CONTENTS
2
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
01. INTRODUCTION
5
1.1 - INTRODUCTION 1.2 - GLOSSARY
8 10
02. HISTORY Details of the Past
13
03. CONSIDERATIONS Technical & Environmental
19
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
20 22 24 26 28 30
04. CONSIDERATIONS Financial/Political/Social/Cultural 4.1 - FINANCIAL 4.2 - ECONOMICS & POLITICAL 4.3 - SOCIAL & CULTURAL
05. CONCLUSION 06. REFERENCES 07. APPENDICES 132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
35 36 38 40
45 52 56
3
“...OUR ONLY CHANCE OF LONG TERM SURVIVAL IS NOT TO REMAIN INWARD LOOKING ON PLANET EARTH, BUT TO SPREAD OUT INTO SPACE...” [HAWKING, 2010]
4
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
1 INTRODUCTION
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
5
INTRODUCTION
The Space Elevator has had a number of pinnacle examples throughout history that have aided the design, feasibility and the desire and will to explore and develop the concept as a possibility for the future. Having discussed the history, technical and socio-political aspects and more, it is important to strategically analyse a number of valued examples through cross comparison. The matrix of “relevant instances” will provide an understanding of that which science-fiction and science have developed over time and how each has influenced the other. This paper has demonstrated the importance of science fiction within the realms of science and the aim of this comparison section is to evaluate the proposals and their importance and influence on the research and development of the Space Elevator. It is important to isolate a key example from both Science and Science Fiction to examine further and to explore the aspirations of design and the technicalities at ‘base level’.
6
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
INTRODUCTION 132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
7
“...W E WILL BUILD A SPACE ELEVATOR 10 YEARS AFTER THEY STOP LAUGHING AND THEY’VE STOPPED LAUGHING...” [CLARKE, 2014]
8
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
2 MATRICES Science / Fiction
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
9
MATRICES
2.1:Expansive Matrix - Science
10
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
MATRICES The chosen criteria for the primary matrix is to provide the essential information involved in formulating the proposal or concept. As can be seen, ‘Science’ outweighs ‘Fiction’, even though there are a much larger number of examples through science fiction, they hold little value in the Space Elevator research development. The reasons for this include lack of information on the concept itself but also what can be deemed now as highly unrealistic thought processes, the majority of which are based in novels. From this large Matrix a clear grading system has evolved to indicate the relevance to the research, development, current technological discoveries and hence the value within the process.
[FIG 02] OWN
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
11
MATRICES
2.2:Expansive Matrix - Fiction
[FIG 02] OWN work????????????????
12
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
MATRICES 132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
13
MATRICES
2.3:Selective Matrix
[FIG 02] OWN
14
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
MATRICES The three examples shown in the reduced matrix were chosen as they express a coherent analysis of the Space Elevator and cover Science, Science Fiction and a combination of the two. The specific criteria shown gained the highest grading within the full matrix. The following short case studies cover the basic information required to provide an overall understanding of their value technically, culturally, and specifically with reference to their creators and the time in which they have been developed.
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
15
“...W E WILL BUILD A SPACE ELEVATOR 10 YEARS AFTER THEY STOP LAUGHING AND THEY’VE STOPPED LAUGHING...” [CLARKE, 2014]
16
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
3 COMPARISONS
Bradley C Edwards: Carbon Designs Inc.
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
17
COMPARISONS
Bradley Edwards is the president and founder of the partially NASA funded organisation ‘Carbon Designs Inc.’. Edwards can be said to be the main force behind the Space Elevator concept and driving it towards real buildability. He is a leading light regarding the technology involved and is seen by many as being the primary contender to physically establish the elevator. Throughout all the work of ‘Carbon Design Inc’ and Edwards’ long history of published books, articles, interviews and seminars, a very coherent approach has been made in the development and design of the Space Elevator. The hypothesised Space elevator is equatorially based and Edwards and his team predict construction to be complete in 40-50 years. This prediction is based on a forecast of an expected 15 year delivery period after the project is seriously adopted by a governing body. From the matrix information provided it is clearly the most advanced proposal with world leading research and development coupled with the added benefits resulting from the teams own CNT development centre and their intrinsically designed climbers. It is surely the most feasible design thus far. Across the next few pages are a selection of relevant diagrams, imagery and information proposed by Bradley Edwards. Within the body of research these diagrams are specifically aimed to explain more intricately designed schemes, prototypes and strategic techniques.
[FIG 02] OWN work????????????????
18
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
COMPARISONS [FIG 02] OWN work????????????????
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
19
COMPARISONS
[FIG 02] OWN work???????????????? [FIG 02] OWN work???????????????? [FIG 02] OWN work????????????????`
20
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
COMPARISONS
[FIG 02] OWN work????????????????
[FIG 02] OWN work????????????????
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
21
COMPARISONS
[FIG 02] OWN work????????????????
22
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
COMPARISONS [FIG 02] OWN work????????????????
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
23
COMPARISONS
[FIG 02] OWN work????????????????
24
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
COMPARISONS It is important to understand the value of the sources, authors and content when discussing specific examples. Edwards’ proposal is widely discussed across numerous large technologist platforms and he is deemed by many reputable figures and foundations as the foremost developer of the space elevator. This does not necessarily mean it is achieving all the requirements to fully establish the project but is generally regarded as having this leading capability and with the necessary funding and global will it is considered to be the most likely organisation to lead the project to success. The matrix evidently indicates that CNT’s are the primary focus and logistically the primary concern. Whilst Edwards states that the elevator could be constructed now, it would be wiser to await the further development of CNT’s to a stronger and longer specification. The design of the cable itself is the result of very considerable research and development and currently is the only ‘ribbon’ shape and form available. As with the final example to be assessed, this project requires a mobile base station, designed similarly to an oil rig, to allow the manoeuvrability necessary to avoid space debris and harsh weather conditions at base level.
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
25
COMPARISONS
Key points outlined by Edwards’ about the mobile platform to serve as the Space Elevator Base:
[FIG 02] OWN work????????????????
26
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
COMPARISONS The available material on the Space Elevator proposal by Edwards is widely available but through a personally conducted interview and first hand research it is obvious that his project is of great significance in the development of the concept and is unquestionably heading the ‘Elevator Race’ in the West. Globally, Obayashi have come into recognition recently, however they appear to lack the coherent and dedicated approach conducted by Bradley Edwards and his company. It is a justified design of a very exciting concept that could soon be a reality.
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
27
“...CNT’S ARE THE PRIMARY FOCUS AND LOGISTICALLY THE PRIMARY CONCERN...” [EDITOR - PHILLIPS, 2016]
28
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
4 COMPARISONS
Arthur C Clarke: Fountains of Paradise
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
29
COMPARISONS
When one discusses science fiction novels, it is a tragedy not to reflect on the great works of Arthur C Clarke. Clarke, a British science fiction author, futurist, and scientific writer, wrote ‘The Fountains of Paradise’ in 1979, winner of both the Hugo and Nebula Award in 1980. The fiction is set in the 22nd century and depicts the complete construction of a space elevator. The anchored concept utilizing an orbital platform is, in fact, the earliest, detailed and correctly feasible description of the space elevator. As the matrix shows, this was a very clearly thought out scheme and developed under a scientific notion within the realm of fiction. Whilst the entire concept of the novel is to reach heaven, a two thousand year old dream of the King of Taprobane, it is evident that Clarke has written this with a keen interest in the concept. Having assessed the points in the matrix and further information regarding the actual space elevator within the novel, this is most likely the first large step in the creation of public perception and appreciation. The value of this information is high due to the time it was depicted, scientific evidence now vindicating a large number of ideas within the story and the inferences written throughout that depict a newly formed society and subtle political rivalries. The tale provides an exciting approach to a political, social and spiritual adventure that consists of a mars-based consortium attempting to construct a space elevator and eventually succeeding despite their own bad judgement and the failed attempt of sabotage by others. The story is farfetched but the manner in which the space elevator is described shows Clarke’s great understanding and a coherent approach to the technicalities throughout.
