A big part of the problem is that C and C++ have not been retired.

Linux and Python are a big part of what we need.

Linux is mostly C. If C can build something like Linux then I am sure you could get a bunch of libraries to work together.
———
From Keith: A lot of software is less well specified than the kernel, which has actual physical hardware it is supposed to interact with. Python will bring progress faster. My book explains more.

7 years or 70 years or even 7 days, that doesn’t matter much in my opinion. What is important is that it is doable. Now if it’s a high priority or not is a matter of personal opinion. Although I am very science oriented, I think it is not.

Here is a little detail that was not addressed in Brad Edwards study. Let’s assume the best site for the SE is located in Keyna. Obviously, for such a gigantic project, you cannot just go there and ask “please rent me that patch of land”. You will probably want to secure that land permanently, which, in practice, means some assassinations, heavy bombing, followed by an invasion. Don’t be shy, that was how Panama canal works. The Space Elevator in another country won’t be any different. May be this could be a detail, but for me this is a show stopper.

Yeah I know, pessimistic people never invent anything. It’s good to dream. A dream has a cost. Big dream has bigger cost. The cost here means “someone else elsewhere will have something less so that you can have your dream materialised”.

Sorry if I go off topic, I have nothing against the principle of your blog post. Just want to give you an alternative view.
———
From Keith:
No one credible has proven time travel backwards is possible. Don’t confuse the Space Elevator, which is mostly an engineering problem, as Brad Edwards’ book explains, with a topic like going backwards in time.

I can’t believe you don’t care about whether something happens in 7 days or 70 years. Most other people care.

The location of the elevator was addressed in Edwards book and in other places. You assume something that you are wrong about. The plan is to put it into the ocean for various reasons including making it easier to secure.

You are wrong in thinking that dreams have cost. Innovation creates new wealth in a society. The space elevator will generate trillions of dollars in return and cost $10B. We can afford that money! The US federal government wastes $200B per year.

Please read my book for more info.

I am sorry to spoil your optimism but think about this. The advertisement budget of Nike and Cocacola alone, could fix the water issue for the entire world. The budget of the International Space Station would probably make poverty disappear in the world. And yet these poors remains poor, because they must be. Read John Perkins books and “23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism” by Ha-Joon Chang. Without these poors, you would be busy sewing your own shoes, not much time left to think about a space elevator. In my opinion, the social issues in the world are more urgent.

There are physical limits to what we can achieve. Although I am not guru in carbon nanotube. But making a kilometer of cable is not as simple as some nanometers. There are too much atoms to maintain a perfect structure. Would you think a CPU of 1 square foot could be millions times powerful than a tiny one? Yet none is produced, that’s the physical scale law you must be aware in the physical world.

Life had required maybe 3.5 billions years to be stabilized on Earth, do you seriously think that we can suddenly live without Earth? Terra forming Mars is a fantasy. Even if you can resuscitate an artificial atmosphere, it will disappear simply because Mars cannot retain its atmosphere (weak gravity and weak magnetic field). I don’t even mention other dangers caused by the lack of gravity and lack of natural protection against cosmic rays. There would be full of people on other planets and moons if life was that easy outside of Earth. We are destroying the environment we can get here for free en Earth. Now, we want settle on new environment and build an entire new ecosystem from scratch? Please get real.

BTW, what is the purpose of the space elevator for you? A cool technological feat to prove human capabilities and to improve human conditions? Or a way to give your nation more domination? I am not sure if the world is convinced by the first option.
——–
From: Keith
I’m not the only person who claims the SE is doable. Brad Edwards, a physicist, has done the high-level feasibility research in his book. And many others have done research as well.

My only point is we can do it in less than 7 years. If you don’t accept the first part, please do enough reading until you do, and then read my paper. It was written for an audience of people who assume it is doable.

You parallels to the Apollo program are also a bit askew. The basic science behind a lunar landing were already complete. All that was necessary was to create a platform and ensure safety (trivial right?). The US accomplished that through sheer economics and scale. The project you describe has significant technology gaps that require innovation. As described above — innovation does not scale.

I think you should consider re-evaluating your underlying logic and, with that, your expectations of a successful timeframe.
——–
From: Keith
You draw an analogy between research and art. That is not relevant. One person can make a song. Look at the problems we want to solve: AI, cancer, a space elevator. They are all big.

There are not technology gaps in the space elevator. It is a matter of engineering. Students are building prototypes. The only part that is even considered a challenge is the nanotubes, and that is 1% of the project. You could read the book by Peter and Cathy Swan that break it down from a systems engineering approach. You will see it is audacious and logical.

I am not the only person who makes references to the Apollo program. People who worked on the Apollo program also make references to it. It was an idea that sounded crazy till it became a goal.

You miss one of the greatest challenges to crowdsourcing a space elevator design, or even just the software to drive a space elevator, though you allude to it tangentially.

Much of the “intellectual property” to which you allude, even in software, is covered by patents in the USA. And software patents threaten to unwind the incredibly efficient open source methodologies and frustrate the free software movement by making crowdsourced development an exercise in infringement claims and lawsuits.

You mention the incredible boost to innovation that a free SolidWorks equivalent would yield — but I fear the real boon would be to Dassault Systèmes’ legal team. In fact, Mr. Ballmer aside, I believe that it is software patents rather than the GPL that is the *real* cancer threatening the future.

Any ideas on how to address this issue?
——–
From: Keith
Software patents are a cost, but they won’t unwind tech progress. We can shoot the patent lawyers if they become a big problem. Eventually we should outlaw software patents, fight them in court — and win. I do have some words about software patents in my book.

What is needed is a change in society, away from money and geared to tech.

A community based on tech on a voluntry basis with no financial involvment with the old world. Bring in sustainablity as well.

Am thinking neogotate a large part of desert somewhere, pipe in sea water and setup a desalination plant and solar generation plant and sell the fresh water and elec back to the country as profit stream, creating an oasis community with charitible status outside the political/monetry system were all comunity is dedicated to the cause and free of debt. Educating the communities children with the latest tech.
Invite all top scientists and general public that can contribute to a new self-supporting community dedicated to humanities future. space, robotics, hydroponics and computer tech to name just a few.