> I never proposed that it could be used for quick-response systems.
Then if you want to do away with rockets... what exactly were you planning on using?
> it is far more efficient at moving heavy objects to orbit to include weapons platforms for the military.
Incorrect. The payloads that an elevator will be able to carry will be fairly small, at least for the foreseeable future.
Did I say I want to do away with rockets? I only said that they were inefficient, impractical, and expensive to do heavy lifting on any reasonable scale into orbit to support the construction of large space stations and adequately shielded and equipped interplanetary vehicles and to get heavy construction, fabrication, and other equipment up there to construct a lunar colony. The long traversal time on the elevator and its pass through the Van Allen belt may make it somewhat impractical or dangerous for humans to use for transportation. I repeat, MAY. Supplemental rocket launches may be necessary and chemical rockets will certainly be needed to propel ships and payloads to and from the moon and within the solar system.
> it is far more efficient at moving heavy objects to
orbit to include weapons platforms for the military.
Incorrect. The payloads that an elevator will be able to carry will be fairly small, at least for the foreseeable future.
Those who are familiar with the space elevator concept predict costs of around a couple hundred dollars per pound. The Space Shuttle can lift 25 tons, once in a blue moon, dangerously, for about $40,000 per lb given what I could gather via Google. One space elevator concept would lift 20 tons at $200 per lb. Once you get one elevator constructed, the construction of others would be relatively elementary and multiple elevators would be in use simultaneously. The cost, per lb, to get an item to orbit would drop with each new elevator. Lifting material to orbit would become relatively safe and economical and routine. And that is the point.