[AR] Re: OT laser propulsion and power satellites
- From: James Bowery <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 15:20:38 -0500
At the price point you're talking about -- even with the GEO orientation --
it seems more market research would benefit the project.
PS: Sorry about the inadequate phraseology. I should have said "ground-based
rectenna to laser Skylon bootstrap"
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> 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:
