[AR] Re: OT laser propulsion and power satellites
- From: James Bowery <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 14:28:35 -0500
The biggest hurdle (in time perspective) here will be overcoming the
perception that reusable chemical rockets -- particularly in conjunction
with nonterrestrial materials -- are inadequate to the task compared to the
risk-adjusted cost of the ground-based laser Skylon bootstrap.
In a "Citizen's Advisory Council"/"Launch Services Purchase Act" approach,
what would be the minimum market size including price support at that
size), required to attract private funding to the ground-based laser Skylon
bootstrap as a generic orbital launch service?
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> China isn't the only country that could do it. Germany though the EU
> could do it. Because Skylon is a big part of the way to make power
> satellites economical, the EU has a big lead over the US. How about a
> joint EU China project? That gets the investment down to $30 B each,
> about the class of Three Gorges dam and the chunnel. Of course, once
> a propulsion laser exists, US demands wouldn't mean much.
>
> There are geometry/geography considerations because the launch sites
> need to be near the equator and over water. A three way split with
> the US involved would be even better, for reasons involving Pacific vs
> Atlantic weather and the need to prime the system with 12 GW for a few
> months.
>
> Keith
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Uwe Klein <uwe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > Keith Henson wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Uwe Klein <uwe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> John Stoffel wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Laser sounds neat, but I always wonder what happens when it loses lock
> >>>> and illuminates something else by accident...
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> What happens when the accident is intention
> >>> is what will keep this on paper imho.
> >>>
> >>> An orbital laser is a potential weapon
> >>> and for once I would actually take "second use"
> >>> as a real threat.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> It's a real problem. Lots of people are thinking about it, including
> >> one who says that the US would destroy any Chinese propulsion laser.
> >> When I asked if the US would destroy a joint Chinese/Indian laser they
> >> were not so certain. But if the Chinese were really upfront about
> >> keeping it from being used as a weapon and asked the US for help
> >> securing it . . . .
> >>
> > The US is infatuated with limiting/regulating others
> > applying rules and making demands
> > that they never would follow themselves.
> >
> > A bully at work.
> >
> > No nation that has other options will submit.
> >
> > uwe
> >
> > --
> >
> > Uwe Klein [mailto:uwe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Habertwedt 1
> > D-24376 Groedersby b. Kappeln, GERMANY
> > phone: +49 4642 920 123 FAX: +49 4642 920 125
> >
>
>
Other related posts:
