Will the space elevator rise?

Posted: Friday, July 18, 2008 7:38 PM by Alan Boyle

Pat Rawlings / NASA file

Click for video: Get a look at
the future, as seen by advocates
of the space elevator concept.

If space elevators work out the way the idea's advocates hope, sending payloads into orbit would become as routine as, say, sending a shipment on a freight train - except that the train would travel straight up for hundreds or thousands of miles, powered by laser beams.

But will such a "railroad to the sky" ever be built? That's the big question hanging over the 2008 Space Elevator Conference, taking place this weekend on Microsoft's Seattle-area campus. And considering that this is an event primarily attended by elevator enthusiasts, you may find some of the answers surprising.

One of the biggest advocates of the concept, the late science-fiction seer Arthur C. Clarke, said back in 1979 that the first space elevator would be built "about 50 years after everyone stops laughing."

There wasn't much laughing to be heard as the talks got under way today at Microsoft's Redmond conference center (which happens to be a five-minute walk from my newsroom at msnbc.com, a Microsoft-NBC Universal joint venture). Instead, there was a long day's worth of serious talks about way-out subjects such as orbital debris threats and power-beaming lasers.

And there were a lot of predictions: On one end of the scale, Bradley Edwards, president of New York-based Black Line Ascension and one of the pioneers of the space elevator movement, said creating a space elevator would require much less time than 50 years - as long as you had $7 billion to $10 billion to spend.

"It's really a cost issue," he told me. "If you could get the money, you could have one up in probably 12 years, 15 years."

On the other end of the scale was Tom Nugent, project manager for Seattle-based LaserMotive, who said the space elevator would never be built, due to technical and safety concerns.

"We don't believe in the space elevator," Nugent told me. The way he sees it, all the activities spawned by the concept merely provide "a useful way to demonstrate our laser power beaming technology."

In between those extremes, there's a Japanese technological road map that calls for building a space elevator and a space solar power system by 2030, and a NASA projection that the elevator would take shape in 200 years or so.

Ted Semon, who presides over the Space Elevator Blog, sized up the potential players and concluded that the builder of the first space elevator would likely be either a U.S. industry consortium supported by the federal government - or an alliance involving the governments of Dubai and India.

"Dubai could fund it just like that," he told me. "And India would love to jump at the chance to leapfrog China."

Even if you scoff at the starry-eyed vision of riding a ribbon to outer space on a laser-powered lift, the technologies that form the foundation of that vision are far more down to earth - and likely to produce profits long before the space elevator sees the light of day. That's what Nugent and many of the conference's other attendees are going after.

The technological road ahead
The two main technologies behind the concept are super-strong, ultra-lightweight materials and power-beaming systems.

A working space elevator would require tethers or ribbons of synthetic material that would extend from Earth's surface up to an altitude of perhaps 62,000 miles (100,000 kilometers). Carbon nanotube fibers are the most popular candidates for the job.

The tethers would be sent into orbit aboard a conventional launch vehicle. One set of tethers would be lowered down from the orbiting craft for connection to an "attach point" on Earth's surface - for example, a floating platform in an area of the ocean that's relatively unaffected by weather. Counterbalancing tethers would spool out spaceward.

Those tethers would serve as the "rails" for robots climbing up and down to the orbital transfer station. Proponents say such robots could carry payloads at a cost of $100 per pound or less - compared with current orbital launch costs that range from $2,000 to $60,000 a pound, depending on what is launched and how high it goes. Other types of robots would build up the system and keep it in repair.

You can't really fuel up a robot for this kind of trek to space, so you'd need to find a wireless, tankless way to transmit power hundreds or thousands of miles. That's where the power-beaming systems come in: Laser light from below would be focused on photoelectric cells to keep the robots running, perhaps supplemented by solar power from above.

If those technologies come together, then what? "There are lots of things we want to do in space, but part of the problem is getting there," Edwards said.

Cheaper access to space could open the way for space solar-power satellite systems that can beam energy back down to Earth. Elevator operators could send people and payloads to orbital hotels, and then onward to the moon and Mars. The elevators might even revolutionize garbage disposal, Edwards said.

"There has been a lot of discussion about using space elevators to take radioactive waste and get rid of it by throwing it into the sun," he said.

Where are those technologies today?
The technological hurdles facing elevator enthusiasts are every bit as high as their hopes. This weekend's conference provided a progress report on how close the reality is coming to the dream.

Edwards pointed to advances in carbon nanotube fabrication, which he saw as essential for space elevator construction. "That's the only thing that's strong enough," he said. He hailed advances that have brought new records for nanotube length as well as new methods for spinning nanotube fibers.

"Some of the work being done is now becoming a business," Edwards said. Nanotubes are already being woven into the marketing hype for bikes as well as golf clubs, and Edwards predicted that a technological tipping point could come sometime in the next year.

Are nanotubes safe? A recent study raised health questions about the stuff but Edwards said the safety concerns were not as serious as some have made them out to be, particularly for space applications.

Ben Shelef, director of the Spaceward Foundation, was hopeful that the nanotube hurdle would be overcome sooner than the skeptics think. "While we're definitely not there, we're not a factor of 50 away. We're a factor of 10 away," he said.

Shelef previewed Spaceward's plans for the fourth annual Space Elevator Games, a double-header competition that focuses on super-strong tethers as well as power beaming. This year, NASA is offering $4 million in prizes for the winners of the games' ambitious contests, and Spaceward is organizing the contests on NASA's behalf.

To take the top tether prize, the winning team will have to develop a material that can take more stress than the other competitors' offerings, and also best a "house tether" that has a 50 percent weight advantage.

Eleven teams have signed up for the power-beaming competition, which involves sending a beam-powered robot up a 0.6-mile-long (1-kilometer-long) tether suspended from a helicopter.

If the robot completes the required length with an average speed of 6 feet (2 meters) per second, it would be in the running for a $900,000 prize. If the average speed reaches 16 feet (5 meters) per second, the prize rises to $2 million.

Shelef said the tentative plan is to conduct the games at Arizona's Meteor Crater in mid-October, but the timing and the venue are still subject to change. So far, none of the teams has satisfied any of the requirements for a prize, and as a result NASA hasn't paid out any money in the Space Elevator Games. That may change this year, Shelef said.

"This is going to be the first year, I think, where [each] team's main enemy is the other teams," he said.

Just this week, LaserMotive announced that it satisfied the power-beaming contest's requirements in a treadmill test. However, the company is expected to face stiff competition from last year's favorites, including the University of Saskatchewan Space Design Team.

If a viable power-beaming system could be developed, it would find almost immediate application. The U.S. military has talked about using beam power to energize balloon-based observation platforms or robotic drone aircraft. Point-to-point power beaming could cut down on risky fuel resupply missions in combat zones.

Beyond the battlefield, NASA could conceivably use power-beaming stations to boost rovers or bases on the moon or Mars. And beaming power down to Earth is key to the space solar power systems I've already mentioned.

So ... will it ever rise?
Even if these technologies bear fruit on Earth, the space elevator's success is not assured. Speakers weren't shy about raising additional questions during today's sessions:

Will nanotube tethers ever be tough enough to endure buffeting by atmospheric winds? How long can they be expected to stand up to exposure to the elements as well as space radiation?
Would the Earth stations for space elevator systems become prime targets for terrorism? Who will pay the cost of defending them from earthly threats?
Will there be an acceptable safety margin for space elevator operations? Nugent said that if the space elevator is held to the same safety standards that other industries have to meet, the concept would clearly become financially untenable.
Can space elevator systems be designed to stand up to collisions with orbital debris?

Ivan Bekey, president of Virginia-based Bekey Designs, said that last point was a potentially fatal flaw for the space elevator concept. "We've got a very fundamental problem for which I have seen no engineering or cost analysis to solve," he said.

Edwards said there were potential solutions to the debris-collision problem, such as repositioning the elevator's Earth station, which would in turn move the system's tether out of the path of the occasional piece of space junk. However, he conceded that more analysis was needed.

"There's no funding," he said, "and this is a real falling-down for the entire program."

Edwards said several new initiatives were in the works to pool together information and raise public awareness, including a Space Elevator Wiki and a Japanese movie titled "Space Elevator: The Future as Foreseen by Scientists." You can watch a trailer for the movie (in Japanese) as well as a mini-interview with Edwards (in English).

Edwards also hopes to see the rise of a Florida theme park celebrating the space elevator concept. Visitors to the attraction would take a ride on a virtual space elevator to a virtual space station, all enclosed within a 10-story-high structure. Edwards said the land has already been selected for the facility, outside Orlando, and he's working on getting the first $300,000 in seed capital by Nov. 30.

Is the space elevator concept worth the cost of a theme-park ticket? Is it worth the multibillion-dollar cost of building the real thing? Feel free to register your opinion in our unscientific Live Vote, and weigh in with your comments below.

The 2008 Space Elevator Conference continues through Sunday, July 20, at the Microsoft Conference Center in Redmond, Wash. For updates, check in with Ted Semon's Space Elevator Blog. The conference is sponsored by Microsoft Corp., Black Line Ascension and Industrial Nano.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

It would help resolving this issue if official updates to feasibility, environmental, and cost/benefit quantitative and qualitative analyses were prepared and released by qualified, responsible, and objective parties periodically. The cost/benefit ratio, tempered by the feasibility and environmental impact factors, would help rationally determine the amount of prudent investment and help generate appropriate public and investor interest at any given point in time.

Interestingly, if the concept makes sense for earth, then it may make sense for the moon and mars as well. However, extending that concept by dropping an elevator cable from the moon clear back to the earth seems impossible, as that concept seems to also currently require a fixed destination point relative to the earth's surface.

Industrial competitions and an international effort make a lot of sense. National competition gave the world the achievements in space to date and may give us more. However, the U.S. is presently bogging down just trying to maintain its role as the world's largest, but most hated super power. Consequently, the U.S. now probably lacks the necessary resources, interest and attention span that, for example, were mustered during the Sputnik days of John F. Kennedy's presidency.

Allen McCready (Sent Saturday, July 19, 2008 2:55 PM)

How do you overcome wind drag and vibration or resonance? What about problems with lightning?

Eddie,Fort Smith, Ark (Sent Saturday, July 19, 2008 4:05 PM)

Lets solve the oil crisis first!

Dan (Sent Saturday, July 19, 2008 4:41 PM)

ya humans never spent a year in a vessel to get to any new lands.. /sarcasm

david b (Sent Saturday, July 19, 2008 4:47 PM)

Only $7-10 billion? Yeah sure, that's what they say now. Just wait till we're stuck paying for it, then it'll be "we didn't expect this" and "we just have to figure out how to make that first". It'll become another bloated go-nowhere money-sucking project that will not die.

You can tell that I'm right from Micahel Folsom's post upstream (he's one of the competitors in the NASA Tether Challenge). He complains that NASA has made the current contest too hard. Isn't that the point? If it's doable, you should be able to demonstrate on a small scale. Do you think simply throwing money at the idea will solve the technological problems? Show proof of concept first, then throw money at it.

Mr Pien D. Sky (Sent Saturday, July 19, 2008 5:36 PM)

As far as the space elevator, we do not need to do that. We need to save mother earther. Saving the planet is very easy and shoring the US economy is very easy to achieve as well.

Step 1)
Exterminate all the hungry people (this will help the planet in two ways. First off, the pressure on the planet's resources will immediately be reduced. Second, the population growth trajectory will be eliminated because poor hungry people tend to have children. Rich people like Americans and Europeans do not have enough children to even keep their current levels static.)

Step 2)
Exterminate all the old people -- 55 or above unless they are working. If they are working, kill them when they retire. (this will "automagically" fix the social security problem, medicare problem, medicaid problem, and energy problems)

Step 3)
Exterminate all the people who either cannot produce/work (disabled, mentally ill, children, etc). People like this (and all old people) are very invconvenient to the rest of us (much like an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy).

If you did the steps above, the planet would be saved and the remaining peoples would be committed to preserving the planet at all costs. The population quotas would be more equitable (ie right now 70% of the world is Asian but most of these are hungry people).

This plan is foolproof in its effectiveness and would be easily implemented. Give it some thought.

Thank you,

Enlightened.

Enlightned Elite (Sent Saturday, July 19, 2008 5:57 PM)

To all you silly people who post questions before doing any research:

1. Atmospheric winds, the tug of the Earth's gravity, bird/tether collisions would have no effect on the tether. You see, the concept is that you have a string reaching 62k miles into space with a counterweight on the end. The rotation of the planet keeps the counterweight in centrifugal motion strongly enough to keep the tether pulled tight. That's why they need such a freakin' strong tether. Because it's got to hold a several-ton counterweight against the huge amount of tension created. Any cable pulled that tight isn't going to be bothered by a wind or flock of birds, Otherwise the guy wires that hold up radio antennas would snap every time we had a gust of wind or a pigeon hit them. Wear & tear from radiation & space debris is a serious concern, though.

2. You can't load the whole tether into a rocket, shoot it up, & drop it back down to the ground because 62,000 miles of ANYTHING, even sewing thread is going to weigh TONS.

3. No, you can't do away with the tether & just "shoot an elevator up into space on a laser beam". A laser with that much power would be ridiculously expensive to build & operate - far more than the projected cost of the space elevator & far FAR more than a conventional rocket.

4. Yes this is worth doing. If we have a safe, cheap, reliable way to send payloads into space it opens many doors. For example, we could send our nuclear waste up the elevator, give it a gentle nudge towards the sun, & our nuclear waste disposal/storage problems are at an end. Granted, there are a lot of issues to be dealt with here, but the desireability of a simple, reliable disposal method makes it worth investigating.

My only concern is: What kind of music will they play? I really don't think I could stand to travel 62,000 miles listening to Kenny G.

Barry U. Headinsand (Sent Saturday, July 19, 2008 6:33 PM)

Space elevator is a great concept. It certainly will work. Now that we have cold fusion under control, flying cars a reality and perpetual motion a common thing, we should start earnestly working on this novel idea of space elevator. If we are taxed based on our stupidity we will have plenty of money not only for space elevator but also for other worthwhile projects like philosopher's stone for turning base metals into gold.

Peter, Los angeles, CA (Sent Saturday, July 19, 2008 6:38 PM)

Even if the technical aspects of this are met, there comes an issue on chance of economic sabotage by rival nations or a terrorist attack. A structure of such value and strategic importance given its relative ease to bring down has to be taken into account.

James, Arlington, VA (Sent Saturday, July 19, 2008 7:20 PM)

In reply to Bob of Meridian, Mississippi:

Let me give you a bit of a quiz: You are closest to which of these:
a) the Sun;
b) the Moon;
c) the Milky Way Galaxy.

You are over 90 million miles from the Sun, nearly a quarter million miles from the moon, but you are on the earth, which is part of the Milky Way Galaxy, so (c) is the right answer. You, and the rest of humankind, are in space -- except that we prefer to regard our little bit of space as not being in space.

OK, if you don't like that one, here's another:

You have to go back to the Bible, way back, to one of the first verses, Genesis 1:28, where mankind is told to "fill the Earth". Except, if you look at the original Hebrew, the word for "the Earth" is "haAretz" -- which means, literally, "the Land".

If you grant the the Bible was written by God in the language of men, so that the people of the time of its revelation would understand it, then "haAretz" could very well refer only to the Earth. However, if you grant that God has infinite wisdom, and take the word literally, then it also can refer to land on other planets. People back then did not know that land could exist on other planets -- they regarded planets as wandering stars, and did not realize that the Earth is a planet, too. However, God knew this all along.

Josh Levin, Cherry Hill, NJ (Sent Saturday, July 19, 2008 8:36 PM)

Mike - most population growth is in either the sprawl of existing cities or the creation of new cities. People have ready access to both food and healthcare in cities. So, the population will keep growing.
It will be 40 years since America landed someone on the moon next year. Can we do that right now? No. Instead, we are using basically the same rocket technology the Germans used in WWII, albeit scaled up significantly, to go to LEO. Why are there no ION propulsion systems to go to Mars quickly to reduce the radiation exposure issues? Why are there no nuclear powered propulsion systems that could cut the time to Mars or any planet in the solar system significantly since nuclear power has many orders of magnitude more energy density than fossil fuel power? The answer to those questions is that real technological advancement in space stopped with the advent of the Shuttle/ISS fiascos. Did we really need to waste all of that money on the Shuttle when other nations can send the same payload weight up over time at a small fraction of the cost? The answer is no. The resources would have been better spent on developing and continuing to develop new technologies instead of relying on the crtuch of decades old technologies to take the easy LEO approach.
In terms of nuclear propulsion, I'm sure many people are wary of that. But with 20 years or so of investment in this, and not the useless space shuttle, someone would have found an acceptable and creative way to allow that technology without the fear of health hazards.

