[AR] Re: OT laser propulsion and power satellites
- From: Keith Henson <hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 14:27:45 -0700
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:20 PM, James Bowery <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> At the price point you're talking about -- even with the GEO orientation --
> it seems more market research would benefit the project.
Feel free to suggest another market. I have not been able to think of
one. All the comm sats launched in a year would go up in a few hours
with this much capacity. Cheap as it is, it looks to be too expensive
for space tourists.
> PS: Sorry about the inadequate phraseology. I should have said
> "ground-based rectenna to laser Skylon bootstrap"
Worse, it's initially a ground based microwave transmitter, space
based rectenna, laser Skylon bootstrap. Talk about a mouthful.
Keith
>
>
> 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:
