A space elevator for Earth would consist of a cable fixed to the Earth's equator, reaching into space. By attaching a counterweight at the end (or by further extending the cable upward for the same purpose), the center of mass is kept well above the level of geostationary orbit. Upward centrifugal force from the Earth's rotation ensures that the cable remains stretched taut, fully countering the downward gravitational pull. Once above the geostationary level, climbers would have weight in the upward direction as the centrifugal force overpowers gravity. (The diagram is to scale. The height of the counterweight varies by design and a typical, workable height is shown.)

A space elevator is a proposed type of anchored space tether designed to permit vehicle transport from a planetary surface, such as the Earth's, directly into space or orbit, without the use of large rockets. An Earth-based space elevator would consist of a tether (also called a cable or ribbon) with one end attached to the surface and the other end in space beyond geosynchronous orbit (35,800 km altitude). The competing forces of gravity at the lower end and outward centrifugal acceleration at the farther end keep the cable under tension and stationary over a single position on Earth. Once deployed, the tether is ascended by mechanical means to orbit.^[1]

Discussion of a space elevator dates back to 1895 when Konstantin Tsiolkovsky^[2] proposed a free-standing "Tsiolkovsky Tower" reaching from the surface of Earth to geostationary orbit 35,786 km (22,236 mi) up. Like all buildings, Tsiolkovsky's structure would be under compression, supporting its weight from below. Since 1959, most ideas for space elevators have focused on purely tensile structures, with the weight of the system held up from above. In the tensile concepts, a space tether reaches from a large mass (the counterweight) beyond geostationary orbit to the ground. This structure is held in tension between Earth and the counterweight like an upside-down plumb bob. Space elevators have also sometimes been referred to as beanstalks, space bridges, space lifts, space ladders, skyhooks, orbital towers, or orbital elevators.

On Earth, with its relatively strong gravity, current technology is not capable of manufacturing tether materials that are sufficiently strong and light to build a space elevator. However, recent concepts for a space elevator are notable for their plans to use carbon nanotube or boron nitride nanotube based materials as the tensile element in the tether design. The measured strength of these molecules is high compared to their densities and they hold promise as materials to make an Earth-based space elevator possible.^[3]

The concept is also applicable to other planets and celestial bodies. For locations in the solar system with weaker gravity than Earth's (such as the Moon or Mars), the strength-to-density requirements aren't as great for tether materials. Currently available materials (such as Kevlar) are strong and light enough that they could be used as the tether material for elevators there.^[4]

History[link]

Konstantin Tsiolkovsky

Early concepts[link]

The key concept of the space elevator appeared in 1895 when Russian scientist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky was inspired by the Eiffel Tower in Paris to consider a tower that reached all the way into space, built from the ground up to an altitude of 35,790 kilometers (22,238 mi) above sea level (geostationary orbit).^[5] He noted that a "celestial castle" at the top of such a spindle-shaped cable would have the "castle" orbiting Earth in a geostationary orbit (i.e. the castle would remain over the same spot on Earth's surface).

Since the elevator would attain orbital velocity as it rode up the cable, an object released at the tower's top would also have the orbital velocity necessary to remain in geostationary orbit. Unlike more recent concepts for space elevators, Tsiolkovsky's (conceptual) tower was a compression structure, rather than a tension (or "tether") structure.

20th century[link]

Building a compression structure from the ground up proved an unrealistic task as there was no material in existence with enough compressive strength to support its own weight under such conditions.^[6] In 1959 another Russian scientist, Yuri N. Artsutanov, suggested a more feasible proposal. Artsutanov suggested using a geostationary satellite as the base from which to deploy the structure downward. By using a counterweight, a cable would be lowered from geostationary orbit to the surface of Earth, while the counterweight was extended from the satellite away from Earth, keeping the cable constantly over the same spot on the surface of the Earth. Artsutanov's idea was introduced to the Russian-speaking public in an interview published in the Sunday supplement of Komsomolskaya Pravda in 1960,^[7] but was not available in English until much later. He also proposed tapering the cable thickness so that the stress in the cable was constant—this gives a thin cable at ground level, thickening up towards GSO.

Both the tower and cable ideas were proposed in the quasi-humorous Ariadne column in New Scientist, 24 December 1964.

In 1966, Isaacs, Vine, Bradner and Bachus, four American engineers, reinvented the concept, naming it a "Sky-Hook," and published their analysis in the journal Science.^[8] They decided to determine what type of material would be required to build a space elevator, assuming it would be a straight cable with no variations in its cross section, and found that the strength required would be twice that of any then-existing material including graphite, quartz, and diamond.

In 1975 an American scientist, Jerome Pearson, reinvented the concept yet again, publishing his analysis in the journal Acta Astronautica. He designed^[9] a tapered cross section that would be better suited to building the elevator. The completed cable would be thickest at the geostationary orbit, where the tension was greatest, and would be narrowest at the tips to reduce the amount of weight per unit area of cross section that any point on the cable would have to bear. He suggested using a counterweight that would be slowly extended out to 144,000 kilometers (90,000 miles, almost half the distance to the Moon) as the lower section of the elevator was built. Without a large counterweight, the upper portion of the cable would have to be longer than the lower due to the way gravitational and centrifugal forces change with distance from Earth. His analysis included disturbances such as the gravitation of the Moon, wind and moving payloads up and down the cable. The weight of the material needed to build the elevator would have required thousands of Space Shuttle trips, although part of the material could be transported up the elevator when a minimum strength strand reached the ground or be manufactured in space from asteroidal or lunar ore.

In 1979, space elevators were introduced to a broader audience with the simultaneous publication of Arthur C. Clarke's novel, The Fountains of Paradise, in which engineers construct a space elevator on top of a mountain peak in the fictional island country of Taprobane (loosely based on Sri Lanka, albeit moved south to the Equator), and Charles Sheffield's first novel, The Web Between the Worlds, also featuring the building of a space elevator. Three years later, in Robert A. Heinlein's 1982 novel Friday the principal character makes use of the "Nairobi Beanstalk" in the course of her travels. In Kim Stanley Robinson's 1993 novel Red Mars, colonists build a space elevator on Mars that allows both for more colonists to arrive and also for natural resources mined there to be able to leave for Earth. In David Gerrold's 2000 novel, Jumping Off The Planet, a family excursion up the Ecuador "beanstalk" is actually a child-custody kidnapping. Gerrold's book also examines some of the industrial applications of a mature elevator technology.

21st century[link]

After the development of carbon nanotubes in the 1990s, engineer David Smitherman of NASA/Marshall's Advanced Projects Office realized that the high strength of these materials might make the concept of an orbital skyhook feasible, and put together a workshop at the Marshall Space Flight Center, inviting many scientists and engineers to discuss concepts and compile plans for an elevator to turn the concept into a reality.^[10] The publication he edited, compiling information from the workshop, "Space Elevators: An Advanced Earth-Space Infrastructure for the New Millennium",^[11] provides an introduction to the state of the technology at the time (1999), and summarizes the findings.

Another American scientist, Bradley C. Edwards, suggested creating a 100,000 km (62,000 mi) long paper-thin ribbon using a carbon nanotube composite material. He chose the wide-thin ribbon-like cross-section shape rather than earlier circular cross-section concepts because that shape would stand a greater chance of surviving impacts by meteoroids. The ribbon cross-section shape also provided large surface area for climbers to climb with simple rollers. Supported by the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts, Edwards' work was expanded to cover the deployment scenario, climber design, power delivery system, orbital debris avoidance, anchor system, surviving atomic oxygen, avoiding lightning and hurricanes by locating the anchor in the western equatorial Pacific, construction costs, construction schedule, and environmental hazards.^[12][13]

To speed space elevator development, proponents are planning several competitions, similar to the Ansari X Prize, for relevant technologies.^[14][15] Among them are Elevator:2010, which will organize annual competitions for climbers, ribbons and power-beaming systems, the Robogames Space Elevator Ribbon Climbing competition,^[16] as well as NASA's Centennial Challenges program, which, in March 2005, announced a partnership with the Spaceward Foundation (the operator of Elevator:2010), raising the total value of prizes to US$400,000.^[17][18] The first European Space Elevator Challenge (EuSEC) to establish a climber structure took place in August 2011.^[19]

In 2005, "the LiftPort Group of space elevator companies announced that it will be building a carbon nanotube manufacturing plant in Millville, New Jersey, to supply various glass, plastic and metal companies with these strong materials. Although LiftPort hopes to eventually use carbon nanotubes in the construction of a 100,000 km (62,000 mi) space elevator, this move will allow it to make money in the short term and conduct research and development into new production methods. The goal was a space elevator launch in 2010."^{[dated info][20]} On February 13, 2006 the LiftPort Group announced that, earlier the same month, they had tested a mile of "space-elevator tether" made of carbon-fiber composite strings and fiberglass tape measuring 5 cm (2 in) wide and 1 mm (approx. 13 sheets of paper) thick, lifted with balloons.^[21]

In 2007, Elevator:2010 held the 2007 Space Elevator games, which featured US$500,000 awards for each of the two competitions, (US$1,000,000 total) as well as an additional US$4,000,000 to be awarded over the next five years for space elevator related technologies.^[22] No teams won the competition, but a team from MIT entered the first 2-gram (0.07 oz), 100% carbon nanotube entry into the competition.^[23] Japan held an international conference in November 2008 to draw up a timetable for building the elevator.^[24]

In 2008 the book "Leaving the Planet by Space Elevator", by Dr. Brad Edwards and Philip Ragan, was published in Japanese and entered the Japanese best seller list.^[25] This has led to a Japanese announcement of intent to build a Space Elevator at a projected price tag of a trillion yen (£5 billion/ $8 billion). In a report by Leo Lewis, Tokyo correspondent of The Times newspaper in England, plans by Shuichi Ono, chairman of the Japan Space Elevator Association, are unveiled. Lewis says: "Japan is increasingly confident that its sprawling academic and industrial base can solve those [construction] issues, and has even put the astonishingly low price tag of a trillion yen (£5 billion/ $8 billion) on building the elevator. Japan is renowned as a global leader in the precision engineering and high-quality material production without which the idea could never be possible."^[24]

In 2011, Google was revealed to be working on plans for a space elevator at its secretive Google X Lab location. ^[26]

In February 2012, a Japanese construction firm Obayashi Corporation announced that in 38 years it could build a space elevator using carbon nanotube technology^[27]. According to Obayashi, a 30-seaters space elevator will be made of carbon nanotube, The whole length of the elevator cable is expected to be 96,000 kilometers. At a speed of 200 kilometers per hour, passenger will be able to reach the terminal satellite which is 36,000 kilometers up high after a 7.5 days trip.^[28] No cost estimates, finance plans, or other specifics were made. This, along with timing and other factors, hinted that the announcement was made largely to provide publicity for the opening of one of the company's other projects in Tokyo.^[29]

Physics of space elevators[link]

Apparent gravitational field[link]

A space elevator cable rotates along with the rotation of the Earth. Objects fastened to the cable will experience upward centrifugal force that opposes some of, all of, or more than, the downward gravitational force at that point. The higher up the cable, the stronger is the upward centrifugal force and the more it opposes the downward gravity. Eventually it becomes stronger than gravity above the geosynchronous level. Along the length of the cable, this (downward) actual gravity minus the (upward) centrifugal force is called the apparent gravitational field.

The apparent gravitational field can be represented this way:

The downward force of actual gravity decreases with height: Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): g = -G \cdot M/r^2

The upward centrifugal force due to the planet's rotation increases with height: Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): a = \omega^2 \cdot r

Together, the apparent gravitational field is the sum of the two:

Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): g = -G \cdot M/r^2 + \omega^2 \cdot r

where

g is the acceleration of actual gravity or apparent gravity down (negative) or up (positive) along the vertical cable (m s⁻²),

a is the centrifugal acceleration up (positive) along the vertical cable (m s⁻²),

G is the gravitational constant (m³ s⁻² kg⁻¹)

M is the mass of the Earth (kg)

r is the distance from that point to Earth's center (m),

ω is Earth's rotation speed (radian/s).

At some point up the cable, the two terms (downward gravity and upward centrifugal force) equal each other, objects fixed to the cable there have no weight on the cable. This occurs at the level of the stationary orbit. This level (r₁) depends on the mass of the planet and its rotation rate. Setting actual gravity and centrifugal acceleration equal to each other gives:

Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): r_1 = (G \cdot M/\omega^2)^{1/3}

On Earth, this level is 35,786 km (22,236 mi) above the surface, the level of geostationary orbit.

Seen from a geosynchronous station, any object dropped off the tether from a point closer to Earth will initially accelerate downward. If dropped from any point above a geosynchronous station, the object would initially accelerate up toward space.

Cable section[link]

Historically, the main technical problem has been considered the ability of the cable to hold up, with tension, the weight of itself below any particular point. The vertical point with the greatest tension on a space elevator cable is at the level of geostationary orbit, 35,786 km (22,236 mi) above the Earth's equator. This means that the cable material combined with its design must be strong enough to hold up the weight of its own mass from the surface up to 35,786 km. By making any cable larger in cross section at this level compared to at the surface, it can better hold up a longer length of itself. For a space elevator cable, an important design factor in addition to the material is how the cross section area tapers down from the maximum at 35,786 km to the minimum at the surface. To maximize the usable excess strength for a given amount of cable material, the cable's cross section area will need to be designed in such a way that at any given point, it is proportional to the force it has to withstand.

This section may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (February 2012)

For such an idealized design without climbers attached, without thickening at high space-junk altitudes, etc., the cross-section will follow this differential equation:

Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \sigma \cdot dS = g \cdot \rho \cdot S \cdot dr

, where

g is the acceleration along the radius (m·s⁻²),

S is the cross-area of the cable at any given point r, (m²) and dS its variation (m² as well),

ρ is the density of the material used for the cable (kg·m⁻³).

σ is the stress the cross-section area can bear without yielding (N·m⁻²=kg·m⁻¹·s⁻²), its elastic limit.

The value of g is given by the first equation, which yields:

Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \Delta\left[ \ln (S)\right]{}_{r_1}^{r_0} = \rho/\sigma \cdot \Delta\left[ G \cdot M/r + w^2 \cdot r^2/2 \right]{}_{r_1}^{r_0}

,

the variation being taken between r₁ (geostationary) and r₀ (ground).

It turns out that between these two points, this quantity can be expressed simply as: Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \Delta\left[ \ln (S)\right] = \rho/\sigma \cdot g_0 \cdot r_0 \cdot ( 1 + x/2 - 3/2 \cdot x^{1/3} ) , or

Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): S_0 = S_1.e^{\rho/\sigma \cdot g_0 \cdot r_0 \cdot ( 1 + x/2 - 3/2 \cdot x^{1/3} )}

where Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): x = \omega^2 \cdot r_0/g_0

is the ratio between the centrifugal force on the equator and the gravitational force.

Cable material[link]

The free breaking length can be used to compare materials: it is the length of a un-tapered cylindrical cable at which it will break under its own weight under constant gravity. For a given material, that length is σ/ρ/g₀. The free breaking length needed is given by the equation

Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \Delta\left[ \ln (S)\right] = \rho/\sigma \cdot g_0 \cdot r_0 \cdot ( 1 + x/2 - 3/2 \cdot x^{1/3} )

, where Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): x = w^2 \cdot r_0/g_0.

If one does not take into account the x factor (which reduces the strength needed by about 30%), this equation also says that the section ratio equals e (exponential one) when:

Failed to parse (Missing texvc executable; please see math/README to configure.): \sigma = \rho \cdot r_0 \cdot g_0.

If the material can support a free breaking length of only one tenth this, the section needed at a geosynchronous orbit will be e¹⁰ times the ground section, which is more than a hundredfold in diameter.

Structure[link]

One concept for the space elevator has it tethered to a mobile seagoing platform.

There are a variety of space elevator designs. Almost every design includes a base station, a cable, climbers, and a counterweight. Earth's rotation creates upward centrifugal force on the counterweight. The counterweight is held down by the cable while the cable is held up and taut by the counterweight. The base station anchors the whole system to the surface of the Earth. Climbers climb up and down the cable with cargo.

Base station[link]

Modern concepts for the base station/anchor are typically mobile stations, large oceangoing vessels or other mobile platforms. Mobile base stations have the advantage over the earlier stationary concepts (with land-based anchors) by being able to maneuver to avoid high winds, storms, and space debris. Oceanic anchor points are also typically in international waters, simplifying and reducing cost of negotiating territory use for the base station.^[30]

Stationary land based platforms have simpler and less costly logistical access to the base. They also have an advantage of being able to be at high altitude, such as on top of mountains, or even potentially on high towers. This reduces how deep down into the Earth's gravity field the cable needs to extend, and so reduces the critical strength-to-density requirements for the cable material (with all other design factors being equal).^[6]

Cable[link]

Carbon nanotubes are one of the candidates for a cable material

A space elevator cable must carry its own weight as well as the (smaller) weight of climbers. The required strength of the cable will vary along its length, since at various points it has to carry the weight of the cable below, or provide a centripetal force to retain the cable and counterweight above. In a 1998 report,^[31] NASA researchers noted that "maximum stress [on a space elevator cable] is at geosynchronous altitude so the cable must be thickest there and taper exponentially as it approaches Earth. Any potential material may be characterized by the taper factor – the ratio between the cable's radius at geosynchronous altitude and at the Earth's surface."

The cable must be made of a material with a large tensile strength/density ratio. For example, the Edwards space elevator design assumes a cable material with a specific strength of at least 100,000 kN/(kg/m).^[32] This value takes into consideration the entire weight of the space elevator. An untapered space elevator cable would need a material capable of sustaining a length of 4,960 kilometers (3,080 mi) of its own weight at sea level to reach a geostationary altitude of 35,786 km (22,236 mi) without yielding.^[33] Therefore, a material with very high strength and lightness is needed.

For comparison, metals like titanium, steel or aluminium alloys have breaking lengths of only 20–30 km. Modern fibre materials such as kevlar, fibreglass and carbon/graphite fibre have breaking lengths of 100–400 km. Quartz fibers have an advantage that they can be drawn to a length of hundreds of kilometers^[34] even with the present-day technology. Nanoengineered materials such as carbon nanotubes and, more recently discovered, graphene ribbons (perfect two-dimensional sheets of carbon) are expected to have breaking lengths of 5000–6000 km at sea level, and also are able to conduct electrical power.

For high specific strength, carbon has advantages because it is only the 6th element in the periodic table. Carbon has comparatively few of the protons and neutrons which contribute most of the dead weight of any material. Most of the interatomic bonding forces of any element are contributed by only the outer few electrons. For carbon, the strength and stability of those bonds is high compared to the mass of the atom. The challenge in using carbon remains to extend to macroscopic sizes the production of such material that are still perfect on the microscopic scale (as microscopic defects are most responsible for material weakness). The current (2009) carbon nanotube technology allows growing tubes up to a few tens of centimeters.^[35]

A seagoing anchor station would incidentally act as a deep-water seaport.

Climbers[link]

A conceptual drawing of a space elevator climbing through the clouds.

A space elevator cannot be an elevator in the typical sense (with moving cables) due to the need for the cable to be significantly wider at the center than the tips. While various designs employing moving cables have been proposed, most cable designs call for the "elevator" to climb up a stationary cable.

Climbers cover a wide range of designs. On elevator designs whose cables are planar ribbons, most propose to use pairs of rollers to hold the cable with friction.

Climbers must be paced at optimal timings so as to minimize cable stress and oscillations and to maximize throughput. Lighter climbers can be sent up more often, with several going up at the same time. This increases throughput somewhat, but lowers the mass of each individual payload.^[36]

As the car climbs, the elevator takes on a 1 degree lean, due to the top of the elevator traveling faster than the bottom around the Earth (Coriolis force). This diagram is not to scale.

The horizontal speed of each part of the cable increases with altitude, proportional to distance from the center of the Earth, reaching orbital velocity at a point 66% of the height between the surface and geostationary orbit. As a payload is lifted up a space elevator, it gains not only altitude, but horizontal speed (angular momentum) as well. This angular momentum is taken from the Earth's own rotation. As the climber ascends, it is initially moving slightly more slowly than each successive part of cable it is moving on to. This is the coriolis force, the climber "drags" (Westward) on the cable as it climbs.

The overall effect of the centrifugal force acting on the cable causes it to constantly try to return to the energetically favourable vertical orientation, so after an object has been lifted on the cable the counterweight will swing back towards the vertical like an inverted pendulum^[36]. Space elevators and their loads will be designed so that the center of mass is always well-enough above the level of geostationary orbit^[37] to hold up the whole system. Lift and descent operations must be carefully planned so as to keep the pendulum-like motion of the counterweight around the tether point under control.^[38]

When the payload has reached a level greater than 66% of the distance from the surface to GEO, the horizontal speed is enough that the payload would enter an orbit if released from the cable.

The opposite process would occur for payloads descending the elevator, tilting the cable eastwards and insignificantly increasing Earth's rotation speed.

It has also been proposed to use a second cable attached to a platform to lift payload up the main cable, since the lifting device would not have to deal with its own weight against Earth's gravity. Out of the many proposed theories, powering any lifting device also continues to present a challenge.

Another design constraint will be the ascending speed of the climber. As geosynchronous orbit is at 35,786 km (22,236 mi), assuming the climber can reach the speed of a very fast car or train of 300 km/h (180 mph) it will take 5 days to climb to geosynchronous orbit.

Powering climbers[link]

Both power and energy are significant issues for climbers—the climbers need to gain a large amount of potential energy as quickly as possible to clear the cable for the next payload.

Various methods have been proposed to get that energy to the climber:

• Transfer the energy to the climber through wireless energy transfer while it is climbing.
• Transfer the energy to the climber through some material structure while it is climbing.
• Store the energy in the climber before it starts – requires an extremely high specific energy such as nuclear energy.
• Solar power – power compared to the weight of panels limits the speed of climb.^[39]

Wireless energy transfer such as laser power beaming is currently considered the most likely method. Using megawatt powered free electron or solid state lasers in combination with adaptive mirrors approximately 10 m (33 ft) wide and a photovoltaic array on the climber tuned to the laser frequency for efficiency.^[30] For climber designs powered by power beaming, this efficiency is an important design goal. Unused energy must be re-radiated away with heat-dissipation systems, which add to weight.

Yoshio Aoki, a professor of precision machinery engineering at Nihon University and director of the Japan Space Elevator Association, suggested including a second cable and using the conductivity of carbon nanotubes to provide power.^[24]

Various mechanical means of applying power have also been proposed; such as moving, looped or vibrating cables.^{[citation needed]}

Counterweight[link]

Several solutions have been proposed to act as a counterweight:

• a heavy, captured asteroid;^[5]
• a space dock, space station or spaceport positioned past geostationary orbit; or
• a further upward extension of the cable itself so that the net upward pull is the same as an equivalent counterweight;
• parked spent climbers that had been used to thicken the cable during construction, other junk, and material lifted up the cable for the purpose of increasing the counterweight.^[40]

Extending the cable has the advantage of some simplicity of the task and the fact that a payload that went to the end of the counterweight-cable would acquire considerable velocity relative to the Earth, allowing it to be launched into interplanetary space. Its disadvantage is the need to produce greater amounts of cable material as opposed to using anything that has mass.

Related concepts[link]

The conventional current concept of a "Space Elevator" has evolved from a static compressive structure reaching to the level of GEO, to the modern baseline idea of a static tensile structure anchored to the ground and extending to well above the level of GEO. In the current usage by practitioners (and in this article), a "Space Elevator" means the Tsiolkovsky-Artsutanov-Pearson type as considered by the International Space Elevator Consortium. This conventional type is a static structure fixed to the ground and extending into space high enough that cargo can climb the structure up from the ground to a level where simple release will put the cargo into an orbit.^[41]

Some concepts related to this modern baseline are not usually termed a "Space Elevator", but are similar in some way and are sometimes termed "Space Elevator" by their proponents. For example, Hans Moravec published an article in 1977 called "A Non-Synchronous Orbital Skyhook" describing a concept using a rotating cable.^[42] The rotation speed would exactly match the orbital speed in such a way that the tip velocity at the lowest point was zero compared to the object to be "elevated". It would dynamically grapple and then "elevate" high flying objects to orbit or low orbiting objects to higher orbit. Other ideas use very tall compressive towers to reduce the demands on launch vehicles.^[43] The vehicle is "elevated" up the tower, which may extend as high as above the atmosphere, and is launched from the top.

The original concept envisioned by Tsiolkovsky was a compression structure, a concept similar to an aerial mast. While such structures might reach space (100 km, 62 mi), they are unlikely to reach geostationary orbit. The concept of a Tsiolkovsky tower combined with a classic space elevator cable (reaching above the level of GEO) has been suggested.^[6]

A tall tower^[44] to access near-space altitudes of 20 km (12 mi) has been proposed by Canadian researchers. The structure would be pneumatically supported and free standing with control systems guiding the structure's center of mass. Proposed uses include tourism and commerce, communications, wind generation and low-cost space launch.^[43]

Other concepts related to a space elevator (or parts of a space elevator) include an orbital ring, a pneumatic space tower,^[45] a space fountain, a launch loop, a Skyhook, a space tether, a space hoist and the SpaceShaft.^[46]

Launching into deep space[link]

An object attached to a space elevator at a radius of approximately 53,100 km will be at escape velocity when released. Transfer orbits to the L1 and L2 Lagrangian points can be attained by release at 50,630 and 51,240 km, respectively, and transfer to lunar orbit from 50,960 km.^[47]

At the end of Pearson's 144,000 km (89,000 mi) cable, the tangential velocity is 10.93 kilometers per second (6.79 mi/s). That is more than enough to escape Earth's gravitational field and send probes at least as far out as Jupiter. Once at Jupiter, a gravitational assist maneuver permits solar escape velocity to be reached.^[48]

Extraterrestrial elevators[link]

A space elevator could also be constructed on other planets, asteroids and moons.

A Martian tether could be much shorter than one on Earth. Mars' surface gravity is 38% of Earth's, while it rotates around its axis in about the same time as Earth.^[49] Because of this, Martian stationary orbit is much closer to the surface, and hence the elevator would be much shorter. Current materials are already sufficiently strong to construct such an elevator.^[50] Building a Martian elevator would be complicated by the Martian moon Phobos, which is in a low orbit and intersects the Equator regularly (twice every orbital period of 11 h 6 min).

On the near side of the moon, the strength-to-density required of the tether of a lunar space elevator exists in currently available materials. A lunar space elevator would be about 50,000 kilometers (31,000 mi) long. It would extend through the Earth-Moon L1 point from an anchor point near the center of the visible part of Earth's moon.^[51]

On the far side of the moon, a lunar space elevator would need to be very long (more than twice the length of an Earth elevator) but due to the low gravity of the Moon, can also be made of existing engineering materials.^[51]

Rapidly spinning asteroids or moons could use cables to eject materials to convenient points, such as Earth orbits;^{[citation needed]} or conversely, to eject materials to send the bulk of the mass of the asteroid or moon to Earth orbit or a Lagrangian point. Freeman Dyson, a physicist and mathematician, has suggested^{[citation needed]} using such smaller systems as power generators at points distant from the Sun where solar power is uneconomical. For the purpose of mass ejection, it is not necessary to rely on the asteroid or moon to be rapidly spinning. Instead of attaching the tether to the equator of a rotating body, it can be attached to a rotating hub on the surface. This was suggested in 1980 as a "Rotary Rocket" by Pearson^[52] and described very succinctly on the Island One website as a "Tapered Sling".^[53]

A space elevator using presently available engineering materials could be constructed between mutually tidally locked worlds, such as Pluto and Charon or the components of binary asteroid Antiope, with no terminus disconnect, according to Francis Graham of Kent State University.^[54] However, spooled variable lengths of cable must be used due to ellipticity of the orbits.

Construction[link]

The construction of a space elevator would need reduction of some technical risk. Some advances in engineering, manufacturing and physical technology are required. Once a first space elevator is built, the second one and all others would have the use of the previous ones to assist in construction, making their costs considerably lower. Such follow-on space elevators would also benefit from the great reduction in technical risk achieved by the construction of the first space elevator.

Construction is conceived as the deployment of a long cable from a large spool. The spool is initially parked in a geostationary orbit above the planned anchor point. When a long cable is dropped "down" (toward Earth), it must be balanced by balancing mass being dropped "up" (away from Earth) for the whole system to remain on the geosynchronous orbit. Earlier designs imagined the balancing mass to be another cable (with counterweight) extending upward, with the main spool remaining at the original geosynchronous orbit level. Most current designs elevate the spool itself as the main cable is paid out, a simpler process. When the lower end of the cable is so long as to reach the Earth (at the equator), it can be anchored. Once anchored, the center of mass is elevated upward more (by adding mass at the upper end or by paying out more cable). This adds more tension to the whole cable, which can then be used as an elevator cable.

Safety issues and construction challenges[link]

For early systems, transit times from the surface to the level of geosynchronous orbit would be about five days. On these early systems, the time spent moving through the Van Allen radiation belts would be enough that passengers would need to be protected from radiation by shielding, which adds mass to the climber and decreases payload.^[55]

A space elevator would present a navigational hazard, both to aircraft and spacecraft. Aircraft could be diverted by air-traffic control restrictions. All objects in stable orbits that have perigee below the maximum altitude of the cable that are not synchronous with the cable will impact the cable eventually, unless avoiding action is taken. One potential solution proposed by Edwards is to use a movable anchor (a sea anchor) to allow the tether to "dodge" any space debris large enough to track.^[30]

Impacts by space objects such as meteoroids, micrometeorites and orbiting man-made debris, pose another design constraint on the cable. A cable would need to be designed to maneuver out of the way of debris, or absorb impacts of small debris without breaking.

Economics[link]

With a space elevator, materials might be sent into orbit at a fraction of the current cost. As of 2000, conventional rocket designs cost about US$11,000 per pound (US$25,000 per kilogram) for transfer to geostationary orbit.^[56] Current proposals envision payload prices starting as low as $100 per pound ($220 per kilogram),^[57] similar to the $5–$300/kg estimates of the Launch loop, but higher than the $310/ton to 500 km orbit quoted^[58] to Dr. Jerry Pournelle for an orbital airship system.

Philip Ragan, co-author of the book "Leaving the Planet by Space Elevator", states that "The first country to deploy a space elevator will have a 95 percent cost advantage and could potentially control all space activities."^[59]

See also[link]

	Spaceflight portal
	Science portal

• Elevator:2010 – a space elevator prize competition
• Lunar space elevator for the moon variant
• Space elevator construction discusses alternative construction methods of a space elevator.
• Space elevator economics discusses capital and maintenance costs of a space elevator.
• Space elevator safety discusses safety aspects of space elevator construction and operation.
• Space elevators in fiction
• Tether propulsion – for other transportation methods using long cables

• Non-rocket spacelaunch:
  • Launch loop – a hypervelocity belt system that forms a launch track at 80 km
  • Lightcraft – an alternative method for moving materials or people
  • Space gun or StarTram – among methods for launching materials
  • Space fountain – very tall structures using fast moving masses to hold it up
  • SpaceShaft – A atmospherically buoyant spar that could reach up to LEO and provide super-heavy lifting capacity.

• Related Myths:
  • Tower of Babel
  • World tree
  • Jack and the Beanstalk

References[link]

Further reading[link]

• Edwards BC, Ragan P. "Leaving The Planet By Space Elevator" Seattle, USA: Lulu; 2006. ISBN 978-1-4303-0006-9
• Edwards BC, Westling EA. The Space Elevator: A Revolutionary Earth-to-Space Transportation System. San Francisco, USA: Spageo Inc.; 2002. ISBN 0-9726045-0-2.
• Space Elevators – An Advanced Earth-Space Infrastructure for the New Millennium [PDF]. A conference publication based on findings from the Advanced Space Infrastructure Workshop on Geostationary Orbiting Tether "Space Elevator" Concepts, held in 1999 at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama. Compiled by D.V. Smitherman, Jr., published August 2000.
• "The Political Economy of Very Large Space Projects" HTML PDF, John Hickman, Ph.D. Journal of Evolution and Technology Vol. 4 – November 1999.
• The Space Elevator NIAC report by Dr. Bradley C. Edwards
• A Hoist to the Heavens By Bradley Carl Edwards
• Ziemelis K. (2001) "Going up". In New Scientist 2289: 24–27. Republished in SpaceRef. Title page: "The great space elevator: the dream machine that will turn us all into astronauts."
• The Space Elevator Comes Closer to Reality. An overview by Leonard David of space.com, published 27 March 2002.
• Krishnaswamy, Sridhar. Stress Analysis — The Orbital Tower (PDF)
• LiftPort's Roadmap for Elevator To Space SE Roadmap (PDF)
• Space Elevators Face Wobble Problem: New Scientist

• Peter Swan & Cathy Swan, "Space Elevator Systems Architecture." Lulu.com 2007. ISBN 978-1-4303-1405-9 See ref. 555344 at www.lulu.com

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Space elevators

Listen to this article (info/dl)

This audio file was created from a revision of the "Space elevator" article dated 2006-05-29, and does not reflect subsequent edits to the article. (Audio help)

More spoken articles

• The Space Elevator Reference
• Space Elevator Engineering-Development wiki
• Audacious & Outrageous: Space Elevators
• Ing-Math.Net (Germany) – Ing-Math.Net (German Max-Born Space Elevator Team 2006) (German)
• Project of the Scientific Workgroup for Rocketry and Spaceflight(WARR) (German)
• The Economist: Waiting For The Space Elevator (June 8, 2006 – subscription required)
• CBC Radio Quirks and Quarks November 3, 2001 Riding the Space Elevator
• Times of London Online: Going up ... and the next floor is outer space
• The Space Elevator: 'Thought Experiment', or Key to the Universe?. By Sir Arthur C. Clarke. Address to the XXXth International Astronautical Congress, Munich, 20 September 1979.
• The Space Elevator – Physical Principles The math and the numbers for actual materials.

v t e Space elevator Main articles History · Structure · Economics · Safety · In fiction Concepts Orbital ring · Space fountain · Launch loop · Lunar space elevator Technologies Tether · Electromagnetic propulsion · Counterweight · Carbon nanotube · Nanotechnology Competitions Space elevator games · Elevator:2010 · European Space Elevator Challenge · Japan Space Elevator & Technical Competition People Konstantin Tsiolkovsky · Jerome Pearson · Yuri Artsutanov · Bradley C. Edwards Organizations LiftPort Group · LaserMotive · KC Space Pirates See also: Skyhook · Non-rocket spacelaunch · Spaceflight · Megascale engineering

v t e Non-rocket spacelaunch Spaceflight Static structures Compressive Space tower Pneumatic freestanding tower Tensile Skyhooks Space elevator Hypersonic skyhook SpaceShaft Bolus Rotovators Hypersonic bolus Other Endo-atmospheric tethers Dynamic structures Space fountain Orbital ring Launch loop Projectile launchers Electrical Coilgun Mass driver Railgun StarTram Chemical Space gun Blast wave accelerator Ram accelerator Mechanical Slingatron Reaction drives Air launch Spaceplanes Laser propulsion Beam-powered propulsion Buoyant lifting Balloon Buoyant space port Orbital airship High-altitude platform See also: Rocket sled launch Megascale engineering Category

This article contains Japanese text. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols instead of kanji and kana.

Michio Kaku (加来 道雄, Kaku Michio^?, born January 24, 1947) is an American theoretical physicist, the Henry Semat Professor of Theoretical Physics in the City College of New York of City University of New York, a co-founder of string field theory,^[1] a futurist, and a "communicator" and "popularizer" of science. He has written several books about physics and related topics; he has made frequent appearances on radio, television, and film; and he writes extensive online blogs and articles. He has written two New York Times best sellers, Physics of the Impossible (2008) and Physics of the Future (2011). He has hosted several TV specials for BBC-TV, the Discovery Channel, and the Science Channel.

Early life and education[link]

Kaku was born in San Jose, California to Japanese immigrant parents. His grandfather came to the United States to take part in the clean-up operation after the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake^{[citation needed]}. His father was born in California but was educated in Japan and spoke little English. Both his parents were put in the Tule Lake War Relocation Center, where they met and where his two brothers were born.

At Cubberley High School in Palo Alto, Kaku assembled an atom smasher in his parents' garage for a science fair project.^[2] At the National Science Fair in Albuquerque, New Mexico, he attracted the attention of physicist Edward Teller, who took Kaku as a protégé, awarding him the Hertz Engineering Scholarship. Kaku graduated summa cum laude from Harvard University in 1968 and was first in his physics class. He attended the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley and received a Ph.D. in 1972, and in 1972 he held a lectureship at Princeton University.

During the Vietnam War, Kaku completed his U.S. Army basic training at Fort Benning, Georgia and his advanced individual training at Fort Lewis, Washington.^[3] However, the Vietnam War ended before he was deployed as an infantryman.

Academic career[link]

Kaku became a visiting professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton,^[4] and New York University.^[5] He currently holds the Henry Semat Chair and Professorship in theoretical physics at the City College of New York.^[6]

Kaku has had over 70 articles published in physics journals such as Physical Review, covering topics such as superstring theory, supergravity, supersymmetry, and hadronic physics.^[7] In 1974, along with Prof. Keiji Kikkawa of Osaka University, he authored the first papers describing string theory in a field form.^[8][9]

Kaku is the author of several textbooks on string theory and quantum field theory.

Popular science[link]

Kaku is most widely known as a popularizer of science.^[10] He has written books and appeared on many television programs as well as film. He also hosts a weekly radio program.

Books[link]

Kaku is the author of various popular science books.

• Hyperspace (1994)
• Beyond Einstein (with Jennifer Thompson) (1995)
• Visions: How Science Will Revolutionize the 21st Century^[11] (1998)
• Einstein's Cosmos (2004)
• Parallel Worlds (2004)
• Physics of the Impossible (2008)
• Physics of the Future (2011)

Hyperspace was a best-seller and was voted one of the best science books of the year by both The New York Times^[10] and The Washington Post. Parallel Worlds was a finalist for the Samuel Johnson Prize for non-fiction in the UK.^[12]

Radio[link]

Kaku is the host of the weekly, one-hour radio program Explorations, produced by the Pacifica Foundation's WBAI in New York. "Explorations" is syndicated to community and independent radio stations and makes previous broadcasts available on the program's website. Kaku defines the show as dealing with the general topics of science, war, peace, and the environment.

In April 2006, Kaku began broadcasting Science Fantastic on 90 commercial radio stations, the only nationally syndicated science program on commercial radio in the United States. It is syndicated by Talk Radio Network and now reaches 130 radio stations and America's Talk on XM. The program is formatted as a live listener call-in show, focusing on "futurology," which he defines as the future of science.^{[citation needed]} Featured guests include Nobel laureates and top researchers on the topics of string theory, time travel, black holes, gene therapy, aging, space travel, artificial intelligence, and SETI. When Kaku is busy filming for television, Science Fantastic goes on hiatus, sometimes for several months. Kaku is also a frequent guest on many programs, where he is outspoken in all areas and issues he considers of importance, such as the program Coast to Coast AM, where on 30 November 2007, he reaffirmed his belief that there is a 100% probability of extraterrestrial life in the universe.^[13]

Kaku has appeared on The Opie and Anthony Show a number of times, discussing popular fiction such as Back to The Future, Lost, and the theories behind time-travel that these and other fictional entertainment focus on.

Television and film[link]

Kaku has appeared in many forms of media and on many programs and networks, including Good Morning America, The Screen Savers, Larry King Live, 60 Minutes, Nightline, 20/20, Naked Science, CNN, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, Al Jazeera English, Fox News Channel, The History Channel, Conan, The Science Channel, The Discovery Channel, TLC, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, The Colbert Report, The Art Bell Show and its successor, Coast To Coast AM, BBC World News America, The Opie & Anthony Show, The Covino & Rich Show, Head Rush, The Late Show with David Letterman, and Real Time with Bill Maher.

In 1999, Kaku was one of the scientists profiled in the feature-length film Me and Isaac Newton, directed by Michael Apted. It played theatrically in the United States, was later broadcast on national TV, and won several film awards.^{[citation needed]}

In 2005, Kaku appeared in the short documentary Obsessed & Scientific. The film is about the possibility of time travel and the people who dream about it. It screened at the Montreal World Film Festival and a feature film expansion is in development talks. Kaku also appeared in the ABC documentary UFOs: Seeing Is Believing, in which he suggested that while he believes it is extremely unlikely that extraterrestrials have ever actually visited Earth, we must keep our minds open to the possible existence of civilizations a million years ahead of us in technology, where entirely new avenues of physics open up. He also discussed the future of interstellar exploration and alien life in the Discovery Channel special Alien Planet as one of the multiple speakers who co-hosted the show, and Einstein's Theory of Relativity on The History Channel.

In February 2006, Kaku appeared as presenter in the BBC-TV four-part documentary Time which seeks to explore the mysterious nature of time. Part one of the series concerns personal time, and how we perceive and measure the passing of time. The second in the series deals with cheating time, exploring possibilities of extending the lifespan of organisms. The geological time covered in part three explores the ages of the earth and the sun. Part four covers the topics of cosmological time, the beginning of time and the events that occurred at the instant of the big bang.

On January 28, 2007, Kaku hosted the Discovery Channel series 2057. This three-hour program discussed how medicine, the city, and energy could change over the next 50 years.

In 2008, Kaku hosted the three-hour BBC-TV documentary Visions of the Future, on the future of computers, medicine, and quantum physics, and he appeared in several episodes of the History Channel's Universe series.

On December 1, 2009, he began hosting a 12-episode weekly TV series for the Science Channel at 10 pm, called Sci Fi Science: Physics of the Impossible, based on his best-selling book. Each 30-minute episode discusses the scientific basis behind imaginative schemes, such as time travel, parallel universes, warp drive, star ships, light sabers, force fields, teleportation, invisibility, death stars, and even superpowers and flying saucers. Each episode includes interviews with the world's top scientists working on prototypes of these technologies, interviews with science fiction fans, clips from science fiction movies, and special effects and computer graphics. Although these inventions are impossible today, the series discusses when these technologies might become feasible in the future.^[14]

In 2010, he began to appear in a series on the website Gametrailers.com called Science of Games, discussing the scientific aspects of various popular video games such as Mass Effect 2 and Star Wars: The Force Unleashed.

Kaku is popular in mainstream media because of his knowledge and his accessible approach to presenting complex subjects in science. While his technical writings are confined to theoretical physics, his public speaking and media appearances cover a broad range of topics, from the Kardashev scale to more esoteric subjects such as wormholes and time travel. In January 2007, Kaku visited Oman. While there, he talked at length to select members of that country's decision makers. In an interview with local media, Dr Kaku elaborated on his vision of mankind's future. Kaku considers climate change and terrorism as serious threats in man's evolution from a Type 0 civilization to Type 1.^[15]

He is pictured in Symphony of Science's newest song (as of September 6, 2011), 'The Quantum World.'

On October 11, 2010, Michio Kaku appeared in the BBC program "What Happened Before the Big Bang" (along with Laura Mersini-Houghton, Andrei Linde, Roger Penrose, Lee Smolin, Neil Turok, and other notable cosmologists and physicists), where he propounded his theory of the universe created out of nothing.^[16]

Social policy advocacy[link]

Kaku has publicly stated his concerns over matters including the anthropogenic cause of global warming, nuclear armament, nuclear power and the general misuse of science.^[17] He was critical of the Cassini–Huygens space probe because of the 72 pounds (33 kg) of plutonium contained in the craft for use by its radioisotope thermoelectric generator. Conscious of the possibility of casualties if the probe's fuel were dispersed into the environment during a malfunction and crash as the probe was making a 'sling-shot' maneuver around earth, Kaku publicly criticized NASA's risk assessment.^[18] He has also spoken on the dangers of space junk and called for more and better monitoring. Kaku is generally a vigorous supporter of the exploration of outer space, believing that the ultimate destiny of the human race may lie in extrasolar planets; but he is critical of some of the cost-ineffective missions and methods of NASA.

Kaku credits his anti-nuclear war position to programs he heard on the Pacifica Radio network, during his student years in California. It was during this period that he made the decision to turn away from a career developing the next generation of nuclear weapons in association with Edward Teller and focused on research, teaching, writing and media.^{[citation needed]} Kaku joined with others such as Helen Caldicott, Jonathan Schell, Peace Action and was instrumental in building a global anti-nuclear weapons movement that arose in the 1980s, during the administration of U.S. President Ronald Reagan.

Kaku was a board member of Peace Action and on the board of radio station WBAI-FM in New York City where he originated his long running program, Explorations, that focused on the issues of science, war, peace and the environment.

His remark from an interview in support of SETI, "We could be in the middle of an intergalactic conversation...and we wouldn't even know.", is used in the third Symphony of Science installment "Our Place in the Cosmos".

Personal life[link]

Kaku is married to Shizue Kaku and has two daughters.^[19]

Bibliography[link]

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Michio Kaku

Listen to this article (info/dl)

This audio file was created from a revision of the "Michio Kaku" article dated 2007-07-08, and does not reflect subsequent edits to the article. (Audio help)

More spoken articles

• Official website
• Michio Kaku on Twitter
• Getting Physical: Dr. Michio Kaku Explains Einstein's Genius
• Russia Takes Aim at Asteroids, op-ed on asteroid defense, Wall St. Journal, Jan. 5, 2010
• The Skeptics' Guide To The Universe interview
• Michio Kaku at the Internet Movie Database
• Michio Kaku on National Public Radio
• About Michio Kaku
• Video: Michio Kaku discusses Physics of the Future on March 23, 2011, on Forum Network.
• In Depth interview with Kaku, October 3, 2010

This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (May 2010)

The Basics
The Basics at the Oxford Art Factory, 2010
Background information
Origin	Melbourne, Australia
Genres	Rock
Years active	2002–present
Labels	Independent, Albert Records
Associated acts	Gotye, Down Hills Home, Dog With Wheels, Blood Red Bird
Website	The Basics Official Website
Members
Wally De Backer Kris Schroeder Tim Heath
Past members
Michael Hubbard
Notable instruments
Lead guitar, drums, bass guitar.

The Basics ( /ˈbæzɪtʃ/ BAZZ-ich) are a three-piece band from Melbourne, Australia, formed by Wally De Backer and Kris Schroeder in 2002. Their style has been described as anything from 'indie-pop' to 'rock'n'roll' to 'pop-rock', though their records show they span a wide range of genres, including reggae, ska, country, and electro-pop. They are "recognised as one of Australia's hardest-working bands".^[1]

With close to 1000 shows in their ten-year career, their live performances are well-known for their sense of humour and energy.^[2]

Formation[link]

The Basics were formed after Kris met Wally at a party in Melbourne.^[3] The event was to see off the young aspiring producer, who was about to depart for Los Angeles, and together with a number of musician friends, the two jammed on some blues-rock standards. Later that night, they bonded over a mutual love of The Beatles, 70s and 80s cartoon theme songs and old Sierra adventure games.

Initially, they played around Melbourne as an acoustic guitar/drums combo, starting at The Opposition in Frankston and the House of Fools in Footscray, where in late 2002 they met Michael Hubbard and later invited him to join them on electric guitar.^[4] Though lacking any real experience with the instrument, Kris willingly purchased his first bass guitar, and the trio was born. During this time, the group start performing songs with more complicated three-part harmony.

During late 2002 and early 2003, The Basics recorded and released an album called Get Back through MGM Distribution. They began what was to become regular tours of the East and West coasts of Australia.

2004-2005: Current lineup[link]

Tim Heath joined the group in June 2004, after Michael decided to pursue his solo career, which has included being one half of Down Hills Home.^[4] Tim was reportedly the only person to reply to an advertisement in Melbourne's Beat Magazine looking for a new guitarist. Tim apparently answered the advertisement - which said the applicant "must have a love of 50s and 60s rock'n'roll" - thinking that he would be meeting "a couple of old guys to play with on the weekends over some beers". They soon recorded For Girls Like You.

The Basics in 2005 continued to tour and play small festivals, and after releasing For Girls Like You through MGM Distribution, they departed for a national tour of Australia, which lasted for two months and took them to every Australian state and territory. Stuart Padbury, a young Melbourne sound engineer, joined them on much of this tour. On returning, the band began demonstrating songs for a new album.

2006-2009: Touring and soundtracks[link]

In 2006, The Basics began recording what was to become known as Stand Out/Fit In. Taking several months, it was not completed until the end of the year, despite intentions to have it released in June. Instead, they held a successful 'album preview', where each of the tracks was demonstrated in 'rough form' accompanied by a music video for each (produced by Melbourne photographic artist James Bryans). The band also talked about the origins of the songs. This event brought a lot of attention to the band for the idea's originality. They pre-released a radio single 'Just Hold On' from the album. The band were invited to play the hugely popular Homebake Festival in Sydney, where they received a great response, after being introduced onto the stage by a short stocky Asian guy with big calves ("one of the highlights" wrote The Daily Telegraph).

In 2007, the band departed on a tri-state residency which saw them play Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane every week for the month of April - a bold move which brought further attention to the band for its original idea.^[5] Riding on the wave of this tour, Schroeder, De Backer and Heath departed on their first overseas tour which saw them performing 26 shows around Japan, Norway and the United Kingdom.^[6] They also toured twice more up the East Coast, one of which was with popular Japanese band The Bawdies. Their song 'Rattle My Chain' was used in a series of commercials for Volvo Australia. The song 'Hey There!' featured in the British film The Bank Job - starring Jason Statham - and was used as the backing for a February 2007 short film directed by Tim Longhurst called The Rip. Their song 'Better' was featured in a surfing documentary about the invention of the shortboard in 1967.

In 2008, the band appeared on Australia's Channel 9 for Australia Day celebrations, performing two of their songs - 'Just Hold On' and 'Hey There!' - to an estimated audience of 2 million. Securing an Australian Government grant, they embarked on a two-month tour of Australia, specifically targeting "culturally underprivileged groups" in rural and regional schoolchildren and Indigenous communities. The programme had them holding masterclasses and performing alongside Indigenous groups in the remote Northern Territory and Queensland.^[7][8] Their initiative also had them raising money for the charity Lifeline^{[disambiguation needed ]}, their contribution to which was recognised with a plaque at the end of the tour. Season two of Californication starring David Duchovny featured their cover of the classic 'Have Love, Will Travel', most famously covered by 'The Sonics'.

In 2009, The Basics for the first time enjoyed the support of Australian radio network Triple J, which had reportedly snubbed the band's previous material.^[9] The singles 'With This Ship' and 'Like A Brother' were added to the station's playlist, and momentum carried The Basics overseas for a second tour of the United Kingdom and Norway, and also a series of shows in Dublin, Ireland. They were joined by the longtime front-of-house engineer Stuart Padbury, who had been mixing them since 2005. The band was often seen in the Grafton Street Mall in Dublin, busking to promote their concerts there. Their second show in Oslo, Norway, saw the band perform with Hot Tub, one of the members of the Norwegian boy band "Boyzvoice", in his first performance for several years. Season Eight of Scrubs featured the song 'Lookin' Over My Shoulder'.

Despite all this promise, the band's album Keep Your Friends Close - produced and part-recorded by Peter Cobbin at London's Abbey Road Studios - though enjoying many favourable reviews,^{[10][11][12][13]} failed to impress Richard Kingsmill, music director of Triple J. This effectively ended the band's apparent upward spiral and the resulting album launch tour was reportedly "trying".

2010: Hiatus and live album[link]

In 2010, following the band's fourth stint at the Tamworth Country Music Festival, and the recording of a yet-unreleased live album, an indefinite hiatus was announced on the band's websites. This was in part due to the impending release of a new album produced by Wally for his Gotye project, and also to reported tensions within the band following the previous year's disappointments.

However, this hiatus was soon broken with a two-month residency at the Northcote Social Club in Melbourne, which saw an apparent return to form.^[14] The band's EP "Wait For You" enjoys airplay on Triple J.^[15] The Basics also played a one-off show at Sydney's Oxford Art Factory.^[16]

On 20 August 2010, The Basics released their fourth LP /ðəˈbæzɪtʃ/, available free and exclusively from their website for digital download^[17]. The band had reportedly moved to expand their listenership through this free giveaway, though 300 "Deluxe" CD/vinyl versions have been printed. /ðəˈbæzɪtʃ/ was recorded at the Northcote Social Club on 6 February, "in front of a live studio audience", and like the previous record, was mixed by Peter Cobbin at Abbey Road Studios. Technically a self-titled album, the phonetics spell out the accurate pronunciation of the band’s name. Kris Schroeder: "For years we’ve worked at bringing our live energy into the studio and thus far it’s been a bit hit-and-miss. Our trick this time was to pull a switcheroo and bring the studio to us instead; the result is the best and closest to us we’ve sounded yet."

Melbourne thespian and Dog With Wheels bassist David Bramble - friends with Heath from university days - has occasionally joined the band on tour, playing keys, often while sporting a large moustache. Other guests have included Jake Mason (saxophone), also of Cookin' on 3 Burners and The Bamboos^{[disambiguation needed ]}, Gideon Brazil (saxophone, flute), Simon Imrei (guitar and vocals) and Monty MacKenzie (saxophone).

Covers have often made an appearance from various sources: to date, some of the bands covered have been Cream, The Kinks, The Rolling Stones, The Police, Neil Young, Bob Dylan, New Kids on the Block, Richard Berry, Sonny Curtis and The Crickets, JJ Cale, Harry Nilsson, Bill Scott, Ryan Adams and The Coasters (via The Beatles for their cover of Three Cool Cats).

Members[link]

Current

• Wally De Backer - drums, vocals (2002-present)
• Kris Schroeder - bass, vocals (2002-present)
• Tim Heath - guitar, vocals (2004-present)

Former

• Michael Hubbard - guitar, vocals (2002-2004)

Discography[link]

Albums[link]

• Get Back (15 January 2004)
• Stand Out/Fit In (5 May 2007)
• Keep Your Friends Close (25 September 2009)
• /ðəˈbæzɪtʃ/ (20 August 2010)

EP[link]

• For Girls Like You (11 July 2005)
• Lookin' Over My Shoulder (10 February 2007)
• Like A Brother (5 June 2009)
• Wait For You (21 May 2010)

Singles[link]

• Call It Rhythm & Blues (20 August 2004)
• Just Hold On
• With This Ship (22 February 2009)

Upcoming projects[link]

The band is taking a three year hiatus, with an announced return to the stage together in early 2014. Wally De Backer launched Making Mirrors under his Gotye act in August 2011, Tim Heath will be touring and recording with Blood Red Bird, and Kris Schroeder recorded a solo EP titled, Patience in the Face of Control, before leaving Australia to work with the Red Cross in Kenya for a two year sabbatical.

References[link]

External links[link]

• Official Website
• Myspace Website