132,000,000:1 A Technological and Cultural Analysis of THE SPACE ELEVATOR by Tom Phillips

CONTENTS

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

01. INTRODUCTION

1.1 - INTRODUCTION 1.2 - GLOSSARY

6 8

02. HISTORY Details of the Past

03. CONSIDERATIONS Technical & Environmental

3.1 - SCIENTIFIC BASIS 3.2 - WHY THE SPACE ELEVATOR? 3.3 - MATERIAL & CONSTRUCTION 3.4 - CURRENT EFFORTS 3.5 - PLAUSIBLE DESIGN 3.5 - LOGISTICS

18 20 22 24 26 28

04. CONSIDERATIONS Financial/Political/Social/Cultural 4.1 - FINANCIAL 4.2 - ECONOMICS & POLITICAL 4.3 - SOCIAL & CULTURAL

05. CONCLUSION 132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

33 34 36 38

“...OUR ONLY CHANCE OF LONG TERM SURVIVAL IS NOT TO REMAIN INWARD LOOKING ON PLANET EARTH, BUT TO SPREAD OUT INTO SPACE...” [HAWKING, 2010]

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

1 INTRODUCTION

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION “Our population and our use of the finite resources of planet Earth are growing exponentially, along with our technical ability to change the environment for good or ill. But our genetic code still carries the selfish and aggressive instincts that were of survival advantage in the past. It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million. Our only chance of long term survival is not to remain inward looking on planet Earth, but to spread out into space.” (Hawking, 2010)

These prophetic words summarise the current world malaise. The short term issues that absorb political will and expenditure are the same issues that are lacking in the real development advantages that are generated by investment and support for a meaningful space programme. The financial returns from leading edge technological advances are well known and a matter of historical fact. The other benefits afforded through new energy production opportunities, zero gravity medicinal and technological experimentation, mining of essential elements from easily accessed asteroids and the moon, are without precedent. However the other main driver is the necessity to provide the planet, and its life, with protection from asteroid collision and to start the base activities to ensure human existence. This last point is severely hampered by the cost burden associated with today’s methodology for gaining access to space through the use of a single journey and incredibly expensive launch vehicles coupled with the huge expense of ensuring their payloads are totally reliable and able to withstand the huge forces present at launch. How much easier to find a way of climbing up a “staircase” to a zero gravity, human inhabited environment. From Biblical times people have dreamed of a Stairway to Heaven, a means of simply climbing into space. History has, until relatively recently, shown the presumed folly of such beliefs. However, the realisation of the space elevator concept would completely transform the ease and costs associated with satellite positioning, space exploration and intended future missions to Mars and beyond. In addition, spacecraft will be capable of being constructed in weightless Earth orbit, removing virtually all current issues regarding size and eliminating today’s need for craft that have the ability to enter and exit the Earth’s atmosphere and gravitational pull. Another facet of such a concept would facilitate the construction of orbiting platforms not only for space missions but certainly to act as supply points for future moon habitation or indeed orbiting inhabitation points, Space tourism would become a reality with the space elevator concept. The construction of a space elevator is a critical requirement in mankind’s future exploration and potential colonisation of space, rooted in those Biblical thoughts of “The Stairway to Heaven”.

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

INTRODUCTION This thesis examines the history of the space elevator, the theory of the concept and various examples and potential outcomes. It considers the broad technical aspects of its fundamental principles and their consequences in relation to a number of key examples of intricate design. The overall design of the space elevator and the logistic requirements of the base station are discussed in some detail as is the Carbon Nano-Tube material construction and the immense possibilities at the upper end of the tethered structure. The historical backgrounds to the concepts are examined particularly with regard to their designs, their feasibility and the base theory that drove their creation. A comprehension of the timing of these concepts will be assessed and critically analysed to evaluate the influences and developments through the ages. The concept of the space elevator has been a prominent theme throughout science fiction novels, animations, films and discussions which has allowed multiple designs and feasibility concepts to adapt and evolve throughout the past century. We will consider and evaluate those conceptual considerations and their influence on the current prognosis for future space elevator plans. The Escape Velocity of an object is the minimum speed required to break free from the gravitational attraction of a massive body. In the case of our planet, Earth, this is some 40,270 Km/h. The energy requirement and cost to achieve this is extremely prohibitive using vast quantities and weight of propulsion fuel to escape Earth’s gravity well, and thus most space craft will only reach sufficient speed only to achieve earth orbit and effectively remain there. A graphic illustration of this is the size of the Saturn V rocket used to power the Apollo moon missions, an enormous, one journey only rocket, required in order to achieve the escape velocity and allow the lunar and command modules to break free of Earth’s gravitational pull and travel to the moon itself. Standing at 363 feet tall metres, and weighing some 2800 tonnes, at launch it created more power than 85 Hoover Dams. The cost in the late 1960s was around $460M per launch. It is therefore very apparent that as mankind seeks new horizons in space, that the greatest obstacle for humanity in colonizing space, is overcoming Earth’s “gravity well” and atmosphere. This has to be accomplished far more efficiently than currently and so the concept of a space elevator is of critical importance. “Arthur C. Clarke once famously said that we will build a space elevator 10 years after they stop laughing — and they’ve stopped laughing. He said that in 2003, and while his timeline may have been off, his sentiment surely wasn’t. The concept of a space elevator is taken seriously at NASA these days, as it eyes both shrinking budgets and growing public expectations. Space is quickly becoming a bottleneck in the timeline of human technological advancement.” (Templeton, 2014 p.2)

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

INTRODUCTION

GLOSSARY

•

132,000,000 to 1 – Maximum Carbon Nanotube length-to-diameter Ratio.

•

Base Station – Anchor for the Space Elevator, mobile or stationary.

•

CERN Operation – the European Organization for Nuclear Research.

•

Clarke Belt – The geostationary orbit, named after Arthur C. Clarke, who first described in detail how such an orbit could be used for global communications.

•

Climbers – Transportation vehicles on the Space Elevator.

•

CNT – Carbon Nano tube, considered as the ultimate materials for advanced energy, composites, biomaterials, electronics, and optical applications.

•

Counterweight – Upper element of Space elevator, space-port held in GEO.

•

Earth’s gravity well – Gravitational Field surrounding Earth.

•

Electromagnetic Propulsion – The principle of accelerating an object by the utilization of a flowing electrical current and magnetic fields.

•

Equatorial - On or related to an equator.

