Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!neon.Stanford.EDU!Neon!jmc From: jmc@DEC-Lite.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Beanstalk analysis reprise Message-ID: Date: 18 Jun 91 00:34:12 GMT References: <43279@fmsrl7.UUCP> <43882@fmsrl7.UUCP> Sender: news@neon.Stanford.EDU (USENET News System) Reply-To: jmc@cs.Stanford.EDU Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University Lines: 19 In-Reply-To: wreck@fmsrl7.UUCP's message of 17 Jun 91 17:39:16 GMT I didn't get in on the beginning of this argument, but I want to make one general point. While all inventions are subject to the laws of physics, arguments that the laws of physics forbid some achievement often have holes. Moreover, it is invention that finds these holes. Arguments that beanstalks can't work have holes too. Here's one. Suppose we build the beanstalk from the bottom up to the top of the atmosphere, and hang the upper part from synchronous orbit down to the top of the atmosphere. That way the part built up from Baker Island can be thick and strong where the winds are and can also be dynamically stabilized. -- John McCarthy "The people of the antipodes, gazing at the moon when for us it is only a small crescent, remark, 'What a splendid brightness! It's nearly full moon'" - Stendhal, Memoirs of an Egotist