[AR] Re: OT laser propulsion and power satellites
- From: Keith Henson <hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 21:11:31 -0700
Right, west of South America. The Skylons launch to the east to take
advantage of the earth's rotation.
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:58 PM, James Bowery <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
