If we're going to make it in this future of ours, we've got to stop thinking that our planet hangs in some kind of splendid isolation in the dead vapor of empty space. We're part and parcel of a dynamic system, a vast cosmos of activity and, probably, intelligence; though our home planet's life span is limited, the Universe is not going anywhere.
That said, meet the Space Elevator, probably the most revolutionary idea in the history of aeronautics. Why? Because it's exactly what it sounds like. An elevator. To space.
What's so elegant about the space elevator, to me, is that it draws a clean line of connection between our centuries-old conception of "down here" and the newly approachable "up there," or, as Bucky would have it, "in" and "out," respectively. While space shuttles, rockets, and satellites retain a certain abstract quality -- off they blast, in a florid burst of flame and noise, the mechanics of the whole thing still pretty mystical -- the space elevator is concrete, as though humankind were reaching its own tentative arm into the great beyond, an unknown which will, of course, quickly normalize.
Despite its seemingly implausible nature, the space elevator is totally pragmatic, ultimately much cheaper and more economical than the high-energy rigamarole we're currently faced with every time we need to wrest something from the grips of our planet's escape gravity. The method is simple, like most good ideas are: a tether held taut by the inertia of the planet's rotation, spanning from the surface of the Earth to a point beyond geosynchronous orbit, serving as a sort of cosmic freeway, shuttling "lifters" out of the planet's gravity and into orbit. It would be built somewhere near the equator or on a man-made island, capable of shifting coordinates if necessary.
Think about it. No thunderous rocketry. No risky landings. Rockets are so expensive -- and launching them so damn burdensome -- that they will probably always keep the democratization of space travel at bay. So what are we waiting for?
Arthur C. Clarke, perhaps the most ardent and famous promoter of the space elevator, was often asked when he thought the first one might be built. A little flippantly, he noted, "my answer has always been: about 50 years after everyone has stopped laughing. Maybe I should now revise it to 25 years."
Of course, not everyone is laughing. Some companies, such as Liftport Group, based in Bremerton, Washington, are already on it. Confident of the elevator's viability, they're already hard at work developing the ancillary technologies (the robotics, for example, which will form the heart of the lifter) that this paradigm-shattering device will need. Which is what is so stunning about the elevator: we have all the technology to implement it. The only thing missing is a strong enough material to build the tether out of; burgeoning carbon nanotube technology seems to fit the bill. Once we find a way to put the nanotubes, which have a theoretical tensile strength far and above any other man-made material, into practice, we'll have all our ducks in a row.
Brian Dunbar, systems administrator at Liftport, optimistically concedes that space elevator groups are "a little like Goddard in his cabbage patch, knowing that Nell should work - but there is more engineering and study needed before we light that fuse."
Of course, we have the technology to do a lot of things: stem cell research, cloning, a $100 computer...but that doesn't mean that we always do them. In order for a legitimate space elevator project to take shape, a friendly political climate is perhaps even more necessary than carbon nanotubes are. After all, it can be difficult to instill in an administration -- let alone the greater public -- the importance of these kinds of projects. Politicians (and most people) think in the short term, generally unconcerned with what happens 10, 20, or 1,000 years from now. If they didn't, my generation would certainly not be left with the blunder of global warming, nor would we have to agonize so much about the provenance of our food. Galvanizing people into action for something like the space elevator, which, off the bat, does not seem immediately worthwhile, is improbable. Look at what NASA is replacing the Shuttle with, for crying out loud: little rockets that look like the Apollo modules. Are we going forward or what?
As James Gardner, complexity theorist and author of The Intelligent Universe: AI, ET, and the Emerging Mind of the Cosmos, more elegantly put it, "framing the political debate in a way that will lead to a sustainable political consensus will be as important a determinant of success as the capacity to overcome the formidable technical challenges that confront would-be space elevator builder."
- Log in to post comments
I think this could open up a new field:Space Ecology!
great post! i've been following Liftport for a few years now, and i really love their exuberance. Nova Science Now recently had a short bit on the NASA elevator climber competition as well, but weirdly left Liftport out of it, even though their video podcast had an interview with them.
I think Liftport has it right by making the first part and cornerstone of their strategy getting a CNT industry on its feet, because not only can we make cool things like space elevators, but we can make a lot of crazy things here on earth, too... new semiconductors, flexible electronics, cancer drug delivery vehicles... it seems like i read a new use for nanotubes every other day.
I think I'm sick of space travel/space tech.
Stephen Hawking would disagree with me, so I'm probably wrong.
I like space a lot, I like going to star parties with dorks and their huge telescopes.
But spending billions and billions for programs that have militarization at their core and discovery at their fringes seems unethical.
And like Malcolm X's sentiments, what purpose do grand rockets (or slowly rising elevators) have but to distract starving people from the fact that their governments want to send shit to outer space rather than feed them?
One of the limiting variables in the present militarized space scene has been the cost of sending rockets up to deliver items to orbit. Is the space elevator a net positive if, while less polluting/expensive/loud, it makes it easier to bring our rods from g-d to the deep dark?
There is a part of me, the sci fi dork part, that always gets excited about these kindof things. But the world citizen part of me really doesn't care. Spaceship Earth needs to have a mutiny on its captains, not more reliable escape pods.
p.s-podcast,podcast,podcast!!!!
Today a friend of mine was telling me about this project and I didn't believe him.
This sure shut me up.
Yay. Of course! I can't wait.
By the way, sorry about the global warming. At least the previous generation produced the internet.
Wise i really love their exuberance.
Well thanks. But .. really .. while it take more mental work to be optimistic it makes for a better life than walking around pulling a long face. Mopes are no fun to be with.
weirdly left Liftport out of it, even though their video podcast had an interview with them.
I can see their rationale - the segment's hook was last year's competition. Interjecting video from a company that didn't participate would have broken up the narrative. Of course that didn't prevent them from using a few seconds of deGrasse Tyson narrating in our lobby and elevator but such is life.
Tim Donovan like Malcolm X's sentiments, what purpose do grand rockets (or slowly rising elevators) have but to distract starving people from the fact that their governments want to send shit to outer space rather than feed them?
It's not about the government. It's about private enterprise getting involved in space launch and making it just another business.
In other words ... wealth generation. Every time the transaction cost is reduced wealth is generated and people are better off than they were before.
Is the space elevator a net positive if, while less polluting/expensive/loud, it makes it easier to bring our rods from g-d to the deep dark?
Yes.
See above about wealth generation.
Spaceship Earth needs to have a mutiny on its captains, not more reliable escape pods.
We can afford both. I need not belabor the eggs in the basket analogy. Don't think of cheap access to space as an escape pod but a mechanism allowing the species a greater variety of choice in the future.
In other words ... wealth generation. Every time the transaction cost is reduced wealth is generated and people are better off than they were before.
Only people with access to that wealth, monetary, scientific, or otherwise, will benefit. I don't see how/why a monumentally expensive private enterprise would provide benefits for anyone other than its investors, customers, and financial constituents.
Rods from God are a good idea because they may generate wealth? Whats your fucking problem, man?
You don't belabor the eggs-in-basket metaphor, and I won't belabor the sabotaged-boats-in-a-rising-tide metaphor.
Tim, no one is talking about God-Rods, only the wonder of extremely long-term human enterprise, as a concept. This style of dialogue is the diametric opposite of what I want to see on Universe. Can we tone down the aggression?
Gee Claire, maybe others besides myself enjoyed this exchange because it wasn't worshipful. It seemed pretty healthy as a dialogue and I rooted for both sides.
You guys!
Only people with access to that wealth, monetary, scientific, or otherwise, will benefit.
With respect, that simply is not true. Or at least it has not been true in the past.
I don't see how/why a monumentally expensive private enterprise would provide benefits for anyone other than its investors, customers, and financial constituents.
Digression: 'monumentally expensive' it might not be. Dr. Edwards estimates $10 billion (a number I think is low) but say triple that. That is still a lot of hamburgers but it's not, really, that expensive. British Petroleum built the Thunderhorse rig in the Gulf for $10 billion for example. It's a lot to capitalize (especially for something like this) but it's not beyond consideration for a private venture.
Benefits ... it's supposed to be basic economics. Company Abe reduces the transaction cost on a given node. Companies Bob and Brenda ship their stuff for less, freeing capital for other uses. They can build more widgets, employ more people. The cost for whatever they do is less and their cost to the consumer is reduced.
It affects the business relationships of Bob and Brenda. Companies Charles, Cecilia, Castor and Clementine are supplies or parters with Bob and Brenda. They sell more stuff to Bob and Brenda so they now are making more money and can in turn expand, pass the savings to their customers.
Reducing the transaction cost eliminates costs and generates wealth. More people are employed and more things cost less.
Rods from God are a good idea because they may generate wealth? Whats your fucking problem, man?
I was being flip and you couldn't tell that in text. Sorry.
If your only problem is kinetic energy weapons .. frankly I'd rather see those than bunker-busting nuclear bombs any day. Leaving that aside ..
Technology is neutral. If you also object to penicillin, radio, air travel and modern farming I can see your point. Otherwise .. it's just a way to get stuff to orbit, cheaply. If the powers that be want space-based weapons, they'll happen. The trick is to persuade the government they don't need such.
Gee Claire, maybe others besides myself enjoyed this exchange because it wasn't worshipful. It seemed pretty healthy as a dialogue and I rooted for both sides.
I like the give-and-take. And I never want anyone to accept that we know what we're doing, or that this is even a good idea without thinking about it. Y'all are adults, make up your own minds.
Sorry to drop the f-bomb! Yeah, text is bad for conveying subtleties and such...
I think we have several very fundamental disagreements that make for charged chatter later on down the line. I feel like this isn't the forum for that conversation, but I'd like to continue this via email, Brian!
For the record, I only object to the last two of the four modern technological wonders you mentioned, so I again find myself straddling the luddite/technophile chasm.
I feel like this isn't the forum for that conversation, but I'd like to continue this via email, Brian!
By all means. brian dot dunbar at liftport dot com
so I again find myself straddling the luddite/technophile chasm.
Takes all kinds to make the world go round - be a mighty sterile place if we all shared the same opinion.
oh darn... i left for the weekend and missed the fun. At the risk of being redundant, I'd just like to point out that building space elevators and feeding the hungry are not incompatible. We certainly have the means to do both at this very moment, especially if we as a nation were to spend a fraction less on defense or Big Agra subsidies.
People like to use space exploration as the shining example of misplaced priorities, but there are so many other, more worthy examples than the NASA budget or a private enterprise such as Liftport.
Hi guys. Claire, thanks for the terrific comments. Really, this is a very difficult project, and when it is reviewed like this, I make a big difference. One of the more challenging things about this is simply educating people that it is POSSIBLE.
Tim, Brian works with me. He runs our network stuff. He is a bright guy and means well. And I think you will enjoy your conversations. Please cc me (laine at the company mentioned).
But I would like to add something for the general consideration... and the single reason I am (personally and professionally) dedicating my life to building an Elevator to Space, is:
Energy. Regardless of your politics, itâs a safe bet that you realize that there is greater demand for it, (India, & China industrializing) and that is driving costs way, way, way up. Those expenses affect everyone â literally - everyone in the world. Electricity runs governments, determines who will have access to hospitals (and what those hospitals can provide), who will get an advanced education (or sometimes who will go to school at all), what options there are for food storage/processing/sanitation, and what social and political choices you can make, because it is the primary factor in local/global communications.
Iâve heard that only 1:4 people in the world have 24hour electricity... which means that only 1:4 get to make CHOICES in their lives, the way that we get to make choices...
