Yes, you are correct. Still, crash landing implies it landed, not blew up in the atmosphere.

But I guess “non controlled descent” is a much better way of putting it.

Yes, the eclipse was quite a publicized event. Thank you for the comment.

Actually it’s 1 MB of RAM not 1 GB, which is 1024 times less. 😛 If you get rid of all the fancy graphics and have only a text-based user interface, then you can easily fit with only 1 MB, even for large tasks such as running a space shuttle. In fact, I’ve written many programs that only use a few KB of RAM, which is a small fraction of the 1 MB the space shuttle has. (I am studying computer science in college.)

Get rid of fancy graphics, and applications and see what power you need ? Not much…

Hollywood and Video Games and Design Applications – that where all the cpu development is needed.

And we dont even need so much more power to what we are offered.

More power – less code optimization.

Not so much better graphics today requires gazillions of CPU and memory more….

Paul,
I really enjoy what you are writing.
I particularly like the fact that you are documenting all your your discourse, something that is often omitted from most people writing on the subject of Space Elevators.
Nelson

Thanks for the nice comment! 🙂

I really enjoy what you are writing.

I particularly like the fact that you are documenting all your your discourse, something that is often omitted from most people writing on the subject of Space Elevators.

Nelson

One important thing that is often not discussed is the necessity of propulsion systems for the launch of space crafts away from the elevator. Often wrongly assumed; a space elevator does not put objects in orbit, (except for a specific GEO orbit,) it simply elevates the cargo to a radial destination. […]

Yes. Some sort of propulsion would be necessary to reach your destination after you leave the space elevator (unless you want to get into an orbit around the Earth, but even then you better have a propulsion system to adjust that orbit).

Other propulsion methods will be discussed in following articles.

Moons.
Another option regarding moons is their destruction (a drastic solution but perhaps more economical).

I assume you are referring to the moons of Mars: Phobos and Deimos. Yes that would be another solution, though if you blow them up, they would explode into smaller pieces, which would pose an even bigger threat to a space elevator. So the debris would have to be entirely cleaned up.

If you de-orbit the moons and make them crash on Mars, that would probably be safer (assuming they don’t crash on a colony). However (depending on the length of the space elevator) it would probably be more economical to simply move the moons into higher orbits instead.

Moons.
Another option regarding moons is their destruction (a drastic solution but perhaps more economical).

Debris.
One important thing that is often not discussed is the necessity of propulsion systems for the launch of space crafts away from the elevator. Often wrongly assumed; a space elevator does not put objects in orbit, (except for a specific GEO orbit,) it simply elevates the cargo to a radial destination. For other than that; rocket systems are unavoidable for the task of placing the crafts on their journeys to their final destination, i.e.; either on an orbit around the planet, or to another destination beyond the Oort region. A space elevator can certainly be used for the ejection of objects far away from Earth’s gravitational field, (as it is for space craft intended for long interplanetary journeys or deep space,) but when we are speaking about objects that are to be operated around Earth’s surroundings, (i.e.; LEO or GEO,) onboard propulsion systems, (with their indispensable fuel,) are unavoidable. Otherwise; all the objects transported up to a launching station will simply pile up in the surroundings of the station, transforming it in nothing else but a junk yard. Also it must be kept in mind that a space craft intended for LEO will first need to travel all the way up to the counterweight station and then travel downwards back again to the intended height, which may be around 500 km, so having to travel all the way down from 35000 km. Which again requires burning fuels to slow down and to maneuver the craft into position, probably making the amount of chemical energy needed comparable to that which is employed by a 2nd stage rocket, (i.e.; keeping in mind the law of conservation of energy).