Where will we build the first Space Elevator?

[Spaceception]

Now, I'm just throwing this out there now, this is only a discussion of where we will build the first Space Elevator, and why, I don't want to see any comments of how far into the future this will be, etc, alright? For the other Space Elevator discussion on the Sci/Space thread (Which is the only one I know of), here's a link: Why are Space Elevators not a horrible idea, as bad as gunpowder cannons to space?

So lets begin I think the first Space Elevator will be built around Ceres, because it has weak gravity, no atmosphere, and it would be a great way of shipping resources from a mining outpost to the Earth, (Maybe the Moon) and Mars.

 

Edited February 13, 2016 by Spaceception

[Tex_NL]

Non of the above. Space elevator are a pipe dream. Totally unrealistic and pure sci-fi.

Building an elevator on a low gravity body is a waste as it is already easy to get to orbit. Doing it on a heavy gravity body is a waste as building the elevator will consume more raw materials as it can bring to orbit.
We don't have the required technology. And by the time we do we'll also have the tech to reach orbit easy and cheap.

[Spaceception]

7 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

I don't want to see any comments of how far into the future this will be, etc, alright?

 

2 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:

Non of the above. Space elevator are a pipe dream. Totally unrealistic and pure sci-fi.

Building an elevator on a low gravity body is a waste as it is already easy to get to orbit. Doing it on a heavy gravity body is a waste as building the elevator will consume more raw materials as it can bring to orbit.
We don't have the required technology. And by the time we do we'll also have the tech to reach orbit easy and cheap.

You did read the 'etc' part, right, just assume that it is realistic, (Also, any technology that is more than a decade away, is usually called 'Sci-fi', just go with it).

Now, I'm going to answer your previous criticisms, just because:

True, but this is a thought experiment, just imagine the Ceres elevator is a stepping stone to Earth/Mars Elevators.

Again, true, but a Space Elevator can have its advantages, such as being able to send stuff into space as soon as you can put it on the Elevator. Fully reusable rockets have to wait several hours at best, weeks at most until they can re-launch depending on the damage it takes, plus the amount of propellant burned is arguably almost as bad(Or worse) as running a few dozen Volkswagens at once for awhile, and it's also expensive, explosive, and heavy.

[SargeRho]

The Moon, but since it's not an option, Mars. Because we have the materials to do both already. A Moon elevator cable would apparently weigh only 100 tons.

Edited February 13, 2016 by SargeRho

[Spaceception]

Just now, SargeRho said:

The Moon, but since it's not an option, Mars. Because we have the materials to do both already. A Moon elevator cable would apparently weigh only 100 tons.

I didn't add the Moon, because I read somewhere that it would be unstable due to Earths gravity, and the motion of the Moon, do you have counter arguments?

[SargeRho]

I didn't add the Moon, because I read somewhere that it would be unstable due to Earths gravity, and the motion of the Moon, do you have counter arguments?

A lunar space elevator is tricky since you can't build one to lunar stationary orbit, instead it'd go to the EML1 and/or 2 points:

 

I don't know how stable they would be, but I doubt bolting some ion engines to the stations would be much of an issue.

Edited February 13, 2016 by SargeRho

[Spaceception]

2 minutes ago, SargeRho said:

A lunar space elevator is tricky since you can't build one to lunar stationary orbit, instead it'd go to the EML1 and/or 2 points:

 

I don't know how stable they would be, but I doubt bolting some ion engines to the stations would be much of an issue.

Alright, I'll add it

[Halo_003]

The moon will be the first one, as a proof of concept for one on Mars IMO. 

[tater]

Cloud Cuckoo Land?  

[Spaceception]

4 minutes ago, tater said:

Cloud Cuckoo Land?  

I get the reference, but... Are you talking about the post?

[tater]

27 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

I get the reference, but... Are you talking about the post?

Seemed pretty obvious I was answering the thread question.

Next time my space elevator friend comes to NM from WA I'll tell him I said this just to yank his chain . Then I'll pick his brain on space elevator stuff, last time I was just hearing about his work on nanotubes, not the specifics of space elevator concepts.

 

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

If one is ever built, then it will be on the moon.  No atmosphere, and less strain on the cable.

[GeneralVeers]

I'd say the Mun.

If anybody tried---oh, for Heaven's sake. The MOON. Geez.

Okay. If anybody tried to build a Space Elevator here on Earth, there would be fierce opposition from the Uninformed Masses worrying that we'll screw up the planet's rotation, or risk the orbiting counterweight crashing down and destroying an entire city, or some such.

[Bill Phil]

Beyond the technical impossibility, beyond the lack of economic sense, I'd say the Moon. For producing large mass objects at L1 or L2. 

Perhaps floating colonies....

