3 ms·
Yes, that seems to have been misunderstood. The cable that weighs 88,000lb (in the paper, 40,000kg), has a cross-sectional area of 10⁻⁷m²! That won't stand up
by mkl 7y ago
Yes, that seems to have been misunderstood. The cable that weighs 88,000lb (in the paper, 40,000kg), has a cross-sectional area of 10⁻⁷m²! That won't stand up to much use.
If I'm reading (skimming) right, they say "this would only allow transport of weights up to 100kg".
- jandrese 7y ago100kg seems like a barely usable amount of lift. It means you need an in-orbit assembly system for most things you want to launch and I'm pretty sure you're not going to be able to launch a person with life support gear.
- mkl 7y agoYes, it's hard to imagine a cable-crawling machine and its power source being under that mass limit, let alone a payload.
- jandrese 7y agoI had assumed the cost of the crawler was already included in that 100kg figure, but if not then yeah, that's even more marginal. It really can't bring its own fuel source along, it needs to work on beamed power or maybe a current between two parallel tethers.
- perl4ever 7y agoSo, uh...if it can transport 0.25% of its weight, then that kind of implies that the safety margin is of the same approximate order, doesn't it?