View
221
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A Space Elevator for the Moon
Bradley C. Edwards, Ph.D.
Black Line Ascension
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
Collaborators
Basic Premise of Work (1)
• We want to go to the moon in a real way
Basic Premise of Work (1)
• We want to go to the moon in a real way
…but does the public support lunar exploration (Wired)
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
• Launch costs are expected to decrease <15%
• Will improved operations and technology reduce costs further?
Rocket Transportation
Current Moon Initiative (1)
• Limited lunar presence
• Not self-sustaining
• Public, private, political support?
Current Moon Initiative (2)
• Federally funded program
• Relevant timelines: 4 pres. admins., 16 fed. budgets
• No “business plan” with interesting ROI
A New Approach
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
The Space Elevator
2006 SE Games
Rocket / SE Comparison Ares V Baseline SE Future Space Elevator
Vibrations Multiple "G's" Negligible Negligible
Launch Capacity
Moon: 20 tons 13 tons Hundreds of tons
Annual Capacity ~150 1500 tons >30,000 tons / elevator
Envelop Restrictions Meters on a side None None
Cost
>$12,000/lb $1000/lb $50/lb
Safety Issues Propellants, re-entry, launch environment
Ribbon breakage, climber malfunction
---
Development Mature Engineering ---
Direct Impact
• Reduce program launch cost by ~$60B
• Increase tons on moon from ~2000 to 18,000
• Reduces complexity • Reduces overall
program risk
Rest of Program: Baseline
• Mature landers based on Apollo
• Overbuilt components• Redundant fuel depots
in each orbit• Redundant modules in
each orbit• Redundant resources
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
Complete System (1)
Complete System (2)
• Flexible system• Resources everywhere
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
Summary of Concept
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
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