•

Escape Velocity – The minimum speed needed for an object to break free from the gravitational attraction of Earth.

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

INTRODUCTION • •

FERMI Paradox – Contradiction between the probability of other extra-terrestrial lifeforms and the lack of human contact with such beings outside our solar system.

•

Helium-3 – A gas that has the potential to be used as fuel in future nuclear fusion power plants. Thought to be significant supplies on the Moon.

•

LEO – Lower Earth Orbit.

•

NIAC – ‘NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts’.

•

Payloads – Cargo and/or People transported to Space-port.

•

Seed Ribbon – Initial set up of Carbon nanotube cable, spooled.

•

SETI – The search for extra-terrestrial intelligence.

•

Space Elevator - A hypothetical cable, connecting ground with space, which includes an elevator used to lift payloads or people into orbit.

•

Space-port – Upper end of the Space Elevator.

•

Tether – The Cable itself, acting as a ‘tie’ between earth and space-port.

GEO – Geostationary Orbit.

• The Overview Effect – A cognitive shift in awareness reported by some astronauts and cosmonauts during spaceflight. •

Zero Gravity – Weightlessness, or an absence of weight.

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

“...W E WILL BUILD A SPACE ELEVATOR 10 YEARS AFTER THEY STOP LAUGHING AND THEY’VE STOPPED LAUGHING...” [CLARKE, 2014]

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

2 HISTORY Details of the Past

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

HISTORY

HISTORY It is commonly accepted that one of the first known scientific thoughts on the space elevator concept were published in 1895 by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (Swan, 2012). He proposed a freestanding tower, based upon the Eiffel Tower, Paris, reaching from the Earth to the height of geostationary orbit some c. 24,000 miles. As with all such structures this would be under huge compression, gravity, with its weight being supported from below.

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

HISTORY history diagram across both

[FIG 02] OWN work???????????????? 132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

HISTORY

In 1959 Yuri Artsutanov effectively reversed this thought process and proposed a tensile structure with the weight of the structure being held from above. This simple idea fundamentally influenced all future space elevator design concepts (Edwards, 2003). In the sixties several scientists including Artsutanov, and John Isaacs and his team, were actively pursuing these new designs and the early seventies saw Jerome Pearson formulate the engineering principle of a counterweight in orbit and a tethering light-weight mechanism, a concept effectively followed today (Gregorek, 2009). In 1960 Artsutanov wrote an article “V Kosmos na Electrovoze” (‘Into space with the help of an electric locomotive’), where he discussed the concept of the space elevator as an economic, safe and convenient way to access orbit and facilitate space exploration and travel. In principle the structure would be a space tether reaching from a large mass (the counterweight) beyond geostationary orbit to the ground. This structure is held in tension between Earth and the GEO Space Station or community (Gregorek, 2009). Artsutanov’s article appeared in the Sunday supplement of Pravda and as the title suggests, introduced a second revolutionary idea: to access space with an electric propulsion vehicle that would dramatically increase crew and cargo capacity, and reduce time of travel from the surface to the platform to a few days (Pearson, 1997). This is the basis of the current general design concept. Unfortunately, the article Artsutanov wrote went relatively unnoticed amid the incipient space race where rockets would be the protagonists (Seiler, 2000). The same fate was true of the 1966 paper published in “Science” by a group of American oceanographers led by John Isaacs that formulated the introduction of a cable deployed from GEO (Ragan, 2010). Yuri Artsutanov proposed a seminal Space Elevator; his development is regarded as the real creation of the Space Elevator. Instead of depicting it as a tall tower, it was correctly predicted to be a tautly tensioned structure and framed a clear proposal for the taper and ribbon geometry generally accepted today (Edwards, 2003). Artsutanov also discussed bootstrapping and deployment systems, and conducted surveys to create and develop the Space Elevator concept and proposition including iterations that were designed for Mars, the Moon and even Mercury (Gregorek, 2009).

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

HISTORY [FIG 03] ‘To the cosmos by electric train’ 132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

HISTORY

Moreover, Sir Arthur C Clarke, British born and knighted for his services to science, is recognised as being one of the greatest science fiction writers, a writer on science, and a world leading futurist. Perhaps his best known work was 2001; A Space Odyssey. He was a great proponent of Space Travel and a futurist of incredible capability (Spaceward, 2008). In 1945 he proposed the concept of geostationary satellites and their world usage for telecommunications. This geostationary orbit is known as the Clarke orbit or Clarke belt in his honour (Ragan 2010). As always, authors and science fiction have long had an impact on scientific thought and both Arthur C Clarke and Isaac Asimov wrote concerning the space elevator thus broadening the general appreciation of such an entity. However, it was in 1991 that the next real step forward was made with the discovery by Dr Sumio Lijima of a revolutionary new material and structure known as a carbon nanotube. This revolutionary material seemingly answered a number of the engineering and construction issues raised by the elevator concept (Spaceward, 2008).

[FIG 04] â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;The Clarke Beltâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

3 CONSIDERATIONS Technical & Environmental

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

CONSIDERATIONS

3.1:SCIENTIFIC BASIS A space elevator, as its name implies, is fundamentally an elevator, or lifting device that will be able to transport people and goods into space without the need for large rockets and their associated costs and limitations. Today’s means of gaining entry to space or to Earth orbit is a complex, costly and dangerous operation. The Space Elevator is fundamentally a transport system that consists of an extremely long ribbon-like cable, anchored to the Earth and extending into space. This would then facilitate the movement of people and goods along the cable into orbit or space itself using minimal energy and with hugely reduced costs. An Earth formed space elevator would have one end of the cable or tether attached to the Earth’s surface running through a geostationary platform at c. 36,000 kilometres above and with the other end attached to an object at a higher level still which would effectively act as the “counter balance” to the Earth. The cable, under tension, would then act as the “lift shaft” for the transportation of objects or people to the platform and then space. It seems an impossibility, but recent events are stating otherwise (Ragan, 2010).

[FIG 05] ‘Scale comparison’

pngs from early portfolio work

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

CONSIDERATIONS [FIG 06] ‘Scale comparison at Base’

pngs from early portfolio work

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

CONSIDERATIONS

3.2:WHY THE SPACE ELEVATOR? The current rate of technological development is almost exponential and the last decades have seen extraordinary advances in all manner of scientific sectors. Within a life time, humans have seen transformations from the first powerless flight to mass air transportation and humans on the moon, from thoughts on possible structures of materials to the firm establishment of subatomic particles with the CERN operation, and witnessing seemingly incredible developments in medical capabilities. We live in an age where it is the norm to use a hand held device that acts as a telephone, camera, computer, diary, communication portal, and global media access. Even twenty years ago this would have seemed like science fiction but today it is a reality and it is virtually impossible to consider life without this now perceived simple and expanding facility. These advancements are frequently the result of an individual or small group of people with the clarity of thought and incisive intellect to propose and discover new innovations which in turn act as the catalyst for a plethora of associated opportunities. The key area of concern today in space programmes is the prohibitively high cost of delivering satellites and associated technologies into Earth orbit. This is achieved through hugely powerful single journey rockets and vast expense. Today, a small payload delivered into earth orbit has a rough average cost of c. $200m-$500m or some $25,000 per kilogram in launch costs alone (Edwards, 2006). The possibility of manned planetary missions, whilst technically feasible, would cost trillions of dollars and require multi government agreement and action. The space elevator would be a huge advancement to many aspects of life and its establishment is a real probability but it will require the political will to facilitate its development and installation but the likely financial return would be extraordinary. The presence of an operational space elevator or elevators with associated geosynchronous platforms would deliver payloads into space at a fraction of todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s costs, possibly as low as 1% of current experience. The reverse is also of course a given, the return of payloads, space debris and materials to the earth (Derksen 2012). Another major advantage is the ability to deliver large and heavy payloads to the platform and facilitate construction and other activities in a zero gravity environment. In such an orbit, it would be technically possible to launch a vehicle to the moon or planets with effectively a small push. Perhaps a simplistic observation but simply to illustrate the great difference the elevator brings (Westling, 2003). The platform itself could easily be the size of a small town and as such would clearly illustrate the scale of operational opportunities afforded by such an entity. The manufacturing and construction capabilities in such a large and zero gravity facility are extraordinary.

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

CONSIDERATIONS Today the International Space Station is used for the advancement and technological development of sensitive materials including medicines and computer technology. The platform, a manned large geosynchronous establishment would similarly be used for research, manufacturing, and the development and launch of probes and future manned exploratory missions (Ragan, 2010). As an illustration: currently the Hubble telescope is man’s clearest and most important view of our galaxy and indeed the universe. It would pale into insignificance when compared with the potential scale of possible space based observatories afforded by such a platform. Equally, of course, the material required would be delivered by the elevator and potentially assembled in this “sealed” zero gravity environment. A key facet of this whole enterprise is the “launch” power requirement which, for this strategic elevator platform is theoretically negligible. Equally the size and weight of launch objects are, by definition, a massive increase on anything that could be considered from an earth based launch facility (Edwards, 2006). Similarly the recovery, repair, positional change and ’refuelling’ of existing orbital equipment would be easily handled and of course the removal of potentially dangerous space debris would become a simple and repetitive operation. It does not require too much thought to realise the dramatic betterment of such experimentation and research facilities in comparison to the ISS position today (Ragan, 2010). As noted previously, the cost and difficulties associated with a possible manned Mars exploratory operation were a major constraint. Such a mission would need to provide sustenance and longer term life support systems and capabilities, which in turn would determine the size of the craft to house these (Edwards, 2006). The on-board power supply and vehicle self-launch capability for the return journey would negate the possibility of an earth launch programme but with the gravity free platform environment and the ability to build a large and suitable vehicle on site, the position becomes feasible both technically and financially (Eubanks, 2015). There are many further uses for the large platform facilities particularly in medicinal advances and new material developments, such innovative processes requiring the gravity free environment but the very position of the platform further facilitates improved monitoring of weather systems, and being outside the atmosphere would allow large solar energy collection together with its possible generation and transmission to the earth in its more problematic and needy geographic areas. The Space Elevator has a two way capability and can deliver and return, at fractional costing, large payloads to a high orbit platform that itself would transform experimentation and the ability to carry out exploratory programmes at massively reduced cost and complexity (Srivastava, 2003). The Space elevator is a given in today’s environment and the political will to sponsor its initiation will become selffulfilling given the advantages and benefits derived from its existence.

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

CONSIDERATIONS

3.3:MATERIAL & CONSTRUCTION As has been seen, the development of the space elevator concept has undergone a number of differing thought processes. The obvious early issues of the need to support the weight of an Earth based tower of huge proportions have resulted in the tower concept being abolished. The tensile thread principle is now generally accepted as scientifically robust but will require a great deal of material development to achieve its breakthrough design. Earlier NASA design concepts suffered problems regarding the strength and protection of the central wire integrity. However the basic concept of a space elevator has been dramatically enhanced in recent times and the concept is rapidly becoming a virtual reality. A key aspect of this has been the deployment of the vital material elements essential for the strength requirement and the weight and twisting issues presented by a tether length of tens of thousands of miles (Srivastava, 2003). Discovered by Dr Sumio Lijima some years ago, carbon nanotubes are currently the favoured material for the structural development of the space elevator. Carbon nanotubes are allotropes of carbon with a cylindrical nanostructure and have been constructed with a length-to-diameter ratio of up to 132,000,000:1, significantly larger than for any other material (Pugno, 2012). They are the strongest materials yet discovered in terms of tensile strength and elastic modulus. This material and its intended derivatives should be the key to making the elevator a reality (Aravind, 2007).

[FIG 07] ‘Carbon nanotubes being spun to form a yarn, CSIRO’

[FIG 08] ‘Carbon nanotubes: single-walled carbon nanotubes’

(SWCNTs) on the left; and multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) on the right. Adapted from [24, 25]. This research was originally published in [26] © by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Inc.

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

CONSIDERATIONS Its stability and twist resistance are of concern but there is equally a strong belief within leading scientific communities that these issues can be overcome and there is, of course, the practical issue of producing and deploying several tens of thousands of miles of the material. NASA research has floated the concept of a space railway, a space transportation system connected to Earth. All these elements are leading to a clear and probable early decision to formally seek approval for programme definition and status. It would be difficult to attribute this rapid development to a feasible project to any specific event and indeed it would also be wrong to ignore the psychological consequence of the eminent science fiction input from recognised individuals (Seed, 2011). There is now a great belief in the practical possibility of such a structure being created and within a relatively short time. The space elevator may be one of the greatest and most important inventions ever created by man. Certainly it will spearhead the global realisation of the necessity to explore and conquer space for human survival. There are however the inevitable issues and questions that will face the scientists, astronauts and researchers before there is a feasible and eminently achievable and fundable opportunity presented. Financial concerns are adressed further on in this paper but it is key to understand how a direct ‘push’ from governmental will can ensure the achievments necessary. This can be seen in the simple Graph below indicating the Federal Budget attributed towards Nasa at the time of the Moon Race and how low it is in comparison at present.

[FIG 09] ‘Percentage of US Federal Budget attributed to NASA from 1958 to present day’

A potential issue has been highlighted by Lubes Perek of the Substantial Institution at the Czech Academia of Sciences. He is concerned that gravitational effects from the moon and sun, together with stress from solar wind storms may produce extreme vibration and oscillation of the central wire. This could result in the tether colliding with space debris or indeed satellites, resulting in a twisting and balance profile of the tether itself (Ragan, 2010). This has led to the addition of thrusters being connected to minimise these effects but there would still be some concern that a distinct wobble might be manifested as described by Anders Jorgenson of the New South America Institution of Exploration and Technological Innovation. The Coriolis Effect itself would need to be accommodated but it is not foreseen as insurmountable (Srivastava, 2003). 132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

CONSIDERATIONS

3.4:CURRENT EFFORTS The space elevator, has, over a significant period, become a major issue in general scientific discussions. The concepts, material definitions and development coupled with mankind’s desire and necessity to explore space has placed the programme at the pinnacle of a number of internationally recognised organisations’ matters for action. The space elevator is no longer limited to vague concepts and science fiction but rather it is rapidly becoming a clear and achievable objective. The Michael Laine Liftport Group suggested a lunar space elevator and then specified the idea of an Earth based version. They are confident of their ability to build an elevator with the current materials and the proposed ribbon from space to Earth. The ribbon utilises carbon nanotube technology and involves a climbing robot but the plan has faltered for economic reasons illustrating the need for significant investment (Laine, 2014).

[FIG 10] ‘LIFTPORT - Lunar Elevator Diagram, orbital working schematic’

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

CONSIDERATIONS NASA Head Office employees have recently stated that they are very close to having the capability to build a space elevator. During a number of conferences and workshops on the subject David Smitherman has stated that NASA has the know-how to build a space elevator. He also stated that the structure involves having the centre of mass in a geostationary orbit. There is no question that the financial advantages of the elevator are gaining greater attention from funding and government agencies (Swan, 2012). Work on new materials (beyond carbon nanotubes) to ensure integrity is a high priority and NASA, along with others such as the Obayashi Group and Bradley Edwards’ foundation ‘Carbon Designs Inc.’, have identified the stresses and need to compensate for the energy developed by the high speed pendulum effect of the tether and station swing around the earth and are clear in their capability to provide solutions to this event (Edwards, 2014). Carbon nanotubes have vastly greater tensile strength than steel and they also have excellent electrical properties and would help facilitate a NASA idea of electromagnetic propulsion for high speed transportation to the station in geosynchronous orbit (Zhu, 2002). Whilst most of the research is naturally simulation based there is an expanding belief that the physical manifestation of a space elevator is rapidly approaching. It is likely that a government or governments will be necessary to provide the final financial capability to drive to conclusion. The production and deployment of the tether is of critical importance and there are effectively two approaches to be considered. Either the cable is produced in space or it is propelled into space and step by step strengthened by extra cables, transported by climbers into space. Cable fabrication in space will be possible on a basic level by utilizing a space rock, asteroid, or Near-Earth object (Smitherman, 2000). An early positive solution involved lifting the whole mass into geostationary orbit, and all the while bringing down one cable towards the Earth’s surface while another cable is sent upwards (Pearson, 1997). This particular proposal would involve very significant costs in raising the material to the orbit level.

Some research groups are actively investigating asteroid harnessing elevators to efficiently utilise resources from these zero gravity chambers of minerals.

[FIG 11] ‘BISBOS - Counterwight Asteroid Illustration’ 132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

CONSIDERATIONS

3.4:PLAUSIBE DESIGN Cable seeding design: Bradley C. Edwards, previous Director of Research for the Institute for Scientific Research (ISR), situated in West Virginia, suggested that the availability of adequate quality nanotubes would result in a space elevator being operational within ten years. He proposed that a solitary hair-like 20-tonne “seed” cable could be transported in the conventional way, giving an exceptionally lightweight lift with next to no lifting limit. This to be followed by continuously heavier cables being pulled upwards, thus strengthening the tether at each point until the lift achieves the required mass and capability. This effectively mirrored the technique used to construct bridge suspension spans. The length of this cable is 35,786 km or 35,786,000 m. A 20 tonne cable would weigh around 1.12 grams for every m. (Gassend, B)

Loop elevator design: A cable with the elasticity to thickness of around 48.1 GPa/(kg/m^3) or above, would enable such a constant width cable to reach the orbiting platform without breaking under its own weight. At that point the far end can be pivoted and sent back down to earth thus forming an effective steady width circular belt which would be continually turned to prevent tangling. The two sides of the circle are actually kept separated by the Coriolis effect. Thereafter the thickness of the cable is expanded. However, on the grounds that the loop keeps running at constant speed, joining and leaving the loop would prove difficult and the lifting capacity is severely hampered when compared with the “normal” tapered model. (Gassend, B)

Current status: At present, the space manufacturing design and cable seeding design are both being carefully considered and developed. There will be significant use of carbonaceous asteroid material for space manufacturing and mining. Other near earth objects could also be used for the creation of Carbon Nanotubes. (Hein, A.M) The cable would then be transported back to GEO and spooled down (Ragan, 2010). In spite of the fact that this methodology moves the development unpredictability far from the utilization of the climbers in the cable seeding plan, it proves the multifaceted nature of the GEO platform capability.

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

CONSIDERATIONS

PARAMETER

REQUIRED

ACHIEVED

YEAR

STRENGTH

30-100 Meganewtons/(kg/m)

7,100 N

2010

SPEED

83 m/s (300 km/h)

18.3 m/s (66 km/h)

2010

4 m/s (14 km/h)

ALTITUDE

36,000 Km

POWER BEAM

2009

1km

2009

10kg

2009

1 kW

2009

[FIG 12] ‘Current Status of Cable Seeding Design - Technology’

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

CONSIDERATIONS

3.5:LOGISTICS Logistics of Building the Space Elevator: To address the numerous questions and concerns about various large aspects of the Ribbon’s construction, deployment and utilization, we must gain an understanding of the methods and various stages that will be employed with such a project.

