NASA's third Space Elevator challenge falls short

The third time 'round hasn't brought any luck to the space elevator crowd. The NASA-sponsored challenge is in its third year of running, and while technology is improving at a rapid rate, it's still not quite ready to meet the Space Elevator challenge's demands. Speed requirements have been boosted to 2 meters per second, and this year's contest seems have gone off without the geeky rule disputes of last year. The University of Saskatchewan came closest to claiming the prize with its ground laser-powered bot, and only fell a few seconds short of the required speed. Hopefully next year will see a winner, and we'll all get our shot at being fried by ionizing radiation before the century is up.

[DickHardknocks @ Oct 23rd 2007 9:41AM]

The Space Elevator project is absolutely ridiculous. Either its a way of diverting funds into a few key pockets, or its a vast conspiracy against the American taxpayer to create projects which lack rationality - like the planned US Embassy (Castle) in Iraq.

#1 The Material science isn't there yet. Nanoparticle cables might work but anything less does not have the strength to withstand the tremendous forces.

#2 Its ridiculously expensive for a country that CAN'T AFFORD HEALTHCARE OR SOCIAL SECURITY, yet is DETERMINED spend a billion dollars a day in IRAQ. Regardless what the 'projections' are, the true costs will be upwards of 3 Trillion Dollars considering maintenance and the fact you have to protect the structures from terrorism, space debris,etc.

#3 Everyone knows that when the Covenant invade Earth in a few years, the Space elevator is going to be destroyed and fall on the African Plains.

[j.R @ Oct 23rd 2007 9:43AM]

I'm thinking more of a Locust emergence really

[Jugomugo @ Oct 23rd 2007 10:02AM]

OP = WIN.

[macona @ Oct 23rd 2007 11:14AM]

Dont worry, the Gundams should be in place to protect it by them.

[GenericWhiteGuy @ Oct 23rd 2007 12:38PM]

I'm not sure if the first part of your comment was just to make the third point funnier but I'll assume you were serious...

This is a contest sponsored by NASA to encourage private research paid with private money. NASA is only paying the administrative costs of the contest and prize money if the contestant passes the tests. The prize money, if it is ever paid out is far less than the cost of basic research.

Your comment that the material science isn't there yet-- how exactly do you expect that material science to be developed if you don't want to spend any money developing the science? It isn't going to just appear fully-formed one day.

Your point that this will be expensive-- no kidding. What you fail to notice is that nobody has committed to building this. There is no budget. We aren't spending "trillions of dollars" on a space elevator. Again this is a contest to encourage private investment in basic science in the hope that this will not cost trillions of dollars.

Your concern about protecting this from terrorism... What a sad scary world you live in. Should we all curl up in a ball and hide? Don't do anything to attract attention!

I have a image in my mind of you rocking back and forth on the floor thinking, "I should go to the store to get groceries, but if I do that then I'm just more of a target for terrorists!"

Finally, when the Covenent attack I'll feel better knowing that we used those space elevators to build defensive platforms and spaceships so Master Chief can win the fight.

[GenericWhiteGuy @ Oct 23rd 2007 12:41PM]

I'm not sure if the first part of your comment was just to make the third point funnier but I'll assume you were serious...

This is a contest sponsored by NASA to encourage private research paid with private money. NASA is only paying the administrative costs of the contest and prize money if the contestant passes the tests. The prize money, if it is ever paid out is far less than the cost of basic research.

Your comment that the material science isn't there yet-- how exactly do you expect that material science to be developed if you don't want to spend any money developing the science? It isn't going to just appear fully-formed one day.

Your point that this will be expensive-- no kidding. What you fail to notice is that nobody has committed to building this. There is no budget. We aren't spending "trillions of dollars" on a space elevator. Again this is a contest to encourage private investment in basic science in the hope that this will not cost trillions of dollars.

Your concern about protecting this from terrorism... What a sad scary world you live in. Should we all curl up in a ball and hide? Don't do anything to attract attention!

I have a image in my mind of you rocking back and forth on the floor thinking, "I should go to the store to get groceries, but if I do that then I'm just more of a target for terrorists!"

Finally, when the Covenent attack I'll feel better knowing that we used those space elevators to build defensive platforms and spaceships so Master Chief can win the fight.

[andrew @ Oct 23rd 2007 10:07AM]

This article assumes people will use the Space elevator, that doesn't make sense, it's an elevator for equipment, people don't want to be sitting on a gradually rising elevator for a week inside oxygen capsules which add weight to the elevator, it should only be used for hardware.

[bombastinator @ Oct 23rd 2007 10:14AM]

As I have previously reiterated, the required length of ribbon cannot be created until they can do a full length carbon nanotube floss. Fiber composits cannot even theoretically achieve the strength required.

Until that happens all the rest of this is academic. This is basically a publicity stunt.

[CapnVan @ Oct 23rd 2007 6:23PM]

Of course it's a publicity stunt! That's why it's a contest!

Just like the X Prize. Or the Orteig Prize (that's the one Lindbergh won). They generate public interest in areas that the prize sponsors feel aren't receiving enough attention.

[Ryan @ Oct 25th 2007 9:02AM]

Fortunately, one of the team in the tether competition was a 100% carbon nanotube tether two meters long weighing two grams. Making technology steps in the right direction, which is the driving goal of the competition.

http://www.spaceelevatorblog.com/?p=826

Also, the competition is administered by a non-governmental, non-profit organization. NASA/the US tax payer pays very little for this and other prize competitions -- especially relative to the investment made by competing teams.

[bombastinator @ Oct 25th 2007 5:10PM]

This would be exteemely difficult as I believe the world record for a nanotube currently stands at a bit over 2mm. I could (and would be very happy to be) wrong on this, but to the best of my knowledge this is the case.

Delta-x had a nanotube rope, not a floss. Rope, much like yarn, is made of short fibers twisted together and held by friction. A floss is a group of strands that run in parallel the entire length of the object. The fact that this group would even temporarily think that this had even a prayer of working implies a very low level of scientific rigor, and even basic common sense.

[JQuilty @ Oct 23rd 2007 10:22AM]

Better question...what would we be using this for? Has NASA been watching too much Gundam 00? They should stick to O'Neill Cylinders.

[Will @ Oct 23rd 2007 10:26AM]

This type of event fosters thought and discovery... It is not necessarily about the end goal... Those that think anyone involved believes this to be an attainable goal anytime soon is seriously missing the point.

@dickhardknocks How many times has Nasa paid out the prize?

[Psion @ Oct 23rd 2007 10:39AM]

A space tether need not reach the ground. Shorter variations that could allow transfers between suborbital launch systems are a practical interim objective that would require less durable materials and far less investment to develop. Once such a system is in place as a demonstrator, and once materials are available for a full earth-to-orbit tether (if that's possible), then a traditional beanstalk would probably find funding without the need for further government expenditures.

Arguing against research on space tethers now because not all the pieces are in place yet to achieve a science fiction vision is a little like arguing against researching the airplane in 1900 just because no one at that time could implement transoceanic airline service or build a jet engine.

[DemonioFlatline @ Oct 23rd 2007 10:39AM]

But, does all this make any sense? Or is it just a design exercise? The Earth spins at about 1670 km/h (~1038 Mph) at its equator. If angular speed remains the same, tangential speed increases proportionally to the radius (V=r*W). The elevator's tangential speed would increase as it comes up! Can you imagine such structure moving at that speed?

[macona @ Oct 23rd 2007 11:18AM]

So? Its all relative. The earth is also moving around the sun at 67000 mph and that dosnt matter either.

[oele @ Oct 25th 2007 7:05AM]

Yes but the athmosphere is rotating at the same speed. The only thing that matters is the speed difference ... 0 (give or take a few 100 kph). So that's not really the problem.

The problem is the weight of the cable. The cable will need to go up 35,785 kilometers. And while you'd be correct in assuming that the upper 1000 kilometers would cancel out their own weight, the bottom 34,000 won't.

But it would be the greatest thing since sliced bread for getting stuff into geostationary orbit. For one thing, it would end all energy problems on earth once and for all.

[DemonioFlatline @ Dec 20th 2007 6:17PM]

I know it is all relative, but relative to Earth. Once the elevator exceeds Earth's frame of reference , and starts interacting with other objects at lower or faster speeds, like the ISS or other satellites, it will be very difficult to work with a such a moving (and not adjustable) structure, with such a huge mass behind its movement.

[Dr. Reverend Shmoove, PhD @ Oct 23rd 2007 10:55AM]

so i really don't have the cognitive capacity to understand the physics behind things like this but the idea is definitely intriguing. but, i have a question. isn't 2 meters a second like 4 mph? is that the speed of the real elevator or just a scaled down speed for the height of the rig they're testing it on? don't be harsh with your answers. i'm a graphic designer and i can't wrap my brain around stuff like this.

[Will @ Oct 23rd 2007 11:25AM]

It is a starting point... baby steps towards improving the science.

[Anthony @ Oct 23rd 2007 11:33AM]

You're correct in that it is about 4.5mph.

Depending on how many floors the building has, this is about mid way between the slower and the fastest for personal use.

To those complaining of the cost, this is why it is a contest. NASA hasn't paid the purse yet. Any of their cost has gone to just the people that judge the competition and the lawyers who wrote up the legal speak. This is a brilliant way to do research on the cheap.

[Scott Theede @ Oct 23rd 2007 11:25AM]

It's not a question about wether a space elevator will be built. The students working on the project here at the University of Saskatchewan are doing great design work. This is a chance for different people to compete for a technical exersice. And the cash prize is way cheaper than if NASA were to do as much development as the institutions that are competing.

The members of the USST learn much more than your basic engineering degree, that's why there are these competitions. Things like the 1/4 scale tractor competition, Formula SAE, and Space Elevator. These allow students to learn more and be more prepared for the work environment.

[springer @ Oct 23rd 2007 11:36AM]

I hope that everyone doesn't pee in it like all of the elevators in downtown Boston. Why can't we solve this problem instead.

[Boynamedsue @ Oct 23rd 2007 1:24PM]

NASA: Without the cold war we're clueless... so could someone else figure this out for us?

I was watching 2001 the other day, and a lot of sci-fi movies are overzealous about how much we'll accomplish and in what time frame. The thing that bugged me about 2001 was not that they said we'd have a moon base by 2001... but that we didn't and we should have.

[toyotaboy @ Oct 23rd 2007 1:46PM]

21,000 ft per hour (4mph) aint bad. 60 miles to outer atmosphere orbit, so like 15 hours? Still beats using fuel to get up there.

[Kevin @ Oct 23rd 2007 3:15PM]

I welcome our space elevator overlords.

[Sirocco @ Oct 23rd 2007 6:42PM]

GenericWhiteGuy, you're counterarguments are as abstract as your premise - that there is an a priori need for such a device. It is folly, on a massive scale. There are so many problems that deserve more attention.

At some point between possible and impossible lies absurd, and this space elevator is exactly that, absurd, and I've got nothing against basic research or theoretical research.

Here's the question: let's say it already exists, and cost nothing. What the heck would you use it for? Listen, I don't understand this obsession with "going out into space". First, we're in space already, even with our feet on the ground. It's all relative. Outer space, inner space, what's the difference?

[Lonnie McClure @ Oct 24th 2007 8:25PM]

You don't seem to understand that the reason for developing a space elevator is to lower the cost of moving objects and personel into space.

It is much like building a bridge vs. running a ferry. The former requires a much higher investment, but ultimately is much less expensive per ton moved.

Putting objects into space is no longer an optional activity in our today's world. The smart thing to do is invest in making it more cost effective.

[Sirocco @ Oct 25th 2007 1:26AM]

Lonnie, you fail to answer the question, WHY? A "space elevator" is one of the most frivolous science fiction inventions of all time. It barely even exists in science fiction. There are so many logistical problems, besides the structure itself. The ulterior motive of the NASA contest is to demonstrate that there is no basis for its existence.

[Murc @ Oct 23rd 2007 7:39PM]

It will take awhile before this becomes a reality, but it will never be a reality if we dont start working on it now.

Its good to see that every year we getting closer to a real space elevator, hopefully we will have one constructed by 2030, which is possible, unless the tech gets pushed under the rug.

[Hyperion2010 @ Oct 23rd 2007 8:02PM]

Did someone say nanotube fibers? Because I thought I heard someone say nanotube fibers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7038702.stm

[Sirocco @ Oct 23rd 2007 8:14PM]

It's not just existing and obvious threats like terrorism and airplane traffic, but threats as yet undiscovered which may doom this. The purpose of the NASA sponsored contest may be just that, and provide insight into why this thing should NOT exist. It's interesting how everybody's jumped to the conclusion that NASA is in favor of this thing - it may well be the opposite.

[Freeradical @ Oct 24th 2007 11:11AM]

in respone to bombastinator,

Yes, we can't build it until we develop the technology to create a ribbon with enough tensile strenth. But we can't develop the ribbon with the right tensile strength until someone researches the technology to build up to that tensile strength. Good thing very miniscule amounts of taxpayer money has been used for that so far, after all I know I'd rather pay for some crack-brained @#*% to have another little crack addicted baby that we can spend out federal $$ on medicaid and food stamps so it too will grow up to be a crack-brained @#*% that will have a crack addicted babby that we can spend....

OH and btw, Wilber called to say he and his brother Orville couldn't finish your bicycle this week. They had to take the train down to North Carolina to try out a little experiment they've been working on.

[UngerpupMD @ Nov 16th 2007 3:35PM]

http://www.lanl.gov/news/releases/archive/04-076.shtml

4cm Carbon Nanotubes have been grown, and to be improved upon. Much better than the 2mm Bombastinator talked about. Why so much of an improvement? Because we are working on it! You have to research to get improvements, which is what this competition fosters. We achieve in proportion to what we attempt!

[UngerpupMD @ Nov 16th 2007 3:36PM]

Oh and that 4cm tubule was back in 2004.
I'm sure they have improved on that significantly.