (solid fuel, ion drive, etc) to keep it in place and keep the right amount of tension on the tether. Our big-screen visions of the future (Star Trek 2009 and others) seem to have it right, as long as no one tries to sabatage it. I can't imagine how thick the tether will be even with the recent carbon tubule discovery. The forces on the tether will be unimaginable.

Now, why would we need such a tethered station? Is it a natual progression in the space race? Will it be cheaper than today's solid fuel booster transportation to conduct our current "space business"- experiments, etc, that will pave the way for long-term/distant space travel? Will it be worth the billions that will be necessary to spend on it?

For the fear-mongers in these comments:

Jack Kennedy - Rice University, 09-12-62:

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon... (interrupted by applause) we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."

raddog5: as someone with some understanding of physics, I can assure you that anything outside of geostationary orbit will indeed exert an outward force if it is moving at the same speed as the earth. This is not due to the fictional centrifugal force, but rather the fact that the centripetal force required to keep the object in orbit will exceed the gravitational pull on the object. The left over force will have to be provided by the cable, pulling it taught.

This is due to the fact that the object would not naturally travel in a circle, and constant force is required to maintain this circle. This is actually true for every mass on this planet, including you. However, at the height you are at, the gravitational forces are more than enough to compensate.

At geostationary orbits, however, the gravity is not as strong, because gravitational force decreases with distance. This height is special because it is the height where an object traveling at the same speed as you or I will neither come crashing back down nor go flying off into space.

The counter-weight for the tether will be even farther up. At those altitudes, the geostationary speeds which will be enforced upon the tether by its being anchored to earth and a geostationary orbiting station will provide escape velocity to the counter-weight. This provides tension in the tether, without any fuel at all.

Physics 1 and 2 at any university will provide you with a more full understanding of these concepts, if you are still confused.

G force?