[Jingleheimer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Correct me if I'm wrong, rocket scientist, but wouldn't it go flying off into space if the connection is severed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not that I'm said rocket scientist, but he means the part that's tethered to the ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I guess it depends where the connection is severed. But the most likely place for it to be severed would be closer to earth than to the top part, for obvious reasons.

Wouldn't the majority fly off into space, leaving just the small part below the sever to fall to earth?

[/ QUOTE ]

You could design for this. Obviously the bottom of the elevator would be much thicker than the top, and there would be a counterweight slightly beyond the geosynchronous radius.

Smart people have thought about this, and there is a lot of literature out there (some of it not even by crackpots) which indicates the feasibility if you have a material with a dream strength-to-weight ratio like diamond (enter nanotech zealots) or carbon nanotubes. The problem with nanotubes is that we can't make them in bulk right now (I think no plant can even make 1lb/day right now) and you can't make them long enough either (1cm max so far)- you certainly can't envision anything very long made from anything that short. And it's not an inevitability to make really really long nanotubes either; these are single molecules. It's not like process optimization.

I think a space elevator is a very long way off. I'd wager any amount of money that one won't be built in 30 years.

J