60,000 Miles up: Space elevator by 2035:

60,000 miles up: Space elevator could be built by 2035, says new study:

Imagine a ribbon roughly one hundred million times as long as it is wide. If it were a meter long, it would be 10 nanometers wide, or just a few times thicker than a DNA double helix. Scaled up to the length of a football field, it would still be less than a micrometer across — smaller than a red blood cell. Would you trust your life to that thread? What about a tether 100,000 kilometers long, one stretching from the surface of the Earth to well past geostationary orbit (GEO, 22,236 miles up), but which was still somehow narrower than your own wingspan?

more at....
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...levator-could-be-built-by-2035-says-new-study

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

OK, I have heard of these inititiaves for a while now, but how realstic are they really.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

60,000 miles is a third the way to the moon, I don't think it will be built for many engineering and political reasons.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well let's settle for a quarter of the way to the Moon.
There's plenty that believe it can and will be done. The science of Nanotechnology seems to be creating possibilities and means to achieve it one day.

 

The current technological problem is that the 'cable' would be so heavy that there is no material that would have adequate strength, not even carbon-bonded nano-tubes. A back of the envelope calculation shows it might be feasible in a lower gravitational environment, such as on the moon. I suspect this would be the first place to install one, if feasible to design. But then again, the moon rail-launch appears to be a better way to get off the moon.

 

Who's going to pay for such a device and who will insure it not to collapse if it ever gets built for which I doubt.

 

Economics and Politics have always been the two horrible hidden variables in space exploration progress. It will in time change for the better, I'm sure.

 

unless theirs a breaktrough on the matierials this is not how it's going to work this material hasn't matured enough and it's hard to predict when it will be ready, also for some reason I doubt they are really interested whilst a earth space elevator would be 35790 km (22238 miles) a space elevator at phobos would only be 10.49 km (6 miles) long (to be neutral) any longer and it can catapult you right back at earth (if you time it right) This would seem relativly easy all things compared. Phobos might not be the martian surface but it has been struck by relativly many martian fragments so theirs actualy a lot of martian rocks on it's surface in all it would be a prime candidate for a space elevator (at mars you only recieve 50% the solar energy then at earth but you also loose 50% of the radiation because your covered behind mars 50% of the time and a other 50% because you would be covered behind phobos a other 50% of the time meaning you probably get less radiation then even a surface stay and if you get artificial gravity then your golden. Meanwhile Space X seems promising today and skylon at the 2020's.

 

http://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlui/handle/10315/2587
it might actually be possible to build a 20 km high tower this could further reduce the launch costs

 

Nice concept. It well-details the problems with the cable idea. Here is the paper:

http://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/x...uine_Space_Elevator_Final_2009.pdf?sequence=1

Essentially, a sky-scraper six miles high. Parked 3 miles above sea-level.

I would suggest it might be possible to fit Helium-balloons along the length, to reduce the net weight of the structure, allowing for greater structural strength, elevator system to lift rockets, etc. Climbing such a tower would be a thrill. Launching a rocket from the top platform would be an ideal way to save on the rocket-fuel required for the launch.

Any 3-mile high mountains near the equator?

 

How does this reduce launch costs?

 

To put a finer point on it: 20 km isn't very high compared to orbital altitude and the larger piece of the launch energy is for the speed, not the altitude.

 

Sure... what coud go wrong... but just in case... some solid rockets an a couple of jet engines coud be atached to the shuttle style elevator for a nice smooth landin on earth.!!!

 

I've always thought the idea of a space elevator was silly. It's like wanting to build a massive utility pole through a multi-level, heavily trafficked interstate highway. Satellite after satellite would have to maneuver around this elevator because it would be right in the path.

Then you have to worry about debris. All the garbage orbiting, all the micrometeorites constantly slamming into the structure.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That is the damage to the Space Shuttle Challenger's windshield by a simple fleck of paint.

 

20 km isn't high but it's above 90% of the atmosphere because of the lack of drag rockets would be 26% more efficient this might not seem like a lot but everything helps and it is dozens of millions for each launch.

And if that isn't enough remember that it's also a prestige project and can serve other functions to, for example a anchor point for a space elevator, space elevator need incredible tensile strength but anchoring them to the surface also means they have to be weather resistant chemically inert (oxygen is corrosive) and have to take lightning strikes. Starting at 20 km reduce those properties so they only have to focus on the tensile strength.

Further uses are radio tower and general communications, surveillance, science and a tourist destination it's 2 times the altitude of most planes I would pay a 100€ for a meal where I can see the blackness of space above me and the earths curvature below me.

In short 26% bonus for rockets + many more

 

Yep, it avoids the air-drag, and it saves the fuel to get to that height, allowing for a much larger payload. Slowly hoisting a rocket to the top would likely be by electricity/elevator, which is easy technology. And I'd want to have lunch at the revolving restaurant at the top, and watch the rocket-launch as well!

 

Right. But if it costs trillions and will only save a few million per launch you'd be a long, long time paying it off. (And just intuitively, something that can hoist a 3 million pound rocket 12 miles up a structure - and then survive the launch - is going to cost trillions.)

There's no lightning above 12 miles so you won't save anything in that regard.
Both structures pass through most of the atmosphere so you don't save much in that regard.
Since the 12 mile tall structure has to be fairly "thick" (it's basically made of helium balloons) wind loads will be enormous.

 

Uhm... question...

I know it probably wouldn't weigh but a pittance compared to the Earth but... well, at the end of that kind of tether, a few hundred pounds being rotated around the Earth is going to be equal to hundreds, if not thousands, of tons at sea level... isn't that going to risk slowly altering Earths orbit as centrifugal force acts from it being swung at high speed around the planet?

 

If you read the link I posted to the actual tower article, you'll see the serious difficulties with a cable thread. micro-meteorite impacts are a serious consideration, and would require constant repair, and huge mass to avoid the problem, making it essentially impossible under earth's gravity. likewise the high O3 content would cause serious problems in the upper atmosphere.

The tower avoids all of that.

It would work great on Mars, too (or the moon); though I suspect an outpost on Phobos/Deimos would be a great start for Mars colonization; coupled with a rail-launch on the moon. A moon Rail-Launch would shoot 'em at high speed off the surface of the moon into Mars orbit! Only takes electricity and a few miles of rail-launch at 5 g (via nuclear supplied electricity) followed by a few weeks of coasting!