Stirmers 1

Niklas Stirmers
ENG 1201
William Skelly
17 March 2021
How difficult would it be to build and maintain a space elevator?

The Tower of Babel, a structure that, if it were completed, would reach high enough to

pierce the heavens. In the Bible, the Tower of Babel was meant as humanity’s ultimate fortress,

one that could be used to defend against the wrath of God. God commanded humanity to

spread throughout the whole Earth, but the people of Babel, under a unified language, settled

in one place instead. They worked together to build this tower so that they could “shake a fist

at the sky”. God worried that the construction of this tower would render humanity as gods

themselves, so he created several different languages to prevent the Babel workers from

communicating with each other. The construction of the tower was stopped, and humanity was

forced to spread across the world as God commanded. Of course, it is known today that heaven

is not what would be at the top of this mythical tower. Instead, it would pierce the clouds, and

if it continued to be built higher and higher, would eventually break through the atmosphere

and reach into space. Unfortunately, such a tower would be outright impossible to build for the

people who lived thousands of years ago.

As it turns out, The Tower of Babel is not needed to reach space. Today’s technology

allows for blasting rockets that can contain human and inhuman cargo up from the surface and

into orbit around the Earth in just a few minutes. However, the journey from the surface of

Earth to space is a difficult and very expensive venture. In general, sending material into orbit
 Stirmers 2

via a rocket costs around $10,000/kilogram (Gerein). Fortunately, the idea of a literal space

elevator carrying material up to an orbital station has been theorized to cut these costs by

magnitudes. Astrophysicists and engineers have been sketching possible designs and debating

the physical possibility of a space elevator working out for decades, but a fully functioning

space elevator has yet to be built. If building a space elevator is indeed possible, there are

several different factors to consider in order to ensure complete functionality. Therefore,

building and maintaing a space elevator would still be incredibly difficult, as it requires getting

the calculations, materials, and environment just right so that the elevator functions correctly

without catastrophic consequences.

The concept of a space elevator was first theorized in 1960 by Yuri Artsutanov, a Russian

engineer (Lorenzini). Artsutanov proposed the basic structure of the elevator, involving a

satellite station in geostationary orbit (roughly 35,000 km or 22,000 mi above the surface). The

station is linked to Earth’s surface by a tether, a strong but lightweight cable that vehicles,

called “crawlers”, can climb up and down ("Space Elevator Development Faces Serious

Challenges"). The stability of the elevator is then kept via a counterweight satellite that hangs

far above the station and keeps the center of mass above the elevator structure. Therefore, the

elevator should be able to carry materials and even people from the surface to orbit in about a

day, bringing the costs down as low as $100/kilogram and making space travel and missions

much easier and cheaper to execute (Gerein).

Fig 1: General structure of the space elevator and climbers (Castillo)

To grasp the construction of a space elevator, it is a good idea to begin from a

mathematical standpoint. E.C. Lorenzini’s article “Energy and Orbital Stability in a Partially-

Deployed Earth Space Elevator” seeks to calculate the orbital stability of a space elevator at

multiple different tether lengths. Assuming we have found all materials necessary to construct

the elevator and that no outside forces or dangers are involved, Lorenzini calculates that a

massless tether would suffer from orbital instability if it were any longer than about 47,000 km

in length. The final length of the tether should come out to be 143,780 km in length, and so

solutions to this problem must be examined (Lorenzini). Many possible solutions have indeed

been explored, such as a three-tether system as opposed to single-tether, where the middle

tether functions to stabilize the movement of the other tethers (Shi). Other ideas include

adding a massive platform at geostationary orbit or balancing the elevator with Earth’s orbit

using thrusters (Lorenzini). While presenting possible solutions to the problems discussed,
 Stirmers 4

Lorenzini’s article offers a more realistic approach to space elevator construction, though it

presents itself towards a more sophisticated people with much greater understanding of math

and science.

The next factor to consider is what materials will be used to build the elevator,

especially the tether, in order to satisfy the calculations. The tether must be strong enough to

hold for thousands of kilometers and to stand tough against atmospheric turbulence as well as

space debris, while also incredibly lightweight to prevent the entire structure from tumbling

down. At present, scientists have nailed down a material for the tether that fits the criteria

mentioned above. Carbon nanotubes, a crystalline, hexagonal arrangement of carbon atoms,

can be up to 100 times stronger than steel at only a fifth of the weight (Gerein). This is all well

and good, except forming the required amount of nanotube and then molding it into a rope

while maintaining the strength of the tiny, individual tubes that have been tested is not yet

possible. The strongest available nanotube fiber is only about 4% as strong as would be

required for the space elevator (“Space Elevator Development Faces Serious Challenges").

Therefore, the question of whether this material could be used is still up in the air.

Gerein’s article "Space Elevators Will Transport People and Payloads into Space” tries to

sound very optimistic about the concept of space elevators, suggesting that its construction is

not only possible, but could be done relatively soon. However, the article centers itself around a

NASA-sponsored competition where teams of university engineering students submitted their

designs of small, prototype space elevators. Therefore, even if the article cites several books

and periodicals, making itself credible, it may not be as relevant to the question of difficulty as

hoped. The article “Space Elevator Development Faces Serious Challenges", on the other hand,
 Stirmers 5

presents a more realistic approach to the space elevator as well as outlines the real challenges

its construction will face. Gerein’s article is still useful in discussing technological advancements

made in the way of the space elevator, but the other article coming from the same journal is

ultimately better used in discussing the difficulty of building and maintaining it. However, both

articles are relatively short and geared towards the average person and their understanding of

science.

Returning to the main topic, assuming we can solve the problems arising in the

calculations and prepare strong enough material, where should construction start? Michel Van

Pelt’s book Space Tethers and Space Elevators is a wonderful read that touches upon every

single difficulty or issue involved with a space elevator’s construction in a way that can be

understood by the average person, and so it is by far the most useful for research. Van Pelt

affirms that the space elevator must be anchored to a location somewhere on the equator. This

will avoid any unnecessary problems with orbital stability and magnetic interference. Van Pelt

suggests that an elevator could be anchored on land somewhere in South America or Africa, but

an even smarter approach would be to anchor the elevator to an overseas station somewhere

in the Pacific or Atlantic. He also believes the station could be mobile, able to adjust the

elevator’s location slightly when needed.

Now that a good location has been confirmed, it’s time to build the space elevator.

According to Van Pelt’s book, Yuri Artsutanov himself has devised a plan to begin construction

not from Earth’s surface, but from geostationary orbit. To begin, a satellite containing the

tether packed up inside it is launched into geostationary orbit. This satellite would be large and

heavy, and so multiple rocket launches as well as some assembly in space will be needed. Once
 Stirmers 6

the satellite is in position, it begins to unwind the tether, reliant upon Earth’s gravity to

straighten out and fall downwards while the satellite itself floats upwards and becomes the

counterweight. When the tether reaches Earth’s surface, it will be tied to a ground station, but

the tether will continue to be unwinded until the satellite reaches the calculated altitude

(143,780 km) mentioned earlier. This first tether would theoretically be strong enough to allow

very light climbers to use the elevator, and these climbers could therefore carry up new tethers,

allowing for better stability.

Now that the space elevator is deployed, how does such a structure receive power? The

climbers will require a massive amount of power to facilitate their climb from the surface up to

the geostationary station. To be exact, around 2.4 megawatts of power, which could instead be

used to run 800 busy family homes (Van Pelt), would be required. Running some sort of electric

wire is nonsensical, as the electricity would not be carried across such great distances. A

solution, thankfully, has been theorized. The documentary Sky Line, directed by Robert Wood,

summarizes the topic of a space elevator mainly from the point of view of Michael Laine, the

CEO of LiftPort. The LiftPort Group is a company whose goal is to build a space elevator within

the new few decades. LiftPort proposes a powerful laser system involving hyper-focused beams

of light that would be fired from the surface and be received by climbers as they ascend the

elevator. Powerful enough laser generators have already been developed by the U.S. military to

shoot down ballistic missles, and so this technology could be borrowed (Van Pelt).

Once how to build the space elevator is known, the question of how it will stand up

against the surrounding environment must be answered. Starting from the portion of the

atmosphere closest to Earth’s surface, the tether could possibly be damaged by poor weather
 Stirmers 7

conditions. The lower portion of the tether should be covered in a non-conductive material to

avoid damage by lightning strikes and the like. In the upper portions of the atmosphere, as the

climber and tether reach above the ozone layer, there is no longer any protection from the

Sun’s radiation, which is already dangerous when humans are exposed. The ultraviolet radiation

from the Sun is corrosive enough to break the normal, stable structure of oxygen molecules in

the upper atmosphere (Van Pelt). Oxygen molecules, which are composed of two oxygen atoms

bonded together, are what we normally breathe down on the surface. Oxygen atoms by

themselves are corrosive, and so they would work to wear down the tether as well as harm

humans situated inside passenger climbers. Luckily, an individual solution has been found for

both the climber and tether. Van Pelt suggests that the climber can be shielded from radiation

with heavy material such as lead, or even water, which is surprisingly not contaminated from

acting as a shield. For the tether, Van Pelt imagines a very thin covering of gold or platinum,

which would prevent oxygen corrosion.

That about covers the main problems in Earth’s atmosphere, but what about the portion

of the tether that’s out in space? Hundreds of thousands of satellites and tiny pieces of debris

are in Earth’s orbit. At any moment, one of these objects could collide with the elevator and

damage the tether. Luckily, all objects larger than 10 cm in diameter can be tracked from the

ground (Van Pelt), but that still does not account for anything smaller. To solve this problem, a

simpler solution is to make the tether ribbons wide and thin, allowing for general integrity even

if small holes are created from damage (Van Pelt). If a tether suffers enough damage to become

defunct, a new tether must be readily available to replace the damaged one. If the space

elevator is anchored to an overseas station, as discussed previously, this would allow for slight
 Stirmers 8

adjustments to the elevator’s position every so often. This would allow the elevator to

effectively dodge space debris.

The last thing to consider when maintaining the elevator’s integrity is what to do when

crisis strikes. How will the elevator be repaired if the tether breaks and is not fixed fast enough,

or no new tether is installed? If the tether is cut below geostationary orbit, then the portion

that is detached from the overall structure will come crashing down on top of the Earth.

However, assuming the tether is constructed from an extremely lightweight material as

intended, Van Pelt suggests that most of said material will likely burn up in the atmosphere,

while the rest will gently flutter down to the ground. However, since this material is also

assumed to be incredibly strong, it will be difficult to dispose of (Van Pelt). In contrast, if the

tether is cut above geostationary orbit, the portion severed from the geostationary station will

begin to float upwards and escape into space. It will be possible to catch this upper portion and

reconnect it back to the station. One other option would be to immediately cut both ends of

the tether from the station at geostationary orbit (Van Pelt). The station would stay in orbit,

and could be reattached to a new tether later on.

One interesting solution to avoid having to start all over again after a space elevator

crisis would be to build more space elevators. If construction of the first space elevator is

successful, then constructing a second elevator will be much easier. A second tether

deployment satellite can be built, transported up the first elevator, and then sent out a good

enough distance from the first elevator in geostationary orbit. This new satellite could then

deploy the tether in the exact same way as originally in order to set up the second elevator
 Stirmers 9

(Van Pelt). If multiple space elevators are constructed, one of them breaking will not be as huge

of a problem at all. Another space elevator could simply move in to take its place.

With all these factors to keep in mind, one can see why a fully functioning, complete

space elevator has not yet been built. However, engineers have been constructing and testing

partial space elevators (PSEs) with much shorter tethers and at a smaller scale to simulate the

real thing. Gefei Shi’s article “Dynamics and Operation Optimization of Partial Space Elevator

with Multiple Climbers” generally explores the idea of a PSE with tether lengths ranging from

100m to thousands of kilometers. In contrast, Yoshiki Yamagiwa’s article “Space Experiments on

Basic Technologies for a Space Elevator Using Microsatellites” outlines two specific designs for

PSEs with tethers of 100m and 2km. These smaller elevators consist of a mother and daughter

satellite, and the climbers move up from the daughter to mother and back (Yamagiwa). The

tethers are made of the already existing Kevlar, a type of nylon fiber five times stronger than

steel. The PSEs are launched into geostationary orbit and tested there with relatively positive

results (Shi). Both articles come from highly acclaimed scientific journals and cite plenty of

sources to back themselves up, but Shi’s article takes a more general aproach while Yamagiwa

is summarizing already built PSEs and how they’ve proven to function.

Fig 2: Design of partial space elevator STARS-C (Yamagiwa)

To aid in testing for a space elevator on Earth, a space elevator could be built on the

Moon first. It would be much easier to build a space elevator on the Moon, as the Moon’s

gravity is only one sixth of Earth’s. A revolutionary material such as carbon nanotube would not

have to be used. Instead, a space elevator on the Moon could be built easily using Kevlar. Van

Pelt surmises that a Moon space elevator could also allow easy transport of mined material on

the Moon back to Earth, perhaps to be used in the construction of an Earth space elevator.

However, a Moon space elevator would have to be built slightly different from one on Earth, as

the Moon has no equivalent to the geostationary orbit the Earth has, and also orbits around the

Earth in a way such that one side of the Moon is facing the Earth at all times (Van Pelt). Also,

building the elevator too long would result in gravitational interference from the Earth.

One final idea to consider would be possible alternatives to the space elevator. There is

one alternative that has been thoroughly discussed: a structure called the aerovator. The best

way to describe the aerovator is to picture a giant cowboy swinging around a rope. The rope is
 Stirmers 11

still called a tether, but instead of being anchored straight up, it is set to constantly whip

around the atmosphere like helicopter blades. The rotating momentum of the tether would

allow spacecraft to gain speed travelling up the tether and effectively be flung out into orbit.

The aerovator of course comes with its own challenges, such as how the tether stays in motion.

Thrusters would have to be attached to the upper portion of the tether to keep it moving, but

the amount of thrust required is calculated to be the equivalent of 20 Boeing 747 jet engines

(Van Pelt). A different solution would be to have “tug planes” keep the tether moving, and

these planes could be switched out every so often. Just like the space elevator, the aerovator

would require a super strong, lightweight material for the tether. Advantages over the space

elevator include the ability to deploy the aerovator entirely from the surface, as well as no

requirement for a counterweight in space. However, the aerovator would require more money

for maintainence due to the fleet of “tug planes” mentioned earlier. Therefore, there is no

definitive answer on whether the aerovator would be a better idea than the already established

space elevator.

The concept of a space elevator has been deliberated for decades, and astrophysicists as

well as engineers have calculated and proposed possible designs and technologies that would

lead to the construction of a space elevator’s true possibility. However, there are still several

problems to be worked out, namely the material and strength of the tether, the orbital stability

of the entire structure, and protection of the structure from environmental disturbances. The

specifics of these problems can be explored in more detail. Indeed, the construction of space

elevator will be extremely difficult, especially when all problems must be dealt with in just the
 Stirmers 12

right way. If scientists can answer these lingering questions and build the first space elevator,

then the sheer advantage gained for humanity may completely outweigh the hardships.
 Stirmers 13

Works Cited

Basulto, Dominic. "Two innovations every space enthusiast needs to know." Washington Post,

20 Aug. 2015. Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints,

link.gale.com/apps/doc/A426613244/OVIC?u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=b8b1075d.

Accessed 7 Mar. 2021.

Castillo, Mark, et al. “Structure of Space Elevator and Climbers.” Space Elevators, Wordpress, 17

July 2015, spaceelevators.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/structure-of-the-space-elevator/.

Gerein, Keith. "Space Elevators Will Transport People and Payloads Into Space." Transportation,

edited by Louise Gerdes, Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In

Context: Opposing Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010523227/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=7888f853. Accessed 7 Mar. 2021. Originally published as

"Elevator Reaches for the Stars," Edmonton Journal, 22 Aug. 2007.

Lorenzini, E.C., et al. “Energy and Orbital Stability in a Partially-Deployed Earth Space Elevator.”

Acta Astronautica, vol. 177, Dec. 2020, pp. 828–833.,

doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.02.045.

Price, Steve. “Audacious & Outrageous: Space Elevators.” NASA, NASA, Sept. 2000,

science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2000/ast07sep_1.
 Stirmers 14

Shi, Gefei, et al. “Dynamics and Operation Optimization of Partial Space Elevator with Multiple

Climbers.” Advances in Space Research, vol. 63, no. 10, May 2019, pp. 3213–3222.,

doi:10.1016/j.asr.2019.01.022.

"Space Elevator Development Faces Serious Challenges." Transportation, edited by Louise

Gerdes, Greenhaven Press, 2008. Opposing Viewpoints. Gale In Context: Opposing

Viewpoints, link.gale.com/apps/doc/EJ3010523228/OVIC?

u=dayt30401&sid=OVIC&xid=35e0d041. Accessed 7 Mar. 2021. Originally published as

"Waiting for the Space Elevator," The Economist, 10 June 2006.

Swan, Peter. International Space Elevator Consortium, July 2008, www.isec.org/.

Van Pelt, Michel. Space Tethers and Space Elevators. New York, NY: Springer New York.

BiblioBoard. Web. 7 Mar. 2021.

Wood, Robert. Sky Line. YouTube, Gunpowder & Sky, 2020, www.youtube.com/watch?

v=jjGUSH1rIKs.

Yamagiwa, Yoshiki, et al. “Space Experiments on Basic Technologies for a Space Elevator Using

Microsatellites.” Acta Astronautica, vol. 138, Sept. 2017, pp. 570–578.,

doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2016.12.022.