1 / 22

A Space Elevator for the Moon

A Space Elevator for the Moon. Bradley C. Edwards, Ph.D. Black Line Ascension. Collaborators. This work is based on a NASA proposal developed in collaboration with: Dr. Hyam Benaroya, Rutgers University Dr. Michael Duke, Colorado School of Mines

ula
Download Presentation

A Space Elevator for the Moon

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. A Space Elevator for the Moon Bradley C. Edwards, Ph.D. Black Line Ascension

  2. Collaborators • This work is based on a NASA proposal developed in collaboration with: • Dr. Hyam Benaroya, Rutgers University • Dr. Michael Duke, Colorado School of Mines • Dr. Hermann Koelle, Berlin Technical University • Ms. Patricia Russell, NIAC • Dr. Bryan Laubscher, LANL • Ms. Pamela Luskin, Futron Corporation • Dr. David Raitt, ESA - ESTEC • Mr. Ben Shelef, Spaceward Foundation • Dr. Paul Spudis, JHU - APL

  3. Basic Premise of Work (1) • We want to go to the moon in a real way

  4. Basic Premise of Work (1) • We want to go to the moon in a real way …but does the public support lunar exploration (Wired)

  5. Basic Premise of Work (2) • Launch is the single largest cost and complexity driver • $540M to $1B per launch • Congressional estimate of NASA program: $125B over 15 years • ~2000 tons to moon at $12k/lb

  6. Rocket Transportation • Launch costs are expected to decrease <15% • Will improved operations and technology reduce costs further?

  7. Current Moon Initiative (1) • Limited lunar presence • Not self-sustaining • Public, private, political support?

  8. Current Moon Initiative (2) • Federally funded program • Relevant timelines: 4 pres. admins., 16 fed. budgets • No “business plan” with interesting ROI

  9. A New Approach

  10. The Major Difference • Utilize space elevator transport • Dramatic reduction in launch costs, complexity and risk • Immature but quickly developing technology • Enables large-scale self-sustained effort

  11. The Space Elevator

  12. 2006 SE Games

  13. Rocket / SE Comparison

  14. Direct Impact • Reduce program launch cost by ~$60B • Increase tons on moon from ~2000 to 18,000 • Reduces complexity • Reduces overall program risk

  15. Rest of Program: Baseline • Mature landers based on Apollo • Overbuilt components • Redundant fuel depots in each orbit • Redundant modules in each orbit • Redundant resources

  16. Rest of Program: Options • Large volume units • Excess capabilities enables use of new technology • Resale of excess launch capacity or lunar facilities • Same system for Mars

  17. Complete System (1)

  18. Complete System (2) • Flexible system • Resources everywhere

  19. Summary of Concept • Mature systems / space elevator base lunar program. • • Lunar Base: Mature technology, extensive, redundant • • Space Elevators (2) • 3000 tons/yr @ $1B/yr operating cost • High reliability, safe, large envelop • Definable, up-front development risk • • Overall Program • Extensive lunar program: 69 ave. occupants • $68B (2005 - 2023) total • Safety : SE is safe and inexpensive allowing for redundant and overbuilt systems • - Sustainability:Good business case • - Expandable • - Limited development risk / low overall risk

  20. Future Directions • SE-based lunar concept proposed to NASA • NASA not interested • Alternative options • Private • Establishing the components, finance and structure • Non-U.S. • Japan: presentation to the PM staff, general • Australia: multiple activities • Europe: EuroSpaceward, German SE games

  21. Conclusion • A high return approach for a lunar base has been proposed. • The concept is not of interest to NASA • Alternative options for development exist

More Related