[edwin hubble]

"don't these things by definition HAVE TO BE on the Equator?"
No.

Yes, they do, and I'd like to see your proof that they do not.

--Boris

---

Boris,

Here are some results of calculations by Blaise Gassend of MIT with graphs and analysis of several space elevator designs with non-equatorial anchor points.

http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/gassend/elevator/off-center-elevator.html

Note that Arthur Clarke came up with an anchor in Sri Lanka about 7 degrees from the equator.

[boris]

"Here are some results of calculations by Blaise Gassend of MIT with graphs and analysis of several space elevator designs with non-equatorial anchor points."

He presents no analysis; he merely makes assertions and presents plots. The plots--on the basis of the gnuplot statements--are laughably simplistic. This is not proof or even scientific reasoning.

I see M.I.T. has really become "stupified" since my days there.

--Boris

[RightWhale]

The elevator doesn't swing around above and below the equatorial plane.

Fascinating. One might at first think that the cable would swing around the equator trying to reach an equilibrium. Of course, this view of being held constantly to one side north or south of the equator makes a great deal of sense, and adds to tension on the cable.