How have we not built this already?

[Deleted]

Last I heard, they were paying a few million $$ to whoever could invent a material light enough, yet strong enough to reach into space without breaking

Carbon nanotubes are a possibility. Seriously, that shit is seriously strong. Seriously serious.
Structural
Because of the carbon nanotube's superior mechanical properties, many structures have been proposed ranging from everyday items like clothes and sports gear to combat jackets and space elevators. Quote: Wikipedia.
Apparently, it's strength can still be dramatically increased.

[Paloro]

I'm talking about the volume of waste already generated, if stacked together.

You're talking about the tunnel to an underground storage facility.

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats...onsitestorage/

Says current nuclear waste is a football field(300'x150') and 7 yards (21') deep.

[Rotted]

Just no, this isn't plausible at all

[Elenion]

Actually, we now have material strong enough to build space elevator, it's called Graphene.
But to actually build one, we still got a long way to go.

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences explains:

Graphene is a form of carbon. As a material it is completely new – not only the thinnest ever but also the strongest. As a conductor of electricity it performs as well as copper. As a conductor of heat it outperforms all other known materials. It is almost completely transparent, yet so dense that not even helium, the smallest gas atom, can pass through it. Carbon, the basis of all known life on earth, has surprised us once again.

[openair]

The system is not meant to transport people, as 30g during acceleration would kill anyone on the craft. It's just a giant gun basically.

Also, you are getting hung up on the spaceship idea. That is just an unfounded idea what this technology could be used for in the far future. Right now it's just a way of cheaply launching material and supplies into space.

Besides the cost, tech, and whatever else, this is the real reason we havn't built one yet. What is the point of a launch mechanism that can only launch materials and supplies when we dont have cheap ways of launching people who can use those materials and supplies? (supply without demand?)

The cost of space shuttle flights is irrelevant. There are ZERO 'space shuttle flights' schedule for the next (blank) years. The ISS is already built, houses very few people, who consume very little supplies.

[Deleted]

I'd do the following:

Build space tram.
Launch stuff into space.
Build solar panels in space to make usage of said space tram cheaper and decrease global energy cost.
Launch more stuff into space.
Build radio or robot controlled spaceships capable of mining asteroids.
Mine asteroid belt.
Bring newfound recources home, build more solar panels.
Enjoy unlimited energy

Or we could just try to improve on Nuclear Fusion. It's the far better option for unlimited energy.

[Paloro]

Actually, we now have material strong enough to build space elevator, it's called Graphene.
But to actually build one, we still got a long way to go.

Graphene is only strong in a linear direction. This is what makes up carbon nanotubes though which is strong in a 3-D world/application. Nanotubes (again) are not strong enough in this type of scale.

[someotherguy]

If all of it was true, a few billionaires would have built it and became trillion-aires by now.
BTW, they are trying to do that with a project that mines asteroids - but they use planes to launch mining things into space.

[semaphore]

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats...onsitestorage/

Says current nuclear waste is a football field(300'x150') and 7 yards (21') deep.

So I was right. It's really not a serious problem now, and fusion's waste is much more manageable than fission.