Instead of throwing away gobs & gobs of our taxes on another version of the space shuttle. Which is vulnerable to anything possible that can go wrong, and has done so in the past with tragic results.
2006-08-03 12:44:31 · 8 answers · asked by somber_pieces 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
* VANESSA - dearie,... are you a retard or are you just a little kid,... figures.
2006-08-04 00:54:11 · update #1
For those of you who aren't aware, we have the tech, and there have been designs for the thing on the books for the last sixty years. Understandably, if we just got started on the foundations, making refinements to the design with inovations as it is built. Should resolve major concerns.
2006-08-04 01:03:28 · update #2
think about it for a sec.
2006-08-03 12:48:43 · answer #1 · answered by Milosenpotion 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The theory of a space elevator is certainly an interesting one (and more feasible than space bolas). I'd imagine the logistics and initial expense would be a turn off, even if it would make space travel cheaper and easier after it was built.
I think ther are various other reasons why they aren't building one. For a start, it would need years of theoretical development and design before building would start. On top of that, I think NASA is under a certain amount of pressure to develop technology which can be adopted and utilised by big business and the military. A space elevator doesn't really fit into that category, regardless of the long term benefits it would have for science and space travel in general.
2006-08-03 19:54:14 · answer #2 · answered by Entwined 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
the cost the energy the maintenance and the vulnerability to near earth orbit attack. right off the top of my head. scientific advances on the subatomic (quantum) order of anitgraviton particles would need to be part of that chalkboard to start, magnetics will only do it to VERY LIMITED heighth. put a metal structure (even a mile) up into the atmosphere and then supply (2nd stage) rocket boosted escape velocity and aerodynamic controls for controlled orbit and you might be a little farther ahead of the game, but until then, the 'space elevator' is a fantasy schematic.
2006-08-03 20:19:18 · answer #3 · answered by emptiedfull 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They do need to get rid of the 'old tech' shuttles. They are never going to advance if they don't get something better than a 'truck'
2006-08-03 19:51:17 · answer #4 · answered by Ferret 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That would be pretty boring to watch on TV, wouldn't use up enough natural resources either. Remember NASA is about waste, overspending, overthinking.
2006-08-03 19:50:21 · answer #5 · answered by Waas up 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Lack of technology. As of now, we simply can't.
2006-08-03 20:34:57 · answer #6 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i think they are planning it; they're waiting for that one fly-by comet as the leveraging point... and mass production of carbon nanotubes.
2006-08-03 19:49:46 · answer #7 · answered by Alfred Y 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
THEY HAVE TO BUILD A BUILDING TO PUT IT IN
2006-08-03 19:48:32 · answer #8 · answered by vanessa 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