A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Solar Power Satellite Concept



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #191  
Old September 18th 10, 08:55 AM posted to sci.space.policy
David M. Palmer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 156
Default Solar Power Satellite Concept

In article
,
William Mook wrote:

On Sep 17, 12:59*pm, "David M. Palmer" wrote:
In article
,



William Mook wrote:
On Sep 16, 12:57*pm, "David M. Palmer" wrote:
In article
,


William Mook wrote:
On Sep 16, 3:59*am, "David M. Palmer" wrote:


Try making numbers (f1, f2, lens diameters, spacing from primary to
plane of secondaries to PV, size of PV) that give you an overlap.
Remember that the plane of secondaries is not the f1 focal plane.


If you think you have succeeded, put a light at the PV area and do a
ray tracing. *Look at the gaps. *When the sun is there, it is not
giving you power.


There is a fall off with angle for any given pair. *There is a fall
off with angle for any other pair. *As the power falls off in one
field it rises in a neighboring field.


So you assert.


What is your rationale for believing fields of view cannot overlap?


Because otherwise you could violate the second law of thermodynamics.


The ability to track the sun does not violate the laws of
thermodynamics



And yet you persist in not giving any numbers.

And yet you persist in insisting that your system can track the sun.

If I gave you numbers that do not do what you want, would you give me
numbers that do? Or would you just insist that I prove, individually
for the uncountably infinite set of numbers, that each configuration
would not work?

Tracking the sun does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.
Motorized mounts do it all the time.

Having overlapping fields of view that cover the sky and all produce a
net concentration violates the laws of thermodynamics.




I haven't seen any numbers for a configuration that gives overlapping
sweet spots. *I assert that no such numbers can exist.


Right, but you have no rationale for that.


Apart from your failure to provide an example of numbers that givein
overlapping sweet spots, my rationale is that you could violate the
second law of thermodynamics.


Right, but you haven't shown the numbers either. Do a ray tracing
with OSLT or something like that. You will see that when there are
two suns in the sky there are two disks on the image plane, two of
them line up - two of them do not. You will see that when the sun
grows larger in the sky the image grows larger on the image plane and
the same thing applies. This is how thermodynamics is preserved.


Do a ray tracing ON WHAT? You haven't specified a configuration.

NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS.

Why do you think two of them line up?

If you are getting 5000x concentration over the area of a PV cell with
some location, then only 1/5000 of the sky (at most) produces that good
a line-up onto that PV cell location. That's the sum over all
secondaries.

If you gave me numbers I could give you a concrete description of what
the sweet spots were. If you knew optics you could do it yourself.

The cost of you going through life with a wrong idea in your head is
limited to whatever your investors sink into you before they wise up.


That's a nasty thing to say, and you wonder why you get treated badly
by others. haha.. You realize to the extent that you intended to
harm my financial future you have committed a crime don't you? lol.


Your grasp of the law is as compelling as your understanding of optics.
What law do you imagine I broke?

Simplicio: *My system can track the sun wherever it is in the sky.


Sagredo: And if I add a second sun, will it track that too?


Simplicio: Of course not, don't be ridiculous.


Sagredo: So with two suns in the sky, all the light from Sun A falls on
the PV cell, and all the light from Sun B misses the PV cell?


Simplicio: *Of course. *You seem to be very slow in getting the point.
Think of how a condensor works. *All the light from the position of Sun
A is converted to electricity. *It would be folly to think that the
light from Sun B would fall on the detectors.


Sagredo: Oh what a fool I've been. *Why does Sun A have maria and
craters? *It appears that the much brighter Sun B would have been a
better choice to track. *Alas the light from Sun B is discarded in your
system. *You have invented the first Lunar Power system.


Simplicio: That's OK, I shall adjust the lenses to give even more
concentration from Sun A to make up the difference. * There is nothing
wrong with this: all of my ideas are powered by moon beams.


Nonsense. *Please quit putting words in my mouth.


OK, *what words would you say?

Your first three lines are pretty much what you have already said.


No its not. The context is all wrong.


FIll in your own words then. I have now provided a context.

I'm still wondering if you will show any real understanding beyond
connecting the dots and getting the wrong picture. Sure, you learned
about Entendue in school and did the calculations. Yeah, you read
what I wrote and made the connection. Certainly, what you suggest is
not possible.

That's not what I'm doing.

I've done the work, you haven't.


Show your work then. Describe your system WITH NUMBERS.

Then please tell us, what work you've done? DESCRIBE YOUR SYSTEM WITH
NUMBERS.

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)
  #192  
Old September 19th 10, 08:45 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Solar Power Satellite Concept

On Sep 17, 8:26*am, William Mook wrote:
For those who might be put off by the idiotic bile of those folks who
are jealous of others who make real progress, I repeat the post that
originated this thread - and will add that my launcher that supports
the deployment of the satellites described would also give great low-
cost access to piloted interplanetary flight throughout the inner
solar system.

have developed a system that masses 600+ tonnes and is lofted into
orbit by a reusable vehicle derived from our experience with the
External Tank only.

The satellite consists of a 5.2 km diameter inflatable concentrator.
This concentrator focuses sunlight on to a 125 m diameter CPV/Emitter
array. This array beams IR laser energy at 900 nm to 8,000 receivers
across the visible face of the Earth. Each beam generates 1.25 MW at
the 22 m diameter receiver using silicon within a water filled lens
array. A total of 10,000 MW.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO

At $0.042 per kWh each satellite generates $300 million per month in
revenues. Four satellites, including the launcher fleet and
operations
to place four satellites cost less than $14.4 billion - the annual
income of four satellites on GEO.

Multiple RS-68 pump sets at the base of each ET derived airframe feed
an aerospike engine at the base of each airframe - which work
together
in groups of 7 to create a multi-stage launcher that places the
satellite on orbit.

The satellite deploys on LEO and uses solar powered ion engines -
which give it 30 years of station keeping capability - to add 4.33
km/
sec to its velocity to take up an orbit at GEO. There the station
beams power to 8,000 stationary receivers across the visible face of
the Earth.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/E...43696/ETDHLRLV


Since folks here don't even want anything whatsoever to do with our
100% reliable Saturn 5, then why expect any of them to give a tinkers
damn about your way better than Saturn alternative?

Responding to their collective cabal naysay mindset seems rather
foolish.

~ BG

  #193  
Old October 1st 10, 04:23 AM posted to sci.space.policy
David M. Palmer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 156
Default Solar Power Satellite Concept

In article , David M. Palmer
wrote:

In article
,
William Mook wrote:


Right, but you haven't shown the numbers either. Do a ray tracing
with OSLT or something like that. You will see that when there are
two suns in the sky there are two disks on the image plane, two of
them line up - two of them do not. You will see that when the sun
grows larger in the sky the image grows larger on the image plane and
the same thing applies. This is how thermodynamics is preserved.


Do a ray tracing ON WHAT? You haven't specified a configuration.

NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS.


Since Mook hasn't replied, and since this thread is likely to turn up
under Google when people doing due diligence are wondering whether
William Mook of Mokenergy is a con artist trying to raise money by
fraud, or just incompetent at optics, I may as well go with numbers
that have been piecemealed elsewhere in this thread, along with further
numbers guessed.

A D1=25 mm diameter primary lens was mentioned, as well as a 5000x
concentration. That gives an image diameter of
id1=25 mm/sqrt(5000) = 0.35 mm .
This is presumably the diameter of the image produced by a the primary.

Use a solar angular diameter of 10 mrad to make the numbers easier,
that gives a primary focal length of
f1 = 0.35 mm/10e-3 = 35 mm
That's an fratio1=1.4 lens, which is reasonable.

There is an array of concave lenses slightly before the primary's focal
plane, where each lens is designed to refocus the sun's image on the
concentrated photovoltaic (CPV). These lenses include a prism
component so that the lenses out to one side deflect the light back to
the centerline, but we can ignore that for now and use the central
secondary lens, as an example. Let's place the CPV 35 mm beyond the
secondary lens array so that the deflection angles are symmetric.

Since we don't want the secondary lenses to have to be too much larger
than the at-f1 spot size (or else you can't fit as many secondary
lenses as you want) let's use an f2=-0.5 mm focal length for the
secondaries. This doubles the diameter of the lens required to get all
of the light from the Sun, assuming that the sun is aligned with the
centers of the lenses.
D2=id1 + abs(f2) / fratio1 = 0.7 mm

EIther f2 or the distance of the secondary from the f1 plane are
slightly different so that a spot on the sun is focussed onto the CPV.
But at our level of accuracy this doesn't affect the calculations much.

Is that a reasonable approximation of your setup, Mook?


The problem is that this does not concentrate the sun on the CPV to a
useful extent. This configuration of a big long focal length positive
lens and a small short focal length negative lens (which Mook refers to
as being like a microscope condensor) is a galilean telescope.

The magnification of the telescope is
M=f1/f2 = 35 mm/0.5 mm = 70x
and it is working in "eyepiece projection" mode, so the sun casts an
image of diameter
Dimage = 10e-3 radians * M * 35 mm = 24.5 mm

So basically, Mook's system takes the light falling on a 25 mm entrance
aperture, and concentrates it on a circle 24.5 mm in diameter. (In the
best case scenario where the Sun is perfectly aligned.)

You can tweak the parameters a bit, and get positive gain, but not by
orders of magnitude while keeping the system approximately the same.
(Mook, do you have numbers that do significantly better?)

If Mook did a proper ray tracing he knows this (hence his silence the
past week), and if he still is still trying to raise money on his
scheme then he is a con artist.

If Mook tried to do a ray tracing and did not find this, then he is
incompetent at optics.

If Mook did not do a ray tracing, then he is merely negligent.

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)
  #194  
Old October 1st 10, 10:25 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Solar Power Satellite Concept

On Sep 30, 8:23*pm, "David M. Palmer" wrote:
In article , David M. Palmer

wrote:
In article
,
William Mook wrote:
Right, but you haven't shown the numbers either. *Do a ray tracing
with OSLT or something like that. *You will see that when there are
two suns in the sky there are two disks on the image plane, two of
them line up - two of them do not. *You will see that when the sun
grows larger in the sky the image grows larger on the image plane and
the same thing applies. *This is how thermodynamics is preserved.


Do a ray tracing ON WHAT? *You haven't specified a configuration.


NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS.


Since Mook hasn't replied, and since this thread is likely to turn up
under Google when people doing due diligence are wondering whether
William Mook of Mokenergy is a con artist trying to raise money by
fraud, or just incompetent at optics, I may as well go with numbers
that have been piecemealed elsewhere in this thread, along with further
numbers guessed.

A D1=25 mm diameter primary lens was mentioned, as well as a 5000x
concentration. * That gives an image diameter of
id1=25 mm/sqrt(5000) = 0.35 mm . *
This is presumably the diameter of the image produced by a the primary.

Use a solar angular diameter of 10 mrad to make the numbers easier,
that gives a primary focal length of
f1 = 0.35 mm/10e-3 = 35 mm
That's an fratio1=1.4 lens, which is reasonable.

There is an array of concave lenses slightly before the primary's focal
plane, where each lens is designed to refocus the sun's image on the
concentrated photovoltaic (CPV). *These lenses include a prism
component so that the lenses out to one side deflect the light back to
the centerline, but we can ignore that for now and use the central
secondary lens, as an example. *Let's place the CPV 35 mm beyond the
secondary lens array so that the deflection angles are symmetric.

Since we don't want the secondary lenses to have to be too much larger
than the at-f1 spot size (or else you can't fit as many secondary
lenses as you want) let's use an f2=-0.5 mm focal length for the
secondaries. *This doubles the diameter of the lens required to get all
of the light from the Sun, assuming that the sun is aligned with the
centers of the lenses.
D2=id1 + abs(f2) / fratio1 = 0.7 mm

EIther f2 or the distance of the secondary from the f1 plane are
slightly different so that a spot on the sun is focussed onto the CPV.
But at our level of accuracy this doesn't affect the calculations much.

Is that a reasonable approximation of your setup, Mook?

The problem is that this does not concentrate the sun on the CPV to a
useful extent. *This configuration of a big long focal length positive
lens and a small short focal length negative lens (which Mook refers to
as being like a microscope condensor) is a galilean telescope.

The magnification of the telescope is
M=f1/f2 = 35 mm/0.5 mm = 70x
and it is working in "eyepiece projection" mode, so the sun casts an
image of diameter
Dimage = 10e-3 radians * M * 35 mm = 24.5 mm

So basically, Mook's system takes the light falling on a 25 mm entrance
aperture, and concentrates it on a circle 24.5 mm in diameter. *(In the
best case scenario where the Sun is perfectly aligned.)

You can tweak the parameters a bit, and get positive gain, but not by
orders of magnitude while keeping the system approximately the same.
(Mook, do you have numbers that do significantly better?)

If Mook did a proper ray tracing he knows this (hence his silence the
past week), and if he still is still trying to raise money on his
scheme then he is a con artist.

If Mook tried to do a ray tracing and did not find this, then he is
incompetent at optics.

If Mook did not do a ray tracing, then he is merely negligent.

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)


There lots of Mook deficiencies (some a little bipolar on his part),
but it's not all a lost cause if you can manage to refocus his unusual
expertise on the portions of his ideas that offer some valid potential
to do better than offer an investment break-even.

I've tried to tone down his expectations by a failsafe factor of 10:1,
because even at that greatly reduced accomplishment level is still
better than most of what our NASA and DARPA have to offer.

For example, his 7 oil barrels/day as an energy average equivalent per
Mook solar farm acre is a stretch, at least up until you take
everything into account (including the value of his near zero carbon
footprint and his commercial flood of cheap hydrogen). As well as his
better coal conversions into synfuel isn't exactly too shabby, because
it too is cleaner and greener than most anything else. Even our
Steven Chu should appreciate what Mook has to offer, not that
everything has that pot of gold at the end of each and every Mook
rainbow.

No doubt, Mook will revise his research and take another whack at this
"Solar Power Satellite Concept" topic, because technically there's
potential here that isn't all bad, even if it's ten fold more spendy
energy than Mook has suggested.

~ BG
  #195  
Old October 4th 10, 06:37 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Solar Power Satellite Concept

On Oct 2, 3:50*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"David M. Palmer" wrote:



In article , David M. Palmer
wrote:


In article
,
William Mook wrote:


Right, but you haven't shown the numbers either. *Do a ray tracing
with OSLT or something like that. *You will see that when there are
two suns in the sky there are two disks on the image plane, two of
them line up - two of them do not. *You will see that when the sun
grows larger in the sky the image grows larger on the image plane and
the same thing applies. *This is how thermodynamics is preserved.


Do a ray tracing ON WHAT? *You haven't specified a configuration.


NUMBERS NUMBERS NUMBERS.


Since Mook hasn't replied, and since this thread is likely to turn up
under Google when people doing due diligence are wondering whether
William Mook of Mokenergy is a con artist trying to raise money by
fraud, or just incompetent at optics, I may as well go with numbers
that have been piecemealed elsewhere in this thread, along with further
numbers guessed.


A D1=25 mm diameter primary lens was mentioned, as well as a 5000x
concentration. * That gives an image diameter of
id1=25 mm/sqrt(5000) = 0.35 mm . *
This is presumably the diameter of the image produced by a the primary.


Use a solar angular diameter of 10 mrad to make the numbers easier,
that gives a primary focal length of
f1 = 0.35 mm/10e-3 = 35 mm
That's an fratio1=1.4 lens, which is reasonable.


There is an array of concave lenses slightly before the primary's focal
plane, where each lens is designed to refocus the sun's image on the
concentrated photovoltaic (CPV). *These lenses include a prism
component so that the lenses out to one side deflect the light back to
the centerline, but we can ignore that for now and use the central
secondary lens, as an example. *Let's place the CPV 35 mm beyond the
secondary lens array so that the deflection angles are symmetric.


Since we don't want the secondary lenses to have to be too much larger
than the at-f1 spot size (or else you can't fit as many secondary
lenses as you want) let's use an f2=-0.5 mm focal length for the
secondaries. *This doubles the diameter of the lens required to get all
of the light from the Sun, assuming that the sun is aligned with the
centers of the lenses.
D2=id1 + abs(f2) / fratio1 = 0.7 mm


EIther f2 or the distance of the secondary from the f1 plane are
slightly different so that a spot on the sun is focussed onto the CPV.
But at our level of accuracy this doesn't affect the calculations much.


Is that a reasonable approximation of your setup, Mook?


The problem is that this does not concentrate the sun on the CPV to a
useful extent. *This configuration of a big long focal length positive
lens and a small short focal length negative lens (which Mook refers to
as being like a microscope condensor) is a galilean telescope.


The magnification of the telescope is
M=f1/f2 = 35 mm/0.5 mm = 70x
and it is working in "eyepiece projection" mode, so the sun casts an
image of diameter
Dimage = 10e-3 radians * M * 35 mm = 24.5 mm


So basically, Mook's system takes the light falling on a 25 mm entrance
aperture, and concentrates it on a circle 24.5 mm in diameter. *(In the
best case scenario where the Sun is perfectly aligned.)


You can tweak the parameters a bit, and get positive gain, but not by
orders of magnitude while keeping the system approximately the same.
(Mook, do you have numbers that do significantly better?)


If Mook did a proper ray tracing he knows this (hence his silence the
past week), and if he still is still trying to raise money on his
scheme then he is a con artist.


If Mook tried to do a ray tracing and did not find this, then he is
incompetent at optics.


If Mook did not do a ray tracing, then he is merely negligent.


Look at it this way. *Mook claims he gets 5000x concentration pretty
much regardless of where the Sun is or how big or small the panel is.

Assume what he says is true. *Visualize a Dyson sphere made out of
these things. *We've just gotten 4999 Suns' energy for 'free'. *Since
this is obviously impossible, his cells can't work the way he claims
they do.

Holographic coatings can open up the restrictions on angle of
incidence so that active tracking isn't needed, but you don't get
concentration that way.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson


Mook claims to know pretty much everything, though obviously his form
of knowledge is not the standard, and telling him so or expecting him
to do better is never a good idea.

Obviously the size or collection area requirement has to be increased,
but so what?

One way or another, we need to put solar energy to work. A
terrestrial terawatt farm would be a good start.

~ BG
  #196  
Old October 5th 10, 05:28 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Solar Power Satellite Concept

On Sep 3, 5:37*pm, William Mook wrote:
On Sep 2, 9:37*pm, Brad Guth wrote:



On Aug 22, 8:40*am, William Mook wrote:


On Aug 7, 7:44*pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"


wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Aug 7, 3:42 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
William Mook wrote:
I have developed a system that masses 600+ tonnes and is lofted into
orbit by a reusable vehicle derived from our experience with the
External Tank only.


Really? Where is the hardware?


Oh that's right. That's "I've designed on paper."


We've been done this road before Mook. Bend metal, get someone to
bend metal or go away.


--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.


I didn't know this Usenet/newsgroup was a certified shop-class for
fly- by-rocket expertise. *Where's your better rocket or satellite of
bent metal?


When I claim to have developed one, I'll be more than willing to show it.
Notice, I don't make those claims.


There have been others here who HAVE made those claims and some have
actually bent metal.


Mook simply wears out keyboards.


*~ BG


--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.


Greg, you obviously don't know a damn thing about how to get things
done. *Clearly a thing must be designed before it is built. *Plainly
that means things have to be worked out in detail on computer.
Surely, I am free to discuss and share the results of my efforts here
or anywhere. *You sound like you suffer from 'small man' syndrome, and
are merely jealous of the ideas, capabilities, knowledge and women I
have. *lol. * I got a new keyboard, and that's not the only thing I
wear out with my 6 ft 3 in frame! *lol.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/35449912/S...e-Orbitshttp:/....


My company operates along the successful project financing model. *TO
that end we promote and sponsor a wide range of projects that create
value using solar energy and my proprietary technology throughout the
world, and in this case, beyond it.


I have recently developed a business plan for four satellites like
those described here with the four powering 32,000 ground stations
totaling 40,000 MW capacity. *This energy when sold at $0.06 per kWh
generates revenue valued at $275 billion the day it is switched on.


Selling off nearly half this value to investors over the five year
construction program provides them with a compounded 40% annual rate
of return for the $44 billion placed at risk.


This is quite an exciting program and has the potential to radically
alter our relationship to the cosmos.


Half the budget is used to build a fleet of reusable heavy lift
launchers. *The other half is used to build a supply chain and operate
it to build four satellites described above, along with the compact
ground stations.


The project plan ends here. *However, success opens other
possibilities.


Once the initial complement of satellites is operational half the
revenue generated by those satellites is used to continue building and
launching five satellites per year adding $300 billion per year to the
project's valuation. *Within a few years the project is worth over $1
trillion.


Rather than blindly launching a continuous stream of 10 GW satellites,
it makes sense to consider what might be done with a small portion of
the revenue in developing more advanced systems. *Systems that are too
complex to consider out of the box. *These more advanced systems will
service smaller users directly, send energy to mobile as well as
stationary users, and operate more efficiently in the solar system,
rather than be bound to Earth.


So, accepting a little higher risk, following initial success at lower
risk, the same launchers may also launch an advanced satellite system
that builds on the knowledge gained by building the first generation
satellite. *Here, there are a two satellites consisting of two 500 m
diameter CPV targets with no concentrator. *One satellite, the
Receiver, flies from LEO to GEO using solar powered ion rockets
normally used for station keeping. *Another satellite, the
Transmitter, flies from LEO to L1 using its ion station keeping
rockets.


The transmitter beams 160 MW of energy from L1 to GEO which then gets
reformed and directed into 160,000 beams of 1 kW each. *Unlike its
predecessor, this satellite is capable of beaming energy to moving as
well as stationary targets, at far higher energy than previously.


This satellite test proves out some of the most difficult elements of
the advanced satellite system.


If successful, the advanced satellite will restart its ion engines and
fly a Hohmann transfer orbit to Jupiter. *There it will execute a
sling shot maneuver to bring it to zero speed relative to the Sun. *It
will then fall into the Sun.


When the Transmitter's altitude reaches a mere 3.75 million km from
the Sun, it executes a method of station keeping using controlled
reflection of ineffective photons. *In this way it hovers above the
solar surface beneath the Earth as it orbits the Sun.


At this distance the Transmitter is now capable of beaming 250,000 MW
of laser energy to the Receiver, which generates 220 million laser
beams, each 1 kW to stationary and mobile receivers throughout the
world. *At $0.04 per kWh the revenue stream generated by the satellite
pair is worth over $1 trillion.


A successful installation of this very difficult and risky system,
will result in the installation of 70 more over the three years
following the first one. *70 of these satellites replaces all our
present energy use and captures the revenues now earned by OPEC and
others in the energy business.


Success at this level allows us to consider taking some risks in our
launch infrastructure to expand capabilities there.


At this point a program to develop a replacement engine for the RS-68
derived aerospike engine using 220 GW of laser power beamed to a
launcher, will be funded. *The result will be the conversion of the
five multi-element launchers into a fleet of thirty-five SSTO
launchers of similar capacity. *This combined with improvements in the
CPV arrays will allow pairs of satellites each 2.5 km in diameter to
be placed in space. * When operated at 3.75 million km these will
generate 7.8 trillion watts of laser energy. *This energy is beamed
throughout the solar system to be used for any of a variety of
industrial processes, including making use of asteroids to feed space
factories that make things on orbit by remote control and dispatch
them to any point on Earth. *Also, MEMS based laser rocket arrays make
possible the personal spaceship and personal ballistic travel to all.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxV2F...utube.com/watc...


Do we get to hear that tiny pin dropping again?


What is it about my 1.2 TW platform of laser cannons as part of my LSE-
CM/ISS package deal that you didn't like?


*~ BG


From what I've seen of your system Brad is it won't work for several
sound reasons.

Also, GEO is a much better locale for a power satellite to serve Earth
and lunar Lagrange point. *However, to supply lunar bases, and power
laser powered rockets, lunar Lagrange points have some things to
recommend them.

Obviously, starting by serving well defined terrestrial markets is a
better first step. *Should demand for power beyond Earth develop for
any reason, then more advanced systems can be considered.


Then perhaps you should try to make it work. Pretend that I'm your
boss and that you want to keep your highly sought after job.

An easily tethered 6r platform with unlimited energy seems reasonably
good to me.

Photons don't really care how far they travel, and the 6r platform
could easily be a thousand times more massive and perhaps just a
hundred times larger than any GSO application.

My platform includes a highly shielded habitat for dozens of crew and
guests.

~ BG

  #197  
Old October 5th 10, 05:30 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Solar Power Satellite Concept

On Sep 3, 6:02*pm, William Mook wrote:
On Sep 3, 8:37*pm, William Mook wrote:



On Sep 2, 9:37*pm, Brad Guth wrote:


On Aug 22, 8:40*am, William Mook wrote:


On Aug 7, 7:44*pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"


wrote:
Brad Guth wrote:
On Aug 7, 3:42 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
William Mook wrote:
I have developed a system that masses 600+ tonnes and is lofted into
orbit by a reusable vehicle derived from our experience with the
External Tank only.


Really? Where is the hardware?


Oh that's right. That's "I've designed on paper."


We've been done this road before Mook. Bend metal, get someone to
bend metal or go away.


--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.


I didn't know this Usenet/newsgroup was a certified shop-class for
fly- by-rocket expertise. *Where's your better rocket or satellite of
bent metal?


When I claim to have developed one, I'll be more than willing to show it.
Notice, I don't make those claims.


There have been others here who HAVE made those claims and some have
actually bent metal.


Mook simply wears out keyboards.


*~ BG


--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.


Greg, you obviously don't know a damn thing about how to get things
done. *Clearly a thing must be designed before it is built. *Plainly
that means things have to be worked out in detail on computer.
Surely, I am free to discuss and share the results of my efforts here
or anywhere. *You sound like you suffer from 'small man' syndrome, and
are merely jealous of the ideas, capabilities, knowledge and women I
have. *lol. * I got a new keyboard, and that's not the only thing I
wear out with my 6 ft 3 in frame! *lol.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/35449912/S...e-Orbitshttp:/...


My company operates along the successful project financing model. *TO
that end we promote and sponsor a wide range of projects that create
value using solar energy and my proprietary technology throughout the
world, and in this case, beyond it.


I have recently developed a business plan for four satellites like
those described here with the four powering 32,000 ground stations
totaling 40,000 MW capacity. *This energy when sold at $0.06 per kWh
generates revenue valued at $275 billion the day it is switched on.


Selling off nearly half this value to investors over the five year
construction program provides them with a compounded 40% annual rate
of return for the $44 billion placed at risk.


This is quite an exciting program and has the potential to radically
alter our relationship to the cosmos.


Half the budget is used to build a fleet of reusable heavy lift
launchers. *The other half is used to build a supply chain and operate
it to build four satellites described above, along with the compact
ground stations.


The project plan ends here. *However, success opens other
possibilities.


Once the initial complement of satellites is operational half the
revenue generated by those satellites is used to continue building and
launching five satellites per year adding $300 billion per year to the
project's valuation. *Within a few years the project is worth over $1
trillion.


Rather than blindly launching a continuous stream of 10 GW satellites,
it makes sense to consider what might be done with a small portion of
the revenue in developing more advanced systems. *Systems that are too
complex to consider out of the box. *These more advanced systems will
service smaller users directly, send energy to mobile as well as
stationary users, and operate more efficiently in the solar system,
rather than be bound to Earth.


So, accepting a little higher risk, following initial success at lower
risk, the same launchers may also launch an advanced satellite system
that builds on the knowledge gained by building the first generation
satellite. *Here, there are a two satellites consisting of two 500 m
diameter CPV targets with no concentrator. *One satellite, the
Receiver, flies from LEO to GEO using solar powered ion rockets
normally used for station keeping. *Another satellite, the
Transmitter, flies from LEO to L1 using its ion station keeping
rockets.


The transmitter beams 160 MW of energy from L1 to GEO which then gets
reformed and directed into 160,000 beams of 1 kW each. *Unlike its
predecessor, this satellite is capable of beaming energy to moving as
well as stationary targets, at far higher energy than previously.


This satellite test proves out some of the most difficult elements of
the advanced satellite system.


If successful, the advanced satellite will restart its ion engines and
fly a Hohmann transfer orbit to Jupiter. *There it will execute a
sling shot maneuver to bring it to zero speed relative to the Sun. *It
will then fall into the Sun.


When the Transmitter's altitude reaches a mere 3.75 million km from
the Sun, it executes a method of station keeping using controlled
reflection of ineffective photons. *In this way it hovers above the
solar surface beneath the Earth as it orbits the Sun.


At this distance the Transmitter is now capable of beaming 250,000 MW
of laser energy to the Receiver, which generates 220 million laser
beams, each 1 kW to stationary and mobile receivers throughout the
world. *At $0.04 per kWh the revenue stream generated by the satellite
pair is worth over $1 trillion.


A successful installation of this very difficult and risky system,
will result in the installation of 70 more over the three years
following the first one. *70 of these satellites replaces all our
present energy use and captures the revenues now earned by OPEC and
others in the energy business.


