Japanese company plans space elevator by 2050

"Speaking to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation this month, the company said
that the elevator would reach 96,000km (59,652 miles) into space (for reference,
space lies beyond the Kármán Line, at an altitude of 100km, the International
Space Station is 330km, and the moon is 384,400km from Earth), and use robotic
cars powered by magnetic linear motors (maglev, as seen in high-speed rail lines
around Asia and Europe) to ferry cargo and humans to a new space station.

All this, the company said, can be achieved because of carbon nanotechnology."

See:

http://www.cnet.com/news/japanese-co...vator-by-2050/

On 28/09/2014 1:24 PM, wrote:
"Speaking to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation this month, the company said
that the elevator would reach 96,000km (59,652 miles) into space (for reference,
space lies beyond the Kármán Line, at an altitude of 100km, the International
Space Station is 330km, and the moon is 384,400km from Earth), and use robotic
cars powered by magnetic linear motors (maglev, as seen in high-speed rail lines
around Asia and Europe) to ferry cargo and humans to a new space station.

All this, the company said, can be achieved because of carbon nanotechnology."

See:

http://www.cnet.com/news/japanese-co...vator-by-2050/


I seriously doubt the costings. Their cost per kg to orbit looks more
like the direct operating cost, with no allowance for capital costs.

Sylvia.

On 9/27/2014 11:24 PM, wrote:
All this, the company said, can be achieved because of carbon nanotechnology."

A space elevator sounds like science fiction to me, but then so did
SpaceX's reusable boosters when they first announced the concept.
Today, those reusable boosters look more like bleeding-edge technology
and much less like SF.

In article ,
Vaughn wrote:

On 9/27/2014 11:24 PM, wrote:
All this, the company said, can be achieved because of carbon
nanotechnology."

A space elevator sounds like science fiction to me, but then so did
SpaceX's reusable boosters when they first announced the concept.
Today, those reusable boosters look more like bleeding-edge technology
and much less like SF.

The problem with space elevators, even if they can solve the structural
weight problems associated with the tethers, is the accounting for the
velocity mismatch between Earth and orbit -- going both ways.

"Vaughn" wrote in message ...

On 9/27/2014 11:24 PM, wrote:
All this, the company said, can be achieved because of carbon
nanotechnology."

A space elevator sounds like science fiction to me, but then so did
SpaceX's reusable boosters when they first announced the concept. Today,
those reusable boosters look more like bleeding-edge technology and much
less like SF.


Eh, I think the engineering for a space elevator is far more cutting edge.

SpaceX really is in many way just a refinement of existing tech in a far
more evolutionary way.

It's harder to incrementally build a space elevator. Right now the longest
fibers we've made are on the order of a few inches. We need to scale up to
100s if not 1000s of miles.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

In article ,
says...

"Vaughn" wrote in message ...

On 9/27/2014 11:24 PM, wrote:
All this, the company said, can be achieved because of carbon
nanotechnology."

A space elevator sounds like science fiction to me, but then so did
SpaceX's reusable boosters when they first announced the concept. Today,
those reusable boosters look more like bleeding-edge technology and much
less like SF.


Eh, I think the engineering for a space elevator is far more cutting edge.

SpaceX really is in many way just a refinement of existing tech in a far
more evolutionary way.

Agreed. SpaceX is simply following the lead of the DC-X program which
first flew (VTVL) in 1993, which is more than 20 years ago. DC-X also
demonstrated rapid turn-around of a vehicle using cryogenic, liquid
fueled, rocket engines. There is little to no "bleeding-edge tech" in
SpaceX's Falcon 9 V2.

If anything, the technology that SpaceX is using is quite off the shelf.
There is nothing revolutionary about any part of their vehicles. What
is exceptional is how the program is being managed and run. The goal of
the program is to reduce launch costs. 25 years ago, a fringe group of
people in the sci.space newsgroup were arguing that low cost access to
space had not yet happened simply because no one (with deep enough
pockets) had tried.

SpaceX has proven that engines, launch vehicles, and spacecraft can be
built and flown for a tiny fraction of a typical government funded
program (e.g. EELVs).

It's harder to incrementally build a space elevator. Right now the
longest
fibers we've made are on the order of a few inches. We need to scale up to
100s if not 1000s of miles.

This is bleeding-edge tech. Absolutely no doubt about it.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Thursday, October 9, 2014 7:18:44 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
This is bleeding-edge tech. Absolutely no doubt about it.

I'd say right now, as it stands, it's over the edge.

Start with something far more practical. Say carbon nano-tube fibers to reinforce auto tires, then move up to bridge cables, then move on to reinforcing supports for long electrical transmission lines (perhaps as a cheaper replacement for wound steel cables), then let's talk about space elevators.....

Dave

In article ,
David Spain wrote:

On Thursday, October 9, 2014 7:18:44 AM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
This is bleeding-edge tech. Absolutely no doubt about it.

I'd say right now, as it stands, it's over the edge.

Start with something far more practical. Say carbon nano-tube fibers to
reinforce auto tires, then move up to bridge cables, then move on to
reinforcing supports for long electrical transmission lines (perhaps as a
cheaper replacement for wound steel cables), then let's talk about space
elevators....

Dave

As I have pointed out in other posts, the space elevator concept fails
in conservation of energy, since it does not account for the necessary
increase in velocity as a payload rises, nor for the reduction in
velocity as the payload descends.

The above is true, even if the "super nanotubes" meet the required
strength and do not fail of their own weight.

On Thursday, October 9, 2014 11:24:25 AM UTC-4, Orval Fairbairn wrote:

As I have pointed out in other posts, the space elevator concept fails
in conservation of energy, since it does not account for the necessary
increase in velocity as a payload rises, nor for the reduction in
velocity as the payload descends.

The above is true, even if the "super nanotubes" meet the required
strength and do not fail of their own weight.

I thought this issue was addressed by mounting active rockets on the "counterweight" that allows it to maintain station at all times regardless of the mass transiting the cable? In order to keep the space elevator viable these rockets have to be kept fueled.

But I'll worry about this once you should me the cable....

;-)

Dave

On Thursday, October 9, 2014 12:20:29 PM UTC-4, David Spain wrote:
Minor corrections to above: replace "counterweight" with "countermass" and the phrase "should me the cable..." with "show me the cable..."

Dave