![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
People in industry call these tethers momentum exchange tethers. Rotovator isn't used. I myself have never heard the term and I work with in-space propulsion. In-Space Propulsion -- Belchja 02:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Folks, thanks for your work in explaining this tricky subject. But I think this article needs a lot more work. It is the first article I have accessed in Wiki which I could not understand.
I have a BS in engineering and have been reading science books for decades, so I think I am at least average in knowledge about this stuff, compared to your reader base. But you use a lot of terms where you dont define what they mean.
Rotate and Culivate make Rotavator, the English Rotavator Rotary Tiller, which existed long before thether propulsion was thought of.. Gregorydavid 06:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I am having trouble understanding the tidal forces point and I think the article could do with a word of explanation in this respect. Surely the vertical alignment of the masses is simply a case of this being the lowest potential energy configuration? Paul Beardsell 16:50, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
What's the proper spelling, "rotovator" or "rotavator" ? (Remind me to use the proper spelling at micrometeorites ) -- DavidCary 03:41, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm a getting a little confused over the terminology being used in regards to the subject of space elevator and I was wondering if it would be possible to clear some things up. First, I would like to point out a few items that seem confusing to me:
Now, that being said, here is my attempt to sort it all out:
Given the above, I would like to suggest that the subject be re-organized in this way:
I make this suggestion because it is my POV that the 'non-synchronous orbital tether' concept is just as valid as the 'geosynchronous orbital tether' and that both should be clearly described under one subject heading of either 'space elevator' or 'tether propulsion', however this would raise several questions:
For reference I cite the following websites which describe both geosynchronous and non-synchronous orbital tethers, and although they seem to use the terms 'skyhook' and 'space elevator' interchangeably the latter has clearly overtaken the former in recent popular usage:
http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/1976.skyhook/papers/scable.pox
http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/1976.skyhook/papers/endsky.pox
http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/1976.skyhook/1982.articles/elevate.800322
Jerry mcmanus 20:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
So, if I understand correctly, the subject breaks down like this:
If this is a valid breakdown, should the current articles be edited to reflect this, or is the currrent tether propulsion article good enough? Jerry mcmanus 21:09, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Jerry mcmanus 18:30, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I should point out that there are tethers that do not rotate at all and really can't be called skyhooks - in fact all the tethers currently built are of this type. We should make sure that the ultimate classification includes, for example, the use of long tethers to tidally control the orientation of satellites. -- Andrew 23:37, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a link to 'Robert Forward' somewhere in this entry? -anon(not at my comp and can't remember password)
tethers are exteremely hard science. A one meter length as release makes for the t.
And t means the length of General Relativity mass difference.
A size of long line literally makes a boost to higher altitude!
A third body was added to General Relativity :)
A tide is not required to make the small boost. A tide boost is a difference of lengths of tether system of changing orbits.
The tether rotates and drives the propeller of the circling aircraft. E.g.: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=Rp0rAAAAEBAJ&dq=3705720 Such is a torsion tether. Then another tether that propels is the endless-loop tether that drives pumps or generators. These two tether propulsion families are to be treated in what article? Discussion is invited. Thanks. Joefaust ( talk) 05:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The second reference (Bacon 2005) is very confusing. Does it refer to the source James A. Bacon, who often works with these technologies? Here is one of his articles: http://www.richmondcatalyst.com/Issue2_Kevlar.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.211.157.2 ( talk) 11:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that really belongs in the page summary, and is under a different meaning of "tether". The other techniques mentioned in this article relate to two bodies being attached by a tensile cable, creating a new centre of mass which can be manipulated for certain results (generally whilst in orbit, although tethered formation flying is not, but still involves two or more bodies being tethered together). Meanwhile, electric sails are the propulsion method of a single craft, providing thrust through an electrically charged wire (forming a sail) being pushed by the solar wind. There is no "tether" in such as the body is not attached to anything. 160.5.185.13 ( talk) 15:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The reference cited for the list, states those materials' strength are appropriate only for Lunar tethers, and that for Earth, the stronger carbon nanotubes are required.
Quote from the the cited reference [1]:
Listing all these materials in this Wikipedia article is misleading because it gives the impression they are up to the job on Earth, which they are not. Cheers, -- BatteryIncluded ( talk) 13:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Space tether. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mfyu/www/Documents/Publications/PRL1-2000.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I might be getting the wrong impression, but I believe this section could use better wording, however I feel like I should ask before editing it.
Why is this point marked as a "technical difficulty"? I believe that it must be referring to the fact that synchronizing the movement of the tether in such a way is complicated, but it gives off the impression that the fact that both ends of the cable are at different lengths and speeds is the problem in on itself, when it is in fact the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tairetsu ( talk • contribs) 08:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I came across what I think may be an extremely early discussion of a non-anchored (that is, non "beanstalk") tether in a short story at Gutenberg.org, from the magazine "If Worlds of Science Fiction" April 1956; "Atom Drive" by Charles L. Fontenay. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/32067/32067-h/32067-h.htm
I'm not sure that this goes in "history", or in a pop culture reference section, which currently does not exist, but I thought it pretty interesting, as it far predates any discussion I am aware of (excluding Tsiolkovsky's original elevator idea), and I bet few others coming from the technical side know of it. Fontenay was a newspaper editor and SF writer, not an engineer that I can discover, so I wonder if he got the idea somewhere else, or had sufficient physics education to come up with the idea himself. Anyway, I leave it for anyone who feels it worthy to insert it in the article, but I leave this note here, as I am certain that tethers have a great future ahead of them, and at some point such history will be of considerable general interest. 173.180.151.52 ( talk) 07:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)an occasional anonymous contributor, mostly of minor grammar and spelling repairs
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
People in industry call these tethers momentum exchange tethers. Rotovator isn't used. I myself have never heard the term and I work with in-space propulsion. In-Space Propulsion -- Belchja 02:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Folks, thanks for your work in explaining this tricky subject. But I think this article needs a lot more work. It is the first article I have accessed in Wiki which I could not understand.
I have a BS in engineering and have been reading science books for decades, so I think I am at least average in knowledge about this stuff, compared to your reader base. But you use a lot of terms where you dont define what they mean.
Rotate and Culivate make Rotavator, the English Rotavator Rotary Tiller, which existed long before thether propulsion was thought of.. Gregorydavid 06:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I am having trouble understanding the tidal forces point and I think the article could do with a word of explanation in this respect. Surely the vertical alignment of the masses is simply a case of this being the lowest potential energy configuration? Paul Beardsell 16:50, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
What's the proper spelling, "rotovator" or "rotavator" ? (Remind me to use the proper spelling at micrometeorites ) -- DavidCary 03:41, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm a getting a little confused over the terminology being used in regards to the subject of space elevator and I was wondering if it would be possible to clear some things up. First, I would like to point out a few items that seem confusing to me:
Now, that being said, here is my attempt to sort it all out:
Given the above, I would like to suggest that the subject be re-organized in this way:
I make this suggestion because it is my POV that the 'non-synchronous orbital tether' concept is just as valid as the 'geosynchronous orbital tether' and that both should be clearly described under one subject heading of either 'space elevator' or 'tether propulsion', however this would raise several questions:
For reference I cite the following websites which describe both geosynchronous and non-synchronous orbital tethers, and although they seem to use the terms 'skyhook' and 'space elevator' interchangeably the latter has clearly overtaken the former in recent popular usage:
http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/1976.skyhook/papers/scable.pox
http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/1976.skyhook/papers/endsky.pox
http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/project.archive/1976.skyhook/1982.articles/elevate.800322
Jerry mcmanus 20:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
So, if I understand correctly, the subject breaks down like this:
If this is a valid breakdown, should the current articles be edited to reflect this, or is the currrent tether propulsion article good enough? Jerry mcmanus 21:09, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Jerry mcmanus 18:30, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I should point out that there are tethers that do not rotate at all and really can't be called skyhooks - in fact all the tethers currently built are of this type. We should make sure that the ultimate classification includes, for example, the use of long tethers to tidally control the orientation of satellites. -- Andrew 23:37, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a link to 'Robert Forward' somewhere in this entry? -anon(not at my comp and can't remember password)
tethers are exteremely hard science. A one meter length as release makes for the t.
And t means the length of General Relativity mass difference.
A size of long line literally makes a boost to higher altitude!
A third body was added to General Relativity :)
A tide is not required to make the small boost. A tide boost is a difference of lengths of tether system of changing orbits.
The tether rotates and drives the propeller of the circling aircraft. E.g.: http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=Rp0rAAAAEBAJ&dq=3705720 Such is a torsion tether. Then another tether that propels is the endless-loop tether that drives pumps or generators. These two tether propulsion families are to be treated in what article? Discussion is invited. Thanks. Joefaust ( talk) 05:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
The second reference (Bacon 2005) is very confusing. Does it refer to the source James A. Bacon, who often works with these technologies? Here is one of his articles: http://www.richmondcatalyst.com/Issue2_Kevlar.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.211.157.2 ( talk) 11:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that really belongs in the page summary, and is under a different meaning of "tether". The other techniques mentioned in this article relate to two bodies being attached by a tensile cable, creating a new centre of mass which can be manipulated for certain results (generally whilst in orbit, although tethered formation flying is not, but still involves two or more bodies being tethered together). Meanwhile, electric sails are the propulsion method of a single craft, providing thrust through an electrically charged wire (forming a sail) being pushed by the solar wind. There is no "tether" in such as the body is not attached to anything. 160.5.185.13 ( talk) 15:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The reference cited for the list, states those materials' strength are appropriate only for Lunar tethers, and that for Earth, the stronger carbon nanotubes are required.
Quote from the the cited reference [1]:
Listing all these materials in this Wikipedia article is misleading because it gives the impression they are up to the job on Earth, which they are not. Cheers, -- BatteryIncluded ( talk) 13:21, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Space tether. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mfyu/www/Documents/Publications/PRL1-2000.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I might be getting the wrong impression, but I believe this section could use better wording, however I feel like I should ask before editing it.
Why is this point marked as a "technical difficulty"? I believe that it must be referring to the fact that synchronizing the movement of the tether in such a way is complicated, but it gives off the impression that the fact that both ends of the cable are at different lengths and speeds is the problem in on itself, when it is in fact the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tairetsu ( talk • contribs) 08:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
I came across what I think may be an extremely early discussion of a non-anchored (that is, non "beanstalk") tether in a short story at Gutenberg.org, from the magazine "If Worlds of Science Fiction" April 1956; "Atom Drive" by Charles L. Fontenay. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/32067/32067-h/32067-h.htm
I'm not sure that this goes in "history", or in a pop culture reference section, which currently does not exist, but I thought it pretty interesting, as it far predates any discussion I am aware of (excluding Tsiolkovsky's original elevator idea), and I bet few others coming from the technical side know of it. Fontenay was a newspaper editor and SF writer, not an engineer that I can discover, so I wonder if he got the idea somewhere else, or had sufficient physics education to come up with the idea himself. Anyway, I leave it for anyone who feels it worthy to insert it in the article, but I leave this note here, as I am certain that tethers have a great future ahead of them, and at some point such history will be of considerable general interest. 173.180.151.52 ( talk) 07:20, 10 January 2018 (UTC)an occasional anonymous contributor, mostly of minor grammar and spelling repairs