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

On Dec 18, 5:15*am, "Jonathan" wrote:
"Uncle Al" wrote in message

...

idiot

Ah, now I see my error. You sure showed me!


Actually he did. His points 1 4 6 are relevant.

"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. 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. 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?






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.

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.

Sylvia Else wrote in
:



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.

My thoughts, exactly.


--Damon

Damon Hill wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote in
:


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.

My thoughts, exactly.

Things might be looked at differently if the wind had been from the
north on the day Chernobyl blew up and the radiation cloud had floated
over Kiev:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...p_1996.svg.png

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote in
elephone:

Damon Hill wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote in
:


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.

My thoughts, exactly.

Things might be looked at differently if the wind had been from the
north on the day Chernobyl blew up and the radiation cloud had floated
over Kiev:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Chernobyl_radi
ation_map_1996.svg/568px-Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg.png

No one builds and operates reactors like Chernobyl, and with good
reason. They're built like Three Mile Island, with effective
containment.

I'd much rather live downwind of a reactor than an oil refinery;
those do occasionally blow up with noxious results.

--Damon

Damon Hill wrote:
No one builds and operates reactors like Chernobyl, and with good
reason. They're built like Three Mile Island, with effective
containment.

And it was good three Island Island had that containment, as it
underwent a partial meltdown:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gr...figuration.jpg
At least in the case of a oil refinery, you can tell something is
seriously wrong from all the fire, explosions, and black smoke.
And once you get a few miles away from it, your worst concerns are
exposure to some sooty smoke, and most of that is rising into the
atmosphere due to its heat.
In the case of a major nuclear powerplant malfunction you hear sirens
going off and other than that, everything looks fine. You can't see
where the radioactive steam or air is going, and can be breathing it in
without knowing it as it floats many miles downrange.
Besides, we are discussing powerplants here, not refineries.
A major accident at a oil or coal fired powerplant is going to be a lot
less severe than a refinery fire.
A gas-fired one could create real havoc though if the gas is stored in a
liquid form in tanks rather than piped to the powerplant.
No way I'd live near something like that, as getting simultaneously
frozen and burned to death doesn't appeal to me.

Pat

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
Jonathan wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message

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

Sylvia.


And where will that decision take us fifty years into the future?

When will the third world get their nuclear power plants?
When will the bulk of humanity, living in rural areas, get
their electricity? Or will they warm themselves over the piles
and piles of nuclear waste we'll be sending them?

Space Energy Inc gave their pitch just before the
stock market crashed, giving us a market with very little
interest in risky investments. But what if NASA and DOE
suddenly were given mandates to make Space Solar Power
their primary reason for being?

How would the prospects for Space Energy Inc look then?
Or others like them?

Space Solar Power may not be practical yet from a merely
profit based view. But five years ago no one was even trying,
five years from now so much could change.
Launch costs are going down, oil is going up, and the third
world is turning to coal. All the while the climate continues to
warm. It only takes one bad news day involving a major
oil field to cause our fragile industrial world to come
tumbling down around us. And with the speed and completeness
of the stock market crash we all just witnessed. Only it
won't be the housing market that crashes, but the
industrialized world.

Nuclear power plants are not the answer for the future.
Neither is coal, or terrestrial solar power, or fusion.
Only a completely clean, endlessly abundant, source of
electricity which is /easily available to everyone/ can give us
the future which.....WE DESERVE.

No more first and third world. No more dictatorships.
Plentiful resources for all.

Nothing else but Space Solar Power can give us that future.
Nothing else is as close to becoming reality either.

A solution must have the current reality, and future possibilities
as equal partners. The risk vs future benefits have clearly tipped
in favor of this idea imho.

It's close enough that a convenient (political) breeze could make it
a reality, changing the future like little else.





s

Jonathan wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
Jonathan wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message

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

Sylvia.


And where will that decision take us fifty years into the future?

I'm not saying it's an ideal long term solution. I was just answering
the question.

Launch costs are going down,

Are they? Significantly? I wonder what the marginal cost of launching
using today's heavy-lift launchers is.


Nuclear power plants are not the answer for the future.
Neither is coal, or terrestrial solar power, or fusion.

Fusion might. If it ever works, and is economic. Terrestrial solar power
could work if the energy storage problem is solved, and the cost of
the technology significantly reduced (which latter problem the space
solution also has to address).

No more first and third world. No more dictatorships.

I don't see why abundant electricity would prevent dictatorships.
Indeed, the opposite may be true. Give people a reasonable standard of
living, and they're not likely to be overly concerned about the style of
government, and certainly not enough to try to overturn it with a risk
to their own lives.

Sylvia.

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
Jonathan wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
Jonathan wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message

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

Sylvia.


And where will that decision take us fifty years into the future?

I'm not saying it's an ideal long term solution. I was just answering the
question.



I'm more interested in what's possible, the ideal long term solutions.
Since global warming and energy needs are long term problems.
And there's a very good reason for insisting on the best possible
solution, the ideal. If one settles for what is practical, what is easy
and uncontroversial, a project which asks for little, returns just as little.
That project will not inspire, it will not cross any new boundaries, and
it will fail to become reality, due to the ho-hum goal.

But if the goal is truly loftly, is elegantly difficult from all aspects of
technology, costs and so on. While promising to change the entire
world for the better. That goal will inspire, it will find support, more
over time. That project, the difficult, costly and controversial goal, has
a far better chance of gathering the steam it needs to get started.
One started, once a system has self organized, it will (like Nature)
settle on the best practical solution possible. The problem will
be solved, once the problem solving system has begun.

The loftier the goal, the greater chance for success.

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

It's time we stop settling for what "THEY" tell us can
and can't be done. It's time for the people to stand up
and demand what is POSSIBLE.





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?




Nuclear power plants are not the answer for the future.
Neither is coal, or terrestrial solar power, or fusion.

Fusion might. If it ever works, and is economic. Terrestrial solar power could
work if the energy storage problem is solved, and the cost of the technology
significantly reduced (which latter problem the space solution also has to
address).


Those are two /huge/ technological problems, each of which appear
to be insurmountable at this point. There are no such intractable
technological hurdles for Space Solar Power aside from the costs
and time needed.



No more first and third world. No more dictatorships.



I don't see why abundant electricity would prevent dictatorships.


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



Indeed, the opposite may be true. Give people a reasonable standard of living,
and they're not likely to be overly concerned about the style of government,
and certainly not enough to try to overturn it with a risk to their own lives.


It's a mathematical impossibility for dictatorships to provide
stable prosperity. A population is an adaptive system, which
has evolving needs and desires. A dictatorship is a rigid control
structure which cannot possibly adapt at the same rate as the
population. So the two camps are destined to drift apart creating
more stress and conflict over time. It is inevitable for dictatorships
to go out with a bang. The source of most of human misery has
been at the hands of a govt that is acting as a dictatorship, whether
economic, military or religious dictatorships, the result is the same
.....horror.

A democracy, with it's infinitely nested compromise mechanisms
bring the people and the govt towards each other over time.
Only a democracy, of any kinds, can deliver a brighter future.

Dictatorships may be fine for limited periods of chaos, but not
for any long term or ideal solution.



Sylvia.