Success at this level allows us to consider taking some risks in our
launch infrastructure to expand capabilities there.


At this point a program to develop a replacement engine for the RS-68
derived aerospike engine using 220 GW of laser power beamed to a
launcher, will be funded. *The result will be the conversion of the
five multi-element launchers into a fleet of thirty-five SSTO
launchers of similar capacity. *This combined with improvements in the
CPV arrays will allow pairs of satellites each 2.5 km in diameter to
be placed in space. * When operated at 3.75 million km these will
generate 7.8 trillion watts of laser energy. *This energy is beamed
throughout the solar system to be used for any of a variety of
industrial processes, including making use of asteroids to feed space
factories that make things on orbit by remote control and dispatch
them to any point on Earth. *Also, MEMS based laser rocket arrays make
possible the personal spaceship and personal ballistic travel to all.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxV2F...utube.com/watc...


Do we get to hear that tiny pin dropping again?


What is it about my 1.2 TW platform of laser cannons as part of my LSE-
CM/ISS package deal that you didn't like?


*~ BG


From what I've seen of your system Brad is it won't work for several
sound reasons.


Also, GEO is a much better locale for a power satellite to serve Earth
and lunar Lagrange point. *However, to supply lunar bases, and power
laser powered rockets, lunar Lagrange points have some things to
recommend them.


Obviously, starting by serving well defined terrestrial markets is a
better first step. *Should demand for power beyond Earth develop for
any reason, then more advanced systems can be considered.


A 10,000 MW beam can energize a 221.7 metric ton force rocket with an
exhaust velocity of 9.2 km/sec. *Since things are not 100% efficient,
this should be reduced to 150 metric tons of force for early systems,
rising to 200 metric tons of force for later systems.

A two stage lunar rocket, massing 125 metric tons at lift off, would
consists of 58 % propellant mass. * With 12% structure fraction,
that's 30% payload. * A two stage system would consist of 9% of
payload. *That's 11.25 metric tons of payload. *The first stage is
recovered downrange.

The RLV that launched the power satellites could launch a 700 ton
lunar stage which is launched into LEO. *It is *powered by a laser
rocket and would burn off 62% of its starting weight as propellant.
That's 434 metric tons of propellant. *With 86 tons of structure, this
leaves 180 tons of payload on the moon and back!

11.25 metric tons of payload is about that 1/3 that of a 747
180 ton *metric tons of paylod is about 5x that of a 747

So, these two developments based around the 10,000 MW power satellite
- four in GEO and one at LL1 - would give us an interesting capability
when combined with the HLRLV described here.

The smaller vehicle can be considered a quick response low cost
passenger vehicle, the larger stage a slower cargo vehicle.

Similar calculations can be done for Mars operations as well as other
interplanetary operations.


So far so good, and this by itself is worth how many billions per year?
  #198  
Old October 5th 10, 05:39 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Brad Guth[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,175
Default Solar Power Satellite Concept

But this interpretation of yours is only worth perhaps a trillion or
so payback per year, so obviously that's still not good enough for
those in charge. Make it worth $10 trillion per year, and I bet that
gets there attention.

~ BG

On Sep 4, 2:59*pm, William Mook wrote:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO

The 600 ton 10,000 MW 5.2 km diameter solar power satellite is
equipped with solar powered MEMS based ion rockets for maneuvering and
station keeping. *Since the ion rockets have a 50 km/sec exhaust
velocity, and 50 m/sec per year is needed for station keeping and
attitude control. *This means that over 30 years useful life 3% of the
vehicle weight (18 tons) of propellant are needed.

To fly from LEO to GEO requires that 2.06 km/sec be added to the
satellite. *With a 50 km/sec exhaust speed, this requires an
additional 4% vehicle weight (25 tons added to the 600 ton mass) be
ion rocket propellant.

To fly to Lagrange point 1 - the point between Earth and Moon -
requires only 0.77 km/sec. *This is only 1.5% of the total mass - or
9.2 tons of added propellant to the 600 ton satellite.

So, deploying these satellites to useful orbits in GEO and around
cislunar space is achieved for the launcher I've described.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV

To fly to Jupiter fly-by requires 9.2 km/sec delta vee. *This requires
16.8% added propellant. *This is 121.2 tons of added propellant to the
600 ton reference mass.

A 300 ton reference mass requires 60.6 metric tons of added
propellant.

Launching two 300 ton satellites - one to Jupiter and one to GEO -
requires 60.6 tons of added propellant to the Jupiter bound satellite
and 12.5 tons to be added to the GEO bound satellite. *The pair is
launched and the total mass is 673.1 tons for the pair and the
propellant they consume.

Why fly to Jupiter?

Because a fly-by at Jupiter opens up flights to the outer solar
system, as well as flights close to the Sun!

http://ulysses.jpl.nasa.gov/science/...yby_intro.html

Flying by Jupiter allows the gravity of the planet to slow the
approaching spacecraft to zero speed relative to the Sun. *Which
causes the satellite to fall into the Sun - coming to rest only 3.75
miliion km from the Sun.

At this distance solar light is 1,600x more intense than at Earth. *At
this distance solar light is the same intensity as the light at the
focal point of the 5.2 km diameter concentrator, illuminating the 125
meter diameter CPV/FEL array. *At this distance the 300 ton spacecraft
that is only 500 meters in diameter *- 1/10th the diameter and 1/100th
the area of the larger concentrator - intercepts 430 billion watts of
solar power and generates a laser beam 250 billion watts. *The solar
satellite beams energy to a sister satellite in GEO. *The sister
satellite regenerates this energy with 98% efficiency to form
controlled beams to many users simultaneously. *220 million users at
1,000 watts each - users that are stationary and in motion on and
around Earth. *Users combine beams to receive any amount of power
desired using *a holographic control technique I've developed.

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

The two 500 meter diameter satellites deliver 220 billion watts of
energy to Earth, yet cost little more than the 10 billion watt
satellite described earlier. *This more advanced satellite will
replace the 10 billion watt satellites once they are fully *worked
out, using a portion of the revenue generated by the first generation
satellites.

For space travel enthusiasts we can see that a 220 billion watt laser
beam when used with moderate efficiency will produce 5,000 metric tons
of force in a rocket with a 9.2 km/sec exhaust speed. *A two stage
rocket similar to the one described previously is 25x bigger, so
payloads are 25x bigger - all things being equal. *So, instead of
11.25 tons to the moon, we have 281.25 metric tons to the moon.

A single stage to Earth orbit vehicle using laser rocket of this
capability - powered by the 220 billion watt beam - puts 920 metric
tons into Earth orbit with a 3,700 ton single stage vehicle smaller
than the 4,900 ton chemical rocket assembly described earlier. *This
launcher places 800 meter diameter third generation power satellites
that generate 637 billion watts for direct beaming anywhere in the
solar system.

For anyone who doubts we can beam energy from 3.75 million km to
anywhere across the solar system with an 800 meter diameter laser
emitter with conjugate optics window, consider what we did 20 years
ago with 2 cm wavelengths at the VLA with a 36 km baseline.

Here's a picture of Venus taken from New Mexico

http://cygnus.colorado.edu/apas1030i...cakesvenus.jpg

The smallest features are 1 km across.

With a 1 um wavelength and an 800 m baseline resolution of 2 meters is
possible. *With UV wavelength centimeters are possible. * This
calculation is easy to perform;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk

With larger satellites, more energy and more accuracy are possible.
With beams 3x the energy, thrusts in rockets can be 3x larger which
means 3x larger payloads. *Which means 1.73x larger diameters and 3x
the power level.

2 trillion watts of power - centimeter beaming accuracy anywhere
throughout the inner solar system from a power satellite that is
nearly a mile across orbiting 2.5 million miles from the Sun.

Of course, the cycle is repeated. *The 5,000 ton thrust vehicle is
joined by a 15,000 ton thrust vehicle and the 900 tons on orbit is
replaced with 2,700 tons on orbit just by increasing beam energy. *The
280 ton payload two stage moon ship is replaced with an 840 ton
payload two stage moonship.

And the 2 trillion watt 1.4 km diameter power satellite is joined by a
6 trillion watt 2.4 km diameter power satellite.

This ups the ante - 45,000 ton SSTO rockets launch 2,700 tons to orbit
and ships routinely transport 2,520 tons to the moon and back. *The
smaller vehicles are adapted to operate between worlds, efficiently
establishing industrial operations across the solar system.

At the 6 trillion watt 2.4 km diameter level using 224 nm wavelength
Deep Ultra Violet lasers

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...www.photonsyst....

We can efficiently beam energy from 3.75 million km from the Sun to 20
billion km. *Well beyond the solar system.

This not only gives us the ability to travel at will across the solar
system using laser rockets and laser light sails

We can also establish power regenerators at the focal point of the
Sun's own gravity lens.

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=785

This not only is used as a powerful telescope to image distant planets
orbiting distant stars, it is also useful as a place to beam energy
efficiently to laser light sail powered star ships.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/25409919/Star-Ship

That's because the gravity of the sun itself forms a virtual lens the
diameter of the solar system! *So, powerful laser sources located at
that distant focal point are efficiently beamed anywhere in the galaxy
to propel laser light sails.

Another important feature of this location deep in the Kuiper belt -
is the ability to send signals to the super-massive 2 million solar
mass black hole at the center of our galaxy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*

This black hole is rotating. *A region the size of Mercury's orbit
around the sun, called the ergosphere, is a region where some very
interesting things can happen;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergosphere

Due to the operation of relativity, something entering the ergosphere
can leave the region BEFORE it entered the region.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHC8z...ime/sagan.html

So, an accurately aimed beam sent to the 2 million solar mass black
hole at the galactic center not only returns after circling the black
hole, but returns BEFORE it arrives, implementing a negative time
loop. *Such a negative loop once established, can then be varied to
send information through time - as well as send information to far
flung starships instantly. *Implementing an advanced form of phase
control to power track and propel ships.

Not only would a negative time loop open up the possibility of time
signaling, it opens up the possibility of advanced logistics - imagine
going into a restaurant ordering your meal, and having it arrive
instantly. *What happened? *Your order was entered into an
interstellar internet and sent back in time 20 minutes - so it was
ready as you walked in. *Imagine ordering a custom couch for your home
and arriving home just as the delivery van with your custom order
pulls into your drive. *Imagine being measured for a custom tailored
suit and having the suit ready for fitting immediately after
measuring. *Time signaling also opens up the possibility of tele-
robotics across all time and space. * A remotely controlled robot like
Asimo

http://www.physorg.com/news188064151...?v=Q3C5sc8b3xM

is dispatched to a distant location and provides instant telepresence
with feedback to the sender - even though the robot is decades or
perhaps centuries in the future and light years distant.

Using negative time loops as logical elements in a computer processor
allows for a sort of advanced computing not possible today. *Instead
of sorting through all the possibilities, a simpler sort of comparison
with future states is implemented. *In this way Artificial
Intelligence of a type not possible today becomes easily achieved

http://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/proje...articles/1998/...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9ByGQGiVMg

Of course, as all this development goes on, assuming there is an
economic reason for doing so, we will continue to increase the size of
our laser systems and laser propulsion systems to match, along with
their accuracy both in space and time.

A few more interesting calculations...

6 trillion watts reflected off a highly efficient reflector

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...www.jlab.org/~....

produces 4.11 metric tons of force and its speed can approach that of
light.

Distance to Sag A*: 27,000 light years = 2.556e+20 meters
Diameter of Gravity Lens formed by the Sun = 15e+12 meters diameter

* 2.556e+20 * 1.22 * 250e-9 / 15e+12 = 5.2 meters

We can resolve a 5.2 m diameter spot on Sag A* or hit a 5.2 m spot on
Sag A* using the sun as a gravity lens. *Using a 2 um wavelength this
is 52 meters - and using a 2 cm wavelength we can hit a 520 km
diameter spot.

Since Sag A* black hole is 44 million km in diameter - any of these
resolutions should be adequate to beam information to and Sag A* and
back - through the Ergosphere - through time.

The interesting thing is that by using Sag A* own gravity as a gravity
lens, we can efficiently beam energy across the cosmos, and through
time - using the gravity field of the Sun, or a distant star, as a
collimator for that energy arriving from Sag A* giving us greater
flexibility than merely sending signals through time.

* *Gen IV *Power Sat * *6 *TW * *4.1 metric ton force thrust
* *Gen V * Power Sat * 18 TW * 12.3 metric ton force thrust
* *Gen VI *Power Sat * 54 TW * *37.0 metric ton force thrust

At this point a single satellite beams nearly as much energy as is
generated by all of human industry today. *Laser rockets give way to
laser reflectors that produce thrust with zero use of propellant.

* *Gen VII Power Sat 162 TW *111.0 metric ton force thrust
* *Gen VIIIPower Sat 486 TW *333.0 metric ton force thrust
* *Gen IX *Power Sat 1,458 TW *1,000 metric ton force thrust

At this point we can begin contemplating creating engineered black
hole dusts. *Colliding shaped masses made of Iron-56 at speeds greater
than 1/3 light speed we are capable of creating engineered black
holes. *Causing these black holes to interact implements a wide range
of processes, including logical processes as well as energy
processes. *Sending black hole dusts to Sag A* through the same paths
around the twisted spacetime of that supermassive black hole, that we
use to communicate information and energy, we also send these
engineered objects.

In the ergosphere we can also tap into the energy contained in the 4
million solar mass black hole. *This process was first worked out in
1969

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_process

So, once we make a small collection of engineered black holes, we can
cause them to orbit one another, and then eject a third engineered
black hole precisely toward Sag A* - following a guide beam. *The
engineered black hole returns back at its point of departure in space-
time, with a twin, as it departs. *The original black hole and its
twin is sent again on the journey through spacetime - and they each
arrive with twins...

In this way, once mastery of engineered black holes is attained, they
are replicated in endless number as quickly as we can handle their
logistics.

* * * * * Sag A* * * *8.8e+36 kg
Asteroid Belt * * * 3.6e+21 kg
Human Industry *2.8e+10 kg/year

These mass comparisons are very interesting. *If we find a way to tap
into the massenergy of the supermassive black hole at the galaxy's
center, we have access to 22,000x more material in far more useful
form, than ALL the asteroid belts in the ENTIRE GALAXY! *The asteroid
belt even if only 1% of it is useful to human industry could supply
humanity at the current rate for 1.2 billion years! *If 10 billion
people consumed material at the same rate as the 64 wealthiest people
on Earth and we only used 0.1% of the total, we'd still have enough in
the asteroid belt to supply such a civilization for 10 million
years!

The amount of material in the black hole at the center of the galaxy
is 2 quadrillion times more plentiful than that - and the ergo sphere
by operation of black hole twinning through the Penrose process -
allows us to make ANYTHING - by engineering atomic sized black holes
that decay into objects of any sort to be delivered anywhere in the
galaxy any time the ergosphere of the black hole is visible in the
sky.

Constructing a partial Dyson Sphere - a Dyson Ring -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson_sphere

Made of large collections of massive space colonies - each 20 km in
diameter and 50 km long - 2,000 of them stacked 100,000 km in length
above and below the orbital plane - orbiting next to one another -
47.5 million lines - totalling 95 billion stations each 3,100 sq km in
area - totaling 3 quadrillion square kilometers.

With the ability to travel through time *we are permitted then to
replicate every personality at some point in the future - and supply
those persons with an ideal environment for their development. *There
are 7 billion people alive today. *Population has doubled since 1966 -
44 years ago - 3.5 billion. *44 years before that 1922 population was
2 billion a little larger than the 1.75 billion expected with constant
doubling, meaning our growth rate accelerated over the past 88 years.
Population estimate in 1804 was 1 billion - 118 years prior to 1922 -
again showing the rate accelerated over the years previous.

In Roman times it is estimated that world population was 200 million

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...d_population_g...

It is estimated that we will grow to 14 billion before advancing
wealth and technology -both of which are associated with reduced
population growth in wealthier nations- before population declines.
As soon as birth rates begin to decline, the population will begin to
drop. *As medical science advances, death rates will decline too.
Assuming infinitely long lives (greater than 10,000 years) in the face
of declining reproductive rates, lead to a static population about 28
billion.

To date, all people who ever lives are about 10 billion. *Over the
next 25 years we can expect another 7 billion to be added to the
total. *If we peak at 14 billion - the total will be 30 billion -
throughout all of history. *If we peak at 28 billion - the total will
be 60 billion.

We have just described a means to quickly erect 95 billion very large
space stations on orbit around the Sun each 3,100 sq km in area. *So,
a family of four would command the resources - including a large
population of advanced AI robots - of 6 such stations

http://dsc.discovery.com/space/top-1...bridge-450.jpg

If we closely examine all people who *could* have been born throughout
history, but were not, or whose lives were cut short, this figure
would quadruple by some estimates - a total of 1.5 stations per family
of four.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Europe's Largest Space Corp to launch Solar Power Satellite Jonathan Policy 8 March 13th 10 09:05 PM
..Space Energy Inc plans to launch prototype Space Solar Power Satellite Jonathan History 10 December 22nd 09 05:17 AM
latest solar power satellite designs [email protected] Technology 1 March 25th 06 10:51 AM
Satellite Solar Power Debris risk Alex Terrell Policy 2 November 10th 04 07:58 PM
"Reinventing the Solar Power Satellite" paper Geoffrey A. Landis Technology 17 June 24th 04 09:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.