Re: More Space Elevator news

From: Jorge R. Frank (jrfrank_at_ibm-pc.borg)
Date: 06/30/04 

Date: 30 Jun 2004 03:25:08 GMT

Richard Lamb <n6228l@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:40E22E59.EC3E2321@earthlink.net:

> "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
>>
>> Richard Lamb <n6228l@earthlink.net> wrote in
>> news:40E22949.8928DB12@earthlink.net:
>>
>> > Guys, this isn't even rocket science, just basic aircraft style
>> > weight and balance applied to a rotating body.
>>
>> You're right. And you just flunked, due to your inability to
>> comprehend the magnitude of the numbers under discussion.
>
> If I was being snotty, then I deserved that and I apologize.
>
> I certainly didn't mean it that way.

Sorry if my response came off the same way.

There are many reasons to maintain a healthy skepticism of space elevators,
but the basic physics aren't among them. The dynamics of tethers in space
are fairly well known, though the finer points of *controlling* them remain
to be worked out (in this regard, the space elevator actually has some
advantages over past space tether experiments: it is relatively non-
conductive, and would not be in motion with respect to Earth's magnetic
field).

What will make or break space elevators, literally, is materials
engineering. Specifically, the question of whether a practical construction
material can be fashioned from carbon nanotube fiber, the one material that
appears to be strong enough to make a practical space elevator.

I am not a materials engineer, so I can't speak to that. There are others
in this newsgroup who know more about materials than me who have tried to
convince me otherwise. But I see no showstoppers yet in the basic
statics/dynamics of the problem. 

-- 
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.