I can't believe that this hasn't been done before or investigated.
Check out page 13 of this slightly aged document:
http://www.spaceelevator.com/docs/elevator.pdfLet me make a few points:
- In principle this is a great idea.
- Getting 100 km high does not help much, to get into orbit you still need a rocket that is almost as big as the ground based one. The difference is not worth the trouble of putting the launch pad on a tower, even it the tower itself were free.
- It cannot just be a tripod, the legs would buckle. It would have to have a more complex, fractal truss kind of shape. Like a much larger version of the Eiffel Tower.
- The sheer size and number of components puts this well out of range of any construction project ever done, and may require centuries for completion. It is more than 100 times higher and wider than a skyscraper, thus 1,000,000 times as big in volume. Even if most of that is air (as is a skyscraper), and even if it can be put together on the ground before being inflated, the work required is staggering.
The SE is possible because it is really big only in one dimension. Rolled up, it could be stored in a single warehouse. A compression structure is big in three dimensions, and thus fundamentally more difficult and costly to put together.
Andreas