Could we build a 20-kilometer-high space tower?
September 12, 2012
(Credit: NASA MSFC, Artist Pat Rawling)
Science-fiction novelist Neal Stephenson imagines a 20-kilometer-high steel tower that reaches into the stratosphere.
From that height, planes could save fuel by docking at the tower rather than landing, and space missions could do the same by launching from it.
Stephenson is teaming up with a structural engineer, Keith Hjelmstad at Arizona State University (ASU), to work out how to actually build the tower, New Scientist reports.
Hjelmstad is now analyzing the feasibility of Stephenson’s tower. Preliminary modelling suggests that it could support its own weight, but many questions remain. “The tower pushes well beyond anything anyone has ever done in structural engineering,” says Hjelmstad. “Building [it] would be the biggest project ever undertaken by humans.”
The tower story will be published by Hieroglyph, a joint project between the centre and Stephenson, which will host online forums for further discussion. Other writers can also use Hieroglyph to contribute new stories and collaborate with ASU scientists. Author Cory Doctorow, for example, has a story and accompanying research project based around the idea of sending 3D printers to the moon, where the devices would build a base for humans to inhabit later.
This month will see the launch of the Center for Science and the Imagination, an ASU project that will bring together scientists, engineers, artists and writers and encourage them to think big. The idea is to team artists and authors with ASU researchers to turn science fiction into reality.
For Ed Finn, who will direct the center, success will be measured in part by a change in thinking about “audacious moonshot ideas” that are seen as too ambitious for the incremental process of contemporary science.
The tower could possibly reduce costs for space launches. — Ed.
Comments (23)
by Walter
the sky is the limit.
by Qwerty Jones
An air-floating platform – a flying island – would be a far more interesting concept, especially if filled with hydrogen in its honeycombed fire-suppressing structure.
If required it could easily be moved to another location, unlike a static tower.
by kenneth lunkins
how do you get the fuel up there in the first place?
by SpottedMarley
If this were built, at some point, as with all technologies the push the envelope, there will be a spectacular accident, or worse, that takes place and then we can watch it over and over and over and over again for years on tv. Maybe then we can even forget about the world trade center movie we keep watching.
by Aaron
Meh, we should just stick to the space elevator idea. Much more feasable, much more practical, and it would probably even be more economical. I’m not a structural engineer but a tower that high would probably curve ever so slightly (being in the stratosphere and all) and that poses a serious risk. Eh, but what do I know…
by Mortran
It is absurd to fantasize about such a structure, when NASA isn’t even able to send an astronaut to the ISS.
Technology made a wrong turn long ago. If we want something like that we should have continued to use airships. They could easily dock at towers in a city without using airports. And they don’t need to be 20 km tall. The Eiffel Tower in Paris would do quite fine for example, This is a technology, which is 100 years old and it worked.
by Bri
The general premise of Ray exponential growth is that we are coming to the curve or knee in the graph. Singularity is used loosely to mean a point after which we can’t comprehend what will happen or be possible. The space shuttle first flew with computers about as strong as an old commodore. Once intelligent robotics enter the scene everything will change so fast it’s really hard to imagine. Reagan had a sign that said ” it can be done” on his desk and Obamas slogan is “yes we can”. I think they both say the same thing. We limit our selves by our perspectives.
by Mr.X
I think the general premise of his work is: It is highly probable that past trends will continue.
by Bri
Yes and if you look at the top of the page it says accelerating intelligence not past stagnation. Exponential growth not recalcitrant linear thinking. Mind boggling explosions of new possibilities not the same old same old.
by Mr.X
And? Why does he think these things.Right, he studied trends and build a model.
by dan.gorski@gmail.com
It didn’t work well, at all. Wind made it quite unreliable; especially near buildings.
by Bengt Robbert
If it is high enough would it not begin to exert a pull somewhat like a ball on a string? What is that height? Why stop at a tower? Why not use it to build a Dyson sphere or Ring? As far as materials go I would suggest growing it with engineered cyanobacteria organically. At a certain height it will be a master lightning rod. It will also be able to create rain by pushing warm moist sea level air through its central core. Also it can serve as an air conditioner by reversing the flow. The intellectual and engineering challenges are enormous but our computational power is well up to the task.
by Chrispium
The height would be 30000 km above the land surface, also called the Geostationary orbit.
by Aaron
20 kilometers is nothing. I don’t see how a plane could dock with a static structure either unless you’re talking about putting a runway on top.
by Glen Lincoln
I am wondering the same thing, how could you “land an airplane,” and also, why? But of course it’s feasible to build, and I’d be in awe, but I still don’t know for what purpose, other than like someone else mentioned, a base for the space elevator. 1 more thing, assuming a conventional tower structure shape, how large an area might the base be, like, a mile square? Can’t wait to see it!!
by Toma
I’m wondering what happens when a terrorist puts some explosives into the basement of this space tower.
by Chrispium
World Trade Center 1993
The center survived.
by Gorden Russell
This will happen sometime in 20 or 30 years when self-assembling photo-voltaic nano-cells can take carbon dioxide out of the air and spin it into carbon nanotubes. It will take too much steel to build these towers in the near future. The world just won’t put that much steel into the project. There is no government willing to spend the money right now.
by Bri
It would be impossible to make with steel and concrete. We are pushing the limits on that tech. Nanocellulose might be suitable. Gorden you should check it out. Even stronger than Kelvar!
by Chrispium
Nature is full of enzymes that break down cellulose.
by Bri
The space elevator ccounterweight would reduce fragments strain on the structure and reduce the chances for full catastrophic failure.
by Bri
Spell check is ridiculous! I’m often in a hurry and don’t have time to monkey around with my mistakes. I see the same thing in Amara’s writings. The word was supposed to be gravity not fragments.
by Bri
It would make a more feasible base for a space elevator.