Tim Wescott wrote:

I think NASA's point is that the mass needed for a spacecraft that's
constructed in space is a lot lower than the mass needed for a
spacecraft that's constructed here, then needs to withstand 6 or 8 or
10 g's, or whatever.

But lifting the manufacturing machinery means you have to build a minimum
number of ships to break even. Maybe 10 or maybe 100.


But your point about launch costs is well taken. Do you happen to
have about 60km of really strong cable lying around?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

60 km? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I crossed out what I started to write about 45,000 miles (2 * geosync orbit)
after looking at the article.

The article made me think...

OK, the counterweight means it can be shorter than 45,000 miles, and I guess
it can move (reel itself in) to keep the center of mass in place.

Giant Weed Whacker!

I crossed out what I wrote when I realized you meant 60,000 miles. Right?

Thinking of a weed whacker, the chance of a collision with another satellite
is much greater than sat-to-sat. We rely a great deal on the fact that sats
at the same altitude are at the same speed.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.