Dave’s answer:
Response: There is a practical unit-kite sail scaling limit of around 1000m2 or less, where thin kite fabric panels can be easily damaged by surface-dragging in a fabric mass of ~200kg or more, although there are possible methods, like air-fluidized beds, to extend this limit. Therefore, unit-kite sails of around 500m2 are fairly robust to ground handling.
A Kite Network can be designed mostly closed or with holes or sparse in any desired ratio of open to closed area. Topologically, the Papillion/Para-Commander parasailing-parachute lineage can be classed as a Kite Network, each panel counting as a network node, and many holes. Algebraic topology can handle Kite Network holes and panels in a unified model basis.
And also (from Dave):
Addressing more of Pierre’s concerns: While there are Kite Network Failure Modes that non-networked kites are not subject to, overall, Networking is a maximally robust AWES scaling strategy, as the Gemini 2.5 Pro emphatically asserts. Kite Network control can be fully collective via ganged control lines. A large network will condition local flow, as any wing does. Individual unit-kites can be passively compliant to local wind disturbance and dissipate disturbance spikes into the network, staying within their load limits.
Perhaps a networked AWES could be based on:
- Single unit including holes or spaces, like parachutes and parasails, Mothra arch, Daisy (several blades or kites forming the rotor)
- Set of individual kites
A networked AWES could also work as a giant lifter kite, or a giant power kite, as envisaged here.
Existing networked kites or AWES are parachute trains and other kite trains, MAWES, rotary AWES, arches and others.
An alternative method, but aiming to use unnetworked AWES: AWES farm in bumper car mode where collisions between the units would have no serious consequences.