Re:I'm not so sure (Score 1)

"This is a bit melodramatic. The space elevator concept is essentially a vertical pole; very few of those orbits would even come within a hundred miles of the elevator."

Not true. Every satellite in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) crosses the Equator twice on each orbit --once on the ascending node and once on the descending node and there are 16 orbits per day. The Space Elevator proponents suggest it's possible to literally swing that "pole" through the orbits of every object out to a distance of 64,000 miles all day everyday without hitting anything. I don't think it can be done and I stand by my statement. But, don't take my word for it, call NORAD and ask them how many objects they're tracking out to 64,000 miles.

"That said, yes, junk is a serious issue. Given that the US military has just run recent successful tests zapping mortars out of the air with lasers, and given that US aircraft carriers have automatic heavy-bore machine guns which can cut enemy planes in half in flight, I should think that a series of automated defense points along the cable, paired with redundancy not only in defense but in the cable itself, should provide a reasonable basis for extrapolation."

This statement is just silly. Like You'd want to make matters worse by shooting at an object in the first place (adding 6000 rounds per minute, moving at a thousand meters per second, to the debris field), and making little pieces out of bigger ones that you might be able to track and avoid. Anything that breaks an object apart in orbit is going to make matters worse not better.

"This is called a straw man. Just because you're aware of one bone-headed project doesn't mean that this one is any less realistic. This is a fallacy. This is a bit like saying that hybrid cars can't be done, because look at the Yugo, what a dismal failure, and it's a car too."

No it's not. My original point was that the space elevator is a waste of money, like MADMEN is a waste of money. And yes, it's your money too.