By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Will any of us live long enough to see a permanent settlement on Mars?

mrstickball said:
There are other materials that could be used in a space elevator. Immediately after writing my little speel on space elevator funding, I read up on the feasibility of an elevator.

Carbon fiber nanotubes are a great solution. However, using industrial-grade diamonds may also produce a similar result as the CF nanotubes, but are cheaper and more prolific in our current economy. Supposedly, $500,000,000 worth of said diamonds would be enough to extend an elevator 5,000mi into space.

 

I know about the Carbon fibre tubes (Well I did mention them in my last post lol) But diamonds you say? What's the deal with that then?



Around the Network
highwaystar101 said:
mrstickball said:
There are other materials that could be used in a space elevator. Immediately after writing my little speel on space elevator funding, I read up on the feasibility of an elevator.

Carbon fiber nanotubes are a great solution. However, using industrial-grade diamonds may also produce a similar result as the CF nanotubes, but are cheaper and more prolific in our current economy. Supposedly, $500,000,000 worth of said diamonds would be enough to extend an elevator 5,000mi into space.

I know about the Carbon fibre tubes (Well I did mention them in my last post lol) But diamonds you say? What's the deal with that then?

I am citing the article here regarding diamonds as a viable non-CFNT alternative for a space elevator.

I'm unsure if this is 'the' option, but given how important space travel will be, I think it's worth looking into.

The article is as follows:

In 1975, Jerome Pearson wrote a great paper on space elevators that became the basis for excellent work by Brad Edwards including his 2002 book with Eric Westling, The Space Elevator: A Revolutionary Earth-to-Space Transportation System. For decades elevator enthusiasts have had their hopes pinned on carbon nanotubes or “graphite whiskers” as they were called in Pearson’s era.

Pearson had a chart (Figure 2 on p. 789) indicating that diamonds have a “characteristic height” of over 3,000 kilometers for space elevator construction. This suggests that a 3,000-kilometer untapered diamond cable can support its own weight hanging at 1g. Pearson calculated that integrating the lower gravity along the cable to geosynchronous orbit results in a cable that is strong enough to hold its own weight from only “4900 km high in a uniform one-g field”. That suggests that a taper ratio of three would be conservative with the maximum cross section at synchronous altitude.

Diamonds have a big advantage over carbon nanotubes. They are currently being produced in commercial quantities.

Modern techniques of growing diamond crystals allow the orientation of the crystal to be stretched along the direction of the highest tensile strength, which can be seven times as large as along other directions. While diamonds are not as light as carbon nanotubes so they do not have as large a characteristic height at their theoretical maximum strength, that’s not a problem because diamonds can handle the load in theory.

Diamonds have a big advantage over carbon nanotubes. They are currently being produced in commercial quantities. Chemical vapor deposition (CVD) is being used to flood the jewelry market with extremely high quality diamonds at 10-30 percent below wholesale prices of natural diamonds. Substrates as wide as 15 centimeters have been reported as a base for diamond growth. That’s hundreds of times the area that’s needed for a space elevator cable.

For now, the retail market price for CVD diamonds is about $25,000 per gram. The United States Geological Survey last year predicted that the wholesale price of 2-gram (10-carat) diamonds can be reduced to $25 per gram. This is credible. The total world market for diamonds is about 125,000 kilograms. The average cost of industrial diamonds in the US, which produces half of the world’s industrial diamonds by weight, is $5,000 per kilogram for 50,000 kilograms or about 20 percent of anticipated wholesale CVD prices. By growing the CVD installed base, prices of CVD diamonds can indeed be driven down to cost, especially with some assurance that they won’t be sold to jewelry customers.

At $25,000 per kilogram, an 18-metric-ton starter space elevator would cost $450 million in materials cost to manufacture and would double the money demand for industrial diamonds from the US that year.

