▲ | EndsOfnversion 4 days ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
You can certainly make the tethers longer, but that re-introduces other problems with the tensile strength that the current proposed shape is intended to mitigate. I’m very skeptical about Spinlaunch, but even if you can pour enough epoxy over something to allow it to survive 10k Gs for a few minutes, I am not sure you can scale it to 100k+ Gs for weeks, for a postage stamp sized payload that has to be almost perfectly flat - that just seems like a completely different problem domain. I think the idea bears further investigation, but the omission from the paper feels a bit odd. Good luck with the novel! | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | ben_w 4 days ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
> I’m very skeptical about Spinlaunch, but even if you can pour enough epoxy over something to allow it to survive 10k Gs for a few minutes, Please do watch the video I linked to — it was a surprise to the people whose cubesat design they lightly modified, that they didn't need to fill all voids with epoxy resin. > I am not sure you can scale it to 100k+ Gs for weeks, for a postage stamp sized payload that has to be almost perfectly flat - that just seems like a completely different problem domain. If anything, I expect "flat postage stamp" to be easier, even with a 100x increase in G-forces. Thin structure in compression -> total forces are still low. Balancing a fully laden lorry on a 10cm cube of steel (7.5kg vs 50 tons ~= 6,000x) seems borderline in the way that balancing a 10cm cube of steel on top of 1cm^2 of 80 gsm paper (=8mg vs 7.5kg ~= 937500) doesn't. (Edit: forgot density of steel, thought it was 5 not 7.5) > I think the idea bears further investigation, but the omission from the paper feels a bit odd. 100%. It does feel a bit like it's formalising my shower thoughts. > Good luck with the novel! Thanks, I'll need it! >_> | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|