So, if you will agree with my argument that energy is at the root of our civilization, then that makes it pretty importantâ¦
(Too bad text doesnât have audible cues; there is some intended understatement with this last comment. Pretend you could hear it in my voice.)
And I believe that the key - the absolutely ONLY key - to cheap energy is from space. You might disagree with me, and Iâd be happy to show you the math behind my statement. I am (I believe) a rational, literate, technojunky-treehugger. I am a capitalist. I think that many great things come from a free-market economy. So, I want a method that will satisfy some critical elements. Space is the ONLY solution I know of that will 1) âgreenifyâ our current energy demands, 2) meet our rapidly increasing demands 3) maintain our 'luxuries' of western civilization, and 4) be GREEN, ENDLESSLY RENEWABLE, AND CHEAP.
The only solution that meets these is Solar Energy Arrays in Orbit. Imagine this: huge solar farms, deep in space, collecting - free, clean, limitless - power and supplying it to anywhere in the world, at any time. This is the world I am working toward, and the Space Elevator is the only means to achieve this.
Finally, lets turn this around a moment - and look at what I consider the most likely doomsday scenario facing us. Itâs not nukes; itâs not avian flu. It certainly isnât a fear of âRods from Godâ. Imagine a world where England and/or Japan were cut off from energy supplies for a week... This is pretty âeasyâ to do, as they are island nations without significant natural resources. They only have enough energy on-hand for about 4 days. What happens then? What if it were 2 weeks or a month? If one of the industrial giants were to fall, where would it leave the rest of us? Once one of the systems that we rely on collapses, it weakens everything. Remember the Y2K scare? The real threat there was failing infrastructure. If we lose (or more likely, not grow enough) our energy supply, we will have a fundamental infrastructure lossâ¦
That is why I am building a Space Elevator... to energize the planet, to unlock 4.5 billion people from the tyranny of darkness; to free them from an oppression caused by of a lack of energy; to give power to the people.
We have an internal motto around the office; âChange the world, today, or go home.â
Claire, thanks for letting me use your blog as a forum. I didnât really mean to spend the morning writing a rant, or stepping up on a soapbox, but I felt it was important to let people know WHY BOTHER building this thingâ¦. Itâs not enough to âjust do itâ, there needs to be a reason that drives you forward, everyday. I donât think people know our reasons.
Take care. mjl
Wow, some discussion! Have you heard about Russia's plans to begin mining Helium-3 on the moon by 2020? Supposedly a few billion years' worth of solar winds have built up a "cash crop of the perfect fuel source". With Helium-3 one can theoretically make fusion energy, which doesn't create any radioactive waste. And while we are on the subject of BIG businesses -- check out the 4 Frontiers Corporation, jesus!!!
Hey Michael,
I'm a big fan of the elevator and there's a lot I don't know about current horizons on the technology scene, but . . .
Can you explain how it would be more efficient to gather Solar energy in space and then send it back to Earth rather than using what already falls here (for free)?
Best,
Rich
Can you explain how it would be more efficient to gather Solar energy in space and then send it back to Earth rather than using what already falls here (for free)?
I'm not Michael but I'll give it a shot, Rich.
It's about getting more energy and delivering it more efficiently.
Put a solar collector on the ground, it's going to be gathering sunlight only 1/2 the time. Clouds will obscure the sun, further reducing the amount that of energy that can be gathered. Worse - not everyplace is going to be a good location for solar power; you have to have a lot of empty space that can't be used for anything else.
These disadvantages go away with extra terrestrial solar.
You can park your array in an orbit where it does see the sun for a majority of the time. Space is really big. Not endless but there is volume out there that we just don't have on the ground. Structures can be huge for little investment in mass - the components don't have to fight a 1g gravity field to stay up.
The net result is you get more energy. The SPS array turns this into microwave energy, beams it to a rectenna on the ground - still not a small dainty object but smaller than what we'd need for a solar collector for the same amount of energy. And they can be anywhere that has line of sight to the SPS array.
Wait, space isn't endless?