[AR] Re: OT laser propulsion and power satellites
- From: James Bowery <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 20:23:10 -0500
Another "blue sky" idea:
Thiel has funded the Atmospheric Vortex Engine test now going
on<http://jimbowery.blogspot.com/2013/08/breakout-labs-funded-prototype-of.html>.
Thiel also, as you know, endowed the Seasteading Institute. The western
equatorial Pacific is the ideal place for the Atmospheric Vortex Engine.
If the CFD model can be refined under the current study and the model
still supports support the cost projections, which are quite favorable (see
slide 19 <http://vortexengine.ca/PPP/AVEtec_Business_Case.pdf>) as long as
we're talking local use, it looks like it will be a 'go'. Will it then
kill off satellite power? On the contrary, it may catalyze it.
Transmission costs from the western equatorial Pacific to the mainland get
pretty expensive so the options are local use in seasteading and microwave
transmission.
Microwave transmission to the mainland may as well go to GEO and back.
That, alone, may be enough to catalyze satellite power. The western
Pacific is an ideal takeoff point for the laser Skylon and the initial GEO
microwave power relay sats may as well be positioned optimally for the
orbital boost phase since they'd be able to service both sides of the
Pacific.
PS: The algae PBR tech for the Seasteads is just about ready to roll and
it, too, prefers the same location for similar reasons.
Moreover, if you get seasteading going (which happens if you have the
appropriate algae cultivation system)
If
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 7:43 PM, James Bowery <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Food for thought:
>
> Let's say you take 4 people per second off the planet along with
> infrastructure for a tonne percapita.
>
> That will depopulate Earth and demand about 100Mtonne/year launch which is
> an order of magnitude larger than the capacity required for your satellites
> alone.
>
> At $100/kg, you invest $100k per person to get them to GEO.
>
> I'm not sure what use they'd be there, but better there than here.
>
> Anyway, just some numbers...
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:56 PM, James Bowery <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> What I'm talking about here goes beyond ordinary market research to
>> market macro-development and is an issue that comes up with any disruptive
>> shift in economics -- particularly
>> energy<http://www.complexsystems.org/publications/pdf/thermoecon.pdf>,
>> although the shift you're talking about in orbital launch cost is similarly
>> disruptive. So you're actually talking about delivering two disruptive
>> shifts in economics. There is a _lot_ of market macro-development here. A
>> lot of this is time-constrained with the corresponding race-conditions.
>> How rapidly can which new markets grow through their primary inflection
>> points?
>>
>> For instance, Planetary Resource is trying to develop a market for
>> asteroidal materials. How does that interact? Another consideration is in
>> very low, energy price at the collectors, and the associated market
>> development. Planning here is, in turn, constrained by economic theory
>> itself which is why I linked to the thermoeconomics paper above.
>>
>> Sure I could put some thought into this for some low-hanging fruit (like
>> the potential Planetary Resources synergy that is sort of an off-the-cuff
>> example that, of course, you and Drexler looked into decades ago), but this
>> really requires new thinking not even considered during the O'Neill days
>> because not even the most optimistic estimates of the Shuttle upon which he
>> based the first edition of "High Frontier" correspond to the low price
>> point of your system. Maybe Lofstrom would be a resource since he was IIRC
>> in the same ballpark with the launch loop.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:27 PM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>>
>>> 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:
