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
  #21  
Old August 22nd 10, 04:40 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Solar Power Satellite Concept

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...tellite-Orbits
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO


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=XxV2FCUESh0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzG4PEureFg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QAUkt2VPHI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzXwctPXT4c

  #22  
Old August 22nd 10, 04:41 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Solar Power Satellite Concept

On Aug 16, 1:10*am, "
wrote:
On Aug 7, 5:44*pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"

wrote:
Mook simply wears out keyboards.


I go away for a few years, check back in and what do I see... the same
crackpots touting thier undeniable genius.

Sigh.


While other's publish 50 year old blue prints and call it progress.
haha..
  #23  
Old August 22nd 10, 04:46 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Solar Power Satellite Concept

On Aug 11, 11:01*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 8/11/2010 5:20 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/EST-Scissor-wi.../dp/B0007U9MES


That's why that thing looked familiar! *Estes should have sued them.


LOL.


I actually checked the patents to see if Estes had patented the design,
but couldn't find any patent for that particular rocket.

Pat


The fold-away wing is very similar to that used on the Tomahawk Cruise
Missile and requires only off-the-shelf technology.

Check out page five here
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum

Check out any of the excellent technical descriptions of the BGM-109
Cruise Missile.

  #24  
Old August 24th 10, 06:52 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Solar Power Satellite Concept

On Aug 22, 1:23*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Aug 11, 11:01*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 8/11/2010 5:20 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:


http://www.amazon.com/EST-Scissor-wi.../dp/B0007U9MES


That's why that thing looked familiar! *Estes should have sued them.


LOL.


I actually checked the patents to see if Estes had patented the design,
but couldn't find any patent for that particular rocket.


Pat


The fold-away wing is very similar to that used on the Tomahawk Cruise
Missile and requires only off-the-shelf technology.


Wrong. *The 'scissor wing' is a totally different concept.

--
"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


Wrong? Who said the Tomahawk uses a scissor wing? I certainly
didn't. That you think I did makes you wrong Freddie. *again*

  #25  
Old August 30th 10, 06:58 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Solar Power Satellite Concept

On Aug 24, 2:42*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Aug 22, 1:23*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
William Mook wrote:
On Aug 11, 11:01*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 8/11/2010 5:20 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:


http://www.amazon.com/EST-Scissor-wi.../dp/B0007U9MES


That's why that thing looked familiar! *Estes should have sued them.


LOL.


I actually checked the patents to see if Estes had patented the design,
but couldn't find any patent for that particular rocket.


Pat


The fold-away wing is very similar to that used on the Tomahawk Cruise
Missile and requires only off-the-shelf technology.


Wrong. *The 'scissor wing' is a totally different concept.


Wrong? *Who said the Tomahawk uses a scissor wing? *I certainly
didn't. *That you think I did makes you wrong Freddie. **again*


Mookie: *"The fold-away wing [what is being discussed is the 'scissor
wing' from the URL quoted above] is very similar to that used on the
Tomahawk Cruise Missile..."

No, it isn't. *It is nothing like it.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine


The wing system I am using on my RLV elements is based on the Tomahawk
Cruise Missile design. period!

X-wing scissor wings and all of that have nothing to do with it.

Freddie is reduced to typing things I didn't say, then wrongly
attributing it to me, in order to reply to what he wishes I said but
didn't! lol.

  #26  
Old August 30th 10, 08:21 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Solar Power Satellite Concept

On Aug 30, 1:58*pm, William Mook wrote:
On Aug 24, 2:42*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:



wrote:
On Aug 22, 1:23*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 11, 11:01*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 8/11/2010 5:20 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:


http://www.amazon.com/EST-Scissor-wi.../dp/B0007U9MES


That's why that thing looked familiar! *Estes should have sued them.


LOL.


I actually checked the patents to see if Estes had patented the design,
but couldn't find any patent for that particular rocket.


Pat


The fold-away wing is very similar to that used on the Tomahawk Cruise
Missile and requires only off-the-shelf technology.


Wrong. *The 'scissor wing' is a totally different concept.


Wrong? *Who said the Tomahawk uses a scissor wing? *I certainly
didn't. *That you think I did makes you wrong Freddie. **again*


Mookie: *"The fold-away wing [what is being discussed is the 'scissor
wing' from the URL quoted above] is very similar to that used on the
Tomahawk Cruise Missile..."


No, it isn't. *It is nothing like it.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine


The wing system I am using on my RLV elements is based on the Tomahawk
Cruise Missile design. *period!

X-wing scissor wings and all of that have nothing to do with it.

Freddie is reduced to typing things I didn't say, then wrongly
attributing it to me, in order to reply to what he wishes I said but
didn't! *lol.


See page 5:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum

Note how the Cruise Missile is launched like a rocket, then flies like
an airplane, after unfolding its wings and tail.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/cruise-....htm/printable
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x17...issile_extreme

Listening to Freddie you would believe such things were impossible.
Clearly, they are achieved, and the only question is how much the wing
system weighs for the recovery system needed for an RLV. The answer
is, not much!

Just look at the mass of the wing system and what it lifts, and
compare that to the structural weight of an empty RLV stage - and note
that the system will be towed in flight back to the launch center by a
recovery aircraft. I give the numbers in my addendum above.

  #27  
Old August 30th 10, 09:49 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Solar Power Satellite Concept

In article f1b4df3a-14b8-475b-99cf-
, says...

On Aug 30, 1:58*pm, William Mook wrote:
On Aug 24, 2:42*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:



wrote:
On Aug 22, 1:23*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 11, 11:01*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 8/11/2010 5:20 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:


http://www.amazon.com/EST-Scissor-wi.../dp/B0007U9MES

That's why that thing looked familiar! *Estes should have sued them.


LOL.


I actually checked the patents to see if Estes had patented the design,
but couldn't find any patent for that particular rocket.


Pat


The fold-away wing is very similar to that used on the Tomahawk Cruise
Missile and requires only off-the-shelf technology.


Wrong. *The 'scissor wing' is a totally different concept.


Wrong? *Who said the Tomahawk uses a scissor wing? *I certainly
didn't. *That you think I did makes you wrong Freddie. **again*


Mookie: *"The fold-away wing [what is being discussed is the 'scissor
wing' from the URL quoted above] is very similar to that used on the
Tomahawk Cruise Missile..."


No, it isn't. *It is nothing like it.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine


The wing system I am using on my RLV elements is based on the Tomahawk
Cruise Missile design. *period!


Wings folding into the body of the fuel tank may work well for a
Tomahawk cruise missile, but not so well for the design of a pressurized
rocket propellant tank. You're going to have a freaking huge mass
penalty for your napkin drawing design of wings folding *into* an ET.

And your drawing of the "now you see me, now you don't" t-tail design is
goofy. Just how does *that* disappear into the tank?

Your napkin drawings just aren't feasible. Where is the math to back it
all up? I don't for one minute buy your estimate of 50 metric tons for
dry mass. #1, it's far too low to pass the giggle test. #2, it's far
too round of a number to be real. Prove to us that you didn't just pull
that number out of your @$$

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?
  #28  
Old September 1st 10, 06:56 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Solar Power Satellite Concept

In article 6724e6c6-e98c-47aa-8a94-f0e7def44492
@z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says...

Careful mass balance analysis of a fully engineered system determined
that the mass of a fold-away wing system capable of maintaining the ET
in gliding flight is;

5.26 metric tons WING
1.23 metric tons TAIL
0.84 metric tons FLIGHT CONTROL
0.21 metric tons INSTRUMENTATION
0.31 metric tons ACTUATORS
0.89 metric tons ELECTRICAL
0.55 metric tons AVIONICS

By careful integration with existing ET systems, the mass of the final
system is 55 metric tons.


