A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Technology
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A Space Elevator for Real?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 24th 03, 08:01 PM
Kip Ingram
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Space Elevator for Real?

I saw a report on space.com recently describing what appear to be real
consideration of a space elevator, using carbon nanotube technology to get
enough strenth for the cable. Obviously it's still an "out there" notion,
but this article seemed to have a lot more seriousness than others I've seen
discussing the concept.

Does anyone here know anything more about this?

Thanks,
Kip


  #2  
Old September 25th 03, 01:31 AM
Jordin Kare
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Space Elevator for Real?

Kip Ingram wrote:

I saw a report on space.com recently describing what appear to be real
consideration of a space elevator, using carbon nanotube technology to get
enough strenth for the cable. Obviously it's still an "out there" notion,
but this article seemed to have a lot more seriousness than others I've seen
discussing the concept.

Does anyone here know anything more about this?


It's based on work by Dr. Brad Edwards, now of ISR (Institute for
Scientific Research, Inc., a West Virginia think tank) that was funded
by NIAC (NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts). The intent was to
develop a space elevator design that could be built in the near term
(nominally 15 years) and be at least competitive with existing launchers
for current markets (i.e., not require huge increases in space activity
to be practical).

The basic design is a 100,000 km by 1-meter by 1-micron-thick ribbon of
carbon-nanotube composite fibers, mass around 80 tons, with a 20 ton
load capacity. The "climbers" use simple friction drive (treads clamped
around the ribbon) to go up the ribbon at 200 km/hr, taking about a week
to reach GEO. Climbers are powered by laser power beaming from the
ground, and are 7 tons empty (13 ton payload). The ribbon is
"bootstrapped" -- an initial few-cm ribbon is deployed down from GEO,
and small (initially 1-ton) climbers carrying ribbon spools widen the
initial ribbon until it reaches full width. The ribbon is anchored on a
floating platform in the Pacific, which among other things allows the
bottom of the ribbon to be moved to dodge LEO satellites as needed.

It's a very interesting concept, but has (not surprisingly) lots of
practical problems. Some are addressed in Edwards' NIAC reports (see
www.niac.usra.edu) and a book he put out (search Bradley C. Edwards on
Amazon) but work on the concept is still at a very early stage. The
most fundamental issue is whether carbon nanotube (CNT) composites will
actually achieve the required tensile strength -- individual nanotubes
are strong enough (upwards of 150 GPa tensile strength) but it's not
clear if it will be possible to make long cables with a large fraction
of the raw-nanotube strength to weight; the baseline cable design
assumes ~60 GPa cable strength.

If the CNT materials work(and they probably will get close enough to
make an elevator possible, though perhaps not with the performance
Edwards assumed) then there are a bunch of other things to worry about
-- collisions with LEO satellites and meteoroids, dynamic stability,
ribbon wear, etc., etc. Many fun Ph.D. theses to be had....

There was just a workshop on the subject (which is what prompted the
flurry of press articles); you can see the presentations at
http://www.isr.us/spaceelevatorconference/presentations.html

(There's even one by me; I didn't plan to talk at the conference, but I
objected to some of the economic estimates in another talk and got
challenged to do better, so I literally put a talk together overnight.)

Jordin
--
Jordin Kare

"Point and click" means you're out of ammo.
  #4  
Old October 23rd 03, 02:18 PM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Space Elevator for Real?

In article ,
Mister Sharkey wrote:
The basic design is a 100,000 km by 1-meter by 1-micron-thick ribbon of
carbon-nanotube composite fibers...


In the reports I have read, the designs always call for a ribbon of
carbon nanotubes. Why a ribbon, and not a cylindrical cable? Would a
ribbon be stronger, or easier for the climbers to climb, or what?


The ribbon is less likely to be cut completely by a small debris hit.
Multiple cables with cross-connections would be even better, but much
more complicated.

Also, don't overlook the problem of how the climbers get traction on the
cable. A cylindrical cable with the same cross-section would be only
about a millimeter in diameter. A wide flat ribbon is much easier to climb.
--
MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec | Henry Spencer
pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well. |
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) Stuf4 Space Shuttle 150 July 28th 04 07:30 AM
European high technology for the International Space Station Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 May 10th 04 02:40 PM
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) Rand Simberg Space Science Misc 18 February 14th 04 04:28 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 2nd 04 04:33 AM
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 December 27th 03 02:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.