Cody Eubanks Professor Wolcott ENC 1102 9 November 2012 Space Elevator for the 21st Century First

introduced in 1895 by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, the idea of a space elevator has since become a structure of science fiction novels, but recent materials development, political interest, and component research shows the practicality of an elevator into the heavens, to overpower its development costs, as well as the downfalls of current rocketry focused exploration methods. Summarized plans for a space elevator include the tethering of a counterweight, in outer earth orbit, to a mobile ground station near the equator. This is accomplished with a paper thin carbon nanotube composite ribbon providing a surface for light powered climbing vehicles to track on into space. In the field of aerospace engineering the topic of space elevator development, has spawned discussion among professionals who are seeking to improve proposed construction designs, and address political issues associated with the system. However, this discussion fails to address unification on a central design plan, and current (post 2010) politics concerning space exploration policy and funding. Most importantly the discussion lacks publicity of the project toward the public sector, those who will ultimately fund the project. Why Build? -Economy One of the central focuses of the space elevator discussion is the benefits associated with construction of such a device. Economics is an important factor to any space exploration proposal, and in the case of

the space elevator, models show it to be one the most cost beneficial investment opportunities ever. For the initial $10B investment the cost for putting stuff into space would drop from $20,000/kg to $250/kg with costs eventually dropping as low as $10/kg (Edwards, Kent, Huston) The ownership of a space elevator, in the words of many developers, would practically equate to the purchasing of space. This is due to the low cost shipment methods, coupled with the host elevators ability to aid in construction of more similar structures. Once one system is built, development of another independent elevator is not an economically efficient choice, and therefore the first country to develop the technology will have dominance in the space economy for some time to come. (Lemley, Swan) -Military Apart from the overwhelming cost benefits associated with construction of a space elevator, military forces would also benefit from ownership of such a device. These benefits have been outlined by researchers who present their findings to political leaders in their division, and include an on-orbit storage of kinetic impact weapons or observation drones for fast global delivery, high-resolution 24/7 surveillance from GEO, narrow-band and pinpoint communications, spotlight illumination, control of global communications, and retrieval and repair of satellites. Of the nine principles of war laid out in AFDD 1, three apply directly to the space elevator: mass, maneuver, and security. Many of the leaps made in the American space program have been developed under the watch of military branches, and due to the mass military benefits associated with such a device, development of a space elevator should be aided and funded by military and government forces. (Kent, Edwards) A population will always seek strong military forces for protection, and if a large scale discussion of the potential military benefits of a space elevator among civilians is started, it would catalyze public endorsement of such a device, leading to more active project funding and more recent construction attempts.

-Technologies Associated technologies of space exploration and development are perhaps the core connection the mass population has to such activity. During the space race, technologies such as scratch resistant lenses, freeze dried foods, and athletic shoe composites were developed, and improved life as we know it today. Many luxurious modern materials are dubbed as space age technologies, and for this reason the general population should be supportive of space elevator development, which undoubtedly would bring forth numerous component technologies increasing the national standard of living. (Edwards, Quine) How to Build -Proposed plans In the last two decades activity concerning the development of a space elevator has increased vastly. Not only has the discussion of proposed designs reached international space agency interest, but it has recently entered the private sector of international economics. In 2012 a U.S. based company Liftport revealed plans to construct a space elevator on the moon, and Obayashi, a Japanese independent corporation, has promised to have a functional space elevator by the year 2050. These claims are quite extraordinary, and if they prove to be successful Liftport and the Obayashi Corporation will be among the first companies to enter a competitive capitalized space economy. (Obayashi, Boucher, Laine) These ideas of public enterprise space elevation are often indirectly disowned by military executives, and government funded researchers. Some characters arguments include the fact that space exploration is simply to vast, expensive, and extensive to be effectively accomplished by the private industry. Others address the lack of the current space policy to acknowledge private space exploration, which could prove to become a threat to military forces whose power to supervise operations is currently

nonexistent. These policy holes and economy forces are catalysts to spark public interest in the status of space elevation technology, and should cause researchers to strive for greater media coverage and public acknowledgment. (Avnet, Edwards, Kent)

-Materials Various materials are needed to construct a space elevator and in todays current world many of the complex technologies necessary to develop reliable materials at productive rates are premature. The core ribbon of a space elevator would need to be an extremely high strength material unaffected by erosion factors and damage caused by tracking vehicles. The answer to these demands many believe to lie in the structure of one of the universes most abundant elements, carbon. A new arrangement of carbon atoms has been discovered which forms a hexagonal molecular tube whose characteristics make it incredibly strong and an efficient conductor. Carbon nanotube development is imperative to the construction of a space elevator because models show it to be the only known material strong enough to withstand the enormous forces needed to keep a space elevator in orbit. This technology, if developed under space elevator programs will evolve quickly, and eventually find its way into public sectors such as medicine, automotive, and construction. (Laine, Quine, Takeich) For these reasons society as a whole is potentially capable of benefiting from space elevator materials development.

Where to start? As far as the completion of a space elevator project goes, the most critical catalysts to urge construction of the device are popular support, followed by large scale funding. Of these two resources neither are currently at a stage worthy to start construction methods. This is for a variety of reasons, however the

most obvious include current political leaders and their views towards the space economy, behind technological achievements such as strong carbon nanotube tethers, and the simple lack of large scale publicity promoting political support. The most efficient manner to overcome the obstacles preventing construction of a space elevator, is introducing the benefits of the structure to all citizens of a democracy leading space exploration design. This public sector of the population pays tax dollars, which provides the government with reserves, that can eventually fund the development of space elevator technology. The hardest challenge for current space exploration continuation is the lack of modern political strain. It is this force, seen in the golden age of aerospace technologies known as the space race, which allows for technological breakthroughs to be accomplished at incredible rates. In order to promote space exploration in a post cold war world, developers should aim breakthroughs, announcements, and publicity towards the public sector. This modern methodology for approaching system support is one not properly implemented and should be the core focus for political figures in the space exploration industry. The space industry will continue to provide society with new and exciting discoveries and technologies, however the means which exploration development groups use to gain financial and political support need to adapt and evolve in order to grow strong public interest, and suite changing current political climates.

Work Cited Avnet, M. "The Space Elevator in the Context of Current Space Exploration Policy." Space Policy 22.2 (2006): 133-39. Print. Boucher, Marc "Obayashi and the Space Elevator - A Story of Hype." - The Space Elevator Reference. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Sept. 2012. Edwards, Bradley. "White Paper - Military Applications of the Space Elevator." Fairmont, WV: Institute for Scientific Research, 2003. Edwards, Bradley C. "THE SPACE ELEVATOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM." 55th International Astronautical Congress (2004) Hutson, Stu. "Trading Rockets Fro Space Elevators." National Geographic News, 2005. Jason, Kent R. "Space Elevator as Alternative Access to Space." Blue Horizons (2007): 1-32. USAF. USAF. Web. 10 Sept. 2012. <http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/bh_kent.pdf>. Laine, Michael. Space Elevator Science-Climb to the Sky-A Tethered Tower. Kickstarter.com. Aug. 23 2012. Web. 09 Oct. 2012. Lemley, Brad. "Going Up." Discover 25.7 (2004): 32-39. Academic Search Premier. Web. 09 Oct. 2012. Swan, C., and P. Swan. "Why We Need a Space Elevator." Space Policy 22.2 (2006): 86-91. Print. Takeichi, Noboru. "Geostationary Station Keeping Control of a Space Elevator during Initial Cable Deployment." Acta Astronautica 70 (2012): 85-94. Ucf Onesearch. Web. 30 Sept. 2012. Quine, B.M., R.K. Seth, and Z.H. Zhu. "A Free-standing Space Elevator Structure: A Practical Alternative to the Space Tether." Acta Astronautica 65.3-4 (2009): 365-75. Sciencedirect.com. Web. 9 Sept. 2012.