The Space Elevator

Dennis Kgler
October 9, 2008
Contents
1 Introduction 2
2 Basic Principles 2
2.1 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.2 Length Of The Cable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3 Stress Of The Cable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4 Required Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Practical Matters 5
3.1 Power Beaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2 Climber Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
3.3 Cable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.4 Unresolved Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4 Catastrophes - Reasons And Scenarios 8
4.1 Reasons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.1 Material Defects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.2 Satellites And Meteoroids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.3 Atmospheric Damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.4 Radiation Damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.1.5 Possible Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4.2 Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.1 Cable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2.2 Elevator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5 References 10
1
1 Introduction
The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing
[4]
. It is
unbelievable that Arthur Clarke already was sure of that in 1979 because now, 29 years
later, this project becomes serious and is heading directly toward its realization.
But he was not the rst one thinking about this idea. Since the beginning of the 20th
century, long before the rst space mission, some people were thinking about building
self-holding structures in space. This ideas became much more concrete with the rst
rocket lunches in 1957 and of course the rst manned space mission in 1961. Inspired
through this new technologies people started to make precise calculation for the building
of the space elevator. Especially Jerome Pearson played an important role in this chapter
of history. He was the rst who calculated the length of the cable where gravitational
and centrifugal forces cancel each other (Chapter 2.2). He also calculated the minimum
strength of the cable and used former ideas of varying the cable thickness to have equal
pressure on every point.
In the 21st century scientists started to think about a counterweight in space with the in-
tention to make the cable shorter. Another important development was the discovery of
carbon nanotubes (Chapter 3.3) which were the rst material with good enough proper-
ties for creating the cable. In 2005 the Liftport group and the Spaceward foundation
were founded to built the cable and to develop further ideas for the power beaming
[1]
.
The intentions of building such a space elevator are obvious. On the one hand there are
the economic reasons. The price per kilogram launched payload is for a rocket at least
two times more expensive than carrying it with the elevator and the elevator can also
start more often. On the other hand it would be the rst Space Station for humanity
which could be the starting point for further projects in space.
2 Basic Principles
2.1 Assumptions
Since I only want to show the basic principles of the Space Elevator, I will assume for
the following calculations:
there is no counterweight in space
the cable has the same diameter at every point
constant mass density of the cable
no inuences of Earths atmosphere
negligence of gravitational forces caused by moon or sun
Obviously all of these points plays an important role when you want to build the
elevator in reality but the calculation with this assumptions are much easier.
2
2.2 Length Of The Cable
It is obvious that the most important calculation includes the length of the cable. In
principle the cable should be hold because of the equilibrium of centrifugal and gravita-
tional forces caused by the Earth. In the following calculation we accept the surface of
the Earth as zero-point of our coordination system.
Figure 1: Principle of Space Elevator (source:www.sandstorming.com)
I introduce the following new variables:

Line
= constant - line density of the cable
= 72.7 10
6
Hz - angular velocity of the Earth
M
E
= 6 10
24
kg - mass of the Earth
R
E
= 6371km - radius of the Earth
L - length of the cable
The radial (centrifugal) force is described as:
F
R
= m
2
(r +R
E
) (1)
The innitessimal change of it is:
dF
R
=
Line
dr
2
(r +R
E
+dr)
Line

2
(r +R
E
) dr (2)
The gravitational force is described as:
F
G
= G
m M
E
(r +R
E
)
2
(3)
3
The innitessimal change:
dF
G
= G

Line
dr M
E
(r +R
E
+dr)
2
G

Line
M
E
(r +R
E
)
2
dr (4)
In equilibrium:

L
0
dF
G
=

L
0
dF
R
(5)
Solving this equation gives us a length for a self-holding rope of around 150000 km.
2.3 Stress Of The Cable
For practical matters it is very important to know under which physical conditions
the cable has to work (especially for the choice of the material). The most important
requirement is of course the strength of the cable. Just to get an imagination of the
magnitudes we are speaking about I calculate the maximum stress in the cable. Therefore
I maximized the force-function:
F = |F
G
| + |F
R
| (6)
At a height of around 40

000km it reaches in our simple model a maximum of 75GPa

(we receive directly the pressure since we used the
Line
=
V olume
Area) assuming a
mass-density for carbon nanotubes of 1.3 g/cm
3 [3]
. The reason why I chose nano tubes
will be further discussed in chapter 3.3. One reason will be the high theoretical strength
of this material. Just imagine a safety factor of 2 the cable has to hold an stress of
150 GPa Steel for example has a maximum stress value of much less than 10 GPa
[3],[5]
.
2.4 Required Power
The next step is estimating the required power for our basic experiment. There we
assume that we have to lift a mass of 10tons into the geostationary orbit.
dE = F dr (7)
We assume an average velocity of 500km/h. It is a high mechanical velocity but
remember that even with this velocity the trip takes 3 days. Since we always have a
force which points in direction of the movement as well as we have a force against this
direction we have to determine the required power for this track to the geostationary
point (where gravitational and radial force are equal) in the following way:

r
geo
0
dE =

r
geo
0
F
Grav
dr

r
geo
0
F
rad
dr = 500 GJ (8)
with r
geo
=
3

GM
E

2
R
E
= 35

786km
Required Power P =
E
t
= E
v
s
= 2 MW (including neither friction nor heating)
4
To have a feeling for the order of magnitude of the energy (500 GJ 140 MWh):
a nuclear power plant produces around 10