I see what you're trying to do now (page 5 of that document on Scribd).
Those wings fold up oragami like into "shrounds placed along the length
of the ET". Good luck with that. If you could get something like that
to work, the US Navy would pay a pretty penny for the technology.
Strike that. The US Navy would already have such wings if the
technology were within our reach.

Call me skeptical, but I want to see a scale demonstration of the
folding wing technology being deployed in flight. Those wings make the
X-33's composite tanks look like child's play by comparison.

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?
  #29  
Old September 1st 10, 08:27 PM posted to sci.space.policy
William Mook[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,840
Default Solar Power Satellite Concept

On Sep 1, 1:56*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 6724e6c6-e98c-47aa-8a94-f0e7def44492
@z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says...



Careful mass balance analysis of a fully engineered system determined
that the mass of a fold-away wing system capable of maintaining the ET
in gliding flight is;


* 5.26 metric tons *WING
* 1.23 metric tons TAIL
* 0.84 metric tons FLIGHT CONTROL
* 0.21 metric tons INSTRUMENTATION
* 0.31 metric tons ACTUATORS
* 0.89 metric tons ELECTRICAL
* 0.55 metric tons AVIONICS


By careful integration with existing ET systems, the mass of the final
system is 55 metric tons.


I see what you're trying to do now (page 5 of that document on Scribd). *
Those wings fold up oragami like into "shrounds placed along the length
of the ET". *Good luck with that.


I don't think you've got it since oragami has nothing to do with it,
thank you I think. lol..

*If you could get something like that
to work, the US Navy would pay a pretty penny for the technology. *


They already have, its called the Tomahawk cruise missile.

Strike that. *The US Navy would already have such wings if the
technology were within our reach.


Yes. They do.

Call me skeptical,


You're a bit more than that.

but I want to see a scale demonstration of the
folding wing technology being deployed in flight. *


That's part of the development program.

Those wings make the
X-33's composite tanks look like child's play by comparison.


No they don't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HlM_0xCmXI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CeeAggBUn4

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?


  #30  
Old September 2nd 10, 07:16 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Solar Power Satellite Concept

In article 1f47a0ce-1be9-4ee7-b2f0-ee099b5a0882
@t2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com, says...

On Sep 1, 1:56*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 6724e6c6-e98c-47aa-8a94-f0e7def44492
@z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com, says...



Careful mass balance analysis of a fully engineered system determined
that the mass of a fold-away wing system capable of maintaining the ET
in gliding flight is;


* 5.26 metric tons *WING
* 1.23 metric tons TAIL
* 0.84 metric tons FLIGHT CONTROL
* 0.21 metric tons INSTRUMENTATION
* 0.31 metric tons ACTUATORS
* 0.89 metric tons ELECTRICAL
* 0.55 metric tons AVIONICS


By careful integration with existing ET systems, the mass of the final
system is 55 metric tons.


I see what you're trying to do now (page 5 of that document on Scribd). *
Those wings fold up oragami like into "shrounds placed along the length
of the ET". *Good luck with that.


I don't think you've got it since oragami has nothing to do with it,
thank you I think. lol..

*If you could get something like that
to work, the US Navy would pay a pretty penny for the technology. *


They already have, its called the Tomahawk cruise missile.

Strike that. *The US Navy would already have such wings if the
technology were within our reach.


Yes. They do.

Call me skeptical,


You're a bit more than that.

but I want to see a scale demonstration of the
folding wing technology being deployed in flight. *


That's part of the development program.

Those wings make the
X-33's composite tanks look like child's play by comparison.


No they don't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HlM_0xCmXI

The above does not look like your drawing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CeeAggBUn4


Again, the above does not look like your drawing.

Riddle me this, does your ET based design somehow stuff the wings into
*externally* mounted pods on the side, or does the tank have slots built
into it so the wings can fold into the ET?

If the former, I'm still wondering how those big wings fit into that
small space on your drawings.

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?
 




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 09:01 AM.


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.