From: vince@offshore.ai (Vincent Cate) Newsgroups: sci.space.policy Subject: Re: When will we be able to afford space settlement? References: <9186edb5.0404180452.1f5fca64@posting.google.com> <9186edb5.0404190302.23cfb169@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.42.133.252 Message-ID: <9186edb5.0404200723.fd795e8@posting.google.com> Joe Strout wrote in message news:... > It would really be helpful if you would be more specific when talking > about a rotating tether (perhaps even use the term "rotovator"), since > otherwise "space tether" means a ground-to-GEO space elevator to many > readers. I don't actually require a rotating tether. A "hanging tether" (sometimes called a "hypersonic skyhook") that was not ground- to-GEO could work too. This requires a much longer tether, but not far heavier. I don't think it is as easy to dodge space junk with a hanging tether. A rotating tether can sort of pull its arms in/out and spin faster/slower so the arms are not at a place where junk is going to be. Anyway, the more generic "space tether" seems to me what I mean. Also, these days the ground-to-GEO seems to be called a "space elevator" most of the time, though you still hear "beanstalk" sometimes. I don't think I have seen people call it a "space tether". And if someone does, I think you should ask them to stop. :-) I think we should always use "space elevator" for this thing that requires materials we don't yet have, and "space tether" for anything we could actually build. If some day we have carbon-nanotubes that let us really build a "space elevator" then it would become ok to call it a "space tether". :-) -- Vince