>>7681248
Nice dead link, op. Good stuff.

>>7681256
>Dead link
???

>>7681256
Works for me...?

>>7681248
Possibly not that particular architecture, but a lunar space elevator linking the surface and L1 is within the bounds of plausibility. You need a ridiculously long cable, much longer than for an Earth elevator, but it can actually be made with conventional, existing polymers at sane taper ratios instead of invoking nanotubes.

>>7681256
>Dead link

I love how everyone on /sci/'s default reaction when confronted with something they don't understand is to respond with massive hostility.

>m-m-maybe if type out a condescending, passive aggressive response they wont notice

>>7681267
Is having a space elevator actually useful though?

>>7681298
Not now, but eventually. Imagine building a big spaceship for example, you could just ship up parts on the elevator and build it in orbit.

>>7681298
Not at this exact moment, but it would be extremely useful if we ever plan to have space infrastructure. For instance, if we wanted to send humans to Mars and return them alive for less than a trillion dollars, it would be very nice to not have to send up all the shielding, construction materials, and propellant from Earth.

>>7681278
>m-m-maybe if type out a condescending, passive aggressive response they wont notice

He says after typing out a condescending, passive aggressive response.

Last time we had a space elevator thread, someone posted compelling (to me at least) information on sky hooks that would rotate about a point in LEO and have cables rotate down into the atmosphere to snag cargo in atmospheric flight that it would then carry out to space. Seemed complex but doable. Anyone have links to it?