[AR] Re: OT laser propulsion and power satellites
- From: James Bowery <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 19:58:45 -0500
I think you mean to the west, not the east.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> What's most interesting to me about that map is the cold water along
> the equator to the east of South America. Makes for few clouds and
> good flying on laser. To take advantage, the US would have to be
> involved in supplying the bootstrap microwave power from California.
>
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 8:04 PM, James Bowery <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Here is the sea surface temperature map showing the western equatorial
> > Pacific's surface thermal store.
> >
> >
> > 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. 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) 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, 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:
