Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!mips!ptimtc!nntp-server.caltech.edu!sol1.gps.caltech.edu!CARL From: carl@sol1.gps.caltech.edu (Carl J Lydick) Newsgroups: sci.space Subject: Re: Beanstalk analysis reprise Message-ID: <1991Jun18.153152.7870@nntp-server.caltech.edu> Date: 18 Jun 91 15:31:52 GMT References: <43279@fmsrl7.UUCP> ,<43882@fmsrl7.UUCP> Sender: news@nntp-server.caltech.edu Reply-To: carl@sol1.gps.caltech.edu Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera Lines: 19 In article <43882@fmsrl7.UUCP>, wreck@fmsrl7.UUCP (Ron Carter) writes: >The terminal velocity of a cable of density 1.7 must be >considered. If the cable is only an inch or two in diameter >and the lengths are not long enough to whip the ends up to >high speed ("range-safety" equipment is indicated!), terminal >velocity will not be high, and damage will be small. I don't think I've heard of any beanstalk proposal that has a cable "only an inch or two in diameter". On another note: A couple of years ago, somebody (Robert Forward, maybe?) published a fairly detailed study of what it would take to make a beanstalk in a fact article in Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact. As I recall, the conclusion was that if our knowledge of how chemical bonds work is correct, there is theoretically no material strong enough for a beanstalk anchored to the Earth (to Mars or the Moon, yes; to the Earth, no), but that pinwheels would be possible. Anybody out there with that issue of Analog? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL