Talk:Space elevator/Archive 4

message: Wolfkeeper's replies regarding orbital decay and elliptic orbits are well made "Econonmic Evaluation".  But it is a fact that climbers *will* affect the motion of the space end of a space elevator.  A climber nearing the geostation will exert a negative acceleration (negative with respective to orbital motion) on the station / counterweight due to Coriolis effects.  This negative impulse will add a slight negative velocity to the far end of the structure.  The entire structure will "try" to wrap itself around the Earth, albeit imperceptibly at first.  The connection of the tether to the ground will prevent continued westward motion leading to complex counter forces.  These counter forces and continued westward impulses from climbers will lead to a complex decay of the position and motion of the elevator.
:Nope. The car moves the geostation about 1 degree to the west of the attachment point; but the centrifugal (remember we're in a rotating reference frame, so centrifugal is 'real') acts directly away from the Earths axis. So there is a restoring force pushing the cable/station/car back above the attachment point on the Earth due to the non vertical component of the tension in the cable. It's also critical to remember that the geostation ISN'T in orbit. It's moving too fast to be in orbit, it's above GEO, and hanging on the cable, but rotating around the Earth axis once a day, so it goes further than an object in GEO per day- it's faster. By way of contrast, orbital velocity goes *down* the higher you are, since the gravity is lower there.WolfKeeper 01:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Space Elevators are passive (except for the cars, and possibly moving the base around.)WolfKeeper 01:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Burt Rutan's is suborbital. Space Elevators allow access to *GEO*.WolfKeeper 01:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, as long as the elevator's center of mass is out beyond geosynchronous (as it is in all serious design proposals) you don't need to fire any rockets to keep the elevator up. The angular momentum imparted to the rising climber comes directly out of Earth's rotation, not out of "stored energy" put into the system during the elevator's construction. The tug of the tether's connection with the ground as the elevator "tries" to move west adds back the momentum that was given to the climber, restoring the elevator's orbit and preventing decay. Bryan 01:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Please come off of your high horse, Therealhrw; you did not just find a major flaw in the concept of space elevators. 'Wertmuller's Rockets', indeed. Incidently, even if you had found such a flaw, it would constitute original research, and could not be included. Now please stop spamming this page with nonsensical 'theories'. -- Ec5618 21:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Finally understand it.  Thank you all for your patient responses.  I dare not get off my high horse because if I do, intestinal gas esccapes. Therealhrw 03:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Construction And Decay 

message: If no objection posted here in next couple days, I will attempt to create archive within this page;  titled 'Newbie's Arguements";  and move all my spam-grade entrys and related replies thereto.  This would be entries 29, 30, 31, 32  and 33. Therealhrw 09:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objection, though I would suggest an different description. Therealhrw's arguments, perhaps, or Therealhrw's newbie arguments. Just 'newbie' makes it sound like a repository for newbies, and something all newbies should refer to. 'One newbie's regretable arguments' might work, if you agree with the sentiment. -- Ec5618 00:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I would prefer "Arguement With HRWertmuller"  Therealhrw 00:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive Anyone? 

message: A little explanation here regarding my arrogant irrational persistence. A long time ago I told Frank Thornburg about the space elevator from my si fi reading. He said it wouldn't work. Frank was a really heavy duty aerospace engineer who worked on the kind of stuff you cannot talk about. I effectively relayed his criticisms to you after only the barest skimming of the article. With what I knew and that "asteroid" top front on the article, it really looked like a bunch of cold fusion con artists dragging around some dumb wikipedians.  You might remove the asteroid. 
The section on "Launching Into Space" might be improved. You might write: The spaced elevator transmits forces in and out of the Earth as long as there is tension on the tether. A rough analogy would be a monorail with a sail hanging loosely underneath. If a wind blows the loose sail, it just flaps. But if the sail is weighted, any wind will push the monorail. The Earth is the monorail. The sail is the space elevator. The wind is the force added or subtracted to Earth's rotation by climbers going up and down. 
Thank you all.  I have learned about both space propulsion and wikipedians.  Therealhrw 00:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'Launching to Space' section does not need replacing with your proposed text.  What you're suggesting is to replace a reasonable explanation using appropriate concepts with analogy, which in my experience rarely works.  A better analogy that you provided might work for a 'FAQ' or an elementary tutorial but not a wikipedia entry. Bdunbar 12:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Explanation