[AR] Re: OT laser propulsion and power satellites
- From: James Bowery <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 23:16:22 -0500
Here is the typhoon historic track map showing the relatively immune
corridor in the western equatorial
Pacific.<http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/7000/7079/tropical_cyclone_map_lrg.gif>
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:04 PM, James Bowery <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