John Doe, Seattle, Wash (Sent Saturday, July 19, 2008 8:41 PM)

Up til now, manned space flight has not made economic sense, it has been a huge financial drain with little to show for it other than entertainment. Yes, I know all about those "NASA spinoffs", but all of those came from basic research, not the space flights themselves - we could have received the same spinoffs for a fraction of the price if we had financed basic research and dropped the manned space flights.

We are not going to have colonies on the moon, manned missions to other planets, space hotels, or asteroid mining unless we can bring the cost of going up to orbit down by a factor of 100 or more. Current rockets, including the space shuttle, cost far too much to make economic sense for anything but lightweight satellite launches.

The space elevator is one of very few strategies that might possibly be able to make space affordable.

CM, Modesto, CA (Sent Saturday, July 19, 2008 8:48 PM)

I think it's a crazy idea. I love space and everything in it. The odd's are just too great to over-come. Please prove me wrong.

Brian, Muskegon MI (Sent Saturday, July 19, 2008 9:01 PM)

In response to Mike from Tacoma WA:

There is a competing technology, and that is MagLev launch. This works similarly to Magnetic-Levitation rail, except that, at the end of the run, the vehicle is launched.

On earth, such a system has the limits that you can't really go over a certain speed, probably about Mach 6, because air resistance above that speed would tear the whole thing apart. (I believe you need about Mach 30 to reach stable orbit -- would someone correct me if I'm wrong). Still, you can save a lot of rocket fuel by not needing the heavy boosters that burn most of fuel just in the first part of the vehicle's rise to orbit.

A MagLev launch facility may take the form of a long, straight, ascending rail, running West-to-East, with a "ski-jump" at the end. There is a natural formation in the State of New Mexico that has this shape, and an even longer one extending across three States in central Mexico, that also being closer to the equator.

MagLev Launch would be even better on the Moon. Solar panels can provide all the power it needs, there is no air resistance, and a launch "ramp" encircling the moon can accelerate space vehicles over and over until they reach terrifically high speeds -- probably higher than what a Space Elevator could impart. It is likely that the vehicles launched from the moon would not need any propulsion rockets at all! (This idea is mentioned in passing in the sci-fi story at http://www.LeviCar.com.)

Perhaps we'll end up with a space elevator from earth sending vehicles to the moon. These vehicles will contain the people and machines needed to manufacture the MagLev Launch system, and its deep-space probes, on the moon.

Remember that a Space Elevator on the moon would still be subject to bombardment by space junk and to tidal forces, although both would be less of a problem than an earth-based Space Elevator would have.

Josh Levin, Cherry Hill, NJ (Sent Saturday, July 19, 2008 9:08 PM)

Is this thing to be anchored in place? Then it will rotate at about 1000mph. And the outer end at something
like 15000mph. Anyone care to calculate the stresses
thus induced? Will we ever be able to find the upper
end? Could you catch it if you found it? Just a thought!

Dozier, Salem, Or. (Sent Saturday, July 19, 2008 9:12 PM)

I agree with Spoc. If we can get technology good enough to "beam" something to outerspace via laser on a tether then what is the need of the tether? Also. Why would you have to tether the thing to earth anyway. Coulnd't you just let the line down(propelled) and reel it back in with the payload using a giant solar array (free, clean, constant energy) to supply the energy to a large winch in space? A little fancy maneuvering and you could use centripetal force to do some (or most) of the initial lifting. Like a giant space crane. The crane could lift objects from multiple places on earth and not just one fixed spot. This way the tether would not be constantly battered by debries, wind, dust, ice, etc. and could be inspected/cleaned while reeling in and out. Also there would be very little terrorist threat to something like this compared the the proposed fixed tether. Either way we definitely need to stop being stagnant and move forward to advance our space technologies beyond our current methods. Even if there is much greater risk involved. There are plenty of people who would be willing to risk their lives in the exciting pursuit of rapidly advancing space technology and exploration. We've lost a lot more people to sporting events and entertainment than we have to the space program. A strong evolving space program could work wonders to resurrect new interest in space, strengthen and unite the economy, give hope to future exploration, and inspire creativity in the young upcoming minds. It would be money very very well spent.

Eric, Chattanooga TN (Sent Saturday, July 19, 2008 9:20 PM)

It's better to have imagination than knowledge, said Einstein. Are we living a conscious dream or what?

Jules Verne would have been proud.Good luck

richol,Montreal,Quebec (Sent Saturday, July 19, 2008 10:21 PM)

There is a better way, a magnetic gun. Picture a high-speed railway [without rails...levitating in a magnetic field] about 150 miles long…ending in a gentle incline at a stable mountain site. We can accelerate a payload that will reach orbit quickly and easily. The 150 mile system would be for humans. We would only need a 75 mile one for cargo. This is old stuff…what we need is will and a few bucks.

Rex Brewer (Sent Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:17 PM)

Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrodynamic_tether :

"As mentioned earlier, conductive tethers have failed from unexpected current surges. Unexpected electrostatic discharges have cut tethers (eg. see Tethered Satellite System Reflight (TSS-1R) on STS-75), damaged electronics, and welded tether handling machinery. It may be that the Earth's magnetic field is not as homogeneous as some engineers have believed."
Considering that a space elevator would act as the world's greatest lightning rod, how can the massive and unpredictable surges of electric current be handled?

