Talk:Mombasa Tether

"It is used for lifting heavy ordinance into the atmosphere of the planet using a pulley system that negates the use of rockets or waste of fuel to generate an escape velocity for materials."

You know, I was always under the impression that the New Mombasa Elevator most likely would have used magnents to propel the the car up. It'd be alot more speedy and effenciant. I can think of two reasons to back up my theory. We already know that humanity knows well and dandy how to properly work a magnet (MAC guns, Gauss Worthog, ect), so that would be the first bit of evidence. The second bit would be the contsruction of the elavator itself. On the the image provided in the article you can see the central shaft surrounded by two smaller pillars connected together to form rings going on up the elevator. Hmm, now what might those be? I'm thinking that those rings are the magnetic accelorators for the elevator. Perhaps the wording on the article needs changing? Any ideas anyone?

Conflict
Okay, i just realized something. It says that when the prophet jumped, it was destroyed. And yet in Eric Nylund's Ghosts of Onyx, fred,will,and linda (if thats right) destroyed it using FENRIS warheads while destroying two covie ships. So what should it say?

Spartan-118 02:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be getting things badly mixed up. in GoO they destroyed the Centennial Orbital Elevator in Havana. Ever so slightly distant from one another. --Ajax 013 02:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

yes i have recently got the eric nylund buk and they do destroy it wiv warheads so i edited it :) Spartan-1302 11:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"Eventually Regret had to retreat because the UNSC were pushing the Covenant back. He ordered his Assault Carrier to jump through slipspace to a random location."

I don't know if that's exactly accurate. What are the chances that Regret would have randomly ended up at Delta Halo? The Covenant had been looking for a new one. Regret came to Earth for imformation on the other Halos, imo. And whilst there they found the evidence of the Arks existance. So, he went there on purpose, and not just to escape the UNSC. (And even if he was, he did a very bad job of it. :P)

Mombasa elevator NOT destroyed by slipspace blast
I'd like to point that out. While it seems logical, in the new 'Keep It Clean' trailer, the elevator is seen standing after the blast, so it must have been destroyed at a later point, before Master Chief returns to Earth. Heck, no-one reads talk pages anymore, so I dunno why I bother. Diaboy 09:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, the elevator is not destroyed after Regret jumps into slipspace. I think we will find out how it has been destroyed in the new campaign experience. SQ G T3rr0R 10:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the same thing, the elevator not key but part of the structure that supports it. In Halo 3 one sees part of the structure but the rest is not seen anywhere. --H A L O Legend 01:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The Mombasa Space Elevator collapsed when the city was glassed by Truth's forces, it says so on Tsavo Highway, right after you leave the base, head left past the destroyed phantom and there is a cliff, if you listen carefully you can hear a few Marines talking about what happened to it. Field  Master   Spartansniper  4  50  16:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * At 1:19-1:20 look a the elevator when the slipspace expands --Jack Black 21:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And at 3:06 you can see the tower on fire and broken.--Jack Black 22:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't destroyed in the screenshot that has been posted, they clearly say it had not completely collapsed, it was just damaged

HAlo 3 odst
will the rookie visit the space tether in odst?

Too far south
If New Mombasa is near Mombasa, Kenya, it is too far south to build a space elevator. For a space elevator to be remotely practical it needs to be at a near 0 degree inclination with respect to the earth's rotational plane.(ie 0 degrees latitude).

I know this is science fiction, but still. At the latitude of Mombasa, the space elevator wouldn't go straight up, but would instead be noticeably tilted north by centripetal pseudo-force.75.82.133.73 00:38, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

It is also built in the future, they're racing to build an elevator within the next ten years. One built in 2130 or whenever it went up would conceivably have some magically plot device that allows it to be built at an odd location. ProphetofTruth 06:29, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

Feasibility
Is the scientific impossibility referring to the tether itself or the lower support structure? Because I don't see what's the problem with the tether; it's pretty much similar to the real-world space elevator designs, it only has those support rings around it. I don't see how they make it impossible if the tether works the same way.

Of course, if it's referring to the larger support structure that surrounds the tether on the lower part, it's fine. That thing looks pretty infeasible, and clealy incapable of supporting its own weight, as it's not attached to any kind of counterweight like the tether.--Jugus 12:58, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

I hope that answers your question.--Plasmic Physics 13:23, December 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * Ditto--Plasmic Physics 14:00, December 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say that the trivia entry makes a few assumptions about the role of those rings near the tower's base. Based on the explosion, it seems more likely that those rings are designed to hold the structure down, not up. In this case, their compressive strength would be irrelevant; their tensile strength would be of greater import depending on how much of the tension they were absorbing. It seems likely that based on their appearance, the rings would likely have been used either to shield the structure, or as a multi-level anchor to allow the tether to be anchored to the ground more securely than if it were simply fixed to a single point on the Earth's surface (perhaps magnetically, as in a space fountain). When the tether snaps, the center of the support structure explodes, but the majority of the tether is lifted away, implying that the explosion was due to the tether's failing tensile strength, which caused a whiplash which destroyed the tower. The 2 remaining kilometers of the tether certainly would not be enough to cause a compressive failure given the nature of the materials no doubt required to build such a structure. Simple stone has a compressive strength of 40 MPa, sufficient to support a vertical structure at least 2 kilometers in height. Any space elevator material would require a tensile strength of at least 62.5 GPa if the elevator were to be built as a passive structure with no active support system.

Alternatively, something else could have exploded within the tower to cause the collapse, but in that case, it still leaves us with no clue as to what purpose the structure at the base served, so it cannot be assumed that it was a compressive support.

In any event, an orbital elevator of that design is entirely unfeasible with modern predictions. Those rings continuing up the column serve no visible purpose based on the elevator's configuration, and likewise appear to have no obvious attachment points to the tether. The physical destruction wrought by their scattering also implies that they are quite heavy, making such an elevator even more unfeasible since this dead weight would drastically increase the tensile strength required for the cable. Thus, if we are going to point out that the support structure seems "infeasible," then there are many other things that should be listed, the support structure ranking rather low on that list. I also fail to see specifically how quantum physics have anything to do with the tower's compressive strength. Compression takes place on the atomic level, as atoms and molecules are forced together, and is more within the realm of chemistry and standard elementary physics than quantum mechanics. The one092001 06:33, August 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I should probably have mentioned that I'm refering to the Halo 2 model, as you can see it is considerably taller than the tallest structure encountered during gameplay. The revised Halo 3 model seems not be particularly objectionable. I see your point, although I'm concerned with the rate of change in load with respect to cross-sectional area. It seems that the total load should exceed the compressional strength at the base, which should cause barreling and ultimately failure. As far as I'm aware, mechanics on the atomic scale is quantisized, I should know since I'm majoring in Quantumn Nanoscience at the moment.--Plasmic Physics 07:13, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * The structures do appear to be noticeably different, although the Halo 2 model actually appears to have a sturdier, better-constructed base with thinner, more closely clustered rings than the ODST model. In the Halo 2 model, we can see that the base support struts are enormous, with at least three (possibly more) branching out from the bottom-most ring along with what appears to be a central support and anchor continuing straight down into the Earth. Given the size of the structure we can see in the image with Regret's carrier as a comparison, the base is just short of 5 kilometers tall, but given the sheer density of the supports, seems quite sturdy. Given their angle, they also do not support the weight of the tower vertically, and flare out toward the base for greater thickness. Rather than explode, it is more likely that the struts would buckle outward, if they were overwhelmed. The tapering present in at least some of the struts does seem to make this unlikely, however.
 * The structures do appear to be noticeably different, although the Halo 2 model actually appears to have a sturdier, better-constructed base with thinner, more closely clustered rings than the ODST model. In the Halo 2 model, we can see that the base support struts are enormous, with at least three (possibly more) branching out from the bottom-most ring along with what appears to be a central support and anchor continuing straight down into the Earth. Given the size of the structure we can see in the image with Regret's carrier as a comparison, the base is just short of 5 kilometers tall, but given the sheer density of the supports, seems quite sturdy. Given their angle, they also do not support the weight of the tower vertically, and flare out toward the base for greater thickness. Rather than explode, it is more likely that the struts would buckle outward, if they were overwhelmed. The tapering present in at least some of the struts does seem to make this unlikely, however.

It is impossible to definitively say how many rings are on the Halo 2 model since it disappears into the clouds, but we can see at least nine, and the ODST model has ten. Compared to the base, this puts the total height of the structure at likely around 15-16 kilometers, assuming ten rings. Accurate calculations are impossible given the lack of information as to the tower's mass and construction. However, modern carbon fiber epoxy has a compressive strength of greater than 1 GPa, more than 25 times that of stone which can already support a vertical tower of 2 kilometers. Specifically, SP Systems SE84LV with Toray 300S fibers has a tested compressive strength of 1.3 GPa, more than enough to support such a tower.

This comparison is directly in conflict with the ODST elevator. According to the article, the tether snaps 2 kilometers above the surface, but this snapping point is halfway up the ring structure, far above the support base. This means that the entire structure is shorter than five kilometers, which given the same materials as mentioned above, would make construction of the tower even easier. Although the support struts here are significantly thinner, and the rings proportionately larger and farther-spaced, the two ring support columns are tapered, which would give greater strength relative to their weight. In any event, the greatly reduced height (and presumably, mass) of the structure makes compressive strength much less of an issue.

Finally, if the support base is used as an anchor, then it would not even need to support the entirety of its own weight, since it would be supporting itself against the tether, although we have no evidence of that.

And unless a demonstration of exactly how quantum mechanics preclude the construction of such a structure can be provided, it is much more logical to accept the Newtonian physics equations that traditionally govern structural engineering, since rarely do we ever calculate strength down to the quantum level as no structure should ever be built so close to its compressive failure point.The one092001 22:38, August 4, 2010 (UTC)