Solar-pumped laser power transmission, a way to dramatically decrease launch costs?

Jonathan wrote:

It's within the realm of possibility for NASA to 'Save the Future'.
With an agressive forward looking energy project.

It would be a mistake to look to NASA for a solution. They're really
into providing jobs for the aerospace industry, by spending money.
Achievement is very much a secondary goal. Give the job to them, and I
guarantee it won't get done.

Launch costs are going down,
Are they? Significantly? I wonder what the marginal cost of launching using
today's heavy-lift launchers is.


If SSP would become practical, and start-ups and nations to boot would
suddenly produce a dramatic increase in the need for heavy lift, shouldn't
better prices and better launchers follow in a much larger market?

You might see some improvement, and a large number of launchers better
distribute the development cost (though not if you keep changing them).
But at the end of the day, existing launchers get built once, hurl
themselves and their payloads into space, and are then destroyed. Since
the process of building them, and fuelling them, is expensive, there's a
limit to how much the price can come down.

On a smaller scale, a nice example is the lead-acid battery. The number
made is huge. But they're still damned expensive for what they do.


It's communication that's the death of dictatorships.
The US has been flooding various dictatorships with
laptops, smart and satellite phones for several years
now with great success. (SEE IRAN)

http://www.dipity.com/timeline/Rahesabz

Well, that's communication. Power is something else.

Sylvia.

On Dec 19, 9:16*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 17, 8:37 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
I like this idea, *Relatively small mirrors would power
the lasers, not huge solar cell arrays. The lasers would
transmit their beams to other satellites that convert it to, and
beam it down, as microwaves. * No need for mile-size
collectors in orbit.
Proceedings of the ASCE Earth&Space 2006 Conference
April 2006
Space Power Grid- Evolutionary Approach To Space Solar Power
"At a higher level, a direct solar-pumped laser could be used to
convert solar energy on the LEO satellites, and transmit the laser
beams to other satellites where the demand for power is greater
(e.g., satellites over the dark side of earth). Recently, development
of such *lasers has reached a stage where efficiency of up to 38%
has been shown. These satellites would receive incoming
laser energy using their high-efficiency narrow-band photovoltaic
cells, convert it to microwave, and beam it to Earth. This
architecture has two advantages: the beaming to Earth
could be done at optimal microwave frequencies for maximum
transmission through the atmosphere, without requiring excessive
transmitter size. The laser beams would propagate with very
high efficiency, and require only small collectors. Thus the mass
and overall cost per unit power of the system with this architecture
may be substantially lower than the lower-risk option
presented before."
http://www.adl.gatech.edu/archives/adlp06040601.pdf
And it should be noted, the SPS start up company, Space Energy Inc,
maybe one of the more legitimate commercial attempts at SPS, has
as one of it's technical advisors this guy, and his /current/ specialty
might be a clue of things to come.....
Dr. Richard Dickinson
Space Energy Inc technical advisors
"Mr. Dickinson is one of the world's foremost experts on Wireless
Power Transmission (WPT). President of OFF EARTH-WPT,
Mr. Dickinson was Group Supervisor of the High-Power Transmitter
Group at Goldstone and was NASA's microwave power transmission
specialist on the Solar Power Satellite Reference System team....
.....he is currently involved in studying and designing the solar pumped
laser-power beaming phased array for interstellar missions."
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm
What's missing, as always, is any detailed costing. It's easy to wave
one's hands around, and conjure up systems that could be made to work
technically. But the bottom line is the bottome line, and as usual, it's
concealed.

Sylvia.

Whatever anyone else can do, our William Mook can do it better and
cheaper, as long as it never involves his own loot. *Space Energy
seems capable enough and willing to risk at least some of their own
loot.

Well, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Their web site says nothing
about finances that I can see, but the resumes of the directors are
interesting

http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/Directors.htm

It seems likely they'll know more about money, and how to get it, than
about the technology.

Sylvia.

Perhaps once they get our rich and powerful William Mook on their
side, they'll be all set. Eventually (a couple spendy decades from
now) they'll deliver that wholesale $1/kwhr of clean energy that most
of us can't afford.

~ BG

On Dec 23, 10:31*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
. ..

Well, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Their web site says nothing about
finances that I can see, but the resumes of the directors are interesting

Yes, with Middle East connections. That caught my eye.
But here's the official 'pitch' given to potential investors.
It's a pretty nice sales pitch! But I think unless the govt steps in
and provides some sort of protection for investors, it's
still an uphill battle to find the money. But the idea has
clearly taken a large step forward.
http://www.spaceenergy.com/i/flash/ted_presentation

A good point he makes is that it's more a matter
of time, not technology, until a business model becomes
viable.

And when would you prefer to invest - before it's viable, or after?

* He claims the prototype will cost $300 million.

And that the first 1GW satellite will cost $16 billion.
Which he says is about the same $16 to $23 billion
total lifetime cost of a 1GW nuclear plant.

It's easy to invent numbers that suit a particular purpose, and the
particular purpose here could be to get investment. Where are the
detailed costings?

And he
claims it'll take about 5 years to build the first one
once it's financed. Probably all optimistic, but getting
there.

