[AR] Re: OT laser propulsion and power satellites
- From: James Bowery <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 22:04:02 -0500
Here is the sea surface temperature map showing the western equatorial
Pacific's surface thermal
store<http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/contour/global_small.cf.gif>
.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:23 PM, James Bowery <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
