This note surrounds a fresh tactic that may well be economical as well as on target as very busable.
The topic regards beams involved in tensegrity HG framing. Let main global spar be of four compound beams; let each compound beam be made of three sub-tubes; let the three sub tubes be Joe-Cup joined in two places resulting in a doubly-tapered compound beam; let the center sub-tube be of the larger OD. Let the two end tubes be insertive child beams. Let the Joe-cup couplers resolve wobble from gaps. Strategic choice of the three sub tubes will permit tote nests; the number of tote nests may be minimized by careful design of sub tubes that make up main wing spar, keel, posting, ribbing, battening. The tactic may permit the buying of more economical lengths of CF tubing as shipping from after is constrained. Also, the scheme may lower global net weight of the wing while advancing buckling resistance. And the tote length might then be one meter or just less than one meter. This would be fun.
=============================================================================

I fed my mulling to an AI and asked for a mulling tone and got the following:
This note surrounds a fresh tactic that may be economical as well as very much on target for a highly busable HG.
The topic is the beams involved in tensegrity HG framing.Suppose the main global spar is four compound beams, two on each side of the keel. Suppose each 7-ft compound beam is made from three CF sub-tubes. Joe-Cup join the three sub-tubes at two locations, producing a doubly-tapered compound beam: larger-OD tube in the center, with two smaller-OD insertive child beams toward the ends.
The Joe-Cup couplers can tolerate generous tube-to-tube gaps and separately resolve wobble. That may free us from demanding precision telescoping fits between the CF tubes themselves.
Now comes the potentially fun part.
Strategic choice of the three sub-tubes may permit them to nest efficiently for transport. And perhaps the same idea can be extended across the keel, posts, ribbing, and battening. Careful selection of a relatively small family of CF tube sizes might minimize the total number of tote nests needed for the entire wing.
If so, we may be able to buy more economical CF tubing, because worldwide shipping strongly favors short lengths. The aircraft structure would be assembled from those short tubes rather than requiring expensive long CF members.
There may be another payoff: the compound-beam geometry could put more CF where it buys us the most structural value—especially the larger-OD center tube—while reducing global net weight and improving buckling resistance.
And then the tote target gets interesting:
one meter (39.4 in), or just under one meter.
Not a 5-ft tote. Not a 6-ft tote.
A "1-meter Wing5 tote" containing the nested CF ingredients from which the longer structural members are assembled.
I don't know yet how far this tactic can be pushed, but it looks worth exploring.
This would be fun.