Space Elevator Low Down


Mike Nowak Email 10.24.05
With the flick of a switch, a searchlight beam illuminated a photovoltaic array, and a prototype space elevator called Snow Star One lifted off the ground. As the humble assemblage of solar cells, metal braces and off-the-shelf rollers rose slowly from the launch pad and up a long blue tether, a small crowd of spectators let out a boisterous cheer.
The contraption, designed by University of British Columbia undergrads Steve Jones and Damir Hot, didn't get very far -- it managed to wriggle its way just 15 feet up the 200-foot-long tether before stalling out. But as the first competitor in the inaugural Space Elevator Games, even that modest performance was enough to cause a quite stir in the still-embryonic space elevator community.
The games, sponsored by the nonprofit Spaceward Foundation, were held over the weekend at the NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California. Teams competed in one of two events: a light-beam-powered robot climbing competition and a tether-strength contest.
According to many engineers, within a couple of decades it will be both possible and cost-effective to construct a fixed line from the Earth's equator to a satellite 60,000 miles out in space. The tether would likely be made of carbon nanotubes, a still-experimental material with the potential to be 300 times stronger than steel. According to current imaginings, elevator cars weighing up to 20 tons would go up and down, powered by high-intensity earthbound lasers aimed at photovoltaic cells on their undersides.
But with both nanotubes and beam power still a long way off, NASA has decided to try to speed things up by offering prizes to innovators who reach key development milestones in the next few years.
On the beam-power side, the challenge at the games was to use a 10,000-watt light source to send a robot 50 meters up the ribbon in under 50 seconds. For the tether competition, the goal was to construct a 2-gram tether that would be tougher than a 3-gram band made from a high-strength material called Zylon. The best-performing robot and tether, had they beaten those figures, would have earned their owners $50,000 each.
At the climbing competition, however, it wasn't just Jones and Hot that had trouble making it all the way to the top. A contingent of engineering students from the University of Saskatchewan did manage to send their climber 40 feet in the air. But none of the five other teams was able to corral enough power from the searchlight even to get off the launch gantry.
Despite the lackluster performance, however, most participants were upbeat about the proceedings. Hot, for one, was ecstatic. "It's the first beam-powered climber ever," he said. "So we're very proud. In fact, we're beaming."
Entrants in the tether-strength competition had a bit more luck, with one group narrowly missing the prize with a tether made out of Spectra, a material often used in body armor.
But despite this near-victory, Spaceward Foundation rep Marc Schwager claimed that real advancements in tether strength won't be possible until carbon nanotubes arrive on the scene -- something he hopes will happen as soon as next year's games.
Schwager, however, was sanguine about the outcome of the games as a whole. "I would have loved to see somebody win the prize," he said. "But what we're about is bringing attention and focus in this area, and that was successful. And pretty much all the contestants want to come back next year."
Spaceward board member Michael Laine, president of a Bremerton, Washington-based company called LiftPort that is seeking to commercialize space-elevator technology, noted that next year's games will up the ante considerably. While the already daunting thresholds will be set even higher, there will also be more money to entice competitors -- $100,000 for first prize, $40,000 for second and $10,000 for third.
"I think that next year is going to be big," Laine said. "It's going to be harder, but I think there's going to be lots of people that rise to the challenge. We're at the beginning of something really great."




From the NASA/WMAP Science Team:
"The expansion of the universe over most of its history has been relatively gradual. The notion that a rapid period of 'inflation' preceded the big bang expansion was first put forth 25 years ago. The new WMAP observations favor specific inflation scenarios over other long-held ideas."
Thoughts of anon -
 question is whether the expansion included the beginning and end 
or to tell it another way
whether the beginning saw the end and the next beginning ad infinitum -just like looking into two parellel mirrors

or to explain doubts -whether the beginning the end and more beginnings and more ends of universe are possible this minute; now and  to day?

even if universe remains in constant state -without end ;is there a possibility of the future scenario already present now ;this moment ;
in a different view or a different WORLD ;A PARALLEL( OR PERPENDICULAR )ADJACENT (OR FAR) UNIVERSE .;WHERE ONE SEES OUR UNIVERSE FROM A BEGINNING TILL NOW AND FUTURE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Many Worlds Theory of Infinite Parallel Universes

The Many Worlds Theory of Infinite Parallel Universes is the most satisfying scientific theory to explain the paradoxes inherent in Quantum Reality. Quantum Reality is the most successful scientific theory to ever explain the experimental data gathered by over a century of physics research. However, the conclusions are mind boggling to scientists because they want a nice logical explanation for the universe and quantum reality gives them a world of impreciseness and probability with data pointing to a single non-local field of energy composed of waveforms. This includes making the assumption that objects and observers are not independent but somehow linked. It is the act of observing that causes all the paradoxes. To solve all of the paradoxes of observers and object being linked somehow, the theory expresses that for every quantum event observed, the universe splits into each and every possible observable outcome and each universe continues separate, and in parallel, unaware of the other universes. In effect, a universe without observers would exist as a superimposed set of possible outcomes, with each outcome in a suspended state of unmanifested existence. It is the act of observation that makes possibilities transend from probability to reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WHETHER WE CAN SEE OUR UNIVERSE IN A DIFFERENT ASPECT IN TIME AND SPACE FROM A QUANTUM UNIVERSE

IT MAY LOOK LIKE A WORLD WITHOUT BEGINNING AND END?

WHY CANT ELECTRIC CARS,RECHARGE BATTERY ;WHILE DRIVING ;FROM OVERHEAD ;SAME PRINCIPLE AS ELECTRIC TROLLEY? AND PAY PER CHARGE ONLINE OR BY CARD THE PRESENT ELECTRIC CARS CANNOT TRAVEL MORE ABOUT THAN 100 KM BEFORE IT NEEDS RECHARGING OF BATTERY



                                                                                                                                              
                                             MY  BRAIN WAVE AT MIDNIGHT---2011---31DECEMBER----JANUARY--1 -- 2012!!





or a replacement battery at every gas (petrol) station