Why use a permanent system of transportation? Apply the mechanics of a reel on a fishing rod, on a bigger scale, and combine that with whatever cable would be used or invented for almost any other space elevator and use these simple too;s to extract things from Earth. The Basic principles of a stationary elevator without the commitment, or dangers of being stationary, are applied, the only change is in the propulsion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDMONTY (talk • contribs) 23:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Find us some documentation or reliable sources on that. Wikipedia generally doesn't use original research and theories. Pär Larsson (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is discussion of the advantages of Sea and Land bases, but why is Air not considered?
An air base would have all the advantages a sea base as it could be manoeuvred, could be in international air space, it could also be high enough to avoid atmospheric storms and has the advantage of altitude and hence less stress.
Cargo could be ferried up to the air base using airships or balloons, the cargo can "climb" the rest of the way into space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucedenney (talk • contribs) 09:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A flying air base needs enormous amounts of fuel to stay in the sky - which is why the air force does not build them. Also the bottom of the space elevator has to be heavy enough to hold it down, a flying item would not be. Andrew Swallow (talk) 11:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the transfer of the Earth's angular momentum to rising cargo is a key aspect and advantage of the idea of a (ISEC-type) space elevator. This diagram in the article (under "Climbers") illustrates that momentum transfer (see thumbnail left).
Without an anchor, that momentum transfer could only be achieved via air drag through the atmosphere resulting in migration of the base over all the countries on the equator. Logistically pretty difficult to chase down. Actually, a base suspended in the air without a way of fixing the altitude and position means the system is exactly balanced (and in orbit!) for the mass currently hanging on it at the base. Adding more mass at the base would immediately start to pull the system downward and it would then precess eastward in its orbit. Not only would this not give air drag any chance to add momentum to the flying system, but the opposite would happen and the westward air drag would take orbital momentum from the flying system. That would cause more eastward precession, more descent, and so on. The system would be unstable with that lower end dipped into the atmosphere. Any new weight added would cause continued descent to touchdown/crash, and any weight taken off would cause continued ascent until the base was in space (i.e. high enough that the boosting air drag becomes vanishingly small).
Now then, when the base hits the ground (assuming it held together up to that point), the base would now be "anchored" to the earth and the rest of the system would either continue to crash to earth or would remain standing with its former "base plus cargo" as it's anchor (depending on the distribution of mass on the system before and after the landing/crash of the base and other factors). Andrew Swallow's comment about fuel usage is right on. Keeping the base in position is essential. And it would be necessary to use big propellers with fuel consumption to do that. Even then, if the base was at high altitude as suggested, the ability to hold the system down is less in the high thin air and decreases more with altitude. There would be a risk of overpowering the base thrusters and losing the whole thing to space (particularly when a mass was released/dropped below GEO for whatever reason).
Yup, that'd be difficult controlability-wise, and it defeats defining advantages of an ISEC-type space elevator: momentum transfer with Earth and simplicity of a static system without the need for constant power and control. Skyway (talk) 05:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Center of Mass is discussed, but isn't the CoG also important, and in this case very much lower than the CoM? Jim.henderson (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The cable is thickest at GSO (Geo Stationary Orbit) since it has to carry the weight of the cable below it. A tapered cable gets narrower as it approaches the ground and the counter weight. This ignores any protective layers that may be added to say prevent oxidation. With some designs only the width changes.
Andrew Swallow (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Why We'll Probably Never Build a Space Elevator"[edit]
I just finished a web article on this very subject. The link is here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page of any article is for discussing the article. Please refrain from using it to promote your writings. Moblecl (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know high of a space elevator is currently possible to build?--Wyn.junior (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one height which is viable, to geosynchronous orbit. It is not possible to build one at this time. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What!? "One height"? No. Look at the first diagram and read the caption. Any "height" (of the counterweight) enough above GEO can be viable. 100.0.62.115 (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a minimum height of about GEO. There after there is a trade off between extra length V mass of counter weight V (cable width + payload mass). A LEO only one is not an option. Andrew Swallow (talk) 16:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is the space elevator only possible at geosynchronous orbit? No higher, no lower? Thanks.--Wyn.junior (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There are only two points that orbit at the speed of the Earth. They are the Earth's surface and GSO. GEO is not the top of the elevator, it is only about a third of the way up. Andrew Swallow (talk) 22:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. What are you thinking, AS and TN? Of course not. Look at the first diagram and read the caption. Wyn.junior, if you read the article before asking such basic questions, you won't have to deal with answers from guys who don't know what they're talking about. 100.0.62.115 (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How does geosynchronous orbit work as an anchor? I don't understand.--Wyn.junior (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A talk page is supposed to be used to discuss the editing of the article, not for individual teaching attention. Read the article more carefully and if you have comments about how the article can better explain something, that would be a better way to word things here. 100.0.62.115 (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dear user Skyhook1 (aka: 79.67.241.203), It is currently possible to make nanocarbon fibers that are up to a hundred times stronger than the strongest steel at a fraction of the weight. The problem is, once you try to build it at a scale bigger than a few microns, its strength and stiffness start to decrease. It is the current state of this technology. It is evident you have access to a computer, so just Google it and get over it. Therefore, repeatedly citing nanoscopic carbon fibers in your WP:Point of view as the key to "dramatic affordability" and your resulting WP:Synthesis is not going to work. As I have mentioned many times before, please review the Wikipedia tutorial with closer attention toWP:Neutral point of view, WP:Synthesis, WP:Original research, WP:BIASED and PLEASE do not indulge in promotional bias, especially when the skyhook concept is still a hypothesis. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you meant user 72.199.145.35 there -- 79.67.241.203 (talk) 18:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:TALK: "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page ... is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article... Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject."
Please discuss Skyhook1's changes on other pages on their corresponding talk pages or on his or your user talk page. The above post is way off topic for this talk page. This talk page is for discussing the care and feeding and editing of this article, not for dressing down an (admitted) rogue who created trouble elsewhere. Moblecl (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the power required will be generated (in excess) by climbers that are returning to earth with materials from the Asteroid Belt. The amount of materials being raised to synchronous orbit by the elevator will be dwarfed by the amount being lowered from Earth orbit. As the cargo elevators are lowered to the Earth's surface they will produce electricity from regenerative or dynamic braking. All that is needed is electrical cables to carry the energy from the descending climbers to the rising climbers.
You need to publish this somewhere else. Wikipedia does not publish original research, see WP:OR. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:19, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:TALK: "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page ... is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article... Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject."
This is random technical discussion not connected to the care/feeeding/editing of the article. Please take care to at least give lip service by mentioning the article (and possible improvements) somehow. Additionally (and most obviously), this is a naked attempt at promotion and strongly not suited for this talk page. Moblecl (talk) 22:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Space elevator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified 3 external links on Space elevator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
