International Space Elevator Consortium
June 2017 Newsletter
In this Issue:
Editor’s Note
President’s Corner
ISEC at ISDC
Earth Port Update #7
Architecture Note #9
Why?
Editor’s Note
Dear Friend,
Welcome to the June 2017 Newsletter. Here you will find current technical content from our engineers and new opportunities to get involved. In this edition we share updates from both Micheal Fitzgerald our Space Elevator Architect and Vern Hall our Earthport Harbor Master. This month, Fitzer discussed strategic approaches to SE architecture and Vern addresses the potential of floating platform technology for offshore SE anchoring. We are also putting out a reminder announcing a call for presentations/papers the Space Elevator Symposium at the British Interplanetary Society in November. President Pete Swan continues to offer up inspiration for progress in the SE world. As always, thank you for reading and lending your support in the development of Space Elevators.
As always, you will find notices of several open volunteer positions (a great way to help this project, even if you’re not a scientist or engineer) and a reminder that all ISEC reports are available FOR FREE in electronic (pdf) format at ISEC.org. There is plenty of work to be done!
If you want to help us make a space elevator happen, JOIN ISEC and get involved! A space elevator would truly revolutionize life on earth and open up the solar system and beyond to all of us.
Please don’t forget to LIKE US on Facebook, FOLLOW US on Twitter, and enjoy the photos and videos that we’ve posted on Flickr and YouTube, all under our Social Identity of ISECdotORG.
Thank you,
Sandy Curth
ISEC Publicity Director
President's Corner
Fire the Experts
Once again, I go to Peter Diamandis for an insight into our unique situation of trying to push for space elevator development inside a world of rocket scientists. His recent email "Fire your experts!" laid out a very good discussion about how, if you are in breakout or non-traditional situation, the experts can hurt you more often than help. The bottom line is that he recommends we "Keep Innovating." He quoted Henry Ford, who was talking about his workers:
"None of our men are 'experts.' We have most unfortunately found it necessary to get rid of a man as soon as he thinks himself an expert because no one ever considers himself expert if he really knows his job. A man who knows a job sees so much more to be done than he has done, that he is always pressing forward and never gives up an instant of thought to how good and how efficient he is. Thinking always ahead, thinking always of trying to do more, brings a state of mind in which nothing is impossible. The moment one gets into the 'expert' state of mind a great number of things become impossible."
The bottom line is I am glad we have a bunch of "experts" - they are experts in their areas of expertise, not space elevator development. They have been there, done that, in their areas; so, they have experience taking on large challenges. The beauty is no one can be an expert on how to build a space elevator, as we haven't yet built one. ISEC needs those who are "thinking always ahead, ... of doing more... a state of mind in which nothing is impossible." Yes, we have experts; but mostly, we have individuals who are inspired by the challenge and encouraged to charge ahead, or as I say:
"Keep Climbing my Friends."
Pete Swan
ISEC at ISDC
The Space Elevator Track at the NSS
International Space Development Conference
Pete, Fitzer and Dennis representing ISEC at the recent NSS Conference.
Last week representatives from ISEC shared current Space Elevator research with a wide range of students and space professionals at the International Space Development Conference in St. Louis. Thank you to everyone who attended their presentations and came out to learn about the Space Elevator! We will be sharing a more comprehensive report from the conference in the next newsletter.
EARTH PORT Update #7
This month's update will further discuss the rationale for the Floating Operations Platform and Tether Terminus Platform(s) presented in ISEC Position Paper #2015-5: "Design Characteristics of a Space Elevator Earth Port."
