Talk:Space elevator

Usefulness of a Space Elevator?

This article really needs a section on just how useful a space elevator would be. What problems are we currently facing that a space elevator would solve? In what ways are the superior to conventional earth-space travel? How useful do world governments and major aerospace organizations see an elevator as being? Gaiacarra (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"What good is a new born baby?" (Ben Franklin). Solving current problems is never a good measure of the value of a new idea. It's a start, but value is not so cut and dried. It is the new capabilities, often unforeseeable, that give value. But mostly, it's the JOY of doing something so new and exciting!  :-)

108.7.8.213 (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Is anybody in this group interested in reviewing a pair of October 2009 presentations at the International Astronautics Congress that provides an update on the capabilities of using Colossal Carbon Tubes in a "sling" elevator system (modified HASTOL) and in showing how the payload capability could allow control of global warming and replacement of fossil fuels for most applications within a century. Since I am an author of the papers, I cannot contribute information on this material to the article.Aqm2241 (talk) 15:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• That would probably be to do with Space Tether not space elevator.- Wolfkeeper 15:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

  Do you have a link to a preview or current copy of the article by any chance?- Wolfkeeper 15:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Unclear

"A newly discovered type of carbon nanotube called the colossal carbon tube may be strong and light enough to support a space elevator. Its tensile strength is only 6.9 GPa, but its density is only .116 g/cm3, making its specific strength sufficient for a space elevator. In addition, it has been fabricated in lengths on the scale of centimeters, a headstart on the thousands of kilometers needed for a space elevator.[38]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmiych (talk • contribs) 16:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In general, the entire article seems unclear and confusing, at least in terms of explaining the technical feasability or lack of such. The language is messy, people have edited the article without reading it properly themselves, and it has citation needititis. The entire Cable section is mostly suitable for confusion, especially if the reader has troubled himself with reading other sections, which seems to contradict the parts that are not themselves self-contradictory. In the section Powering climbers, there is an additionally confusing sentence that I cannot make sense of: "The fuel cell used also for the electric vehicle is expected to be used to the climbers of each ton." --anon 84.215.1.3 (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly, various people's sentences mix, and it doesn't understand well. In the section Powering climbers, The fuel cell that I had written was edited. Azure777 (talk) 12:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Math

There's a nice page that does some quantitative calculations [1]. It would be great if his math could be checked and some information included in this article, which in its current form is pretty lite on science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.88.14 (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

How would you protect something that fragile from terrorists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.71.38 (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Dynamics of tethered satellite motion and control

The article seems to be missing a section on the dynamics of tethered satellites such as this would be. The equations of motion of a tethered satellite are considered to be non-linear differential equations with tendencies towards chaotic behavior. Theoretical analysis suggests that this can be controlled by varying the tension of the tether although the scale of the space elevator may require a different approach (http://www.springerlink.com/content/g7327314v627wm84/fulltext.pdf) and others. It doesn't seem consistent with the idea presented in the article that the tether would just point straight upwards and naturally return to that position.

An object moving up or down the space elevator would not change angular velocity as a simple consequence of is height change as the article seems to suggest. It would need to accelerated or decelerated with additional challenges for the dynamics of the system. (QuietJohn (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC))

But it would change angular momentum, and that's where problems arise.96.54.53.165 (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The climbers do not go up at exactly 90° but are about 1° off the vertical. That is sufficient to give them the required additional angular velocity, we are talking a distance of 22,300 miles. Andrew Swallow (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The orbit of the counterweight will become unstable, if the force of the cable is not 90°. 91.65.128.78 (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Does M5 Fiber help the case any?

I read that M5 has a theoretically attainable strength of 8.5 to 9.5 Gpa, is less brittle than carbon fiber, is UV resistant, more fireproof than Nomex, and twice as damage-resistant as Kevlar under ballistic conditions. I don't know enough about M5 to estimate its specific strength / gravity.

Nah. You need a minimum of about 45 GPa to stand any chance.- Wolfkeeper 06:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

skyhook is a misnomer?

It seems to me that "skyhook" being an alias for a "Space Elevator" might be a bit of a misnomer, as sky-hook is often used to refer to the apparatus seen in the most recent Batman movie - do we have a reference for "skyhook" in terms of a space elevator? 192.35.35.35 (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)