Space Elevator Feasibility: NASA Announces New Launch Vehicle and CEV

In summary: That's classified.In summary, space elevators are possible, but they will not be built in our lifetime and space fountains are a better option.
  • #36
Ok, idea I had. Made a "spacecone" composed of fountain towers at angles. Kind of like a giant teepee tent. Wind blows against towers and the other towers on the other side take the sway load using their compressive strength. I wonder if they'll name the idea after me?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #38
Yea or similar to the i giant pyramid hotel they plan to build sumwhere in japan or sum asian place out of nano tubes. saw it on extreme engineering. the ideas has been thought of


/\
/\/\
/\/\/\
 
  • #39
yes, the physics involved here is too advanced for me, but i still understand all of the concepts of the building and concepts must happen before details can be laid.

i saw the episode your talking about. the building was like this

---/\
--/\/\
-/\/\/\

but diferent. what about a pyramid with a tower on top and then from the top of the tower comes the ribbon, the ribbon goes up and is tethered at the end by a space station where spacecraft are docked and waiting to be taken to the moon or something

something like this: (ignore these little lines going sideways like this -)

---[spaceport]
------[ ]
------\ /
-------lll
-------lll (ribbon)
-------lll
-------lll
-------lll
------llllllll
------llllllll (tower)
------llllllll
------llllllll
-----/\/\/\
----/\/\/\/\ (pyramid)
---/\/\/\/\/\
--/\/\/\/\/\/\
-/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
 
Last edited:
  • #40
yea i made mine like that but when i posted it it all mvoed to the left lol
 
  • #41
i think it be easiest to have acess to the ribbon as close to the ground that way heavy space crafts done have to be lifted up heghts exceleing skyscrapers to be attached to the ribbon. My suggestion woul be to have and anchor buried underground so teh ribbon is ground level. Then build any structures such as mission control around it but leavy plenty of space around the ribbon.
 
  • #42
buried anchor would work very well.

when the time comes for us to pick a space station before we finish the las mile or so, do you think ISS would work or would we have to build a whole new station

i say build a new one
 
  • #43
hitssquad said:
Ribbon-type space elevators do not need to be anchored on the equator. They can be anchored anywhere, including the poles.

You are not correct here. What would hold the system up (keep it all from falling to the ground) is the orbital impetus. That is not sufficient, however. Anywhere other than in a synchronous orbit, the 'ribbon' would wrap itself around the Earth like a maypole, and this means that it must be in a synchronous orbit. To complicate matters, however is the tremendous weight of the assembly that would be 'hanging down' from that orbit. To compensate, an equal weight would have to pull 'up' from that synchronous orbit point, extending it a great deal upward, beyond synchronous. Then, that lower part would attempt to run itself ahead of rest if it is not anchored to the ground (ie, the lower the orbit of any part, the faster it will travel).

Then, the complications are just so great as to stagger the mind. The part that extends below synchronous wants to pull itself ahead in orbit, so even if it is anchored below, the lateral distortion forces would be incredible. Next, the weight of that part hanging down would be enormous. Not even the much ballyhooed nanotube structures would have anywhere the near the tensile strength to handle the needs of a structure this tall hanging down (I don't believe; --- maybe some super-super-super-nanotubes of the distant future will be able to). Then, there is the equal "weight" of the counterbalancing part pulling up, and its 'lateral backward' pull in orbit on the assembly. All in all, I just don't see it being done in the near future. Finally, I just don't see how you would handle the tendency of the upper part (beyond synchronous) to wrap itself around. You can't anchor that part.

KM
 
  • #44
Well KI Man, I also think a new station would be handy, i say on the moon. The prupose of building the space staion on the moon is to conserve fuel because so much is burned escaping Earth's gravity, however a vast amounts of fuel would still have to be burned to get the crafts to the station. The space elevator would further contribute to decreasning the amount of fuel we burn. It would also allow an object to travel to space much safer.
 
  • #45
blimkie said:
Well KI Man, I also think a new station would be handy, i say on the moon.
I have an idea here (or, more correctly, my 14 beers and I have an idea). Let's just solidly anchor a bucky cable between Earth and the moon. Since the moon is already tide-locked with one face toward us, it's only the orbital period that presents a problem. Linking them with a non-elastic cable will eventually slow down the moon's orbital period, and to some extent the Earth's rotational one, until the moon is geosynchronous. Then all we have to do is climb up the cable like monkeys in space suits.
 
