, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

U.S. Census Bureau Daily Feature for August 9

WASHINGTON, Aug 09, 2009 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ —-Following is the daily “Profile America” feature from the U.S. Census Bureau:

(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20090226/CENSUSLOGO)


Profile America — Sunday, August 9th. Inventions make our lives easier, more enjoyable and, in some cases, save our lives. They range from the astonishing to the ridiculous — from lasers to hula hoops, and from disposable diapers to iPods. The most common image of an inventor is that of a quirky, if not downright eccentric, genius. Doing away with that stereotype is one of the goals of National Inventors Month, held each year in August, as well as getting young people interested in science and technology. Each year, nearly 160,000 patents are granted for inventions, with about one-in-10 going to individuals. The remainder are awarded to corporations, about half of them in foreign countries. You can find these and more facts about America from the U.S. Census Bureau online at http://www.census.gov.

Sources: Chase’s Calendar of Events 2009, p.387

Statistical Abstract of the United States 2009, t. 748

Profile America is produced by the Public Information Office of the U.S. Census Bureau. These daily features are available as produced segments, ready to air, on a monthly CD or on the Internet at http://www.census.gov (look under the “Newsroom” button).

SOURCE U.S. Census Bureau


111 Teams Get Green Light to Advance in Multimillion Dollar Competition

PLAYA VISTA, Calif., (April 7, 2009) –The Progressive Insurance Automotive X PRIZE, a multimillion dollar competition designed to inspire a new generation of viable, super fuel-efficient vehicles, today announced its official list of 111 Registered Teams.


Having passed this first wave of judging, these teams now move one step closer to competing for their share of a $10 million prize purse that will be awarded to teams that win a rigorous long distance stage competition and can exceed 100 MPG equivalent fuel economy (MPGe).

The teams, which collectively represent 136 vehicle entries with 14 different fuel sources, include diverse groups from 25 U.S. states and 11 countries. Established automakers, emerging start-ups, universities and inventors are among those represented. Six of the Registered Teams remain confidential.

In the coming months, Registered Teams will undergo Design Judging based on a detailed Data Submission package, which will provide information on their vehicle’s features, production capability, safety and business plans. Those that pass Design Judging will move into the performance testing phase and partake in a series of competition events that will begin as early as May 2010. Winners will be announced in 2010.

The competition start date, the number of venues, and the geographic distribution of venues will be determined prior to July 2009.

“We are thrilled with the wide variety of teams and technologies from around the world that are joining us in this competition,” said Dr. Peter H. Diamandis, Chairman and CEO, The X PRIZE Foundation. Being accepted as a Registered Team is a major milestone. This is also an exciting step for the Foundation as we move closer to our goal of inspiring a new generation of real, clean, safe and super fuel-efficient vehicles.”

“The level of American innovation and entrepreneurship we’re seeing in the Automotive X PRIZE is encouraging,” said Senator Jeff Bingaman, Chairman of the Senate Energy Committee. “It’s also a positive response to many of the challenges confronting the U.S. auto industry. I applaud these teams for the important work they’re doing for our nation’s energy future.”

Winners will be selected from two classes in the Competition Division — Mainstream and Alternative. A complete list of Registered Teams, listed by the class in which they will compete and their proposed fuel type is available here [ PDF].

Earlier this year, the competition announced details of a Demonstration Division designed specifically for large, established automobile manufacturers to showcase their latest fuel efficient vehicles. Entrance into this Division will remain open until the summer.

About the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE Competition
The goal of the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE is to inspire a new generation of viable, super-efficient vehicles to offer consumers more choices and make their lives better as a result. The competition will place a major focus on affordability, safety, and the environment. It is about developing real, production-capable cars that consumers want to buy, not science projects or concept cars. For more information about the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE, please visit http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org or email progressiveautopress@xprize.org. For related educational resources, please visit http://www.FuelOurFutureNow.com.

About Progressive
Progressive, founded in 1937, is a leading insurer of cars, motorcycles, recreation vehicles, boats and commercial vehicles. The Company offers competitive rates and innovative products and services that meet drivers’ needs throughout their lifetimes as well as 24/7 online and in-person customer and claims service. One of Progressive’s Core Values is Excellence. To the Company’s more than 26,000 people, it simply means seeking constant improvement. Over time, this has meant introducing revolutionary ideas that make car insurance easier to shop for, buy and use. It’s this same innovative spirit that’s behind the Company’s sponsorship of the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE. The Progressive Automotive X PRIZE will inspire innovation that will produce more fuel efficient vehicle choices, helping to make a difference in people’s lives.

Progressive’s products and services are available locally through more than 30,000 independent insurance agencies in the U.S., online at http://www.progressive.com and by phone at 1-800-PROGRESSIVE (1-800-776-4737).

About the X PRIZE Foundation
The X PRIZE Foundation is an educational nonprofit prize institute whose mission is to create “radical breakthroughs for the benefit of humanity.” In 2004, the Foundation captured the world’s attention when the Burt Rutan-led team, backed by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, built and flew the world’s first private spaceship to win the $10 million Ansari X PRIZE for suborbital spaceflight. The Foundation has since launched the $10 million Archon X PRIZE for Genomics, the $30 million Google Lunar X PRIZE and the $10 million Progressive Insurance Automotive X PRIZE. The Foundation, with the support of its partner, BT Global Services, is creating prizes in Space and Ocean Exploration, Life Sciences, Energy and Environment, Education and Global Development. The Foundation is widely recognized as a leader in fostering innovation through competition. For more information, please visit http://www.xprize.org.



June 25, 2009
Racing Goes Green
“As long as we’re talking about auto racing’s X files, we should touch upon the highest-profile green-racing event on the agenda: the $10 million Progressive Automotive X Prize. In April, the Auto X Prize’s organizers announced that 111 teams were accepted into the competition, and spokeswoman Carrie Fox told me today that 96 of those teams have gone on to the next step of the contest by turning in their business plans.”




Materials Research Society

Check out their magazine and abstracts of current materials science stuff

XVIII International Materials Research Congress 2009

XVIII International Materials Research Congress 2009 Image

CasaMagna Marriott Cancún Resort
August 16 – 21, 2009

Km. 16 Hotel Zone
Cancún, Quintana Roo

Attendees from the U.S.
Please view this important message regarding re-entry into the United States

The following information is available on the official XVIII International Materials Research Congress 2009 Web site:

  • Symposia Program and Tutorial Courses
  • Sponsors & Exhibits
  • Abstract Submission Information (Submission Deadline was June 7, 2009)
  • Registration Information
  • Committees

The core mission of the Materials Research Society is to make knowledge gained through materials research as widely available as possible. Because knowledge gained anywhere can benefit people everywhere, MRS has always worked to promote leading-edge research from around the world. Materials research is a truly global enterprise.

In that spirit, the Materials Research Society (MRS) and the Sociedad Mexicana de Materiales (MRS-Mexico) are working together to grow the International Materials Research Congress (IMRC) held annually in Cancun, Mexico.

The IMRC offers a range of symposium topics of interest to MRS members and has become a popular destination in recent years with about 1500 attendees from around the world.

MRS and MRS-Mexico will work collaboratively to grow this meeting in the future. This annual event will provide additional high-level meeting capacity in a readily accessible and attractive location. As has always been true of the MRS Fall and Spring Meetings, a “bottom up” approach will allow this “Summer Meeting” to evolve rapidly in real time to meet the needs of the materials research community.


In keeping with the goals outlined above, we invite you to find out more about organizing a symposium at the MRS Summer Meetings in 2010 and 2011.

[Also -]


You’ve got to see this site – there are no words to describe it –

The CIMTEC series of International Conferences on Modern Materials and Technologies was started on the late sixties with the objective of establishing closer relationships between the scientific materials research communities of Eastern and Western blocks in a time where exchange of information was remarkably constrained. Nowadays, where the geopolitical context is evolved to favour global exchanges with terabit information continuously flowing through the web, CIMTEC remains a primary focus for communication among the materials scientific, technical and production community worldwide.



CIMTEC 2010 – 12th International Conference on Modern Materials and Technologies – will be held in Montecatini Terme, Tuscany, Italy, on June 6 to 18, 2010. CIMTEC 2010 will consist of the 12th International Ceramics Congress (June 6-11) and of the 5th Forum on New Materials (June 13-18), each of them including a number of Symposia, Focused Sessions, and Conferences. As a major long standing event for the international materials community, CIMTEC will again gather together a large and qualified audience of materials scientists, physicists, chemists and engineers as well as experts of a wide range of the most demanding application areas of modern materials, from information technology to biological systems. CIMTEC 2010 will devote special attention to most relevant directions for materials research based on new theory and refined modeling strategies and on the ever increasing opportunities offered by the continuous remarkable progress in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Outstanding areas of the subject will be covered, from the molecular and nanoscales to large complex integrated systems. Special focus of the Forum on New Materials will be to apply the new research findings to the development of a number of sustainable energy technologies from advanced fossil fuel energy cycles including CO2 sequestration, to nuclear energy, to photovoltaic power generation.

The Chair, Co-Chairs and CIMTEC 2010 Committees invite you to foster progress in the field by contributing to what promises to be an exciting meeting, and to enjoy the immense unique artistic heritage and wonderful landscape of Tuscany.

Pietro Vincenzini
General Chair CIMTEC Conferences
Chairman World Academy of Ceramics

Co-Chairs CIMTEC 2010
Akio Makishima
President International Ceramic Federation
Robert P.H. Chang
General Secretary International Union of Materials Research Societies



Space elevator
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A space elevator would consist of a cable anchored to the Earth’s surface, reaching into space. By attaching a counterweight at the end (or by further extending the cable for the same purpose), inertia ensures that the cable remains stretched taut, countering the gravitational pull on the lower sections, thus allowing the elevator to remain in geostationary orbit. Once beyond the gravitational midpoint, carriages would be accelerated further by the planet’s rotation. (Diagram not to scale.)

A space elevator is a proposed structure designed to transport material from a celestial body’s surface into space. Many variants have been proposed, all of which involve traveling along a fixed structure instead of using rocket powered space launch. The concept most often refers to a structure that reaches from the surface of the Earth on or near the Equator to geostationary orbit (GSO) and a counter-mass beyond.

The concept of a space elevator dates back to 1895 when Konstantin Tsiolkovsky[1] proposed a free-standing “Tsiolkovsky” tower reaching from the surface of Earth to geostationary orbit. Most recent discussions focus on tensile structures (specifically, tethers) reaching from geostationary orbit to the ground. This structure would be held in tension between Earth and the counterweight in space like a guitar string held taut. Space elevators have also sometimes been referred to as beanstalks, space bridges, space lifts, space ladders, skyhooks, orbital towers, or orbital elevators.

Current technology is not capable of manufacturing practical engineering materials that are sufficiently strong and light to build an Earth based space elevator. The primary issue is that the total mass of conventional materials needed to construct such a structure would be so great that the cable would break under its own weight. Recent conceptualizations for a space elevator are notable in their plans to use carbon nanotube-based materials as the tensile element in the tether design, since the measured strength of microscopic carbon nanotubes appears great enough to make this theoretically possible[citation needed]. Current technology could produce elevators for locations in the solar system with a weaker gravitational field, such as Mars.[2]

* 1 Geostationary orbital tethers
* 2 History
o 2.1 Early concepts
o 2.2 Twentieth century
o 2.3 21st century
* 3 Structure
o 3.1 Base station
o 3.2 Cable
o 3.3 Climbers
o 3.4 Powering climbers
o 3.5 Counterweight
o 3.6 Alternative concepts
* 4 Launching into outer space
* 5 Extraterrestrial elevators
* 6 Construction
o 6.1 Safety issues and construction difficulties
o 6.2 Economics
* 7 See also
* 8 References
o 8.1 Specific
o 8.2 General
* 9 External links

Geostationary orbital tethers

This concept, also called an orbital space elevator, geostationary orbital tether, or a beanstalk, is a subset of the skyhook concept, and is what people normally think of when the phrase ‘space elevator’ is used (although there are variants).

Construction would be a vast project: a tether would have to be built of a material that could endure tremendous stress while also being light-weight, cost-effective, and manufacturable in great quantities. Materials currently available do not meet these requirements, although carbon nanotube technology shows great promise. A considerable number of other novel engineering problems would also have to be solved to make a space elevator practical. There are problems regarding feasibility that have yet to be addressed. Nevertheless, the LiftPort Group stated in 2002[3] that by developing the technology, the first space elevator could be operational by 2014.[4][5]


Early concepts
Konstantin Tsiolkovsky

The key concept of the space elevator appeared in 1895 when Russian scientist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky was inspired by the Eiffel Tower in Paris to consider a tower that reached all the way into space, built from the ground up to an altitude of 35,790 kilometers above sea level (geostationary orbit).[6] He noted that a “celestial castle” at the top of such a spindle-shaped cable would have the “castle” orbiting Earth in a geostationary orbit (i.e. the castle would remain over the same spot on Earth’s surface).

Tsiolkovsky’s tower would be able to launch objects into orbit without a rocket. Since the elevator would attain orbital velocity as it rode up the cable, an object released at the tower’s top would also have the orbital velocity necessary to remain in geostationary orbit. Unlike more recent concepts for space elevators, Tsiolkovsky’s (conceptual) tower was a compression structure, rather than a tension (or “tether”) structure.

Twentieth century

Building a compression structure from the ground up proved an unrealistic task as there was no material in existence with enough compressive strength to support its own weight under such conditions.[7] In 1959 another Russian scientist, Yuri N. Artsutanov, suggested a more feasible proposal. Artsutanov suggested using a geostationary satellite as the base from which to deploy the structure downward. By using a counterweight, a cable would be lowered from geostationary orbit to the surface of Earth, while the counterweight was extended from the satellite away from Earth, keeping the center of gravity of the cable motionless relative to Earth. Artsutanov’s idea was introduced to the Russian-speaking public in an interview published in the Sunday supplement of Komsomolskaya Pravda in 1960,[8] but was not available in English until much later. He also proposed tapering the cable thickness so that the tension in the cable was constant—this gives a thin cable at ground level, thickening up towards GSO.

Both the tower and cable ideas were proposed in the quasi-humorous Ariadne column in New Scientist, 24 December 1964.

Making a cable over 35,000 kilometers long is a difficult task. In 1966, Isaacs, Vine, Bradner and Bachus, four American engineers, reinvented the concept, naming it a “Sky-Hook,” and published their analysis in the journal Science.[9] They decided to determine what type of material would be required to build a space elevator, assuming it would be a straight cable with no variations in its cross section, and found that the strength required would be twice that of any existing material including graphite, quartz, and diamond.

In 1975 an American scientist, Jerome Pearson, reinvented the concept yet again, publishing his analysis in the journal Acta Astronautica. He designed[10] a tapered cross section that would be better suited to building the elevator. The completed cable would be thickest at the geostationary orbit, where the tension was greatest, and would be narrowest at the tips to reduce the amount of weight per unit area of cross section that any point on the cable would have to bear. He suggested using a counterweight that would be slowly extended out to 144,000 kilometers (almost half the distance to the Moon) as the lower section of the elevator was built. Without a large counterweight, the upper portion of the cable would have to be longer than the lower due to the way gravitational and centrifugal forces change with distance from Earth. His analysis included disturbances such as the gravitation of the Moon, wind and moving payloads up and down the cable. The weight of the material needed to build the elevator would have required thousands of Space Shuttle trips, although part of the material could be transported up the elevator when a minimum strength strand reached the ground or be manufactured in space from asteroidal or lunar ore.

In 1977, Hans Moravec published an article called “A Non-Synchronous Orbital Skyhook”, in which he proposed an alternative space elevator concept, using a rotating cable,[11] in which the rotation speed exactly matches the orbital speed in such a way that the instantaneous velocity at the point where the cable was at the closest point to the Earth was zero. This concept is an early version of a space tether transportation system.

In 1979, space elevators were introduced to a broader audience with the simultaneous publication of Arthur C. Clarke’s novel, The Fountains of Paradise, in which engineers construct a space elevator on top of a mountain peak in the fictional island country of Taprobane (loosely based on Sri Lanka, albeit moved south to the Equator), and Charles Sheffield’s first novel, The Web Between the Worlds, also featuring the building of a space elevator. Three years later, in Robert A. Heinlein’s 1982 novel Friday the principal character makes use of the “Nairobi Beanstalk” in the course of her travels. In Kim Stanley Robinson’s 1993 novel Red Mars, colonists build a space elevator on Mars that allows both for more colonists to arrive on Mars and also for natural resources mined on Mars to be able to leave Mars for Earth.

21st century

After the development of carbon nanotubes in the 1990s, engineer David Smitherman of NASA/Marshall’s Advanced Projects Office realized that the high strength of these materials might make the concept of an orbital skyhook feasible, and put together a workshop at the Marshall Space Flight Center, inviting many scientists and engineers to discuss concepts and compile plans for an elevator to turning the concept into a reality.[12] The publication he edited compiling information from the workshop, “Space Elevators: An Advanced Earth-Space Infrastructure for the New Millennium”,[13] provides an introduction to the state of the technology at the time, and summarizes the findings.

Another American scientist, Bradley C. Edwards, suggested creating a 100,000 km long paper-thin ribbon using a carbon nanotube composite material. He chose a ribbon type structure rather than a cable because that structure might stand a greater chance of surviving impacts by meteoroids. Supported by the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts, the work of Edwards was expanded to cover the deployment scenario, climber design, power delivery system, orbital debris avoidance, anchor system, surviving atomic oxygen, avoiding lightning and hurricanes by locating the anchor in the western equatorial Pacific, construction costs, construction schedule, and environmental hazards.[14][15] The largest holdup to Edwards’ proposed design is the technological limits of the tether material. His calculations call for a fiber composed of epoxy-bonded carbon nanotubes with a minimal tensile strength of 130 GPa (including a safety factor of 2); however, tests in 2000 of individual single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs), which should be notably stronger than an epoxy-bonded rope, indicated the strongest measured as 52 GPa.[16] Multi-walled carbon nanotubes have been measured with tensile strengths up to 63 GPa.[17]

In order to speed development of space elevators, proponents are planning several competitions, similar to the Ansari X Prize, for relevant technologies.[18][19] Among them are Elevator:2010 which will organize annual competitions for climbers, ribbons and power-beaming systems, the Robolympics Space Elevator Ribbon Climbing competition,[20] as well as NASA’s Centennial Challenges program which, in March 2005, announced a partnership with the Spaceward Foundation (the operator of Elevator:2010), raising the total value of prizes to US$400,000.[21][22]

In 2005, “the LiftPort Group of space elevator companies announced that it will be building a carbon nanotube manufacturing plant in Millville, New Jersey, to supply various glass, plastic and metal companies with these strong materials. Although LiftPort hopes to eventually use carbon nanotubes in the construction of a 100,000 km (62,000 mile) space elevator, this move will allow it to make money in the short term and conduct research and development into new production methods. The space elevator is proposed to launch in 2010.”[dated info][23] On February 13, 2006 the LiftPort Group announced that, earlier the same month, they had tested a mile of “space-elevator tether” made of carbon-fiber composite strings and fiberglass tape measuring 5 cm wide and 1 mm (approx. 6 sheets of paper) thick, lifted with balloons.[24]

The x-Tech Projects company has also been founded to pursue the prospect of a commercial Space Elevator.[citation needed]

In 2007, Elevator:2010 held the 2007 Space Elevator games which featured US$500,000 awards for each of the two competitions, (US$1,000,000 total) as well as an additional US$4,000,000 to be awarded over the next five years for space elevator related technologies.[25] No teams won the competition, but a team from MIT entered the first 2-gram, 100% carbon nanotube entry into the competition.[26] Japan held an international conference in November of 2008 to draw up a timetable for building the elevator. [27]

In 2008 the book “Leaving the Planet by Space Elevator”, by Dr. Brad Edwards and Philip Ragan, was published in Japanese and entered the Japanese best seller list.[28] This has led to a Japanese announcement of intent to build a Space Elevator at a projected price tag of £5 billion. In a report by Leo Lewis, Tokyo correspondent of The Times newspaper in England, plans by Shuichi Ono, chairman of the Japan Space Elevator Association, are unveiled. Lewis says: “Japan is increasingly confident that its sprawling academic and industrial base can solve those [construction] issues, and has even put the astonishingly low price tag of a trillion yen (£5 billion) on building the elevator. Japan is renowned as a global leader in the precision engineering and high-quality material production without which the idea could never be possible.”[27]

[edit] Structure
One concept for the space elevator has it tethered to a mobile seagoing platform.

The centrifugal force of earth’s rotation is the main principle behind the elevator. As the earth rotates, the centrifugal force tends to align the nanotube in a stretched manner. There are a variety of tether designs. Almost every design includes a base station, a cable, climbers, and a counterweight.

[edit] Base station

The base station designs typically fall into two categories—mobile and stationary. Mobile stations are typically large oceangoing vessels,[29]. Stationary platforms would generally be located in high-altitude locations, such as on top of mountains, or even potentially on high towers.[7]

Mobile platforms have the advantage of being able to maneuver to avoid high winds, storms, and space debris. While stationary platforms don’t have these advantages, they typically would have access to cheaper and more reliable power sources, and require a shorter cable. While the decrease in cable length may seem minimal (typically no more than a few kilometers), the cable thickness could be reduced over its entire length, significantly reducing the total weight.

[edit] Cable

The cable must be made of a material with a large tensile strength/mass ratio. A space elevator can be made relatively economically feasible if a cable with a density similar to graphite and a tensile strength of ~65–120 GPa can be mass-produced at a reasonable price.
Carbon nanotubes would be a highly useful material for creating a space elevator

Carbon nanotubes’ theoretical tensile strength has been estimated between 140 and 177 GPa (depending on plane shape),[30] and its observed tensile strength has been variously measured from 63 to 150 GPa, close to the requirements for space elevator structures.[30][31] Nihon University professor of engineering Yoshio Aoki, the director of the Japan Space Elevator Association, has stated that the cable would need to be four times stronger than the strongest carbon nanotube fiber as of 2008, or about 180 times stronger than steel.[27] Even the strongest fiber made of nanotubes is likely to have notably less strength than its components.

Improving tensile strength depends on further research on purity and different types of nanotubes.

By comparison, most steel has a tensile strength of under 2 GPa, and the strongest steel resists no more than 5.5 GPa.[32] The much lighter material Kevlar has a tensile strength of 2.6–4.1 GPa, while quartz fiber[33] and carbon nanotubes[30] can reach upwards of 20 GPa; the tensile strength of diamond filaments would theoretically be minimally higher.

Designs call for single-walled carbon nanotubes. While multi-walled nanotubes are easier to produce and have similar tensile strengths, there is a concern[citation needed] that the interior tubes would not be sufficiently coupled to the outer tubes to help hold the tension. However, if the nanotubes are long enough, even weak van der Waals forces will be sufficient[citation needed] to keep them from slipping, and the full strength of individual nanotubes (single or multiwalled) could be realized macroscopically by spinning them into a yarn. It has also been proposed[by whom?] to chemically interlink the nanotubes in some way[vague], but it is likely that this would greatly compromise their strength. One such proposal is to take advantage of the high pressure interlinking properties of carbon nanotubes of a single variety.[34] While this would cause the tubes to lose some tensile strength by the trading of sp² bond (graphite, nanotubes) for sp³ (diamond), it will enable them to be held together in a single fiber by more than the usual, weak van der Waals force (VdW), and allow manufacturing of a fiber of any length.
A seagoing anchor station would incidentally act as a deep-water seaport.

The technology to spin regular VdW-bonded yarn from carbon nanotubes is just in its infancy: the first success in spinning a long yarn, as opposed to pieces of only a few centimeters, was reported in March 2004[citation needed]; but the strength/weight ratio was not as good as Kevlar due to the inconsistent quality and short length of the tubes being held together by VdW.

As of 2006, carbon nanotubes cost $25/gram, and even a minimal, very low payload space elevator “seed ribbon” could have a mass of at least 18,000 kg ($ 450 million). However, this price is declining, and large-scale production could result in strong economies of scale.[35]

Carbon nanotube fiber is an area of energetic worldwide research because the applications go much further than space elevators. Other suggested[36] application areas include suspension bridges, new composite materials, lighter aircraft and rockets, armor technologies, and computer processor interconnects.[citation needed] This is good news for space elevator proponents because it is likely to push down the price of the cable material further.

A newly discovered type of carbon nanotube called the colossal carbon tube may be strong and light enough to support a space elevator. Its tensile strength is only 6.9 GPa, but its density is only .116 g/cm3, making its specific strength sufficient for a space elevator. In addition, it has been fabricated in lengths on the scale of centimeters, a headstart on the thousands of kilometers needed for a space elevator.[37]

Due to its enormous length a space elevator cable must be carefully designed to carry its own weight as well as the smaller weight of climbers. The required strength of the cable will vary along its length, since at various points it has to carry the weight of the cable below, or provide a centripetal force to retain the cable and counterweight above. In a 1998 report,[38] NASA researchers noted that “maximum stress [on a space elevator cable] is at geosynchronous altitude so the cable must be thickest there and taper exponentially as it approaches Earth. Any potential material may be characterized by the taper factor — the ratio between the cable’s radius at geosynchronous altitude and at the Earth’s surface.”

[edit] Climbers
A conceptual drawing of a space elevator climbing through the clouds.

A space elevator cannot be an elevator in the typical sense (with moving cables) due to the need for the cable to be significantly wider at the center than the tips. While various designs employing moving cables have been proposed, most cable designs call for the “elevator” to climb up a stationary cable.

Climbers cover a wide range of designs. On elevator designs whose cables are planar ribbons, most propose to use pairs of rollers to hold the cable with friction. Usually, elevators are designed for climbers to move only upwards, because that is where most of the payload goes. For returning payloads, atmospheric reentry on a heat shield is a very competitive option[citation needed], which also avoids the problem of docking to the elevator in space.

Climbers must be paced at optimal timings so as to minimize cable stress and oscillations and to maximize throughput. Lighter climbers can be sent up more often, with several going up at the same time. This increases throughput somewhat, but lowers the mass of each individual payload.
As the car climbs, the elevator takes on a 1 degree lean, due to the top of the elevator traveling faster than the bottom around the Earth (Coriolis force). This diagram is not to scale.

The horizontal speed of each part of the cable increases with altitude, proportional to distance from the center of the Earth, reaching orbital velocity at geostationary orbit. Therefore as a payload is lifted up a space elevator, it needs to gain not only altitude but angular momentum (horizontal speed) as well. This angular momentum is taken from the Earth’s own rotation. As the climber ascends it is initially moving slightly more slowly than the cable that it moves onto (Coriolis force) and thus the climber “drags” on the cable.

The overall effect of the centrifugal force acting on the cable causes it to constantly try to return to the energetically favourable vertical orientation, so after an object has been lifted on the cable the counterweight will swing back towards the vertical like an inverted pendulum[citation needed]. Provided that the space elevator is designed so that the center of weight always stays above geostationary orbit[39] for the maximum climb speed of the climbers, the elevator cannot fall over. Lift and descent operations must be carefully planned so as to keep the pendulum-like motion of the counterweight around the tether point under control.

By the time the payload has reached GEO the angular momentum (horizontal speed) is enough that the payload is in orbit.

The opposite process would occur for payloads descending the elevator, tilting the cable eastwards and insignificantly increasing Earth’s rotation speed.

It has also been proposed to use a second cable attached to a platform to lift payload up the main cable, since the lifting device would not have to deal with its own weight against Earth’s gravity. Out of the many proposed theories, powering any lifting device also continues to present a challenge.

[edit] Powering climbers

Both power and energy are significant issues for climbers – the climbers need to gain a large amount of potential energy as quickly as possible to clear the cable for the next payload.

Nuclear energy and solar power have been proposed, but generating enough energy to reach the top of the elevator in any reasonable time without weighing too much is not feasible.[40]

The proposed method is laser power beaming, using megawatt powered free electron or solid state lasers in combination with adaptive mirrors approximately 10 m wide and a photovoltaic array on the climber tuned to the laser frequency for efficiency.[29] A major obstacle for any climber design is the dissipation of the substantial amount of waste heat generated due to the less than perfect efficiency of any of the power methods.

Yoshio Aoki, a professor of precision machinery engineering at Nihon University and director of the Japan Space Elevator Association, suggested including a second cable and using the conductivity of carbon nanotubes to provide power.[27]

[edit] Counterweight

There have been several methods proposed for dealing with the counterweight need: a heavy object, such as a captured asteroid[6] or a space station, positioned past geostationary orbit, or extending the cable itself well past geostationary orbit. The latter idea has gained more support in recent years[year needed] due to the relative simplicity of the task and the fact that a payload that went to the end of the counterweight-cable would acquire considerable velocity relative to the Earth, allowing it to be launched into interplanetary space.

Additionally, Brad Edwards has proposed that initially elevators would be up-only, and that the elevator cars that are used to thicken the cable could simply be parked at the top of the cable and act as a counterweight.

[edit] Alternative concepts

Many different types of structures for accessing space have been suggested. As of 2004[update], concepts using geostationary tethers seem to be the only space elevator concept that is the subject of active research and commercial interest in space.[41]

The original concept envisioned by Tsiolkovsky was a compression structure, a concept similar to an aerial mast. While such structures might reach the agreed altitude for space (100 km), they are unlikely to reach geostationary orbit (35,786 km). The concept of a Tsiolkovsky tower combined with a classic space elevator cable has been suggested.[7]

Other alternatives to a space elevator include an orbital ring, space fountain, launch loop, Skyhook, space tether, and a space hoist.

[edit] Launching into outer space

The velocities that might be attained at the end of Pearson’s 144,000 km cable can be determined. The tangential velocity is 10.93 kilometers per second, which is more than enough to escape Earth’s gravitational field and send probes at least as far out as Jupiter. Once at Jupiter a gravitational assist maneuver permits solar escape velocity to be reached.[42]

[edit] Extraterrestrial elevators

A space elevator could also be constructed on other planets, asteroids and moons.

A Martian tether could be much shorter than one on Earth. Mars’ surface gravity is 38% of Earth’s, while it rotates around its axis in about the same time as Earth.[43] Because of this, Martian areostationary orbit is much closer to the surface, and hence the elevator would be much shorter. Exotic materials might not be required to construct such an elevator. However, building a Martian elevator would be a unique challenge because the Martian moon Phobos is in a low orbit, and intersects the Equator regularly (twice every orbital period of 11 h 6 min).

A lunar space elevator can possibly be built with currently available technology about 50,000 kilometers long extending though the Earth-Moon L1 point from an anchor point near the center of the visible part of Earth’s moon.[44]

On the far side of the moon, a lunar space elevator would need to be very long (more than twice the length of an Earth elevator) but due to the low gravity of the Moon, can be made of existing engineering materials.[44]

Rapidly spinning asteroids or moons could use cables to eject materials in order to move the materials to convenient points, such as Earth orbits;[citation needed] or conversely, to eject materials in order to send the bulk of the mass of the asteroid or moon to Earth orbit or a Lagrangian point. This was suggested by Russell Johnston in the 1980s.[citation needed] Freeman Dyson, a physicist and mathematician, has suggested[citation needed] using such smaller systems as power generators at points distant from the Sun where solar power is uneconomical. For the purpose of mass ejection, it is not necessary to rely on the asteroid or moon to be rapidly spinning. Instead of attaching the tether to the equator of a rotating body, it can be attached to a rotating hub on the surface. This was suggested in 1980 as a “Rotary Rocket” by Pearson[45] and described very succinctly on the Island One website as a “Tapered Sling”[46]

[edit] Construction
This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (November 2008)
Main article: Space elevator construction

The construction of a space elevator would be a vast project requiring advances in engineering, manufacturing, and physical technology.

[edit] Safety issues and construction difficulties
Main article: Space elevator safety

A space elevator would present a considerable navigational hazard, both to aircraft and spacecraft.[citation needed] Aircraft could be diverted by air-traffic control restrictions, but impacts by space objects such as meteoroids and micrometeorites pose a more difficult problem.[citation needed] One potential solution proposed by Edwards is to use a movable anchor (a sea anchor) to allow the tether to “dodge” any space debris large enough to track.

[edit] Economics
Main article: Space elevator economics

With a space elevator, materials might be sent into orbit at a fraction of the current cost. As of 2000, conventional rocket designs cost about $11,000 per kilogram for transfer to low earth or geostationary orbit. [47] Current proposals envision payload prices starting as low as $220 per kilogram[48]. Philip Ragan, co-author of the book “Leaving the Planet by Space Elevator”, states that “The first country to deploy a space elevator will have a 95 per cent cost advantage and could potentially control all space activities.” [49]

[edit] See also
Search Wikimedia Commons Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Space elevators
Spaceflight portal

* Lunar space elevator for the moon variant
* Space elevator construction discusses alternative construction methods of a space elevator.
* Space elevator safety discusses safety aspects of space elevator construction and operation.
* Space elevator economics discusses capital and maintenance costs of a space elevator.
* Space fountain – very tall structures using fast moving masses to hold it up
* Tether propulsion – methods using long boluses
* Launch loop – a hypervelocity belt system that forms a launch track at 80 km
* Space gun – a method for launching materials
* Lightcraft- an alternative method for moving materials or people
* Space elevators in fiction

[edit] References

[edit] Specific

1. ^ Hirschfeld, Bob (2002-01-31). “Space Elevator Gets Lift”. TechTV. G4 Media, Inc.. Archived from the original on 2005-06-08. http://web.archive.org/web/20050608080057/http://www.g4tv.com/techtvvault/features/35657/Space_Elevator_Gets_Lift.html. Retrieved on 2007-09-13. “The concept was first described in 1895 by Russian author K.E. Tsiolkovsky in his “Speculations about Earth and Sky and on Vesta.””
2. ^ Non-Synchronous Orbital Skyhooks for the Moon and Mars with Conventional Materials Hans Moravec 1978
3. ^ “Space Elevator Concept”. LiftPort Group. http://liftport.com/research2.php. Retrieved on 2007-07-28. ‘COUNTDOWN TO LIFT: October 27, 2031’
4. ^ David, Leonard (2002). “The Space Elevator Comes Closer to Reality”. http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html. ‘(Bradley Edwards said) In 12 years, we could be launching tons of payload every three days’
5. ^ “The Space Elevator”. Institute for Scientific Research, Inc.. http://www.isr.us/research_es_se.asp. Retrieved on 2006-03-05.
6. ^ a b “The Audacious Space Elevator”. NASA Science News. http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1.htm. Retrieved on 2008-09-27.
7. ^ a b c Geoffrey A. Landis and Christopher Cafarelli (1999). “The Tsiolkovski Tower Reexamined”. Journal of the British Interplanetary Society 52: 175–180.
8. ^ Artsutanov, Yu (1960). “To the Cosmos by Electric Train” (PDF). Young Person’s Pravda. http://www.liftport.com/files/Artsutanov_Pravda_SE.pdf. Retrieved on 2006-03-05.
9. ^ Isaacs, J. D.; A. C. Vine, H. Bradner and G. E. Bachus (1966). “Satellite Elongation into a True ‘Sky-Hook'”. Science 11.
10. ^ J. Pearson (1975). “The orbital tower: a spacecraft launcher using the Earth’s rotational energy” (PDF). Acta Astronautica 2: 785–799. doi:10.1016/0094-5765(75)90021-1. http://www.star-tech-inc.com/papers/tower/tower.pdf.
11. ^ Hans P. Moravec, “A Non-Synchronous Orbital Skyhook,” Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 25, October-December 1977
12. ^ Science @ NASA, Audacious & Outrageous: Space Elevators, September 2000
13. ^ “Space Elevators: An Advanced Earth-Space Infrastructure for the New Millennium”. http://www.affordablespaceflight.com/spaceelevator.html.
14. ^ Bradley Edwards, Eureka Scientific, NIAC Phase I study
15. ^ Bradley Edwards, Eureka Scientific, NIAC Phase II study
16. ^ Yu, Min-Feng; Files, Bradley S.; Arepalli, Sivaram; Ruoff, Rodney S. (2000). “Tensile Loading of Ropes of Single Wall Carbon Nanotubes and their Mechanical Properties”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84: 5552–5555. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.5552. http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v84/i24/p5552_1.
17. ^ Min-Feng Yu, Oleg Lourie, Mark J. Dyer, Katerina Moloni, Thomas F. Kelly, Rodney S. Ruoff (2000). “Strength and Breaking Mechanism of Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes Under Tensile Load”. Science no. 287 (5453): 637–640. doi:10.1126/science.287.5453.637. PMID 10649994. http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/287/5453/637.
18. ^ Boyle, Alan. “Space elevator contest proposed”. MSNBC. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5792719/. Retrieved on 2006-03-05.
19. ^ “The Space Elevator – Elevator:2010”. http://www.elevator2010.org/. Retrieved on 2006-03-05.
20. ^ “Space Elevator Ribbon Climbing Robot Competition Rules”. http://robolympics.net/rules/climbing.shtml. Retrieved on 2006-03-05.
21. ^ “NASA Announces First Centennial Challenges’ Prizes”. 2005. http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2005/mar/HQ_m05083_Centennial_prizes.html. Retrieved on 2006-03-05.
22. ^ Britt, Robert Roy. “NASA Details Cash Prizes for Space Privatization”. Space.com. http://www.space.com/news/050323_centennial_challenge.html. Retrieved on 2006-03-05.
23. ^ “Space Elevator Group to Manufacture Nanotubes”. Universe Today. 2005. http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/liftport_manufacture_nanotubes.html?2742005. Retrieved on 2006-03-05.
24. ^ Groshong, Kimm (2006-02-15). “Space-elevator tether climbs a mile high”. NewScientist.com (New Scientist). http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn8725.html. Retrieved on 2006-03-05.
25. ^ http://www.spaceward.org/elevator2010
26. ^ The Spaceward Foundation
27. ^ a b c d “Japan hopes to turn sci-fi into reality with elevator to the stars”. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4799369.ece. Lewis, Leo; News International Group; accessed 2008-09-22.
28. ^ “Leaving the Planet by Space Elevator”. http://www.leavingtheplanet.com/. Edwards, Bradley C. and Westling, Eric A. and Ragan, Philip; Leasown Pty Ltd.; accessed 2008-09-26.
29. ^ a b “The Space Elevator NIAC Phase II Final Report” (PDF). NASA. http://www.spaceelevator.com/docs/521Edwards.pdf. Retrieved on 2007-06-12.
30. ^ a b c Demczyk, B.G. (2002). “Direct mechanical measurement of the tensile strength and elastic modulus of multiwalled carbon nanotubes” (PDF). http://www.glue.umd.edu/~cumings/PDF%20Publications/16.MSE%20A334demczyk.pdf. Retrieved on 2007-07-15. “2–5 GPa for fibers [2,3] and up to 20 GPa for ‘whiskers’”, “Depending on the choice of this surface, ?T can range from E/7 to E/5 (0.14–0.177 TPa)”
31. ^ Mills, Jordan (2002). “Carbon Nanotube POF”. http://depts.washington.edu/polylab/cn.html. Retrieved on 2007-07-15.
32. ^ 52nd Hatfield Memorial Lecture : Large Chunks of Very Strong Steel
33. ^ http://www.strangehorizons.com/2003/20030714/orbital_railroads.shtml
34. ^ T. Yildirim, O. Gülseren, Ç. K?l?ç, S. Ciraci (2000). “Pressure-induced interlinking of carbon nanotubes”. Phys. Rev. B 62: 12648–12651. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.62.12648+. http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v62/p12648.
35. ^ “UPC Team Recens’ Answer to NASA’s Beam Power Space Elevator Challenge” (PDF). Polytechnic University of Catalonia. March 26, 2007. http://www.domitech.es/recensteam/recensteam/documentos/RecensTeam%20paper.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-02-11.
36. ^ Randall Parker. “Carbon Nanotube Fibers Tougher, Stronger Than Steel Or Spider Silk”. http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/001388.html.
37. ^ Peng, H.; Chen, D.; et al., Huang J.Y. et al. (2008). “Strong and Ductile Colossal Carbon Tubes with Walls of Rectangular Macropores”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (14): 145501. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.101.145501.
38. ^ Al Globus; David Bailey, Jie Han, Richard Jaffe, Creon Levit, Ralph Merkle, and Deepak Srivastava. “NAS-97-029: NASA Applications of Molecular Nanotechnology” (PDF). NASA. http://www.nas.nasa.gov/News/Techreports/1997/PDF/nas-97-029.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-09-27.
39. ^ “Why the Space Elevator’s Center of Mass is not at GEO” by Blaise Gassend
40. ^ Edwards. “NIAC Space Elevator Report – Chapter 4: Power Beaming”. NASA. Archived from the original on 2007-10-13. http://web.archive.org/web/20071013160456/http://isr.us/Downloads/niac_pdf/chapter4.html. “Alternatives that have been suggested include running power up the cable, solar or nuclear power onboard and using the cable’s movement in the environment’s electromagnetic field. None of these methods are feasible on further examination due to efficiency or mass considerations.”
41. ^ Bradley C. Edwards, Ben Shelef (2004). “THE SPACE ELEVATOR AND NASA’S NEW SPACE INITIATIVE” (PDF). 55th International Astronautical Congress 2004 – Vancouver, Canada. http://www.spaceelevator.com/docs/521Edwards.pdf. Retrieved on 2007-07-28. ‘At this time the space elevator is not included in the NASA space exploration program or funded in any form by NASA except through a congressional appropriation ($1.9M to ISR/MSFC)’
42. ^ P. K. Aravind (February 2007). “The physics of the space elevator”. American Journal of Physics (American Association of Physics Teachers) 45 (2). doi:10.1119/1.2404957.
43. ^ “Hans Moravec: SPACE ELEVATORS (1980)”. http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/1976.skyhook/1982.articles/elevate.800322.
44. ^ a b Pearson, Jerome; Eugene Levin, John Oldson and Harry Wykes (2005). “Lunar Space Elevators for Cislunar Space Development Phase I Final Technical Report” (PDF). http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/1032Pearson.pdf.
45. ^ “Asteroid Retrieval by Rotary Rocket” (PDF). NASA. http://www.star-tech-inc.com/papers/asteroids/asteroids.pdf. Retrieved on 2007-06-12.
46. ^ “Tapered Sling”. Island One Society. http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/SPBI1SL.HTM. Retrieved on 2007-06-12.
47. ^ “Delayed countdown”. Fultron Corporation. The Information Company Pvt Ltd. 18 October 2002. http://www.domain-b.com/companies/companies_f/futron_corporation/20021018_countdown.html. Retrieved on June 3, 2009.
48. ^ The Spaceward Foundation. “The Space Elevator FAQ”. Mountain View, CA. http://www.spaceward.org/elevator-faq. Retrieved on June 3, 2009.
49. ^ Ramadge, Andrew; Schneider, Kate (17 November 2008). “Race on to build world’s first space elevator”. http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,25642,24662622-5014239,00.html. Retrieved on June 3, 2009.

[Isaa66] Isaacs, J. D., A. C. Vine, H. Bradner & G. E. Bachus (1966) ‘Satellite Elongation into a True “Sky-Hook”’ Science 151: 682-683.

[edit] General

* Edwards BC, Ragan P. “Leaving The Planet By Space Elevator” Seattle, USA: Lulu; 2006. ISBN 978-1-4303-0006-9 See Leaving The Planet
* Edwards BC, Westling EA. The Space Elevator: A Revolutionary Earth-to-Space Transportation System. San Francisco, USA: Spageo Inc.; 2002. ISBN 0-9726045-0-2.
* Space Elevators – An Advanced Earth-Space Infrastructure for the New Millennium [PDF]. A conference publication based on findings from the Advanced Space Infrastructure Workshop on Geostationary Orbiting Tether “Space Elevator” Concepts, held in 1999 at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama. Compiled by D.V. Smitherman, Jr., published August 2000.
* “The Political Economy of Very Large Space Projects” HTML PDF, John Hickman, Ph.D. Journal of Evolution and Technology Vol. 4 – November 1999.
* The Space Elevator NIAC report by Dr. Bradley C. Edwards
* A Hoist to the Heavens By Bradley Carl Edwards
* Ziemelis K. “Going up”. In New Scientist 2001-05-05, no.2289, p. 24–27. Republished in SpaceRef. Title page: “The great space elevator: the dream machine that will turn us all into astronauts.”
* The Space Elevator Comes Closer to Reality. An overview by Leonard David of space.com, published 27 March 2002.
* Krishnaswamy, Sridhar. Stress Analysis — The Orbital Tower (PDF)
* LiftPort’s Roadmap for Elevator To Space SE Roadmap (PDF)
* Space Elevators Face Wobble Problem: New Scientist

* Peter Swan & Cathy Swan, “Space Elevator Systems Architecture.” Lulu.com 2007. isbn 978-1-4303-1405-9 See ref. 555344 at http://www.lulu.com

[edit] External links
Listen to this article (info/dl)
Play sound
This audio file was created from a revision dated 2006-05-29, and does not reflect subsequent edits to the article. (Audio help)
More spoken articles
This is a spoken version of the article. Click here to listen.

