homepage Forums SimHQ Community Community Hall Scientists believe a space elevator to the Moon is possible using today's technology

Scientists believe a space elevator to the Moon is possible using today's technology
[May 25, 2023: Staff Writer, The Brighter Side of News]


One idea is to build a space elevator—a cable stretching from Earth to orbit that provides a way to climb into space. (CREDIT: Creative Commons)

One of the primary hurdles to our continued exploration and expansion across the solar system may be the overwhelming cost associated with overcoming Earth's gravitational pull. This is according to Zephyr Penoyre of the University of Cambridge, UK, and Emily Sandford of Columbia University, New York.

The issue at hand is fundamentally rooted in the working principles of rocket engines, which involve propelling mass in one direction to generate the necessary thrust in the opposite direction for spacecraft. This process requires significant amounts of propellant, which, although ultimately discarded, still needs to be accelerated in tandem with the spacecraft.


The cost of transporting a single kilogram into orbit is astronomically high, reaching tens of thousands of dollars. The expense only multiplies when considering missions to the moon and beyond, leading to a heightened interest in discovering more economical methods of reaching orbit.

One proposed solution involves constructing a space elevator. This concept involves a cable extending from the Earth's surface to the orbit, offering a route to ascend into space. The primary benefit of this system is the potential to harness solar energy for the climbing process, thus eliminating the need for onboard fuel.

However, this idea presents a significant challenge. The cable required for such an operation would have to possess exceptional strength. Carbon nanotubes are a possible material for this application, provided they can be developed to the necessary length. Unfortunately, currently available alternatives lack the required strength.

Penoyre and Sandford have revisited the concept of a space elevator, adding their own unique spin to it. They propose a version they've dubbed a "spaceline", which they argue could be constructed using materials that are currently commercially accessible.

Let's dive into some context first. The traditional idea of a space elevator involves a cable that's secured at the ground level and stretches beyond the geosynchronous orbit, a distance approximately 42,000 kilometers (26,098 miles) above the Earth.


A cable of this nature would carry substantial weight. To prevent it from descending, an equivalent mass in orbit would need to counterbalance it at the opposite end. Centrifugal forces would then bear the entire weight of the elevator.



For decades, an array of physicists, authors of science fiction, and dreamers have eagerly computed the magnitude of these forces. However, the resulting calculations have consistently led to disappointment. There is currently no identified material capable of withstanding these forces. This includes materials as strong as spider silk, Kevlar, or even the most resilient contemporary carbon fiber polymers.

Penoyre and Sandford are suggesting an alternative concept. Rather than having the cable anchored on Earth, they recommend that it be tethered to the moon and extended toward Earth.

The key distinction lies in the centrifugal forces. A traditional space elevator would rotate fully once per day, in sync with the Earth's rotation. However, a space elevator based on the moon would only orbit once every month, a significantly slower rate with proportionally reduced forces.

Furthermore, the arrangement of forces is different. A cable extending from the moon to Earth would traverse a zone in space where the gravitational pull of the Earth and moon neutralize each other.

This zone, referred to as a Lagrange point, would become a crucial component of such a moon-based space elevator. Below this point, closer to Earth, gravity would draw the cable toward the planet. Conversely, above this point, nearer to the moon, the cable would be pulled towards the lunar surface.

Penoyre and Sandford promptly demonstrate that if the cable extended from the moon to the surface of Earth, the resulting forces would be too overwhelming for current materials to withstand. However, the cable doesn't necessarily need to reach all the way to be effective.

The researchers' key finding highlights that current high-strength materials like carbon polymers, such as Zylon, have the capacity to sustain a cable extending from the moon to the geosynchronous orbit. They further propose that a prototype device, constructed from a cable roughly the diameter of a pencil lead, could be suspended from the moon at an expenditure amounting to billions of dollars.


It would reduce the fuel needed to reach the surface of the moon. (CREDIT: LIftPort)

This proposal is undoubtedly ambitious, yet not outside the realm of contemporary space missions. Penoyre and Sandford state, “By extending a line, anchored on the moon, to deep within Earth’s gravity well, we can construct a stable, traversable cable allowing free movement from the vicinity of Earth to the Moon’s surface,” say Penoyre and Sandford.