The facilities that will comprise the Earth Port's Operations Platform (or Base) could be developed on a near-equatorial land mass such as Kiribati (Christmas) Island or Howland Island. The latter possibility was discussed in Appendix F of the above referenced Paper. The island based facilities envisioned included: a protected marina for the Earth Port's fleet of watercraft and seaplanes, a general aviation runway for long distance cargo and passenger aircraft, an integrated container handling wharf and "backland", long-term and in transit storage buildings, maintenance and repair shops, a permanent meteorological and oceanographic station, a power plant, refrigeration equipment, desalinization plant , solid waste processing and disposal systems and a "village" which would provide hoteling, dining and recreational facilities for Earth Port staff and visitors and which would be the site of the Earth Port's Operations and Control Center. This on-land, fixed, Operations Base would be similar to that proposed by the Obayashi Corporation in its various studies.
There are some serious drawbacks to the land based concept if it is to be located on an island or coral reef in the Pacific Ocean on or near the Equator. Political jurisdictional issues and significant environmental impacts on a pristine area may make this concept untenable.
As such, the body of the Earth Port Paper focused on developing a Floating Operations Platform (FOP) concept that could meet all of the functional requirements described above and further delineated in its Section 3. Most importantly, due to the operational mobility requirements of managing the Space Elevator's tethers, our working hypothesis is that the Tether Terminus facilities must be on floating platform(s.) As stated in the 2015 ISEC Paper: "The tether is not rigidly fixed to the Earth Port; instead, it terminates in a reel that holds extra tether material. The reel allows the tension on the tether to be adjusted. It will also assist in tether positioning and dynamic stabilization. Lateral tether positioning at the Earth Port.....will likely be required to help mitigate threats of damage from orbiting debris."
It is safe to say that the building and operating of offshore platforms is a world-wide and very mature industry. I can recall attending one of the early Offshore Technology Conferences (OTC) held at the Houston Astrodome in 1972. The primary focus of this industry is, of course, on the recovery and subsequent processing of offshore oil in designated "fields" around the earth. There a large number of fixed and mobile platform types in use today with the primary design criteria being water depth and atmospheric conditions.
Along the Pacific equator, weather conditions are not nearly as severe as, say, the North Sea. As such, the massive and stable offshore structures in place there would not be necessary for the Earth Port. The water depths in the Pacific, even near the aforementioned islands, exceed the 1,700 foot (520 meter) practical depth limit for fixed (resting on the bottom) or anchored (by cables to the bottom) platforms. These factors, coupled with the mobility requirement, have led us to consider the semi-submersible design as ideal for the Earth Port's floating platforms. Here is a sample of a recent multi-functional semi-submersible platform.
I'm presenting this image as part of our ISEC "body of knowledge" to show what is typically below the water line in such a structure. A semi-submersible obtains most of its buoyancy from ballasted, watertight pontoons located below the ocean surface and, importantly, wave action. In the above image, these pontoons are represented by the dark shaded portions. Structural columns connect the pontoons and the above operating decks (shown in lighter gray and white). The operating decks can be located high above sea level owing to the inherent good stability of the design and, therefore, kept away from the effects of the local ocean waves. In the Earth Port study, I assumed that the main cargo handling deck of the FOP would be at approximately 15 to 17 feet (4.6 to 5.2 meters) above mean sea level which is typical for port and harbor wharf structures. All of the other functional decks would be significantly higher above the waves, including the Operations Center, hoteling facilities, weather station and helipads.
The submerged spaces on the FOP (and TTPs) would also serve to house the typical ship-board engineering "plant" including: fuel storage tanks, ballast water tanks, seawater desalinization system, solid and liquid waste collection, treatment and disposal systems, etc. Most importantly, the FOP's and TTP's pontoons will accommodate their respective propulsion engines and horizontal thrusters as appropriate. To enhance the mobility of these floating platforms, harbor tugs may be attached (See Figure C-5 of the 2015 ISEC Paper). Picture the arrival of a regularly scheduled barge/ocean-going tug to the FOP at a time when the current wave height and direction make it difficult to off-load the stores and payloads that may be on-board. The tug(s) attached to the FOP can be directed in advance to reorient the floating structure to serve as its own breakwater thereby enabling routine operations at the cargo-handling deck.
As previously stated, the offshore platform industry is very mature and continues to employ today's technologies to achieve improved facilities. As an informal assessment of the readiness to design, build and operate the Earth Port floating facilities, I believe that the marine construction industry is more than capable today of either converting existing platforms or building "from scratch" the required Earth Port facilities. A near term goal is to improve the Earth Port's image by "employing" a graphic artist with marine architecture experience to produce a drawing similar in detail to the above but which specifically shows the design features of the FOP as we currently understand them. Such an image will help us advance the ISEC "story" and complement the space imagery associated with the GEO Region and Apex Anchor presently being developed
Vern Hall,
Earth Port Harbor Master
Architecture Note #9
The Strategic Approach to the Architectural Development of the Space Elevator
Personal Prologue
This is an Architecture Note. It is the opinion of ISEC's Chief Architect. It represents an effort to document ISEC's ongoing science and engineering discussions, and is one of many to be published over time. Most importantly, it is a sincere effort to be the diary, or the chronicle, of the multitude of our technical considerations as we progress; along the pathway developing the Space Elevator.
Michael A. Fitzgerald
Our Strategic Approach
This is the approach ISEC will use to lead the development of the Space Elevator
Introduction
This Note will introduce idea that ISEC should have a "Strategic Approach" for the development of the Space Elevator. I have spent some time discussing - with several people - how to turn a long-term vision into a long-term "plan". The problem is that a plan usually implies either a specific schedule or a specific budget; usually both. I have settled on the notion of "an approach"; disdaining budget and schedule specifics for now. How much and when are exigencies; the approach is immutable. At this point, many will reach for a dictionary to get a definition of "immutable". Go ahead, I'll wait.
The Strategy
Our "strategy" is to link the Space Elevator Transportation System to the Space Elevator Enterprise System; within a Unifying Vision: ... the Galactic Harbour.
Why we need an approach
For the most part, all of us agree that a Space Elevator will be the transforming transportation project of this century. With it, we can become a space faring people, and support the planet with resources, energy, and so much more. In the International Academy of Astronautics Study #3.24 (jointly being authored by ISEC and Japanese Space Elevator team), ten major categories of space endeavor are enumerated; all enabled after the Space Elevator starts working. The beauty and the importance of the enabled vision is distracting. We have returned to first principles ... first things first!!! Let's start off to get the Space Elevator working as a transportation system and, hence, we need an approach.
How do you form an approach; especially a strategic approach?
Forming an approach is not easy. The notion of "herding cats" immediately comes to mind. Herding scientists and professors is worse, but many - during 2016's brainstorming session at our Seattle ISEC Conference - were convinced that we needed some order in the chaos. So, at least the "cats" were looking to form a herd!
With some prodding, we realized that the brainstorming participants saw the difference between the elevator and the business done near it and because of it. We had a first level of agreement. We foresaw a "Space Elevator Transportation System".
After that, business and service functions would become part of a larger whole. The barnstormers were , in effect, cautioning that we needed to be careful that the Space Elevator Transportation System was not a "bridge to nowhere" There are two modern examples of such bridges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravina_Island_Bridge and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_to_Nowhere_(San_Gabriel_Mountains)
The lesson of 'bridge to nowhere' is that, though the bridge is a separate engineered entity; it must be built to service the locale in which it is located. It must also help or enable improvement to that locale. In our minds, that means portraying our future transportation system and the enabled businesses within a "Unifying Vision". The vision is unifying because, though our first chore is to build the transportation system, it must be built to service the coming industries. Further, the transportation system must be built in a way so that it merges with the entrepreneurial activity; the Space Elevator Transportation System merging with the Space Elevator Enterprise. This latter point is critical. The manifestation of the enterprise is that it is an outgrowth of the transportation system. The transportation system must be able to grow; become part of a thriving enterprise. They are separate but they cannot be segregated from each other.
Small steps first - some technical delineation.
For the most part, all of us agree that a Space Elevator will be an enabling force in this century. The ISEC team will begin a technical baselining activity re how to get to IOC for the Space Elevator systems; both baselines. This activity must have had a good start by the time we gather in Seattle in August 2017. By then we should be able to:
Cite the assignment of building two technical baselines to a small technical, system engineering working group.
Delineate the two baselines:
Space Elevator Transportation System and
Space Elevator Enterprise
Outline the Space Elevator Transportation System baseline and cite IOC as the first destination of that baseline. This activity has the highest ISEC system engineering priority.
Outline Space Elevator Enterprise baseline and explain its IOC relative to the Space Elevator Transportation system. This activity must have some system engineering priority.
Explain the connection between the two baselines è "Separate but not segregated" will be the operating principle.
Spread the word -
The leadership team introduced the concept of the Space Elevator in the context of a Galactic Harbour at the International Space Development Conference in Saint Louis. At that conference, we:
Broadly cited the obvious è that a Galactic Harbour is like most any other harbor; a place of interacting transportation, major commerce and business activity.
Noted the parallel with classic harbors ... Los Angeles / New York / Hong Kong / Singapore. The Port of Los Angeles was cited specifically.
Identified that a classic harbor is a meeting place of two forms of transportation; sea transportation and land transportation.
Our presented example was a quick overview of The Port of Los Angeles vis the Space Elevator; sea faring meets space faring.
Announced the assignment to identify growth approaches of the Enterprise baseline. In August, ISEC will assign this activity to a small group; a small business capture working group.
Ongoing responsibilities -
In August, the business capture working group and the system engineering working group should be formed. The groups should gather periodically to:
Show how we have a technical thrust and a business thrust
Clarify the relationship of the two baselines. e. g. One Master baseline & one slaved to the Master & how they cannot go astray.
Delineate how we will continually integrate the two thrusts.
Working groups meet in Seattle in August and again in November, March and June.
In closing
ISEC sees building a Space Elevator Transportation System as its first responsibility. The Strategic Approach offered keeps that so and avoids a galactic bridge to nowhere. See you next month.
Michael A. Fitzgerald
Why?
Free flights to EM L-1
Recently, there has been a flurry of articles emphasizing the importance of the Earth Moon Lagrangian location #1 (EML-1). They go into multiple calculations to show that the location of EML-1 is optimal for transportation infrastructures going to or coming from the Earth [surface, LEO, GEO], lunar surface, or low lunar orbit. The energy needed from any low orbit around the Earth is essentially the same when the destination is the EML-1. In addition, from there the path to any location on the Moon is easy and low in energy cost. The conclusions that are coming about with so many studies is that the EML-1 location should be used as a "refueling" location ensuring easy access to fuels on the surface of the Moon or asteroids. Instead of the Apollo approach (rendezvous in Low Lunar Orbit), the access to any location on the Moon is direct from EML-1. This simplifies the planning and enables the construction of a space habitat and a 7-11 like commercial operations center selling fuel to space travelers.
Now the question becomes one of "WHY" space elevators. The answer is simple. The ride up to the EML-1 is all-electric with no significant fuel required [of course small corrections and rendezvous needs are there]. Payloads would leave the surface of the Earth, travel to the Apex Anchor, be released once a day with the proper velocity to end up at the EML-1 location with no need for extra fuel. This would then enable three aspects not being discussed by the current Ecosphere proponents.
Inexpensive access to EML-1 [cost of space elevator travel + free toss]
Refuel at EML-1, enabling more payloads to be launched from the huge gravity well of the Earth as the full capability of the space elevator climber could be used for mission equipment, not fuel.
Very little fuel would be required to reverse the trip - use Lunar fuel to start towards the Earth, rendezvous with Apex Anchor [probably some fuel required], then ride for free [with respect to fuel] back to the surface of the Earth.
The bottom line is the execution of a space elevator development program will open up so many businesses and flight profiles not even conceived of at this time.
Pete Swan
We invite anyone to contribute to the newsletter by answering this question.
Please send your inputs to: pete.swan@isec.org.
[note: your submission is permission to print.]