Slashdot Mirror
Space Elevator May Become Reality
mojotek writes: "The NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts has a study(15Mb pdf) about the feasibility of a "Space Elevator" comprised of a 22,000 mile long cable built out of carbon nanotubes. In theory, it would be able to carry loads of 20 tons to space without using a single rocket engine. Sounded way too sci-fi for my taste at first, but this article at TechTV actually helped fill in the holes."
I did the math and worked out that if you gibbed the cable (say 1m chunks), you'ld wind up with something like 25-30 thousand km (I don't remember the exact figure) of the cable crashing down on earth and the rest flying off into space. However, I didn't figure out if the cable would fall east or west (west would be better, but I think it's less likely). Either way, that's a little over 1/2 way around the world and while the only land mass likely to be hit is Africa, I don't imagine the impact with the water would be particularly fun (possible tsunami).
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
To transport you (70 kg) up to an altitude of 200 km would take roughly 140,000 kilojoules of energy (you do the math ... first year physics stuff). However, they can't just lift you, they also have to lift a vehicle containing you. Say the vehicle weighs 500 kg for every person it can carry -- this would take rougly 1,000,000 kilojoules. If they do this electrically (which is one of the more expensive forms of energy), at 100% efficiency it would eat up roughly 300 kWh of energy. At 0.30/kWh (say), that's roughly $100.
Of course, a clever engineer would realize that every vehicle going up eventually goes down ... so the vehicle on the way down could be used as a generator, feeding power to the load of a vehicle going up. Equally obviously, we're not considering the amortization of the construction cost, which would be monumental.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
they want to have a 22,000Km cable to space, but I can't get DSL because I'm 2.3 miles away...
Grrrr
Chaos, Mayhem, and Destruction: Not
Trouble is, if someone farts in the elevator, it's a damn long wait before you can open the door... ;)
Not to dismiss the elevator out of hand, but wouldn't research into efficient space vehicle propulsion yield better long term results?
Not really, because the "efficient" propulsion systems probably won't be able to lift a rocket off the ground. E.g. the DS-1 ion engine, high efficiency but only about 0.1N of thrust - or nuclear engines that would be too dirty to run in the biosphere, but would work fine in interplanetary space.
If a space elevator could be built, the cost of lifting payloads into space could drop dramatically, and that would create a lot more incentive for companies to develop these efficient space-only engines.
The short answer is: Yes.
Physics works everywhere all the time. When you climb a flight of stairs or walk up a hill it slows the Earth's rotation - and it speeds back up as you walk back down.
No - seriously - just as an ice skater's rotation slows or speeds as they extend or contract their arms the same principles apply to all rotating bodies. Everytime we slingshot a space vehicle around the Earth we are effectively transfering some of the planet's energy to the vehicle and that energy has to come from somewhere.
But the amounts here are so small that the effect is not measurable or "effective" in the scale of anything we could notice. It's like the fact that anything with mass has a gravatational field - but you don't notice the effect of the gravity created by your pen.
=tkk
Bill Gates - Creationist?!?
Robert Heinlein (iirc) once commented that low earth orbit (LEO) is halfway to anywhere, and that's even more true of geosynchronous orbit (GEO). It takes a *lot* of fuel to get out of the earth's gravity well, and getting to GEO for the cost of electricity (provided by in-space solar cells!) would profoundly change everything.
If you want to leave earth orbit, you take a second elevator that runs from geostationary station out to the anchor and let go. Depending on the length of this section, you'll have a ballistic launch to anywhere else in the solar system. Well, you'll need a modest amount of fuel unless the plane of earth's orbit is exactly aligned with your destination, but you'll need orders of magnitude less fuel than you need today, and you can get that fuel up to the launch point for the cost of electricity alone.
If you want to leave the solar system, you let go of the upper elevator and hop to the center of a freespinning tether, then inch outward. When you reach the end of this tether, you could be traveling at a few percent of c. You'll be at Alpha Centari within 100 years... and a second tether there could capture you and slow you down. That's too long for passenger traffic, but brief enough that interstellar colonization is a realistic possibility by the end of the millennium.
So all things considered, I think research into carbon nanotube space elevators has better long term potential than anything rocket propulsion technology. Even antimatter propulsion, excluding some unknown mechanism to mass-produce anti-atoms.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
There are some variations on the idea though,like this one, that are close to being possible with today's technology, and can even be provisionally costed. Basically the idea is to construct an elevated runway about 100km up, and use mass drivers to hurl stuff into orbit. At that altitude the saving from air resistance is huge and mass drivers become very efficient
At this stage, NASA speanding serious time thinking about space elevators is probably no more useful than daydreaming. Thinking about this kind of thing is probably more productiove though, becuase something might come of it in the medium term, and its almost as efficient as an evelator anyway - with the decided advantage of not being able to collapse and strangle the planet.
(Since I heard about this from a NASA researcher, maybe Im being a little harsh to accuse them of daydreaming)
One big issue they missed is the fact that a carbon nanotube cable still isn't strong enough to support it's own weight without tapering the cable correctly, at the middle it has to be about 10 times thicker because the stresser are highest at geostationary orbit.
The deployment method they're using doesn't take account of the fact that you need the thickest part to always be at the middle - if you simply unroll it the way they suggest then the incorrect thickness profile will result in the cable exceeding it's breaking point and snapping.
What they need to do is unfurl a cable like this from geostationary orbit simultaneously up and down at the same time. The Mechanism to do this would have to be very delicate at unfurling the last kink or the cable will again snap.
The cool thing about this is if you figure out what kind of weight you want the cable to support then you can come up with an idea of the amount of energy stored in the tension. If the cable snapped at any point then the amount of energy released would be pretty phenomenal. From each end of the snap you'd generate a compression wave which would get stronger as it travelled along the cable, after a while of picking up energy it may turn into a shockwave and snap the cable again (essentially shattering the cable). If it doesn't then the wave will have energy equivalent to nuclear weapons when it reaches the endpoints and the waves transmit themselves into the supporting structure....
No, you don't need a counterweight. If the cable is long enough so that the center of mass is in geostationary orbit it will just hang there by itself.
Besides, this "space elevator" would be a giant, provactive, easy target for terrorists.
If we let that stop us, then the terrorists have already won!
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
And it is exactly that, sci-fi. Sure, carbon nanotubes are incredibly strong. And they're also on the order of a few microns long. Now, this cable needs to be a few hundreds of thousands of meters long. You do the math.
The semiconductor industry figured out how to make large single crystals of ultra-pure silicon, then pattern the surface down to a ridiculously fine resolution. The fiberoptic folks figured out how to make glass so clear that a light pulse can go through many many miles of it and still be recognizable at the other end. Molecular biologists can "amplify" single molecules of DNA into macroscopic quantities.
I wouldn't be so quick to say that we will never be able to make carbon nanotubes that are long enough to be useful as structural materials.
I was just out of college (iirc) when the first popular discussion of beanstalks came out (Charles Sheffield, in some long-dead Baen book-zine).
The numbers were so ludicrious that he repeatedly apologized for wasting our time. Of course this was a flight of fancy, the numbers were orders of magnitude larger than the strongest known materials. Yet, if "ultronium" could be developed from some exotic material....
Then buckyballs were discovered. Then buckytubes.
The fact that this is even "just" possible with known materials less than 20 years later is mindblowing. I can only compare it to the confident RSA predictions in Scientific American (which I also remember when it first appeared) that RSA-128 would take millions of years to crack. We all know how well that prediction held up.
Given this perspective, I don't think it's unreasonable for NASA to spend some serious money considering its options if/when stronger materials become available. It's easier to believe that even stronger materials will be discovered (e.g., perhaps by putting foreign elements within the tubes to manipulate quantum properties) than that we've suddenly hit the ultimate barrier.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken