Doing the energy numbers for lifting way up

Probably not many people are much interested in how much energy it takes to lift something, starting, say a few planetary radii above the Earth. Still, if one needs to figure that out - as I once did over four decades ago - it might be nice to have some hints about how to do that. It is surprising to me that the calculation is still not readily available in the usual physics software nowadays.

I resist the urge to describe the long struggling search it took me to figure it out, back then. Nor tell you of the many uses I have had for the equation since then. My math skills are not easy for me, but sometimes one just has to do the numbers to show something very interesting can be done. (And unfortunately sometimes doing the numbers does not show that the something can be done; but, that is the way the cookie crumbles. There are lots of other things yet to explore; and one blocked path invites looking for another path toward the goal.)

Lifting something takes energy to do. And in lifting something a ways up, it gains energy thereby. The amount of effort exerted to get the mass lifted up there, however, can be considerably more than what is given to that which is raised up. For the following analysis, only the amount of energy that is received by the lifted mass, is what is of concern.

Lifting something up a short ways, we simplify the calculations. But if we are contemplating lifting something up a significant portion of a planetary radius or more, now we have to consider that the force of gravity varies with height above the planet. It is an inverse-square function kind of thing, meaning that if one squares - that is, multiply itself by its own self - the altitude in planetary radii, and take the inverse of that - meaning divide that quantity into 1, that gives one the gravitational force up at that number of planetary radii up there.

This means that figuring out how much energy it takes to lift something a specific distance, gets less the further one gets from the Earth - or other planetary body or moon. It takes doing the numbers to figure out exactly how much less, however. And that can be of interest if one is figuring out a rocket traveling up or figuring out an anchored tether space elevator. OK so not many people are interested in doing that, most likely. But to those who are, the following might save them lots of struggle in figuring out how do do that.

The task is to find out how much energy is given to a specific mass to lift it between two planetary radii altitudes. To lift it up from the ground, it is the difference between one planetary radius and the radius of its target altitude. Say, up to Geostationary Earth Orbit, from the ground.

Note that this is the energy to lift it straight up, not to put it in orbit up there.

The key to calculating the energy from one altitude to another, is to calculate the energy it takes to lift the mass to an infinite distance - an easy calculation - from one altitude, and then calculate the same thing only starting from the high endpoint altitude to an infinite distance, and subtract the two.

One can calculate the energy required to give the mass escape velocity starting from the upper altitude, from the escape velocity from the lower starting point, to get the result. But that is a way to check easier forms of calculation.

Remember, distances are considered straight up along a line to the center of the Earth or other planetary body, and expressed in terms of planetary radii. Thus, the ground level is a planetary radius of 1. Another example, for the Earth in 24 hour rotation, geostationary orbital altitude is about 6.6 radii.

So the asy equation is create a constant that is the product of the gravitational constant times the mass of teh earth (or other planet or moon) times the mass of the object being lifted. Then multiply that times the difference between the inverse ratios of the two altitudes expressed in planetary radii.

That is, Work (energy) = GMm((1/r0)- (1/r1))

I made a nice gif of the equation long ago, so here it is:

As an example taken from my web page http://www.kestsgeo.com/1techconcepts/energygroundtogeo/energygroundtogeo.html to use this to calculate the energy added to mass by lifting it from the ground straight up to geostationary earth orbit altitude:

W = GMm ((1 / R0) - (1 / RGEO))

W = (6.67E-11)(5.983E24)((1 / 6.378E6) - (1 / 4.23E7))

W = (4E14)(1.33E-7) = 5.31E7 Joules / Kg to GEO = 14.76 KwHr / Kg; @2.2 Kg / lbm = 6.71 KwHr per pound to GEO

That is the theoretical energy needed to lift one pound mass up to GEO; but to stay up there it also needs to be given orbital velocity, an additional 0.96 KwHr/ Kg to orbit at GEO (see the referenced web page to calculate that if need be.)

So, it is not that hard to calculate the energy given to the mass of an object lifted up to high altitudes.