Deployment: In many ways the logistical deployment and construction of the space elevator will utilise the basic techniques of traditional bridge building. In principle, a small string-like element was cast across a chasm to then be followed by further larger elements using the original set up as a horizontal “tether”. The Space Elevator will undoubtedly be constructed through the same basic principles. The simple, initial ‘small tether’ deployed will be used to transport materials and machinery to build the required Space Elevator (Edwards, 2012). The total mass of the initial Space Elevator is estimated as low as 1,400 tonnes (Pugno, 2012). However, with this great weight, not forgetting this is without climbers or cargo, and indeed a number of other maintenance levels and even Low Earth Orbit Hotels or viewing platforms, the system required will need to adopt the use of spacecraft and spools of ribbons launched into Low Earth orbit. The spacecraft will be relatively small, especially when compared to something like the International Space Station and will connect in LEO with the Carbon nanotube spools that each hold approximately 100,000km of Carbon Nano Tube ribbon (Pugno, 2012). When the spool containing spacecraft move to GEO, the process of un-spooling the ribbon towards earth begins. This entire process will take up to two weeks per spool and each will be anchored upon its arrival at Earth (Ragan, 2010).

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

CONSIDERATIONS [FIG 13] ‘Phases of a Space Elevator’

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

CONSIDERATIONS

At this stage it is key to conclude the five primary components of a Space Elevator and their basic function before discussing the wider impacts. ---The Carbon Nano Tube Tether: As discussed this is the elevator that stretches to GEO, 100,000km into space. The Base Station: Serving as the anchor, this contains the loading and unloading station and a vast number of components integral to the success of such a large scale, globally recognised project. The Counterweight: This is in fact sometimes hypothesised as the ‘space-port’ but commonly a point beyond, at the upper end of the tether, the purpose of this element is to provide a platform from which space exploration and inhabitation can depart, whilst keeping the tether at the necessary taut strength and remaining in GEO. The Climbers: These are cable cars or trains, and will provide cargo transportation and human mobility up and down the Space Elevator. Climber Power Source: Numerous proposals have been discussed ranging from solar powered cells to magnetic propulsion, each are feasible even in today’s technical progression. The design of the climbers seems to vary across most conceivable proposals and two key designs are discussed in the comparisons section of this thesis. ---With the construction, deployment and then working space elevator, there will be a wide number of challenges to be fully addressed. As outlined by Bradley Edwards, the following logistical issues are of concern but are predicted to be resolved within the next decade.

- - - - - - -

Micrometeorite impacts on cable. Low earth orbit spacecraft impacts on cable. Radiation and atomic O damage of cable. Cable heating by induced electrical currents. Natural frequency and oscillations in the cable. Deployment locations – power beaming, jet streams cyclones, lightning, active avoidance, optimal locations. Risks of severed cables and malfunctioning climbers. (Edwards, 2003)

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

CONSIDERATIONS Whilst there are a number of issues surrounding the concept and apparently limiting its conceivability or at minimum its logistical running at present, the space elevator is developing at an exponential rate with teams all over the globe developing and reducing these risks year upon year. The Base Station of the space elevator must contain a number of zones and efficiency will be of the utmost importance. As discussed the base has been proposed as either a stationary or mobile platform serving as a ‘station’ and control facility and it will inevitably act as a large port for cargo and people travelling via the Space Elevator. The base station has been somewhat neglected by most designs but Carbon Designs Inc., run by Dr Edwards, has put forward a proposal utilizing a mobile Oil Rig type of platform and discussed the various elements required. This is discussed in more detail within the comparisons section. With regards to the upper end of the tether, the logistics of setting this up are no different to sending a satellite into space at present. With a docking platform for the climbers and a loading bay for cargo and people it will inevitably serve as an initial ‘space-port’ to then grow and develop from there. Future predictions and assumptions show construction plants being created in Zero gravity as discussed, and the aspect of colonising space appears a relatively easy prospect once a Space Elevator is in place. Logistically it is proposed that smaller communities could exist in geostationary orbit, detached from the Space elevator with regular journeys between the space-port and the docking area of these communities. Once in GEO the cost effective deployment of constructed spacecraft and zero-gravity accommodation is relatively unlimited.

[FIG 14] ‘Concept Base Station Internals’

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

“...T HERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THE FINANCIAL ADVANTAGES OF THE ELEVATOR ARE GAINING ATTENTION FROM FUNDING AND GOVERNMENT AGENCIES...” [EDITOR - PHILLIPS, 2016]

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

4 CONSIDERATIONS Financial/Political/Social/Cultural

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

CONSIDERATIONS

4.1:Financial Dependent on one’s point of view this aspect is either a major cost or an investment with a very fast payback and enormous returns. The current position of utilising single journey, hugely expensive launch vehicles and platforms is prohibitive and indeed has seen a decline in associated budget expenditure by world leading governments. The expenses of utilizing an all-around framework to dispatch payloads are high. Costs range from about $4,300/kg for a Proton launch to about US$40,000/kg for a Pegasus dispatch (Edwards, 2004). A few frameworks are works in progress, for example, the SpaceX Falcon Heavy, offers rates as low as $1,600/ kg. (Derksen, 2012) Different frameworks have been proposed offering even lower rates, yet virtually all have been unable to realise the objective or funding requirement. Rockets, for example the Shtil-3a, which offers costs as low as $400/kg, frequently fail to dispatch and have very little payload capacity. The requirement for communication satellite deployment continues un-abated but the cost of launch and indeed the additional cost of satellite production to withstand the stresses and the subsequent inability to effect repairs when deployed in orbit are hugely prohibitive. (Gassend, 2003)

[FIG 15] ‘Shtil-3A’

AKA: RSM-54; Aerokosmos; SS-N-23. Status: Out of production. Gross mass: 46,000 kg (101,000 lb). Payload: 950 kg (2,090 lb). Apogee: 200 km (120 mi).

[FIG 16]

‘ICBM dervided LV’s, range of launch vehicles derived from decomissioned ballistic missiles’

Russian intercontinental ballistic orbital launch vehicle. Proposed four-stage air-launched orbital launch vehicle based on R-29RM SLBM. Ignition mass 46 tonnes. LEO Payload: 950 kg (2,090 lb) to a 200 km orbit. Payload: 620 kg (1,360 lb) to a 400 km orbit.

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

CONSIDERATIONS Cost estimates for a space elevator: We have previously shown that the costs associated with the space elevator satellite launch is a fraction of today’s levels. In addition the very existence of the space platform and the ability to carry out repairs and repositioning in orbit dramatically reduces satellite production costs. A figure as low as 1 % of the current traditional per kilogram measure is forecast. NIAC funded Bradley Edwards from 2001 to 2003 to compose a paper, depicting a space elevator design (Edwards, 2003). Within this paper Edwards expressed that: “The principal space elevator would decrease lift costs quickly to $100 per pound”, $220/kg. (Gassend, 2003).

Funding of capital costs: A paper discussed and issued at the 55th International Astronautical Congress in Vancouver in October 2004, stated that the space elevator can be viewed as a known and recognised megaproject and the evaluated expense of building it is circa US $64 Billion (Nikis, 2004). This seems somewhat idealistic when contrasted with the expenses of developing pipelines, towers, rapid rail connections, maglevs and other large technological capital expenditure. In addition its comparison to the expense of other aerospace frameworks and dispatch vehicles bodes well for its future development and this concept is rapidly becoming a forefront project for the decades to come (Rait, 2006).

Complete expense of a secretly financed Edwards’ Space Elevator: Edwards’ space elevator is estimated to cost approximately $40 billion with contingency. (Rait, 2006). For comparison, in the same time period as the elevator, the Skylon, a 12,000 kg freight limit singlestage-to-orbit spaceplane (Derksen, B. 2012) is assessed to have a construction expense of about $15 billion (Edwards, 2003). Skylon would be suitable to dispatch freight and individuals to low/ medium Earth circle.

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

CONSIDERATIONS

4.2:Economics & Political The FERMI Paradox; The FERMI Paradox is the apparent contradiction between the high probability of extra-terrestrial civilisations’ existence and humanity’s lack of contact with or evidence for, such civilisations. The Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence, SETI, continues but the complexities for our civilisation with its seemingly extraordinary differences in opinions and objectives masks the major issues that face mankind in climate control and indeed space research and the absolute necessity for us to ensure the continuation of our civilisation into the future. We will have to find alternative homes for humanity. Space exploration has benefited from a myriad of technological advancements, however today the overall programme lacks the purpose and consequent funding that was exemplified by the Apollo moon missions. This clarity of objective and drive generated by political will is lacking. In 1989, George Bush stated that Apollo, provided the best return on investment since Leonardo da Vinci bought himself a sketch pad. For every $1 spent on Apollo $7 was returned to the economy over the period of a decade. (Ragan, 2010) In 1957 there had been no successful rocket launch into space and yet a mere 12 years later there were humans on the moon. Global or national effort appears necessary to realise the concept. Our day to day lives are echoes of the inventions and discoveries of the previous generations and it is ironic that as a planet we seem resigned to the opening up of space travel. There was a time not so long ago when flight travel seemed absurd and yet it took a breakthrough in technology by the Wright Brothers to enable the consistent development and now it is second nature to routinely fly between continents. If this had been proposed a century ago, there would have been a sarcastic response. The possibility and ease of access from the orbiting station platform will provide mining and acquisitive possibilities in the moon and asteroid belt. The economic and life betterment features of these activities would be extraordinary.

As stated by Dr Bradley Edwards in my personally conducted interview: “It is pretty much all politics. The tunnel in Boston and the one they are building here in Seattle will cost more than the elevator. Socially, it will affect us but not really challenge the building. Politics will be an issue. This is a large, valuable, prestigious project... politicians won’t let this just be built without getting involved.”

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

CONSIDERATIONS Edwards discloses in numerous articles, books and interviews that the space elevator funding and political interest is what is holding it back. It is clear from all predictions and concise workings that the Space Elevator would cost a mere fraction of the recent bank bailout funds and as little as the equivalent of three days of U.S war funding in the past year. It is clear that the country or political entity that owns and controls the Space Elevator will have an unparalleled position of power. The Space Elevator is of huge strategic importance and will undoubtedly be controlled by governments. A number of Space Elevator theorists, designers, technologists and journalists agree that the most ideal status of the Space Elevator could be to have it independently run by a business entity similar to a private Space Launch Company. (Spaceward, 2008) Todayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s global governments and leaders seem incapable of taking on such a far reaching concept. It is a concept that has an existing wide platform and increasing importance particularly with discussions regarding the imminent reality of project delivery.

So why is it not being built? In basic terms this is solely down to funding and political drive. The technology is virtually ready, especially with Edwardâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s new and tested concept of spinning Nanotubes. There may be the thought process that its existence would harm the current large corporations involved in space projects, rocket technology and launch platforms. This is an argument for non-action and such successful corporations and associated businesses would have new and vastly improved opportunities for development and profitability enhancement. The Space Elevator seems a daunting task for any government or even construction company but it was determination and national will that delivered humans to the moon almost 50 years ago. It is difficult to imagine a more important phase in human development and exploration, not just for the future of mankind itself but for the tremendous leaps in medical and current life enhancement that would accompany its zero gravity base.

Environmental and Economical There will inevitably be an extremely large investment requirement. The space elevator project will probably be the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s largest and most expensive programme. In addition the maintenance of the structure and its protection from radiation, ionisation, storms and corrosion will be an ongoing necessity as of course will future development. Despite these, huge progress has been made and the existence of a working space elevator is closer now than ever and fast becoming a feasible proposition.

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

CONSIDERATIONS

4.3:Social & Cultural “Sometimes I think we are alone in the universe and sometimes I think we’re not… In either case the idea is quite staggering.” (Clarke, 2000 p.250)

“We are the first civilisation to emerge in the Milky Way and we are alone.” “It took almost four billion years for a civilisation to appear on the earth, a third of the age of the universe!” (Cox, 2015 p.5)

Technological civilisations, if they exist, are incredibly rare...

These statements simply restate the obvious, that the future of humanity is inextricably linked to and dependent upon space exploration and the need to discover and populate new earth like entities. This truism is key to all future developments.

