Funny thing is that if you believe SpaceX's numbers, space elevators aren't even cheaper even if we had good enough materials. ITS tanker is supposed to achieve a tenth that cost, less than $20/lb to LEO.If you got really good at chemical rockets like SpaceX proposes, it gives basically every alt-launch concept a run for its money.
Yes space elevators could be cheaper, but they are basically impossible to build.
Welcome Mark. Moved it out of general and made it a more specific title (everything's not about SpaceX )Space Elevators are very 2005.
It would have more than a speed of 0 because the Earth rotates with the elevator.
Yes, at the top of the 'FLOATING DOCKS', the OPUM or Orbital Pick-Up Module would have to hook the pay-load from it's orbital speed. This is I think the hardest challenge to overcome. Having said that, I believe this is less of a challenge than achieving a 100,000km elevator cable.Here are a few of the thoughts that I will try and showcase in the next videos:-the OPUM is separated into 2 with the 'pick-up' device accelerating ahead of the orbital speed and thenslowing down to allow for a certain pick-up time. This is a damper so that when the pay-load is hooked, thereis a dampening of the acceleration.-A ramp at the FLOATING DOCK level that free-falls the pay-load which then accelerates alonga mag-lev rail. (bearing in mind the atmosphere is thinner and hence there is less air resistance)-this rail (we're talking a few kilometers long here) has a curve that coincides with the OPUMs trajectoryThe idea being that the pay-load is accelerated and the OPUM pick-up head is slowed down along similar trajectories..When both are aligned which will probably be at a speed in the order of a few thousand kilometers per hour,they can attach. There is definitely a challenge there, no doubt.
Relying on memory but it says that each trip on the elevator would be days. That strikes me as very limiting.
Quote from: Kansan52 on 06/06/2018 11:03 pmRelying on memory but it says that each trip on the elevator would be days. That strikes me as very limiting.The elevator is thousands of miles long and you are basically in a car. This limits you to the speeds of fast car. So the journey takes several days.
aceshigh,To begin with, the height of the FLOATING DOCKS will now be more around the 60-80 km mark. I've addedthat as a comment on the video after feedback I've received.I have failed to mention in video 003 that the FLOATING DOCKS will actually be supported by blimps.They are meant to be floating balloons, hence the name. I will definitely address that in the new video to make sure there is no confusion, thank you. The 'space elevator' name is more to stay in line with the existing concept of 'not using rockets' essentially.I've labelled this a 'multi-stage approach elevator' for now as the ultimate goal is to get to space as efficiently as possible.and FYI regarding where space begins:https://www.popsci.com/where-does-space-begin?con=TrueAnthem&dom=tw&lnk=TATW&src=SOC&utm_campaign=&utm_content=5b1278c200bd4700073e9461&utm_medium=&utm_source=
I see no future of the standard bean stalk space elevator on Earth because it is too slow
has too little mass transfer capability
and requires the use of unobtainium to be feasible.
The mass of the elevator with current materials is so high, all of which needs to be launched with rockets, that it makes no sense.
Quote from: colbourne on 06/13/2018 03:32 amhas too little mass transfer capabilitysource? 5 store tall elevator... several of them per cable... it all depends on the thickness of the cable, which in theory can be expanded by robot weavers going up and down the cables and adding new threads...
Quote and requires the use of unobtainium to be feasible.or just a breakthrough in carbon nanotubes or graphene?
Quote The mass of the elevator with current materials is so high, all of which needs to be launched with rockets, that it makes no sense. needs to be launched with rockets?
It cannot be built ground-up like tower. Most of it has to be built from from up to down. So most of the mass has to be first lifted to GEO.
I figured out a indirect way to make a smaller space elevator, doesen't need to be 36000km, but a few hundreds, I am really happy to explain my method so others would develop it based on it, but I am afraid of plagiarism, so please tell me how to protect and publish my method.
The tethers can be built today using presently available commercial fibers. The tethers are long, typically 400 to 1600 km (1300 to 5300 kft) in length. The total mass of the space tether plus the Tether Central Station typically will be 30-200 times the payloads being handled.
Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 06/07/2018 03:26 amQuote from: Kansan52 on 06/06/2018 11:03 pmRelying on memory but it says that each trip on the elevator would be days. That strikes me as very limiting.The elevator is thousands of miles long and you are basically in a car. This limits you to the speeds of fast car. So the journey takes several days. So... even if Space Elevator technology was feasible (and it isn't), it'd be a bit like saying: "Let's not fly from one side of America to the other - that's sooo routine. There's this great new tech called a car.. let's drive instead!!!" Really?!? Wow!
When you need to transport LOTS and LOTS of cargo, you can´t pay the price of an airplane. Too expensive. And even a BFR would be tooooo expensive to transport for example 100 thousand tons of Earth food and tech in exchange for Asteroid metals.Space Elevators have that in mind. Expensive to build (like the Panama canal) but once it's built, objetive is the cost of transport to be in the order of a few cents of a dollar per kilogram (cargo itself, even food, must be more expensive per it's weight than the transport of the same weight)
Quote from: aceshigh on 06/28/2018 01:06 amWhen you need to transport LOTS and LOTS of cargo, you can´t pay the price of an airplane. Too expensive. And even a BFR would be tooooo expensive to transport for example 100 thousand tons of Earth food and tech in exchange for Asteroid metals.Space Elevators have that in mind. Expensive to build (like the Panama canal) but once it's built, objetive is the cost of transport to be in the order of a few cents of a dollar per kilogram (cargo itself, even food, must be more expensive per it's weight than the transport of the same weight) You describe a system that not only requires large amounts of unobtainium to build but defies all known laws of nature to be "expensive" to build (I admire your optimism) but then say that, once built, the objective is the cost to "be in the order of a few cents of a dollar per kilogram"?? If you could perhaps kindly explain how something impossible to construct at any time in the foreseeable future could possibly be cheaper to operate than tech that already exists, then I'll reconsider my point of view.
Quote from: aceshigh on 06/28/2018 01:06 amWhen you need to transport LOTS and LOTS of cargo, you can´t pay the price of an airplane. Too expensive. And even a BFR would be tooooo expensive to transport for example 100 thousand tons of Earth food and tech in exchange for Asteroid metals.Space Elevators have that in mind. Expensive to build (like the Panama canal) but once it's built, objetive is the cost of transport to be in the order of a few cents of a dollar per kilogram (cargo itself, even food, must be more expensive per it's weight than the transport of the same weight) You describe a system that not only requires large amounts of unobtainium to build but defies all known laws of nature to be "expensive" to build (I admire your optimism) but then say that, once built, the objective is the cost to "be in the order of a few cents of a dollar per kilogram"??
If you could perhaps kindly explain how something impossible to construct at any time in the foreseeable future could possibly be cheaper to operate than tech that already exists, then I'll reconsider my point of view.
Quote from: CameronD on 06/28/2018 03:07 amQuote from: aceshigh on 06/28/2018 01:06 amWhen you need to transport LOTS and LOTS of cargo, you can´t pay the price of an airplane. Too expensive. And even a BFR would be tooooo expensive to transport for example 100 thousand tons of Earth food and tech in exchange for Asteroid metals.Space Elevators have that in mind. Expensive to build (like the Panama canal) but once it's built, objetive is the cost of transport to be in the order of a few cents of a dollar per kilogram (cargo itself, even food, must be more expensive per it's weight than the transport of the same weight) You describe a system that not only requires large amounts of unobtainium to build but defies all known laws of nature to be "expensive" to build (I admire your optimism) but then say that, once built, the objective is the cost to "be in the order of a few cents of a dollar per kilogram"?? If you could perhaps kindly explain how something impossible to construct at any time in the foreseeable future could possibly be cheaper to operate than tech that already exists, then I'll reconsider my point of view.Using current materials space elevators can be built on the Moon, Mars and large asteroids. It is Earth that has the material strength problem.
The elevator cables are vunerable to meteoroid impact damage. Even thin cable stretched over 100,000s kms has large surface area. A meteoroid big enough to break it would be very rare but lots of little hits from specs of dust adds up to lot of accumulated damage over a year.
Unlike on Earth, where an elevator to geosynchronous orbit is just marginally physically possible, putting in an elevator to areosynchronous orbit has no technical issues ...
Quote from: rarchimedes on 02/09/2019 05:24 amUnlike on Earth, where an elevator to geosynchronous orbit is just marginally physically possible, putting in an elevator to areosynchronous orbit has no technical issues ... Apart from Phobos, which is in a lower orbit and which crosses the equator four times a day.