Works on the lunar surface too, starting with the 1/6 earth gravity as the starting point. That is where I had to use this kind of calculation back circa 1970 as part of my hobby project to figure out if a tapered fiberglass anchored tether could be made of an existing material anchored on the moon and balanced weight across the Lagrange-1 point of the earth-moon system, between the Earth and the Moon. Months and months of tedious hand calculations back then, using a slide rule and doing the sums and difference by pen and paper, in my limited free time at home. Turned out, it could be done. But nobody cared back then but me; all the doers were too busy doing other things. As I said, that is the way the cookie crumbles; but in this case it is not the physics or the math that failed, it was the people stuff that failed to make the mark. Nowadays with a simple calculator one can do it easily, however. Works for Earth anchored tether space elevator calculations too.

Nullifying all victimless crimes and retroactively

I contemplate what would happen if a federal law were passed that nullified all victimless crimes, and do it retroactively. After all, if there were no injury to person or thing, why is it a real criminal thing? Law enforcement moneys ought to be much better spent dealing with things that cause injuries to people and property.

Now, in contemplating this thought, I realize I am treading into territory I know little about. And am dimly aware that the whole subject is like a can of worms, tangled and interconnected, including with lots of egos, reputations, and fortunes involved. And actually the only "victimless" crimes I have read about, at first thought, are the pot smokers and the prostitutes, who had hurt nobody or anything. But I have read there are millions of such people in prison right now, costing the taxpayer many millions of dollars each year, along with ruining the lives of those victimless-crime doers. Even imprisoning someone who did no harm to a victim, would seem to me to be an injustice itself; but obviously, since that is the way the system is now, there is lots more to it all, and the legal system is the high authority that created the system as-is. And powerful entities rarely take lightly someone examining them with a critical eye, ever.

But looking back, I see where I have several other times naively mistook the real motivation of major entities.

For examples, in 1972 I attempted to get NASA and JPL to give my Mooncable concept a careful look, and have me be part of that since I had created the concept of an anchored tether on the Moon extending up through the L-1 balance point and the structure supported in place by the near-equal weights on either side of L-1, and being used for very efficient lifting of resources from the moon and enabling their easy deliver to Earth orbit and surface markets, such as foamed nickel-iron steel cast in zero gee at L-1, then to be used for fireproof wood-density structures. This would use the two Saturn 5 launch vehicles already built but not used, and would initiate profitable business in space in a big way using existing materials. I had thought that NASA and JPL had the goal of opening up space resources for use fully by civilization as soon as possible. Nope; that was not NASA's charter, nor was JPL's, theirs were different purposes.

Then many years later, starting in 1989 I attempted to get the aerospace industry interested in my hoop-self-centrifugally-energy-supported structure enabling direct electrically powered access to the geostationary earth orbit, all space access transportation without rockets and potentially very energy efficient and low cost lift up to there - a couple dollars per kilogram, say - enabling the solar power satellites to be built and maintained in GEO so as to deliver all the electrical energy needed by the world civilization on into the future, electrical energy 24/7 that needed no storage facilities and produces no carbon pollution in our air. The dreams of all the space enthusiasts could be realized in my lifetime, and enable a clean earth environment to be restored, enabling the saving of lots of species from going extinct. But again, no, aerospace was only interested in space as a means to support their rocketry-based businesses, and had no other interest in space, or even of helping civilization. And the space enthusiasts were more interested in the exciting orgasmic fiery roar of huge rockets being launched, than a placid rail structure that would undramatically get the job done without star wars or such; no fun in that.

So I have lots of examples that I ought to not mess with trying to improve huge industries - and the prison system is a huge industry, along with all that contributes to it - when those huge entities like things to stay just they way they are, nice life it gives to those on top.

But back to the conjecture that seems to me to be helpful to lots of people, millions of them, all those whose lives have been ruined by imprisonment for having been accused of doing victimless crimes. I had more casually previously suggested freeing all those non-violent peaceable prisoners - who themselves somewhat seem to be the real victims of the whole thing - so as to save the government millions of dollars a year, and use the resulting abandoned prisons to be modified to be homeless shelters. OK that would enable those millions of former prisoners to be free to start to rebuild their lives, many from scratch; so given the retroactive pardoning, they would need compensation for the wrong done to them by the penal system, which would provide a monetary supply to help them get started again in life, get settled and seek jobs, which lead them to becoming supportive of the American economy again.

