Even in its early beginnings, humanity has strived to use technology in order to destroy its enemies, create civilization, and provide for its future generations. By continuing to make new technologies and technological innovations, humanity was able to grow into the large population that exists today. Without advancements such as modernized farming, medicine, global transport, worldwide connectivity (internet), and orbital satellites, the world wouldn't be what it is today.  These and much other technological advancements are the reason why nearly seven billion humans are able to live on Earth together. However, the successes of these innovations were dependent on their ability to be produced. As a civilization it is important to plan for the future by developing technologies in the present. Although the motivation is slightly different, as the United States was faced with the necessity of beating the Soviet Union in the Cold War, the space race of the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s became a good example of the philosophy of necessity. In the July of 1969, after President John F. Kennedy's challenge to land men on the moon by the end of the 1960s, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin of NASA's Apollo Eleven put footprints on the moon, proving that when faced with necessity, humanity is able to achieve great leaps of advancement in very small amounts of time.

Since the space race, humanity has used space as a resource. Satellites are constantly overhead in orbit, performing operations ranging from military surveillance to TV broadcasting. Telescopes and extra planetary rovers have helped astronomers, physicists, and many others to learn more about where humanity stands in the universe. However, space exploration and discovery may very soon have a new utility. In the coming centuries, regardless of new Earthly technologies, Earth will no longer be able to support the human population at its current growth rate.  While this is not by any means a current problem, as Earth's human population continues to grow, a problem for sustainability will arise. Therefore, efforts should be made now in order to create possibilities for future generations when necessity occurs.

In Greg Klerx's article, "Elevator to the Stars," he references renowned sci-fi writer Robert Heinlein by saying, "If you can make it into low-Earth orbit  --  about 160 kilometers up- then you are halfway to anywhere in the solar system" (Klerx 1). Anyone who has a basic understanding of our solar system and outer space understands that this physically is not correct. However, Klerx does make the reader ponder what Robert Heinlein is really getting at. The truth is that there is only one way to send things to space and that's by shooting it into the sky on a big rocket and praying that it doesn't explode on its way. There's a reason people use the expression, "it's not rocket science," and it's because rockets have never been fully mastered. Admittedly, rocket science has vastly improved and success rate has increased throughout the decades; however, it is still currently a costly, irregular, and unreliable method. The failure rate of the modern rocket is still very high. Even the space shuttle program, which was intended to increase reliability and decrease the costs of launches by the reuse of shuttles, was not greatly successful. In viewing the big picture, one can see how in many ways, man's mutual friend with space is holding us back. Rockets in truth are unpredictable and expensive, and in a subject with an infinite amount of utility and opportunity, a new launch method could be a progressive step towards opening space to modern business and civilization, as well as creating an increase in space exploration and discovery for future generations.

In 1895, a self-taught Russian scientist, inspired by the Eiffel Tower, came up with the idea of a great castle which would reach high into the heavens, and be attached to Earth by a spindle-shaped cable. The scientist, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, said that the castle would move in synchrony with the Earth (Cowen 219).  Tsiolkovsky was one of the first men ever documented to have derived an idea for a space elevator. Approximately fifty years after Tsiolkovsky's time, another Russian scientist known as Yu Artsutanov would derive the theoretical formula for the modern space elevator. (Cowen 219).  In the article, "The Space Elevator: From Imagination to Reality," Dr. Peter Swan approaches the question as to how humanity can open up the solar system to more activity. His answer to the question is space elevators which are capable of producing safe and routine launches on a constant basis. Dr. Swan envisions that the construction of a space elevator would enable about 35,000 metric tons of material to be transported to space every year. He also expects an extreme difference in launch costs between his proposed space elevator and that of today's rocket prices. As of 2015, the launch price for a pound of material into Earth's orbit is approximately $20,000. Dr. Swan believes that the space elevator would cut the cost to less than $100 per pound of material (Swan 73). By creating low-cost, routine, and reliable launches, space would be opened to the world.

Yu Sadov and his colleague, Anna Nuralieva are professors at the Keldysh Institue of Applied Mathematics at the Russian Academy of Sciences. In their article, "Loaded Sectioned Space Elevator," the two discuss the physics and principles of their idea of a modern space elevator. In the introduction, they state Yu Artsutanov's idea that, "a cable (tether) fixed on the Earth's surface near the equator and pulled to the region behind the geostationary orbit forms the basis of the modern SE (space elevator) concept." While discussing the basics, they include that it should be assumed that the cable is to co-rotate with the earth (Sadov 230). This means that as the earth is rotating, the cable is rotating with the equivalent angular velocity. In order for this to occur, the counterweight or the object in orbit must spin fast enough for the cable to remain straight. This can be imagined by thinking of a tetherball. If one manages to spin the ball fast enough, the line will become taught due to the centripetal force of the ball or counterweight. After many studies conducted by NASA, other space agencies, and private companies, it is generally agreed upon that the space elevator in a physical sense could work theoretically. Sadov and Nuralieva begin the conclusion of their report by declaring, "The project described here is vast and difficult to realize. It requires the development of new technologies, to create new branches of productive industry, and to solve major scientific problems. Such a task can be performed only as part of a large scale program of space exploration" (Sadov 235). David Smitherman, an architect and the technical manager of Marshall Space Flight Center's Advanced Projects Office believes that a concept could be built and tested within the next twenty years, and states that an operational elevator could be produced within the next 50 to 100 years. (Nasa Needs 1).

One problem and major discussion concerning the space elevator is the material which would compose the tether. Until scientist discovered a material known as carbon nanotube in 1991, it was generally accepted that a material wasn't strong enough and light enough to be used as a cable for a space elevator (Sadov 232). However, in theory, when manufactured properly, carbon nanotubes have the ability to be 100 times stronger than steel while only being a sixth as heavy. Currently carbon nanotubes are in the process of being further researched. If the carbon nanotubes slide past each other, they lose the majority of their strength, so researchers are currently determining manufacturing methods which could decrease the possibility of sliding. Despite slow progress at the moment, many companies are incredibly confident in the research claiming that they could construct and have operating space elevators within the next fifty years. This includes a company in Japan called Obayashi which announced in 2012 that it would build a space elevator using carbon nanotube technology as early as 2050 (CNT Fibres 27).  In their loaded space elevator report, Sadov and Nuralieva conclude by stating, "it (space elevator) will stimulate research in science and technology. Accomplishment of its construction will significantly widen the scope of human activity beyond the limits of our planet" (Sadov 235).

The benefits of this infrastructure are exponential; however, without strong funding from government or big business, research and development progression will remain slow. Advances in the research and manufacture of carbon nanotubes and other technologies in the last decade have attracted more and more private companies to begin programs to begin working on a space elevator. Despite its interest in space elevators, NASA lacks the funds to conduct any sort of large funding and is relying mostly on providing prize money in order to stir the development of space elevator systems. For example, in 2005, NASA held a tether challenge and offered $50,000 to any company that could produce a tether capable of a strength to weight ratio of 50% or better. Also, in 2006, NASA conducted what they called a climber contest, offering a first place prize of $100,000 for further research. Companies were to create a climber, no more than 25 kilograms that could climb a cable at a minimum speed of 1 meter per second (Warwick 1). In 2010, NASA ran two challenges, one of which was a new version of the climber challenge. Each climber was to carry as heavy a payload as possible while climbing the cable at 1 meter per second. The climbers, however; were to be powered by a light beam from the ground. The second challenge involved stretching proposed candidates for the tether of the space elevator. The article quotes Ben Sheleef, the co-founder of the Spaceward Foundation. Sheleef comments on the second challenge, stating, "We do a tug of war [with the competing tether materials] and see which one breaks." NASA again rewarded funds to the winners of each competition ("Sponsor Gets" 1). Despite current efforts, NASA has only provided a couple hundred thousand dollars to a project which would require nine billion dollars according to a report by the magazine, Electronics Weekly. The article claims that it would be a shame if a greater attempt to financially research and develop a space elevator was not made. It goes on to the say that, "the world needs a few more idealistic dreamers and somewhat fewer financial speculators right now" ("Space Elevator" 1).

Without large scale funding, the space elevator will forever be lost to imagination. The governments of world super powers should work to fund a space elevator project, because of how the infrastructure would economically benefit private business and space agencies alike. Because space would be so much more accessible, a boom in scientific advancement would occur. Unfortunately due to recent economic issues and national deficits, it is easy to picture why the funding for a space elevator is hard to find. Even those interested in the prospect of the space elevator being a reality within NASA are convinced that NASA should continue its lack of participation in the development and construction of the infrastructure. Bradley Edwards, the author of a NASA's  1999 concept study of space elevators believes that most of the research, development, and construction of the space elevator will come from privatized companies, such as LiftPort and Tethers Unlimited (Klerx 1). Many believe that a space elevator is currently too costly of an endeavor for a space agency to attempt. Others think that its creation could have dangerous and disastrous results; however, in the past decade many of these disbeliefs have been put to rest. In an article of the magazine, Science News, readers responded to Ron Cowen's "Ribbon to the Stars" with potential issues that could face a space elevator. The author, Ron Cowen, responds to these concerns by quoting the previously mentioned author, Bradley Edwards' corrections and solutions further proving Cowen's point that a space elevator is theoretically possible. Robert Beeman believes that the difference in angular momentum as the climber climbs would cause a weakness in the structure, destroying the elevator. Edwards answers by stating that the weight of the counterbalance and Earth anchor would need to be built big enough to counter the force caused by the acceleration of the climber on the tether. Dan Pankratz wrote in with the concern that a space elevator based around the equator would have many collision conflicts with other orbiting satellites. He brings up a good point in that every satellite, except those in exact geosynchronous orbit pass the equator twice in every orbit. Bradley Edwards responds that NASA has an excellent system of tracking satellites.  He states that collisions can be predicted days to weeks in advance, and corrections could be made by slightly moving the anchor of the elevator. The last letter, written by Jeffrey Wilson, discusses an electrical problem due to Earth's magnetic field. Wilson references a space shuttle tether in which a space shuttle unspooled 12 miles of cable while in flight, generating thousands of volts of electricity and eventually burning through the cable. Wilson claims that a 60,000 mile long tether across the Earth's atmosphere would have a disastrous effect. Edwards' response is that the voltage was caused in the space shuttle experiment because the shuttle was traveling 11,000 miles per hour relative to the magnetic field of the Earth. In a space elevator system, the ribbon is still or stationary to the Earth's magnetic field so the voltage produced would be close to nothing (Beeman 351). As more and more research is developed, more questions are answered as to when and if the space elevator can become a reality.

As a civilization, humanity advances its technology so that it can remain the species which it is today. Without our technological advances, humanity wouldn't be able to function at the capacity that it does now. Due to the technologies researched and developed in the past, people are able to build new innovation on the foundation of the creations of their ancestors. Due to our nature, humanity is difficult to motivate. Our motivation is typically the survival of oneself in the present moment. However, because of the current rate of population growth, there will come a time in which humanity will be faced with the necessity to decide how it will continue its existence. Space exploration and study is so important because space is a nearly infinite resource that is consistently helping to make a better world. The benefits of an easy, inexpensive, reliable, and routine access to space are many. However, a space elevator cannot be a successful innovation today or in the future if it cannot be produced. The value of this infrastructure is far greater than the cost to produce it, and for this reason, governments should make new attempts to fund production even if it is by funding private companies rather than their own space agencies. The funding would help the world today, and help to secure the well-being of future generations.  It is important to remember that, as a civilization, it is important to plan for the future by developing technologies in the present.

