1) NASAs SLS and Orion shuttle programs solve the entire case David S.

Weaver, Michael Braukus, and Dan Kanigan, September 29 2011, NASA Annoucnes Design for New Deep Space Exploration System. NASA website. The Space Launch System, or SLS, will be designed to carry the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, as well as important cargo, equipment and science experiments to Earth's orbit and destinations beyond. Additionally, the SLS will serve as a back up for commercial and international partner transportation services to the International Space Station. "This launch system will create good-paying American jobs, ensure continued U.S. leadership in space, and inspire millions around the world," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said. "President Obama challenged us to be bold and dream big, and that's exactly what we are doing at NASA. While I was proud to fly on the space shuttle, tomorrow's explorers will now dream of one day walking on Mars." The SLS rocket will incorporate technological investments from the Space Shuttle Program and the Constellation Program in order to take advantage of proven hardware and cutting-edge tooling and manufacturing technology that will significantly reduce development and operations costs. It will use a liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propulsion system, which will include the RS-25D/E from the Space Shuttle Program for the core stage and the J-2X engine for the upper stage. SLS will also use solid rocket boosters for the initial development flights, while follow-on boosters will be competed based on performance requirements and affordability considerations. The SLS will have an initial lift capacity of 70 metric tons. That's more than 154,000 pounds, or 77 tons, roughly the weight of 40 sport utility vehicles. The lift capacity will be evolvable to 130 metric tons -- more than 286,000 pounds, or 143 tons -- enough to lift 75 SUVs. The first developmental flight, or mission, is targeted for the end of 2015 or 2016. This specific architecture was selected, largely because it utilizes an evolvable development approach, which allows NASA to address high-cost development activities early on in the program and take advantage of higher buying power before inflation erodes the available funding of a fixed budget. This architecture also enables NASA to leverage existing capabilities and lower development costs by using liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen for both the core and upper stages. Additionally, this architecture provides a modular launch vehicle that can be configured for specific mission needs using a variation of common elements. NASA may not need to lift 130 metric tons for each mission and the flexibility of this modular architecture allows the agency to use different core stage, upper stage, and first-stage booster combinations to achieve the most efficient launch vehicle for the desired mission. "NASA has been making steady progress toward realizing the president's goal of deep space exploration, while doing so in a more affordable way," NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver said. "We have been driving down the costs on the Space Launch System and Orion contracts by adopting new ways of doing business and project hundreds of millions of dollars of savings each year." 2) Space Elevator cannot solvemultiple warrants Sourabh Kaushal and Nishant Arora, 2012, Challenges in Building Space Elevator, Chairs at the Department of Electronics and Communication at the Institute of Science and Technology is Haryana, India, EUSPEC, European Space Elevator Challenge Foundation. http://euspec.warr.d...ushal_Paper.pdf There are several issues with a space elevator that will need to be triumph over. For example, once you place some cargo on it, it has to move through the atmosphere and is subject to wind forces, which will be a constant haul on the satellite hosting the ribbon. The ribbon itself will have little drag because of its thinness. The tension over such distances is also not properly understood while the cargo is in the atmosphere. So a higher altitude attachment point is preferred. However, you also want an equatorial location to minimize "vibrate" of the orbit. So you need to find the highest equatorial point Now perhaps the space elevator idea will be a lot easier to manage on the moon [11]. A. Problem of nanotube We read that if those Carbon Nanotube lines destroy, the line itself would just burn up in the atmosphere, and the station will be in geosynchronous orbit, so it would stay exactly but I think if it so it may move back from there position in higher orbit or other orbit. At geostationary orbit. Without the counterweight, the mass of the cable between Earth and GEO would pull the station into a lower orbit. Likewise, without the Earth on the lower end, the mass of the counterweight would pull the station into a higher orbit. Remember, the cable itself is not in orbit, except at GEO. With the system intact, the tension is high enough that any break will pull everything above the break into a higher orbit, leaving only the Earth end to impact [10]. Cost: Nanotubes has high production cost as a result of which if we used the CNT the cost of our project i.e. space elevator could be increased. Separation: Also there is a problem of separation i.e untangling nanotubes. Length: There is a problem of length i.e. 63,000 mile is a lot of ribbon. B. Problem of Gravity Also, since the cable is not in orbit, anything dropped from it won't just float alongside. There will be effective gravity, either real or centrifugal, everywhere except at GEO. The main problem associated with the space elevator is the problem of gravity i.e. if elevator in the upward direction the gravity of earth attracts toward itself as a result the elevator will not properly work. C. Long process, takes several years My inquisitiveness put down in how many strands it would take. It will take 293 days to create one strand of nanotube 1 mile long .with a total of 62000 miles of nanotube required, it would take about 18,186,666 days to make it then if you multiply that by the number of strands necessary to support the space elevator. We think people think that is no long year or days to made a strand but we tell you this take 909,333,333,333 days. But from we figuring at

the moment, at the current rate of production, it would take ~2,491,324,201 years to make the nanotube structure alone. Anyways, assuming our drunken math is around accurate there, then this is simply not realistic, as there is little to no possibility that manufacture of this nanotube will multiply by 2 billion fold to make around a 2112 yr project. D. Problem of Attack Also, we suspect that any terrorists would choose to attack the cable at a very high altitude, preferably above the atmosphere, May be they'd use one of those new spaceships we'll be building in our new orbital shipyard to smash into the cable or toss an asteroid at it. All of the cabling below the break would fall back to Earth with implausible momentum .The impact zone wraps several times around the planet and near the end of that string; the effect is like a continuous string of nuclear bombs. Of course, space terrorists wouldn't necessarily need a space elevator to impose disaster on Earth. They 4 could just hit a few hundred ironbased asteroids at us, and maybe we could deflect them all in time or maybe we couldn't. Or they could use a rail gun or a laser. The possibilities are boundless, and unfortunately our unpleasant technology seems to be outpacing the defensive. (We still have no technological defense against nuclear bomb) and this is the problem related to space elevator [9]. E. Problem of space Debris One threat to a space elevator would be orbiting space debris such meteors or space junk. Space debris has become a growing concern in recent years, since collisions at orbital velocities can be highly damaging to functioning satellites and can also produce even more space debris in the process. Some spacecraft, like the International Space Station, are now armored to deal with this hazard but armor and mitigation measures can be prohibitively costly when trying to protect satellites or human spaceflight vehicles like the shuttle. 3) Charged space particles gut solvency George C. Smitherman, August 2000, Marshall Space Flight Center. SPACE ELEVATORS: AN ADVANCED EARTHSPACE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM, Advanced Space Infrastructure Workshop on Geostationary Orbiting Tether, August 2000 Charged-particle effects on materials will tend to darken polymer coatings, changing their optical properties, and causing them to become brittle. Metals can become more hardened, affecting their electrical and thermal conductivity. Ceramic materials become darkened. Spacecraft charging caused by low-energy electrons produces differential charging, causing dielectric breakdown on materials. Surface coatings need to be static dissipative to prevent high charge differential. 4) Space Elevators arent durable. B.M. Quine, R.K. Seth, and Z.H. Zhu, 2009, A Free-standing space elevator structure: a practical alternative to the space tether, Quine is at the Department of Earth and Space Science and Engineering. Seth and Zhu are at the Department of Physics and Astronomy at York University. http://pi.library.yo..._Final_2009.pdf Meteorite damage will destroy Earth-to-space cables of dimension less than several centimeters within weeks. Construction is therefore a race against time and the completed cable would need continuous maintenance and repair. The climbers would need to be able to ascend through a wide variety of partially severed cable conditions without inducing further failure. Based on the ribbon width, Edwards estimates the probability of a meteors severing one or more of the initial cables at 0.4 per year. However, the analysis would seem to imply that meteors would strike the cable perpendicular to the width dimension rather than at some acute angle that would cause much smaller meteorites to induce ribbon failure. 2. Low Earth Orbit (LEO) cable impacts from natural and artificial satellites 10 cm or larger would be expected to occur at a rate of 1 impact per year. Consequently, a mechanism to maneuver the cable (perhaps by moving the anchor point) would be required, and a high-accuracy radar tracking program would be needed to map precisely the orbital trajectories of objects intersecting the cable. 3. Atomic oxygen damage will remove epoxy/nanotube material at a rate of approximately 1m/month. Consequently, a surface coating would be required to protect the cable at altitudes with high atomic oxygen densities. The coating would need to be resistive to mechanical abrasion (from the climbers) and would also likely require reapplication during the lifecycle of the device. 4. Lightning strikes would pose a significant risk to cable integrity. The construction of the anchor point at high altitude would reduce the probability of a strike; however, the probability of a nearby strike is estimated at 1 every 13 years based on data gathered in Alaska. This figure seems unacceptably high given that a single strike is likely to severe the cable entirely. Furthermore, the lightening data does not account for the increase in lightening frequency due to the presence of the cable itself, and, consequently, the actual risk is highly uncertain. It seems unlikely that this problem can be easily mitigated. 5) Space Debris is a major hazard for a space elevator Radley 08 - former director of both the National Space Society and the Moon Society (Charles, "Notes from the Space Elevator Conference, August 13-16, 2006," HPLUS MAGAZINE, 8-31-09, http://hplusmagazine...gust-13-16-2009 Space Debris remains a major hazard for a space elevator, and the problem worsens every year. Peter Swan described how thousands, perhaps millions, of pieces of space junk range in size from tiny paint flecks to huge rocket

casings, and many of these could sever the SE tether. The SE base station (a ship) can be moved to avoid the large pieces, but much of the debris is too small for NORAD to detect. A single Chinese missile test in 2007 increased the debris by 40%. In February 2009, for the first time, an operational spacecraft (an Iridium communications satellite) was hit by Cosmos 2251, a dead Russian satellite, creating yet another huge cloud of debris particles. Although NORAD was tracking both objects, they predicted a miss and the collision was a complete surprise. This is causing a major review of internal procedures and the SE will get hit, according to Swan. Its just a question of how often and how badly. There is no easy solution. 6) Even a minor hit causes failure. Smitherman 2000- George C. Marshall Space Flight Center. (D.V. SPACE ELEVATORS: AN ADVANCED EARTH-SPACE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM, Advanced Space Infrastructure Workshop on Geostationary Orbiting Tether "Space Elevator" Concepts, August 2000, p.25 Space debris is a concern for space elevator systems as well as all space systems in general. Small debris only millimeters in diameter can sever tethers, damage shielding, and potentially puncture pressure vessels, leading to catastrophic rupturing. Secondary ejecta from the initial impact can potentially cause widespread damage and produce additional hazards for other spacecraft. These issues will be dealt with in more detail in 4.2 Safety Issues. 7) Terrorism, natural threats, and bureaucratic problems all lead to failure. Kent 07 - Major, USAF, PE (Jason, Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College. Getting To Space On A Thread, Space Elevator As Alternative Space Access April 2007) There are many threats facing those operating a space elevator. These threats include: attacks or sabotage, weather, and debris. Since the space elevator provides such a valuable link to orbit for commercial, scientific, as well as military purposes, it immediately becomes a prime target for those opposed to the policies or very nature of the nations operating the elevator. Threats can be mitigated by placement of the liftport in an isolated location, active air, sea, and perhaps space defenses, as well as procedures to ensure the safety of cargo and passengers similar to those employed by airlines today. Weather has been discussed earlier. Again, threats from powerful storms, electrical storms and natural threats like micrometeorites must be mitigated or decreased through design and operation methodology. Man-made debris will also need to be taken into account by operators of the elevator. While active satellites in lower orbits can be easily predicted and avoided by moving the tether, extremely accurate tracking of the 110,000 pieces of debris over 1 cm will need to be carried out. Operators of the space elevator can tie into the tracking networks of debris already in place (NORAD) and perhaps deploy sensors of their own to increase the fidelity of tracking capabilities. Managing the risk of multiple threats as well as the military use and politics involved makes the operation of the space elevator an extremely challenging prospect. 8) Meteorites, Cosmic Rays, and Oxygen damage the cable. Zaitsev 08 Staff writer for RIA Novosti (Yury, Japan May Throw Billions At Space Elevator Project, Oct 07, 2008, http://www.space-tra...roject_999.html)#SPS Some scientists say the inevitable crystal-lattice defects could decrease the durability of the nanotubes. Even if flawless threads could be produced, the micrometeorites, cosmic rays, and atmospheric oxygen could still damage the cable. Space junk and the natural vibrations of the giant "rope" could also cause the cable to fail. 9) Turn-- Weaponization A Space Elevator would be used as a weapons dockis perceived as dangerous. Kent 07 - Major, USAF, PE (Jason, Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College. Getting To Space On A Thread, Space Elevator As Alternative Space Access April 2007)#SPS Besides the spacelift and combat support tenets, the assets placed in orbit and maintained using a space elevator would contribute to other key USAF operation functions such as information operations, command and control, special operations, intelligence thru surveillance and reconnaissance (essential to national and theater defense and to the security of air, space, subsurface, and surface forces54), combat search and rescue, navigation and positioning used to provide accurate location and time of reference in support of strategic, operational, and tactical 13 operations55, and weather service for both space and atmospheric operating environments56. Oddly enough, the one key Air Force operation function not likely to be supported by a space elevator is Counterspace, those kinetic and nonkinetic operations conducted to attain and maintain a desired degree of space superiority by the destruction, degradation, or disruption of enemy space capability.57 Although the main objectives of counterspace operations are to allow friendly forces to exploit space capabilities, while negating the enemys ability to do the same58, using the space elevator for any sort of direct military action of to place overtly military weapons or

hardware into orbit would be quite unpalatable to other users and would likely be curtailed with space elevator use policies. 3) If China feels threatened by space weapons, theyll militarize, and draw others into a nuclear space arms race. Zhang Hui 2005 Space Weaponization And Space Security: A Chinese Perspective, World Security Institute, http://www.wsichina....sid=94&charid=1 Arms race due to the threatening nature of space weapons, it is reasonable to assume that China and others would attempt to block their deployment and use by political and, if necessary, military means.11 Many Chinese officials and scholars believe that China should take every possible step to maintain the effectiveness of its nuclear deterrent. This includes negating the threats from missile defense and space weaponization plans.12 In responding to any U.S. move toward deployment space weapons, the first and best option for China is to pursue an arms control agreement to prevent not just the United States but any nation from doing so -- as it is advocating presently. However, if this effort fails and if what China perceives as its legitimate security concerns are ignored, it would very likely develop responses to counter and neutralize such a threat. Despite the enormous cost of space-based weapon systems, they are vulnerable to a number of low-cost and relatively low-technology ASAT attacks including the use of groundlaunched small kinetic-kill vehicles, pellet clouds or space mines. It is reasonable to believe that China and others could resort to these ASAT weapons to counter any U.S. space-based weapons.13 This, however, would lead to an arms race in space. To protect against the potential loss of its deterrent capability, China could potentially resort to enhancing its nuclear forces. Such a move could, in turn, encourage India and then Pakistan to follow suit. Furthermore, Russia has threatened to respond to any country's deployment of space weapons.14 Moreover, constructing additional weapons would produce a need for more plutonium and highly enriched uranium to fuel those weapons. This impacts China's participation in the fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT).15 Eventually, failure to proceed with the nuclear disarmament process, to which the nuclear weapon states committed themselves under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, would damage the entire nuclear nonproliferation regime itself, which is already at the breaking point. As Hu Xiaodi, China's ambassador for disarmament affairs, asked, "With lethal weapons flying overhead in orbit and disrupting global strategic stability, why should people eliminate weapons of mass destruction or missiles on the ground? This cannot but do harm to global peace, security and stability, and hence be detrimental to the fundamental interests of all States."