Menu:



Why should AnConn win such a high profile competition?

True, there is a lot of competition in this event. Some of this year's competitors have big names. Some have proven their muster in past events. But given what I have seen from past events, the research I've done and my ideas for overcoming the problems mentioned below, there is no doubt in my mind that this year's competition is in the bag.

A little background:

I'm not sure when I first heard of the concept of a space elevator. It was many years ago to be sure. I had no idea, however, that the concept was actually feasible. And certainly had no idea there was such a thing as a "Space Elevator Games" competition; that is until the evening of January 9th, 2007. That evening my wife and I were watching NOVA on PBS. One of the segments of this program was on the 2006 Space Elevator competition held in October of last year.

All the time we were watching I kept saying to Eileen, "This is what they are doing wrong and this is how to fix it." and "No wonder they are having trouble, this is how to do it better." She said I should enter the competition. I said I would like to and filed it in the back of my mind, never actually thinking I would. The next day she sent me an email with the information needed to enter. At this point I realized she was serious and then spent the next couple of weeks doing research. In mid-January I submitted the formal application along with the $2,500.00 application fee and promptly started ordering parts and material.

In my mind there were several problems with the climbers featured in the PBS program:
  1. Environmental conditions.
           Failure to take environmental conditions into account when developing the physical design of the climbers resulted in an inability to stabilize the vehicle.
  2. Inconsistency of illumination.
           The competitors in the competition all failed to maintain a consistent illumination of their photocells as a result of failing to consider motion and environmental factors.
  3. Ineffective utilization of energy.
           Each of the paricipants realized less than optimal performance from their climbers partly due to ineffective utilization of the energy supplied to the device. These contestents failed to adequately account for physical characteristics of the construction materials. They also failed to properly consider the effects of motion and the environment.
  4. Inefficient utilization of energy.
           The design of the system supplying energy to the motors did not adequately consider the changing conditions imposed on it by the movement of the climber, resulting in considerable waste of energy within the system itself. This waste resulted in suboptimal performance from the device.

The design I have come up with solves all of these problems in a compact, light weight package.

This device will be able to adapt to changing environmental conditions as well as making efficient and effective use of the energy supplied to it. When this design is constructed of the latest materials and technology, I feel certain of a win.