Re: shuttle disaster (space elevators)

[Gary Turner <kk5st@sbcglobal.net>]

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                  kk5st@sbcglobal.net
 If someone tells you---
 "I have a sense of humor, but that's not funny." 
                                  ---they don't.