A laser-powered robotic climber has won $900,000 in a competition designed to spur technology for a future elevator to space.
Building a space elevator would require anchoring a cable on the ground near Earth's equator and deploying the other end thousands of kilometres into space. The centrifugal force due to Earth's spin would keep the cable taut so that a robot could climb it and release payloads into orbit.
Though building a space elevator might require an initial investment of billions of dollars, proponents say once constructed, it would make for cheaper trips into space than is possible using rockets. But huge technological hurdles must first be overcome, including how to supply power to the robotic climber.
To that end, NASA offered $2 million in prize money in a competition called the Power Beaming Challenge, in which robotic climbers, powered wirelessly from the ground, attempt to ascend a cable as fast as possible.
Now, a robotic climber has made a prize-winning ascent worth $900,000, making it the first to win money in the competition, which has occurred annually since 2005.
Ted Semon, a volunteer with the Spaceward Foundation, a non-profit that organised the competition, and author of the Space Elevator Blog, says the feat shows space elevators are one step closer to getting off the ground. "We've done a lot here to demonstrate that this technology is possible," he told New Scientist. "This is just enormously exciting."
The winning climber was built by a team called LaserMotive, based in Seattle, Washington. Like the other two vehicles in the competition, it used solar cells to absorb energy from a ground-based infrared laser.
Unclaimed pot
On Wednesday, LaserMotive fired up its laser, powering the climber to ascend 900 metres up a cable suspended from a helicopter at Edwards Air Force Base in Mojave, California.
The climber reached the top in just over 4 minutes, for an average speed of 3.7 metres per second. The team's climber repeated the feat at a slightly higher speed of 3.9 metres per second on Thursday.
On Friday, two other teams failed in their final attempted climbs. That means LaserMotive will receive the entire $900,000 NASA set aside for climbers that could make the climb faster than 2 metres per second.
The remaining $1.1 million in NASA prize money was reserved for climbs faster than 5 metres per second, which none of the competitors was able to achieve.
Lunar rovers
A climber entered by a team from the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, Canada, stalled just a few metres up the cable in its final attempt on Friday and was unable to continue its climb.
A climber from a third team, called the Kansas City Space Pirates, also achieved only partial climbs.
NASA was expected to officially recognise LaserMotive as the winner of the $900,000 prize in an award ceremony later on Friday.
Though a space elevator remains a distant prospect, NASA is interested in wireless power transmission for other applications, like beaming power to lunar rovers travelling in shadowed craters, where solar energy is unavailable.
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
"The centrifugal force due to Earth's spin would keep the cable taut"
...
Someone please offer the article writer a physics lesson. Centrifugal force is a fictitious force used to explain tangential inertia.
Nice coverage otherwise, and should they stumble upon this article I extend my congratulations to the winners.
Centrifugal force is not real force, but it can be used in situations like this to represent tangential inertia. Kind of like how the net force in a system is also imaginary combination of all the forces, but is still useful.
How about the tether technology in which we are sorely lacking???
"Someone please offer the article writer a physics lesson. Centrifugal force is a fictitious force..." - Gord
Yes, we've all heard this from pedantic high school physics teachers. But gravity is a fictitious force too. In fact all the named forces are, so far as we know. Can you think of one that isn't?
It always makes some people feel well educated to point out the fictitious centrifugal force. I find that funny. Pedantic, but funny.
what's funny is that the author seems to think a space elevator is where you attach a cable to the earth's surface and keep it sticking straight up due to it being slung around by the earth's rotation...
"Someone please offer the article writer a physics lesson. Centrifugal force is a fictitious force used to explain tangential inertia."
Hmmm, okay. Lesson one. Newton's third law. Any action has an equal and opposite reaction. That is, for any force to exist, there must also exist another force with equal magnitude but an opposite vector. Following so far?
If you spin a bucket of water and the rope exerts an inward force on the bucket to stop it whizzing off at a tangent, then the bucket must be exerting an equal but opposite force on the rope. An outward force. Still with me?
If the bucket, thus held by the rope, is exerting an inward force on the water, the water exerts an outward force on the bucket.
We've all agreed to call this inward force "Centripetal". And it's a good name. You can call the outward force anything you want, "anti-centripetal", "contra-centripetal", "bob", whatever you like, but if you ever write for public consumption, you might want to use "Centrifugal" or no one will know what the hell you're talking about.
"Newton's third law. Any action has an equal and opposite reaction. That is, for any force to exist, there must also exist another force with equal magnitude but an opposite vector."
I'm not following so far! e.g: Correction; any force has an opposite spooling action that will result in the summary of the opposing vector (unless it gets pinned).
Spooling is best for avoiding physics teachers because they will redefiine the moment! Newton's due for resignation as a physics teacher considering planet Earth and other bodies prefer spooling orbits for opposition not line ruler vectors!
Thank you for posting this! There's no such thing!
I get frustrated with friends who use that phrase. I certainly don't expect it from a science journalist.
Ask any secondary school physics teacher and they'll put you right.
Um. . .
Sun Nov 08 01:06:50 GMT 2009 by Eric
http://www.padmapper.com
Keep in mind that they're writing to be understood, and using "centrifugal" over "centripetal" increases the number of people who will understand this.
So while it might annoy those who know better, it's still probably the right choice for the writer. This isn't Nature...
Although, even better would be to use Centripetal and link to the wiki article.
Hhahahahaahahaha!
You guys are so funny!
Although I'm all for these kind of thing, the technology spin offs are great, we need to keep some perspective. There are two chance of a space elevator ever being a practicle device, none and F#$% all.
The practicle problems asscoaited with one of them would be insomatable, what I call the Bird Sh$t factor.
I would love to see one of those 'practicle' (sic) devices you are alluding to. Particles fused with pranks, are they?
As for 'insomatible' (sic) problems.. are they in any way related to neurons?
The problems associated with rockets, jet engines, and any vehicle that travelled over 40mph were all considered insurmountable at one point in time or another. Still It's nice to know that we all have our horses and carts to get to work with.
Heavier than air flying machines are impossible. - Lord Kelvin, 1895
Guess he was proved wrong. What makes you think you won't?
Gord
Sat Nov 07 02:21:21 GMT 2009 by Mark
http://www.digeratimarketing.co.uk
Centrifugal force: http://xkcd.com/123/
hahaha, I love it. :)
And in response to Anon (02:43) above, that's true. I suppose I was just a bit taken aback since I figured NS wouldn't shy from being more precise in the writing.
Of course, it's not a technical report, so I suppose at the end of the day its ability to quickly impart knowledge is what really counts.
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
PRINT
SEND
