Slashdot Mirror
Continued Success for Space Elevator Tests
Jacki O writes "According to their Web site the Space Elevator company Lifport recently managed to get their platform and climbing robot to the mile-high mark over the Arizona desert." From the announcement: "A revolutionary way to send cargo into space, the LiftPort Space Elevator will consist of a carbon nanotube composite ribbon eventually stretching some 62,000 miles from earth to space. The LiftPort Space Elevator will be anchored to an offshore sea platform near the equator in the Pacific Ocean, and to a small man-made counterweight in space. Mechanical lifters are expected to move up and down the ribbon, carrying such items as people, satellites and solar power systems into space."
The robot only made it around 1500 feet. The cable was a mile long.
The article said that the platform (held up by baloons) at the end of the teather was a mile up. The climbing device reached 1500 feet, 500 feet further than previous attempts, but still quite a bit short of a mile.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
For those who have not experienced this particular pleasure: the obligatory Wikipedia reference.
Take a string, tie a rock to it and swing it around your head. Then you'll get the picture.
The most common proposal is a tether, usually in the form of a cable or ribbon, that spans from the surface to a point beyond geosynchronous orbit. As the planet rotates, the inertia at the end of the tether counteracts gravity and keeps the tether taut. Vehicles can then climb the tether and escape the planet's gravity without the use of rockets. Such a structure could eventually permit delivery of great quantities of cargo and people to orbit, and at costs only a fraction of those associated with current means.
There was an article in Analog (WAAAAY back when) on the math behind space elevator cables, and they indicated that unless a material such as carbon fibers (nanotubes and the like weren't even on the horizon then) were developed to commercial viability then the required strength to weight ratio would make the cable waaay too wide at its halfway point.
Less is more.
The centripetal force is what holds it down, not what holds it up. From an inertial frame of reference, there is no force that holds it up; that's simply a function of its own inertia. If you wish to use the Earth as your reference frame (as you are doing) you must invent a force, called a centrifugal force, to account for the fact that a spinning object is not an inertial reference frame.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
No. 62 miles is the completely arbitrary definition of "space", but a space elevator that ended at that altitude would simply fall back down. By necessity, the center of mass (radially from the surface of the Earth) must be at or near geosynchronous orbit, so it naturally remains centered over its ground anchor. Geosynchronous orbit is at 22,241 miles above sea level. So, by gradually tapering the cable and extending it past GEO, the center of mass ends up there. Alternatively, you can have a large mass like a captured asteroid or something as an anchor just on the far side of GEO, although you should also have some counterweights you can move around on the cable to keep the center of mass in the right place as a load moves up from the surface. Additionally, keeping the center of mass just a little bit further out that necessary ensures that the space elevator will have just enough tension to keep it taut, giving the climbers an easier job.
But who knows, maybe they do mean 62,000 miles? I thought the elevator's main purpose was to get things in and out of just the atmosphere, as to avoid all the problems with expensive and dangerous rocket launches and dangerous re-entries.
We don't use rocket to get above the atmosphere. Planes can pretty much do that. Balloons can (and regularly do) do that. That's the easy part.
We use rockets to get velocity, because you need a ridiculous velocity in order to actually orbit the Earth at a low height.
You do not, however, need a ridiculous velocity in order to orbit at a very, very high height. At geosynchronous orbit, you need no velocity, because you've already got the speed from the Earth's rotation.
So yes, they do mean 62,000 miles (100,000 km). And the benefits you get from a cable like that are insane. Costs/pound to launch things into space become negligible. Transit to the Moon becomes cheap and fast, because the end of the cable is actually moving faster than orbital velocity.
In fact, if you climbed all the way to the end of the cable, and let go with good timing, you'd end up past Jupiter (and on a direct trajectory, too, no mucking about in Lagrange points).
Yes, it's moderately insane. Yes, it's ridiculously difficult. But it would also end up being one of the biggest changes in human industry that has ever occurred. Space solar power plants beaming down power becomes feasible. Large-scale structures built in space become easy.
Plus, once we get the technology, we can build them on other planets as well. The Moon. Mars. It basically eliminates almost all of the serious difficulties of space flight.
IAARRS (I am a retired rocket scientist, and have participated in a NASA
Space Elevator workshop, and been on a science panel with one of the Liftport
guys - I guess that makes me a relative expert)
A tower going up from the ground meeting a cable coming down from orbit is
more efficent than a cable going all the way to the ground, if, and this is
important, the strength of the cable is substantially less than the depth
of the earth's gravity well.
Here's why: As you build a longer cable or a taller column of constant area
under gravity, the stress gets higher. In a column the maximum stress is at
the bottom, and in a cable it is at the top. Eventually you exceed the
strength of the material.
The Earth's gravity well is equal to one gee times the radius of the planet
= 6,378 km. A space elevator is centered at GEO, which is 97% of the way out
of the Earth's gravity well, so we need to span 6,167 km at one gee.
The strongest readily available carbon fiber that is not made of nanotubes
is about 1 million psi in strength. It has a density of 0.067 lb/in^3, so
if you had a cable 15 million inches long under one gee, it would be at the
limit of it's strength. 15 megainches = 381 km, which is a factor of 15
below what we need.
You can build towers or cables longer than the strength limit if you make
them progressively wider to keep the stress below the limit of the material.
Each 15 inches of length in the cable above adds one millionth to the stress,
therefore the area has to increase by one millionth. Over a 381 km length,
the area of the cable increases by a factor of e (2.718...). This length,
found by dividing strength by the density of the material, is called the
scale length. If you have 16.2 scale length to cover (6167/381), your
cable area increases by e^16.2 = ~10 million.
A graphite/epoxy composite is needed for a tower. Bare fibers are okay in
tension, but you need to stiffen them for a compression structure. Typically
using the same fibers, the composite will be 30% as strong in compression as
the bare fibers are in tension. Now assume you build a tower up and a cable
down with the same area ratios from bottom to top. The tower's scale height
is 114 km, so the combined scale heights for the tower + cable = 495 km.
Now you need 6167/495 = 12.5 scale heights. e^12.5 = ~250,000, which is
a factor of 40 improvement.
If you have carbon nanotube cable which has, say a 10 million psi strength,
your scale length is 3810 km, and your area only needs to grow by a factor
of 5 from bottom to top, so the reduction possible by using a tower is much
less helpful. Of course, we are not making 10 million psi cable in useful
quantities yet.
Daniel
..\/
_/\_
has a lesser mass than
/....\
\..../
_\/_
Aside from that, if you build the tower first, you can launch from the tower to build the rope, and start getting significant returns much sooner.
Last of all, it's easier to blow the second example free in a case of terrorist attack. It's rather hard to do much to the first. And if it does break free, it does tons less damage in the first case (the tower+rope).
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Well, I can't say how much something like that would cost to build, but it probably wouldn't provide enough speed to get something into orbit. Velocity given constant acceleration over some distance is given by:
v[f]^2 = v[i]^2 + 2ad
So, from a standing start, taking optimistic values for acceleration (say 10 G's), and the length of the ramp (say 100 km):
v^2 = 2*10g*d
v^2 = 2*10*9.81*100000
v^2 = 19620000
v = 4425 m/s
Which isn't even close to what you need for orbit, so you still need a significant rocket. Except now, you need a rocket that can handle your launch ramp, which isn't trivial.
You'd end up spending a lot of money for not much gain. You'd save some fuel, but complexity is already the expensive part and you're increasing that quite a bit.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.