NASA/DARPA Super Mars Rocket

Powered by microwaves or lasers from the ground...sounds a bit much from
a space agency that can't figure out how to get to the Moon on their budget:
http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/ar...rship/19683450
As to why something designed to fly around inside the solar system is
called a "starship" is something known only to the NASA PAO. :-D

Pat

On 10/25/2010 2:20 PM, Pat Flannery wrote:
Powered by microwaves or lasers from the ground...sounds a bit much from
a space agency that can't figure out how to get to the Moon on their
budget:
http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/ar...rship/19683450

As to why something designed to fly around inside the solar system is
called a "starship" is something known only to the NASA PAO. :-D

And while we're working on that, it's also time for the US to become
"Team America - Asteroid Police":
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/usmust...e advisersays
Since asteroids present a threat to the entire planet's surface, this
would be an ideal project for the UN to fund, with each country kicking
in funding in proportion to its total land area.
Try that one on for size, Putin. :-)

On Oct 25, 4:34*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

Since asteroids present a threat to the entire planet's surface, this
would be an ideal project for the UN to fund, with each country kicking
in funding in proportion to its total land area.
Try that one on for size, Putin. :-)

This would be a more serious issue for Canada... Russia has a
population of about 150 million people, but our country has one of
about 30 million.

John Savard

On 26/10/2010 9:20 AM, Pat Flannery wrote:
Powered by microwaves or lasers from the ground...sounds a bit much from
a space agency that can't figure out how to get to the Moon on their
budget:

I think most people have lost faith in NASA by now. I personally am
waiting for private organisations to get there. I think privateers will
get there looooong before NASA does, more's the pitty.

On Oct 25, 5:20*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

Powered by microwaves or lasers from the ground...

Sounds like some version of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam-powered_propulsion
..


As to why something designed to fly around inside the solar system is
called a "starship" is something known only to the NASA PAO. :-D


Well, the sun is a star, so I suppose the PAO could be cut some
slack. ;-)

On 10/25/2010 7:52 PM, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 26/10/2010 9:20 AM, Pat Flannery wrote:
Powered by microwaves or lasers from the ground...sounds a bit much from
a space agency that can't figure out how to get to the Moon on their
budget:

I think most people have lost faith in NASA by now. I personally am
waiting for private organisations to get there. I think privateers will
get there looooong before NASA does, more's the pitty.

Privateers? Space pirates?
"Argh, raise the solar sail and clear the lasers fer action me hearties;
it's after the Frenchie's lunar freighter, her hold brimming with helium
3, that we go today. A double ration of Tang fer the first man that lays
a magnetic cable on her, and then back to old England for our split of
the prize money, and all the pretty wenches in London."
....but little did the crew of the "Lady Diana's Revenge" suspect that
the French were waiting for them, and that the freighter "Milady de
Winter" was as full of cunning tricks as her namesake. ;-)

Pat

Gradual improvements on core capabilities are what's needed.

Consider the Michoud Assembly Facility run by Marshall Space Flight
Center

In the 1950s and 60s they worked on Saturns
http://mix.msfc.nasa.gov/IMAGES/HIGH/6870792.jpg

In the 1970s they switched to External Tanks
http://mm04.nasaimages.org/MediaMana...n&profileid=41

These External Tanks using a design I cam up with become a building
block for a very large launcher as I describe here;

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

To support the development of solar power satellites that beam
infrared laser energy to 8,000 ground stations at the same time -
making enough money to support continued operation of the system by
generating a total of 10,000 MW and earning $4.38 billion per year per
satellite.

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

This power satellite can operate at GEO to produce 10,000 MW as
mentioned.

More advanced systems can be orbited nearer the Sun to produce 220,000
MW - upping revenue to $30 billion per year per satellite even while
reducing costs from $0.05 per kWh to $0.015 per kWh.

A 220,000 MW laser beam energizing a laser propelled rocket that
produces an exhaust speed of 22.44 km/sec produces 1,000 metric tons
force (the same produced in the ET derived rocket) - but reduces the
propellant fraction required to get to orbit (9.2 km/sec) to 0.337 or
263 metric tons of hydrogen alone. Allowing the 50 metric ton empty
vehicle carry 467 metric tons to orbit as a single stage vehicle!!

The same vehicle - when powered by laser rockets with 22.44 km/sec
exhaust speed can carry 315 metric tons to the moon and back or even
Mars and back using 415 metric tons of hydrogen in the same 50 metric
ton vehicle. This is the capability of laser rocket.

But we need to do things well regardless of the technology core.

On Oct 26, 11:46*am, Pat Flannery wrote:

Privateers? Space pirates?

Well, I think he just meant "private businessmen". Space piracy is
unlikely to be profitable. And things getting so messy in space that
Earth governments actually go to the length of issuing _letters of
marque_ by means of which people could be privateers rather than mere
pirates... not coming any time soon.

I think we can leave such things to Elizabeth Moon's novels about
Kylara Vatta for the time being.

John Savard

In sci.space.policy Quadibloc wrote:
On Oct 26, 11:46?am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Privateers? Space pirates?

Well, I think he just meant "private businessmen". Space piracy is
unlikely to be profitable. And things getting so messy in space that
Earth governments actually go to the length of issuing _letters of
marque_ by means of which people could be privateers rather than mere
pirates... not coming any time soon.

Since no terrestrial governments "own" (speaking legally rather than
practically) space wouldn't those letters of marque have to come from
the UN?-) Privateers would then be permitted to paint their ships that
lovely light blue color

rick jones
--
The glass is neither half-empty nor half-full. The glass has a leak.
The real question is "Can it be patched?"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On 26 Oct, 04:52, Alan Erskine wrote:
On 26/10/2010 9:20 AM, Pat Flannery wrote:

Powered by microwaves or lasers from the ground...sounds a bit much from
a space agency that can't figure out how to get to the Moon on their
budget:

I think most people have lost faith in NASA by now. *I personally am
waiting for private organisations to get there. *I think privateers will
get there looooong before NASA does, more's the pitty.

NASA does essentially what it is told to do by the folks on Capitol
Hill. Blame them for its shortcomings. If you say "Go to the Moon as
soon as possible - cost not important" that is what they will do and
the Saturn C5 will be the result.

NASA is now being told to look at problems from all angles and don't
be afraid to come up with things which are either beyond today's
technology or stretching it. This is in fact stretching todays
technology rather than providing something totally beyond it.

You have a touching faith in private enterprise. Private enterprise
can do amazing things, it set Google up. Private enterprise though :-

1) Cannot work miracles.
2) Is out to make a profit.

Virgin Galactic is not a particularly good example. It is an expensive
sub orbital ride. For the price I would want an orbital flight. Lets
face it the guys in NASA or ESA are the smartest around. If they are
told to brainstorm they will, in all probability, come up with rather
better ideas than the typical member of this group.

This idea is futuristic but not mad. Let us look at current
technology. Focussing a laser on a rocket depends on the ability to
focus a large number of lasers using phase shifts. Phase shifting and
phase locking is fairly well established in lasers. The technology of
a phase conjugate mirror is also fairly well established.

Can NASA do it? You should not simply say you have lost faith. If they
are given funding they will do it. As William Mook points out this is
related to other technologies like SSP.

Question :- Is the power source on the ground or in space? suspect
that lasers from the ground are optimal in going to LEO and that
microwaves generated in space are optimal for deep space. A deep space
craft will have a flimsy parabolic reflector and a plasma thruster as
its propulsive system.

Question is NASA the organization to do this? This depends on what
instructions it receives from on high. I certainly don't think someone
like Richard Bransom has any inkling of how to do it. NASA/ESA/
Glavkosmos are the experts. I don't think there is any real doubt
about that. Where else would you find the same level of expertise.

One quick point - starship? Within the solar system plasma will
provide thrust. To travel at c/10 to c/2 you will use the Forward
concept which is the pressure of light itself.


- Ian Parker