And I like his point where he asks, which would you rather
live next to, nuclear power plant, coal power plant, or
a rectenna?

I might be inclined to go for the nuclear plant, actually. Better the
devil you know.

Sylvia.

There's no thorium devil.

~ BG

BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:16 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 17, 8:37 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
I like this idea, Relatively small mirrors would power
the lasers, not huge solar cell arrays. The lasers would
transmit their beams to other satellites that convert it to, and
beam it down, as microwaves. No need for mile-size
collectors in orbit.
Proceedings of the ASCE Earth&Space 2006 Conference
April 2006
Space Power Grid- Evolutionary Approach To Space Solar Power
"At a higher level, a direct solar-pumped laser could be used to
convert solar energy on the LEO satellites, and transmit the laser
beams to other satellites where the demand for power is greater
(e.g., satellites over the dark side of earth). Recently, development
of such lasers has reached a stage where efficiency of up to 38%
has been shown. These satellites would receive incoming
laser energy using their high-efficiency narrow-band photovoltaic
cells, convert it to microwave, and beam it to Earth. This
architecture has two advantages: the beaming to Earth
could be done at optimal microwave frequencies for maximum
transmission through the atmosphere, without requiring excessive
transmitter size. The laser beams would propagate with very
high efficiency, and require only small collectors. Thus the mass
and overall cost per unit power of the system with this architecture
may be substantially lower than the lower-risk option
presented before."
http://www.adl.gatech.edu/archives/adlp06040601.pdf
And it should be noted, the SPS start up company, Space Energy Inc,
maybe one of the more legitimate commercial attempts at SPS, has
as one of it's technical advisors this guy, and his /current/ specialty
might be a clue of things to come.....
Dr. Richard Dickinson
Space Energy Inc technical advisors
"Mr. Dickinson is one of the world's foremost experts on Wireless
Power Transmission (WPT). President of OFF EARTH-WPT,
Mr. Dickinson was Group Supervisor of the High-Power Transmitter
Group at Goldstone and was NASA's microwave power transmission
specialist on the Solar Power Satellite Reference System team....
.....he is currently involved in studying and designing the solar pumped
laser-power beaming phased array for interstellar missions."
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm
What's missing, as always, is any detailed costing. It's easy to wave
one's hands around, and conjure up systems that could be made to work
technically. But the bottom line is the bottome line, and as usual, it's
concealed.
Sylvia.
Whatever anyone else can do, our William Mook can do it better and
cheaper, as long as it never involves his own loot. Space Energy
seems capable enough and willing to risk at least some of their own
loot.
Well, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Their web site says nothing
about finances that I can see, but the resumes of the directors are
interesting

http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/Directors.htm

It seems likely they'll know more about money, and how to get it, than
about the technology.

Sylvia.

Perhaps once they get our rich and powerful William Mook on their
side, they'll be all set. Eventually (a couple spendy decades from
now) they'll deliver that wholesale $1/kwhr of clean energy that most
of us can't afford.

There are two kinds of people. Some regard money as a way of getting
technology, and the others regard technology as a way of getting money.

Sylvia.

On Dec 29, 8:44*pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 19, 9:16 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
BradGuth wrote:
On Dec 17, 8:37 pm, Sylvia Else wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
I like this idea, *Relatively small mirrors would power
the lasers, not huge solar cell arrays. The lasers would
transmit their beams to other satellites that convert it to, and
beam it down, as microwaves. * No need for mile-size
collectors in orbit.
Proceedings of the ASCE Earth&Space 2006 Conference
April 2006
Space Power Grid- Evolutionary Approach To Space Solar Power
"At a higher level, a direct solar-pumped laser could be used to
convert solar energy on the LEO satellites, and transmit the laser
beams to other satellites where the demand for power is greater
(e.g., satellites over the dark side of earth). Recently, development
of such *lasers has reached a stage where efficiency of up to 38%
has been shown. These satellites would receive incoming
laser energy using their high-efficiency narrow-band photovoltaic
cells, convert it to microwave, and beam it to Earth. This
architecture has two advantages: the beaming to Earth
could be done at optimal microwave frequencies for maximum
transmission through the atmosphere, without requiring excessive
transmitter size. The laser beams would propagate with very
high efficiency, and require only small collectors. Thus the mass
and overall cost per unit power of the system with this architecture
may be substantially lower than the lower-risk option
presented before."
http://www.adl.gatech.edu/archives/adlp06040601.pdf
And it should be noted, the SPS start up company, Space Energy Inc,
maybe one of the more legitimate commercial attempts at SPS, has
as one of it's technical advisors this guy, and his /current/ specialty
might be a clue of things to come.....
Dr. Richard Dickinson
Space Energy Inc technical advisors
"Mr. Dickinson is one of the world's foremost experts on Wireless
Power Transmission (WPT). President of OFF EARTH-WPT,
Mr. Dickinson was Group Supervisor of the High-Power Transmitter
Group at Goldstone and was NASA's microwave power transmission
specialist on the Solar Power Satellite Reference System team....
.....he is currently involved in studying and designing the solar pumped
laser-power beaming phased array for interstellar missions."
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm
What's missing, as always, is any detailed costing. It's easy to wave
one's hands around, and conjure up systems that could be made to work
technically. But the bottom line is the bottome line, and as usual, it's
concealed.
Sylvia.
Whatever anyone else can do, our William Mook can do it better and
cheaper, as long as it never involves his own loot. *Space Energy
seems capable enough and willing to risk at least some of their own
loot.
Well, I wouldn't be so sure about that. Their web site says nothing
about finances that I can see, but the resumes of the directors are
interesting

http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/Directors.htm

It seems likely they'll know more about money, and how to get it, than
about the technology.

Sylvia.

Perhaps once they get our rich and powerful William Mook on their
side, they'll be all set. *Eventually (a couple spendy decades from
now) they'll deliver that wholesale $1/kwhr of clean energy that most
of us can't afford.

There are two kinds of people. Some regard money as a way of getting
technology, and the others regard technology as a way of getting money.

Sylvia.

Lord Mook (our resident Rothschild trillionaire) claims to be good to
go as is, though obviously wants God like backing plus tax-free
concessions that'll protect and insure that his offshore bank accounts
get stuffed full of our hard earned loot before anyone else get any
direct or indirect benefit.

So, with most it's obviously still money first, technology second, and
absolutely nothing of any hard-core assurances as far as delivering
any benefit break-even or profitable outcome.

I on the other hand would apply existing technology, and get
commercial sponsors to pick up at least half the initial investment.
For example, our NASA claims to have proven and 100% reliable fly-by-
rocket lander technology, that's a good half century better than what
anyone else has to offer, so I'd use that to at least robotic explore
the nasty surface of our moon, as well as I'd park something
substantial within the earth-moon L1(Selene L1), whereas Apollo 13
claimed to be freezing to death.

~ BG

Sylvia Else wrote:

There are two kinds of people. Some regard money as a way of getting
technology, and the others regard technology as a way of getting money.

You have it wrong there. It should always be in the form: "There are
two kinds of people. Some people X, some people non-X." X can be whatever
you want. If you don't follow that pattern you will always get some people
who don't fit in either category. For instance in your example you have
people who don't have a clue as to what technology is and are in neither
category.

There is one exception to the rule. For counting, instead of having
two kind of people there is three, it goes: There are three kind of
people. Those who can count and those who can't.


Alain Fournier

"Alain Fournier" wrote in message
...
Sylvia Else wrote:

There are two kinds of people. Some regard money as a way of getting
technology, and the others regard technology as a way of getting money.

You have it wrong there. It should always be in the form: "There are
two kinds of people. Some people X, some people non-X." X can be whatever
you want. If you don't follow that pattern you will always get some people
who don't fit in either category. For instance in your example you have
people who don't have a clue as to what technology is and are in neither
category.

Right, or X and NOT X. Either/or reduces to set membership
values of only 0 or 1. But if A were to be the people favoring
technology first, and are 40% of the whole. And if B are the people
favoring money first, and is 70% (some of the group may favor both
equally), then we could use use that to give fuzzy values of
A (0.4) and B (0.7) respectively.


The Union, A OR B, would simply be the max of the fuzzy values
which is .7.

The Intersection, A AND B, would be the min of the two fuzzy values
which is .4.

And the fuzzy entropy (always 0 in either/or logic) would be given
by the ratio of (A AND NOT A) / ( A OR NOT A).

A is .4, NOT A is .6 which gives (0.4) / (0.7) ~ 0.57.



s







If we were to say that X is 40% of the people, and NOT X is
60%, then a






There is one exception to the rule. For counting, instead of having
two kind of people there is three, it goes: There are three kind of
people. Those who can count and those who can't.


Alain Fournier

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...

On a smaller scale, a nice example is the lead-acid battery. The number made
is huge. But they're still damned expensive for what they do.



The lead acid battery has to be one of the all time great inventions.
The very first rechargable battery, and no one has been able to better it
in some 150 years.




It's communication that's the death of dictatorships.
The US has been flooding various dictatorships with
laptops, smart and satellite phones for several years
now with great success. (SEE IRAN)

http://www.dipity.com/timeline/Rahesabz

Well, that's communication. Power is something else.


But wherever electricity goes, so does the Internet.
Having access to the 'grid' is becoming the difference
between first and third worlds.






Sylvia.

Alain Fournier wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:

There are two kinds of people. Some regard money as a way of getting
technology, and the others regard technology as a way of getting money.

You have it wrong there. It should always be in the form: "There are
two kinds of people. Some people X, some people non-X."

I think you're paying too much attention to the logic, and too little to
the sentiment.

Sylvia.

You start with

Laser Power Transmission
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QAUkt2VPHI

And use it to expand the energy markets

Solar Power - Entering the Market - alkanes - protons - photons
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWiXDu64c0g

Initially Put Up with Chemical Powered Spacecraft
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24390383/mokaerospace-3

transitioning to

Laser Powered Spacecraft
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAdj6vpYppA

Made from Propulsive Skins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzXwctPXT4c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxV2FCUESh0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzG4PEureFg

Which create a diaspora of the human race across the solar system