• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Space Elevators

A new study claims a space elevator variant (a line extended from the moon to some closer earth orbit poine) is feasible with current materials and technologies.
Astrophysicists Say One Space Elevator Concept Is Possible With Today's Technology

Getting spacecraft into orbit is incredibly costly and difficult, and so scientists keep returning to the idea of a space elevator that can lift people and equipment out of Earth's atmosphere more easily. Now researchers have come up with a twist on the concept that - in theory at least - is doable with today's technology.

Rather than building a space elevator up from Earth, build a 'spaceline' down from the Moon, say astrophysicists Zephyr Penoyre from the University of Cambridge in the UK, and Emily Sandford from Columbia University in New York.

Based on their calculations, the researchers say such a construction is technically and economically feasible with the tools and materials we have today – something that can't be said for the space elevator concept.

The benefit of a spaceline over a space elevator is that it would orbit Earth just once a month – because it would be attached to the Moon, not Earth – and that means less of a strain coming from centrifugal forces.

It wouldn't actually touch our planet, but dangle down into geostationary orbit – some 42,164 kilometres (26,199 miles) above the surface – ready to transport whatever was needed up into the further regions of space.

"By extending a line, anchored on the moon, to deep within Earth's gravity well, we can construct a stable, traversable cable allowing free movement from the vicinity of Earth to the Moon's surface," write Penoyre and Sandford in their paper.

"It would reduce the fuel needed to reach the surface of the moon to a third of the current value."

Crucially, super-strong materials that we already have, including the Zylon carbon polymer, would work in this scenario.

By hitting what's known as the Lagrange point – where the gravitational forces of the Earth and Moon would come close to balancing each other out – the researchers think enough stability for operations can be achieved. ...
FULL STORY: https://www.sciencealert.com/resear...elevator-alternative-that-could-actually-work
 
The preprint version of the research study is accessible at:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.09339

Here's the abstract ...
The Spaceline: a practical space elevator alternative achievable with current technology

Zephyr Penoyre, Emily Sandford
(Submitted on 25 Aug 2019)
Perhaps the biggest hurdle to mankind's expansion throughout the Solar System is the prohibitive cost of escaping Earth's gravitational pull. In its many forms, the space-elevator provides a way to circumvent this cost, allowing payloads to traverse along a cable extending from Earth to orbit. However, modern materials are not strong enough to build a cable capable of supporting its own weight. In this work we present an alternative to the classic space elevator, within reach of modern technology: The Spaceline. By extending a line, anchored on the moon, to deep within Earth's gravity well, we can construct a stable, traversable cable allowing free movement from the vicinity of Earth to the Moon's surface. With current materials, it is feasible to build a cable extending to close to the height of geostationary orbit, allowing easy traversal and construction between the Earth and the Moon.​
 
But you still have to get your loads up out of the Earth's gravity well to the 'station'. Surely that will be similar to ISS supply launches.
 
But you still have to get your loads up out of the Earth's gravity well to the 'station'. Surely that will be similar to ISS supply launches.

Indeed it would ... But the proposed spaceline concept would reduce the overall fuel requirements for moving those loads from near-earth orbit to the moon by circa 2/3 (so the authors claim).
 
Can someone explain the geostationary orbit bit to me? Assuming the elevator will extend straight "down" from the Moon, then the end will certainly not be geostationary in the true sense, since the Moon does not stay over the same spot on Earth. So why is having the end at the level of a geostationary orbit better than any other place? And won't it slap into all the true geostationary satellites?
 
Can someone explain the geostationary orbit bit to me? Assuming the elevator will extend straight "down" from the Moon, then the end will certainly not be geostationary in the true sense, since the Moon does not stay over the same spot on Earth. So why is having the end at the level of a geostationary orbit better than any other place? And won't it slap into all the true geostationary satellites?

There is no geostationary orbit involved.

The concept study simply says that the earthward end of the spaceline should be capable of stable positioning at an altitude (above earth) approximating the range of altitudes used for geostationary satellites.

Geosynchronous satellites are deployed "above" the equator at a relatively fixed altitude where the various gravitational (and other) forces are more or less balanced and requirements for repeated positioning maneuvers are thus minimized.

Positioning the earthward end of a spaceline near the altitude used for geosynchronous satellites represents a limiting condition for traffic avoidance, not an operational requirement for the spaceline's feasibility.
 
That's right. The near end of the Lunar elevator needs to be safely above geostationary orbit, otherwise it would collide with the satellites in that location.
 
What about the risk from meteors that pass between the Moon and the Earth ?
 
What about the risk from meteors that pass between the Moon and the Earth ?

There'd definitely be a finite, if negligible, amount of risk associated with meteor strikes. The same applies for the occasional close-passing asteroid.
 
Just wondering how they would build this thing.

INT21.
 
Back
Top