• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    17 days ago

    What prevents them from doing exactly that?

    Lots of (all?) satellites have propulsion systems to make orbit adjustments anyway. Is it that complicated to bolster them a bit for that purpose?

    • @Bimfred
      link
      16 days ago

      I’d imagine having the propellant tanks, plumbing, valves and engines survive 10,000Gs without crumpling or deforming to the point of failure is going to be a bit of an issue. Any thin and lightweight structures like foldable solar panels (and their deployment mechanisms) are also going to be tricky.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        25 days ago

        Hmm, but if the acceleration is gradual, shouldn’t it be fine?

        Or are you referring to the constant centripetal acceleration felt by the object as it’s spinning?

        Man is physics class far away

        • @Bimfred
          link
          25 days ago

          The centripetal acceleration. It’s going to ramp up fast. There’s also the concern of what’s gonna happen to the payload when it’s released, exits the vacuum chamber and smacks right the fuck into the dense low-level atmosphere at a significant Mach number. Cause that’s what has to happen if the goal is to reduce the need for onboard propellant.

    • @Sorgan71
      link
      26 days ago

      Well I just meant the restriction in the title where it said no rocket fuel. Its not possible if you have no rocket fuel. But they probably will use rocket fuel if they get the faucility to have a big enough diameter to get mostly to orbit.