Still, I could not help but give a brief response to George Dvorsky's article that was posted last week on the io9 blog entitled "Why we'll probably never build a space elevator." In it, Dvorsky lists five problems, which is a strange choice of word to describe what engineers call challenges. While the challenges he discusses are mostly relevant and the discussion mostly accurate, the conclusions he draws from them are odd - it seems as though he arrives at them in order to satisfy the title of the article.
For example, the number one 'problem' with a space elevator is, as the author correctly states, producing a material with a sufficient strength to density ratio with which to construct the tether. Though his numbers on this are not entirely correct, it is true that material science is far from producing a substance rendering S.E. construction feasible. However, the argument that the project is a dud because construction cannot begin today is absurd. Over the past one hundred years, the field of material science has taken many leaps, each paving the way to new technologies. The space elevator is not the first technology that needed to patiently await a strong enough and light enough material, and it will not be the last.
Furthermore, I take issue, personally, with his 'problem #3', about climber excitation, which happens to be one area I have researched extensively. My research found the extent to which a climber excites the tether (it is proportional to lifted mass, distance climbed, and climber speed), and proposed some reasonable methods to mitigate such effects. With respect to all of the big challenges associated with the space elevator, this one has been shown to be minor.
For example, the number one 'problem' with a space elevator is, as the author correctly states, producing a material with a sufficient strength to density ratio with which to construct the tether. Though his numbers on this are not entirely correct, it is true that material science is far from producing a substance rendering S.E. construction feasible. However, the argument that the project is a dud because construction cannot begin today is absurd. Over the past one hundred years, the field of material science has taken many leaps, each paving the way to new technologies. The space elevator is not the first technology that needed to patiently await a strong enough and light enough material, and it will not be the last.
Furthermore, I take issue, personally, with his 'problem #3', about climber excitation, which happens to be one area I have researched extensively. My research found the extent to which a climber excites the tether (it is proportional to lifted mass, distance climbed, and climber speed), and proposed some reasonable methods to mitigate such effects. With respect to all of the big challenges associated with the space elevator, this one has been shown to be minor.