Quote from: rarchimedes on 02/09/2019 05:24 amUnlike on Earth, where an elevator to geosynchronous orbit is just marginally physically possible, putting in an elevator to areosynchronous orbit has no technical issues Apart from Phobos, which is in a lower orbit and which crosses the equator four times a day.
Unlike on Earth, where an elevator to geosynchronous orbit is just marginally physically possible, putting in an elevator to areosynchronous orbit has no technical issues
Off-topic:However, Phobos makes a great anchor-mass for an orbital tether to the top of the atmosphere. Much. much shorter than an elevator, much less loading on the tether allowing a higher safety factor and payload/tether mass ratio. You still need to fly from the surface up to the bottom of the tether, but that's ~700m/s. Trivial. Likewise, when landing on Mars: by descending from the tether, you eliminate orbital re-entry entirely. A small ground-to-Phobos shuttle would thus allow a huge payload mass, and could service any number of sites around the equator.Adding a similar sized tether to the outward side of Deimos means you can capture incoming ships from Earth, or throw them into Mars-Earth transfer without propellant. (Or out to the asteroid belt.) A pair of tethers on the inboard sides of the moons allows propellantless transfer between them too. So launching ships from Mars surface to Earth would take 700m/s delta-v, ditto capturing ships from Earth. And the total length of such a tether network would still be less than a single "elevator", and still stronger for a given tether thickness.(with credit to Hollister David)
Quote from: Paul451 on 02/10/2019 06:23 amHowever, Phobos makes a great anchor-mass for an orbital tether to the top of the atmosphere. Much. much shorter than an elevator, much less loading on the tether allowing a higher safety factor and payload/tether mass ratio. You still need to fly from the surface up to the bottom of the tether, but that's ~700m/s. Trivial. It would seem cheaper to push a large asteroid or even Phobos itself into an areostationary areocentric orbit,
However, Phobos makes a great anchor-mass for an orbital tether to the top of the atmosphere. Much. much shorter than an elevator, much less loading on the tether allowing a higher safety factor and payload/tether mass ratio. You still need to fly from the surface up to the bottom of the tether, but that's ~700m/s. Trivial.
With an areostationary elevator to the surface, there will be no need to expend fuel to access the elevator
Since skipping off the atmosphere
One of the big problems on Mars will be point to point transport over long,dry, dusty and rocky distances. With an anchor in a semi-areostationary orbit, moving slowly enough to be manageable, a tether could pick up objects and drop them in far away places.
A tether can be given slack to allow attaching and detaching loads before the tether accelerates back to its orbital speed, which could be below 200 klicks.
Quote from: CuddlyRocket on 02/09/2019 10:01 pmQuote from: rarchimedes on 02/09/2019 05:24 amUnlike on Earth, where an elevator to geosynchronous orbit is just marginally physically possible, putting in an elevator to areosynchronous orbit has no technical issues ... Apart from Phobos, which is in a lower orbit and which crosses the equator four times a day.According to Arthur C. Clarke, you can oscillate the tether and make Phobos jump rope. No problem!
Looks like I'm reviving this thread after a while. Does anyone know if serious space elevator development initiatives are underway as of 2021? I know companies like LiftPort are working on this, but these companies have been around for more than a decade with little sign of progress.
Realistically is there any chance of a company unveiling a space elevator in the near future?
Looks like I'm reviving this thread after a while. Does anyone know if serious space elevator development initiatives are underway as of 2021? I know companies like LiftPort are working on this, but these companies have been around for more than a decade with little sign of progress. Realistically is there any chance of a company unveiling a space elevator in the near future?
Realistically, no. Space elevators are likely to exist only in the province of dreamers for a long time.If we have cheap rockets, I think the business case for space elevators disappears.
wrong topic. ANd I don´t know how to delete this.
Quote from: Frogstar_RobRealistically, no. Space elevators are likely to exist only in the province of dreamers for a long time.If we have cheap rockets, I think the business case for space elevators disappears.To a degree cheap rockets make most of the infrastructure heavy non-rocket spaceflight systems more achievable. They also create uses which build the demand that could conceivably allow such a structure to be financed.Also rockets hit various limitations on access to population centres, emissions, noise, light pollution before they get as common as airliners.An orbital ring would for example massively useful as a global transportation, power generation and transmission system.