At $25,000 per kilogram, it does not make sense to build an elevator that stretches 150,000 kilometers like Pearson’s or 100,000 kilometers like Edwards’. The elevator should be 50,000 kilometers long or even less. An economic equation for how long the cable should be versus how heavy and close-in the ballast should be can be derived as follows. If your ballast is hanging at 1 g, suppose you need ballast that weighs 1,000 kilograms. If you reduce the length of the cable above geosynchronous orbit so that the ballast is being pulled out by centripetal force at 0.5 g, you would need about twice as much ballast plus the weight of the cable that would have been strung between the 1 g point and the 0.5 g point. For the 1/3 g point, you would need roughly three tmes the ballast and save the cable distance to drop 1/6 g. For the 1/4 g point, you would need roughly four times the ballast and save the distance to drop 1/12 g. The savings in cable length falls at roughly approaches 1/n(n–1) where n is the multiple of ballast from what would be needed if the ballast hung at 1 g. So if cable costs $25,500 per kilogram delivered and ballast costs $500 per kilogram to go up the elevator, then it makes sense to have a very short distance above geosynchronous orbit with a large ballast.

As a back of the envelope calculation, consider the economics of adding a second cable of similar lift ability to an existing starter cable with cable mass averaging 0.25 kg/km up to geosynchronous orbit (about nine metric tons), then extend the second cable out to about where the tip experiences lunar gravity, then have a ballast that weighs about six times what it would on the end of a longer cable where the ballast would experience 1 g. So if the nine metric tons of cable exerts about the same as three tons entirely concentrated at the 1g point (assuming a taper of 3-to-1 with no force at geosynchronous orbit), we would need about 18 tons of ballast, but it would cost $9 million delivered versus $153 million to build and deliver an extra six tons of cable. The extra delivery cost is well worth the savings in manufacturing cost. Going to the 1/12 g point, we could save another $37.5 million in manufacturing cost and would spend another $9 million in delivery cost. Cost minimization is the point above geosynchronous orbit experiencing around six percent of Earth’s gravity.

Cutting the price of cargo delivered to geosynchronous orbit is worth billions of dollars a year. A space elevator is indeed worth its weight in diamonds.

Cost minimization is even closer to geosynchronous orbit if there is excess demand for additional mass to be anchored at the top of the cable. If a space hotel wants to locate there and is willing to pay the $500 per kilogram freight and wants to be one million kg ($500 million delivery cost) then the ballast is essentially free during the early stages of elevator development and the cable should stretch out to less than the 1/20 g point. If the cost per kilogram of delivery is only $10 per kilogram instead of $500 per kilogram, then again, it’s a lot cheaper to have the ballast closer in.

Having a shorter cable would reduce the maximum velocity of payload launched from the end of the elevator, but most of what is going to go up the elevator at first is more elevator and ballast, geosynchronous orbit payloads, and other payloads that don’t require the extra length. With the ballast so close to geosynchronous orbit, a case can be made to have a constant taper and simply weld new cable on to the end of the elevator and take up slack at the bottom of the elevator. No welding would need to be done in transit, only at the terminal. Old cable at the Earth end of the elevator could be retired if damaged or recycled by taking it back up to the top where it could become one-third of the big end of the elevator. In this fashion, quality assurance of manufacturing could be carefully controlled and occur mostly on Earth with only welding of new cable lengths occurring slightly above geosynchronous orbit.

Cutting the price of cargo delivered to geosynchronous orbit is worth billions of dollars a year. A space elevator is indeed worth its weight in diamonds.

Again, in my view, Obama's stimulus (or any stimulus) package should have aimed at taking away some money from a new lawn & garden for the National Mall, and built a space elevator :-p



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

huh, so diamonds really are cheaper. That sounds as good as carbon nanotubes. Thankyou for the link/post MrStickball



no, I think that we will live to see missions to Mars, but we will not see a permanent Settlement.



Currently Playing: Mass Effect (360)

"Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed" - Gandhi

highwaystar101 said:
If someone discovered that half of Mars was covered in gold and diamonds you could guarantee funding would increase exponentially and we would be there in a few years.

Unfortunately that is not the case.

 

Even if it was the case, the cost would make the whole ordeal prohibitive and they wouldn't be harvested unless we exhausted all gold on Earth and suddenly we needed gold to live.

Titan (one of Saturn's Moons) has hundreds of times the peak reserves of gas and hydrocarbons (oil) the Earth ever had. On top of it it's all laying in huge surface lakes so it isn't even necessary to drill. Have you seen Shell fund an expedition to Titan? I haven't...





Current-gen game collection uploaded on the profile, full of win and good games; also most of my PC games. Lucasfilm Games/LucasArts 1982-2008 (Requiescat In Pace).

Around the Network
Bitmap Frogs said:

 

Even if it was the case, the cost would make the whole ordeal prohibitive and they wouldn't be harvested unless we exhausted all gold on Earth and suddenly we needed gold to live.

Titan (one of Saturn's Moons) has hundreds of times the peak reserves of gas and hydrocarbons (oil) the Earth ever had. On top of it it's all laying in huge surface lakes so it isn't even necessary to drill. Have you seen Shell fund an expedition to Titan? I haven't...

 

Funny how no one thinks Titan's oil was made from dead dinosaurs, but oil on Earth is from fossils.



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

Think about all them people that are 100 year old or over, they saw major changes thoughout the 20th century.

Say someone is 109 years old and was born in the year 1900, he would of seen the invention of the plane, Televison, two major world wars, the fall and end of the great Empires of europe and the rise of the superpowers.  The space race and man landing on the moon and the sending of rockets to other planets.

If countrys get into gear Im sure they could start building bases on moon then onto mars.  It took just under 70 years from the wright brothers first flyed to landing on the moon, now that was a big step.



PC gaming rules.....

Tyrannical said:
Bitmap Frogs said:

 

Even if it was the case, the cost would make the whole ordeal prohibitive and they wouldn't be harvested unless we exhausted all gold on Earth and suddenly we needed gold to live.

Titan (one of Saturn's Moons) has hundreds of times the peak reserves of gas and hydrocarbons (oil) the Earth ever had. On top of it it's all laying in huge surface lakes so it isn't even necessary to drill. Have you seen Shell fund an expedition to Titan? I haven't...

 

Funny how no one thinks Titan's oil was made from dead dinosaurs, but oil on Earth is from fossils.

 

That's because we know enough about Titan to explain the lakes of oil as a result of cryovolcanism and athmosferic chemical reactions. The reason we know on Earth is from fossils is because we can date the sedimentary layers, tie it with ice readings of the athmosphere and find out how it could and couldn't happen.

I'm sure someone more trained in the field could give you a more detailed explanation. Unless you are one of "those", of course. In which case nothing can help.

It is true however that Titan along Europe (one of Jupiter's moons) are two of the more promising places in the Solar system to find life. That's why the joint NASA-ESA mission had both as candidates. Eventually Europa won tho... I suspect they are more hopeful to find life on Europe's subsurface oceans than on Titan's methane lakes.

Anyways, these things are way too expensive. The current TSSM (Titan Saturn System Mission) which consists of a lander, a montgolfier and one orbiter sent in one package would cost around 5 billion dollars. An actual manned mission with the goal of stablishing an oil pump would likely cost at the very least twenty times more.

By the way, here are some awesome movies generated by HiRise data of some spectacular martian features: http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/media/





Current-gen game collection uploaded on the profile, full of win and good games; also most of my PC games. Lucasfilm Games/LucasArts 1982-2008 (Requiescat In Pace).

To be fair, Bitmap, we've landed a probe on Titan, and not on Europa. Titan's received far more attention as of late....Cassini provided quite a bit of great data on Saturn and it's moons.

Add to that, JIMO was either canned or delayed inevitably, and it's a sad thing that Europa is getting no attention.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

The Cassini-Huygens mission proved Titan was quite dull, the probe just sent back a boring picture of some rocks. It did gain more attention but now Europa (not europe BTW lol) is the wave of the future.

However, I am far more interested in the 'DAWN' mission. in 2011 it will fly by Vespa and in 2015 it will begin orbit around Ceres. Seeing detailed photos of Ceres is an excellent achievement.