Welcome to the

June 2020 Edition

of the ISEC Newsletter

In this Issue:

Editor’s Note

President’s Corner

Webinar Results

Upcoming Webinar Announcement

Why Space Elevators?

Earth-Moon Econosphere

Congratulations!

History Corner

European Space Elevator Challenge

Space Elevator Climber Talk

Beating the Rocket Equation

Announcing Summer Interns

Upcoming Events

Dear Fellow Space Elevator Enthusiast,

Initially, I was braced for yet another editorial about the impact of the Coronavirus...little did I know that there would be rioting in the streets of many cities around country and even close to my home! My heart sinks for those who have lost lives, those have been injured, and the many businesses that will have to rebuild from both the shutdown and the carnage.

Times like these make me wish to move off-planet! If only there were an environmentally sound way to do that inexpensively while also gentle enough that one does not have to become an astronaut to go. That reminds me of our mission statement:

The International Space Elevator Consortium (ISEC) promotes the development, construction, and operation of a space elevator as a revolutionary and efficient way to space for all humanity

If you feel called to help us in accomplishing this goal, please tune in for our webinars, plan to attend a conference next year, and if you are not a member, consider joining our team!

Check out our Facebook site, our Twitter feed, our updated website, and our updated Flickr page!

Are you on LinkedIn? If so, are you following @International Space Elevator Consortium? You may also like to join the ‘Space Elevator Architects’ group.

If you are a paid-up ISEC member, you might consider entering it in the ‘Experience’ section of your LinkedIn profile: “Member” is an option. You can then connect with other ISEC members as LinkedIn “teammates,” prioritizing their posts in your notification feed. Join Now!

Looking to the stars,

Sandee Schaeffer

Newsletter Editor

Home

President's Corner

by Pete Swan

For the last 12 years (since ISEC was created):

I have dreamed often - but it was more than a dream

I wondered often - but now it can be real

I marveled often - but it is now being engineered

As such, I have renewed my commitment - Because I believe!

The ability to commit oneself towards a beneficial change for humanity is all consuming. However, the rewards are tremendous:

• You get to work on real challenges on a project that will change the future.

• You are allowed to see the future and know you can make a difference

• You, hopefully, will build the future with your ideas and hard work

I have been privileged to have been involved in two major space mega-projects and remember the satisfaction of these commitments. And now, I feel awed by the many people dedicated toward the future of Space Elevators. What a great team! What a fantastic ride!

Many of the expected benefits that will help change the world are being studied now in two ISEC year-long studies - Galactic Harbours Enable Interplanetary Missions & Beneficial Environmental Impacts from Space Elevators. Their results will surprise many and encourage all.

Keep Climbing!

Pete

Home

Webinar Results

by Dennis Wright

On Friday, May 29th, Adrian Nixon of the Graphene Engineering Innovation Centre (GEIC) in Manchester, UK, and publisher of the Nixene Journal discussed the latest developments in single crystal graphene, a leading candidate for the tether material of the space elevator. In his webinar "Graphene, the Last Piece of the Space Elevator Puzzle?" he reviewed the extraordinary properties of this two-dimensional structure: high strength, high heat resistance, high reflectivity and more.

In the laboratory there are now half-meter-long samples of this material and industrial processes are being developed in order to produce large amounts of it rapidly. One new method, based on chemical vapor deposition, allows the constituent carbon atoms to self-assemble into small crystals on the surface of copper foil. These crystals then flow together to form long sheets which can be taken off into rolls.

Because of the extreme thinness of the crystals, the rolls themselves will be small enough and light enough to launch into space using conventional rockets. Once there, the rolls will pay out sheets to be pressed together and deployed to form the initial space elevator tether.

In case you missed the webinar, or want to review it for more details, Adrian's talk is posted now at https://www.isec.org/recorded-webinars.

The next ISEC webinar will be "How Space Elevators Work: Physics Concepts," by Dr. Dennis Wright. It will take place on Friday, July 17 starting at 14:00 UTC.

Home

Webinar Announcement

ISEC webinar "How Space Elevators Work: Physics Concepts”

Dennis Wright, ISEC Vice President and nuclear and high energy physicist formerly with the Stanford Linear Accelerator, will discuss the physics of space elevators, their motions, their stability, and the effects of their physical environment.