  • #46
Kenneth Mann said:
Then, the complications are just so great as to stagger the mind. The part that extends below synchronous wants to pull itself ahead in orbit, so even if it is anchored below, the lateral distortion forces would be incredible. Next, the weight of that part hanging down would be enormous. Not even the much ballyhooed nanotube structures would have anywhere the near the tensile strength to handle the needs of a structure this tall hanging down (I don't believe; --- maybe some super-super-super-nanotubes of the distant future will be able to). Then, there is the equal "weight" of the counterbalancing part pulling up, and its 'lateral backward' pull in orbit on the assembly. All in all, I just don't see it being done in the near future. Finally, I just don't see how you would handle the tendency of the upper part (beyond synchronous) to wrap itself around. You can't anchor that part.
Have you analyzed the engineering details of proposed space elevators to see if these issues are addressed? If not, you might want to check out something like the book by Bradley Edwards, which apparently contains a lot of detailed analysis of such engineering issues. Here's a collection of references, some available online:

http://www.spaceelevator.com/docs/

Included are two articles written by Bradley Edwards for NASA:

http://www.spaceelevator.com/docs/472Edwards.pdf
http://www.spaceelevator.com/docs/521Edwards.pdf

The second article indicates they've done a lot of calculations and simulations to check the stability of the space elevator:

14
Ribbon Dynamics
The dynamics of the elevator, in general, are fairly straightforward but to ensure proper operation we need to examine the details of the elevator dynamics.

In 1975, Jerome Pearson published a technical article that included the a discussion on the natural frequency of the space elevator. Pearson found that the natural frequency depended on the taper ratio of the cable and in some cases would be near the critical 12 and 24 hour periods that could be problematic. Pearson also stated an ugly equation for calculating the shape of the cable as a function of the material strength, planetary mass, and planetary rotation speed.

We have taken Pearson’s original equation and attempted to simplify it into a more usable and intuitive form. However, this equation does not simplify well and like Pearson we have resorted to an analytical solution. In our case, however, we have ready access to spreadsheets that easily handle these types of calculations. We have composed a set of spreadsheets that produce ribbon profiles, tension levels, linear velocities, counterweight mass and total system mass. This spreadsheet is designed to handle different planetary bodies, rotation rates and applications.

Another spreadsheet we have composed is similar but for elevators with their anchors located off the equator. In this case the ribbon is found to sag toward the equatorial plane but remain entirely on the side as the anchor. This sag in the ribbon is due to the non-axial pull of gravity on the ribbon. The magnitude of the sag depends on the planetary rotation, planetary gravity and mass to tension ratio of the ribbon. In the case of a Martian cable, where anchoring the cable off the equator would allow it to avoid the moons this calculation is critically important. In the Martian case the cable extends parallel to the equatorial plane with only a 3 km sag back toward the equatorial plane when the cable is moved 900 km from the equator. This simple reanchoring of the cable would allow us to avoid any difficulties with the Martian moons.

What these and the dynamics work discussed below imply is that from a system stability and operations it is possible to move the anchor tens of degrees off of the equator if other factors (weather) permit.

In addition to the spreadsheets that we have assembled, David Lang has conducted computer simulations on the dynamics of the system. The code Lang is using was originally designed for modeling the ProSEDs experiment. Lang has modified it to examine the elevator scenario. The results from these simulations show that the elevator is dynamically stable for a large range of perturbations. The natural frequencies were found to be 7 hours for in-plane (orbital plane) oscillations and 24 hours for out-of-plan oscillations. The out-of-plane number is misleadinghowever. For any elevator or geosynchronous satellite a 24 hour period is found for the out-of plane because that simply implies an inclined orbit. For determining the stability, Lang gave the system various angular deviations, initial velocities and also quickly reeled in some length of the ribbon at the anchor. At some limit in each of these cases the elevator becomes unstable. What was found was that angles of tens of degrees were required to create a catastrophic failure. (The energy required to move the counterweight this far is equivalent to that required to lift 3000 loaded semi trailers kilometers into the air.) It was also found that reeling in 3000 km of ribbon in 6 hours will create a catastrophic failure. Each of these perturbations is well beyond any we expect to encounter. The events leading up to any of these are easily avoidable.

Lang also suggested that we consider a pulse type of movement for avoidance of orbital objects rather than a translational as we have been proposing. The difference is that in the pulse situation the anchor station is moved one kilometer and moved back to its starting position. This will send a wave up the ribbon to avoid an orbital object. The pulse will reflect off the counterweight and return to the anchor where an inverse pulse maneuver is conducted to eliminate the pulse. The result is a quiet system. In our proposal the anchor would be moved and remain there. This would send a long pulse that could oscillate up and down the ribbon for some time. Simultaneous pulses and a complex movement of the ribbon would result. This is a simplified explanation of a complex operation and response but the point is that there are operations that still need optimization.

Along with the computer simulations we have conducted some hardware tests of various ribbon designs and damage scenarios. The tests included several sets of ribbons with parallel and diagonal fibers composed of plastic fibers and epoxies or tape sandwiches. The ribbons ranged from two to four feet in length and were placed under high tension loads.

In the ribbon tests we found much of what was expected and predicted by our models. In situations where there is continuous rigid connection between adjacent axial fibers, aligned or diagonal, high stress points are created at the edges of the damaged area. These high stress points tend to be the starting point for zipper type tears and greatly reduce the optimal strength of the ribbon. On the contrary, ribbons with non-rigid interconnects between fibers had minimal stress points and yielded at high tensions and larger damage. A full description of the optimal ribbon design is found in our book. Similar tests are now being arranged at Rutgers to explore the degradation that might occur. We have also started to set up ribbons close to what will most likely be the final design.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #47
The latitudes of space-elevator anchorage

Kenneth Mann said:
hitssquad said:
Ribbon-type space elevators do not need to be anchored on the equator. They can be anchored anywhere, including the poles.
What would hold the system up (keep it all from falling to the ground) is the orbital impetus.
Yes.


Kenneth Mann said:
Anywhere other than in a synchronous orbit, the 'ribbon' would wrap itself around the Earth like a maypole
Yes. That is why a synchronous orbit would be selected for the poles, just as for any other latitude at which ribbon-type space elevators might be anchored.
 
  • #48
It worrys me when a source that is being quoted makes basic mistakes. Since when is a resonant frequency measured in hours? That is obviously the period of a couple of the modes. I have a very hard time believing that something that long, that has to endure the weather would not have many, many more modes excited.
 
  • #49
Yes. That is why a synchronous orbit would be selected for the poles, just as for any other latitude at which ribbon-type space elevators might be anchored.

All orbits MUST lie in a plane which intersects the center of mass of the massive body (in this case, the Earth). An object in orbit about the north pole must pass over the south pole (and vice versa). The ribbon connecting the other anchoring mass would be wrapped around the Earth due to the anchoring mass "orbiting" the Earth.

The same goes for any other latitude.

The reason a geoSTATIONARY (not geosynchronous) orbit works is that the orbital period of the minor mass (anchor) is equal to the rotational period of the major mass (Earth) and, since on the equator, the minor mass is always over the same point. Thus the equator is the only place a skyhook is astrodynamically feasible.

Cheers...
 
  • #50
LunchBox said:
All orbits MUST lie in a plane which intersects the center of mass of the massive body
This is not the case for orbiting bodies which are tethered.
images.google.com/images?q=tetherball
 
  • #51
HitSquad: can you please elaborate on this pole-anchored space elevator?

AFAIK, ribbon-type space elevators must have their centre of mass in a geostationary orbit so that it does not move wrt its anchor on Earth.


If you were to build a space elevator similar to that tetherball, what angle(s) would your elevator shaft be wrt the Earth's surface? Do forces balance and create a stable configuration?
 
  • #52
This is not the case for orbiting bodies which are tethered.
images.google.com/images?q=tetherball

Ok, theoretically, that COULD work. However, the anchor would have to be ACTIVELY swung at a VERY high rotational rate requiring ENORMOUS amounts of energy to keep it spinning.

However, this is what I like to call the difference between where physicists live, and where engineers live. Why do it at a pole where energy input and an angular momentum imparter are required when it can be done without either of those at the equator, thus somewhat simplifying an already mind-boggling problem.

Cheers...
 
  • #53
The playground physics of space-elevators, continued

DaveC426913 said:
can you please elaborate on this pole-anchored space elevator?
Actually, a tethering at an exact pole would not be feasible since the ribbon would be draped across the terrain at least until the point where the satellite was visible at the horizon. To tether at a pole, you would need a tower in order for the tether to clear the horizon. Also, I think a tether would droop as it was moved away from the equator and therefore the farthest distance from the equator that one could tether would be even more limited than by what might be suggested by the horizon.


ribbon-type space elevators must have their centre of mass in a geostationary orbit so that it does not move wrt its anchor on Earth.
I have been describing tethered geostationary orbits, though there are ways around the geostationary prerequisite which I have not yet described.


If you were to build a space elevator similar to that tetherball, what angle(s) would your elevator shaft be wrt the Earth's surface?
Less than 90 degrees. Tethers at the equator would be 90 degrees, and tethers placed progressively farther from the equator would have progressively smaller tether angles. 10 miles on either side of the equator would create tether angles just a bit less than 90 degrees.


Do forces balance and create a stable configuration?
Yes. A tetherball sent into orbit is stable. Try it at a playground near you.
 
  • #54
Challenging the equatorial imperative

LunchBox said:
hitssquad said:
This is not the case for orbiting bodies which are tethered.
images.google.com/images?q=tetherball
the anchor would have to be ACTIVELY swung at a VERY high rotational rate
The non-equatorial tethered anchor is geostationary and therefore its orbital period is 24 hours.


Why do it at a pole [...] when it can be done [...] at the equator
One reason to do it in the continental United States is that most Americans do not live at the equator. It might be convenient to visit Space Hilton 1 without requiring a passport.
 
  • #55
SkepticJ said:
Good point. I'll see if I can find that technical paper. Google searches aren't finding anything, but I'll keep trying to get it.

No, not that link; the link in post #18's bottom. It doesn't work for me.

Shouldn't be hard at all. For one thing, the pipe could be very narrow in diameter; which means less air inside. For another thing, the vacuum pump isn't fighting against gravity. If you had a pipe as tall as this, connected even just a small vacuum pump, it could eventually suck all the air out. "Eventually" wouldn't do, so something like a 777's jet engine powered vacuum pump would do nicely. It'd probably be able to suck the pipe to a vacuum in several hours to a day. Since the top of the pipe is above the atmosphere no more, or very, very little and slowly, will get in again that way. Going through the pipe material itself, hydrogen and helium are the only gases I know of that can squeeze through metal. There's not much of either gas in Earth's atmosphere, because they rise to the top of the atmosphere and are blown away by Sol's solar wind.


Adding to this post:

The vacuum pipe need not be steel. Materials such as aramid, carbon fiber, fiber glass, synthetic spider silk(still being worked on, but the transgenic "spider goats" are really helping) and carbon nanotubes(ditto) would work far better.

Another way for a space elevator, gone into in much detail, are Jacob's Ladders
here
The supra planets on there I'm very fond of as well. They're quite a bit in the future due to the lack of extreme need for such amounts of living space, the lack of getting to space cheaply etc. I, unlike Birch, don't see such things being built for several hundred years at least however.
 
  • #56
Did I kill this thread, or there's just no more to say? :confused: :shy:
 
  • #57
eh, nothing more to say
 
  • #58
Ki Man said:
eh, nothing more to say

How about I thought of another way to support the mass stream's vacuum pipe?: The pipe segments exert magnetic drag on the mass stream, stealing some of its inertia, to hold the vacuum pipe up. This is probably how it's supposed to work in the original idea. If not, then how would many thousands of kilometer high towers function without nanotube pipes under huge tensile load from the top? How would any of the hanging structure? Nanotubes weren't even discovered yet when the space fountain idea came about.
I don't think any length of the tower would have to hang from another part(within reason), it'd all be supported right on the spot by the internal mass stream.
 
  • #60
Holy old thread Batman!
 

Similar threads

NASA NASA Announces New Launch Vehicle and CEV
Replies
10
Views
4K
Space Based Solar Power practical project
Replies
7
Views
4K
Mathematica This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 242)
Replies
1
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top