On 19Jul2021 1212, Kurt Feltenberger - kurt at thepaw.org (via tml list)
wrote:
> I was having a discussion with a friend this afternoon, also a long
> time Traveller player, and the subject of beanstalks came up.  His
> position (he's very influenced by 2300AD/Traveller:2300) is that
> beanstalks are the way to go and they're hands down, better than the
> options of using interface transports or landing a ship on the
> surface.  My position is that they're economically viable, and only
> barely, at a narrow band of tech levels from ~8-9, maybe up to 10, but
> that's pushing it.
>
> My argument is that investors want to see a return on their investment
> while they're still alive and that by about TL10, a 10kdton platform
> could be made and operated in such a way to recoup the investment and
> turn a profit much quicker than a beanstalk without the problem of
> parts/spares availability.  You would need a full fabrication
> shop/factory with the TDP of every part that was used in the beanstalk
> given a potential lifespan of hundreds of years.
In a standard Traveller universe once contragravity comes along (TL8 or
TL9, depending on edition) I don't see beanstalks and other such systems
being viable. Once contragravity and reactionless thrusters are both on
play it's all over. At that point shuttles, etc. are simply so cheap to
build and operate per ton to/from orbit that a beanstalk won't be able
to compete.

I do not think the long-term nature of a beanstalk investment would be
the sticking point. Firstly, governments can and have in the past
invested in such projects. Secondly, just because something lasts a very
long time doesn't mean the ROI per annum need be low. Thirdly, needing
full specs for every single little thing in the beanstalk is the case
for anything you build anyway, and in some ways having them all in one
place is a better solution than relying on the suppliers of the widgets
and gadgets you used in your shuttle keeping them in stock or providing
a compatible replacement. The problems beanstalks will have is of being
able to complete with contragravity equipped shuttles in terms of cost
to bring something to orbit.

If a world had no access to contragravitics and reactionless thruster
tech and built a beanstalk, it might be able to remain competitive and
operational over its intended lifespan if the cost of R&D and
construction was written off (or already paid out) and it only had to
complete based on operational costs, but I can't see building one in
competition with these technologies as being viable.

--

Rupert Boleyn <xxxxxx@gmail.com>