Since ELEVATOR WORLD's last extensive coverage of the space elevator (ELEVATOR WORLD, January 2000), the concept has developed into a viable and realistic endeavor as evidenced by the first Space Elevator Conference held August 12-13 in Seattle, Washington. Against the backdrop of Mount Rainier and Microsoft, Bradley C. Edwards of HighLift Systems told a group of invitation-only attendees that we have the technology to build a space elevator (SE). EW was among the 60 attendees that included scientists, engineers, lawyers, university professors, National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) personnel and other interested parties.

Michael Laine, president of HighLift Systems, started off the conference on Monday morning by explaining that the purpose of this first-of-many-to-come conferences was to bring together as many as possible who had a vested interest in seeing the SE become a reality. According to Laine, there are more than 200 teams in the U.S. alone working on the SE and its component technology. Your reporter spent some time with Laine as we discussed the impact the project would have on the elevator industry. He informed me that United Technologies Inc. and Otis Elevator Co. have expressed an interest in further conversations with HighLift. Of all the aspects of the SE, the ribbon tenacity and strength will be of vital interest to our industry. Indeed, well over half of the first day was dedicated to the research status of carbon nanotubes (CNT) and its application to the ribbon.

Keynote address

Lauren Edgar, a high school senior, was invited to be the keynote speaker. She spoke quite eloquently about her interest in space exploration which started when she met and interviewed Apollo 17 Commander Eugene Cernan and worked in an advanced degree program that included time at NASA's George C. Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. She firmly believes in the concept of the SE and ended her speech by quoting from Field of Dreams, that if we build it, her generation will come.

Historical background

Edwards is the catalyst behind the SE. His interest developed when he read that a SE could not be built for 300 years and asked himself why so long. He amassed information and submitted a proposal for a Phase 1 study with the NASA Institute of Advanced Concepts (NIAC). They approved funding for the study. When he submitted his report, NASA funded a Phase 2 study which includes investigation and actual experimentation. Edwards' book The Space Elevator will be published some time soon, possibly by press time.

Late in the 20th century, it became obvious that the conventional means of space travel (by rocket fuel) was not up to the task of moving massive amounts of people or materials into space. The idea of the SE as a "real" concept was first written in a technical journal in 1960. However, it wasn't until 1991, when Dr. Sumio Ijima of Japan discovered carbon nanotubes that technology caught up to fiction. In 1999, the question arose, using carbon nanotube technology (CNT), can a space elevator be built? The answer in 2002 is yes, it can.

SE Construction

The initial construction would require a spacecraft/ satellite which would be powered by rockets (or possibly laser beaming) to reach low earth orbit and second-stage rockets to achieve geosynchronous orbit. On the craft would be one-micron-thick ribbon wrapped on a spool. Once geosynchronous orbit has been achieved, the craft would deploy the ribbon down through the earth's atmosphere to a movable, anchor station. The craft will then "float" outward with the end of the 110,000-kilometer ribbon to become the counterweight. The ribbon would be tapered to 13.5 centimeters diameter at earth surface to 35.5 centimeters at geosynchronous orbit. Lightweight climbers would then ascend the ribbon to attach additional ribbon strands to increase the ribbon to a thickness capable of supporting a 20-ton climber with a 13-ton payload. This stage should take two years and about 230 trips. The trips will probably take about one week each. These lightweight climbers would then be used as additional counterweights. The climbers will be powered by a large laser directed by a specially designed mirror to the photovoltaic cells on the bottom of the climber. The energy would be converted to electricity. In time, other heavier ribbons could be deployed so that stations, manned craft and, yes, even hotels can be constructed. With a whole ribbon system, space travel to other planets via the SE could be accomplished. Ironically, Mars or the Asteroid Belt would be the easiest travel to initiate while the earth's own Moon would be one of the hardest.

CNT Research and Development

Much of this first conference was devoted to the current status of the CNT research. Bottom line is that the necessary breakthrough to actually bonding the carbon nanotubes into a composite material and thence into a structure like a ribbon hasn't happened yet. One of the purposes of the convention was to draw together many of those working on the CNT to compare notes.

Nanotubes are from one to 1.7 nanometers wide. They come in different lengths and as open or closed ended, single-walled, double-walled or multi-walled. Their tensile strength is 100 times stronger than steel at one-fifth the weight. Current production processes include electric arc, chemical vapor deposition, pulsed-arc discharge and pulsed laser ablation. Single-walled nanotubes would be best for structural purposes since the composite material can be adhered to each separate nanotube. With the multi-walled nanotubes, the inner tubes cannot be reached for bonding.

Margaret Roylance from Foster-Miller Inc., a private company in Walthan, Massachusetts, is working with the single-walled nanotubes while Rodney Andrews from the University of Kentucky (UK) is working on the multi-walled nanotube composite material angle. The key breakthrough for use in the SE is adequate dispersion. Nanotubes tend to grow in bundles (ropes) which make it difficult to harness their capabilities. In addition, their crystallization properties makes them strong but difficult to manipulate. Currently, no solvent has been found that can disperse the bundles into individual nanotubes.

Mathieu Grac of Nanoledge S.A. in France noted that Nanoledge has produced CNT composite fiber but the purity is only 50%. Andrews added that UK has produced a polymer fiber, CNT composite but with only 1% doping. The SE needs 80%. He also mentioned that multi-walled nanotubes are easier to work with. Li Feng from the Chinese Academy of Sciences discussed the hydrogen arc discharge method for single-walled nanotubes. Excitement increased as the teams realized they were working on different parts of the same project, resulting in brainstorming sessions. However, Roylance predicted at least five years before the CNT could be commercially viable.

Once the CNT breakthrough has occurred, the nanotubes can be dispersed and placed into a composite material. After running through conventional textile processing to align a set number of fibers in a parallel configuration, the fibers would be spooled. The ribbon construction and design itself would consist of the many individual fibers loosely connected with thousands of the 10-micron fibers with cross connections across the ribbon at intervals of 10 centimeters or more in a tape sandwich process. The individual ribbons would then be spooled. The entire process would be automated.

An Alternative Ribbon Design

Robert Hoyt of Tethers Unlimited has designed a space tether system called Hoytetherª with funding from NIAC. The tether has straight fibers under tension running the length of the cable and cross diagonal fibers to distribute load. One advantage of this system for the SE is that it minimizes meteor damage. Hoyt showed an actual simulation of a tether payload system with a cost around US$2.5 billion. Although NASA considers the tether system mainly a design for space itself, it could be adapted to the earth-to-space-to-earth elevator concept.

Anchor Station

A number of decisions regarding the location of the anchor and power-beaming stations have already been made. They will most likely be placed 2,000 miles west of Ecuador, 2,500 miles south of San Diego and 1,500 miles southwest of Acapulco, Mexico. According to historical data weather maps, the Pacific equator area has relatively tranquil seas, no known lightning strikes and no hurricane has ever passed the equator. Plans call for an anchor station with a 46,000-ton mass at 133 meters by seven meters and a top speed of 12 knots. The power-beaming station will need at least a 13-meter segment mirror and a 350kw electronic laser. The anchor platform could be adapted from the SeaLaunchª program within 18 months. Adapting that technology for the SE would cost around US$300-500 million. Günther Migeotte of Art Anderson Associates in Brementon, Washington added that requirements for the anchor platform in the Pacific Ocean would include interchangeable parts, 100 staff personnel, one kilometer per day movement and a stability of five degrees in roll. The anchor station must also consider weather conditions with a 72-hour to one-week preparatory time. Art Anderson Associates has offered to build a customized anchor station for around the same amount as it would cost to adapt the SeaLaunch platform. In the Q&A session, adapting an oil tanker was suggested. The biggest issue with a tanker is the motion susceptibility.

Tower Alternative

According to Geoffrey A. Landis from the NASA John H. Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, launch could be accomplished by a 15-kilometer tower since altitude is not as important as velocity. The biggest advantage to the tower concept is the increase in payload mass. The Q&A session brought up such issues as what type of material could the tower be built from, how much of the tower square footage would be needed for the SE equipment, can the tower support the weight of the equipment, where to build, costs (which was not available) and buckling issues.

Power-Beaming Laser

After considerable debate, Edwards is contemplating a free-electron laser power-beaming solution. A free-electron laser can transfer large amounts of power to the climber without a weight penalty. Cost is estimated at US$400 million and would take about five years to construct. A preliminary design has already been done. The laser would be supplied by the University of California-Berkley at a price of US$120 million. The difficulty with using a free-electron laser at sea level is the atmospheric distortion. To offset that, adaptive optics (a specially designed mirror) will be needed. The mirror would need to be 12-15 meters and be based on the Hobby-Eberly telescope. This beaming system could then send 200kw of power into a seven-meter-diameter geosynchronous orbit spot and power the photovoltaic cells placed at the rear of the climber. The earlier, smaller climbers would only have a four-meter diameter and only 100kw would be needed. Hal Bennett of Bennett Optical Research Inc. in California suggested a 15-meter mirror much like the AEC Able Utraflex solar panel which was designed for use on Mars. The Q&A session focused on the mirror's surface roughness, the effect of sea level conditions, the kind of coating needed and how to maintain the coating.

The Climber

This vehicle would be much like a small one-seater airplane. As mentioned, it will be powered by the laser in photovoltaic cells. The first climbers will be small. Their purpose is to strand the ribbon and then be used as a counterweight. The latter versions will be bigger and eventually contain space for humans. The climbers will attach to the ribbon using a track-and-roller system. As the CNT development progresses, this system's design will alter to fit the ribbon. Currently, a track system which sandwiches the ribbon between it is being considered. It will need a braking system for power interruption and after it passes geosynchronous orbit. Other factors for this system include centering to prevent wandering, a control system to monitor ascent, ribbon tension and craft location, and minimal communications. Marketing Manager Chuck Rudiger of Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. has been working on hardware for a new sub-orbital launch vehicle, a consideration for the climber design. Some of the projects considered for the new launch vehicle is an earth transfer system, an apex station and a satellite transfer station. He envisions the SE as part of an entire orbiting system. Here again, the launch vehicle would look more like an airplane than a spacecraft and cost much less to construct. Studies have already commenced on its propulsion systems, orbital dynamics and docking. Preliminary work has been done on environmental concerns. The new vehicle is coded third-generation technology meaning that funding is not yet available. NASA has put it at a fourth- or fifth-generation project. Rudiger also noted the ongoing research on solar sails.

Question-and-Answer (Q&A) Session

As can be expected, a very lively Q&A session followed these remarks

-- What are the costs of experimentation? Around US$30 million.

-- Would global warming affect the cable or anchor station and would they affect global warming? A study would need to be done.

-- How will the ribbon be steered and controlled as it is deployed to the earth anchor? The speed of descent would be controlled with sensors and monitors much like the Apollo program craft returns were done.

-- Once deployed, would solar eruptions or an expansion of the earth's atmosphere negatively affect the ribbon and vice versa? The expansion would have a minor effect on the ribbon but solar eruptions could present a hazard. Studies indicate the ribbon will have a marginal-to-nil affect on the ionosphere.

-- Would funding come from NASA or private investors? Funding is tricky since different parts of the SE lends itself to different funding options. For example, the CNT research is short-term substantial payback which is attractive to venture capital modes. The feasibility studies and engineering designs would most likely need a form of governmental funding. The U.S. Air Force has also expressed an interest in the concept which then leads to military vs. private right-to-space.

-- How would the satellite right-of-way affect the climber schedule? This is being studied and discussed.

-- How would solar sails fair in a power outage situation? Currently unknown.

The SE Challenges

Edwards addressed each challenge separately and gave possible solutions. While the optimal solution is to avoid the challenges, some must be studied and contingencies planned.

Atmospheric issues: lightning, clouds and wind. There is a lot of available information on both lightning and cloud atmospheric conditions. Historic data maps indicate that most lightning occurs on land masses, with less on mountains and the least along the Pacific equator. Other historic data maps show that the planned Pacific location to be 90%. In addition, tether balloon experiments conducted in New Mexico showed that the cable did not attract lightning. Wind should not be a factor since the ribbon is designed to survive up to 71mph, and hurricanes are not a problem since they only form and travel outside the equator. Again, historic data shows no known record of a hurricane passing across the equator.

Impacts or collisions: Meteor or space debris impact, especially at low-earth orbit, is a big issue requiring more study. Space debris is monitored by radar down to one centimeter. There are currently 110,000 objects larger than one meter being tracked. Dr. Jer-Chyi (J.C.) Liou of Lockheed Martin Space Operations and Dr. Phillip Anz-Meador of Viking Science & Technology commented that the accumulated data on space debris and meteors indicate the likelihood that space debris will be a more significant problem than meteors. They detailed the debris object size with a graph, using the Orbital Debris Engineering Model (ORDEM2000). It was also noted that the number of impacts on the ribbon was not as important as the degradation the impact caused. There are two ways of protecting hardware in space. The passive system uses shielding technology while the active system utilizes a collision-avoidance system. Strategies to extend ribbon life through double stranding was touched on. It was also noted that a severed cable would be hard to track and could pose a threat to other objects. Closer to earth, airplane collision should be avoided since the planned location at 500 miles south and 750 miles north of freight shipping lanes is well outside any air lanes.

Ribbon quandaries: Haym Benaroya of Rutgers University has been conducting studies on the effect of the sun and moon gravitational pulls using nonlinear, 3D models of a single cable. The sun has 46% less pull than the moon. However, the sun's pull obviously increases as the ribbon winds its way up into geosynchronous orbit. One solution for this is to use active dampening. The ribbon will be subject to oscillations. There may even be occasions to induce oscillation. The ribbon itself will produce a small electric charge but should be marginal. In the case of atomic oxygen (ozone), tests point to coating as the best option which leads to a coating maintenance schedule. Radiation is a complex issue requiring more study. In the case of severed cables, a climber can snag the cable and bring it back down. If severed near the top, it will break up into smaller pieces and fall to earth near the anchor station location. If severed near the bottom, it will float up and out of orbit.

Health issues: CNTs are an unknown as a health concern. Fiber health focuses on three aspects: dose, dimension and durability. According to Russell Potter, a materials scientist at Owens-Corning, the bigger nanotubes cannot be ingested (dose risk) and the small ones appear to dissolve quickly (dimension). However, durability is a high-risk factor. (For example, aramid is very risky from a biological viewpoint.) Studies will need to be done on the nanotube cytotoxic behavior and its mobility in the body. Ron Morgan monitored the Q&A session on the health issue. Studies are being conducted at Harvard University by Dr. Joseph Brain on these nanotube issues, including skin exposure.

SE and Space Law

Joanne Gabrynowicz, director of the National Remote Sensing and Space Law Center, University of Mississippi Law School, sparked quite a debate among the attendees with this subject. Space law is based on the 1967 Outer Space Treaty signed by the U.S. and the then U.S.S.R. While space law would not prohibit the development of an SE, something regarded as totally new and innovative can take a long time to get through bureaucratic layers while something considered an expansion or subsequent development can be quicker. Since space law jargon already defines "launch system," it would be best to describe the SE as an innovative launch system. Although many of the attendees objected to this idea to call it something else is again breaking new ground and disrupting treaty terminology, although in truth this will probably happen anyway. Ken Schwetje of Pierson Burnett LLP, attorney for HighLift Systems, added that the SE will fall under the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Act, the Arms Export Control Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) because of the laser. He added that law follows technology.

Another legal ramification is that any object in space must be registered with the host country (in this case, the U.S.) and the United Nations. This is strictly for liability purposes. If the SE hits another country's satellite, the U.S. could be sued for damages by that country, not HighLift Systems. However, HighLift Systems can be held responsible for payload damage and will therefore need insurance. The payload supplier should have insurance as well. Schwetje noted that 75% of launch insurance is found in overseas providers. Another liability aspect is cross waivers where one subcontractor cannot sue another subcontractor over the technology.

Just some of the U.S. agencies that would need to be on board include the Department of Defense (DOD), The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and especially, the Department of State (DOS). Gabrynowicz predicts that the reaction of other countries to the SE will have them knocking at the State Department's door. Schwetje advised attendees that preliminary meetings and contacts have been made by HighLift Systems to each of these agencies.

Some other interesting legal aspects include the SE components, environmental concerns and bureaucratic risk. A quick purview of the SE components and the laws they could be subject to are: the anchor and beaming-power stations and other vessels may fall under maritime law; the climbers and cable in earth's atmosphere may fall under aviation law; and the space platform and cable would probably be under space law. How about severed ribbons falling to earth? Will that debris be classified as "extraterrestrial" which is a term used in the Outer Space Treaty but not defined? And what, if any, would be the environmental liabilities? Finally, in plowing new territory, there is always a risk that a company depletes its money and resources paving the way for a second company to come in and take over.

Other SE Considerations

Complex Projects

John J. Sun's company, T.Y. Lin International of San Francisco, is a consulting firm for civil engineering projects and is working on a San Francisco Bay area bridge. High-risk, complex, high-dollar projects need to follow specific guidelines: identify the needs; understand what the design purpose is (and where appropriate consider beauty); look for key economic, social and political factors; investor attraction; address alternatives; what are the consequences if you don't proceed with the project; have some basis in proven technology; announce and market key breakthroughs; schedule project stages, criteria and budget; and consider how long investors must wait on a return.

Is There a Market Out There?

William A. Harris, senior engineer from Lockheed Martin in Denver, played devil's advocate by discussing the current state of the space transportation market which is extremely conservative. For example, in 2002, there are an average of 35.2 commercial payloads for 26.8 launches, indicating little demand for additional launching. An Andrews Space & Technology 2001 survey that asked if the US$1,000/lb payload cost were reduced to US$600/lb with the SE, would there be a significant increase in revenue, found the answer was no. There is a philosophy in most businesses today that space experimentation is not commercially viable. The existence of an SE may not change that. The SE would need to court business and not have the build-it-they-will-come attitude. What kind of markets would be interested in payloads, biotech firms? Yes. The average small business? No. The current satellite market is not promising either. Although launch costs are high so are satellites with long-term investment return. The proven technology aspect will have a tremendous influence on the SE. Perhaps the SE could be marketed as a space airline with timely and scheduled arrivals and departures in all kinds of weather. That may help to lure businesses to experiment. Right now there are two kinds of space research: material exposure tests or engineering failure (what worked, what didn't).

A Budget Briefing

Eric A. Westling gave an extensive preview of how the budget is currently set up and how much funding is needed for each stage. He projected investor returns 20 to 30 years in the future. However, budget projections do follow the premise that the ribbon will develop stronger, the climbers will expand capacity, the number of trips will increase and the cost per kilogram will steadily reduce.

Private Investors

Barry Thompson, a private investor, suggested that the failure to attract private investment for space funding can be attributed to project scope (time), limited launch options and market limitations. What attracts the private sector in a project is a proven track record of success, component potential revenue and dual-use products (earth and space). From a private investment standpoint, HighLift is high risk. Historically, only two companies invested private funds for space use, GlobalStar and Iridium. Early stage investors are usually dreamers with a personal interest. Large corporations will not invest early on unless they see a long-term strategic purpose or are driven by fear (you may put them out of business). The secret lies in dual-use applications and commercially marketable component end products.

A Pitch from Nevada

Chris Petrella was (at conference time) a gubernatorial candidate in Nevada. What a state looks for is an investment benefit for its community. Nevada wants to diversify its state industries. Currently, entertainment is its biggest industry but is limited to a small part of the state. Petrella listed some of the attractions about incorporating in Nevada such as no income tax, no estate tax, 45% of the workforce has college degrees and it has a high level of transportation avenues. Nevada gets most of its income from a corporate tax per employee. For HighLift Systems specifically, Nevada has its own special state investment discretionary fund, and 64% of its airspace is a no-fly zone. Not to mention that Nevada is a great spot for secret projects

A Change in Philosophy

According to Bryan E. Laubscher, from the Los Alamos National Laboratory, a philosophy developed in the rocket industry that there can be no failure because failure means no more launches. That consequence has slowed advances and experimentation. With the SE, experimentation costs go down from US$2 million to around US$200,000. There can be 100 times more missions than now; more cutting-edge, high-risk missions; more commercial missions; more educational missions. For a long time there has been a public myth about space -- that it is far away, too expensive, for high-tech only, for experts only, for government and big business only, no room for the individual entrepreneur. The SE can debunk that myth by making space available for anyone. The technical and economic spin-off growth could happen in months instead of decades.

The Laine and Edwards Roundtable Discussion

The conference ended with a roundtable discussion conducted by Edwards and Laine. The biggest concern is the necessary breakthrough in the CNT development, with HighLift putting about US$12 million into the effort. According to Edwards, HighLift would buy the technology if the breakthrough occurs through an independent company or group. Of course that would affect the profit margin. Bought technology can still be used for product development. Edwards' emphasis is on the SE not necessarily developing the CNT but in getting the SE up and running. He gave a quick rundown on which U.S. governmental agencies have been talked to and contacted. Meetings have been conducted and are scheduled with members of Congress, NASA headquarters, the FAA, FCC, DoD, private investors and insurance and legal council. Media attention through CNN International has peaked interest in European investors who feel the U.S. has monopolized space exploration. Funding is a concern and there is the possibility of a military hijacking. On the plus side for military funding is that all the layers of bureaucracy would be swept away and the success/failure factor eliminated.

Laine took this opportunity to advise attendees of some of the administrative details on the project. While it is a work in progress, three companies have been established to deal with all the different parts of the SE project. HLS Carbon is the CNT research company with funding anticipated through private investors since the CNT technology has wide-ranging applications in many cross industries such as vertical transportation, automotive and biotech fields and should provide short-term, high-yield investment return. HLS Development is essentially an engineering firm that will do component designs and feasibility studies probably through governmental funding. HLS Operations is the company that will build the SE once all the component parts and pieces are in place with a combination of private and public funding. As well as being co-founders and majority stock owners, Laine is the president with Edwards as chief technology officer in all three companies.

The overall feeling among attendees is that the SE is a project whose time has come. Edwards and Laine will be taking the SE to the next steps in monitoring the CNT development, in contacting the appropriate agencies, in assembling the SE team, in locating funding sources and in capturing public interest. This conference, organized by Eureka Scientific of Berkeley, California and Edwards, went a long way in showing just how feasible the SE is. For more information about the SE, visit HighLift Systems' website at www.highliftsystems.com. EW will be keeping a close eye on its development and thanks Brad Edwards and Michael Laine for letting us in on the ground floor, so to speak.