Bill Morrow, Birmingham, AL (Sent Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:36 PM)

The elevator would have to have its earth anchor at the equator and the counterweight in geosynchronous orbit 65,000 miles directly above it. All of the satellites and debris below cross the equator twice each orbit. This probably amounts to tens of thousands of equator crossings each day by objects that would hit the tether at speeds of around 17,000 miles per hour.
I don't think this is a trivial problem or that collisions would be a rare event.

Bill Smith, Kalama, Washington (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:29 AM)

On the orbital debris threat: The Spaceward Foundation's Ben Shelef presented calculations indicating that an elevator in a particular equatorial location would have to move to avoid orbital debris larger than 1 meter across about every 280 days or so (if I'm remembering that right). Another consideration is that an elevator might have multiple tethers, as well as a ribbon design that could survive a small impact and be repairable. But I'm hoping that someone who actually knows what he or she is talking about will weigh in here. I think one of the things I got from the conference is that people are aware more analysis has to be done.

Alan Boyle (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:03 AM)

A great idea but like 99.99 percent of all the other possible space inventions not going to happen. Sad really when we can spend trillions on a modern worthless crusade, but will not spend a couple billion on a worthy idea like this.

Sean Boshard, Jacksonville, FL (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:27 AM)

I'm attending this conference, and I've read every comment on this article so far. I'm pleased to say that having read "The Space Elevator: A Revolutionary Earth-to-Space Transportation System" by Dr. Edwards there is not a single question or doubt posed here that isn't addressed to some degree in this book. There are certainly many engineering challenges -- that's what they want to spend the funding studying. The beauty of science is that spending money on these problems will progress our knowledge, and possibly our technology, no matter what the results of the research concludes. Don't slam the door on a worthy goal simply because you're afraid that it might fail.

To address a few concerns -- 1) the climber is expected to use a traction drive that grips the ribbon, and the laser provides only electricity to the climber. Purely laser-lift systems probably can't get a craft to GEO, but big laser systems (which a company presenting at this conference said they could begin manufacture on today, if someone cuts a check big enough) can provide a traction climber with enough energy to rise at ~200mph. That means the CNT tether is required. 2) The tether is held taught by the weight past the geosynchronous orbit (GEO) altitude (26,000 miles) which may be a bunch of extra ribbon (the other 36,000+ miles), or some cable + a counterweight. The point is that past GEO, all the mass is trying to escape Earth's gravity due to centrifugal force. That force is holding up all the mass below GEO. The mass below GEO is trying to fall back down because of gravity, which in turn is keeping the upper part from flying away. The whole system stands erect from the equator and rotates with the Earth. 3) Because of that tension between gravity and counterweight, cutting the cable below GEO causes much of it to immediately fly off into space (in a matter of seconds). Parts that do fall down build up speed as they fall and large parts either skip out of the atmosphere or burn up from the heat. The small percentage of ribbon parts that don't burn up do fall down, but the CNT material it'll be made of is **less dense than toilet paper**. The Red Mars scenario is the science fiction novel, remember? Carbon doesn't become diamond from heat alone, it needs pressure and controlled cooling. Tissue paper material doesn't "smash" into anything, nor does it crush anything faster than a snail that can just step out of the way. Edward's book and his colleagues actually use "math" and discuss all the various "cut" scenarios. In the 7 years since it was written, volunteer scientist have validated and modeled/visualized the physics involved. 4) Tidal forces, winds effects, lightning strikes, reaction to atomic oxygen, longitudinal and transverse waves and their dampening, and even economic analysis all await you in the book. The wiki referenced in this article will also be filling up with research results. From what I've observed this weekend, critics are absolutely welcome as long as they show up with math/science of their own that tends to refute the work that's been done so far. Bald assertions like "it'll never work" add nothing to any discussion.

I encourage anyone that thinks this won't happen to just put in some time reading this book. At the very least you're likely to stop calling these folks crackpots and scam artists. They're astrophysicists, PhDs from MIT, and that ilk. Just ask yourself how many people in 1960 would have thought we could walk on the moon? Nothing about the 9 years of science and technology by our top thinkers was a "sure bet" and there were plenty of opportunities for show stoppers. What if we discovered the radiation belts around the Earth were instantly fatal to humans? What if we couldn't get a lander stable on the moon surface (which we knew almost nothing about)? What if...? We did it anyway.

Greg Rebholz, Arlington, VA (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:28 AM)

Given the lack of water, need for more living space, already high fuel and food prices, can you imagine how it will be when the world' population grows by another factor of 5 by next century?

Earth population is expected to peak at 9 to 10 bn around 2050 and then start declining. The decline has already begun in Europe. Where does your factor of 5X come from.

Of course if living in fear is your thing anything that will make you afraid (real or imagined) is helpful.

M. Simon, Rockford, Illinois (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:39 AM)

I believe that the we need to get right with GOD before we start another space program.

Which one? There seems to be a great difference of opinion on the matter.

For instance my GOD says we must go into space. Which GOD is that? Why the Space GOD of course.

M. Simon, Rockford, Illinois (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:43 AM)

Do I remember Star wars? Sure. In fact we have a mini-version of that - the Patriot Missile - which seams to work moderately well.

M. Simon, Rockford, Illinois (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:56 AM)

Stan Newton,
It’s tethered to the ground. The earth would impart the necessary momentum as it rises. It will just lag a little to the west.

Michael Bozeman,
It’s tethered to the ground, not in a regular orbit. The lines of magnetic flux are moving along with it, no cutting, no power. It could pick up some static from the wind.

Bob,
Getting right with God is a personal issue, and one for the church. You seem to be thinking of Israel which was a people, a kind of congregation. If you’re part of Israel then you’re Jewish. If you part of America you are not necessarily a child of God.

Mike,
Catching asteroids is kind of a problem. Most of them are farther than the tether by about 1 au. The material has to come from someplace we can actually get it.

Enlightened Elite,
Fourth Reich?

To all you silly Barry U. Headinsand’s who post comments without giving any thought,
In high winds guy wires snap, buildings fall over. Adding more to the counterweight does make the tether more resistant to wind effects, however, you run into the problem of doubling the girder size to strengthen a bridge. The bridge gets 50% stronger but it weighs twice as much. Just keep making it bigger and it gets so strong it collapses. Add more weight in orbit and you eventually just pull the whole thing out of the ground, provided the tether is strong enough. If not it breaks. So if the choices are broken or lost in orbit I’d pick come up with another option. You have to limit the counterweight so wind and gravity are issues.

Eric,
No, you can’t. While the satellite is pulling the load up, the load is pulling the satellite down. The tether would work because the counterweight provides centrifugal force greater than lifting force.

Bill Morrow,
See Michael Bozeman above. Lightning is a good question.

Bill Smith,
It could be tethered at the equator to a lower altitude than at Kalama, WA. If tethered in Kalama it would orbit in a plane parallel to the equatorial. (It wouldn’t go straight up, but rather at the angle of your latitude.) It would become increasingly more unstable as you approach the poles. Collisions, lightning strike, etc. would still be issues.

Timothy Rommes, Washington, UT (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 2:15 AM)

According to Princeton University professor J. Richard Gott mankind may have about 10 thru 7,000 years to get off the planet. The possibility of some event which strips mankind of the technology infrustructure needed to escape the Earth increases every year -not decreases. J. Gott explains in his book, 'Time Travel in Einstiens Universe'reports from the future chapter, explain risk associated with accident and calamity which could befall humankind. He predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1969 using the Copernican principle, and on public record stated the Berlin Wall would fall sometime between 3- 24 years from that time.The Wall fell in 1989. So his prediction of man's demise from NOW out to 7,000 years in future denote the unknown that could befall our species as it has other species before Homo sapiens. Something akin to Smallpox-or some unknown affliction, warfare, etc and man would be denied the capability to escape Earth gravity.

Dan, Chehalis, Washington (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:36 AM)

A few points some seem to have overlooked:

1-If the tether breaks at the top end, everything below the weight would fall to earth, while the counterweight/station would go rocketing off into deep space at a pretty serious clip. IIRC, sufficient to escape the SOLAR SYSTEM. So, if terrorists were to attack the tether, unless they can get to the station at geosynch, the tether would shoot off into space, as the most likely point to be attacked would be near the anchor.

2-At 5 meters/second, if the lift were going to the station at 100,000 km, it would take 231 days...provided the lift wasn't able to accelerate to a higher speed once it passes the point where centripetal force takes over. I'd think that above the 23,000 miles/36,800 km geosynchronous point, the lift would accelerate to a much higher speed, and only be reduced when the lift approaches the station.

3-While the idea of the geomagnetic field generating power is a distinct possibility, IIRC, the tether has to actually MOVE through the magnetic field to generate energy. If it is basically stationary with respect to the earth, there may not be any power generated.

4-If God, or your personal Deity of choice didn't want us to explore the universe He/She (don't want to offend anybody) made, we wouldn't have been granted the ability to dream these daring dreams.

Sam Costanza, Little Elm, TX (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:34 AM)

Great. Yeah good idea if you can get past the knowledge problems. To be honest, I do not know why SPACE PEOPLE get tech like they do on deep space nine, like build the super deep space nine spacecraft on earth, then fly it to the moon, with all necessary building equipments, and then fly to mars, lots of space to colonise in no time at all, i.e very quickly

Alex, Birmingham, UK (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:45 AM)

Any payload you send up would still need to be accelerated horizontally in order to keep up with the tether. So what is the gain by using a tether?

Capsman, Lodi, CA (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 7:04 AM)

No M. Simon, I don't live in fear. I live in reality. The reality is we are still using technology that was around in WWII for our space program. The same exact technology will be used for the upcoming Orion project NASA will now waste all of their money on. There are no plans for any major work with the tethers or space elevators this article speaks of. There are no major plans for major work on advanced propulsion techniques. Why? The reality is: why should major defense contractors invest in anything new when they can make major profits using archaic technology? An example: computer hardware and software has gone from slide rules and room sized punch card computers 40 years ago to laptops that have more total processing power than all the computers in some entire states probably had 40 years ago. All of these advances happened outside of the American aerospace industrial complex? Why? because there is real competition and, more importantly, real reward for giving comsumers the best product. In the aerospace business, on the other hand, there is no reward for innovation. NASA and the government are content to pay ever increasing prices for basically the same space technologies that existed in WWII and were perfected in the late 1960's. In sum M. Simon, when I was a kid my imagination had us putting a base on the moon. The reality is it didn't happen.

John Doe, Seattle, Wash (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 9:37 AM)

I'm sorry, but this idea is so archaic it's not even funny. We can't figure out an efficient and effective mean of propulsion to lift us off Earth, so we build a "space elevator"? What a step backwards. We might as well just build a big ladder and climb to the moon.

Mike, Lincoln, RI (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 10:09 AM)

What about conservation of momentum? Wouldn't it slow the rotation of the earth? Just one probably wouldn't be enough. The Russians would have to have one, the Chinese would have to have one, and maybe India too. If they are so cheap to build.

Robert Alto, Texas (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 10:36 AM)

The naysayers are the same species of short-sighted creature that once said that heavier-than-air flight was impossible. They base their beliefs on a static-present where time and technology stand absolutely still. Cancer will never be cured, the speed of light will never be broken and of course, there will always be a gasoline engine under the hood of your car. Nothing can or ever will advance beyond their limited field of view. If they can't imagine it, it just could never be.

Redoubt (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:16 AM)

One need not be a "skeptic" to believe that 12-15 years is a very, very optimistic estimate for the ribbon. There are many hurdles to be cleared -- in basic science as well as process engineering and economical scaling-up -- between a few cherry-picked CNTs and 100K kilometers of highly aligned, virtually defect-free ribbon. It could well take as long as the progress from the first Bell Labs transistor in 1947 to a contemporary IC fab plant.

The space elevator is a terrific idea (and has been for 50 years now), but the expertise of virtually all of those claiming it could be done in the near term is in aerospace science and engineering, not the physical chemistry of CNT synthesis. Talk to leaders in research on the latter, and you won't hear a lot about imminent breakthroughs and tipping points.

I'm happy to listen to aerospace people about how a CNT ribbon would be launched, deployed and used. But their estimate of when the essential material might be available carries about as much weight as a chemist's estimate of when we'll have a hypersonic airliner or a SSTO launcher -- i.e., no more than that of the wishful-thinking layman.

Monte Davis, Langhorne, PA (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:23 AM)

Let's see. A multi-million dollar theme park in Orlando that would give people a ten story ride in an elevator disguised as a space elevator to a room disguised as a space station. Hummmm... considering that I take an elevator to the 40th floor of an office tower every day and I don't have to pay for it, I'm wondering why anyone would. Besides, there's already an elevator ride at Disney.

Harmon, Tampa, FL (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:55 AM)

Even if we are capable of eventually developing the technology for a workable space elevator, I wonder if we really should use it? We have enough pressing problems here on earth that need to be addressed first before billions of dollars and the raw materials that will be needed to build another "pie in the sky" project so a few can realize obscene profits from this endeavor at the cost of further degradation of our environment.Besides that slick video presentation was sorta creepy. Not so subtle propaganda!

Ray Farrington, Syracuse, N.Y. (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:11 PM)

If we built a space elevator on Eath and also one on Saturns moon titan, the vast hydrocarbon reserves on Titan could be mined lifted off the surface, and where tanker shiips like todays oil tankers could provide Earth (and the solar system) with virtually limitless energy reserves. Of course, such an infusion of hydrocarbon fuel into Earths biosphere would quickly turn Earth into Venus 2. I think the future of space travel is contingent on us building space elevators.

Carl (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:31 PM)

As one who has worked in space debris field, space systems engineering, and space elevators; I have shown that the space elevators and debris issue is an engineering problem that is trackable.... Space Elevators will not be severed by space debris! see Space Elevator Systems Architecture book.

Pete Paradise Valley Az (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:39 PM)

"If GOD wanted us in space, he would have Created us there. "

If he has wanted us to fly, he would have given us wings too Bob.

"Can you imagine the good that can be done if that 7-10 billion was spent to expand Faith-based programs?"

The poor we will always have with us or so the Bible teaches Bob. Please feel free to donate directly to them Bob.

" Don't you think there's a reason we were Created here on Earth and not in space?"

Smae reason we weren't created at the bottom of the sea Bob, kinda need air. Now we can take it with us. Like we do when we go under the water you know.

If God hadn't wanted us to do this, he would not have given us a mind.

Mike Puckett, Charleston, WV (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:51 PM)

I think its much better if we take care of our own earth here it self.Every single piece of ice is melting out on this planet.I am not saying talking about this kind of technology is impossible i think its already being available but we need to materialize it.I think solar powered tubes be better idea and this rope could be tied
up with solar panel disk in space which could provide sufficient energy as well anker to this whole system

Edward Norton,milwaukee,wi (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:16 PM)

we should attach a nuke engine to deimos slow it down a bit to mars synch orbit. park over chosen sight. might take a while but so what. you now have a com sat a fuel dump a space station. lower tether. bobs your uncle. also plenty yummy materials to work with.
easy land easy launch more like dock undock. osamas boys flog themselves in frustration. tether earth hard tether mars easy. deimos is de most. we got stuff to do.

dirk alan, toledo. ohio (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:26 PM)

Atmosphere = 62 Miles

Effective Atmosphere (75%) = 7 miles

Length of the tether = 62,000 Miles

Drag on tether versus length of tether = Insignificant

Distance to station from ground level = 120 - 200 miles

Time it would take an elevator to get to station (at 5m/s) = 10.6 to 17.7 hours

Thickness of the cable when COMPLETE = Not sure, but probably thicker than any cable ever produced in the past.

Terrorist blow up the base of the elevator = the tether and station float away (to be reattached later).

Terrorist blow up the space station = Maybe 200 miles of cable comes down to earth (hence the oceanic based attachment points): I think Kim Stanley Robinson was wrong, but it made great science fiction.

Terrorist blow up the counterbalance = the cable floats till a new counter balance can be set.

Space junk = depending on the size, little to no effect on the tether.

Worst case scenario = A huge meteor hits the tether and pulls the whole thing down.

Solution to worst case scenario = detach the tether from the base, let it float away and retrieve it all later (after the huge meteor has devastated the Earth.)

Need for point to point energy transfer? why not embedded a "Third Rail"?

Powering the thing? Why not let gravity do the job, one car goes up powered by the power generated off the other car coming down?

Cost of lifting a pound? Well, after amortizing the cost of the elevator, maintenance, and a nice profit margin, maybe a few bucks a pound.

People, if you do not understand the physics it is ok to say so, but this is sorta like thinking about a weight on a string. You can spin it over your head, the string stays straight; you let go and it flies away. This is not like a kite, that analogy is not appropriate here since only 0.1% of the tether is actually in the atmosphere. This is also why this concept is very safe and very doable.

Other consideration: Base point can be at a high altitude, eliminating some of the atmospheric effects. To manage lightning, why not embed a lightning rod(s) and possibly harness the power. Also, why not create a launch tower, maybe several thousand feet high to get past more of the atmosphere. The elevator cars can use a "screw" type track to elevate torque stress on the motors, allowing motors in use today to power the cars. (oh, and I have a cool method to allow many cars to run the cable at once.)

just some clarifications and ideas.

Jeff Barsky, Las Vegas, Nevada (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 2:10 PM)

Who says the space elevator has to go all the way up? Would it be possible to set a station on the bottom and have the craft fly there and then do the elevator ? You would still have the amplification of the string and built in manuverability of the other end.
If you can't find holes in this idea you aren't looking but perhaps, just perhaps there is a trade off here.
The only other thing we can hope for would be a true breakthrough in power generation. While it might happen keep your eyes on what can do now

Roger Richardson, Mundelein,Illinois (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 2:36 PM)

Is all this space exploration so the Rich can escape this planet after IT"S DOOMED????????????????????? due to our selfish consuming of it??

Katie Aurora Illinois (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 2:52 PM)

The tethers in the Red Mars series the tether was rather larger than the ribbon they are looking at now. One instance of tether ideas I read had a Boro-silicate fiber mixed and woven with carbon-carbon filaments, and then it was used to make a 2 meter diameter super tether that had rails and supercunducting lines running both up and down, on opposite sides of the tether, allowing cars to run up and down continuously, up one side and down the other. Of course, it had a large mass to attach to and had to be lowered down from orbit Very Carefully, and meet the ground and the mass at the same time. Just a bit of celestial juggling that has been the study of several very good Sci-Fi writers to the point it is seen even as a background item that would just Have to Be there.
I myself wonder tho, with respect to the project now, why not run two thethers, built to carry some current, and thus allow traffic up and down, also giving a bit more orbital stability if the two tether sites were, oh, say 50mi apart?? Not sure, but I think that may be enough to offset any twisting or connection between the tethers, Lightning would indeed be a possible problem, but there Should be some way to either ameliorate the ionization in the areas of the tether and Use that energy instead of being fearful of it....yes it is dangerous, lightning is, but it should not be too hard to use the tether itself to help balance differences in potentials so that the lightning does not occur, but the electricity that would have powered it is instead used for constructive purposes, like lifting the loads, or brakeing them as they come back down the ribbon too. Just things to think on, Thank You Alan for letting us have this chance for input on this Awesome Project, this is Long Overdue!!

Chuck Sweet (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:24 PM)

nothing new under the sun--everthing has been done before--Socrates. No such thing as teaching--only remembering--Socrates. This is no surprise--only one of many steps to put man back in space as there is no doubt we have landed here from other worlds. Whatever has been forgotten will be remembered again.

Nickolas Edwards (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 3:56 PM)

I doubt a space elevator will ever be built. It's technically possible (including issues of wind, space debris, etc.) but it won't be worth the cost. Building it will require a huge investment in advancing various technologies; many of which will be usable for improving conventional launchers. Most especially, the availability of large quantities of high-strength carbon nanotubes will revolutionize rockets and the payloads themselves. That will reduce the costs enough to make the elevator considerably less attractive.

Kevin Cameron, san jose, ca (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:03 PM)

Simply amazing the amount of people that watch TV and are naive enough to think aliens look like we do. Please see any version of Star Trek and you will see what I mean. The reality is if they exist and if they have been here and don't want us to know it then we will not know it.

I believe Einstein was wrong about his theory of relativity and that someday this will be proven. I say that because the distances between star systems is almost incomprehensible and even warp 10 would take eons to get to another galaxy.

I believe aliens exist but I also believe they are multiple millions of years advanced in technology not just hundreds or thousands as is most often talked about and have found ways to travel these distances without distorting time and coming back to their home planet(s) within their own lifetime. Folding space, wormholes etc is probably childs play to them and maybe not even the technology they are using.

There are star systems that are 11 billion light years away from us and still moving outwards. this means they were here almost 11 billion years before we were and if they have life and it has evolved they could be 11 billion years ahead of us in technology, try and think through that for a minute.

Tethers in space? All of these efforts should be global ventures. We need to stop thinking as individual countries and think more as planet earth when conducting space venutures.

We have SETI that has been looking for alien life for quite some time but let me ask this? If we do find them, then what? I ask that because we cannot get along with each other and we are all one species. How are we going to get along with aliens from another world?

I keep hearing we need water for life and that we are looking for it all over Mars, the Moon etc. Have any of these scientists stopped to think that mabe not all life has formed by needing water?

Also if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding in to? Imagine a balloon as you blow it up and that balloon is the universe expanding and contained insdie that balloon and around the edges are the galaxies. Then what is the space that sits outside of the balloon?

We are going to need a lot more that 7-10 billion dollars. We are first going to have to stop creating nuclear weapons and hating each other or there won't be any earth left and we won't be going anywhere.

I would imagine when a civilization like ours gets to the point where they can destroyu themselves they come to a cross road where they make a global decision to do so or not to do so. I will bet this has happend many times throughout the universe and we still have a path to choose, otherwise we will not be building anything except 6 billion grave stones.

Kevin J Gaughan, Seattle, Wash (Sent Sunday, July 20, 2008 4:18 PM)

<< Previous

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1206845

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG