John Hasler wrote:
>Gary Turner writes:
>> Not just impact.
>
>Impact is the most likely cause of failure.
I don't doubt that, but I did not address probabilities.
>> If the elevator should part at the CG, 23,500 miles of material would
>> fall to the East, nearly circumnavigating the globe.
>
>The lower portion would not be heavy enough to do much damage. The upper
>portion could be designed not to survive passage through the atmosphere.
Hmm. If a low mass ribbon were used, wouldn't terminal velocity due to
drag be too low have much negative effect? Someone with a lot more
aerodynamics than I have would have to figure that out.
>
>> [Taper] would be more efficient, but is not *required*.
>
>Required. Inter-atomic bonds are not strong enough to support an untapered
>cable.
Beyond my ken.
>
>> The idea of "ribbons" seems a bad idea. Think of the vibratory forces.
>
>People have already done so.
I would hope so. However, there are more stable cross section forms.
>
>> I'm surprised no one has mentioned Robert A. Heinlein. He used the idea
>> (space elevators--including construction and installation details) in
>> several short stories and at least one novel, going back to at least the
>> 60's, maybe earlier.
>
>Name them.
It's been years. IIRC, "Friday" from the early 80s (maybe) addressed
this. I can't put my finger on the short stories or particular
articles/essays. Sorry.
--
gt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
If someone tells you---
"I have a sense of humor, but that's not funny."
---they don't.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
