[AR] Re: OT laser propulsion and power satellites
- From: Keith Henson <hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 12:59:34 -0700
Jim, the transport system is so oriented to the power satellite
production project that I can't see any point in a generic orbital
launch service. It's like a mine road into the jungle to a copper
mine, single purpose.
And, it's not ground based lasers. The lasers need to be out in GEO
so they can sweep along the equator for close to 4000 km to put the
vehicle in orbit. You can launch straight up with lasers, but it
takes about ten times as much laser for the same payload.
The minimum transport rate is about 500,000 tons per year or 60 tons
per hour. It sounds like a lot, but the actual need is 20 times that
large, so this sized (100 GW/year) is sort of a pilot project. It
still makes an awful lot of money.
Keith
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:28 PM, James Bowery <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