Quote from: Seamurda on 01/28/2021 09:40 pmQuote from: Frogstar_RobRealistically, no. Space elevators are likely to exist only in the province of dreamers for a long time.If we have cheap rockets, I think the business case for space elevators disappears.To a degree cheap rockets make most of the infrastructure heavy non-rocket spaceflight systems more achievable. They also create uses which build the demand that could conceivably allow such a structure to be financed.Also rockets hit various limitations on access to population centres, emissions, noise, light pollution before they get as common as airliners.An orbital ring would for example massively useful as a global transportation, power generation and transmission system.Space elevators can only service the equator, so even more restricted than rockets.
Quote from: Seamurda on 01/28/2021 09:40 pmAn orbital ring would for example massively useful as a global transportation, power generation and transmission system.Space elevators can only service the equator, so even more restricted than rockets.
An orbital ring would for example massively useful as a global transportation, power generation and transmission system.
How do the space elevator proposals plan to deal with traffic in LEO moving at very high relative velocity? Sooner or later there would be a conflict between the tower and a satellite that has lost control or is being used deliberately as a weapon.
I was also mainly talking about orbital rings and feathers which can go to any orbit you want.
Quote from: Seamurda on 01/30/2021 10:19 pmI was also mainly talking about orbital rings and feathers which can go to any orbit you want.Feathers?
As someone said, new large cheap rockets might make a space elevator unnecessary, as well as large SEP tugs for large bulk non-perishable cargo.
I still see large cheap rockets akin to cheap airplanes. You will still want to have ports and railroads to move very large amounts of cargo, even if the infrastructure to build a port for shipping containers is more expensive than building a 2km tarmac runway.
Quote from: aceshigh on 02/22/2021 06:20 pmI still see large cheap rockets akin to cheap airplanes. You will still want to have ports and railroads to move very large amounts of cargo, even if the infrastructure to build a port for shipping containers is more expensive than building a 2km tarmac runway.Problem is that, given how difficult it is to build a space elevator from Earth (likely impossible with known materials, given any kind of engineering safety factor), even if atomically-perfect nanotube-woven-ribbon was capable of supporting its own weight over that length, the amount of cargo that could pass up the tether each year would be low. It isn't really a "bulk transport".In a way, it's rockets that are the cargo ships. Space elevators are supersonic maglev trains in undersea vacuum tunnels.
MARCH 9 - MARCH 11, 2021ELEVATORSS P A C E E D I T I O NFrom Icarus to Jack and the beanstalk, to ancient Anasazi legends – we have dreamed of ascending to the heavens. Usually, these are cautionary tales. “Don’t tempt the gods.” “Don’t rise above your station.” And yet, we rise. First, we dreamed of flying - we achieved it. Then we dreamed of launching - done. The next step was a “giant leap” on the Moon. Now what? Elevators.Blue Marble Week | March 2021 will explore:- Gravitational Elevators (Lunar Space Elevator Infrastructure) and - Centripedal Elevators (Space Elevators from Earth)We’ll look at both through the lenses of 1) Hardware, 2) Business, 3) Outreach, and 4) FrameworkJoin us for a host of speakers discussing the topics of:1) Workforce Development 2) Infrastructure and Space Hardware3) The Linkage of Cyber and Space4) Transportation and Industrial Bases
A space elevator might work on the moon, or even Mars, but on earth the gravity well as well as sometimes extreme weather conditions might make a space elevator very impractical. I could see the moon as a possible space elevator first location. Gravity is lower, no atmosphere. It could possibly run from LL1 to the Moon's surface. As someone said, new large cheap rockets might make a space elevator unnecessary, as well as large SEP tugs for large bulk non-perishable cargo.
Once you have cheap reusable rockets to orbit, which is happening now. The impossible dream of space elevators to GEO becomes even more impossible.
The guy presenting a business case for Space Based Solar to mitigate Global Warming, which he said could only be done with 6 space elevators. However, in his comparison with Starship, he was 1000 times out on his numbers (yes, 3 OOM!).
I remain highly confident that a Space Elevator for Earth will never be built, let alone 6.
And if a fleet of a thousand Starships ever actually exists (which is far from certain - but way more practical and near-term than a space elevator), that's a *lot* of launch capacity.