OK, nice on that side of the equation; but what about the other side of the equation, all those who are currently deriving jobs, group esteem, and investment income from the system as-is? That might include, um, say, the owners and investors in the prison system, its prison physical structures and human personnel like guards; the law enforcement personnel whose esteemed jobs were to stalk&assault those who had done those victimless crimes, would be out of a job, not a nice thing to happen to most anyone. The legal system itself with its books of precedent laws that somehow created those victimless activities as crimes, those folks are the big bosses of the slow crawl of changes to laws, and the suggestion that I am contemplating here would be an enormous transient in that system.

Well, I might as well post this in my blog that few if any can find; what is one more big entity added to those who already ruthlessly vilify any who might point out potentially better ways of doing things. And with enough coverage by calculated vilification, eventually physical manifestation will strike down the offender, and all will just say that's great, the vile monster won't bother us anymore... something that also could be some longstanding "secret" militants who think I had seen too much and am too smart for my own good, would even more thankfully breathe into relaxation.

And here all along I was thinking I was helping those big entities that control civilization's opportunities, silly me; most likely the only response will be for the powers that be to make sure that everybody fully realizes it is they who are boss here ... and for any others with ideas about thinking for themselves, watch and see what happens.

Failure analysis of lack of acceptance of space access system concepts

In engineering doing development work, there sometimes is a need to debug something. The first step in debugging is to evaluate the data which discovered the failure to live up to expectations; this data and its failure analysis needs to be as thorough and accurate as possible, so as to be more likely to fix the problem in the subsequent effort.

The development of space colonization might benefit from a similar approach. Looking back at failures is no fun; but if we don't learn from our mistakes, it is wisely said we are doomed to repeat them.

I personally know of several such failures on the path to space colonization; so, despite my dislike of rehashing the unpleasant and often incomprehensible, subsequent events have provided me with significant understanding of what was going on in the bigger picture, that probably caused the failures to get those early starts in space colonization.

Sifting out what seems the most pertinent parts - the whole scenario and sequence of related events would take volumes to write - the following items are some of those failure analysis findings:

The first one has to do with the failure to build Space Elevator technology on the Moon, using the leftover Apollo Saturn 5 launch vehicles to emplace a seed elevator cable on the moon. This concept was informally gotten to NASA and in mid-1972 was given a rejection by the NASA Inventions & Contribution Board. This concept showed that an existing material, space-rated fiberglass, was capable of being used to build what is now called a Space Elevator, but I called it the Mooncable back then. A cable made of space rated fiberglass, built into a tapered constant-stress-cross-section shape, could be built linking the lunar surface with a somewhat lower gravitational energy level toward the Earth, going through the L-1 balance point, where the thickness was greatest. It took me months of hand calculations to prove that the material was up to the task; and my concept description described a way to utilize motor-generators traveling up and down the Mooncable, using conductive tracks on the structure to connect the earthward-downward electrodynamic braking energy over to lift another motor generator tractor up off the lunar surface toward L-1. The system thus provided a siphon-like effect, so my more extensive description was titled "The Mooncable: Gravitational-Electric Siphon in Space"This was a deeply integrated concept description, where it integrated the mooncable structural transportation mechanism with a major product so as to make it a profitable activity, supplying a useful material to the Earth. Foamed steel, a material only create-able in zero-g, would be made at a manufacturing plant located at L-1 balance point on the Mooncable, by using focused solar energy to melt nickle-iron brought up by motor-generator tractors from the Lunar surface. The metal would be filled with gas bubbles there in zero-g at L-1, while being input to a mold, which would shape the material into the form of a re-entry glider, for the trip from the earthward-end of the Mooncable to the Earth's surface. The cast gliders, with the durability of stainless steel yet the density of wood, would float in the ocean after landing, and be towed to land where it would be sawn up and used for construction material, such as for energy-absorbing crash barriers lining the middle of freeways; and building fireproof homes that were nearly impervious to weather effects. The Mooncable structure itself would be made of fiberglass, and glass is an abundant material on the surface of the Moon; so the only thing needing landing by Saturn-5 launch systems would be the original seed cable, plus a robotic operated glass materials plant. The timing was right; we were still landing astronauts on the Lunar surface, and this seemed an appropriate next step to build upon Apollo, and enabling economical establishment of a lunar manufacturing facility on the Moon, a first space colony. And the project could be started immediately, right then in 1972.

