Talk:Skyhook (structure)

message: There is a large conceptual error in this article.   The term "skyhook" should not be used interchangeably or as a subset of "space elevators".  The term originated from early cable and hook systems the U.S. Air Force used to retrieve packages and people from the ground and midair into cargo aircraft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_surface-to-air_recovery_system  Likewise in orbital skyhooks, a moving hook grapples with a cargo to be lifted into orbit from the ground or midair.  Lazyquasar 02:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the incorrect sentence. Lazyquasar 02:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I retract the above statement that a "skyhook" is not a "space elevator".  Apparently the terms have been used almost interchangeably for quite a while.  http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/general.articles/1987/skyhook.ltx  It would seem to me that to begin increasing understanding of this technology it would be useful to restrict the use of the term "skyhook" to techniques similar to the moving capture technology that used it originally and the term "space elevator" to stationary attached structures/tethers similar in technical approach to the traditional elevator.  What do others think?  Lazyquasar 14:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This engineering paper  restricts itself to the terms "tether".  When the tether is anchored to Earth then it is referred to as an "elevator" or "beanstalk". Lazyquasar 14:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: This engineering paper has a short section at front on history and terms "beanstalk" and "skyhook" and "space elevator".  Lazyquasar 14:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  This engineering paper uses terms rotating space tethers and when tether is anchored to lunar surface refers to the ensemble as a "Lunar Space Elevator". Lazyquasar 14:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Bah! This paper uses the term "Skyhook" as the generic category and then details engineering approaches to building a space elevator ... i.e. a structure or tether anchored to ground.  Structure perhaps supported dynamically by internal momentum exchange mechanism. Lazyquasar 14:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  More terminology.  "Orbital Slings", "Rotovator",  Nice diagram showing basics of skyhook or orbital tether operation.  Lazyquasar 15:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Bibliography (with many online links) of tech papers on space tethers by a company attempting to patent and control space tether technologies.  These seem limited to orbital transfer tethers technically feasible today. Lazyquasar 15:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: No help here, nice diagrams though.  This person at NASA appears to define "space elevator" as anything that changes potential energy in a gravity well. Lazyquasar 15:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Speculative design of a skyhook structure with a dock replacing the traditional grappling hook.  Tourists then take an elevator up the skyhook to the orbital waystation on way to elsewhere. Lazyquasar 15:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Authur C. Clark, when writing for popular audiences, uses the terms interchangeably. "The space elevator (alias Sky Hook, Heavenly Ladder, Orbital Tower, or Cosmic Funicular)" ]  No mention of space tethers, only ground to orbit applications.  Lots of good historical detail and basic science and engineering regarding elevators.  Lazyquasar 15:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  2001 Conceptual design of a "Tether Launch System" between Earth and Mars.  No use of term "Skyhook". Lazyquasar 15:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Pearson identifies the term "skyhook" entering the nomenclature ... "Unaware of the work of Artsutanov, a group of American oceanographers led by Isaacs [7] independently discovered the concept in 1966 and proposed a much smaller-scale version which they called a ”skyhook.” They proposed a pair of fine wires which could be alternately raised and lowered by ground-based machines to ”walk” payloads into orbit, and performed a static analysis of the wire strength requirements."   The time frame seems appropriate for the term to have been borrowed from U.S. Air Force skyhook operations but it could have been original. Lazyquasar 15:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, you should just copy that lot into the article and tidy it up a bit. The use of the term is really quite inconsistent.WolfKeeper 22:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Skyhook is not a space elevator 

message: A graphical representation of the hypothetical skyhook described by the article would be helpful.  N2e (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphic would be helpful 

message: This and the main Skyhook article, currently a disambiguation page for reasons unclear, both suffer from confusing real objects with fictional and even joke concepts. I've added the refimprove template because most of the assertions in the article have no backup. I urge the authors to come back and provide some references.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouilmette (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quasi-fiction 

message: The skyhook concept has almost nothing to do with architecture. Wcmead3 (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not architecture 

message: An orbital skyhook is an extremely speculative concept. Section 1.2 in its current form is superficial and very misleading. 
Here's just one example: the description of converting space "waste" into a replacement for high quality rocket fuel. True debris would almost never strike the outer terminus. Obtaining a significant amount of material that would be deflected and timed to hit the end of the skyhook would require enormous high quality infrastructure to create it.
An article like this greatly diminishes my estimation of the quality of Wikipedia's content. The article's importance should be "Low" or "NA".  Level of content refinement is below "Start"  (perhaps Stub? or Omit?).  The scope of the orbital skyhook section should be limited to a definition of the concept, clearly labeled as highly speculative. A few sentences should suffice. Retain a link to "Space Elevator". Wcmead3 (talk) 19:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science fiction? 

