In a few weeks, scientists from across the world will gather in the New Mexico desert to compete for one of the strangest – and most ambitious – technological competitions ever devised.

Some researchers will unveil robots, powered by solar panels, that will climb long lengths of cable. Others will demonstrate materials so light and strong that mile-long stretches of the stuff could be hung in the air without snapping. And some will highlight their plans to launch satellites carrying sets of mini-probes tethered together, to discover how they behave in space.

All these different projects are united by one extraordinary goal: to build a stairway to heaven. Each of the groups that will gather in New Mexico is competing to win a Nasa prize set up to encourage entrepreneurs to start development work on the technology needed to create a space elevator. Such a device would involve constructing a 23,000-mile cable that could pull men and goods into orbit without blasting them there on top of expensive, and dangerous, rockets.

The key feature of a space elevator would be the use of a satellite that will orbit almost 23,000 miles above Earth. At this altitude, known as geostationary orbit, the orbital period of a satellite moving around the globe matches Earth’s rotation. The craft then hovers over a single spot on the equator.

However, a space elevator would have one extra key feature: a massive cable would be lowered from it to link it to the ground where it would remain fixed, like a tube line to the stars.

The prime reason for posting this, of course — is this is one of John’s all-time favorite cranky topics.

  1. ECA says:

    19, the mechanism Crawls UP…
    at first it will be slow moving, until they get up higher,and have less atmosphere to deal with. then it can accelerate.
    Even with a minor rocket boost.
    But you want to keep tension on the material. once you get past 50-75 miles, the Earths gravity well, is Neglegable, and you can ZOOM right along.
    But you are right, its a balancing trick…A BIG one…And controls on the bottom and top MUST be kept.
    The station, will PROBABLY, have the END of the cable, and Pull in/out as needed to keep the balance.
    YOU DONT want the cable to BOUNCE or whip…It could Yank the base right out of the EARTH, and send the Sat base, TO THE MOON, and beyond, or drop the cable, which would streatch around the world/planet… And as 1 person said…a short string dont weigh much, but 1 ton a string, weighs ALOT.
    Only problem, is that NASA, and our GOV, DONT build the best
    they still fly a space craft thats over 20 years old.
    HOw can we train for this??

    Fun part.
    this is like a GIANT scale.
    a 1 oz pull on 1 side could measure about 10+ tons of pull on the other. I dont know the Math for this, I dont think I want to comprehend the differences.

  2. Brian Dunbar says:

    12 – Anyone remember that experiment where the Shuttle let out a long tether while in orbit and it was fried by a current surge?

    Ya. Consider that the tether deployed by the Shuttle was slicing across the magnetic field and the proposed space elevator is moving with the field. Also – and it’s an area like all of this that needs research – if the cable in non-conductive that solves a number of problems in this regard.

    13 – I wonder how many of these technologies will have “military” or “defense” applications – and all future work on them will be shrouded in government secrecy.

    Al good reason to fun (ahem) private ventures. Hey, how much money has Dvorak made in the pundit business?


    I didn’t see a website listed in 14′s post. However if you’re talking about Liftport, I agree the site appears to be heavy in marketing poofery and short on content. Blame that on the gee-whiz CMS our last intern got all excited about – fiddly thing in a nightmare to work with.

    See for our white papers and for our ‘etc’ section. Check back in a month or so – I’m supposed to have the new web server online.

  3. JoaoPT says:

    Thank you, I’ll get into this.
    I personally don’t put much faith in this technology, but I try to keep an open mind…

  4. Brian says:

    I personally don’t put much faith in this technology, but I try to keep an open mind…

    That is all I can ask for. Take the data, read up on the source material and make up your own mind.

    I’ll take a handfull of informed citizens over a horde of true believers any day.

  5. Vern McGeorge says:

    Many flaws – but the real deal.

    First, the picture is the NASA elevator which ways trillions of tons and can maybe be built in the 300 years to never timeframe. If you look at the picture at about the 7:00 position relative to the cable there’s a cylinder with an American flag on it. The cylinder has yellow light coming out from three windows. If you look through those windows, you see dozens of people standing around. This outlandish design included a bunch of wacky stuff including a 50 kilometer tall tower at the base. It is, basically, Arthur C. Clarke’s “The Fountains of Paradise” with the plot stripped out and a NASA logo on the cover.

    When he learned about the “300 years to never”, Dr. Bradley C. Edwards (then a researcher at Los Alamos Labs) went back to first principles to figure out if the materials he was studying (carbon nanotubes) could be used to build a space elevator in an economically plausible way. The design he came up with is nowhere near as cools as Clarke’s. It isn’t fast, it can’t lift megatons per climber and it doesn’t use a mag-lev, non-contact drive system. Edwards’ design does have three compelling features through:

    1. We can probably build it for on the order of 10 billion dollars.
    2. It will reduce the cost per pound to lift stuff into space to
    1/100th or even 1/1000th what it is today.
    3. We might be able to build in within 10-15 years.

    Considerably more data can be found in Edwards’ book (The Space Elevator) on in either of his NIAC funded study reports which are available on line.

    The most glaring error in the blog post is the “23,000-mile cable” reference. That’s just the distance to GEO. The ribbon will actually be 100,000 km (62,000 mi) long. The 2/3rds of the ribbon above GEO and the full mass of the counterweight are all pulling up and out. As long as this force is larger than the mass of the ribbon below GEO which is pulling down, the space elevator will dangle from the Earth into space like a pendulum.

    Now, the correct some of the errors in the comments:

    Re comment 2, the first crash will be boring. The ribbon weighs 10 kg/km so if it hits you, it will be like being body slammed by a sheet of newspaper.

    Re comments 5 and 9, finding a site will be no problem. The ideal sight is 1000 miles east of the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific. It will be like an oil platform well out in international waters and well away from air routes, shipping lanes and terrorist threats.

    Re comment 6, Clarke has been talking bout this since at least the early 70s. The idea’s not crazy – all we need is the material that light enough and strong enough to build it.

    Re comment 12, the interaction of the tether and the magnetosphere (which generated the high current) will but be an issue. NASA dragged their conductor the through the magnetic field at 7+ km/sec. The space elevator is, for all practical purposes, motionless. Also, piercing the atmosphere with a conductor is probably not an issue. The cross sectional area of the ribbon is very small, the plasma in the ionosphere at the altitude of concern is very rarified. The ribbon itself is a poor conductor. We’re not going to zap the Earth.

    Re comment 13, as far as military applications and implications go, I like the space elevator. Applications first. It’s not a good offensive platform. Why drop a missile from GEO (warning time ~ 4 hours) when and ICBM can deliver in

  6. Vern McGeorge says:

  7. Vern McGeorge says:

    …[bloody clipping algorithm!] …