The potential for cost savings is considerable. The necessary fuel to reach the lunar surface would be cut to a mere third of its current demand, the researchers assert.

Simultaneously, this approach would unveil a new frontier in space exploration — the Lagrange point. This is noteworthy because both the gravitational pull and its gradient at this point are null, making it considerably safer for construction undertakings. In contrast, the gradient of gravity in low Earth orbit renders orbits substantially less stable.

The researchers, Penoyre and Sandford, illustrate this point using a simple analogy. “If you drop a tool from the International Space Station it will seem to rapidly accelerate away from you,” point out Penoyre and Sandford. “The Lagrange point has an almost negligible gradient in gravitational force; the dropped tool will stay close at hand for a much longer period.”

Additionally, this region is free from significant debris. Penoyre and Sandford indicate, “The Lagrange point has been mostly untouched by previous missions, and orbits passing through here are chaotic, greatly reducing the amount of meteoroids,” they say.

Penoyre and Sandford underline the substantial advantage of reaching the Lagrange point via the spaceline. They argue that the establishment of a base camp at the Lagrange point could significantly revolutionize the initial utilization of the spaceline, and more broadly, human space exploration. They envision such a base camp enabling the development and upkeep of advanced space-based experiments, potentially including telescopes, particle accelerators, gravitational wave detectors, vivariums, as well as power generation sites and launch stations for missions aimed at further solar system exploration.

This intriguing perspective rekindles interest in the concept of a space elevator. With more affordable access to the Lagrange point, the moon, and beyond, space exploration might have just become a much more attainable and cost-effective proposition.

Those scientists need to work on Star Trek transporter instead of space elevator.

Those scientists need to work on Star Trek transporter instead of space elevator.

Jeez, we used to have stargates. LOL

Those scientists need to work on Star Trek transporter instead of space elevator.

But, why send "living people" a slightly cheaper way -- which is costly and very time consuming to develop?

In a small number of decades, "self aware artificial intelligence" with "genius level IQs" will be a fact. Sending "android robots" (smarter than people) will be cheaper, safer, and more effective overall.

While in space or on the Moon, the robots could "live on sunshine". My Step Son (a NASA upper management type) is currently involved in a project developing "solar energy" devices for deployment on the Moon. Currently, they are anticipated to support human colonies (or human whatever) on the Moon. Those folks would still need Oxygen, Food, Medical aid, etc.

I'd have his energy-devices supporting intelligent robots (and other machines) that could do anything a human could do -- and live in a vacuum off that solar energy.

If the technology had existed should the Spanish Monarchy have sent robots to the western hemisphere rather than Columbus?

But, my job at NASA was to find "the cheapest real solution to the real problem" -- sorry, I'm just "built that way"

Disassembling and reassembling molecules while at the same time not killing the organic entity is not even theoretically possible.

Cheapest solution and NASA aren't synonymous.

I agree. I was a weirdo to some of the Engineers in the Hallway. Some dropped in on Higher Management, or me, or Both to complain.

Example: On a large Project for the Space Station that I Project Managed, one NASA Department requested 30 Engineers to do a job. I said "no"; you can do it with 6 Engineers -- and refused -- only allowing them 6 (I actually did know what I was talking about). It took several MONTHS for them to take me seriously -- while the task languished. Finally, the leader of the small group of 6 took me seriously (according to his own words) and did it with 6. At a conference, that guy who figured it out gave a talk explaining the approach. Industry was impressed. He was offered and took nearly TRIPLE his NASA pay to work in industry. So, yes, getting it done cheap (but right) is unusual -- however, cheap but right can get paid accordingly.

Regarding past Robotic Missions. I'm talking a few decades from now -- when intelligent robots out perform humans and can be transported and supported more cheaply than humans.

"No Buck Rogers, No bucks."

I can see UFO flying, minding its own business and collding into it, pissing off some alien race. That's how War of the Worlds, Independence Day, Battle Los Angeles, Battleship, the Tom Cruise movie starts.

So what do we do when we get there ?

Disassembling and reassembling molecules while at the same time not killing the organic entity is not even theoretically possible.

space elevator...lmao, just the concept is stupid on its own merit.......who wants to go into a shotgun firing contest as the target? all the space debris,satelites, and space particles that can go through it. ill take my chances straped to explosive keg. at least its fast way out and much cooler means.

how not ? if information can not be destroyed then its possible. maybe not individually like its shown on tv shows but inside a protective enviroment to send that across a point in space, but if we can send anything across a point in space, then theory dictate we can send anything across time as well. when people think teleport they are basically thinking magic but with sci fi.

By all means, use robots to do what robots do well. Let humans focus on the other stuff.

The other reason to colonize other celestial bodies (e.g. Moon, Mars), or space itself, is what Elon Musk is concerned with... Reducing humanity's risk to be wiped out by a single cataclysmic event. [I don't think it would be climate change, but warfare or a big ol' asteroid are certainly in the realm of possibility.]

The space elevator being discussed in the O.P. is not up from earth, as we do not yet have materials capable to handling it. A space elevator coming up from the moon is a different exercise and within the reach of current technology. While it does not eliminate the cost of rocketing materials up out of earth's gravity well, it does stand to help reduce those costs, as far less fuel would need to be hauled up just to get to the moon, or to the Lagrange point. Less fuel spent on transporting is more fuel or cargo space/weight available for supporting space activities whether human or robotic. Plus, we don't have all the space junk orbiting the moon that we have orbitting earth. The lunar space elevator would stop short of reaching the earth's geostationary orbit, so there is hardly anything out there, relatively speaking. Far less danger to face.

Robot/A.I. technology is getting better, but there are still things that benefit from humans being on the scene. Our robotic exploration of Mars has been amazing, but think about the time delay of radio signals between earth and mars, and how much that limits what is getting done. The moves have to be painstakingly planned, transmitted, and then wait to see how things turned out later.

While mars rovers have wildly exceeded their expected life spans... how much more could they accomplish if a human could make a trip over and dust off the solar panels after they get too covered? Maybe even transport them back to base, do some maintenance upon them and redeploy them where the most research is needed.

Yeah, no way I would step foot into one of those molecular blenders. McCoy was right. Not for me.

i dont want to sound offensive, but this is something people dont really take into acount, but do you know how far is the moon ?that is 25 earths at least ! do you really think we would have in ANY timeframe the hability to build something so massive ? even the lagrange point would still be at least half that.

Star Trek levels of transporter tech can't be done unless one terrifying problem is solved - continuity of consciousness. Otherwise there's no difference between transporting, and being killed and a new instance of yourself being created somewhere else.

Space elevator to the moon isn't something that can pragmatically ever happen IMO. To geosync orbit sure, but not the moon, for obvious reasons.

Star Trek levels of transporter tech can't be done unless one terrifying problem is solved - continuity of consciousness. Otherwise there's no difference between transporting, and being killed and a new instance of yourself being created somewhere else. So some method of, over time, transferring parts of your brain (& therefore presumably consciousness unless some weird science becomes known) over time while retaining the connections between them during the process so that you experience a continuous experience.

In my expert opinion of course

Every tech has its occasional glitches and incidents: cars crashes, computers go down, airplanes drops from sky, boats sinks; but transporters, once the technology is made and perfected, they are perfectly safe.

Space elevator to the moon isn't something that can pragmatically ever happen IMO. To geosync orbit sure, but not the moon, for obvious reasons.

Star Trek levels of transporter tech can't be done unless one terrifying problem is solved - continuity of consciousness. Otherwise there's no difference between transporting, and being killed and a new instance of yourself being created somewhere else. So some method of, over time, transferring parts of your brain (& therefore presumably consciousness unless some weird science becomes known) over time while retaining the connections between them during the process so that you experience a continuous experience.

In my expert opinion of course

Of all the common technology shown in Star Trek the transporter is the least likely to ever become real.

How about the medical tricoder where it somehow revives/heals people? It must be using some kind of high-powered WIFI where it stimulates immune cells. Yeah that's it!

How about the medical tricoder where it somehow revives/heals people? It must be using some kind of high-powered WIFI where it stimulates immune cells. Yeah that's it!

The article title is problematic. What the article actually is about is a space elevator ON the moon, not "to" the moon, as in "from the earth to the moon".