[The Yellow Dart]

I would imagine mars is the only place it would be necessary apart from earth, due to atmosphere. On the moon and Ceres it just make more sense to do a "railgun" thing on the surface (can't remember the proper name for that idea), since there is no atmosphere to contend with and that technology would be dead simple in comparison. I don't imagine it will ever be tried on earth because of all of the difficulty of it, the high gravity, satellite avoidance, the material requirements, difficulty of construction. I imagine (but don't know for sure) the atmosphere on Mars is thick enough to cause problems/difficulty with the rail gun idea, and the lower gravity might make an elevator simple enough to be valuable, without having tremendous amounts of maintenance and a huge number of people to take care of it, run it, make sure space debris and satellites don't destroy it, etc. But this could be completely wrong, it would still be a tremendous undertaking I'm sure, and would require quite a large population on Mars to make it worth while.

edit: I should say quite a lot of interest/need on Mars rather than population. You can still have large amounts of cargo to get on/off, without having lots of people.

Edited February 13, 2016 by The Yellow Dart

[AngelLestat]

Quote

 Where will our first space elevator be? 

In the earth poles!   
ah no.. wait...

Edited February 14, 2016 by AngelLestat

[PB666]

On 2/13/2016 at 9:49 AM, Spaceception said:

Now, I'm just throwing this out there now, this is only a discussion of where we will build the first Space Elevator, and why, I don't want to see any comments of how far into the future this will be, etc, alright? For the other Space Elevator discussion on the Sci/Space thread (Which is the only one I know of), here's a link: Why are Space Elevators not a horrible idea, as bad as gunpowder cannons to space?

So lets begin I think the first Space Elevator will be built around Ceres, because it has weak gravity, no atmosphere, and it would be a great way of shipping resources from a mining outpost to the Earth, (Maybe the Moon) and Mars.

 

add never-neverland

[kerbiloid]

The first space elevator will be inside the first space station with artificial gravity and more than one deck.

[fredinno]

54 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

The first space elevator will be inside the first space station with artificial gravity and more than one deck.

And also the only form of space 'elevator' we will ever get, tbh.

[tsotha]

If we ever build one, it will be on the earth.

The moon is a lifeless rock - it might be less of a technical challenge to build an elevator there, but what would be the point of putting that kind of effort into an elevator that goes from nowhere to nowhere?  Even if you had a reason to be there, the same lack of gravity that makes the space elevator easier makes rockets easier too.

[Kertech]

Also I thought a big advantage of a space elevator was not wasting energy on barging through an atmosphere, so what would be the point on building it on a world without an atmosphere (yes I do know about other energy losses from rocket engines but they are so much easier to build) 

[K^2]

None of these, because it's a dumb concept for every single one of these objects? I'm not sure why that's not an option, given that it's an obvious one. Except for Earth, all of the other bodies don't have enough atmosphere/gravity to interfere with direct magrail to orbit launches. Mars will require some rocket propulsion, but it will still be way cheaper than building a space elevator.

And for Earth, there are way better options. like launch loop. If we don't want to build a full size launch loop, we can get away with using a smaller one for suborbital launches, and assist with a space teather.Again, way cheaper and more efficient than space elevator could ever be.

[p1t1o]

On 2/13/2016 at 6:07 PM, Spaceception said:

...a Space Elevator can have its advantages, such as being able to send stuff into space as soon as you can put it on the Elevator. Fully reusable rockets have to wait several hours at best...

Its worth noting that an Earth-sized elevator will take (it has been hypothesised) roughly 5 days to reach GeoSynch. This could be much shorter for small bodies, but its worth noting.

On another note, apparently Mars isn't a great candidate as Phobos's orbit is too low.

A better question than "where will we build the first one" (Since it seems too tempting for some to answer with "nowhere" or "never") might be: "Since a literal Arthur-C-Clarke-Style space elevator might not ever come to be, what other imaginative uses might we use the technology or concept for?"

Eg: one advantage is not that its easier or more efficient than another type of launch, but that you can power it with electricity. So an asteroid mine could continuously fling cargo Earthwards using only a powerplant, without requiring vast propellant reserves.

[kunok]

The only place I think it maybe have sense in the solar system is Titan, because it has a dense atmosphere ( so no practical mag-rail) and it's a low gravity object. But I'm not sure if it's really possible because Saturn.

[K^2]

22 minutes ago, kunok said:

The only place I think it maybe have sense in the solar system is Titan, because it has a dense atmosphere ( so no practical mag-rail) and it's a low gravity object. But I'm not sure if it's really possible because Saturn.

Titan came to mind, but its orbit makes it tricky. It's tidally locked to Saturn, with orbital period of 15 days. Which means the counterweight would have to be suspended above L₂. Unfortunately, it's quite a bit out given the orbital period and mass of Titan, and Hyperion's orbit is going to pass close by. While odds of actual collision between elevator and Hyperion are negligible, it can pass close enough to the tether to provide considerable lateral forces, which would be all kinds of bad.

Otherwise, Titan would have been one of these rare exceptions for which a space elevator actually makes sense.