>>683062>the US could haveBut you didn't, instead the mighty USA started BAWWWWWWWing about how it costs the same as ONE FUCKING B2-BOMBER to get to the moon (studies were made). So almost everyone had to dip in to get it up.
>>6832051) That would be prohibitively expensive just getting the shit into orbit, not to mention getting the damn thing assembled in the suits we have today. I think if we build it, it will be launched from either sahara or south pole, where the radiation and fallout would affect the biosphere the least. And fuck the cancer. We're fucking going to the stars!
2) We would need a near earth carbonaceous chondrite with relatively few volatiles to get the raw material for it safely. Not impossible, but at present...
3)not pertaining to me, so I'll let someone else take this.
>>683457Maintenance`, motherfucker, do you use it?
>>683627see 1)
>>683604The centerpoint station of the elevator would be in the geostat orbit, 35,786 km or 22,240 statute miles up. Anything beyond that will fly out into space. Anything below that will fall to earth, but would not actually do all that much damage.
The main attraction in NP-rockets is that we have had the tech for them for decades.
Maybe we'll get the orbital elevator sometime, but so far it's still just a dream.