Don't get yourself all in another huff over my suggesting a pair of 100 meter diameter flywheel masses, as obviously I'm only inferring a flywheel radius being 50 meters to the mid point of their rotating mass and, I'm only using this elected diameter of 100 meters because it's somewhat easier to do the math. So, if you don't happen to like my 100 meters, or of 50t to as much as 50,000t worth of individual flywheel mass, as then you'll pick whatever and, otherwise get a life because, this is my thing that I've offered for others to improve and/or embellish upon, though few are capable and fewer yet are willing to share anything whatsoever.
With regard to whatever rotational flywheel mass/density per revolutions;
Obviously 100 meters of diameter @100 rpm is representing the same energy potential as would 10 meters operating at 1000 rpm and so on, that is if the rotating mass were of the same value. However, try to remember to double upon that rotational calculation, and by doing as such, accounting for the four fold greater energy storage/delivery potential of what counter rotating flywheels achieve, especially in zero gravity and as nearly empty space and thereby frictionless as two opposing gravity-wells can make.
In outer space, especially at this rather unique moon/planet association of zero G location of the ME-L1, even though this gravity null position needs to be dynamically adjusted as per moon/Earth orbital/gravitational relationship, there's certainly no apparent limitation as to the issues of whatever flywheel mass and/or size. In order to help summarize upon the good or positive virtues of doing a counter-rotating set of flywheel energy storage units, as situated at this rather unique 0.0 G, of that being within an environment of perhaps 6^6 atoms of H/m3, as here's what I'm thinking in my village idiot terminology, as well as from within my way too "far side" simplicity, whereas I'm certain that you'll have far better and vastly more correct wording, as well as metric tonnes worth of numerous sophisticated terminologies along with plenty of complications to introduce. So, don't let me stop your anti-everything thoughts upon accomplishing this task or not, such as in the traditionally utmost complicated and utmost expensive way possible (the NASA way or else):
a) Moon L1 of 0.0 G represents that of whatever flywheel mass, even if each were representative of 50^3 kg or 50^6 kg or even 100^6 kg, is nearly a non issue, as bigger is simply better.
b) regardless of whatever flywheel mass, at moon L1 there's absolutely no significant axial or even radial bearing loads to deal with and, magnetic bearings can easily deal with the deamnds.
c) outer space itself represents nearly zero friction, especially at any null juncture, thus 99.999905%/min (I believe that's roughly a 5%/year worth of energy due to various friction losses) of overall flywheel rotational efficiency (I believe that's even including conventional bearing friction, which could obviously be further improved and/or eliminated alltogether by using magnetic field bearings, with only the physical safety limits or stops imposed by actual mechanical bearings, those of perhaps Torlon or Delrin, thus approaching if not easily exceeding 99.9%/year).
d) residing at ME-L1; the process of whatever energy input/output will not impose an affect upon the tether, nor of the SE/CM or the SE/CCM (I don't believe energy storage gets any better than that).
e) of whatever the mass required, other than of the containment doughnut shell (most likely that being of some alloy steel being more than sufficient) and of those hallow wheel spokes of delivering and/or containing said moon dirt and/or small moon rocks feeding to the otter doughnut will obviously supply whatever flywheel mass as needed, as easily being obtained by utilizing those CM/CCM interfaced tether transport pods that provide the CCM ballast trim, that which is interactively compensating the linear CM position, as in taking from and/or delivering to the primary SE/CM stash and/or the SE/CCM, of whichever best suites the LSE as well as the flywheel demands or needs at hand.
f) these dual rotating mass elements of counter-rotating flywheels will obviously have to be spoke attached to their core motor/generator, an electro/magnetic interface of at least 64, 128 or whatever pole consideration of perhaps not exceeding 10% overall diameter, thus if the outer flywheel rim was 105 meters, I foresee the hub/core would not likely exceed 10.5 meters, whereas being that the armature connects to flywheel (doughnut A), and of the opposing magnetic field being structurally connected to the opposing rotation flywheel (doughnut B), as such there's twice the speed of field/armature rotation as being seen by these motor/generator components, not to mention the affect of thereby creating 4 times the individual flywheel energy storage capacity.
g) at any time and within milliseconds, trap doors or gates on the perimeter can release measured volumes of moon dirt for balancing and/or energy reduction. New amounts of moon dirt would be robotically delivered to the hub and subsequently robotically dispersed to the rim via hallow spokes, allotted as needed through each spoke.
h) besides having individual spoke (64) discrete placement deliveries of said moon dirt, there could even be internal robotic worm/screw pigs of roughly equal moon-dirt density that could provide continuous internal structural monitoring plus further management upon creating uniform displacements of moon dirt volumes, on demand and as evenly as needed, thus offering a third method of flywheel balance trim, though I don't foresee this becoming an essential requirement.
i) for the initially assembly, the hub motor/generator would also be symmetrical and comprised of inter-locking sub-assemblies, whereas spokes themselves should each be telescopic and obviously locking, thus easily delivered in great volume as well as for being density efficient for their mostly robotic deployments. The rim or primary mass containment assembly (doughnut) can also be of a highly condensed deployment, whereas dozens of the required outer shell extensions would thereby become volume and density efficient as for their initial delivery and of subsequently of mostly robotic inter-locking deployments.
j) because of the component rotational aspects, thermal considerations should become the average of whatever the sun and/or lunar nighttime has to offer, thereby equalizing the thermal expansion and thereby equalizing related structural stress upon all components. The internal mass itself (moon dirt) should conduct nicely to those structural areas or zones not being directly illuminated.
k) since the primary density of this pair of flywheels is that of hallow doughnuts, the gross mass can thereby be dynamically adjusted by a ratio of at least 100:1, whereas more than likely being that these horrific fixtures are existing in zero gravity, the overall aspect ratio should actually be exceeding 1000:1. In other words, if the maximum per flywheel wheel of calculated mass were of 50^6 kg (50,000t), the empty structural mass (including spokes and the motor/generator hub) shouldn't have to be more than 50^3 kg (50t).
i) doing the math of E = 0.5 * M * V2 where E being in joules, M is the combined mass of both flywheels, then being absolutely certain to either doubling the V per flywheel of meters/second (523.5 * 2 = 1047 m/s) or otherwise quadrupling upon the energy input/output due to the counter rotating aspects (100 rpm each = 200 rpm with respect to each other, as that's what counts). If this doesn't manage to sufficiently knock your socks off, then absolutely nothing will, especially if those are a pair of 100+ meter diameter of 50^6 kg flywheels.
Unlike the Brad Edwards "Starlight Express" ESE (ENRON on Steroids Express), this Guth Lunar Space Elevator (GLSE or GMDE), of transporting all that infamous clumping moon dirt into a rather handy dandy depot in the sky, is certainly a whole lot more doable within the technology and frugal budgets of today. Though opposition has been strangely stout, oddly opposing on their first principal law of introducing scientific anything, that of NOT being their idea it's not going to happen, as well as it's simply NOT being sufficiently spendier than all of holy hell nor of unnecessarily risking astronauts and imposing nearly impossible to resolve security issues, not to mention that it's not offering a sufficient opportunity of space debris fall-out and subsequent carnage, that which probably wont actually matter all that much after the next 50 years because, humanity will not have evolved in physiology nor of becoming intelligence enough to deal with all the imposed global warming from the newly generated artificial CO2 (many thousands of tonnes of it), brought a whole lot further along by way of constructing the ESE in the first place, then continuing to produce year after year, and besides all of that nifty CO2 contribution, we'll likely be bankrupt and have depleted nearly all of the remaining fuel reserves, at least of anything that'll cost you or me less than $100/gallon and, we won't have to worry about those folks clear-cutting off any more of the rain forest because, I don't believe there'll be any of that nasty green stuff left.
As I've previously mentioned, at the current rate of our advancing human stupidity and absolute arrogance, at least our Earth will soon have lots of those warmer oceans, along with more cloud coverage and, if you don't presently have water front property, soon you will, so that's certainly a good thing on behalf the likes of Wizard Edwards and of credits doing to his Borg collective of pagan ESE worshiping cult followers. If that's not good enough, there's an even brighter ESE side of things, where perhaps his Starlight Express CM outpost that's having to reside within the Van Allen zone of death can beutilized for exterminating any of those remaining Cathars, or if situated somewhat outside the Van Allen zone of death (that portion having to be 75,000+ km) can also function as an efficient debtors prison, thus the necessary bio-mass needed for keeping his multi trillion dollar tether taut is going to become a whole lot easier and more affordable than I'd anticipated.
On behalf of the ESE master mind, or of whatever constitutes such for Dr. Brad Edwards;
"Outside of science fiction there was some work done on the space elevator during the first decades of the space age [Isaacs, 1966: Pearson, 1975: Clarke, 1979]. These early publications worked out the physics of the space elevator and discussed some of the components such as the optimal cable design being one of a tapered cable. But even in the past few years the space elevator concept has often been discarded out-of-hand as inconceivable or at least inconceivable for the next century. The reason for the general pessimism was that no material in existence was strong enough to build the cable. Steel, Kevlar, carbon whiskers, spider web or any other material known ten years ago simply would not work. That changed in 1991 with the discovery of carbon nanotubes [Iijima, 1991]. Carbon nanotubes are extremely long molecular tubes of carbon where the atoms are arranged in a pattern similar to what is found in geodesic domes. Theoretically they are stronger per kilogram than any other material by a factor of 40. As an example, a fiber made of carbon nanotubes 1/8" (3mm) in diameter could support 45 tons (41,000 kg). For building the space elevator this strength is critically important. Using a material other than carbon nanotubes it was estimated that it would take 750,000 shuttles to place the space elevator in orbit [Pearson. 1975], not really something most people would seriously consider. This is the reason for the science fiction scenario of building the cable on-orbit using materials naturally existing in space. However, I believe there is a better way."
"The Bottom Line"
"This feasibility report on the design and construction of a space elevator addresses all technical aspects of the problem from the deployment of the elevator to its survivability. This is not a definitive study or the final say but a first cut at the concept. What we have found is interesting. As we will discuss, building a space elevator will be challenging but not impossible and the initial elevator could be built for approximately $40 billion, less than many of our larger national programs. Yet the long-term return we (humans) would receive on the construction of a space elevator is staggering, it would literally change our world."
As you'll notice (unless you're a defective Borg), these above excerpts are actually written quite well (far better than I can do), though the remainder of the page and of other documents seem to somehow exclude, circumvent and/or disqualify as to the TRUTH(s), alluding as to the potential of our utilizing otherwise affordable technology upon obtainable goals in preference to some rather considerable delays and of otherwise creating all the artificial CO2 that'll be produced on behalf of any ESE, nor has Dr. Edwards taken up the ever advancing and/or accelerated inflation factors, or how about just the sheer factors of there being far less than a zero return upon investments that'll be needed for decades to come (even long after the fact), and that's only if nothing goes horrifically wrong. Even his 400 million per shuttle launch is being way conservative, as well as by further suppressing whatever satellite mission cost itself, then there's his further excluding upon the full infrastructure degree of necessary ground support and, obviously his excluding the sheer carnage of apparently expendable astronauts. I'm thinking, besides his being elected to the prestigious Arthur Andersen Hall of Fame, if those astronauts were all Cathars, the Pope would be damn proud of Brad Edwards.
Once again; I'm not the one inferring that an ESE goal can't be obtained and, someday alter and/or improve upon getting all sorts of stuff into space at eventually somewhat lesser CO2, though we (90% of Earth's humanity, the apparent lower scum of life) don't actually need 10% of what's already in space and, I'll dare you to prove otherwise, as 10% of the operating tonnage that's in orbit that could actually improve our humanity and/or even sustain upon what we've got is way more than sufficient, especially as opposed to so much other that's been knowingly ignored and badly in need of accomplishment right here on boring old Earth, or of at least of what's left of it and, even many of those satellites could have been long ago established and/or replaced by vastly more efficient lunar installations.
I'm thinking; the last thing humanity needs to be contemplating right about now is, how to blow trillions of our hard earned bucks, and of otherwise systematically misdirecting our talents and limited resources upon something that's only going to directly benefit not 1% of Earth's population, and of perhaps those within the upper most 10% getting the table scraps, while the rest of us village idiots are having to struggle along with global warming and of our somehow expediting upon advancing our own DNA/RNA evolution, so as to survive in spite of the enormous increases in CO2.
Obviously there's no provision for a gram of morality in Dr. Edwards plans, no real concern for Earth's humanity unless it merely benefiting his personal humanity. I too can think of all sorts of far less spendy and even less risky goals that we should have and could have been accomplishing as of decades ago, though no one wants to hear the truth nor believe that they've been snookered for nearly all their life.
Fortunately, the realm or perhaps cult of the scientific community is above morality, above being held responsible for whatever carnage and regression is imposed upon humanity, as otherwise I'd have to think it would be somewhat hard for those nice folks to sleep at night, fore knowing what dastardly things have been committed on behalf of their desires and best of all, as to what's to come.
On the other side of this tainted SE coin, I hope to focus others by drawing out some otherwise obtainable conclusions, as well as my eventually drafting out a graphical depiction of what an affordable LSE tether and of it's tether energy absorbing flywheels may have to offer humanity, as capturing electro-magnetic solar energy that's helping if not entirely powering the entire LSE functions, as well as for accommodating the rather spacious (1^6 m3) ISS that's fully shielded, as in sufficiently buried within the massive CM, nicely being surrounded by mostly cheap moon dirt, accomplishing all of that with comparatively darn little CO2 contribution for mother Earth, achieving this at perhaps all of 1% of what accomplishing the same task would entail if this were an ESE fiasco, an ESE which is still at best representing another half century down the global warming CO2 road to hell on Earth.
There now, that wasn't so bad nor testy; whereas my warm and fuzzy GMDE thoughts aren't nearly as outrageous nor as lethal as those of Dr. Edwards. So, other than my being the village idiot that simply will not go away, I'm actually not the one imposing a damn thing that has not been affordably obtainable, especially if you're inclined to being supportive towards the likes of efficient robotic missions, like sending TRACE-II off to Venus L2 at not 10% of what our last Mars mission imaging probe has cost us and is still costing us millions for nearly squat worth of nothing in return, unless you're pondering upon the concept of making frozen and irradiated to death Mars into our next debtors prison, in which case we need to be shipping off deserving folks (like ENRON and WorldCom folks, and I could think of a few thousand deserving others) instead of wasting time and resources upon probes.
Unlike Dr. Edwards pretencious statement that it's "hard to grasp the magnitude of impact the space elevator would have on our society", as what's that all about? As even I myself (the resident village idiot) can see all sorts of benefits for any SE, especially for the likes of a LSE if it's gong to cost but 1% and, especially more so if it's been doable right here and now.