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