Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: A proposed solution to the problem of space flight

Expand Messages
  • John Williams
    ... You missed your posting time by 3 hours, 53 minutes. _______________________________________________
    Message 1 of 4 , Apr 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:07 PM, hkhenson <hkhenson@...> wrote:

      > The laser stage does require a substantial amount of power, 4-5 GW (equal
      > to a ton of TNT per second).

      You missed your posting time by 3 hours, 53 minutes.

      _______________________________________________
      http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
    • Alberto Monteiro
      ... I think I am. Or I was. Probably now I switched from being one of the good guys (working in the space industry) to become one evil minion (working in
      Message 2 of 4 , Apr 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Keith wrote:
        >
        > I don't know who on this list is up to understanding the technical
        > parts . . . .
        >
        I think I am. Or I was. Probably now I switched from being
        one of the "good guys" (working in the space industry) to
        become one "evil minion" (working in the oil industry) :-)

        > The root problem is the same space flight has had all along--the
        > rocket equation. All sins flow from the fact that at best one part
        > in 60 of the liftoff mass gets to GEO or lunar orbit with
        > chemical fuels. Here it is in graphical form.
        >
        If you want to play with the rocket equation, just use
        this javascript:

        http://www.geocities.com/albmont/relroket.htm

        It's a relativistic rocket equation, but it works (obviously)
        for v << c.

        The whole problem is that you need energy/power/speed/name-it
        to get the rocket away from Earth's athmosphere. Right now,
        the only way to do it is by chemical rockets.

        Now comes the second problem. Suppose you get to LEO. Theoretically,
        it's possible to use "more efficient" ways to transfer to GEO. One way
        is to continously thrust with a high-specific-impulse engine. But this
        would make the transfer take eons - and now economy plays a very
        important part in the equation: you don't want to _wait_! Time is money.

        So, the pretty little mathematical and physics of transfer bows
        to the implacable and ruthless laws of economics, and we use
        chemical rockets.

        Darth Alberto Monteiro


        _______________________________________________
        http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
      • hkhenson
        ... There are other ways that would almost certainly work. Laser ablation, which takes a GW/ton of payload, and various methods that accelerate a vehicle to
        Message 3 of 4 , Apr 1, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          At 11:00 AM 4/1/2009, John Williams wrote:

          >Keith wrote:
          > >
          > > I don't know who on this list is up to understanding the technical
          > > parts . . . .
          > >
          >I think I am. Or I was. Probably now I switched from being
          >one of the "good guys" (working in the space industry) to
          >become one "evil minion" (working in the oil industry) :-)
          >
          > > The root problem is the same space flight has had all along--the
          > > rocket equation. All sins flow from the fact that at best one part
          > > in 60 of the liftoff mass gets to GEO or lunar orbit with
          > > chemical fuels. Here it is in graphical form.
          > >
          >If you want to play with the rocket equation, just use
          >this javascript:
          >
          >http://www.geocities.com/albmont/relroket.htm
          >
          >It's a relativistic rocket equation, but it works (obviously)
          >for v << c.
          >
          >The whole problem is that you need energy/power/speed/name-it
          >to get the rocket away from Earth's athmosphere. Right now,
          >the only way to do it is by chemical rockets.

          There are other ways that would almost certainly work. Laser
          ablation, which takes a GW/ton of payload, and various methods that
          accelerate a vehicle to escape plus enough to get through the
          atmosphere. But your point is correct in that rockets or something
          closely related seem to be the current and possibly the best way to
          get above the atmosphere.

          Though in the long run (and assuming we can get the cable) you can't
          beat a moving cable space elevator for efficiency. 15 cents of
          electric power per kg to GEO.

          >Now comes the second problem. Suppose you get to LEO.

          Ah, but you didn't read the specifications. The first stage in this
          design does not go to LEO, and the second (laser) stage doesn't
          either. It heads directly to GEO on one continuous burn. Amazing
          what you can do with 12-17 km/sec exhaust velocity and over a g of
          thrust. The energy in the laser beam is equal to a ton of TNT per second.

          >Theoretically,
          >it's possible to use "more efficient" ways to transfer to GEO. One way
          >is to continously thrust with a high-specific-impulse engine. But this
          >would make the transfer take eons - and now economy plays a very
          >important part in the equation:

          It's not as bad as you think. Ion engines will take a power sat
          constructed in LEO to GEO in a few months. Unfortunately by the time
          it got there it would be full of holes and in dire need of
          repair. They are big enough to intercept a *lot* of space junk.

          > you don't want to _wait_! Time is money.

          If you put another batch of lasers on the ground or build a set at
          GEO, then lift off to GEO is 5 hours. Initially, with only one set
          of bounce mirrors, we let the laser stage go around the Hohmann
          transfer orbit one and a half times. This puts the laser and bounce
          mirrors in the right place to circularize the laser stage to GEO.

          The time is money is certainly true. The "design to cost" criteria
          is to have parts delivered to GEO be incorporated into a finished
          satellite in a week or less. Starting at GW of power sat every day
          or two, ramping up over time to 2 GW/day or more. The intent is to
          displace fossil fuel entirely by mid century.

          >So, the pretty little mathematical and physics of transfer bows
          >to the implacable and ruthless laws of economics, and we use
          >chemical rockets.

          They are ok for the first step, but using high exhaust velocity laser
          propulsion for the second stage reduces the lift off mass by a factor
          of 5 and the cost by a factor of 6. It's the difference between 5
          cent per kWH which won't really compete with nuclear and 1 cent,
          which takes over even the oil market.

          Keith



          _______________________________________________
          http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.