* Elevator:2010 Space elevator prize competitions
* The Space Elevator Reference
* Space Elevator Engineering-Development wiki
* Audacious & Outrageous: Space Elevators
* Ing-Math.Net (Germany) – Ing-Math.Net (German Max-Born Space Elevator Team 2006) (German)
* Project of the Scientific Workgroup for Rocketry and Spaceflight(WARR) (German)
* The Economist: Waiting For The Space Elevator (June 8, 2006 – subscription required)
* CBC Radio Quirks and Quarks November 3, 2001 Riding the Space Elevator
* Times of London Online: Going up … and the next floor is outer space
* The Space Elevator: ‘Thought Experiment’, or Key to the Universe?. By Sir Arthur C. Clarke. Address to the XXXth International Astronautical Congress, Munich, 20 September 1979.


* 2008 [1]
* 2002 [2] Description of the 2002 conference

Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator”
Categories: Exploratory engineering | Megastructures | Space colonization | Spacecraft propulsion | Space technology | Vertical transportation devices | Space access



Elevator:2010 – The Space Elevator Challenge

Follow the games on the Space Elevator Games Offical Web Site

* We are practically there! This week marked the beginning of the home stretch – just a few more weeks till the games.
* The teams are ready, Dryden is ready, the helicopter operator is ready – we’re sure you are ready too.
* (TBA), NASA Dryden Research Center.
* Follow us there!


Climbing The Sky

The dream of a Space Elevator is a monumental one. A vision that will not only further space exploration and knowledge, but has the potential to shape the existential future of the human race for centuries to come.

For the first time since it was initially conceived, this dream is now within our reach.

With the Elevator:2010 challenge, the Spaceward Foundation has joined the on-going construction effort, adding energy, resources and new initiatives to the ever-growing number of organizations, companies, websites and enthusiasts focused on the technical, political and economic development of the Space Elevator.

Our goal is to generate enough interest in the project, so that within five years the Space Elevator basic building blocks can be demonstrated as feasible, and full-scale design and construction can begin.

And hence our name. Elevator:2010. we promise to get an answer for you by then.


Elevator:2010 is designed to address the “social engineering” of the Space Elevator. Taking our cue from the X-prize, solar car races, and various other competitive ventures, we use engineering competitions as a tool to capture mindshare in academia, space enthusiast community, and the general public. If we can have even 10 universities and 100 engineering students involved with the Space Elevator project each year, we’d have left our mark on the aerospace community.

In the days of airships, the advocates of planes devised a new way to promote their (obviously impractical…) inventions. It was called an “air show”, and it had a dual purpose: First, these pioneers knew that they could explain airplanes all they wanted using equations and diagrams – it was not until they showed them flying that they really got their message across. Second, they recognized the power of competition – by bringing together airplane enthusiasts in a competitive environment, they were able to accelerate the rate of development beyond what was likely in the isolated confines of their shops.

Our goal is to infect the engineering and science community with our passion for building the Space Elevator, thus making them ambassadors to our cause. As the fruits of their efforts take to the sky every year, we will have demonstrated the feasibility and sheer simplicity of the Space Elevator concept, and will have brought it closer to reality.

Our prize money is provided by NASA’s Centennial Challenges program – a total of $4,000,000 over the next 5 years! To maximize our return and reduce our risk, we distribute the money in slowly increasing increments, as we ratchet up the difficulty level of the challenges.

Power Beaming (Climber) Competition

Our most visible competition event, the power beaming / climber competition challenges universities, enthusiasts and private industry teams to design and build the best possible Space Elevator climber prototype.

We provide the race track, in the form of a vertically-suspended ribbon (and other support hardware), and the teams provide the climbers that carry payload up that ribbon, along with the power beaming systems that power them.

The climbers are rated on the basis of speed and amount of payload.
• Read all about it…

Tether Strength Competition

The Space Elevator design will live or die on our ability to produce a material that is sufficiently light and strong enough to bear its own weight against the force of Earth’s gravity.

The tether competition is a perpetual dare for any group to present a tether that is at least 50% better than last year’s best offering.

Tethers are ranked according to strength and weight.
• Read all about it…


[From – ]

The Spaceward Foundation 2008 – www.spaceward.org – Mountain View, CA



Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)

+ SBIR/STTR 2009 Phase 1 Solicitation
July 7, 2009 to September 3, 2009

+ SBIR/STTR 2009-1 Proposal Submission EHB now online
Proposals due no later than 5:00 pm EDT on September 3, 2009

<!–+ SBIR 2008-2 Proposal Submission EHB now online
Proposals due no later than 5:00 pm EDT on the last day of the Phase 1 contract
–>+ The Concept SBIR/STTR Quarterly Newsletter

<!– Proposals due on the last day of the Phase 1 contract (no later than 5:00 pm EST on August , 2008)

+ SBIR 2005-2 Proposal Submission EHB
Submission Closed–>
+ TechSource – An easy way to search recently funded SBIR/STTR Phase 2 technologies

[From – ]


(And – definitely check out this – )

SBIR/STTR Program Information

The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Programs provide an opportunity for small, high technology companies and research institutions (RI) to participate in Government sponsored research and development (R&D) efforts in key technology areas.

If you are a small business concern with 500 or fewer employees, or a non-profit RI, such as a university or a research laboratory with ties to an SBC, then NASA encourages you to learn more about these programs and significant sources of seed funding for the development of your innovations. The SBIR Phase 1 contracts last for 6 months with a maximum funding of $100,000, and Phase 2 contracts last for 24 months with a maximum funding of $600,000. The STTR Phase 1 contracts last for 12 months with a maximum funding of $100,000, and Phase 2 contracts last for 24 months with the maximum contract value of $600,000.

Historically, the ratio of the number of Phase 1 proposals to awards for SBIR is 7:1 and for STTR is 5:1. About 40 percent of the completed Phase 1 projects receive funding for Phase 2 development.

Topic Resource
The Basics of SBIR and STTR
Participation Guide
Conference Briefings
NASA Field Installation SBIR and STTR Program Managers
NASA SBIR/STTR Support Office
Related NASA Teams NASA Technology Applications Team
<!– NASA Technology Planning & Integration
–> Other NASA Small Business Sources
Business & Technology Assistance The Small Business Administration
State Small Business Programs
NASA Technology Utilization Services
NASA Sponsored Business Incubators



National Inventors Month Poster

National Inventors Month Poster


[My Note – now this is an invention . . . ] , cricketdiane wowsa note –
Bugatti Boosted by NASA for 253 mph at $2.1 Million (Update1)

Review by Jason H. Harper

Aug. 6 (Bloomberg) — It’s the ultimate test in self- confidence. You’re refueling Bugatti’s new convertible at a gas station in the Hamptons and the normally gawk-proof locals have gathered around, gawking. One man finally asks The Question.

“How much IS this car, anyway?”

Sliding back into the fine-leather cocoon of your open-top roadster, you fire up the 16-cylinder, 1,001-horsepower engine positioned behind your head.

“Two million, give or take.”
Then, you whisk away in a roar of turbo power that drowns out the sound of dropping jaws. You may want to practice the answer first in front of a mirror.

With a base price of 1.4 million euros ($2 million), the Bugatti Veyron Grand Sport is the world’s most expensive car in production. My test car is $2.1 million. Exchange rate fluctuations could swing the U.S. sticker by as much as the price of a new Porsche.

(Aston Martin’s coming One-77, at least 1 million pounds ($1.7 million) excluding tax, will also land in the top-dollar class.)

While the Grand Sport claims many superlatives, including the title of world’s fastest convertible, I doubt you’ll escape that question, even at a top speed of 253 miles per hour. Some bystander would cry out at the blur, “How much?”

For readers who do not sacrifice Toyota hybrids at the altar of exotic-car geekdom, allow me to catch you up.

Resurrected Marque

The Grand Sport is the convertible version of the Veyron 16.4, the 1.2-million euro coupe first released in 2006 after the storied Bugatti marque was resurrected by Volkswagen Group. With a top speed also of 253 miles per hour, it captured the title of the world’s fastest production car at the time.

The Grand Sport is the ultimate one-upper. With 150 slated for production, it’s rarer than the coupe, will go just as fast when the clear targa-style roof is attached, and you can smell your greenbacks burning as you tool around.

Roughly the size of a Honda Civic, the mid-engine, all- wheel-drive roadster is powered by a W-16 engine with four turbochargers that’ll fire you forward with 922 pound-feet of face-deforming torque. It has an automated seven-speed dual- clutch transmission, and a suspension that automatically adjusts according to your speed.

Utterly distinctive if not drop-dead sexy, it features two jet-like airtakes over the exposed mid-engine and a rounded, low silhouette. The interior is gorgeous but simple, with no screens and no storage. The roof is removed manually and must be stored elsewhere. While there’s an umbrella contraption that can be used in a pinch (really), best have Jeeves check the weather.

Maddening Hamptons

I get a day with it in the Hamptons, both ideal and maddening. Showing off your latest acquisition here is practically a religion, yet you’ll rarely exceed 35 mph.

It’s difficult to review the Grand Sport in a regular way. You could buy 10 Ferrari F430s for this price, and it’s clearly not 10 times as good. It’s a mega-luxury item, akin to a $9,000 Birkin bag which holds a wallet just like a regular bag.
What ostensibly makes the Veyron worth the $2 million? Could it be a Swarovski crystal-encrusted engine, those supple unicorn-leather seats or the tears of virgins in the window- washing fluid. Well, no. Mostly it’s the cost of engineering and the NASA-grade materials that keep the weight down.

To sustain sonic speeds, it needs special components, from a windshield that can sustain a bird strike to tires that won’t turn into sludge with extreme heat. VW probably spent the equivalent of a Wall Street bailout to engineer, build and test crash the two models.

How often will owners actually drive 253 mph? Never. But how often will they talk about it at parties?

Polo Practice

To answer that question, I pull into the grass parking lot of the Mercedes-Benz Polo Challenge in Bridgehampton. My wife and I are instant, mysterious VIPs. Russian oligarchs perhaps, or Pablo Escobar’s former accountant, finally out of hiding.

We make new friends fast.

None of which has anything to do with the actual driving capabilities. In traffic, the Veyron is compliant and puppy-dog sweet, sans exotic-car antics. But drop your foot onto the gas and it becomes an earth-bound jet.
I have never experienced acceleration like this. Never.

Sixty flashes by in 2.5 seconds; 125 mph in just over 7. Basically, it’s twice as fast as fast cars. There is no lag; it just goes faster and faster and faster until you run out of courage and road.

You’re in a convertible, remember, and the engine sounds like an F-16 is behind your shoulder, about to drop its full payload. Absolutely delightful.

Spray the Hose

I do open the car up, but more in a dribble-the-spigot way than a spray-the-hose fashion, not wanting to spend the night in jail.

The carbon-ceramic brakes will give you whiplash and, on twisty roads, the Bugatti will do a fair imitation of a Ferrari 430 Scuderia. It’s amazing to scream around a corner in a car that costs the same as your dream two-bedroom home in the West Village.

At the end of the day, I step out exhilarated, yet also a bit relieved. Answering The Question (and its inherent need to justify that sum) is just a bit too stressful for my own particular man in the mirror.

The 2010 Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Grand Sport at a Glance

Engine: 8.0-liter, quad-turbo, W-16 with 1,001 hp and 922 lb-ft of torque.

Transmission: 7-speed dual clutch.

Speed: 0 to 60 in 2.5 seconds.

Gas mileage per gallon: 8 city; 14 highway.

Price as tested: $2.1 million.

Best feature: The mind-bending speed.

Worst feature: Trying to justify the equally mind-bending price.

Target buyer: A Master of the Universe.

(Jason H. Harper writes about autos for Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Jason H. Harper at Jason@JasonHharper.com.
Last Updated: August 6, 2009 09:00 EDT



National Inventors Month
August is National Inventors Month

By Mary Bellis, About.com
See More About:

* national inventors month
* august

National Inventors Month
Inventors Convention Funding for Inventions Inventors Inventions American Inventors Inventors Patents
August is National Inventors Month. A month long event celebrating invention and creativity. National Inventors Month began was started in 1998 by the United Inventors Association of the USA (UIA-USA), the Academy of Applied Science, and Inventors’ Digest magazine.

Why have National Inventors Month as a month dedicated to inventors? The answer is to help promote the positive image of inventors and the real contributions they give to this world.

“We want to recognize those talented, brave individuals who dare to be blatantly creative, and therefore different, and whose accomplishments affect every facet of our lives,” says Joanne Hayes-Rines, editor of Inventors’ Digest and a sponsor of National Inventors Month.

National Inventors Month – Poster
You can print this official poster and hang it up.
National Inventors Month – Sponsors

* Inventors’ Digest – Sponsor of National Inventors’ Month
* United Inventors Association of the USA Sponsor of National Inventors’ Month
* Academy of Applied Science A sponsor of National Inventors Month, the Academy of Applied Science is a private, nonprofit organization, incorporated in 1963, with educational and scientific purposes and a major commitment to innovation.


Explore Inventors
Must Reads

* I Know Nothing – What Do I Do?
* Have a New Invention?
* Find: A to Z Inventions
* Find: A to Z Inventors
* Timeline

Most Popular

The History of Computers – Computer History TimelineFamous Inventions A to ZThomas Edison – The Inventions of Thomas EdisonHistory of the TelephoneFamous Inventors A to Z
See More About:

* national inventors month

* august

By Category

* Inventing 101 – Beginners
* Need a Patent or Trademark?
* Selling Your Product
* Supplies
* Famous Inventions
* Famous Inventors

* Technology Timelines
* African Americans
* Women Inventors
* Photo Gallery
* Wacky Weird Gadgets
* For & About Kids

About.com Special Features

* 2001 National Young Game Inventor’s Contest Sponsors
* National Academies Launch Evolution Website
* CAIB Board Chairman Names New Member
* On This Date in History – September 4
* Building Your Small Business

Browse All About.com




National Inventors’ Month Poster



An image of a 777 aircraft and a bar-tailed godwit with a question mark overlayed.

What do a Boeing 777 and a Bar-Tailed Godwit have in common? The Bar-Tailed Godwit is a bird, but that’s the only hint I’m giving you. And no fair cheating by using Google.

Stumped? Find the answer (and what it has to do with energy independence) on my Facebook page.

The Answer (exit DOE)



DOE Awards $377 Million in Funding for 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers
Washington, DC – In a major effort to accelerate the scientific breakthroughs needed to build a new 21st-century energy economy, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced the delivery of $377 million in funding for 46 new multi-million-dollar Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) located at universities, national laboratories, nonprofit organizations, and private firms across the nation.
Batteries Announcement – North Carolina
Remarks as Delivered: Secretary Chu announces $49 Million for the production of Lithium Ion Batteries.
President Obama Announces $2.4 Billion in Grants to Accelerate the Manufacturing and Deployment of the Next Generation of U.S. Batteries and Electric Vehicles
Elkhart, Indiana – Further accelerating the manufacturing and deployment of electric vehicles, batteries, and components here in America, and creating tens of thousands of new jobs, President Obama announced 48 new advanced battery and electric drive projects that will receive $2.4 billion in funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.







Basics – How to Become a Successful Inventor

By Mary Bellis, About.com Guide to Inventors

Learn the relationship between patents and the market value of inventions, the need for counsel, the need for prior art searches and about being skeptical of invention promoters. Learn the many different aspects of invention step by step.


Turning an Invention Idea into Money
Lesson Nine: How Do I License an Invention?

By Mary Bellis, About.com
See More About:

* licensing
* marketing
* manufacturers
* uspto

(c) FreeFoto.com(c) FreeFoto.com
Sponsored Links

Want To Patent An Idea?Take The Next Step Now. Marketing, Patent & Prototype Help. Free Info!www.InventionHome.com

Do You Have an Idea?Find Companies that Can Turn Your Idea Into A Real Product. Start Nowwww.Idea4Invention.com

Invention Idea-Start HereTurn Your Invention Idea into a New Product – Let Us Help.Davison.com
Inventors Ads
Patent Drawing Free Patent License Idea License Products Invention Marketing Licensing
Introduction – About These Lessons

If you have a patent or have applied for a patent (patent pending) you can attempt to license your patent rights. Non patented inventions can be licensed as well and the research/marketing methods would be the same, however, extra/different steps would be taken that are not covered here.

Use This Resource – List of Manufacturers
Create a list of potential manufacturers who may be interested in your product. In our lesson on searching for prior art it was suggested that you write down any patent assignees – now you can understand a use for them. Aim for a list of at least 50 or more.

Find manufacturers by looking in stores and magazines for similar products. Visit product related tradeshows. Your local library should have great reference material on manufacturers. Use online manufacturer databases such as the Thomas Register to search for companies that make a product like yours. You can do an Internet search for manufacturers by using the keywords of your product.

Send a Marketing Letter
Send a brief individually tailored and professional looking marketing letter to each company on your list. The letter will state that, you are willing to consider selling or licensing the patent rights to your invention. With your marketing letter, it is superior to include a professional looking brochure and a website address connected to your product. A short one-page color brochure with photos, that describes your invention and its benefits, should also be included with the marketing letter. A second choice would be to send a copy of your patent drawings. Wait one month, if a company has not replied you can then telephone them to see if they are interested in your product.

Treat Your Licensing Agreement Seriously
If you have the opportunity to negotiate for a licensing agreement, you may want to use an experienced lawyer. It is not advisable for you to negotiate the contract on your own. The license agreement will include provisions for upfront payments, royalty percentages and infringement issues. You can give an exclusive license to one party, or a non-exclusive license to more than one party. You can set a time or territory limit on the license or not.

The USPTO will publish in its official gazette a notice that your patent is available for licensing or sale for a fee.

Continue > Lesson 10: Business Plans
License an Invention

Rules for Patent Licensing & Patent AssignmentLicense an InventionDirectory: Patent License
Table of Contents

IntroductionNext Lesson: Business PlansLast Lesson: Making Money
Suggested Reading

Research Your MarketFinding ManufacturersDirectory: Selling Ideas
Related Articles

* How to License Your Invention
* License Your Patented Invention
* Companies who sell products from multiple manufacturers to the spa industry…
* Patent Information – What Is A Patent and What Does Patent Ownership Mean?
* Pressure on the American Patent System – USPTO

Mary Bellis
Guide since 1997

Mary Bellis
Inventors Guide

* Sign up for my Newsletter

* My Blog
* My Forum



National Inventors Month – Great Everyday Inventions

InventHelp’s Tribute to the Inventors of Kleenex®, the Zipper
and Disposable Razors

For those of us involved in the world of inventing, August is a special month – it’s National Inventor’s Month! We at InventHelp® are excited that this time is set aside to celebrate the achievements of the innovative and entrepreneurial, although we feel that 31 days is not nearly long enough to get the job done right!
Read more articles from the August 2006 issue of InventHelp’s free newsletter for inventors
2006 ERA Invention Showcase Preview

Invention Trivia: Who received the first U.S. patent?

Thousands of inventors have helped to shape the world into what it is today, and choosing the best ones is no easy task. Computers, microwaves and antibiotics are routinely listed among the best inventions of all time. While their importance is indisputable, the everyday inventions that make our lives easier often get overlooked. As proof that great inventions do not always have to be complicated, InventHelp® honors a few of our favorite simple pleasures.

AH-CHOO! The Invention of the Kleenex®

Before the invention of disposable tissues, whenever you had a cold, you would simply blow your nose into your handkerchief, place it back into your pocket, and repeat as necessary – not exactly the best way to get rid of a bug. In the 1920s, Kleenex® Brand invented the facial tissue category, which was touted by screen legends Helen Hayes and Jean Harlow.

In 1926, Kleenex® Facial Tissue 200s were introduced in Canada to serve as a handkerchief replacement, much to the relief of the flu-afflicted. Ads that featured film superstars helped the brand continue to grow and expand its line. By 1928, Kleenex® offered cartons with perforated tops for easy access to tissues. Over the next several decades, more varieties, colors and decorative boxes found their way into the Kleenex® line. In 2004, Kleenex® introduced an anti-viral tissue that is designed to keep germs trapped inside the tissue.

Undoubtedly, the invention of the Kleenex® has shorted the length of a cold for many of us. Although, if you visit Grandpa, he may still be using his handkerchief.

Keeping It “Together” – The Invention of the Zipper

The interesting story of the zipper is the perfect example of how a great idea can take a long time to take off. In the zipper’s case, it took about 80 years.

National Inventors MonthElias Howe, who also invented the sewing machine, received a patent in 1851 for an “automatic, continuous clothing closure,” but the runaway success of the sewing machine left him with little time to develop this invention.

It wasn’t until 44 years later that Whitcomb Judson developed a “clasp locker” that was similar in design to Howe’s closing device. Judson and business partner Colonel Lewis Walker founded the Universal Fastener Company to manufacture the device. Even after its debut appearance at the Chicago World’s Fair in 1893, the invention of the zipper had yet to find commercial success.

The modern design of the zipper evolved when Swedish-born Gideon Sunback joined the Universal Fastener Company. He also created the manufacturing machine for the new zipper, which could produce several hundred feet of fastener per day.

The name “zipper” was invented by the B.F. Goodrich Company, who used the fastening device on a new type of boot. Aside from boots, it took another 20 years for the zipper to catch on in the fashion world. But, over the years, zippers have made their way onto clothing, luggage and countless other objects.

As you can see, it was a long way up for the zipper invention.

A “Sharp” Idea – The Inventor of Disposable Razors

It’s estimated that men will spend an average of five months of their lives shaving, so it’s no surprise that one man, King Camp Gillette, took it upon himself to make the job easier!

When Gillette’s home burned to the ground during the Chicago Fire of 1871, he became a traveling salesman. His work led him to William Painter, inventor of the Crown Cap, who told Gillette that a successful invention was one that was purchased again and again.

One morning, Gillette dreamed up an entirely new razor that could be used several times and discarded (see how clever that Kleenex® was?). In 1901, he enlisted the help of MIT grad William Nickerson to create a metal blade that was sturdy yet inexpensive. The disposable razor enjoyed a great boost when the U.S. government issued “safety razors” to the entire armed forces. In later years, razors with two, three, four and yes, five blades were introduced to the public.

While Gillette pioneered the invention of disposable razors, his competitor, Lieutenant Colonel Jacob Schick, beat him by a “hair” when Schick patented the first electric razor in 1925.

During National Inventor’s Month, InventHelp® is proud to celebrate the inventors who have enriched our world with their discoveries. From everyday conveniences to modern miracles, inventions change the way people live. By the time we celebrate National Inventor’s Month next year, who knows how many more amazing inventions will make life better for all of us?

Back to Articles for Inventors | Back to August 2006 Newsletter



Sunday, August 09, 2009
U.S. Census Bureau Daily Feature for August 9

You must login or register in order to recommend this.

ShareThis | Respond to Editor | Print


WASHINGTON, Aug 09, 2009 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ —-Following is the daily “Profile America” feature from the U.S. Census Bureau:

(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20090226/CENSUSLOGO)


Profile America — Sunday, August 9th. Inventions make our lives easier, more enjoyable and, in some cases, save our lives. They range from the astonishing to the ridiculous — from lasers to hula hoops, and from disposable diapers to iPods. The most common image of an inventor is that of a quirky, if not downright eccentric, genius. Doing away with that stereotype is one of the goals of National Inventors Month, held each year in August, as well as getting young people interested in science and technology. Each year, nearly 160,000 patents are granted for inventions, with about one-in-10 going to individuals. The remainder are awarded to corporations, about half of them in foreign countries. You can find these and more facts about America from the U.S. Census Bureau online at http://www.census.gov.

Sources: Chase’s Calendar of Events 2009, p.387

Statistical Abstract of the United States 2009, t. 748

Profile America is produced by the Public Information Office of the U.S. Census Bureau. These daily features are available as produced segments, ready to air, on a monthly CD or on the Internet at http://www.census.gov (look under the “Newsroom” button).

SOURCE U.S. Census Bureau




Upcoming Events

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Inventors Assistance Program and the National Inventors Hall of Fame® Foundation are proud to announce the 14th Annual Independent Inventors Conference being held at the USPTO Campus in Alexandria, VA on November 5 and 6, 2009. The conference includes breakout sessions for novice and seasoned inventors along with practical advice from USPTO experts, successful inventors and patent practitioners. Future updates will be posted to the USPTO home page.



US Patent and Trademark Office – Inventors’ Resources Portal


My Note –

There is a non-disclosure form on the WIPO site to use as a model for interested manufacturers, investors, venture capitalists to sign before seeing what you’ve created, invented, dreamed up or otherwise originated.

WIPO is the World Intellectual Property something or other . . .

– cricketdiane, 08-09-09


Energy Efficiency

The Department of Energy is committed to reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil and developing energy efficient technologies for buildings, homes, transportation, power systems and industry. The mission of the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) is to strengthen America’s energy security, environmental quality, and economic vitality in public-private partnerships that: enhance energy efficiency and productivity; bring clean, reliable and affordable energy technologies to the marketplace; and make a difference in the everyday lives of Americans by enhancing their energy choices and their quality of life.

EERE leads the Federal government’s research, development, and deployment efforts in energy efficiency. EERE’s role is to invest in high-risk, high-value research and development that is critical to the Nation’s energy future and would not be sufficiently conducted by the private sector acting on its own.

Program activities are conducted in partnership with the private sector, state and local government, DOE national laboratories, and universities. EERE also works with stakeholders to develop programs and policies to facilitate the deployment of advanced clean energy technologies and practices.

National Energy Policy report cover Energy for America’s future
The National Energy Policy promotes the development and deployment of energy systems and practices that will provide current and future generations with clean, efficient, affordable, and reliable energy.
Energy Star text logo Protecting the environment through energy efficiency
By working closely with private industry, governments and consumers the ENERGY STAR® program was established in 1992 to identify energy efficient products and reduce carbon emissions.
illustration of the sun and a solar panel Making homes more energy efficient
The Weatherization Assistance Program works to reduce the burden of energy prices on the disadvantaged by making low income homes more energy efficient.
white circle with electricity emanating from it Maintaining energy for the future
Department initiatives help industry maintain the infrastructure to deliver energy to the consumer now, and for the future.
White Leaf on Green Background Learn How You Can Make Every Day Earth Day
Explore ways to save energy and improve the environment by taking simple steps around your home.



My Note – you know somebody needs to look into what kind of foolishness will happen on 09-09-09 (simply because of the number combination.) With any luck and foresight, it will be something useful instead of some stupidifying terror act or obscene computer thing.

It would be good to see what the folks over there at Mensa, MIT and Stanford to celebrate the National Inventors Month – they are always coming out with really nifty stuff . . .

– cricketdiane


Campus of USPTO in Alexandria, Virginia.

Secretary Locke Statement on Confirmation of David Kappos as Patent and Trade Director

Washington (Aug. 7)—The U.S. Senate today confirmed David Kappos as the new Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke issued the following statement: “We are grateful to the Senate for its swift confirmation of David Kappos to lead the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It’s no secret that the agency currently faces significant and persistent challenges, but David is the right person to meet them and carry out my top priority for the USPTO—dramatically reducing the unacceptably long time it takes to process patent applications.” (More)



WIPO Launches On-line Tool to Facilitate Access to Targeted Scientific Information



Census 2010  Topics 2010 Census · News
American Community Survey · Census 2000
Estimates · Projections · Housing · Income | State Median Income · Poverty · Health Insurance · International · Genealogy · More
Economic Census · Get Help with Your Form · Economic Indicators · NAICS · Survey of Business Owners · Government · E-Stats · Foreign Trade | Export Codes · Local Employment Dynamics · More
Maps · TIGER · Gazetteer · More
Releases · Facts For Features · Minority Links · Broadcast & Photo Services · Embargo/News Release Subscription · More
Special Topics Phishing & Email Scams · Census Bureau Data and Emergency Preparedness · Events Calendar · Training · For Teachers & Students · Statistical Abstract · FedStats · USA.gov · Recovery Act at the Census Bureau


My Note –

There are obviously a lot of problems to be solved including this one which needs a fairly quick solution –

What can be done with two-thirds of a million camels?

– cricketdiane


Australia considers mass killings of camels
Posted 3h 17m ago | Comments 15
Ranchers in central Australia use a truck to chase and catch a camel roaming wild on the property.
Central Australian Camel Industry Association via AP

SYDNEY (AP) — Thousands of camels in Australia’s remote Outback could be killed by marksmen in helicopters under a government proposal aimed at cutting down the population of the havoc-wreaking creatures.

First introduced into Australia in the 1840s to help explorers travel through the Australian desert, there are now about 1 million camels roaming the country, with the population doubling every nine years.

They compete with sheep and cattle for food, trample vegetation and invade remote settlements in search of water, scaring residents as they tear apart bathrooms and rip up water pipes.

Last month, the federal government set aside 19 million Australian dollars ($16 million) for a program to help slash the population. Besides sending in sharpshooters in helicopters and on foot, officials are considering proposals to turn some of the creatures into tasty treats such as camel burgers.

Hunters in the United States have shot wolves from helicopters in Alaska in an aerial predator control program there. More than 800 wolves have been killed as part of the program, which has been a point of national controversy since it was initiated five years ago.

Glenn Edwards, who is working on drafting the Australian government’s camel reduction program, said the population needs to be slashed by two-thirds to reduce catastrophic damage.

But some remain opposed to a mass slaughter. Camel exporter Paddy McHugh, who runs camel catching operations throughout Australia, said a cull would be ineffective.

What happens in 15 years when the numbers come back again? Do we waste another $20 million? McHugh said.

The camels McHugh’s associates capture are sold overseas, used in tourism and processed for their meat. In recent years, McHugh said he has seen an explosion in international demand for the animals.

The main problem with trying to capture and export the animals is that they can grow up to 7 feet (2.1 meters) tall and weigh 2,000 pounds (900 kilograms), said Patrick Medway, president of the Wildlife Preservation Society of Australia.

You imagine trying to catch a lion or a tiger or an elephant in its native habitat and then bring it back and sell it to another country, Medway said. It’s not an easy thing to do.
Tony Peacock, CEO of the University of Canberra’s Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Center, said a cull was the most effective method.

To be shot from a helicopter is actually quite humane, even though that sounds brutal, he said. If I was a camel, I’d prefer to just get it in the head.

Mark Pearson, executive director of the animal welfare group Animal Liberation New South Wales, offered another solution: birth control. Giving the animals a drug to render them infertile is far kinder than pumping them full of bullets, he said.

But Edwards said even if you could get close enough to administer birth control, camels still live up to 30 years — meaning decades more damage to the environment.

Edwards favors an integrated approach that would include shooting some of the animals for their meat, with others left behind to decompose. No matter what solution is accepted, Edwards said, waiting much longer to act would be disastrous.

We need to get moving as soon as we can because we are facing a crisis, he said.




Nagasaki mayor calls for nuclear-free world on 64th anniversary of A-bombing

Sunday 09th August, 10:03 AM JST


Nagasaki Mayor Tomihisa Taue on Sunday called on people around the globe to choose the path toward a world free of nuclear weapons, echoing a call made earlier by U.S. President Barack Obama, as the southwestern Japanese city commemorated the 64th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing.

‘‘We, as human beings, now have two paths before us,’’ Taue said in his Peace Declaration read out at a memorial ceremony at Nagasaki Peace Park. ‘‘While one can lead us to ‘a world without nuclear weapons,’ the other will carry us toward annihilation.’’

In April, Obama said in Prague that the United States will seek a world without nuclear weapons, creating a wave of optimism among those who are petitioning for the abolishment of nuclear arms across the world.

‘‘President Obama’s speech was a watershed event, in that the United States, a superpower possessing nuclear weapons, finally took a step towards the elimination of nuclear armaments,’’ Taue said, adding that people in Nagasaki are circulating petitions urging the U.S. leader to visit the city, which was devastated by the 1945 bombing.

As for Japan’s role, Taue said the country must take a leading role in disseminating around the world the ‘‘ideals of peace and renunciation of war’’ as stipulated in its Constitution, as the only nation to have suffered nuclear bombings.

The mayor also urged the Japanese government to legislate its three non-nuclear principles of not producing, possessing or allowing nuclear weapons on Japanese territory, and work on creating a nuclear weapon-free zone in the Northeast Asian region including North Korea.

A moment of silence was observed at 11:02 a.m., the time when a U.S. bomber dropped an atomic bomb on the city on Aug 9, 1945, killing an estimated 74,000 people by the end of that year. The bombing occurred three days after the first one was dropped on Hiroshima.

A total of 3,304 people were additionally recognized in the past year as fatal victims of the bombing of Nagasaki, bringing the total number of those who have died as a result of it to 149,266, according to city government officials.

This year’s anniversary comes on the heels of North Korea’s conducting a second nuclear test in May, in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions.

Taue touched on Pyongyang’s conduct, saying, ‘‘As long as the world continues to rely on nuclear deterrence and nuclear weapons continue to exist, the possibility always exists that dangerous nations like North Korea and terrorists will emerge.’’

He urged the international community to make North Korea destroy its nuclear arsenal and said the five major nuclear powers—Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States—must ‘‘fulfill their responsibility to reduce nuclear arms.’’
In support of Taue, Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, president of the U.N. General Assembly and a Roman Catholic priest, spoke at the ceremony, saying, ‘‘The only certain way to assure that nuclear weapons will never be used again is to eliminate them outright.’’

Also attending the ceremony, Japanese Prime Minister Taro Aso pledged to stick to Japan’s three non-nuclear principles as he gave a speech similar to the one he delivered in Hiroshima three days earlier.

Aso mentioned an agreement reached Thursday between the government and people suffering from atomic bombing-related illnesses under which the state will provide a blanket resolution to all 306 plaintiffs who have sought recognition as suffering from illnesses caused by the bombings.

The move came after the state lost 19 straight lawsuits filed across the country over the certification issue, putting an end to their six-year-long legal battle.

Japan surrendered Aug 15, 1945, six days after the second atomic bomb turned Nagasaki into a silent ruin, bringing an end to World War II.



(And here is a new kind of brick for building homes that is air-tight building materials because of the ways these bricks are made by compression rather than in a traditional manner – however, the website where I found it had an online survey from Nielson that popped up and froze my browser, then locked up my computer and crashed everything I was doing – so, -)


Aeonian brick – ‘Legos’ for people who want greener, hurricane-safe homes
August 4th, 2009

By Barbara Kessler
Green Right Now

While people scurry to devise new green components for homes, Don Blalock is in the enviable position of launching one that he’s been nursing along for the last six years.

His Aeonian brick will build houses that are significantly more energy efficient than conventional homes; help them qualify for LEED platinum certification and withstand hurricane force winds up to 240 mph. They’ll also resist heat, mold, mildew and termites, says Blalock, whose goal is to build “the most structurally sound house that’s livable (and) that will last for a very long time.”

Blalock, a onetime music teacher and 35-year veteran of the construction business, knows he sounds like someone peddling a secret sauce on an infomerical – “But wait There’s more We’ll throw in termite and fire protection with your durable new home ”

But he explains that he simply set out to build a better brick, one that would repel the water damage he repeatedly saw while overseeing reconstruction of houses for State Farm Insurance. Seven out of 10 homeowner claims involved water damage, from an array of sources including leaky pipes. Water damage led to mold “explosions” inside walls on receptive drywall and wood supports, compounding the damage and the indoor air quality.

Experimenting with brick, he says he developed a chemical process that tinkered with the molecular properties of clay to make it intrinsically more water resistant — creating a product able to leap over concrete block as a useful building base (and compete with sealed brick as a viable exterior).

The idea attracted enough private investment that the company broke ground on its first model home outside Charleston, S.C., on Monday. It’s expected to be done by November and will serve as a demonstration building and offices for Aeonian Brick Homes, which will sell whole-house plans that can be built with the brick.

A Charleston builder, Jessco Homes, also plans to build a house from Aeonian brick as a prototype of a net zero energy home.

“We ran across the technology a couple months back and decided we’ll build a home out of this material and couple it with some other features to try to build a zero energy home,” said Jessco CEO Jeff Stahl. The Jessco model, a one-story, will use high-efficiency heating and cooling systems and new lighting installations to cut energy use. The Aeonian brick will play a major role in reducing energy needs, acting as a heat barrier.

“In a normal stick home, you don’t get the thermal energy mass you do with this,” said Stahl, whose company is launching a green building incubator program called Eco Sustainable Systems.com. Aeonian Brick, he says, has “huge potential” to protect homeowners from escalating electrical bills — as well as hurricanes and termites.
Can Brick Be Green?

Brick has been known to last for the ages. In desert climates, ancient ruins made of bricks have largely survived. But in wet areas, fired clay bricks erode and can absorb water that can nurture mold and mildew issues in a home.

Aeonian brick homes will keep mold out, Blalock says, and be revolutionary in other ways, too, starting with how they’re built. The smooth, 8H8x4-inch bricks are made from compressed clay that’s been precision-molded and fit seamlessly together, like Legos. The bricks form the house’s exterior surface and serve as frame, insulation and drywall. Electrical wiring and plumbing are embedded during construction. The result is a nearly airtight, water-resistant structure that Blalock hopes to see embraced by builders in hot, humid and hurricane-prone areas.

The key is the material and their tight fit. “This material is so precise I can make a brick today and I can make a brick next year, both will be within 1/100 of an inch,” Blalock says.

Even though the bricks use regular clay, which takes resources from the earth, the process is greener than traditional brick production. Regular bricks must be fired at high temperatures over an extended period of time (many days) whereas Aeonian brick is molded and steam cured, replicating ancient processes and using far less electricity.

It also claims green points for removing the need for stick framing, saving trees. More green savings accrue by subtracting the drywall. The price for all this? About the same as for conventional building, Blalock estimates, because the savings in multiple materials make up for the costs of the unique new brick.

The bricks are formed like compressed earth products, but perform better because the clay is altered with a chemical that makes the clay water resistant. The catalyst is derived from oil slag, but Blalock swears it’s non-toxic (and claims competitive privilege in concealing the formula). The petroleum byproduct involved has been tested in other uses and proven to be safe, he says, noting that the Aeonian process makes use of waste material.

“This is the essence of recycling. This is recycling something you want to get rid of that the companies
are having a hard time getting rid of.”

The houses can be scored, molded and painted to blend in completely with an existing neighborhood. The paint bonds to the material, inside and out, and will not require repainting, he promises. These houses won’t look weird, Blalock says, and can be made to look “exactly” like other homes in the area. (Which may or may not be a good thing.)

From 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media



Aeonian Brick Homes

Tell a Friend

Click Here To See Full Size Picture

Our brick is a clay-based, interlocking brick that has been certified in 34 states to be waterproof, fireproof, termite and insect-proof, soundproof, mold and mildew-proof, insulates the home, saves energy and withstands hurricane and tornado force winds up to 240 mph with no structural damage. An Aeonian Brick home will protect you and your family during the worst of weather conditions.

It is also one of the greenest construction materials that exists on the market today. Our interlocking design and shape is what allows us to build a wall that can withstand hurricane force winds up to 240 mph.

Using a special adhesive on the bricks is much like welding metal, the weld becomes stronger than the material it is holding together. This fact along with the interlocking shape is why a home built with our bricks can resist high winds.

If you want to know why no other brick manufacturer in the United States produces a brick that can do what our Aeonian Brick can do, click here.

The finished home has no wood, stucco, drywall or added fiberglass insulation, so toxic and environmentally sensitive building materials are eliminated.

Working Toward LEED Platinum Certification

The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) is tasked with making green buildings available to everyone within a generation. LEED for Homes is a rating system put in place by the USGBC to promote the design and construction of high-performance green homes.

We are working closely with our LEED Home Provider to ensure that all houses built with Aeonian Bricks are LEED certified. Not only LEED certified, but certified at the Platinum Level.

If you would like to view a video that explains the LEED for Homes Certification Process, click here. This is the process that we go through to have our homes receive the highest LEED certification, Platinum Level.

If you are interested in using our brick for a construction project, click here to find out how to obtain pricing information.



a green building incubator program called Eco Sustainable Systems.com.



Aqua Levees and Aqua Dams

{And – along with the tubes which can be filled with water and hold back floods – and were absolutely genius as an invention – }


This page features multi-media demonstrations of innovative hurricane resistant construction techniques and products featured at the LaHouse Resource Center on the LSU campus in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

The expert-hosted, hands-on demonstrations showcase and leverage the educational outreach program of LaHouse and serve as an introduction and “kickoff” to the Hurricane-Resistant Construction Online network.

Visit LaHouse at www.louisianahouse.org


Steve Easley discusses the benefits of using paperless drywell to help mitigate mold with Georgia Pacific Product Development Manager, Barry Reid . 3.5 minutes.Click for Video
Windows Media Player
Steve Easley talks with Mike Roche of Grace Construction Products about the benefits of synthetic roof underlayments. 6.5 minutes.Click for Video
Windows Media Player
Certified Industrial Hygienist and Indoor Air Quality Specialist Susan Raterman explains how to mitigate mold and decay fungi, and prevent mold growth in new homes right at the source. 12 minutes.

Click for Video
Windows Media Player
Jeff Burton of IBHS and Kurt McCarty, executive director of the Louisiana State Unified Construction Council explain the “why” of code changes designed to make structures resistant to hurricanes and other natural disasters. 18 minutes.
Click for Video
Windows Media Player
Building Science Consultant Steve Easley shows you how to avoid the water traps, wind catchers, and missing or incorrect flashing that contribute to unnecessary early failure, and the explosion of construction defect litigation. 9 minutes.Click for Video
Windows Media Player
Got Mold? Certified Industrial Hygienist and Indoor Air Quality Specialist Susan Raterman teaches basic forensic mold and decay fungi detection and identification techniques, and the many health hazards of toxic mold in buildings. 25 minutes.Click for Video
Windows Media Player
Got Mold? Certified Industrial Hygienist and Indoor Air Quality Specialist Susan Raterman teaches basic forensic mold and decay fungi detection and identification techniques, and the many health hazards of toxic mold in buildings. 25 minutes.Click for Video
Windows Media Player
Steve Easley talks with Certified Industrial Hygienist and Indoor Air Quality Specialist Susan Raterman about the basics of mold and mold prevention. 5 minutes.Click for Video
Windows Media Player
Steve Easley speaks with Frank Glowacki of Zinsser about the benefits of their Perma-Wash product. 4 minutes.Click for Video
Windows Media Player
Back to Top

Steve Easley talks with Becky Gee of Windsor One about the development process of high quality molding.
5 minutes.
Click for Video
Windows Media Player
Master finish carpenter Gary M. Katz and master framing carpenter Mike Sloggatt teach time-tested durable trim techniques, including flashing details to keep porch posts and other exterior millwork dry. 30 minutes.Click for Video
Windows Media Player
Katz and Sloggatt continue time-tested durable trim techniques, including using high-strength pocket screw joints to join exterior millwork, and more. 25 minutes.Click for Video
Windows Media Player
Master finish carpenter Gary M. Katz and master framing carpenter Mike Sloggatt teach the basics of historical architectural styles, and the right way to construct traditional-looking trim details using today’s durable trim techniques. 18 minutes.Click for Video
Windows Media Player
Back to Top

Katz and Sloggatt instruct how vertical loads are carried from roof to footing, the best materials to use, and how to tie it all together to resist nature’s forces.Click for Video
Windows Media Player
Nailing schedules, careful workmanship, and the right sheathing material are the key to hurricane-resistant wall construction. Master carpenters Katz and Sloggatt continue in the series of hurricane-resistant construction techniques.Click for Video
Windows Media Player
Katz and Sloggatt discuss the advantages of weather-resistant roofing membrane systems, including GRACE Ice and Water Shield, and Tri-Flex 30. 28 minutes.Click for Video
Windows Media Player
Back to Top

Learn what the current building code requires, and how PGT Windows meet those demands. Steve Easley talks with PGT’s Product Specialist, Dave Olmstead. 6.5 minutes.Click for Video
Windows Media Player
Steve Easley talks with PGT’s Product Specialist, Dave Olmstead, about the benefits of using laminated glass. 4.5 minutes.Click for Video
Windows Media Player
Steve Easley discusses the benefits of using storm resistant plywood vs OSB with Georgia Pacific Product Development Manager, Barry Reid. 3 minutes.Click for Video
Windows Media Player
Housewrap can cause as much harm as good if improperly applied. Katz and Sloggatt demonstrate the correct installation techniques that aid in water management, including sill padding of windows, self-adhesive flashing tape, and more. 22 minutes.Click for Video
Windows Media Player
Master carpenters Gary Katz and Mike Sloggatt demonstrate the correct way to install storm-resistant windows for high-wind and hurricane areas, as well as the best product choices to avoid storm damage. 16 minutes.Click for Video
Windows Media Player
Moisture-resistant means mold resistant! Katz and Sloggatt demonstrate moisture-resistant wallboard systems that eliminate the food source for mold and mildew by eliminating the paper covering. 6 minutes.Click for Video
Windows Media Player
Radiant roof sheathing has a reflective barrier that blocks 97% of radiant gain in the attic reducing the cooling requirements of the house by 17%. Katz and Sloggatt demonstrate the system. 7 minutes.Click for Video
Windows Media Player
Steve Easley demonstrates an innovative SIPS and Kevlar pre-fab StormRoom™ kit that can protect occupants during natural disasters, meets FEMA requirements for storm rooms, and can be conventionally finished. 6 minutes.Click for Video
Windows Media Player
Back to Top

After Hurricane Katrina, Lousianna resident Bruce Colby witnessed the effectiveness of SMART VENT Foundation Flood Vents first hand. 2.5 minutes.Click for Video
Windows Media Player