The first Apollo missions were basically just a giant publicity stunt. NASA’s manned programs have done little of substance since then (other than build the entirely pointless Freedom).

If we had to choose between putting billions into reaching the Moon again, and giving that money to the roboticists, planetologists, and computer scientists to produce more advanced probes and close-to-realtime telepresence bots, I think the second option would be the better choice.

“Our estimate is that the space elevator could be operational in 15 years for $10B.”
http://www.spaceelevator.com/docs/521Edwards.pdf

Sorry, I had the order of magnitude correct but was off by a factor of two.

That website starts from the book and provides more information. Anyone interested in space elevators should check it out.

Permit me to dissent. The drivers that make Boeing and Lockheed so expensive are primarily the regulations and procedures and oversight imposed by NASA and the government. Cost to orbit is a big factor, and certainly the Shuttle never lived up to the predictions, much less the dream. But the bureaucratic burden is largely from the government side, not the contractor side.

AntiQuest Said:
>How feasible is the space elevator/bolas idea?

The bolas (spinning cables, skyhooks) idea is kind of scary, but the space elevator concept has some great potential. The carbon nanotube embedded materials for long cables is already being developed for other purposes, so the technology to build cables can be grown from industry. I read the Space Elevator book that was essentially the feasibility study paper that NASA paid for. It is surprisingly well informed, detailed, and concerns not just the technical and design challenges to a Space Elevator, but also discusses the economics and develops a growth plan that proposes how the Elevator project could begin to pay for itself in 5 to 10 year, and how the original expenditures and investment could be in the ballpark of other major corporate investments (~$5 Billion U.S.) This brings it out of the realm of purely government projects into something that could be done commercially, if motivated.

There are a number of technological challenges that still need to be developed, such as power systems for climbing, designing a tether system that can be built and grown or repaired while in place. Also questions about the use life of the tether material under the conditions of use (such as the friction of the climbers wearing it down). There is currently a competition sponsored for developing the aspect of power beaming to power a tether climber from the ground using light. This is an important element to the design proposed in that study. My impressions from the book was that a dedicated 5 year effort into investigating the design challenges with real financial backing could produce a solid design plan or show the concept broken. Their financial model does a good job of showing how the cost breakdown would drive the incremental cost to orbit down to the magic numbers of an order of magnitude lower and beyond. Try $10 per pound instead of $1000.

(Sorry about any bad spellings)