Earliest Space Elevator Construction?

Within the 20th century, when would be the earliest time for a 100,000 (a hundred thousand) km-long space elevator to be built?

Then, which political power had the most ability to built it? And where would it be built?

0302060.jpeg


Thanks in advance!
 
No when

Its still no feasible

You need thousands of km of diamond or buckytubes, as nothing comes remotely close to having strength and low density needed.

A 200km rotating sky hook is possible earlier, but getting your payload to the right place in space time to within millisecs and millimeters would be ... interesting.
 
No when

Its still no feasible

You need thousands of km of diamond or buckytubes, as nothing comes remotely close to having strength and low density needed.

A 200km rotating sky hook is possible earlier, but getting your payload to the right place in space time to within millisecs and millimeters would be ... interesting.

Yes unless/until Fullerene cables can be made the elevator is a non-starter so it simply can't be done in the 20th Century.
 
For that matter we're still ten years or so away from being able to build one. BTW, it doesn't need to be that long; most designs call for 36,000 km or so, with a either a central mass at the midpoint or built up from the ground with a mass on the far end.

As for who could build it, in the twentieth century nobody, as already stated. In the twenty-first anyone with the cash and know-how and access to a suitable anchor point. The US, the Chinese, a business consortium, ...
 
What I find to be interesting about this forum is that of its name regarding alternative history in regard to the Space Elevator. I am writing a presentation which touches these aspects of the Space Elevator (SE), specifically in relation to its technological mutation overtime.

In the paper I separate two historical streams. These are:

  1. The Tsiolkovsky-Artsutanov model and
  2. The Tsiolkovsky-Eiffel-Otis model.

Of course we are all most familiar with the Tsiolkovsky-Artsutanov model. But by no means is the Tsiolkovsky-Eiffel-Otis model a dead model.

As the name suggest, the Tsiolkovsky-Eiffel-Otis model refers to getting up something to GEO, (Tsiolkovsky,) by means of a vehicle, (the Otis and the Roux Combaluzier Lepape elevators,) using the only available technology of the time (Eifel’s engineering knowledge about steel constructions).

My idea, (for the presentation,) is to show how little industrial-military interest truly exist for developing, in a reasonably short period of time, the technologies for the construction of a Space Elevator that would be available for the populous while being safe and economical.

These are a list of references I am to include in the study, especially looking into the original idea or better named the Tsiolkovsky-Eiffel-Otis model instead of the misleading Space Elevator name insinuating that the name is proprietary to the just one school of thought.

1895: Konstantin Tsiolkovsky
1998: Geoffrey. A. Landis
2003: Alexander Bolonkin
2007: The SpaceShaft Endeavor
2009: Brendan Quine

The list above is a short one that can easily be cross referenced using the internet but it is by no means the full list of researchers. Also I want to point out that the researchers are by no means without a reputation in the aerospace industry.

Then it the very popular, highly advertised ISEC promoted model, I’ve chosen to rename the Centrifugally Extended (CNT) Tether Space Elevator or the Tsiolkovsky-Artsutanov model. (CNT = Carbon Nano Tube)

1895: Konstantin Tsiolkovsky
1960: Yuri Artsutanov
1975: Jerome Pearson
1966: Isaacs, Vine, Bradner and Bachus
1975: Jerome Pearson
1979: Sir Arthur C. Clark
2003: Bradley C. Edwards

(Again the short list reflects the reasons explained for the first list).

What I find interesting is that to Tsiolkovsky what was important was not to imperatively be at GEO for any particular reason, as it was for Clark who discovered an immediate usefulness of such an orbit, namely to keep he’s proposed telecom satellites geostationary, but it was to get into space by any means the goal but a possible solution to some of the hurdles.

With the passing of time it became possible, the development of rockets and to which he (Tsiolkovsky) fully embraced as the technology of choice to reach space but allowing his original vision of a SE to become purely academic.

Notice one set of dates in the lists above; the year 2003. What is interesting about that year is that NASA had concurrently running prize purses for the two technologies something not too many people know about. But imagine how much time and other recourses could be saved if we were not so dependent on the CNT technology.
 
Last edited:
the problem ist technical
the cable is so long that it tear up under his own weight, if build from steel oder kelvar
theoretical monocristal diamond, sapphires oder Nanotube will work
Problem ist word monocristal, means it must be a a SINGLE crystal
how long must it be that thing ? 180133 km or 111929 miles in order to work
and the tiny fabrication error on molecular level and the cable tear up...
 
What's Tsiolkovsky-Artsutanov model?
Some kind of design for the elevator?

To anw_rev

The two models ore named after people that have significantly influenced the designs. Yuri Artsutanov was who, for the first time, proposed a mutation of the original SE version (which a tower supporting the piled weight, therefore enduring compression stress,) to that of a centrifugally extended cable (enduring tensional stress due the centrifugal force at GEO distances). The idea was to try to make the best use of material properties and the forces that could extend the cable. In a nutshell it can be said that in general materials have a stronger capacity to withstand stretching than compression.

This proposal happened not that long ago, (1960,) but at the time nobody knew what material was a good candidate to be used. If you want to know more about Artsutanov just google his name there is plenty said about him.

Who actually came up with the idea of using CNT as the material for the cable was not Artsutanov but a NASA project manager by the name of David Smitherman. Thanks to Smitherman's proposal is why Bradley Edwards could get the money to do the needed research he did to justify the SE Centennial Challenge.
 
Last edited:
the problem ist technical
the cable is so long that it tear up under his own weight, if build from steel oder kelvar
theoretical monocristal diamond, sapphires oder Nanotube will work
Problem ist word monocristal, means it must be a a SINGLE crystal
how long must it be that thing ? 180133 km or 111929 miles in order to work
and the tiny fabrication error on molecular level and the cable tear up...

What you are saying is what I've heard from several CNT researchers. The theoretical strength of CNT makes it a candidate material but no more than a theoretical candidate. We are no were near on achieving that goal, neither are we able to produce, at will, the filaments/strands with a reasonable length for the fabrication of quality cordage, (twisted or braided,) and neither the much more difficult and desirable lint type.

I, (like many others and probably you as well,) believe in the numbers showing that such a system is theoretically possible, but realistically we are still incapable of manufacturing the material and in general the investments being made for CNT research are not for the achievement of a strong material but for other unrelated applications.
 
One point I need to clarify from my first posting, (about the NASA concurrent prize/financing,) of the two different concepts is that the alternative to the Centrifugally Extended Tether SE was in the form of Balloon Assisted (or high altitude airships) rocket launches. Among this community some participating names are well known, namely; JP Aerospace. Project Tandem.

What this means is that NASA was seriously considering other launching technologies that could eliminate the need of a first stage rocket, (this means also an alternative to the Centrifugally Extended Tether SE). Such a method is known as a Single Stage To Orbit (SSTO) system.

From the combination of the SSTO and the need to resolve the problems of structural stress due to compression loads of a massive tall tower resulted in both the inflatable tower, (by Prof. Quine of York University in Canada,) and the SpaceShaft (Belgium).
 
Earliest Space Elevator Construction?
Within the 20th century, when would be the earliest time for a 100,000 (a hundred thousand) km-long space elevator to be built?
Then, which political power had the most ability to built it? And where would it be built?

If we ignore the 100,000 km long prerequisite, we might have build a space elevator already, but on the Moon. If I remember correctly it could be done with today's material. There is a nice Wikipedia article about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_space_elevator
 
might a tower of 320 Kilometers be enough?

Even a tower of 30 km would do, really nice will be 100 km which is the internationally agreed separation line of the boundary between atmosphere and space.

Several studies have determined that if such a structure could be used as a launching platform the need of the first stage of any spacecraft is unnecessary.

That leaves us with what we truly need: a spacecraft capable of moving around wherever we want to go.

Of course from GEO there is the advantage of not falling back to Earth because of the kinetic energy and the little influence from gravity.

But what is easiest to achieve? 100 km or 100000 km?
 
Earliest Space Elevator Construction?
Within the 20th century, when would be the earliest time for a 100,000 (a hundred thousand) km-long space elevator to be built?
Then, which political power had the most ability to built it? And where would it be built?

If we ignore the 100,000 km long prerequisite, we might have build a space elevator already, but on the Moon. If I remember correctly it could be done with today's material. There is a nice Wikipedia article about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_space_elevator

Because building a Centrifugally Extended Tether SE is so difficult; people keep coming back with alternatives that are even more incredible. We can't even get out of our planet and we are already planing things for the moon?

The question comes back to a financial fundamental: What good is it for, and who will finance such an infrastructure?
 
Last edited:
Top