Alternative SE models - 2012/04/16 17:31I am writing a presentation which touches these aspects of the Space Elevator (SE), specifically in relation to its technological mutation overtime. Comments are welcomed.
In the paper I separate two historical streams. These are:
The Tsiolkovsky-Artsutanov model and
The Tsiolkovsky-Eiffel-Otis model.
Of course we are all most familiar with the Tsiolkovsky-Artsutanov model. But by no means is the Tsiolkovsky-Eiffel-Otis model a dead model.
As the name suggest, the Tsiolkovsky-Eiffel-Otis model refers to getting up something to GEO, (Tsiolkovsky,) by means of a vehicle, (the Otis and the Roux Combaluzier Lepape elevators,) using the only available technology of the time (Eifelís engineering knowledge about steel constructions).
My idea, (for the presentation,) is to show how little industrial-military interest truly exist for developing, in a reasonably short period of time, the technologies for the construction of a Space Elevator that would be available for the populous while being safe and economical.
These are a list of references I am to include in the study, especially looking into the original idea or better named the Tsiolkovsky-Eiffel-Otis model instead of the misleading Space Elevator name insinuating that the name is proprietary to the just one school of thought.
1895: Konstantin Tsiolkovsky 1998: Geoffrey. A. Landis 2003: Alexander Bolonkin 2007: The SpaceShaft Endeavor 2009: Brendan Quine
The list above is a short one that can easily be cross referenced using the internet but it is by no means the full list of researchers. Also I want to point out that the researchers are by no means without a reputation in the aerospace industry.
Then it the very popular, highly advertised ISEC promoted model, Iíve chosen to rename the Centrifugally Extended (CNT) Tether Space Elevator or the Tsiolkovsky-Artsutanov model. (CNT = Carbon Nano Tube)
1895: Konstantin Tsiolkovsky 1960: Yuri Artsutanov 1975: Jerome Pearson 1966: Isaacs, Vine, Bradner and Bachus 1975: Jerome Pearson 1979: Sir Arthur C. Clark 2003: Bradley C. Edwards
(Again the short list reflects the reasons explained for the first list).
What I find interesting is that to Tsiolkovsky what was important was not to imperatively be at GEO for any particular reason, as it was for Clark who discovered an immediate usefulness of such an orbit, namely to keep heís proposed telecom satellites geostationary, but it was to get into space by any means the goal but a possible solution to some of the hurdles.
With the passing of time it became possible, the development of rockets and to which he (Tsiolkovsky) fully embraced as the technology of choice to reach space but allowing his original vision of a SE to become purely academic.
Notice one set of dates in the lists above; the year 2003. What is interesting about that year is that NASA had concurrently running prize purses for the two technologies something not too many people know about. But imagine how much time and other recourses could be saved if we were not so dependent on the CNT technology.Nelson Semino at The SpaceShaft Endeavor
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.