Timeline for Could a partial space elevator be practical and useful?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 31, 2013 at 18:58 | comment | added | Erik | That's true. A higher tether demands more launch vehicle performance. | |
| Jul 31, 2013 at 18:57 | comment | added | SF. | @Erik: the lower the orbit the more useful the rope. There was another question somewhere around that listed energy costs of various parts of the journey, Earth-LEO was about as costly as LEO-Moon. The lower you put it the more useful it is. | |
| Jul 31, 2013 at 17:21 | comment | added | Erik | The ISS is in a very low orbit so that the Shuttle was able to get to it. You can be in a higher LEO and not need a reboost nearly as often. | |
| Jul 31, 2013 at 11:19 | comment | added | hunter2 | @Erik re: #2, the ISS needs boosting, so I think it's fair to assume that an (LEO) orbital/orbiting tether would, too | |
| Jul 18, 2013 at 22:09 | comment | added | Erik | Some things to consider: 1) if every pound required by the skyhook (see my response) offsets several pounds required by other vehicles, you need less material net. 2) There is no need to place the skyhook where it would experience drag or need reboosting. 3) The energy the skyhook transfers can be replenished by solar electric propulsion -- which is very efficient (high ISP) and requires very little reaction mass. | |
| Jul 17, 2013 at 14:50 | history | undeleted | SF. | ||
| Jul 17, 2013 at 14:50 | history | deleted | SF. | via Vote | |
| Jul 17, 2013 at 14:46 | history | answered | SF. | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
