From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Sat Aug 24 2002 - 06:22:43 MDT
On Fri, 23 Aug 2002, spike66 wrote:
> Roger that. Robert I sent you the only copy I had of that paper
> a couple years ago.
You did? Hmmm, I don't recall that but it could well be true.
If so I have no doubt I probably have it, but finding it might be
very difficult.
> Roger that. I am curious how they deal with that aspect.
Don't know. I'll see if a query about it draws any response.
> OK, but in the meantime, those still reading should attempt an estimate
> themselves. That paper predated the internet, so I had some wild
> guesses on the cumulative number of sats and their sizes. The space
> station alone, even at its high-ish inclination, poses a significant
> risk all by itself.
I'm moderately certain that there are relatively complete lists of
satellites online now. There are groups of amateur astronomers
that like to watch for them and find those that aren't in the
"public" lists.
The elevator cable is presumably flexible (its under tension,
not compression), so one would ask whether it is feasible to
use various vectoring thrusters mounted at various altitudes
on the cable to move it out of the way of the satellites?
Yes, of course I agree with the concept of removing the satellites
entirely. Many of them are pointless once fiber runs everywhere.
Certainly cheap space access would justify running fiber to
remote locations now only served by satellites. It is my impression
that geosynchronous satellites should not ever run into the cable.
Is that correct?
So the primary problem would appear to be low altitude observation
or spy satellites. It would seem that you could get the same
results simply using a larger satellite in an orbit beyond the
end of the cable. The cable & elevator would enable this approach.
So I'm not sure this is a real show stopper.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:23 MST