5 ms·
So a cable at 300,000km at, oh, I dont know, an average of 1 meter wide, is not massive? I think scrapping together enough material on earth to build this will
by corodra 7y ago
So a cable at 300,000km at, oh, I dont know, an average of 1 meter wide, is not massive?
I think scrapping together enough material on earth to build this will be the first problem.
2.36 x10^8m for rough cylinder volume.
Steel weight would be 1,864,400,000,000 kg. Yes itd be a hybrid material. So, half of that? Maybe a quarter? That's not an insignificant amount of material at a 1m diameter cable. We haven't even gotten to labor costs and energy required.
I get astronomically, its insignificant. But I doubt it's going to have no effect.
- pavel_lishin 7y agoThe moon weighs 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kg. That's 37,545,591,074 times your projected weight of the cable.
- Rychard 7y agoIs it valid to say this is the "weight" of the moon? I would have assumed such measurements would deal exclusively with the moon's mass. Are the two terms used interchangeably in this context? (honest question, I really have no idea)
- pavel_lishin 7y agoI'm using them interchangeably here, but you're right, it was sloppy - I should have said mass. (They're only equivalent on Earth, and even there a given mass's weight changes based on where you are!)
- liability 7y ago> So a cable at 300,000km at, oh, I dont know, an average of 1 meter wide, is not massive Massive to a man, not a moon...
- mlindner 7y agoNo it would actually have no effect... Again your numbers are vastly out of scale.
- eutropia 7y ago"Let’s say such a line was made of a cable witha0=10−7m2: its total mass would then be around 40,000 kg. This is about twice the mass of the original lunar lander,and would make transporting and constructing such a cable completely plausible" -- From the linked paper.