A fully operational space elevator will have profound and long term benefits and meaning for the future of all humanity. Imagine a world where we are actively exploring space for materials, energy development and habitable planets. We would be able to construct spacecraft and other facilities in Zero Gravity facilities, bringing endless possibilities and all at a minimal cost. Payloads will initially be up to 20 tonnes per journey but this will increase with additional structural integration and we will be able to harness asteroids, bring them into GEO and mine them for incredibly resourceful materials as we have with Helium-3 from the moon. We will finally have resolved the many cost efficiency and fuel related issues in today’s space travel organisations and missions. (Hein, 2012)

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

CONSIDERATIONS Space Tourism & Exploration Travelers will have the capacity to effectively and moderately efficiently reach space. Today’s costs and dangers will effectively be removed. Today, there are great advances being made through medical trials conducted in a zero gravity environment. Imagine the potential of a “town” in space and the benefits derived for humanity. The moon might turn into a most loved excursion destination and the orbital station would become an extremely cost effective dispatch stage for further space travel. For decades the world has discussed manned missions to Mars and how they are not possible with current or near future resources. A Space Elevator would eliminate the pressing issues involving the journey. Large space craft/ liners would be constructed in GEO from where pre-fabricated habitats could be deployed to the planet ready for the first human arrivals. The possibilities are endless as the Space elevator and platform become the initiator of efficient space exploration and the potential discovery of vital resources for our planet and species survival. (Ragan, 2010) Whether financial driven desires or just humanity’s unceasing need to proceed with investigation, a space station will give an instant dispatch platform to search for other Earth-like Exoplanets. The related space liner could be made as expansive and significant as necessary. (Aravind, 2007) The Space elevator provides a cost effective and infinitely preferable means of entering space. Multiple users, no fuel issues, no re-entry and no orbit attaining velocity requirements. The space elevator is a pre-requisite to humanity’s ability to one day leave our planet. “It is hard to grasp the magnitude of impact the space elevator would have on our society but I hope it is clear from our discussion that it would dramatically advance our society both immediately and in the distant future.” (Edwards, 2003) Current ecological issues might, one day, be resolved through innovation, but anthropogenic environmental change might bring about irreversible harm. Looking into the far future with predictions on the space elevators’ place within society and our space exploration, it is key to look at such novels as The Mars Trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson or 2312 by Arthur C. Clark for their intricately described space elevator scenarios.

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

CONSIDERATIONS

The Overview Effect Upon returning to Earth, many astronauts have reported experiencing a phenomenon known as “the Overview Effect”. This is an overwhelming feeling of seeing the Earth as one, and the fragile web of life, the blue speck, which is Earth floating in space. Many have also reported feelings of spiritual one-ness with the universe, and a new concern for humanity and this planet’s intertwined futures. With the easier access to space that an elevator would create, it is possible to speculate that more and more people experiencing this effect may help trigger humanity’s evolution to a higher state of consciousness. “The Space Elevator is no longer in the realm of science fiction” (Ragan, 2010, p.84)

Concept of Space Elevator Design from Science Fiction The concept has been promulgated by some of the greatest and most respected authors of this genre. In his Award winning book, The Fountains of Paradise, Arthur C. Clarke, clearly described the creation and construction of a space elevator (Clarke, 1979). Set in the 22nd century and described as an “orbital tower”, it rose to a height of 24,000 miles and provided the link between Heaven and Earth for the book’s main character Morgan. Arthur C Clarke was, without doubt, one of the world’s greatest drivers of scientific frontiers. He was himself a lead scientist and postulated his three laws: 1. 2. 3.

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (Clarke, 2000)

These simple statements on science and social science led others, including Isaac Asimov to utilise the concept of a space elevator in a number of their books such as In ‘Foundation’ and ‘Prelude to Foundation’. These thoughts and ideas whilst fictional, but coupled with Asimov’s scientific capability, added to his credibility and his discussions on space elevators and associated materials undoubtedly would have had an influence on future thought and direction. Science owes a debt of gratitude to the recognised leading exponents of the science fiction genre. As mentioned the space elevator idea has featured in a number of books by various authors the most prominent being Arthur C. Clarke , who also conceived the principle of the geo-synchronous orbit with the 24,000 mile tower, and of course Isaac Asimov, who also flew the concept of gravity repulsion (Seiler, 2000). These highly respected people have undoubtedly acted as a stimulus for the creation and development of the space elevator.

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

CONSIDERATIONS [FIG 17] ‘The Clarke Clipper’

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

CONSIDERATIONS

“...IT IS PRETTY MUCH ALL POLITICS... ...POLITICS WILL BE AN ISSUE... ...T HIS IS A LARGE, VALUABLE AND PRESTIGIOUS PROJECT...” [CONDUCTED INTERVIEW - EDWARDS, 2016]

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

5 CONCLUSION

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

This analysis of the space elevator, both cultural and technical, investigates the key areas of development and their importance whilst providing an understanding of the history and progression of the concept and its criticality to the future. The Space Elevator is a plausible and feasible project of the future and it is of empirical importance to provide a broad understanding of its multi-faceted development whilst evaluating specific significant aspects. The concept and its practical installation deserve a much larger platform and appreciation of its virtues to mankind. Recent decades have seen greater awareness of the subject but there is now a need for clarity of political thought and will. The rewards and technological advancement afforded by the elevator justify the funding and drive exhibited by previous generations of government. The historical analysis of the space elevator and its development across the ages, clearly shows how its advance has progressed consistent with the technology, vision and social demands of the era. It is staggering to see how far the ‘vision’ dates back reiterating how mankind strives to explore and solve the unknown. The Space Elevator has been acknowledged by many as being of critical importance to man’s development and this thought process has expanded with time and experience. Today it ranks as one of the world’s most important expansionist requirements. The absolute requirement for its development and construction is without question, and the expectation on governmental involvement and delivery is growing exponentially. The project feasibility has been greatly helped by the latest technological advances (Nanotube technology) and this may provide the stimulus to promote the large state involvement and its early establishment. A broad number of benefits and concerns have been discussed and assessed. There are a series of fundamental conclusions that can be drawn from the research and current development of the space elevator programmes. The most frequently asked question is when will it be built? It is clear that it is not quite that simple but that the delivery relies on the governmental approach and a serious investment to form the project. Many leading scientists and technologists around the world have stated its complete construction time would take a mere ten to fifteen years and this is inclusive of all the ‘development’ time required. This seems a short amount of time for a project of this scale but it is clear through the integral development currently progressing that the main problems are those of the involvement with politics, security and social will. Whilst the ever growing beneficial potentials of the concept have been addressed it is key to outline the primary benefits. From powerless flight to putting men on the moon in less than fifty years it is obvious the possibilities could be deemed as unlimited but such benefits as the reduction in costs would enable resources to be used on the missions, exploration and eventual colonisation of space. Research on materials and bio related developments will soar, payloads will be sent to, and delivered from, space, potentially daily. Satellite deployment will cost a fraction of what it is today (est. 1%) and construction of much larger craft can start and end in zero gravity enabling resources to utilize their efficiency in planetary exploration, mineral acquisition, energy acquisition and radiation, and many more applications applicable to a zero gravity rail fed town in space!

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

When discussing the Space Elevator and what it might one day be able to achieve for humanity, it is important to critically assess the value of each point and the grounds on which these are based. The key benefits of the Space Elevator, its associated platform in zero gravity and all the related developments and advancements, have been thoroughly evaluated from a cost, technological, general feasibility and humanitarian viewpoint and have led to the conclusion of its immense value to humanity and the reality of its early delivery. All core information has been provided in a concise manner that reflects the research and evaluation of factual information supporting each aspect. In such a developing programme, information is consistently changing and being updated, this will undoubtedly bring new factors into account as the development continues. However the teams currently involved are of the highest capability and their assessment of the early deployment is steadily gaining increasing momentum. The space elevator concept, has evolved over thousands of years and merely came into the realm of the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;plausibleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; within the last few decades. The theory is simple: a means to ascend beyond our planet, a way to explore and a theory of evolving as a species through technology at the next level. It is fair to say that our next trip to space will not be via a space elevator, but there is no question that the Space Elevator will become a reality in the near future. The probability of early construction and development of large space craft and medical experimentation in a large zero gravity environment is an astonishing thought. The fact that this will be supplied by a vertically travelling train system to a point some 35,000kms above the earth is beyond extraordinary. As with all such leading projects and driven by the best minds, technologies previously unknown frequently form the breakthrough to realise their ultimate objective. Carbon Nanotube technology and its derivatives has taken material technology to a new phase. A tethered cable facilitating that vertical train journey is an equally astonishing revelation. As with all new and innovative developments the spin-off into our normal earth bound everyday environment will bring new previously un-thought-of benefits to our society. Carbon technology will not just provide us with a space elevator. The formula behind this paper reports on the fundamentals of the concept and its importance within social, economic, cultural and technological surroundings. Whilst seemingly appearing as an implausible concept, through this thesis the means to space exploration, tourism, material progression and numerous other benefits for society become a realisable objective. One certainty of the Space Elevator is that it captivates its audience and this spectacle merits a coherent approach to scientific research and development. A number of carefully considered designs for the construction and deployment of the concept have been examined throughout, however it has been made clear that it could theoretically be built using the current Carbon Nanotube technology using threaded spools. This lends itself to the conclusion that is prominent in the comparisons matrix to follow and throughout all recent scientific approaches, that specific external influences are not appropriately inclined to pursue this project. Political intentions are seemingly focussed on shorter term archaic problems. There is no question that the current developments and the now clear and demonstrable advantages of such a system, including huge economic benefits will attract greater political focus. This is the key to the Space station deployment and within a short period.

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

Environmental concerns encapsulate the artificial structure and numerous aspects including location, construction and deployment. The numerous obstacles to address have been outlined, ranging from radiation, localised meteors and debris through to weather effects including rain, corrosion, air traffic and lightning. With the correct approach these can all be addressed and even in the case of some, such as radiation, wind and lightning, energy can be harnessed and sent up or down the elevator to be utilized. With these environmental constraints addressed the elevator will enable systems that use much less energy, and clean energy, to be employed, thus reducing carbon footprints and ever growing negative environmental effects. A speculation is of course that with this mega-project in place, the moon, asteroids and other planets can be harnessed for resources and energy to be used on earth. This combined with GEO construction techniques will dramatically reduce the need for fossil fuels and other hazardous, currently routine, energy harnessing and use techniques. The design of the space elevator is an interesting area of development when moving forward. There are vast numbers of depictions that simply use the tethered CNT’s and climbers, whereas a few specifically create an encompassing, segmented design and with numerous cables we can see this is possible. Architecture will play a large role in some of the key aspects of the Space Elevator but we must strive for function and design and not simply form. We should see this as an opportunity to develop the greatest project of mankind thus far: base, tether and space port. Perhaps the greatest obstacle to the project delivery is the lack of political will and commitment to its realisation. There is an increasing momentum within some of the more creative and advanced political arenas and this augers well for the future. Equally sovereign state level involvement is necessary as terrorist attacks and acts of war are a major concern. Though politically neutral, the eventual location of the Marine Stage One earth base station will immediately become one of the most aggressively defended no-fly zones in the world. It will also be subjected to total scrutiny and security cover and whilst it is likely to be a possible stateless project, it would require state level capability to maintain. The UN or similar autonomous body will need to be tasked with its defence. For this proposal to become a successful future project, a common understanding of its benefits and opportunities must be known globally, and specific world powers must have discussions over control, management, security and locational aspects. This is the least discussed area of the Space Elevator and must be addressed. In the personal interview I conducted with Bradly Edwards he reiterated this by stating; “It is pretty much all politics…This is a large, valuable, prestigious project, politicians won’t let this just be built without getting involved”. Within this paper a number of authors, scientists and technologists have been cited. The value of their interpretations, findings and aspirations is of great importance when reflecting on the place it holds within the Space Elevator research. Each statement, comparative and specific pieces of information were carefully sourced, through coherent and methodical research techniques and assessed with regards to the source, time it was stated, and value it holds within the collective research body.

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR

When drawing conclusions on the scientific basis of the concept it is clear the technologies being developed are of fundamental importance and will continue to progress even past the completion of a hypothetical Space Elevator. Despite the numerous engineering obstacles to be overcome, there are no research studies or literature which suggests these cannot be overcome. It is clear science fiction has played an essential role in the progress and development of the space elevator from start to finish. Science fiction can be said to be the future envisioned in detail and with current demands for Sci-fi films and literature, predictions and technological assumptions are rife and this will only push forward large geo engineering projects such as the Space Elevator. With the current progression in technology, coupled with the need and benefit analysis of the space elevator project, there can be little doubt of its realisation and that within a relatively short time frame. â&#x20AC;&#x153;The space elevator will be built ten years after they stop laughingâ&#x20AC;Śand they have stopped laughingâ&#x20AC;?. Arthur C. Clarke

132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR