[AR] Re: OT laser propulsion and power satellites
- From: Keith Henson <hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:38:50 -0700
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:56 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, 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.
I have to agree with you, though the energy shift is a consequence of
the orbital launch cost. One or two, either way it's the kind of
fundamental shift we need to get out of the problems. On the other
hand, compared to the market size, it doesn't grow that fast. Humans
will still burn a lot more coal, oil will be tight for at least a
decade and demand for LNG for the Skylons would become a serious part
of the market.
> 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?
Transport and building the power satellites is integrated into one
spread sheet. That where the graphs come from here:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/09/propulsion-lasers-for-large-scale.html
or here
http://youtu.be/qCiw99yRBo8
I think you saw the previous version about a year ago. If you want
this one, ask.
Once you are building power satellites, building more propulsion
lasers is relatively easy, so the model shows growth based on using
ten percent of the lift capacity to haul up more lasers. Peaks out at
10 million tons per year and building two TW per year. Perhaps some
of that will come from asteroids.
> For instance, Planetary Resource is trying to develop a market for
> asteroidal materials. How does that interact?
Perhaps some of the materials will come from asteroids. I have been
doing rough design of the power sats assuming Invar, 35% nickel and
iron alloy as the main structural material.
> 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.
The price of energy from power satellites isn't any lower than
historical hydropower. The price of synthetic oil made from excess
power is in the $30-60 per bbl, lower than current, but a good bit
above the historic lows. It's familiar economic ground.
> 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.
If you can get the lift cost down low enough, you don't need the moon
or asteroids to build power sats. If you have to use ET resources
because otherwise you can't get the cost down, the problem become very
hard to analyze.
>
> 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:
