Japanese construction giant Obayashi announced today plans to have a Space Elevator up and running by 2050.They are claiming it will be cheaper and safer that the conventional rockets used today.They are quoting $200 per kilo compared to $22,000 per kilo. We would travel in "cars" that would hold about 30 people and take a week to get there, to there space station, a possible stepping stone to further space tourism to the Moon and beyond.This will change Earth's economy dramatically and bring us closer to a future we have to have.
Sounds good in theory, let's hope it leads to something real.
Strange that they want to build it to 96000kms surely a GEO altitude would be more practical and more useful...?
The space elevator is an old theory but no one has come up with material to make a cable that won't break under its own weight that will reach into space.
Rick
The space elevator is an old theory but no one has come up with material to make a cable that won't break under its own weight that will reach into space.
Rick
That's the point of this recent article, the company says they've come up with some material using carbon nanotubes that will be strong enough... not that I believe them though...
I am trying to think this through. I assume that such an elevator would need to be built at the Equator to have the assistance of a rotating Earth. To build it the South Pole for example, there would be no rotation, so no velocity (compared to Earth) associated with the payload, regardless of it being lifted almost 100,000 kms, the payload would fall back to Earth.
However, at the Equator, as the Elevator rises, would there not be a severe torque affect, where the initial rotational velocity of the object would fall behind that of the Elevator as it rises, so simply lifting from above would be insufficient to raise a payload into an orbit? In effect, the payload needs to be have help in lifting its horizontal velocity, not just its vertical height.
I hope this makes sense. I don't claim to be an engineer, but the notion of an elevator seems initially intriguing, but a best, appears to need much more refining.
At an altitude lower than geostationary orbit altitude, ~36000 kms, a craft on the elevator will be travelling slower than the velocity needed for a circular orbit and therefore would fall back to Earth if it let go of the elevator below a certain height (probably about ~15000kms, just a guess).
If it let go above that height but below ~36000kms it would be in orbit with its apoapsis at the point where it let go and its periapsis at an altitude somewhere between the surface of the Earth and the altitude where it let go.
A craft on the elevator above ~36000kms would be travelling faster than the velocity needed for a circular orbit so if it 'let go' of the elevator it would find itself in an orbit with the periapsis at the point where it let go and an apoapsis higher than that, depending on how high, and therefore how fast, it was.
I haven't read that, it's on my list!
I have read a few of Clarke's books though, great stuff. I always assumed he came up with the idea of the space elevator anyway.
I seem to recall a space elevator in one of Asimov's books too...? but I could be confusing that with a different author - probably Clarke
I recall reading a series of three novels, "Red Mars, Blue Mars, Green Mars" which used a space elevator to a geostationary satellite. I can't remember the author, could have been a Robinson, but it was about the colonisation of mars by replacing the atmosphere.
That's the point of this recent article, the company says they've come up with some material using carbon nanotubes that will be strong enough... not that I believe them though...
From what I understand they don't yet have the technology to create carbon nanotubes long enough for this project, they just hope they will by 2030. Saying things and doing things are completely different, but I hope they succeed.
There is an excellent technical review of the space elevator and related concepts (e.g. tether/slingshot) in Zubrin's (Ed) "Islands in the Sky". (An excellent compilation of articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islands...lonizing_Space)
Apart from the materials issues mentioned above, the biggest problem is the required width of the tether at ground level -- it MUST taper as it rises (even using nanotube windings).
I would think at the poles would be better. If built at the equator the mass of any object moving up is going to have a massive effect the higher it goes. While at the pole there would be rotational movement but little linear movement to cause drag.
thinking like a helicopter towing a flag. It lags behind due to forward motion. A mass moving up a tower is going to cause the same problem
Hudson: We're on an express elevator to hell; going down! (Aliens)
Fascinating idea, but the issues with space junk, meteorites, atmospheric weather, engineering etc etc are surely going to take a LOT to overcome.
Better idea - can we make a "dew shield" for a telescope so large as to pierce the atmosphere completely and see as the Hubble does? Same principle...only issue would be the terminal diameter so as not to vignette (and taper all the way back to the objective). Or, make an ULTRA LONG focal length scope
Sadly, it seems something like this may end up being the fantasy it currently is. We were "promised" to land man on Mars when I was a teenager. I am middle aged now and all we have still is essentially billion dollar remote control buggies there. I hope we at least put man/woman on Mars before I float through the universe in an aethereal way
I remember the BAe HOTOL spaceliner.... as well as Boeings version, the Japanese version...
Priorities change. With computers doing most of our communicating, business deals etc these days, I guess there really is no urgency for Sydney to London in 3/4 of an hour any more.