[FIG 02] OWN work????????????????
30
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
COMPARISONS [FIG 02] OWN work????????????????
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
31
COMPARISONS
Clarke’s depiction uses a vast number of correct theories that are rife in today’s scientific approaches. The orbiting platform, acting as a factory and space port, based thousands of kilometres in space, tethered to the earth at a mountains peak on the equator probably seemed rather fanciful to the average reader but it is in fact one of the most common approaches. The ambition of the concept within the tale is for cargo and human transportation at a fraction of the cost of a rocket, whilst harnessing energy with various schemes deployed throughout. This is a fundamental conclusion of today’s developing Space Elevator. Another key depiction of Clarke’s is the construction method, a deployment strategy at geostationary orbit, spooling a thin filament material, similarly to today’s Carbon Nanotubes, to a stationary tower acting as both a terminal and weather protection system.
It is always difficult to compare science and fiction but the two go hand in hand, aiding the development of each other. It could be said that without key novels and depictions such as Clarke’s ‘Fountains of Paradise’ that such foundations as Bradley Edwards’ would not be around today or at their current stage of advanced development. It is important to understand this paper is not assessing the stories in which these Elevators appear but the way in which the elevators are presented and what information can be valued as being significant to the development and currently used technologies and strategies. Clarke’s concept of the Space Elevator is technically justified whilst being beautifully described, intricately designed, and set within a fascinating story.
[FIG 02] OWN work????????????????
32
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
COMPARISONS [FIG 02] OWN work????????????????
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
33
“...W HEN ONE DISCUSSES SCIENCE FICTION NOVELS, IT IS A TRAGEDY NOT TO REFLECT UPON THE GREAT WORKS OF ARTHUR C. CLARKE...” [EDITOR - PHILLIPS, 2016]
34
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
5 COMPARISONS
Tom Phillips: The London Elevator
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
35
COMPARISONS
PROPOSAL The third and final comparison focuses on a personal project in development. The London Space Elevator, is based in the river Thames estuary, approximately two miles off the coast of Shoeburyness. The proposal has been strategically designed to combine the technicalities required with an architectural flare, a design that encompasses both function and form opposed to one or the other. The focus of the project is the Base Station and the logistics, zoning, design and integration of specific elements. The Space Elevator itself is mobile, with its base acting as a large, manoeuvrable ship like form that can dock into the permanent platform off the coast of Shoeburyness. The Permanent docking platform acts as a large conglomeration of vital zones ranging from large port areas to pedestrian travel, security control centres to short term stay accommodation and maintenance zones to artificial intelligence control points. This would inevitably become a form of architectural exposition, a series of specific functional forms designed by chosen architects and function specific groups.
[FIG 02] The plan opposite depicts the sheer scale of the proposal with its numerous complicated and intricately articulated zones through to the vast areas of storage and working needed for such a project. It is clear that the upper tri-pronged star detaches and is the essence of the project, the base of the London Space Elevator. The manoeuvering element contains a number of vital areas excluding the space elevator. It controls the movement through extremeley advanced technologies, automated and in sync with NASA and leading space development programs with open source analytical astrological data. The design language of the design differs throughout the stationary port exploiting the exposition that would become the perminently stationary dock and attraction. These elements consist of a; Cargo port Pedestrian port Central hub Media centres Training facilities Hotel Short and long stay accomodation Maintenance areas Cargo sorting areas Large security zones Independant small line railway connecting to the main station on the platform.
This station is an extension of the line through the village, now bustling and technologically driven town of Shoeburyness.
36
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
COMPARISONS MOBILE
STATIONARY
TRANSPORT TO MAINLAND
[FIG 02] 132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
37
COMPARISONS
[FIG 02] The diagram depicts the relevant areas able to be seen in plan. The mobile, moving and docking tri-pronged star is the core mass for the earth end of the tether. The hull is deep in the centre and shallow on the outer parts allowing acurate balance and mass distribution. The space elevator mobile aspect will only deploy into the estuary and further when necessary. This is only the case when it is vital to avoid space debris and therefore this will not need to be a quick process due to the extremely acurate data readings in advance.
38
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
39
COMPARISONS
The Elevator follows suit with regards to an indication of a geostationary orbit space-port/construction platform and is constructed through threaded spools being deployed from LEO whilst moving up to GEO via space shuttles. Carbon Nanotubes are used and the concept is set in 2100, a promising time for the space elevator to become a reality, and for such a material to develop to predicted strengths that are necessary. Whilst governmental, social and economic aspects are deeply considered, the project focuses on design combined with technology and the concept assumes a wider platform and appreciation. This is something that is lacking in the general narrative and is necessary to address to exploit the full understanding of the effects of the space elevator, regionally and globally.
40
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
COMPARISONS [FIG 02] Early Concept showing segmented design for space elevator, Cargo/people vehicles in use. 132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
41
COMPARISONS
The development of the design has gone through various stages including discussions with globally recognised Engineers ‘AKT2’ and a number of recognised technologists and designers. This is a specu-lative project, however it should be appreciated in terms of form and function combined, strategic base station configurations, and the manner in which the mobile platform is designed to dock into a larger more substantial port. Space Elevators are typically designed on the equator due to the centrifugal forces affecting the tether and port. It is possible to construct an elevator off the equatorial line as shown. A solution to a number of concerns around ‘off equator space elevators’ is to have a heavier, possibly segmented tether. This design reduces the stress on the base anchor and allows for designs to be generated with regards to a cable dictating a surrounding system. This design facilitates both cargo and people climbers. The climbers are now in fact vertical, magnetic propulsion trains. A primary point of focus in this proposal is the journey, from land to platform, plat-form to elevator and elevator to space.
[FIG 02] AKT SKETCHES
42
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
COMPARISONS AKT DIAGRAMS DO RENDERS OF SPACE ELVATOR AND TRAIN, show one from animation
must add ‘off equator’ graphs
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
43
CONCLUSION
The London Space Elevator concept could be said to be a combination of science, fiction and architecture encompassed by a particular design language and consistent technological appreciation and integration. Whilst this will most likely not be the proposal built, it is important for designs to be generated to spur the leading foundations and organisations heading the concepts to appreciate design with function. It is an opportunity to create the largest and most impressive structure in the world. From a design perspective let us not allow this to become mundane, grey, and hostile; Function over Form. The base station will become a world landmark, the instigator of extensive space exploration and colonisation, and the highest security location on the planet.
Conclusive Statements September 12, 1962; 53 years ago; “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.” John F. Kennedy “Since, in the long run, every planetary civilization will be endangered by impacts from space, every surviving civilization is obliged to become spacefaring--not because of exploratory or romantic zeal, but for the most practical reason imaginable: staying alive... If our long-term survival is at stake, we have a basic responsibility to our species to venture to other worlds.” Carl Sagan The Space elevator is probably the only achievable, essential step to the installation of a true far reaching and relevant Space Programme. The necessity for such is a given as illustrated by the beneficial analysis portrayed earlier. We have the capability and with the political will and support it will soon become a reality.
[FIG 02] ‘Isolated Mobile Element’
44
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
CONCLUSION 132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
45
“...W HEN ONE DISCUSSES SCIENCE FICTION NOVELS, IT IS A TRAGEDY NOT TO REFLECT UPON THE GREAT WORKS OF ARTHUR C. CLARKE...” [EDITOR - PHILLIPS, 2016]
46
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
6 REFERENCES
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
47
REFERENCES refs here
48
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
7 APPENDICES
Interview with Dr B Edwards
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
49
APPENDICES
Personally conducted interview by myself, Tom Phillips, on the 5th of Jan 2016: Q. In your opinion, what is the value in Science Fictions’ role within the development of the Space Elevator concept? A. Science fiction is often the inspiration for the next generation of technology. Coming up with a great/valuable idea is the fist step for any new technology and science fiction is the best way to generate these. For the space elevator, scifi was the direct inspiration for me to develop it - Fountains of Paradise, Red Mars,... Q. What is the current development status of the concept? A. The engineering is being worked on but the funding is too limited to make much serious progress. Even funding on CNTs is limited and that is the last, most challenging hurdle on the technical side. At the moment the development of the elevator is waiting on a backer. Q. Being a profound Technologist, when do you feel this is going to be achievable and why? A. The elevator is achievable now. There is engineering to be done but if the right entity decided to build it they could start tomorrow. Q. With the concept seemingly relying on the development of Carbon Nanotube fibres, what are the predictions for the materials success in the concept and how will this be achieved? A. The Chinese have made CNTs 55 cm in length. They have also made CNTs with strength 3X what is needed to build the elevator. We have demonstrated that CNTs are easily spun into thread. My company makes similarly strong CNTs millimeters in length in quantity and we will be starting an effort in the coming weeks to extend these to ~20mm to turn into continuous spun fibers. Predictions are for things yet to be done. If someone really wants to produce CNT material for the elevator they can. Q. What are the major technical challenges you are faced with? And why? A. On the technical side it is just engineering to be done. Overall, it is a national will and funding. Q. Having read numerous articles, books and papers it is clear that the construction technique varies somewhat across these. How will the Space Elevator be constructed at such a large scale? A. The scale of the elevator is actually within the realm of what men have built for a very long time. That is not an issue. The design to be used will correspond closely to what I laid out in my books though there will be some modifications. Q. I am a strong believer in the concept and I understand how it works. However how would the structure maintain stability off the ground? Does weather affect it to a degree of swaying and eventually causing a fault or break? A. Weather will be a factor - lightning, wind, hail,... but these have all been examined and addressed. Wind is probably the biggest challenge but it should be manageable. This will take some design studies to finish. Q. Realistically when can we expect to see the construction of such an incredible concept? A. 15 years after someone seriously decides to build it.
50
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
APPENDICES Q. The predicted time frame changes constantly for this concept, but how could this global or UN based effort potentially be shortened with a mobilized effort? A. As stated above, the timeframe is completely determined by the first entity who decides to build it. Q. On the tether itself, how much cargo can be moved up and down and at what speed? What would the cargo be carried in? A. This is not a set value - easily tens of tons and at speeds of hundreds of mikes an hour. Q. Putting the technicalities to one side, what are the greatest political, social and economic challenges we will face with such a project? A. 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. Q. How “easy” will it be, and what methods will be used, to travel from the space station (tethered to the earth at 62.000 miles high) to the Moon or even Mars? A. Very easy. Slide up the ribbon a ways and let go. Bring a rocket to stop when you get there. The part that makes this easy is that you won’t have weight restrictions and the cost will be greatly reduced. Our current challenges in going to the Moon and Mars are all based on the size and expense of the rockets we have. Q. What are the assumptions for energy usage/production at the point of construction? Is it a world of abundance? Or is the initial construction utilized with rocket fuel and thereafter magnetised propulsion up the tether? A. You should read through my book. All this is explained in great detail and should also answer questions 6, 10, 12,... above. Q. As you have seen I am interested in Science Fiction vs the Science of the Space Elevator. What key examples in both Fiction and Science Fiction hold value in your mind with regards to their design, structure, political outreach, social status, construction methods or indeed any technological assumptions? A. The key values from science fiction again is the basic idea, the concept and what value the technology might have. Science fiction gets a lot of things wrong - even Clarke. The space elevators in science fiction were monsterous, built from asteroids, had maglev,... none of which can be done. But by simply pointing out the concept it gives a direction to proceed or a foundation to work with. From a social standpoint it gets the idea out to the public and shows what might be possible - builds support. On the other hand, erroneously writing that a space elevator can fail and end up wrapping around the Earth destroying large areas can be a detriment as well. Q. What do you believe the Base Station would comprise of, and what are the logistics of such a scheme? A. Again, read through my book. It will give you all this information. You can also look up the Obayashi space elevator and see the design they are discussing.
132,000,000:1 THE SPACE ELEVATOR
51