Out of Pod Experience

Yes but only to & from earth's surface.
While that may make it more viable, it will still cost a small fortune.
That being said, this is all on the presumption that the elevator works as intended.
If :
That cable snaps (especially from the top)...
The orbiting tensioner/destination depot falls to earth (w/ or w/out cable attached)...
Space debri (as mentioned in that video) hitting said orbiter...
Any failure in tension while elevator is ascending or decending...
I could go on...

I like the idea but the chance for catastrophic failure is too high, even in the most perfect of conditions.
While we may have the technology to build it, it's not far enough advanced to make it safe (...enough).

So some corporation, or more likely a conglomerate builds this thing based on thousands of companies cutting corners to low-ball for the contracts.

The worst case is when (not if) it fails is that it wraps itself around the equator twice. Destroying everything within a hundred miles of where it hits. Millions of lives lost from not only the strike, but the earthquakes and tsunamis that would result.

Not that it really matters to me personally. I'll be watching from my summer palace on the Moon.

Mr Epeen

You look like the guy in The Matrix.


You have to admit that design wise, it doesn't have to be too expensive, improbable, problematic and quote: illegal.

The idea (not patent) would have to be improved (or adjusted to use an other term) so that it is more feasible, efficient, secure, etc...

This is nothing new.
They can already lower payload from the space station if it was only going at the same rate as the earth rotation.
(Which I didn't take the time to or waste the time to verify, or put too much emphasis on it.)

I wonder if it wouldn't be more efficient to lower payload than to launch it with it... (Pretty sure it is, see Edit: below)

Either way, the cost saving of 1,000 times would come from the original blast required to escape earth's orbit, without other extemal forces. (That is, under normal earth's gravity factors, without modifications, or improvement.)
Vacuums or other methods could be created to prevent the burning of the ozone.
(I know there are ways to fix the burned ozone, although that it more expensive, not less costly).

I would be willing to do the math and administrative arithmetic to find the exact figures in time, and the depreciation of money.
More trips will be required, and it may be an obligation to prevent future irreparable damage to the atmosphere.

I don't believe it would be the final solution, just a good step towards the analysis of the condition to diagnose the problem.


Edit:
This was a solution when the space shuttle got stranded in space, doomed to burn back to earth with no parking space.
A way to get down and glide to a landing spot would have not only solved the problem, it would have prevented human losses.


Edit 2:
I really don't think that the idea of leaving a static, more stable, permanent, can't touch this, cable or cables is or are the solution.

It would be impractical, and , if they require to remain in place, would require extra security cost to make sure they are safe enough.
There are risks, as for building towers in the sky.
I believe as referred above, that more temporary solutions, which can be improved over time by the way, as risks will increase, will be better.
That would reduce cost to operate the device or system, and prevent damage.

What would stop airplanes or balloons from picking up cargo or leaving it in range of the final orbital zone to transfer?
If the cargo is lowered or raised enough in that zone without requiring extra speed as if launched from the ground, then it could save energy, and energy is also costs...

I also didn't verify if anything can be launched further from earth from the ISS (International Space Station).
If it is possible to launch further from earth from the ISS and if it is easier, than the same principle could apply.
I am not sure if the ISS orbit is too low to be totally out of earth's orbit or far enough for cargo to be leaving orbit.
(I believe it is quite close and it wouldn't be extremely complicated to find, since my data gathering would be precise enough.)

That's a simple business concept in which a larger investment can yield more benefit.
Just to calculate how much that profit will be in number rather than qualitatively is business.
You need accurate figures of costs to be able to find the difference in profit.

Most business project (not all) require a larger amount of money to implement.
Many business project yield benefit after 5 to 10 years of their installment.
The first years that the project is implemented do not generate more profit or saving than before.
In fact, it cost more for those first few years, or it can cost more.
Only after those 5 to 10 years phase are past and completed can it generate more than it would have if not implemented.

By the way, why should I pay you to work on this if you can't prove me , not speculate, your profit potential.?.


Edit:
Many analysis of costs in business get a 3% or less margin of error in their calculations for accuracy of profit (forecast).
There are errors, and usually those responsible for the calculation of the result can be held liable.
I don't rely on associates bringing me 25% and more of difference from what they say.
Even 5% error is more risk.
Many people like those who do what they say rather than change what they do mid course after saying it.