000GWh
[3]
per year. So the energy for our
ideal space transport could be produced in some minutes in an ordinary power plant.
Of course there has to be found a solution for the case that the elevator wants to stay
at the space station (not in the geostationary orbit) since the radial forces are very
high at this point. I couldnt nd a good solution for this problem but it would be
possible to accelerate the elevator constantly towards Earth. That would cost of course
also constantly energy. How the power transfer is realized will be explained in the next
chapter.
3 Practical Matters
3.1 Power Beaming
As shown in the chapter above a high power is necessary to lift up the elevator in space.
This is one of the big problems why the elevator still isnt build. Earlier ideas were
to accelerate the elevator by nuclear reactions but the calculations showed that then a
big amount of radioactive material has to be carried with the elevator. Next to reasons
of safety there was also the reason of the weight why this method was excluded. The
next concept tried to use solar power to accelerate the elevator. But since the sun
doesnt spend that much energy (in a reasonable collecting area) this method was also
excluded. But the actual method is based on the same principles. The idea is to send a
high energetic free-electron (or solid state based) laser beam to the climber where it is
converted with the photovoltaic eect into voltage (gures 2 and 3)
[5]
. It is obvious that
it is a big challenge to collimate the beam and heading it towards the space elevator.
The calculations for the power supply also have to be very precise since if the elevator
has to less power or the power supply is disturbed it will in the worst case fall back to
Earth or destroys due to its acceleration the space station and is lost.
Figure 2: Model of a climber (source:www.blog.speculist.com)
5
Figure 3: Model of a water-based station (source:www.simonvdb.de)
3.2 Climber Structure
Since the climber needs a big amount of power and the laser beam cant be collimated
too precise it is clear that the climber has to have a large collecting area. Therefore
the climber will have an array of big photovoltaic plates on its bottom side. To gain
enough power an array of 10

000m
2
would be necessary. This is equal to 2 parabolic
concentrators both with an diameter of around 80m
[1]
(gure 2). And this is an optimistic
calculation. But scientists looking forward to solve this problem within the next 5 years.
Since we know now how to supply the climber with power we have to think about the
mechanism to lift the elevator up along the cable. The space elevator shouldnt be
understand as an classical elevator where two strings are moving in opposite directions
(although some scientists also thinking about this idea). It should better be called Space
Climber since it contains a climbing element consisting of pairs of rollers using friction
to climb up mechanically (gure 2)
[7]
. This leads to further problems because the stress
on the cable is increasing due to mechanical work. Another fact is that you need more
power since the eciency of the conversion from electrical to mechanical power is limited
(due to friction and heating). One possible improvement of this problem is to use a linear
motor
[6]
.
3.3 Cable
As one can see in the calculations above it is necessary to have a material with a very
small weight/strength ratio. Until the end of the 80s everybody expected diamond as
the cable material since it was the strongest one. But with the discovery of carbon
nanotubes (gure 4) everyone forgot about diamond. It is due to the fantastic physical
properties of the single walled (SWNT) and multi walled (MWNT) nanotubes, e.g.
very small density (1.3 g/cm
3
), high conductivity and most important: extreme high
6
theoretic strength (stable up to 60GPa). Unfortunately these tubes are still pretty new
and scientists couldnt gain enough experience in using them. The biggest problem is to
connect the tubes. The simple tube-to-tube binding doesnt work and meanwhile people
try to weave single tubes to a thick rope. This in the end has of course other properties
as the single ones and the strength isnt that good anymore. The longest stable weaved
tubes today reach lengths up to several kilometers.
The last point is the xing of the cable on Earth. There are 2 main ideas. On the one
hand there is the ground xing. This means to mount the cable somewhere into the
ground. The main advantage is that it is very cheap to build. The big disadvantage is
that it is not possible to move this point to avoid for example a storm or space waste.
The more common idea is to x the rope on a water-based station (gure 3). This of
course would cost a lot but it is very easy to avoid storms and it gives also the possibility
to move the whole system to another place. That could be later important to decrease
costs (for example for material tranports). If all these requirements are complied the
cable can be unrolled. The basic idea in this case is to launch a rocket with the whole
rope and then let it unroll at a certain high where the lower end is pulled towards Earth
due to gravitational forces. The upper part of the cable is launched again into a region
where the radial force overbalance the gravitational ones and then the rope tightens.
Figure 4: Carbon nanotubes (source:www.azonano.com)
3.4 Unresolved Problems
First of all is of course the problem of the costs. Fairly good estimations determine the
costs for completing the construction to 7Billion USDollar. These costs include only
technical costs. Non-technical costs are hard to estimate but are in the same order of
magnitude
[7]
. The next big problem is of course the missing experience with comparable
projects and the missing know-how in the application of carbon nanotubes. The power
supply is only tested with small masses and small heights and already there appear big
problems. The protection of the whole system is also a very big problem which I will
discuss in the next chapter.
7
4 Catastrophes - Reasons And Scenarios
As well as the last very big projects (for example CERN) the space elevator has to deal
with the subject safety. In this chapter I want to point out what the risks for humanity
on Earth and for people and material in the elevator are. The rst thing one has to
think about is what causes the catastrophes. Mainly it is the cut-up of the cable.
4.1 Reasons
4.1.1 Material Defects
It is never possible to create an ideal material (especially not over these distances) and
since there are nearly no experiences with carbon nanotubes at these scales material
defects could have drastic damage on the cable.
4.1.2 Satellites And Meteoroids
Most satellites have no own motor to change their direction. Thats why we can summa-
rize these two points. When one of these two objects hits the elevator or even worse, the
cable, the damage could be dramatically. The cable could brake or the elevator could
get damaged seriously (e.g. the heat sheathing). But scientists are more afraid of the so
called micro-meteoroids. It is nearly impossible to protect the system from this football
big meteoroids unlike the big ones.
4.1.3 Atmospheric Damages
In the atmosphere of the Earth includes some dangerous factors. For example the damage
of lightnings could be immense. Rain and storms could be so strong that they cut up
the cable. Furthermore the oxygen in the atmosphere can cause corrosion.
4.1.4 Radiation Damages
The particle ux from solar wind or the so called Van-Allen-Belt can cause big damages
on the crew and material. A thick shielding would be essential but would also increase
the mass of the elevator.
4.1.5 Possible Solutions
To repair damage on the cable scientists think about building a repair elevator which
can repair or renew damaged areas while using nanotechnologies. To prevent damage
through satellites or micro-meteoroids it is possible to launch more cables into space
and use them as a shielding for the main cable. To avoid damages caused by storms or
lightnings are two possibilities. On the one hand one can move the water-xed system
away from the storm. On the other hand one can choose regions where storms and
lightnings are very rare (a preferred place is the pacic in the region around Ecuador or
the region around Sri Lanka
[6]
).
8
4.2 Scenarios
The worst case that can happen is a cut up of the cable. What happens with the system
depends on the point where the cut up occurs. The following points include very simple
mechanics and can be understood very easily. Most results are calculated and visualized
in Reference [2].
4.2.1 Cable
When the rope cuts up below 25

000km the upper part of the cable will be accelerated

away from the orbit and the lower part of the cable would drop to the Earth. But that
wouldnt be a problem at all since due to heating (because of air friction) a big part of
the cable would burn. The lower parts of the cable would drop to Earth but nothing
fatal would happen (remember the density, combined with a very small diameter of the
cable).
4.2.2 Elevator
Much worse things happen with the elevator. When it drops o at a altitude lower than
23

000km it will follow an ellipse with a very big eccentricity and would break down to
Earth after a certain time.
Between a altitude of 5

000km and 23

000km the impact velocity will be more than

5

000m/s (up to 10

000m/s)
[2]
. This would cause a big damage on the Earth.
For a drop-o height between 23

000km and 47

000km the climber would enter a stable

orbit with an eccentricity depending on the drop-o height (eccentricity would be zero
at the geostationary orbit).
Above a height of 47

000km the velocity due to the radial motion reaches the escape ve-
locity of the orbit. This implies that the elevator is lost in space. There is no possibility
to rescue man or material.
9
5 References
1. Homepage of Liftport Group (http://www.liftport.com/wiki/)
2. Blaise Gassend Home Page (http://gassend.com/spaceelevator/breaks/index.html)
3. Wikipedia.org (especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator)
4. Arthur C. Clarke The Space Elevator: Thought experiment, or key to the uni-
verse Part 3 of 3
published in Advances in Earth Oriented Applied Space Technologies Vol 1, 1981
(also published at http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/CLARK3.HTM)
5. UPC Team Answer to NASAs Beam Power Space Elevator challenge, 2006
(http://www.domitech.es/recensteam/recensteam/documento s/RecensTeam%20paper.pdf)
6. NASA (http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1.htm)
7. Bradley C. Edwards The space elevator - NIAC Phase II nal report, 2003
(published at http://www.niac.usra.edu/les/studies/nal_report/521Edwards.pdf)
10