The square/cube isn’t really relevant to the O’Neill cylinder itself, but it is relevant when considering what kinds of space infrastructure could be created to launch the cylinder or its components into space.
I agree with the reasoning that he stated in the book regarding this topic.
I think he’s right about the maximum length of steel cables at Earth surface gravity.
Granted, space would have much weaker gravity, so assembling an O’Neil cylinder in space and having it never land on any planets could make this a non-issue.
Also, the bullet points are my attempt to summarize what he wrote.
They’re not what he actually wrote.
But the first chapter of Van Allen’s book is free to read on Amazon as a sample if you’d like, and it includes everything that I was trying to summarize.
Nevertheless, you’re probably right that he didn’t read the math in O’Neill’s essay.
Thank you for sharing the link.
The square/cube isn’t really relevant to the O’Neill cylinder itself, but it is relevant when considering what kinds of space infrastructure could be created to launch the cylinder or its components into space. I agree with the reasoning that he stated in the book regarding this topic.
I think he’s right about the maximum length of steel cables at Earth surface gravity. Granted, space would have much weaker gravity, so assembling an O’Neil cylinder in space and having it never land on any planets could make this a non-issue.
Also, the bullet points are my attempt to summarize what he wrote. They’re not what he actually wrote. But the first chapter of Van Allen’s book is free to read on Amazon as a sample if you’d like, and it includes everything that I was trying to summarize.
Nevertheless, you’re probably right that he didn’t read the math in O’Neill’s essay. Thank you for sharing the link.