Join us Friday, July 17th, 2020

UTC 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM

EDT 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM

PDT 7:00 AM to 8:00 AM

Home

Why Space Elevators?

by Ted Semon

Advantages of a space elevator over rockets

At this point, it might be useful to review what the advantages of a hypothetical space elevator are over conventional rockets (IMHO of course):

• The space elevator is massively scalable. If/when a space elevator becomes possible, there is absolutely no reason why you can’t build one (or more than one) that can send hundreds of tons of payload from earth to space every day. It’s a transportation infrastructure, like the trans-continental railroad.

• Riding on a space elevator is akin to riding on a high-speed train. You do not have to worry about cushioning cargo against high-g forces and the “shake, rattle and roll” that always accompanies rocket launches.

• The space elevator will pollute less. I don’t know the numbers here and don’t know how much pollution (however you want to define that term) a rocket generates; but, the space elevator’s “pollution” should be essentially zero.

• The space elevator should be safer. Rockets still have a 1-3% failure rate and it’s difficult to see how that can be significantly improved. A space elevator should have a failure rate close to 0%.

It should be cheaper to send cargo to space via a space elevator rather than via rockets. This alleged advantage is, IMHO, more difficult to prove. It’s always a great talking point; “Space Elevators will be able to send payload into space much cheaper than rockets can;” but, I’ve yet to see the numbers on this (despite my best efforts). It’s hoped that this is true, but it’s not a “slam dunk…”

TED SEMON

FORMER ISEC PRESIDENT

SPACE ELEVATOR BLOG, FEBRUARY 27, 2015

Home

Galactic Harbours on YouTube

Space Elevator Enterprises Mature into Galactic Harbour's Vision of Earth-Moon Econosphere

by Peter Swan, Ph.D.

Given at the Venture Cafe of St. Louis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcsKmY-6lhk

Since the International Space Development Conference in St. Louis, the Space Elevator has developed rapidly and significantly. Indeed, 2019 was a "break-out" year with the publishing of "Today's Space Elevator, a status as of fall 2019." Some major developments of thoughts have occurred leading to the movements:

(1) from Space Elevator to Galactic Harbour

(2) from wishing for a material for the tether to having one successfully tested

(3) from an immature plan to a preliminarily positive assessment of each technology within each system segment

(4) from silent discussions in small groups to advocacy across the world

This presentation lays out the modern-day Space Elevator. The vision of the International Space Elevator Consortium (ISEC) is to have a world with inexpensive, safe, routine, environmentally friendly and efficient access to space for the benefit of all. In addition, Galactic Harbours can significantly enable Interplanetary Mission Support when incorporated into Humanity's movement off planet. From a recent study at Arizona State University, the concept of Galactic Harbours has grown to include new strengths not previously discussed reference space elevators: Fast Transit, Massive Liftoff Capacity, and Daily Departures. Many of the questions to be answered revolve around the commercial aspects of these concepts and how to fund the projects.

Home

Congratulations David Raitt!

Congratulations to David Raitt, contributor to our newsletter’s History Corner, for the publishing of his article, The Contribution of Arthur C. Clarke to the Space Elevator, in Quest: The History of Space Flight, a quarterly newsletter published by www.SpaceHistory101.com. This article was initially published in two parts in our own newsletter with part 1 in the December/January issue and part 2 in the February issue.

To read his latest installment, NASA’s Interest in and Funding of Space Elevators, see the following article.

Kudos, David!

Home

History Corner

by David Raitt

NASA’s Interest in and Funding of Space Elevators

Editor’s Note: This is the first part of two parts due to length.

Introduction

NASA took us out of the realm of science fiction and the theoretical work of the co-creators of the space elevator and into the real world because it had the clout and funding to move things along. Fully 40 years after Yuri Artsutanov and a quarter of a century after Jerome Pearson (the co-inventors), NASA staff member David Smitherman organized a workshop in 1999 to discuss the concept and potential of a space elevator. The published proceedings in 2000 of this workshop is an important document in the history of the space elevator, because it paved the way for two studies undertaken by Brad Edwards for the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) from 2000-2003. These studies resulted in a “doable” design for reasonable funding with the reliance on a new material discovered a dozen years years earlier.

It was NASA, then, that started much of the modern day space elevator discussions inside their innovative research organization, which then blossomed into a phenomenon around the world. The initial studies were global in nature and reached a wide audience, but some years later space elevator studies and activities took on more directed topics and produced reports that answered specific questions in greater detail.

NASA’s Early Work

In the 1980s and beyond NASA was carrying out applications of tethers in space, while researching a wide variety of breakthrough space transportation concepts to bring down the cost of launch into space. The Agency was investing in many technologies, systems and infrastructures with significant development funding. A tether can, of course, be the constituent part of a space elevator, but the first NASA publication to actually mention a space elevator was a technical report, dated 1 January 1992, on ‘The First Mission of the Tethered Satellite System.” The ‘Further Reading’ section in the report lists Arthur C. Clarke’s 1981 paper “The Space Elevator; ‘Thought Experiment,’ or Key to the Universe?” The section also lists Pearson’s work on “The Orbital Tower in 1975”, Artsutanov’s “Into Space Without Rockets” (1960) and Moravec’s “Skyhook” (1977).

In 1997 NASA Ames Research Center asked a group of scientists to look into molecular nanotechnology applications for NASA missions. Their report was published in 1998 and included a brief section on space elevators which mentioned the proposals for a space elevator by Isaacs and colleagues in 1966 and Jerome Pearson in 1975.

However, the modern era of space elevator development was initiated by David Smitherman of NASA after he had read an article on Fullerene nanotubes appearing in American Scientist in 1997 which noted Arthur C. Clarke’s description in “Fountains of Paradise” and a strength requirement for the cable of 63GPa (gigapascal), and indicated that Fullerene cables for a space elevator might be possible some day. Smitherman was working in space transportation planning at the time and realized that if the promise of carbon nanotubes came about there would be tremendous potential for space tethers and space elevators. His proposal to NASA for a workshop on the subject led to an engineering analysis looking at a ‘big government’ approach with tremendous amounts of development and large funding ending with a design that was not feasible in the foreseeable future.

Smitherman’s Advanced Space Infrastructure Workshop on Geostationary Orbiting Tether Space Elevator Concepts was held at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama from 8-10 June 1999. The workshop was attended by people who were attracted by the concept of space elevators and who wanted to take it to the next level with the belief that it could be accomplished in a reasonable time with an affordable budget. Out of this workshop came one of the first major space elevator documents, based on its findings. Subsequent consultation and review of the document with the thirty or so participants of the workshop (who included such people as John Mankins (NASA HQ), Joe Carroll (Tether Applications), Bob Cassanova (NIAC), Geoffrey Landis (NASA Glenn), Jerome Pearson (Star Technology and Research, Inc.), Paul Penzo (Jet Propulsion Lab), Enrico Lorenzini (Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory), Richard Smalley (Rice University), Robert Forward (Tethers Unlimited, Inc.) and more) was made prior to publication to clarify technical data and ensure overall consensus on the content of this NASA conference publication.

Smitherman compiled a detailed study of the concept of space elevators based on the findings of his NASA-sponsored workshop and his overall conclusion was that, while not feasible then, this method of cheap transportation to geostationary orbit could become a reality and dramatically lower the cost of getting into space during the latter part of the 21st century, i.e. then about 50 years away. The plan was to capture a carbonaceous chondrite asteroid, drag it into a stable orbit around the Earth and mine it for the necessary material to make the cable, which would eventually reach down to the Earth's surface. A key finding from the workshop was that materials technology for space elevators was already in the development process, and continued work was likely to produce the necessary high-strength carbon nanotube material which could be used for the cable.

Shortly after Smitherman published the results from his workshop, NASA prepared a news item based on the publication and an interview with him. Written by Steve Price, the news item, published on 6 September 2000, suggested that NASA scientists were seriously considering space elevators as a mass-transit system for the next century. The opening lines of the article welcomed people aboard NASA’s Millennium-Two Space Elevator which had a first stop at the lunar-level platform before continuing on to the New Frontier Space Colony development. The entire ride would take about five hours.

The news item then went into Smitherman’s plans that could turn such an elevator from science fiction (as envisioned by Arthur C. Clarke) to reality in 50 years or so. The article noted briefly the work by Tsiolkovsky, Artsutanov, Pearson and others and then discussed the five primary technological thrusts that Smitherman thought were critical to the development of the elevator. These were: the development of high-strength materials for both the cables (tethers) and the tower; the continuation of tether technology development to gain experience in the deployment and control of such long structures in space; the introduction of lightweight, composite structural materials to the general construction industry for the development of taller towers and buildings; the development of high-speed, electromagnetic propulsion for mass-transportation systems, launch systems, launch assist systems and high-velocity launch rails; and the development of transportation, utility and facility infrastructures to support space construction and industrial development from Earth out to GEO.

Largely as a result of Smitherman’s workshop, the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC) agreed to fund a two phase study (between 2000 and 2003) into the viability of a space elevator to be undertaken by Dr Bradley Edwards of Eureka Scientific and HighLift Systems.

NASA’s Innovative Approach - NIAC Studies

The NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts (NIAC), an independent entity funded by NASA and operated by the Universities Space Research Association (USRA), was formed in 1998 for the explicit purpose of functioning as an independent source of revolutionary aeronautical and space concepts that could dramatically impact how NASA developed and conducted its missions. The entity was discontinued in 2007, but later resurfaced as the NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts Program, thus keeping the same acronym. Like the old NIAC, the new NIAC nurtures visionary ideas that could transform future NASA missions with the creation of breakthroughs - radically better or entirely new aerospace concepts - while engaging America's innovators and entrepreneurs as partners in the journey.

Brad Edwards was not satisfied with the end result that emanated from David Smitherman’s workshop, nor with other concepts that had been put forward for space elevators. He believed that he could design a less robust space elevator that could be built within 15 years with current technologies, with the caveat that he must wait for carbon nanotube development. Whereas Smitherman’s NASA workshop had identified that the technology developments needed for a space elevator were: carbon nanotube (CNT) materials development for structural applications; tether demonstration missions; tall tower development; electromagnetic propulsion; and space infrastructure with a time scale of about fifty years; Edwards thought that the technology developments needed were: CNT composites; electric propulsion; laser power transmission; and robotics, and that it could be accomplished in about fifteen years.

This belief drove Edwards to apply for, and win, NIAC study funding to advance his developing concepts. The NIAC support allowed him and his small team to explore the arena and propose a space elevator infrastructure that would work in the near future.

In his NIAC studies, Edwards spelled out an approach to his space elevator which would be essentially a 100,000km paper-thin ribbon made of carbon nanotubes which would stand a greater chance of surviving impacts by meteors and space debris. This vision included an initial spacecraft, ribbon production unit, climbers, power beaming facility, anchor platform, debris tracking system and the CNT ribbon stretching up into space which would stand a greater chance of surviving impacts by meteors. Climbers would travel up the ribbon to release payloads into orbit at various points. Edwards expected that this international development would have a tremendous impact upon society and industry within the next 20 or 30 years when the space elevator was completed and launch-to-orbit costs were reduced to around an anticipated $100/kg, compared to NASA’s current (at the time) figure of $18,500 on average.

The work of Edwards, financed by NIAC was conducted in two phases: Phase I ran from May-October 2000, while Phase II ran from March 2001-January 2003. The study embraced all the engineering and scientific aspects including the deployment mechanism, ribbon production, climber design, power delivery system, orbital debris avoidance, and the anchor system. By positioning the anchor in the ocean off the coast of Ecuador, weather and environmental hazards as well as construction costs, could be reduced. Research and development (R&D) into CNTs was progressing apace and plans were advanced for possible construction of a first elevator, which was estimated to cost less than €10bn.

Smitherman’s earlier workshop for NASA expected a much longer development schedule, including 20 to 30 years to develop the necessary ribbon materials. Now, Edwards was suggesting that CNTs, discovered in 1991, were already available and thus a complete and operational space elevator could be developed in this same timeframe.

No other advanced propulsion systems being examined by NASA could provide the high-volume, low-cost transportation system required for future space activities that mankind can imagine. A space elevator, a cable stretching between Earth and space, is unlike any other transportation system for getting into space. Edward's NIAC studies provided the technical groundwork, but were not able to test many of the proposed designs and scenarios. Both the Phase I and Phase II results were introduced into the NASA mainstream effort, but when Edwards released his book entitled The Space Elevator, co-authored with Eric Westling, in 2003, this leapfrogged beyond NASA and NIAC and brought his concept and approach for low-cost access to space to the public in a manner well beyond what NASA could have done alone. Not only did the idea capture the attention of the public at large, it also galvanized the space community.

For Part 2 of this article, see next issue.

Home

Space Elevator Climber Talk, Saturday, 16th May 2020

by Bob Stanton, West Midlands Branch, The British Interplanetary Society

The Space Elevator Climber talk by Peter Robinson drew the largest virtual crowd yet for our branch virtual Talk meeting, with over 50 registered and an average of over 30 people attending online. It was good to see such keen interest and enthusiasm.

Peter is the lead project engineer with the International Space Elevator Consortium (ISEC), and he shared his talk on space elevator climber requirements first given at the ISEC Conference in Seattle last August, which he adapted for our eclectic audience.

First Peter walked us through the functional and other requirements of a 6 tonne space elevator climber. He started with the tether and climber interface looking at the options of friction and of magnetic drives made possible by the characteristics of graphene and other new candidate tether materials. Different methods were discussed and evaluated culminating in the most promising drive, the Electromagnetic Drive.

As Peter stressed, the Climber cannot be designed before the tether, as the features of the tether will define many of the options for the climber.

Next, we looked at safety and reliability and how single point failures could be eliminated during the design stage, and how redundancy could play a role in increasing reliability. A climber with multiple drive units would be significantly more reliable than a climber with one.

Failure recovery was examined, and the use of parking brakes and emergency eject systems. It was a surprise to see that even an electromagnetic climber could need a form of steering should there be a power failure. The centre of gravity of the climber and load was defined as a key process to be carried out at the Earth Port before launch.

Finally, Peter looked at a cost versus risk model, and considered the cost models for ascending only climbers which would be retained at geostationary orbit (GEO) or apex, and also for multiple climb and descent climbers requiring periodic refurbishment.

Following the talk, the questions came thick and fast, and the focus slowly moved onto a more general space elevator discussion which Peter was happy to field. John Knapman, also of ISEC, attended and helped to answer some of the non-climber questions.

I couldn’t help but think of the fictional Morgan in Arthur C Clarke's book the Fountains of Paradise during this talk.

home

Can the Rocket Equation be "Beaten?"

The bottom line is space elevators are compatible and complementary to rocket architectures. The future needs both communities to work together. However, the first step is to help the rocket community understand the strengths of space elevators - "we can beat the rocket equation." Wikipedia defines the rocket equation as:

The mathematical equation that describes the motion of vehicles that follow the basic principle of a rocket: a device that can apply acceleration to itself using thrust by expelling part of its mass with high velocity can thereby move due to the conservation of momentum.

To compare the delivery of payloads to LEO and GEO, information is gathered from the wiki. (information 26 May 2020). The comparisons of rocket equation results are to show payload percentage to LEO and GEO orbits:

There are a few items that need to be recognized when looking at the rocket equation:

there are no "cost factors" inside the rocket equation
there are no reusability factors in the rocket equation

As a result, the rocket community can decrease the cost and leverage reusability of rocket stages to increase operational efficiency. However, those actions do not "improve the rocket equation." The Tsiolkovsky rocket equation still responds to that critical factor called gravity. The Earth's gravity numbers have a consistent impact on efficiency at liftoff - draconian. Another comparison would be with reference to the Moon. The Saturn 5 deposited 0.5% of pad mass on to the surface of the Moon and returned 0.18% to the ocean upon completion of the mission. Those are tough numbers to build around. However, if you raise 20 MT to GEO and then Apex Anchor with electricity, you have beaten gravity (1/r²) and added tremendous velocity (7.76 km/sec to Mars easily).

Yes, the Space Elevator "beats" the Rocket Equation.

Home

ISEC Summer Interns for 2020

Each year ISEC sponsors summer interns to conduct research and interview a space related professional. These two requirements are to encourage college students to continue in science and engineering as well as actually give them experience conducting research into an innovative arena. The interns work from their homes with a mentor from ISEC on a schedule for a research paper to be completed by the end of the summer. There is a small grant and a letter of recommendation at the conclusion of the summer for each student. In addition, they could be presenting their preliminary research at the next International Space Elevator Conference. The four interns for this year are:

Amelia Stanton is a student attending Heriot - Watt University, Edinburgh. She is a third year Mechanical Engineering major inside Aerospace with space interest with British Interplanetary Society (BIS). Her mentor is Peter Swan, Ph.D in Mechanical Engineering.

Lynessa Schaeffer is a student attending Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, WA. She is a fourth year Economics and Classics major with experience at ISEC Conferences. Her mentor is Peter Swan, Ph.D. - background in funding of mega-projects.

Craig Orrack is a student attending Heriot - Watt University, Edinburgh. He is a third year Mechanical Engineering major with background in Space through Students for the Exploration and Development of Space (SEDS). His mentor is Dennis Wright, Ph.D. with background in space electromagnetics.

Elias Rubin is a student at Seattle Pacific University. He is a third year Computer Science student with an interest in website design and space applications. His Mentor is Sandee Schaeffer, with a background in applying information by electronic means (website and newsletters).

Home

Upcoming Events

How Space Elevators Work: Physics Concepts

Webinar sponsored by ISEC

https://www.isec.org/events

Friday, July 17th, 2020 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM UTC

SPECxROC 2020: Japan

http://www.jsea.jp/technology/specxroc/000529.html

****Postponed****

Sponsored by the Japanese Space Elevator Association

Event 1: Fukushima, Japan

Event 2: Niigata, Japan