"

So you haven't done your homework, you refuse to read or listen to the answers to your questions and then you delete the references that have them.  You are quite a piece of work.  What happened to freedom of speech and free open honest discussion where people can be swayed by reasoned thought?

I am curious what all the other wiki editors who have been following this think.  Of course it will be difficult for them to research the sources you have removed and now locked out.  How about that.  

Suggestion: if you were really as honest as you like to think you are, you would put both articles on the page for everyone to read and vote on.  Yours as it now is, and mine as I last left it.

It says in the instruction to new editors to assume good faith.  That has not been my experience of you, and from my point of view, you have now demonstrated that beyond any doubt.
There are other issues here.  Everywhere I look in wikipedia I see poorly written, out of date articles, or articles with messages requesting that someone update them.  I am curious how many others have had similar experiences to what I have had here and who have lost interest and moved on? Does anyone keep track of wikipedia's hit count and how it has changed over the years?  Or the number of active wiki editors?  I wouldn't be surprised one little bit to find out it both have leveled out and gone into decline.  If so, has it occurred to you that that might be a signal of some sort?
This issue also points out another major flaw in wikipedia; the fact that a single admitted non-expert in a field of study can override multiple experts from NASA, Lockheed Martin, JPL, etc., on a topic as you have done here. 

You have some serious issues here.  I will be interested in seeing how you resolve them, assuming that you can.  Or will this article remain as it now is, another stone in the constipated belly of wikipedia, for years to come?

I just had an idea.  I am going to put the article as I last left it right here so that the other wiki editors who have been following this can read and compare without editorials from either of us.  
It will be interesting to see if you have the courage to leave it alone and allow others to form their own opinion and do their own research.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

A skyhook is a proposed space transportation concept that aims to reduce the cost of placing payloads into space. 

Skyhooks are often confused with an Earth surface to geostationary orbit space elevator, but they are different.  A skyhook is much shorter than a space elevator and does not reach down to the surface of the Earth.  A skyhook requires a suborbital launch vehicle to get to the bottom end of the skyhook, a space elevator does not.  Due to the much shorter length of the skyhook and the resulting reduction in strain, skyhooks up to 4,000 km in length can be built with existing materials, while an Earth surface to geostationary orbit space elevator cannot.Amanda S. Wu, Tsu-Wei Chou, ""Carbon Nanotube Fibers for Advanced Composites"", Materials Today, vol. 15, July–August 2012, pp. 302-310   

The advantage of a skyhook it that the lower end of the cable is moving at less than orbital velocity for its altitude.  As a result, a launch vehicle flying to the bottom of the skyhook can carry a larger payload than it could going directly to orbit on its own.  When the cable is long enough, single stage to skyhook flight with a reusable launch vehicle such as a spaceplane becomes possible.  Reusability of the launch vehicle and an enlarged payload fraction makes for much lower launch costs.   Once the cable has become long enough the skyhook becomes cost competitive with what is realistically thought to be achievable using a space elevator (assuming a space elevator can ever be built), and the skyhook can be built.{{cite jour