message: This is potentially own-research (unless someone can find someone who's suggested it already!). But the choices listed on the page don't seem to include a third option: Why can't the space-elevator/sky-hook extend from beyond geostationary to ~6000km? Importantly I can't visualise whether that would be stable? 6000km is accessible with a fairly cheap rocket (as you don't need to faff about with getting all that speed) and at that distance g~=2.5m/s^2. So the weight of the cable would be less, needing less strength -> less weight -> probably would only need to be 1/16th as strong as a cable to the surface? Obviously climbing the cable would steal some of the cable's energy. This could be recouped by using some of the mass lifted as propellant (and the power can be via the 'standard' laser from Earth). Lionfish0 (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third option? 

message: My father was a flight instructor in the Army Air Corps in WWII (the fore runner to the US Air Force.)
The first time I heard the term "Sky Hook" it was as a child.  He told me that the instructors used it as a gag.  When rookies wanted to know what held the airplane in the sky they told them "sky hooks."
AFAIK this is its earliest usage.
Jeff Kesselman  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.3.185 (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Note 

message: :I think the suggestion of merging this article with Orbiting skyhooks and making this article redirect to same is a good idea.  If there are no objections to this I will perform the merge sometime after the 24th of Feb. Skyhook1 (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Support the merge.  Two articles on the same subject, should become one.  However, I would think that the better article name to keep would be Skyhook (structure).  Either way, however, I support the merge.  The name can always be cleaned up later if there is no clear consensus on the name amongst those editors who weigh in on the proposed merge.  Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Regarding the name issue.  Some possible names for the combined article: Skyhook (orbiting), Skyhook (another kind of space elevator), Skyhooks (space elevator concepts that can be built).  Any other suggestions?  I agree the combined article needs a good name - but what?  I would appreciate any suggestions. Skyhook1 (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

text: *Support, but let's bear in mind this Skyhook probably needs an article at some point... - The Bushranger One ping only 12:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

text: The title of this page, Skyhook (structure) is the one that should be kept - so merge Orbiting skyhooks into this one. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Completed merge of Orbiting skyhooks into Skyhook (structure) and added redirect on Orbiting skyhooks to Skyhook (structure).  Thank you all for your comments and suggestions. Skyhook1 (talk) 19:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge

message: The introduction or lede needs to be rewritten. It opens with a hyped sales pitch by a salesman, without even defining what the concept is. Plenty of WP:PEA throughout the introduction and the article itself. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence should briefly state what the skyhook is, not how it can be enjoyed by everyone at an affordable price.  BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction re-write 

message: Gentlemen:  I am a little overwhelmed, which I suspect was your intent.  I did not read all your changes, there were just too many, and all the comments, many which were conflicting, written on the main text instead of here, looked very unprofessional.  To the degree that any of the changes I reverted were well intended improvements (and I am sure there were some), I apologize.   To the rest, you shame yourselves.
Assuming this "overwhelm" stops and becomes an adult discussion, one at a time, here on the Talk page, I will, as time permits, discuss the issues with each and every one of you.  If not then I suggest that you revert this page to the pre merger condition and we go our separate ways. Skyhook1 (talk) 01:57, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot perform 9 reverts in a row and tell us to be ashamed and go away. Please review the Wikipedia tutorial and understand that this is a collaborative effort. Next, you created 2 duplicate articles that do not meet the standards required.  If you are really interested in improving this article, be happy, as you've got the attention of experienced editors to assist you. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

text: One word for you: WP:Tutorial. Reverting all requests for references is indicative that you have not grabbed the concept of Wikipedia's most basic guideline. BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Comments

message: It should not be written with a capital "S" except if it starts a sentence. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: . --BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The word "skyhook" is not a proper noun 

message: There have also been claims of this article containing original work.  Maybe those of you making those comments should read the references before making such statements.Skyhook1 (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should add the inline citations requested, instead of reverting the requests. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Work

message: * I also notice that the section "A Possible Earth-Mars Transportation System" was eliminated.  Why?Skyhook1 (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Lack of references.  Besides the tether is a propulsion system more than a space transport. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

text: You entered that it can be done with existing materials, but YOUR reference states the opposite: "Jillian Scharr, "Space Elevators On Hold At Least Until Stronger Materials Are Available, Experts Say", Huffington Post, May 29, 2013". Who is biased?   Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Changes

message: It is my understanding that Wikipedia has an arbitration process for settling disagreements.  I would like to request arbitration to address what is going on here. Skyhook1 (talk) 20:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleanup of WP:OR, and requesting/adding inline citations is not a "disagreement", is a requirement. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What he said.  You can ask at WP:3O but they'll probably tell you to read up about how Wikipedia works. Citations are required; opinions are not; advocacy and "original research" are frowned upon. andy (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please proceed: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests. Cheers,  --BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There is nothing here that needs arbitration - the article simply needs to be brought into line with the relevant policies and manual of style. Unilaterally undoing the agreed merge is a destructive, not constructive, act. Please do not subvert the work that experienced editors are doing to improve the article in accordance with the established rules, standards and procedures of the English Wikipedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Arbitration

message: You have made it clear, you own Wikipedia.  Congratulations!
A few comments.  After reading the instruction on original work, I agree with you, my entire article was original work.  Every last word of it.  So I have reverted everything back to the way it was before I began.  Sorry.  I wish I had found that instruction before I started.  
Goodbye  Skyhook1 (talk) 07:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no winners or losers here. Wikipedia is a co-operative venture, we work together to gather the world's knowledge about notable subjects into this mega-encyclopedia. Confrontation and a competitive outlook is not to anyone's advantage, least of all the project's. We definitely need to improve on the information given to new editors so that misunderstandings such as this do not occur. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Skyhook1, it is definitely not a matter of editors, editor's preferences, and winning.  The editors are rather secondary to the entire endeavor.  But we are attempting to build a quality encyclopedia here, which is why the community has established a number of guidelines and practices over the past decades or so.  N2e (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I posted a comment on Skyhook1's Talk page as well, encouraging the assumption of good faith.  N2e (talk) 17:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: You Win!

message: 1) The material in this section was a cut and paste from the reference which is copyrighted and was removed as a result (the reference is still there, see page 19).
2) In addition, the removed material was about non-rotating skyhooks, not a hypersonic skyhook.  Hypersonic Skyhooks are rotating skyhooks and this section should discuss rotating skyhooks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.34.40.26 (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The section on Hypersonic Skyhooks

message: At the bottom of the lead section you have written:
"Its promoter speculated in 1994 that the skyhook concept could be cost competitive with what is realistically thought to be achievable using a space elevator, but the skyhook is not competitive with other rotating tether concepts. In addition, the rotating skyhook is in fact deemed "not engineeringly feasible using presently available materials"."
Regarding:  In addition, the rotating skyhook is in fact deemed "not engineeringly feasible using presently available materials"
That statement appears to come from Ref [3] on page 10.  The full quote is
"If the mass of the tether alone started to exceed 200 times the mass of the payload,
then that was an indication the particular scenario being considered was not engineeringly
feasible using presently available materials, although the application might become feasible in
the near future as better materials become available with higher tensile strengths at higher
operational temperatures."
It then goes on to say
"As we shall see, presently available commercial materials will suffice to make the HASTOL
tethers needed. The primary message we want to leave with the Reader is:
“We don't need magic materials like ‘Buckminster-Fuller-carbon-nanotubes’ to make
the space tether facility for a HASTOL system. Existing materials will do.”"
So it would appear that you misread your reference.  The tether mass of 200 times mass of the payload mass is the upper limit to the problem.  Systems where the tether mass is less than 200 times the payload mass can be built with "presently available commercial materials."
To further reinforce this the Conclusion to the report states
"The fundamental conclusion of the Phase I HASTOL study effort is that the concept is
technically feasible. We have evaluated a number of alternate system configurations that will
allow hypersonic air-breathing vehicle technologies to be combined with orbiting, spinning space
tether technologies to provide a method of moving payloads from the surface of the Earth into
Earth orbit. For more than one HASTOL architecture concept, we have developed a design
solution using existing, or near-term technologies. We expect that a number of the other
HASTOL architecture concepts will prove similarly technically feasible when subjected to
detailed design studies. The systems are completely reusable and have the potential of drastically
reducing the cost of Earth-to-orbit space access."
Regarding: "but the skyhook is not competitive with other rotating tether concepts." and 
"A 2000 Boeing report on the possibillity of combining skyhooks with hypersonic planes concluded that "In general, the non-spinning tether HyperSkyhook concept does not look competitive with the spinning tether concepts."."
The full quote is:
"HyperSkyhook
In 1995 Zubrin proposed the “Hypersonic Skyhook” as a solution to the mismatch between
the attainable atmospheric speeds of a hypersonic airplane and the orbital speeds of space tethers.
Since the orbital speed of the space tether decreases with increasing altitude of the tether system
center-of-mass, he proposed the use of very long non-spinning tethers or “skyhooks” reaching
down from very high altitudes (thousands of kilometers). His analysis showed that because a
hanging tether must be tapered to support its lower end in the gravitational field of the Earth,
achieving a HyperSkyhook tether tip rendezvous with a 5.0 km/s (16 kft/s or Mach 16) airplane
would require a HyperSkyhook tether mass of 25 times the payload mass. Trying to lower the
tether tip speed to 4.0 km/s (13 kft/s or Mach 13) would require a HyperSkyhook tether mass
greater than 200 times the payload mass. In general, the non-spinning tether HyperSkyhook
concept does not look competitive with the spinning tether concepts. We will, however, revisit
this concept in our Phase II studies."
That is the sum total of their analysis of this particular concept.  Considering that the two tip speeds they looked at were both for lower tip velocities than all the other references in this wikipedia article, their off the top conclusion is not surprising.  Also note that they did plan on revisiting the concept in their phase 2 studies.  Also note that no where in this study did they go into an in-depth cost analysis for any of the concepts studied, nor did they investigate the issue of differences in time available for hooking up between the two concepts, so they have not sufficiently examined the concept to form a justifiable conclusion.
Your other comments all have to do with space elevators and I am unsure of the point you are attempting to make with them.  Everyone appears to be in agreement that they can not be built with currently available materials.
_____________________________________________________________________________
How do we come to a consensus when you don't say anything here and I have shown that you have misquoted a reference?
So you going to lock me out of the article again?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.145.35 (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: BI, you said you wanted to talk

message: NASA says skyhooks are possible.  Boeing says skyhooks are possible.  Lockheed Martin says skyhooks are possible.  JPL says skyhooks are possible.  Former astronauts say skyhooks are possible.  Rocket scientists and engineers from all over the world say skyhooks are possible.
BI, a biologist, says they are not.  Who are you going to listen to?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.145.35 (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You have been asked, multiple times, to SIGN YOUR POSTS. You seem incapable of following even the most basic of instructions, or are you doing this on purpose? -- 79.67.248.110 (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: BI: Always the misdirection and the bad manners.  First it is one issue, then another, and never a straight answer to any.  You dish it out then get upset and indignant when it doesn't work.  Sweetheart, among other things I am a former ship's officer, U.S. Navy, 2 years home from the Gulf.  I have seen it all.  You are mildly entertaining but other than that you aren't even a blip on the radar.  You want manners and respect?  Try showing some.  I have tried being polite with you and all I get from you is attitude.  If that is the way you want to play it that is fine with me, just don't start whining to others about it when you get like in return.  So now that you are finally talking how about we stick with the issue: you say skyhooks can't be built with existing materials - NASA, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, JPL, a former astronaut, and a host of others say they can.  Why won't you accept that?  It is not even your field of study; so why are you so hard over on this one?  72.199.145.35  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.145.35 (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Huntster

message: The user Skyhook1 has been on a months-long edit war adding fake positive reviews of the Skyhook. I took a vacation from his BS, and am back.  Specifically, he uses the Boeing report on space tethers  that reviews 6 different tether systems: Skyhook, Rotovator, CardioRotovator, CASTether/LIFTether, Tillotson Two-Tier Tether, and HARGSTOL.  The Boeing study concludes that: "Unless a major breakthrough occurs in high strength tether materials, such as the commercial development of carbon nanotube fibers, it does not seem possible to push the non-rotating tether HyperSkyhook concept down to speeds of 3100 m/s (Mach 10)." and "In general, the non-spinning tether HyperSkyhook concept does not look competitive with the spinning tether concepts."  He then proceeds to quote the positive reviews of the HARGSTOL/HASTOL systems as if they were written for the Skyhook.  That is a very dishonest and disrupting attitude from this single-purpose user. Faking reports makes him a liability to Wikipedia. BatteryIncluded (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is interesting to see how you distort the truth.  You were the one who was distorting the comments in the HASTOL study.  It is all documented above on this Talk page.  Regarding: "Unless a major breakthrough occurs in high strength tether materials, such as the commercial development of carbon nanotube fibers, it does not seem possible to push the non-rotating tether HyperSkyhook concept down to speeds of 3100 m/s (Mach 10)."  I have no disagreement with this statement.  None of the skyhook studies referenced in the article are for skyhooks with a lower endpoint velocity this slow.  None of them, rotating or non-rotating, come anywhere close to that slow of a lower endpoint velocity.  The positive reviews for skyhooks in the HASTOL study that are included in this article are all for skyhooks with faster lower endpoint velocities.
BI, if you seriously believe all the BS you have been writing then you need to take a course in reading comprehension and maybe a few engineering courses and then re-read the referenced reports.  But I also seriously doubt that this is the source of our disagreement, after all it was you who added the porn site links onto a number of the references used in this article and that is not editing in good faith or discussing a disagreement like an adult.Skyhook1 (talk) 00:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake reviews 

message: So how many times per orbit doesn't a tidally stabilised tether rotate?
None.
It rotates at least once per orbit.
There's something very funny about an article where the people writing it haven't understood that all potentially practical 'skyhook' tethers rotate.
Can I ask where rotating tethers are covered? You know, the ones that could perhaps be practically built?GliderMaven (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Moon rotates around the Earth and always shows the same face to the Earth.  Most people see that and say it does not rotate.  Yes it rotates exactly once per orbit and it is called being tidally stabilized. The same applies to non-rotating skyhooks.  They rotate exactly once per orbit and always keep the same endpoint at the bottom and always maintain a vertical orientation.  They are called non-rotating skyhooks in order to distinguish them from rotating skyhooks that rotate more than once per orbit.
Non-rotating skyhooks are covered in section 2 of the article.
Rotating skyhooks are covered in section 3. Skyhook1 (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Really? Non rotating tidally stabilised tethers? 

message: This version looks to be adequately sourced without the blatant OR issues present in this version. Material can be added in if it has proper and relevant references. The article isn't supposed to read like someone's personal justification of the concept. --NeilN talk to me 15:01, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that (and the subsequent copyedits by  and ) appear to remove the immediate problematic OR issues. A great improvement, thank you. Agree also with your other comments. Begoon talk 05:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Thank you. I will start reviewing the removed material in order to bring back any  information that is supported by references. Thank you. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Building on sourced version 

message: I've read the 2000 Bogar/Boeing report, and noticed a difference compared to this article which might be a source of some confusion.
Our article covers a variety of both spinning and non-spinning tether launch systems with no a priori restriction on such details as the length of the tether or the altitude, eccentricity, or other parameters of its orbit.  Here, we use the term “skyhook” in a generic sense to cover all of those, with references to dates of 1990 or earlier.
The Boeing report addresses multiple specific designs of tether launch systems, both spinning and non-spinning.  It seems that the entire scope of the Boeing study fits within the scope of our article, and all of the various designs they analyzed can, in our terms, be called “skyhooks”.  But that's not how Bogar et al. use the term.
One of the specific designs addressed by the Boeing study has the proper name “HyperSkyhook”.  The HyperSkyhook
* was proposed in 1995
* is strictly non-spinning
* has a specific orbit, much higher than the orbits of other proposed launch tethers
* has a specific length, much longer than the lengths of other proposed launch tethers
So while the HyperSkyhook may be one specific example of our generic term “skyhook”, it doesn't represent all of the variations.
That distinction is important in evaluating the results of the Boeing study.  For the general concept, and therefore for the topic of our Wikipedia article, Boeing concluded that
: “we have identified a baseline HASTOL architecture that works” (p. 4)
and
: “We don't need magic materials like ‘Buckminster-Fuller-carbon-nanotubes’ to make the space tether facility for a HASTOL system.  Existing materials will do.” (p. 10)
But for the specific design of the (non-spinning) HyperSkyhook, Boeing concluded that
: “the non-spinning tether HyperSkyhook concept does not look competitive with the spinning tether concepts” (p. 20)
Bottom line:  Boeing's conclusions are favorable for the general concept of a space tether orbital launch system, our “skyhook”, but unfavorable for the specific design of the HyperSkyhook.
Here's the confusion:  One sentence in the Boeing report notes that the HyperSkyhook is an example taken from a larger class of “skyhooks”, all of which are non-spinning, very long, and in very high orbits.  That very specific use clashes with our use of “skyhook” as a generic term, and the clash has introduced errors in our article.  For example, in our section 1.2 “Types of skyhooks”/“Rotating”, about spinning tether systems, we quote p. 20 of the Boeing paper on the non-spinning HyperSkyhook, and we claim that the Boeing paper's conclusion is that presently-available materials are not adequate for a spinning design, even though that paper vigorously asserts the opposite, that presently-available materials are adequate for a spinning design (and even identifies those materials by name).  Oops.
Our use of the term “skyhook” is clearly at odds with Boeing's.  In the bigger picture, is Boeing's usage unique, or is it universal?  Is there some consistent vocabulary across most reliable sources?  If there is, it might be best for us to follow that precedent in our own article, rather than risk it causing further errors in our content.  In that case, we might find ourselves updating the name of the article again.
 Unician ∇  20:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you can create a referenced section dealing with the name and terminology? That may be critical for the article improvement, as there is historical baggage in the name:   Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  A 1983 report online, great, thank you.  The closer we can get to the origins the better, and the article doesn't cite online versions of the sources from 1966 and 1975.  (The Science paper may have a login-required online version.)  Unician ∇  01:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of the article and the term “skyhook” 

message: My team and I are using this as part of our NASA space settlement contest proposal.  We have checked with our physics prof., our math teacher, our science teacher, and the profs at SDSU who are helping us.  They all say that your version is wrong and the one by Skyhook is right.  We have also seen how you and your gang have jacked this and we think you are full of it.  Even Unician says you are wrong. Since wikipedia is supposed to work on consensus, we are the new consensus so go away. Athena99 (talk) 17:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please host your research and study materials elsewhere. --NeilN talk to me 17:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: , Please get started at WP:Tutorial and pay close attention to Help:Referencing for beginners, abstain of introducing WP:Original Research. Also, please read WP:Conflict of interest and WP:Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause. The article has a lot of room for improvement. Your call. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was going to thank the young Ms.  for her kind words in granting me some vague aura of authority when she wrote “even Unician says you are wrong”, however incorrect her statement was.  But, alas, it was not to be, for she was just yarn with button eyes (and a gang tattoo), and our differences would always have come between us.  (Differences like arrogance, manipulation, deception, misrepresentation, sockpuppetry, gang mentality, and gaming the system are a bit much to overlook.)   Unician ∇  22:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: BatteryIncluded

message: Hopefully now Skyhook1, Athena99, and Flash500 (who are, let's face it, almost certainly the same editor) can discuss how their version passes WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Black Kite (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: should it not be semi-protected? As now only admins can edit the article. And I do not think we are all admins, that have wanted to further the article? NathanWubs (talk) 18:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, as only new editors were being disruptive. Pinging Black Kite. --NeilN talk to me 19:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

text: All three users have been checkusered and blocked. If Black Kite doesn't see this request to reduce protection I'll make a formal request at WP:RFPP in a few hours. --NeilN talk to me 19:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yep, done (incidentally, the reason I didn't semi-protect was because Skyhook1 was auto-confirmed). Black Kite (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. --NeilN talk to me 13:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a one month full protection is needed for user Skyhook1's adrenaline to subside.  BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Skyhook1 has been indefinitely blocked. --NeilN talk to me 15:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, and came back today as .  --BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We should be okay, there's now 48 people watching the page. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected for a month 

message: Just wanted to thank all the people that have been busy the last few days, cleaning up the article and others things. Including the what links here section. I had done some minor cleaning and was going to return today to it for some more. However, it seems that someone or multiply people have beat me to it. So thank you for that. NathanWubs (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you for the hard work! 

message: ,  Hello. Having reached stability and page protection, I now feel it is an appropriate time for me to request a favor from you two, who seem quite familiar with space tethers and space elevators. The record in this talk page shows that there has been -and remains- a lack of an appropriate definition —or brief description— of what is a skyhook. I am kindly requesting that -if you have the time- please review and incorporate an updated paragraph of what is currently understood by the term "skyhook" in the context of an orbital tether system. Any other addition or correction to the current version will also be appreciated.  Thank you, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally wouldn't be suited to try to define them, but I think that's not our place anyway because it would be OR.  I think anyone could search the literature for secondary sources that might try to define it.  If reliable non-POV secondary sources can't be found, that could be a problem.  It might mean that the synthesis of everything in the article under the idea of "Skyhook" is all OR.  But I don't know, I haven't been much of a follower of the article.Skyway (talk) 01:57, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of skyhook 

message: I see there was a fairly substantial dispute over the contents of this article that wound down last August. Since then, there’s been very little progress in improving the article.
Unfortunately, there are still many serious problems here, including many statements that are plainly false and contradicted by the referenced sources.
The article's introduction would be more useful to visitors if it made the following points in a clear and easily understood way. Many of these points are already made in the article, and all of them are well supported by the existing sources.
1) The term "skyhook" has been applied to both rotating and non-rotating tethers in orbit around the Earth or other bodies such as the Moon and Mars. It is rarely used to refer to tethers that are anchored to the surface of the body, which are generally known as space elevators. Note that the term "rotating" describes the motion of the skyhook with respect to a fixed reference point on the body; even a so-called non-rotating skyhook still rotates once in each orbit.
2) A skyhook can be used to transfer energy and momentum between the skyhook itself and objects such as satellites and space vehicles that attach temporarily to it. A skyhook can operate as an electrodynamic tether to gather energy gradually and release it into attached objects more rapidly.
3) The specific strength of the tether material imposes a limit on the mass, mass distribution, length, and rotational velocity of a skyhook.
4) Although no available material is known to have sufficient specific strength for a space elevator on Earth, skyhooks can be made and have been deployed in orbit using various synthetic fibers.
And then the sections on non-rotating and rotating skyhooks should make these points clearly:
5) A non-rotating skyhook can maintain a vertical orientation through gravity-gradient stabilization. This type of skyhook orbits at an angular velocity related to the altitude of its center of mass, which means that the lower tip of the skyhook is traveling at a lower linear velocity than a satellite normally would at the same altitude. This means that a launch vehicle needs less energy to reach the skyhook than it would to reach orbit. The vehicle could then gain energy by climbing the tether. The specific strength of the tether material for a non-rotating skyhooks is defined by (equation). (And give an example.)
6) A rotating skyhook can be designed so that one or both tips become momentarily stationary with respect to the ground. A sub-orbital launch vehicle with a vertical trajectory could rendezvous with the skyhook at this point and connect to it. As the skyhook rotates, it will add energy to the vehicle, which can disconnect again at a different point in the rotation to enter orbit around the body, follow a ballistic trajectory to a different point on the body, or escape the body’s gravitational field entirely. Similarly, a vehicle approaching a body could use the skyhook to slow its motion relative to the body, making it easier for the vehicle to land on the body. The specific strength of the tether material for a rotating skyhooks is defined by (equation). (And give an example.)
I’m not going to get an account here, so someone else will have to make the necessary edits. 71.197.166.72 (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anyone interested in fixing this article? 

message: There is no information about the Skyhooks' albums or singles, an oversight that really needs to be addressed. 101.166.74.188 (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See: Skyhook, a disambiguation page where you will find: Skyhooks (band). BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more information about their albums 

message: This word appears in the first image/figure but is not explained. Even a google search in quotation marks does not yield a meaningful result.
--Felix Tritschler (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Vorbit" ?