Lunar elevators

Collin hit nails on the head with:

>Unfortunately, space travel is not just about
technology -- if it was, we'd have been on Mars in the 1980s and we'd
be in the asteroids, Jupiter and Saturn now.

Absolutely. In that instance, the infrastructure to living and working
in space would be pretty solid: long duration missions, closed-cycle
life support, spin habitats. All achieved. What we currently have is a
pussy-footing attitude to space where:

1/ the technology is grossly inflated in terms of price. This is in part
due to NASA running the show as a government agency, where the big
aerospace companies look upon the billions of dollars of government
hand-outs as sweeteners to the high tech/military/aerospace sectors; and
in part because there's this perceived need to raise the safety bar to a
level which would have stifled (for example) the nascent days of the
aircraft industry. We oughtn't forget that /thousands/ of dreamers and
visionaries died during the 20th century in order that we can fly the
Atlantic in five hours for a couple of hundred dollars with less risk
than "a drive to work".

2/ no-one today has the ability to see the big picture and the clout to
bring it to fruition. Von Braun had it, and was lucky enough to find
himself in the right place at the right time, with (as importantly) a
near-deified dead president pushing the program along. Political
short-termism will forever kill governmentally-backed projects for Mars
colonies, permanent lunar bases, SPS's, industry in EO, etc.

> I'm starting to truly think that what we do
on the Moon and Mars won't be up to Dubya or NASA, but the success or
failure of SpaceShipOne.

Partly. One point is, SpaceShipOne /was/ a success. Safe ballistic
flights for 20 million dollars. Heinlein would have loved that (as long
as it leads somewhere and doesn't just become some high-cost fairground
ride). Can anyone here reasonably argue that NASA could have done the
same thing for the same sort of price? Richard Branson is confident that
there's a market for sub-orbital flights. It's a positive step, and one
I look enthusiastically upon. Who knows what will happen ten years down
the road if (for example) the 50 million dollar prize for commercial
orbital flights is won?

The second point to make here is that a multinational effort can
override purely national and limited-scope political programs. Look at
the ISS (for all its faults). While the US wants out, I'd argue that
it's only the presence of international partners that has provided the
momentum towards getting the thing finished. Same with ITER - no one
nation would take on a challenge like that on its own. The potential
rewards of fusion power are enormous, and the risks of not joining in
are substantial. While Mars missions and lunar bases are all very well -
things the tax-paying public can latch onto - I think a better approach
is to take a leaf out of ITER. If an SPS program could be promoted as an
international benefit (and in a world at the start of a century which
will be greatly affected by global warming, how could it not be?) then a
multinational approach to this could have huge implications, not least
in terms of kick-starting the necessary infrastructure to getting
people, in their thousands, living in orbit. Hell, they need something
to /do/ up there, and helping to clean up the planet must be the most
positive thing there is.

Collin continued:

>But I foresee our lunar base
being a few balloons big enough for two or three people, with Apollo-
style vehicles to transport people and some equipment.

And perhaps two-week stopovers, with the reason being the requirement to
work in daylight, leaving robots to do the housework in the meantime.
Hmmm...I'm torn on this one. I'd love to see a return to the Moon. NOT
having the capability to go there and expand on Apollo says something
deeply pessimistic about the current capabilities of the world's most
advanced nation. But all I read about Bush's vision makes it look like
another flag-planting exercise without the mass to turn it into
something wholesome.

Regards,

Andy Goddard