But it did not happen. What was the failure in the system? So here is an engineering failure analyst effort:

Looking back, there seems to be multiple points of failure, and each provides an example for preventing similar failures for present and future efforts striving for space colonization.

One factor was that it required Congress to vote to provide appropriations. And that congress was showing its meaningfulness by hacking off a percentage of the funds asked for Space Shuttle development, standard Congressional practice, to show they are doing their job. Unfortunately, the Space Shuttle proposal did not provide extra fluff to play the game of having its funds chopped back some; thus solid rocket boosters had to be put into the design, and ultimately we lost a spacecraft because of that, the Challenger and her crew. So NASA was in deep struggle for money to get its job done; the Mooncable project would have required a significant amount of money to achieve even its first steps, despite use of the two Saturn 5 vehicles that were built but not going to be used.

Much of this was explained in the brief letter the NASA ICB chairman sent to me with the rejection of my informal proposal. This rejection had another major effect, in that when my wife read the rejection, saying no grant funds were forthcoming, she was quickly out of my life, very pragmatic lady she was, and I was no longer as good a money source as other men would be. The effect on me was that, being an Asperger, now without a pragmatic mate to take care of the social etc aspects of my life, in despair I threw away my promising career at JPL and basically just existed for the next half dozen years. Occasionally I would try to find someone interested in my Mooncable concept, but I had no connections. In the early-1980's I made another effort, by writing an article for the L-5 News, but it was rejected.

I think a significant part of the failure of the system for establishing Space Colonization that way in the mid-1970's was my lack of credentials: I was an unknown in the field. the concept was not allowed to speak for itself, in other words. This seems to me to be a significant failure mechanism in the overall system: not letting a concept speak for itself, but instead first looking at the originator's standing. It is analogous to people in the military look at the number of stripes on your shoulder, to decide whether or not to pay attention to you. The academic standing, the industrial position standing, is where the evaluators looked, and they found I was a nobody, had not even graduated from college, had even switched from a physics major to a psychology major for a semester before dropping out, clearly a loser. And possibly a related factor, how could PhD's in high positions, admit that someone who was a college dropout came up with a concept to get the job done, and the credentialed folks had not thought of it, what would people think about that; better just ignore the originator, and no one would pay attention to the concept. Later, the concept could be revived by accredited folks who could build careers on it. And that happened: Pearson wrote an excellent paper on such concepts four years later, in 1976; and even today there are businesses proposing building a Mooncable-like Space Elevator through L-1, so it was not a dysfunctional concept. It was a failure of the human aspects, not the technological aspects.

So the failure mode here is that of using the originator's credentials to speak for the capability of the concept, rather than let the concept speak for itself. Part of this may be the inability of the initial evaluators to evaluate the concept adequately, especially if it is a really different thing from their field of expertise; and they do not want to admit that.

The second example for this kind of overall system failure analysis, is my effort to gain interest in my concept for rapid expansion into high Earth orbit, initially with the purpose of building abundant Solar Power Satellites to provide plentiful clean energy to nations around the world. This concept would bypass the Space Elevator's severe limitations, yet be able to do the same efficient access to high earth orbit, probably even more capably too. It would use the outward force of internal centrifugal force to balance the weight of the structure in the planetary gravitational field, instead of utilizing strength of materials to do the job.

I created this "KESTS to GEO" concept - acronym for "Kinetic Energy Supported Transportation Structure to Geostationary Earth Orbit" - to bypass the problem with the Earth Space Elevator concept, that of the lack of a material strong enough for its mass to support its own weight between GEO and the ground. I was keenly aware of this problem, having thought of the earth space elevator idea in 1969 - not the first person to do so, it turned out - then realized that the tensile strength to density ratio problem that really made a problem for the concept. (However, that effort later enabled my 1971-1972 creation of the Mooncable concept.) So I constantly sought other ways to have large scale access of earth orbital space.

The early 1980's concepts of Keith Lofstrom's Launch Loop rocket lift to the fringes of the atmosphere by a trapezoid shaped tethered out-flung loop of continuous material, and Rod Hyde's "StarBridge" vertical tower to the fringes of the atmosphere, supported by electrodynamic drag of high velocity paramagnetic beryllium disks flung upward inside the structure, excited my hopes for early large scale space colonization in my time; even Earl Smiths' "Texas and Universe Railroad" concept of an out-flung expandable iron belt from the earth surface to GEO, although had some major flaws in it including that it would not go to GEO if anchored in the high latitude of Texas, got me to do my first speech supporting those concepts, as well as my Mooncable space elevator concept, to the National Commission on Space in 1985. But to no avail, the Commission's report did not mention any of these things.

I mulled over the why-not for a few years, and finally figured out how to combine all those concepts and add some new components, to make what appeared a workable large scale ground-to-GEO access space transportation structure of high efficiency, supported by the outward force of high velocity armatures circulating throughout the quasi-elliptical hoop around the Earth, connecting the equatorial surface to GEO. The materials and technology were well within the contemporary capability.

But the problem remained, of how I, as still an unknown in the field, could get this concept into the awareness of those who could take it to the next steps. About that time, I had gotten connected to the GEnie Spaceport Library, via my 300 baud modem connected to my long-obsolete Adam Coleco computer; as always, I lived on the edge of poverty, earning a living as an engineering technician in electronics. Finally I could get the attention to my Mooncable concept and my new KESTS to GEO concept, I thought.

Even the GEnie Network was sponsored by General Electric, a large company who could possibly be able to build much of the KESTS to GEO system, I thought. I posted the initial insights there in 1988, and had largely fleshed it out in 1989, posting many files in the GEnie Spaceport Library.

But the reaction I got as a result was lots of angry replies, not involving technology, but bringing up other issues that readers would have to wade through before getting to the technical parts of the chat strings back then.

It took me a long time to realize that the KESTS to GEO concept would obsolete the ground rocket launch vehicle industry, on which these folks based their futures. No wonder the anger.

But clearly they were only interested in their personal fortunes, not the vision of large scale economical access and utilization of high earth orbit, and the large scale access of the Lunar environment and Mars' moons and asteroids, all now potentially in the near future, instead of something that would only have to withstand the test of real physical construction and usage generations later, as were the other forms of space colonization views as based on rocket systems alone.

This post is getting too long, so I will continue this in a subsequent post.

Figuring out what happened back then

I was one of the many who independently came up with the general concept of what is now called the Space Elevator. Circa 1969 for me; later I learned others including the incredible A C Clarke also had gone that path. We all eventually independently figured out there was no known or anticipated material adequate for making the tether to just be able to support its own weight between ground and GEO.

But by 1972 I had determined that a lunar tether through L-1 could be made of space-rated fiberglass in a constant-stress-cross-section tapered form - it had taken me two months of my spare time and filling up a notebook with my hand calculations, when only a slide rule was available to me - and had submitted that result as an informal proposal to NASA - who replied back thanks but they were totally busy and financially tied up with ending the Apollo program and building the Space Shuttle. And the subject got dropped. I later had made some efforts to communicate the concept via the L-5 News but I just got a reply that they would not consider it unless it had been published by AIAA first, closing that door. I then also basically abandoned my concept of a lunar tether space elevator through L-1, which I called the "Mooncable." Even though it seemed an ideal follow up to the Apollo program at the time, building up a Lunar industrial infrastructure based on supplying Lunar-sourced and L-1 processed construction material to Earth markets, particularly foamed steel. But, it just was not going to happen.

(I was too naive to comprehend that the Mercury-Gemni-Apollo NASA program was solely truly a military-sponsored "space race" to get to the Moon before the Soviets were able to build rocket bases there aimed at America. When that goal was reached, they had no further reason to maintain a Lunar capability.)

But ever since realizing circa 1970 that earth space elevator tether material severe restraints prevented it from being an alternative to rocket launch vehicle access from ground to space, for building SPS in GEO, I sought ways to do the same function as a space elevator, but somehow bypassing the strength to density tether materials problem.

And in 1988 I got a glimmer of how to do that, and by 1989 it was fleshed out to a fairly well integrated concept, with lots of potential for working and doing the job of economically being used to finally build those solar power satellites in GEO that I foresaw even then as vital for civilization so as to avoid the petrochemical hydrocarbon problems we now endure.

The idea was basically to generate the support force to balance the force of gravity, by making a planet-encircling hoop structure that generated its own outward centrifugal force around the planet, to balance the inward force of gravity on the structure and its live loads. It could be made into essentially a synchronous motor in function. An eccentric hoop around the planet, its earth-motionless stator part enclosing a hard vacuum in the part of the path where the high velocity motor armature segments circulated through the atmosphere portion of the path. Some of the upward-moving armature momentum would be coupled over to lift captive spacecraft from ground up to GEO, and gently return them back to the ground later; thus with no fuel to lift, would be a very efficient transportation process. All electrically powered, and eventually even that provided directly from solar energy received in GEO by solar power satellites up there.

A very clean self-sufficient extremely efficient transportation system to orbit from the ground, operating 24/7, without stress to the fossil fuel derived energy sources, once started.

I figured out how to calculate the energy given to payload mass by moving it from earth equatorial surface up into GEO, adapting some equations I had painstakingly developed in my 1970 efforts on the Space Elevator concept, as being 7,300 KWh per pound mass; which at a cost of electricity of 10 cents per KWh is only 73 cents per pound. Lots could be built in GEO at anywhere near that cost. Besides, the transportation system would power itself once it had a solar power satellite in GEO beaming power down to power the KESTS to GEO itself.

I tossed the concept over to the space community via the NSS's "Spaceport Library" newly formed on the GEnie net, starting in 1988. I thought the space community would be deliriously overjoyed at the prospect of finally being able to build those SPS in GEO without having to wait for "unobtanium" material be be created for tether space elevators.

But I also realized that it is a very complex world, and there could be irrational efforts to block KESTS to GEO. What I did not anticipate was how very intensive that effort would be, how cleverly done.

I had merely thought that the project would involve all the people of the earth ceasing their backbiting and territorial battles, to pitch in to get this new opportunity going to help them all in the relatively near future. But what happened is, that they never got to learn about that opportunity.

Looking back, I can see what probably happened. In the incredible melee of human turmoil that somehow gets our civilization done by fits and starts, the folks who could have made KESTS to GEO happen starting back then, saw their long term investments in coal and oil, and nuclear, on which they planned to have their endless cushy life, would be reduced enormously if Solar Power Satellites in GEO were practical and near-future. Plus the rocket folks would have to go back to college to learn about electric motor technology; they already had prestigious and cushy lifestyle jobs, why rock the boat. So they all pitched in to finance distractions to sap away any who might stumble onto my KESTS to GEO efforts and offer to help out. These "distractions" included corporate front space advocacy groups whose claim was to "enable everyone go to space" (as KESTS to GEO claimed to be able to do) and also hire academic-type research to make dazzling projections of how to reach the future - but with no mention of KESTS to GEO nor anything near-future that would rock the boat of their existing petrochemical and nuclear stranglehold on the world's energy supply; thus pretending to be committed to the future of humanity.

It worked. It has kept the financial status quo solid for these past 23 years and no sign of it changing. Besides, in the meantime they got enormous numbers of below-GEO satellites put in place multinationally, which would risk collision with a KESTS to GEO, thus blocking future opportunities. All to protect their selfish wealth cravings.

Bear in mind I realized this could happen, or at least the turmoil of humanity well known to mess things up at times. I did not want KESTS to GEO to be built if there were significant elements hostile to it. The project had to be an "everybody pitches in to get it done, so all could greatly benefit," kind of project; or it ought to not be built. In the hands of irresponsible people, most anything can be turned to harmful purposes, and KESTS to GEO was not immune either. It had to be a project by humanity for humanity, or not done at all.

As you know, it was a "not done at all," happening.

Most likely the big oil-coal-nuclear folks of the younger kind, have been covertly preparing to build KESTS to GEO, but not until way past the fossil fuel peak curve and nuclear curve's wealth to them has been passed. Then they plan new great glory and power and wealth for themselves as always, using this new KESTS to GEO mechanism. Long after I am gone, of course, and without consulting me.

Thus I continue to publish my KESTS to GEO concept in best detail as I can, realizing only those writings and drawings will be there to guide those who eventually get hired to build it. Hopefully they will not goof it up too much, if I can get all the factors shown and optional variations and mechanisms to explore.

Let's see, one other thing. Looking back, I can see where at times I had great loyalty to people who turned out to only intend me harm. The severity of my Aspergers naive inability to comprehend people's doings apparently is worse than I could guess. So, among my life's lessons to myself, is that factor too, in the huge mix of people's doings.