Cool future tech graph for nerds - and a philosophical question

[Ideologue]

Post-scarcity economy?  Space elevator?  Domestic robots (unless we're talking about the Roomba)?

The best thing I can say about this is it doesn't include power produced by nuclear fusion.

It's like Tim wrote it.  It's ridiculously optimistic.

Tim would have included fusion.  Tim loves fusion the way that JR loves wine, grumbler loves arguing and Martinus loves feet.

I think fusion is more likely than a space elevator or a post-scarcity economy (of which there is no such thing, although on human scales you could say there might be an effective one, although not by 2040).

I looked at it again, too--fusion power is certainly more plausible than a Drexlerian utility fog.  Jesus.

[dps]

Post-scarcity economy?  Space elevator?  Domestic robots (unless we're talking about the Roomba)?

The best thing I can say about this is it doesn't include power produced by nuclear fusion.

It's like Tim wrote it.  It's ridiculously optimistic.

Brazen says he conservative. Doesn't she write for a science magazine or something?

If Brazen thinks a SPACE ELEVATOR by 2040 is conservative and writes for a science magazine, she's in the wrong line of work (or maybe the exact right one, considering technophilic but not terribly discerning nerds form the target audience for such magazines).  Fortunately, I don't think either is actually the case.

I remember about 6 years ago there was an article (don't remember if it was online or not, but I think I read in in a paper) about some grants that were being given out to study space elevator technology, and one of the researchers who was given funding was quoted as basically saying that we didn't really need any more theoreticaly research--he wanted funding to begin actual construction.  He claimed that the only barrier to building a space elevator with present technology is financial.  Personally, I think he must be nuts.

[fhdz]

I only want a space elevator if there's a party on the roof.

[Ideologue]

To the best of my knowledge, he's nuts, and such statements are irresponsible.  The problem isn't engineering per se so much as materials science.  Carbon nanotubes may have, in theory, the tensile strength to support a tether-style space elevator, but they have not been proven to have the same tensile strength when scaled up; and a compressive design using diamond or aggregate diamond nanorod is also insufficient.

Now I'd love for a space elevator to be feasible, but my understanding is that it has not been shown to be so.  And in any event, you also have economic factors (the "why" of building it in the first place, and the financial capability, which also relies on an unfettered optimism unreflected in anything going on in the present or the reasonably foreseeable present).

[crazy canuck]

Plus there were no space elevators is Star Trek or Star Wars.

[Ideologue]

Yo, Neil, what've you got against fusion power anyway?

[The Brain]

Fusion power is not a realistic energy source.

[Ideologue]

Fusion power is not a realistic energy source.

It's the source of all life (and matter, even your precious actinides).

Terrestrially useful, maybe not.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Arcologies? too much sim city....

depends on what is meant with an arcology probably. given some of the stuff that's been built nowadayw we're getting rather close.

[Neil]

Fusion power is not a realistic energy source.

It's the source of all life (and matter, even your precious actinides).

Terrestrially useful, maybe not.

Not all matter.  Hell, not even all baryons.

My problem with fusion power is that they've been saying that it's ten or twenty years away for the last fifty years.  We're not any closer to economical fusion power than we were when I was a boy.

[dps]

To the best of my knowledge, he's nuts, and such statements are irresponsible.  The problem isn't engineering per se so much as materials science.  Carbon nanotubes may have, in theory, the tensile strength to support a tether-style space elevator, but they have not been proven to have the same tensile strength when scaled up; and a compressive design using diamond or aggregate diamond nanorod is also insufficient.

Now I'd love for a space elevator to be feasible, but my understanding is that it has not been shown to be so.  And in any event, you also have economic factors (the "why" of building it in the first place, and the financial capability, which also relies on an unfettered optimism unreflected in anything going on in the present or the reasonably foreseeable present).

Yeah, that's pretty much how I see it, too.  Maybe the guy knows something that you and I don't, but even if it's actually technically possible, the financials don't make sense.

[Ideologue]

Fusion power is not a realistic energy source.

It's the source of all life (and matter, even your precious actinides).

Terrestrially useful, maybe not.

Not all matter.  Hell, not even all baryons.

Yeah, misspoke.  Virtually all nuclides heavier than Li- and Be-7 though (and most of everything heavier than protium, iirc; the majority of deuterium might have been created in the early universe, but I'm not sure).

(And baryons, with extreme exceptions, were all very early universe. )

My problem with fusion power is that they've been saying that it's ten or twenty years away for the last fifty years.  We're not any closer to economical fusion power than we were when I was a boy.

Fair enough.  The problems are pretty major.  Solar power seems a far more obvious thing to sink money into, either in () this world or in space.  At least that stuff doesn't involve as many unanswered questions (profitability? sustainability? degradation and contamination of materials?).

[The Brain]

E-Cat is where it's at.

[Siege]

I only want a space elevator if there's a party on the roof.

Eventually, there will be a party on the roof, with zero-g concerts and orbital cruise ships. I expect Disney and Carnival to profit extensivly from the space elevator.

[Neil]

Not gonna happen.