Frederick Sparber wrote: >Based on A. C. Clarke's reasoning we should be using that idea for Boeing 777s > and Airbuses full of passengers.
That would be very difficult and dangerous to arrange, whereas a space elevator must have some sort of braking, so it might as well be regenerative. Incidentally, I do not think the elevator car would actually touch the track. That would be too slow. I am assuming it would be magnetic. In that case, you could not avoid generating power by braking. > OTOH, failing that, Air Brakes for Planes and Vacuum Brakes for Spacecraft? Again, that's dangerous and impractical, whereas regenerative braking is natural. Without it, the elevator cars will need to shed a great deal of heat, in a vacuum no less. >> stresses they undergo during spaceflight. A vehicle climbing the space >> elevator would undergo little stress. > > Burt Rutan would dispute that, Jed. I admire Rutan, but he is FAR from making a practical earth-to-orbit system that could lift millions of tons per day. Frankly, I think we are closer to a space elevator than a Rutan-type mass transit system. Someday, in the distant future, I expect that more people and more tons of goods will travel off earth and around the solar system than alll the traffic we now have on the ground. That can only be accomplished with something like an elevator -- or silent anti-gravity ships that go straight up. - Jed
