Welcome to the

April 2021 Edition

of the ISEC Newsletter

In this Issue:

Editor’s Note

Architecture Note #37

Editor’s Note

Dear Fellow Space Elevator Enthusiast,

I no longer publish this newsletter on the first of the month. My illustrious and industrious president, Pete Swan, told me some months back that the 5th (or 6th!) was a sufficient deadline for the monthly newsletter which has lifted a great burden from me because the first of the month is a very busy time for someone who is also the bookkeeper for this (and another) non-profit.

Even without the extra wiggle room, I would have delayed the April edition by at least a day as the first of the month is a bad date to publish since it is April Fool’s Day, and I would hate for anyone reading these articles to wonder if we were trying to pull a prank. Let me assure you, as fantastical as some of the submissions are for this month, they are all based on science fact!

Read on...

Sandee Schaeffer

Newsletter Editor

Home

President's Corner

by Pete Swan

Entering Phase Two: Engineering Testing - NOW

The ISEC team has been assessing the technology feasibility situation since 2008. In recent times, the team has begun an open dialog with those members of industry, academia, and others who could be the deliverers of Space Elevator solutions. Industry (especially) has shown how the needed technologies have matured and how they could be dependably available. These readiness assessments were the Phase One exit criteria. I believe the Space Elevator is closer than you think. It is entering the Engineering Development Phase after successfully completing multiple Preliminary Technological Readiness Assessments (PTRA). This conclusion is a result of multiple studies, such ISEC and IAA study reports.

As such, the Space Elevator is entering Phase Two of Development, which is to Validate Engineering Approaches. One of the first steps will be for the Space Elevator team to assign a wide range of engineering validation objectives to various members of the industrial base. Some efforts will reflect the foreseen competitive construct of an acquisition plan. The ISEC community believes strongly that it is necessary to initiate development of the Space Elevator - now. Space Elevator research has grown the body of knowledge exponentially since 1998. The time has come to initiate a Space Elevator developmental program. We are ready!

The Phase two activities are driven by six major statements:

1. Can it be built? This question can be answered with the following activities:

Determine the engineering approaches being considered by industry,
Ask industry to show how their engineering approach is valid, and
Describe the approach incorporating ongoing technology maturation.

2. Examine Industry's Program Roadmaps: this would include determining the range and number of needed engineering validation tests and demonstrations.

3. Assess schedule and technical risk: always a very near-real time assessment.

4. Delineate on-ramp criteria towards Initial Operations: the question becomes one of when will the needed capability be ready?

5. Design Validation requires establishment of criteria and standards.

6. Expected technical performance must be base-lined by the end of phase II.

When initiating a mega-project, it is important to always remember the vision that is driving the Space Elevator community:

Space Elevators are the Green Road to Space while they enable humanity's most important missions by moving massive tonnage to GEO and beyond.

We believe that as we move into the third decade of this century, the implementation of a Space Elevator architecture is essential to support humanity's needs and dreams - Now. The supporting rationale are: a) The Promises of Space Elevators are so revolutionary (massive cargo, daily, rapid transit to/from GEO and beyond), b) We can now build an Earth Space Elevator as the tether material has been identified and will be available for construction, and c) Space Elevators are essential to the future of mankind.

"We are ready to initiate the Space Elevator mega-project, Now -- the technologies are available.

Keep Climbing--and Dreaming!

Pete

Note: A new document is on our website (isec.org, research, engineering) entitled "Starting Now! Space Elevators Entering Engineering Development." This working document (to be updated routinely) shows the current status of various engineering thrusts supporting a developmental program.

Home

Blue Marble Week Symposia

Blue Marble Week Provided a Better Understanding of Space Elevators

The Foundation for the Future and ISEC sponsored a full day of Earth Space Elevator presentations. They will all be on YouTube very shortly, so pick and choose the topics of interest to you. I thoroughly enjoyed each talk and the Q&A that followed. The order and length of each varied from schedule; while the talks were fantastic and ensured that the day was key to our future. I want to thank each of the speakers for not only their presentation, but all the preparation and their patience to stay with us for the full day. We presented ISEC's position that the modern day space elevator is ready to move into engineering development (see President's Corner this month) and supported many other conclusions and themes. Here are a few short (sorry team, can not talk about ALL the great things you said) items of great interest:

Pete Swan, Ph.D. explained how Space Elevators are Evolutionary and taking the first big step -NOW- while being Revolutionary in that they are liberating movement of cargo, with a green lift, off planet of massive proportions. In his second talk the focus was upon leveraging advanced rockets and space elevators in a dual space access architecture. This concept opens up the cis-lunar and Martian arenas with massive tonnage movement capacity.

Jerry Eddy, Ph.D. showed how the Space Elevator is the Green Road to Space: 1) its operations are carbon negative as they lift cargo with electricity through the atmosphere and to GEO and beyond, and 2) they enable Earth friendly missions such as Space Solar Power, Solar Shade, and removal of highlevel nuclear waste.

David Dotson, Ph.D. demonstrated how the Space Elevator enables a mission that can "stop global warming" with its electrical power from GEO. First, he showed the projected need for power around the globe; and then, how the Space Solar Power program intends to help. The quandary is that SSP needs 5,000,000 tonnes to GEO. With robust Space Elevators, the mission of reducing/stopping climate change can be accomplished within a reasonable time.

Kevin Barry presented the argument for Space Elevators in big picture economic developmental terms. It is obvious that there will be remarkable economic benefits from an installed permanent space infrastructure. The value of empowering mining off planet, human habitats on the Moon and Mars, development of additional infrastructure (coms, navigation, etc.) and various enterprises within the cis-lunar arena will be beyond our current comprehension.

Michael Fitzgerald’s two presentations were combined into one continuous discussion about Galactic Harbours and how they are ready for development. The combination of a transportation infrastructure and a Space Elevator Enterprise System ensures the movement of mass to GEO and beyond leverages the parallel development of government and commercial enterprises all along the tether. He also explained Space Elevator's status as they enter second level development with major engineering testing and demonstrations. His referencing Architectural Notes and ISEC studies emphasized the importance of the last eight years of research accomplished and reports published. A significant series of charts explains the developmental sequences for space elevators, a remarkable insight into the complexity and simplicity of looking forward.

Adrian Nixon and Rob Whieldon explained where the world is in the development and refinement of the new 2D materials, specifically graphene. This exciting and dynamic field of study has led to a material for our Space Elevator tether and speeds up our developmental arena. The current estimate is that it will be "long enough" and "strong enough" for our requirements and it will be ready on a scale commensurate with our mega-project development.

Dennis Wright, Ph.D. gave insight into the current body of knowledge of Space Elevators is remarkable. This body of knowledge has expanded almost exponentially with studies by major organizations (ISEC, IAA, Obayashi Corporation, JAMSS, IAF/IAC presentations, etc.) He pointed out that our website had our study reports for download and over 600 citations on research. He also talked about the ongoing studies within ISEC--The Green Road to Space and Climber-Tether Interface.

Vern Hall’s talk on Global Transportation Intermodalism was referencing the concept that the Galactic Harbour is no more than the vertical part of the global transportation infrastructure. The movement of payloads for space would transition through all the modes of transportation until they reached the Earth Port where they will transition seamlessly into the vertical climber for delivery to GEO and beyond.

Panel with Michael Fitzgerald, Kevin Barry, William Britton, and Dennis Wright--This panel took the discussions from the current arena of entering engineering testing and reached towards future successful operations. Several discussions differentiated economics and business, education and work force, and near term vs. long term visions and plans.

Home

Correction

by David Raitt, PhD

In the Tribute to Jerome Pearson in the March newsletter, it was stated that Yuri Artsutanov, the other co-inventor of the space elevator, was not aware of his compatriot Konstantin Tsiolkovsky’s work in devising a form of cosmic travel some sixty years earlier. I am grateful to his friend and interpreter, Eugene Schlusser, for pointing out that this statement is actually incorrect. Indeed, on the contrary, Yuri Artsutanov was very aware and spoke to his son, Nicolai Artsutanov, his interpreter Eugene and others several times about how Tsiolkovsky was inspired by the Eiffel Tower and had devised a ’thought experiment’ postulating that an Eiffel Tower-like structure could be extended almost indefinitely. However, Tsiolkovsky soon realised that, if for no other reason, ’there wasn’t enough wrought iron’ in the world to build such a thing. According to Yuri Artsutanov, and he stressed this point, Tsiolkovsky did not suggest space travel using this method and left this idea of a tower (not a train or elevator) simply as a thought experiment. He did not undertake any calculations to support this project.

According to Eugene, apparently, the misconception-cum-disinformation arose in part because Soviet authorities tried to discredit Artsutanov’s ideas, and his work in general. They did this by encouraging at least one particular Soviet journalist to denigrate his work. Artsutanov’s father had been sent to a gulag in the 1930’s for allegedly being ‘an enemy of the people.’ Although he was rehabilitated after Stalin died in 1953, there always remained a stigma on Artsutanov (as with all rehabilitated persons). At one point in the 1950s his superiors declared him unfit to work in the nuclear industry for which he had been trained and qualified and dismissed him as a security risk because his father had served a sentence in the gulag. He was unemployed for a period until through the efforts of Eugene’s uncle, Michael Kamentsev (who himself was a Stalin prize-winning engineer), he found employment with the latter’s firm and worked there until he retired. It is through the action of his uncle that Eugene became aware of Artsutanov’s work which led him finally to accompany Yuri to the 2010 ISEC conference in Seattle to interpret for him.

I am happy to be able to set the record straight in giving Yuri Artsutanov the recognition he deserves.

David Raitt

ISEC Chief Historian

Home

Tether Materials

by Adrian Nixon

Industrially Manufactured Multi-layered Large-scale
Sheet Graphene Samples are Sent to ISEC for Testing

In the last newsletter entry, I mentioned that a graphene manufacturer had been in touch. That manufacturer was General Graphene, based in Knoxville Tennessee, USA.

Right now, General Graphene is the only company in the world that can make polycrystalline sheet graphene at industrial scale and layer it up.

They have been in touch again and this time they have sent the first samples of industrially manufactured graphene to ISEC. Michael (Fitzer) Fitzgerald and Dennis Wright have the samples.

Fitzer took these pictures, we thought you’d like to see this too:

What General Graphene have just done was impossible just 17 years ago.

This is graphene industrially manufactured a large scale, separated from its forming substrate and then stacked one atom thin layer at a time on a target substrate.

This is not tether quality graphene, it is polycrystalline and the tether will require single crystal graphene.

You will also notice some tears and breaks in the samples. Remember this material is just thirty atoms thin. It is a testament to the strength of graphene that the material can be handled even now.

While these samples might seem fragile right now, single crystal graphene will be even stronger and when it is layered up in thousands of atomic layers it will become virtually indestructible.

When I presented to ISEC in Seattle in 2018, this industrial material was still theoretical. You are now seeing it for real for the first time.

This demonstrates the astonishing pace of change taking place in the world of graphene and 2D materials

This is why we say graphene has gone from impossible to industrial in 17 years.

Expect more to come…

Home

Architecture Note #37

by Michael A. Fitzgerald

Senior Exec VP and Co-Founder

Galactic Harbour Associates, Inc

Space Elevator Transportation & Enterprise Systems

The Galactic Harbour

An Architecture Ready for Development

Personal Prolog

This is an Architecture Note. It is the opinion of the Chief Architect. It represents an effort to document ongoing science and engineering discussions. It is one of many to be published over time. Most importantly, it is a sincere effort to be the diary, or the chronicle, of the multitude of our technical considerations as we progress; along the pathway developing the Space Elevator.

Michael A. Fitzgerald

Is the Galactic Harbour “Really” Ready for Development?

Pete Swan called me. It was early in 2019. Pete and I were getting ready for the ISDC 2019 conference, and then the subsequent IAC conference. Both conferences were being held in the Washington D.C. area, and we wanted to be ready for whatever what might happen. He and I were filled with excitement. We were completing the document that later became “Today’s Space Elevator”. The document was as complete a first description of a megaproject as Pete and I had ever dealt with.

Mega projects are unique beasts. They usually spend much of their early lifetime being described in any number of ways … “Too big!” “It will never fly!” … “You want to do what?!!” Pete and I have heard it all. Vern Hall, our Harbor Master, had heard it too. The “naysayers” could form their own political party or at least their own voting bloc. There was no way the Space Elevator/Galactic Harbour will ever be built. Pete figured we should talk. We did. And this is what we decided:

Standing on the shoulders of the visionaries who preceded us…The Space Elevator is ready for development!

In the late 1980’s, I was assigned the job of “Chief of Integration” of the USAF’s mobile ICBM, and about the same time Pete was selected to build the space segment of IRIDIUM constellation. Vern was the Chief engineer of the Los Angeles Port’s Project 2020; a massive transformation of a busy harbor into an intermodal transshipment facility. It continues to serve the entire southwest United States. These three megaprojects were indeed massive, but they also set their own standards for change. Pete’s project included nearly 100 satellites, and an extensive ground support apparatus. My ICBM project included almost 2000 missiles (operational versions and test versions) and an immense support architecture. It also included two new Air Force bases; leading me to tease my good friends that at least my megaproject included golf courses--inside joke.

Vern’s megaproject struck a special message; locale assimilation – locales near and far. His transformed intermodal container harbor had to be assimilated into Southern California’s huge population and the tangle of freeways and train tracks built to support the tens of millions of people living within 100 miles of the harbor--(talk about an epicenter!) and, yet with net minimal environmental consequences. Further, the products flowing through had to reach Las Vegas, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Denver and beyond in a timely manner.

To varying degrees, we three fully succeeded and learned a great deal; the accumulation of which is probably worth a memoir or three. The question here is whether our next megaproject was ready to start. In a word – YES! There is a simple algorithm for questions like … “are we ready?” The response paradigm is simple. “I can see the finish line and how to get there! Let’s go!” So, the response from this panel of three is, “YES! The time is now, and it is unanimous”.

The time is now, because of the past and the future.

ISDC 2019 – Arlington, Virginia

At the 2019 International Space Development Conference (ISDC) in Arlington, Virginia, a small crowd came to hear our story. It was exciting. The crowd absorbed our story of enterprises aloft and new & faster pathways to Mars. In that crowd were young and old, and that represents more than our unanimous Yes; the “yes” from the crowd was an expression that humankind needs Space Elevators; operating within Galactic Harbours. The story had changed from “we can” to “we must”. The audience called for more information overall, more about our throughput, and more about our environmental protection story.

Soon after ISDC 2019, “Today’s Space Elevator” was published, and in it we reflected about the people that had gathered in front of the excited crowd. Featured on that stage was the Elevator "co-inventor" Jerome Pearson; recently deceased. He was a great fan for getting started. Also at the affair was Peter Swan, PhD; Chief Architect Michael Fitzgerald and current generation "excited students" James Torla and Souvik Mukherjee. The "moment" was more than an assembly of young and old. It was also a portrait of the stewards of the Space Elevator revolution--from Inventor to Developer to the future Innovators. The unanimous was getting more unanimous.

The time is now, the International view.

International Astronautical Congress 2019, Washington, D. C.

With all that excitement at the ISDC 2019, we regrouped and pushed the story at the IAF Congress in Washington, D. C. in October 2019. The response was much the same. The audiences were just as enthusiastic and were more a world view. Concurrent with our various presentations at the conference in Washington, D.C. was the emergence of a few essential missions. They were requirements basis for the true space transportation infrastructure. The Space Elevator based Galactic Harbour enables logistical support to the coming missions that are critical to humankind, including:

Efficient delivery of millions of tons of cargo to geosynchronous enables the full version of Space Based Solar Power.
Efficient delivery of millions of tons of cargo to geosynchronous enables the establishment of space enterprises there. Businesses need to be connected to their supply chain.
Efficient delivery of cargo to the Harbour’s Apex enables subsequent “free delivery” to the entire solar system. (See Architecture Note #35)

The time is now. and collaboration with the “Launch Community” is also now.

This is a note about advocacy. I am advocating the development and construction of the Space Elevator based Galactic Harbour. In this future, enterprises at GEO will be served by the vertical supply chain that reaches them. Cargo flights will depart from the Apex at least daily. The departures will be to the Moon, Mars, or other destinations in the solar system; conducted with precision and safety.

That forecast is not the demise of rocket-based transportation, quite the opposite! It calls for a collaboration between the Elevator and rocketry, and is discussed in “Space Elevators are the Transportation Story of the 21st Century”. This report in final is available at this site. The Dual Space Access collaboration also has huge environmental benefits, as cited in - “Space Elevators, the Green Road to Space”. This report will be available soon, in final.

In Closing – “now is now”

WE have often said that we do not know all the answers, but we do know that the path we are on will get us to the answers, and to our vision. We have previously cited technical readiness. Then the conferences in 2019 convinced and motivated us to openly begin the pursuit of the Galactic Harbour. The pandemic and other events of 2020 had quite an impact on the world, showing clearly how we need each other. I sincerely believe that major beneficial projects like the Galactic Harbour are needed; and we should go for it. NOW!

Fitzer

Home

Climb Dynamics

by Peter Robinson

“Climb Dynamics”: A New Study Area ?

Our work in the ongoing ‘Tether/Climber Interface’ study is proceeding well, but has prompted a whole new area of study that has arisen from the simple question “How big are the Climber Wheels?” We needed to know to establish details of the contact area with the tether, but it turns out that finding the answer is far from straightforward.

The Space Elevator Climber wheel size depends on many factors, and a few assumptions: for example, we might assume that each drive wheel is powered by a single electric drive motor, and that drive wheels are in opposed pairs on either side of the tether. Then, we need to know the number and specification of the motors.

So how do we select a drive motor? There are many design needs: an excellent power/weight ratio is essential, but a high stall torque and high operating speed range are also important factors…and of course it cannot be air cooled! Cost is another factor (given that cost-to-orbit price targets must be met), and economies of scale mean that many small motors may well be less costly than fewer larger motors with the same total power. A large number of smaller wheels can result in lower overall mass, but material fatigue may well limit the number of rotations and so define a minimum wheel diameter.

There may be many suitable candidate motors, and each will result in a different climber design, but that’s OK, we must remember that the Space Elevator is a Road to Space, and roads carry vehicles of many different designs.

The number of motors (and wheels) will be based on the available power from the climber power source, whatever that is, but how is that climber power capacity determined? It depends ultimately on the tether load capacity, which (for climber design purposes) is fixed. That controls the total mass of all the climbers supported below GEO, which in turn defines how fast they need to climb, which yields the necessary power supply.

This all means that the wheel size depends on the tether capacity, climber mass, and required time to GEO. This yields the climber power--the performance curve of the selected motor then leads to the number of wheels and the wheel diameter.

This train of logic was prompted by the need to know the wheel diameter and loading, but it has revealed a complex design optimisation puzzle that I’m calling “Climber Dynamics”. Early papers in this field were presented by Ben Shelef in 2008, followed by John Knapman’s 2013 work on Solar Power Strategy (summarised on our website at https://www.isec.org/climber-power.) It is clear that climb strategies will evolve rapidly as design limits are raised and technologies improve.

Every new motor design will mean another full climber design optimisation, with different wheel and solar array sizing, but there are even more potential complexities, for example, there may be different climbers for different times of the year! Near the solar solstices the climbers will see more hours of sunlight as they ascend. This means they will climb further each day, which means they could carry more payload, perhaps with larger solar arrays and more motor/wheel pairs.

It seems that future Climber Dynamics Engineers will be vital to optimise the capacity of future space elevator systems.

Peter Robinson

Engineer--Climb Dynamics

Home

NASA Ames Lecture
by Adrian Nixon

NASA Ames Commercial Spaceflight Lecture Series

A few months ago, NASA got in touch with us -- yes, really, they contacted us.

Would we like to present about graphene for the NASA Ames Commercial space lecture series? Oh, and could we also include the latest on materials for the space elevator in our presentation?

We said Yes! (it took about a microsecond to make that decision.)

I was representing both ISEC and Nixene Publishing for this one.

So, on the 17th of March 2021, Debbie, Nelson, Rob Whieldon, and I presented to an invitation only audience from NASA and the main private space companies. We gather there were well over 200 people in the audience.

We took a steer from the organisers to avoid death-by-slides and allow plenty of time for questions and answers, so, we presented the latest information on the state of the art in manufacturing graphene as powders and large-scale sheets. Regular readers of the ISEC newsletters will be aware of the progress in manufacturing sheet graphene.

We covered the applications of powders and sheet graphene with space applications and also the latest on manufacturing sheet graphene for the Space Elevator tether.

You can download a copy of our presentation from NASA at this link: https://www.nasa.gov/ames/partnerships/spaceportal/commercial-space-lecture-series.

We then opened up to the audience for the questions and answers session. I included the line I use in my ISEC presentations:

“See how long it takes to get us to say, ‘we don’t know.’”

The NASA people asked some really penetrating questions...wow these people are really smart! Interestingly, they never got us to the point where we didn’t know the answer. We had a lot of fun interacting with the rocket scientists and it went really well.

In fact, it went so well, we’ve been invited to propose a further presentation for the International Space Station Research and Development conference later in the year!

Home

History Corner

by David Raitt, PhD

Space Elevator Fun and Games:

Part 1A, United States

The concept of empowering small teams to design, build, test and then compete with their own tether climbers expanded from a simple concept to a successful series of events around the globe that continues today. They include primarily; the NASA Centennial Challenges, the Japanese Tether Climber competitions, the European Space Elevator Challenges and the ISEC Robo-Climb and RoboGames competitions. Space elevator challenge competitions have actually been held, with varying results, since 2004 - the early years usually having both a tether and climber competition, and the later years mainly focusing on climbers.

Each of these events around the world motivates young scientists and engineers, together with high school students, as well as the established elevator community, and engages the public in the process of advanced technology development with both team and individual incentives such as prizes, medals, certificates and other awards. The events, along with the photos taken and videos made at the various competitions, have helped change the movement of space elevator development from the early concept stage to one where systems engineering, advanced technologies and new techniques and materials are necessary and practical demonstrators are required.

This three-part series for the ISEC Newsletter, both summarizes, expands and updates material on space elevator games, challenges and competitions in the book Space Elevators: A History (www.isec.org/s/SpaceElevatorsHistory2017.pdf). Part 1 covers the United States, Part 2 covers Europe (together with a brief mention of Israel), while Part 3 covers Japan and an idea for a new type of Challenge!

From the beginning of widespread interest in the space elevator, due to NASA’s funding of workshops and studies and the subsequent popularization of space elevators in scifi novels and films, the inclusion of young people were important. One of the major contributions that greatly increased the visibility of space elevators to the general public was the Space Elevator Games, a series of competitions held over several years which were dedicated towards advancing the technologies needed to build a space elevator. In 2005, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) launched the Centennial Challenges to directly engage the public in the process of advanced technology development. The programme offered incentive prizes to generate revolutionary solutions to problems of interest to NASA and the nation. The programme sought innovations from diverse and non-traditional sources and awards were only made to successful teams when the challenges were met.

Two of the several Centennial Challenges - Power Beaming and Strong Tether - involved technologies having a direct application in the construction and operation of a space elevator. The Spaceward Foundation, founded by Ben and Meekk Shelef in 2003, had the idea to leverage these two Challenges into an event they called ‘The Space Elevator Games’. Accordingly, they approached NASA with a proposal to fund a Space Elevator prize for advances in tether strength and power beaming, and subsequently NASA awarded the Spaceward Foundation a license to organize the two Challenges (which Spaceward always called the ‘Space Elevator Games’). Spaceward would devise the rules for each Challenge, procure a competition venue, recruit the competitors and coordinate all the activities for each event. NASA would review and approve the rules and, if there were any winners, award them prize-money based on the Challenge results. The initial prize purse allocated was $100,000 but because of the success of the first Space Elevator Games, launched in 2005, NASA gradually raised the prize purse over the years to $4m.

The Power Beaming Challenge event was held in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2009, while the Strong Tether Challenge was held in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010 and 2011. In 2005, less than a year after the Spaceward Foundation’s proposal was accepted, both Challenges were held at the NASA Ames facility in California with a prize purse of $50,000 for each of the two Challenges. Six teams took part in the Power Beaming Challenge and four in the Strong Tether. Due to the interest shown in the first Space Elevator Games, in 2006, when both Challenges were held in Las Cruces, New Mexico, NASA increased the purse to $200,000 for each Challenge. Coverage of the 2005 Challenge had drawn worldwide interest and resulted in 20 teams registering for the 2006 event, including the first non-North American entries. Six teams actually competed in the Power Beaming event and four in the Strong Tether. In 2007, both Challenges were held at the Davis County Event Center in Layton, Utah and the prize money was further increased to $500,000 for each Challenge. Seven teams took part in the Power Beaming competition (where the first laser was used for power), but only two in the Strong Tether.

In these first three Space Elevator Games, where the rules and challenges got tougher each time, no winners were declared, although one team from Canada came very close to winning in the Power Beaming Challenge on two occasions. Indeed, the journal Nature reported on 23 October 2007 under the headline ‘Space-elevator games disappoint’. The news item said that “Despite promising great things this year, the space-elevator games have once again failed to produce a winner. NASA will go home with a million dollars in prize money unclaimed. The games have been held for three years running, in an attempt to encourage development of the technologies needed to build an elevator into space. The games include a competition to build a strong rope or ‘tether', of the sort that would link such a machine to Earth and creating a ground-powered robot that can climb a rope at speed. Organizers were initially impressed by this year's entrants, but they weren't good enough to meet the games' criteria.” (https://www.nature.com/news/2007/071023/full/news.2007.188.html).

The 2008 Space Elevator Beam Power Challenge was announced by the Spaceward Foundation, with competitors having the chance at a $2 million top prize. Meteor Crater in Arizona, as well as Black Rock, Nevada and Bonneville Salt Flats in Utah, were among the sites being considered for the competition, which would consist of climbing a vertically suspended tether of 1km altitude at 5 meters per second minimum speed, using power beaming technology. An intermediate prize level of $900k was to be given for a speed of 2 m/s. Additionally, teams that could reach an altitude of 1km at between 1 and 2 m/s would be awarded a prize of up to $50k. The 1km climb would be supported by a unique pyramid-anchored balloon system, providing the teams with a stable tether to climb on.

The two competitions were not actually held in 2008, however in 2009, the Power Beaming Competition took place at the NASA Hugh L. Dryden Flight Research Center, while the Strong Tether Challenge was held at the Microsoft Conference facility in Redmond, Washington, along with the annual Space Elevator Conference hosted by the International Space Elevator Consortium (ISEC). NASA provided a total prize purse in 2009 of $4,000,000 ($2,000,000 for each Challenge), and in the fourth (and final) Power Beaming competition, with just three team participating, the team from Lasermotive LLC, an American engineering company based in Seattle, Washington, won the first level of the Power Beaming Challenge using laser power and with it, a prize of $900,000 prize. There was only one team, from Japan which used a carbon nanotube tether, in the Strong Tether Challenge.

In 2010 and 2011, only the Strong Tether Challenges were held - with just three teams entering in 2010 and two in 2011. As with the 2009 Strong Tether Challenge, both of these events occurred during the annual ISEC Space Elevator Conference held at the Microsoft Conference Center in Redmond, Washington. The rules for both of these Challenges were identical to the 2009 Strong Tether Challenge, as was the prize purse of $2,000,000. But once again there were no winners.

Although there was some interest in holding the Games in 2012, NASA decided not to renew these two particular Challenges (probably because of the limited number of contestant and desultory results), even though ISEC made efforts to get them to continue at least the Strong Tether Challenge. Despite this setback, the idea of holding annual or, at least, regular space elevator challenges or competitions was not put on hold after NASA decided to no longer support such events. ISEC did announced a Strong Tether Challenge competition for 2013 with a prize of $10,000, however, it was cancelled due to lack of competitors.

See part 1B in next month’s newsletter

David Raitt, PhD

ISEC Chief Historian

Home

Summer Internship

ISEC Announces this Year’s Summer Internship Program

Each year, ISEC accepts applications from students in their third or fourth years of university to participate in space elevator research. Those selected will spend time researching a space elevator topic under the mentorship of an ISEC member. They will receive a $500.00 (USD) stipend upon successful completion of their project and be given the opportunity to present their work at an ISEC event.

APPLICATIONS ACCEPTED BETWEEN 1 APRIL AND 15 MAY 2021

INTERNSHIP START: 1 JUNE 2021

COMPLETION: 15 AUGUST 2021

Home

Upcoming Events

Space Elevator Conference

Dual Space Access Architecture

Sponsored by the International Space Elevator Consortium

https://www.isec.org/events

Tuesday, May 25th through Wednesday, May 26th (Immediately before the ISDC, below)

Sheraton Gateway Hotel

Los Angeles, CA, USA

International Space Development Conference (ISDC)

Note: Change in date and presentation