No elevator winner … yet
Published on Oct 23, 2006 at 5:00 pm.
4 Comments.
Filed under space elevator, space exploration.
This year’s Space Elevator Games have wrapped up, and nobody won. These games are part of the Wirefly X-Prize Cup. The X-Prize comptetions are designed to provide incentive to private investments in space technology and space exploration. The Space Elevator Games are supported by the Spaceward Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to furthering space exploration. Spaceward Foundation’s focus project is Elevator:2010, a set of challenges designed to spur technological developments to the point that the fundamental problems of a space elevator can be solved by the year 2010. I think that may be a bit optimistic, but I think that it isn’t too far off. We really are close to developing all the technology to build a space elevator!
So, just what is a space elevator and what is so special about it? That is far too much to cover in one blog entry, so I might have a series of entries on space elevator ideas. But, the basic idea is pretty simple. Instead of a rocket to get something into space, you climb a tall tower of some sort. This was the idea put forth by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky at the dawn of the 20th Century, apparently having been inspired by the Eiffel Tower. The advantage is that an elevator going up the tower would be a much cheaper way into space than a non-reusable rocket. Even better, if the tower were tall enough, then the top of it could be at such an altititude as to be at the orbital altitude of geosynchronous satellites. You just haul something to the top of the tower and toss it out into orbit around the Earth.Â
The only problem with Tsiolkovsky’s idea is that such a tower would collapse under its own weight. About a half century ago, Hans Moravec and John McCarthy came up with an alternate proposal, described as a “Skyhook.” Here, instead of using a tower, a cable would stretch between an asteroid orbiting Earth and the surface of our planet. In this scenario, the center of mass of the asteroid and cable system would be at the altitude of geosynchronous orbits. Tension in the cable would keep the asteroid oribiting in sync with Earth’s rotation. An elevator would just have to crawl up the cable. This was a major improvement over Tsiolkovsky’s tower, but it still had problems. For one thing, the tension in the cable would exceed the maximum tensile strength of the toughest material known at that time. About a decade later, Yuri Artsutanov proposed using carbon filaments, which could possibly be fabricated to have a higher tensile strength than steel. Artsutanov also put the whole skyhook/space elevator idea on a much more sound mathematical basis.
The final piece of the puzzle was worked out just a decade ago with the discovery of carbon nanotubes. These are small tubes of carbon with sufficiently strong molecular bonds to create tubes that are the strongest tensile strength material known. Carbon nanotubes have the strength to withstand the tension in a space elevator cable.
So, all the pieces are finally in place. All that is needed now is to put them together. That is the premise of Spaceward Foundation’s Elevator:2010 project, and the impetus for the Space Elevator Games. The hope is an actual space elevator can be constructed within a decade of working out the technological problems. NASA has seriously studied the potential for a space elevator, and already a number of private companies have begun developing technologies that would be useful in constructing such an elevator. It is proposed that a working space elevator can be built and operated for a fraction of the cost of the Space Shuttle program. Personally, I fear that budget problems will keep NASA out of the running in terms of development of a space elevator.  This may be something that will be developed entirely in the private sector, with NASA perhaps only being involved in building and administrating the elevator. I also believe that Spaceward Foundation is being rather overly optimistic on both the speed of technology development and the enormous engineering problems associated with building a space elevator.
Still, that is what the Space Elevator Games are about — to encourage more private participation in the whole concept. The prize money doesn’t really cover the costs of the research and development. This year, $400,000 was available, to be awarded in various competitions.  Winning is more a matter of bragging rights, rather than recovering costs of the competition. The games, held this past weekend in Las Cruces, New Mexico, did not produce a winner. Yes, teams competed, and elevators did climb part of the way up a 200 foot high 4 inch wide ribbon. But, the rules specified certain conditions that needed to be met. One entry from a University of Saskatchewan team came close, beating the specified time goal by 2 seconds, but the elevator had a problem coming down, and it was unable to complete the round trip under its own power. After some thought, the judges decided not to award a prize for “almost” completing the challenge, no matter how close. Additional competitions were for stronger and longer carbon nanotube ribbon samples, and for a crawler that could crawl up the ribbon using only beamed power.
-Astroprof
(Photo Credit:Â Spaceward Foundation)
Brian on October 24, 2006 at 11:49 pm: 1
Personally, I fear that budget problems will keep NASA out of the running in terms of development of a space elevator. This may be something that will be developed entirely in the private sector, with NASA perhaps only being involved in building and administrating the elevator.
Good heavens, Prof. If the thing is to be operated in such a manner to lower the transaction cost to orbit, having the government run it is the last thing you’d want. Exploring the frontier - that’s the government’s job. Running a business? Leave that to private industry.
I am biased by dint of working for Liftport, I will admit.
I also believe that Spaceward Foundation is being rather overly optimistic on both the speed of technology development and the enormous engineering problems associated with building a space elevator.
You ain’t whistlin’ Dixie, Prof. It is possible that some academics and others who might know better dismiss too lightly the engineering aspect of this, and the need to build a legal and political structure around the idea.
Having the technology isn’t enough - it never has been and never will be. Utlimately the success of this - of any - project depends on the human factors.
Astroprof on October 25, 2006 at 9:38 am: 2
Brian: I agree. The government is incapable of operating something as a business. But, the first space elevator is an experimental system. There the government can spend the money to build it, work out the bugs in the technology, and set the stage for the next ones which will be privately funded and operated. But, space exploitation won’t really get going until private enterprise takes a lead role. After so many years, I see that finally starting to happen. I figure that the next few years will see a flurry of private space activity that will completely change the way things go in that area.
A Ler…-- Rastos de Luz on October 25, 2006 at 2:20 pm: 3
[…] “No elevator winner…yet“, no Astroprof’s Page. O velho conceito do elevador espacial; […]
The Space Elevator Blog » Space Elevator Game Media Roundup on October 27, 2006 at 1:29 am: 4
[…] * No elevator winner … yet - Astroprof’s Page […]