Re: Study: we won't have enough power for interstellar travel foranother 200 years.

[Benj]

On Feb 11, 1:38*pm, Robert Clark > wrote:
> *Just saw this:
>
> We Won't Have Enough Power For Interstellar Travel Until At Least
> 2211, According to New Calculations.
> On the bright side, that's sooner than others suggest.
> By Rebecca Boyle Posted 01.07.2011 at 5:00 pmhttp://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/interstellar-travel-won...
>
> Interstellar Travel Not Possible Before 2200AD, Suggests Study.
> A new estimate of the amount of energy needed to visit the stars
> suggests we won't have enough for at least another two centuries.
> kfc 01/07/2011http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26234/?ref=rss
>
> The study first estimates how much energy it will take for such a
> mission. Then it estimates how much energy we would be willing to
> invest in such a mission based on how much energy the space shuttle
> takes up from our total world-wide energy usage.
> Finally it estimates how long, based on the rate of increase of our
> global energy usage, it would take to get to the needed amount of
> energy expenditure.
>
> * Bob Clark

So Bob,
Do you believe this bull****? This is just the kind of article that
is SO embarrassing to real science. It's always a hoot to go read some
prophesy from some scientific "experts" about what is or is not
possible in the future. Cripes. Even Bill Gates (the smartest man in
the universe) didn't manage to guess the internet was a big thing.

Here's the deal. Anyone who says that this or that is "impossible" or
in this case "Impossible for 200 years" is doing something that is the
mathematical equivalent of saying "I'm a moron!".

Nothing more needs to be said.

[william.mook@mokenergy.com]

On Mar 4, 1:52*am, Benj > wrote:
> On Feb 11, 1:38*pm, Robert Clark > wrote:
>
>
>
> > *Just saw this:
>
> > We Won't Have Enough Power For Interstellar Travel Until At Least
> > 2211, According to New Calculations.
> > On the bright side, that's sooner than others suggest.
> > By Rebecca Boyle Posted 01.07.2011 at 5:00 pmhttp://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/interstellar-travel-won...
>
> > Interstellar Travel Not Possible Before 2200AD, Suggests Study.
> > A new estimate of the amount of energy needed to visit the stars
> > suggests we won't have enough for at least another two centuries.
> > kfc 01/07/2011http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26234/?ref=rss
>
> > The study first estimates how much energy it will take for such a
> > mission. Then it estimates how much energy we would be willing to
> > invest in such a mission based on how much energy the space shuttle
> > takes up from our total world-wide energy usage.
> > Finally it estimates how long, based on the rate of increase of our
> > global energy usage, it would take to get to the needed amount of
> > energy expenditure.
>
> > * Bob Clark
>
> So Bob,
> Do you believe this bull****? *This is just the kind of article that
> is SO embarrassing to real science. It's always a hoot to go read some
> prophesy from some scientific "experts" about what is or is not
> possible in the future. Cripes. Even Bill Gates (the smartest man in
> the universe) didn't manage to guess the internet was a big thing.
>
> Here's the deal. Anyone who says that this or that is "impossible" or
> in this case "Impossible for 200 years" is doing something that is the
> mathematical equivalent of saying "I'm a moron!".
>
> Nothing more needs to be said.

If we elect to spend 10x as much per year on space travel as we
currently spend, and we elect to spend 10x as much per kg as we
currently spend to put things into orbit, then within 15 years we
would have the capability to send over 100 metric tons to the stars
each year, and within 50 years we would have detailed maps of hundreds
of nearby star systems.

Given that humanity over the past 50 years has spent over $20 TRILLION
on warfare and nuclear weapons systems and military hardware - that
resulted in the loss of life of over 100 million people - and that we
are currently spending $10 TRILLION to bail out zombie banks that have
made very bad decisions. - spending $0.15 trillion to establish an
interesting space travel capability that would radically alter our
understanding of the cosmos - seems like a good bet.

Here's how its done;

A collector made of 625 million 200 mm diameter hexagon 'wafers' that
have an array of MEMS devices on them to collect sunlight on one side
of them and emit 40% of the energy as collimated laser light on the
other - form a disk some 10 km in diameter.

We're talking about the focal point of this system

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

Multiplied many many times.

At $100 per wafer (in this quantity) the system costs $62.5 billion.
At 24 grams per wafer this is 15,000 metric tons - and it takes 25
launches of a vehicle this size

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

Which costs another $12.5 billion - including construction costs.

A total of $75 billion.

This system produces 88,000 GW of power (5x the energy use of
humanity) when orbiting 3.5 million km from the Sun. It is made up of
625 million units that self assemble into a single device and emit
this vast amount of energy across an emitter 10 km in diameter at 0.27
um wavelength. (270 nm) using Free Electron Laser technology. The
emitter acts as a single optical element.

A beam 10 km in diameter formed with a 0.27 um wavelength can form an
Airy disk 3,261 km in diameter 660 AU from Sol.

That is, two 10 km diameter disks like this can efficiently transmit
power between them deep into the Kuiper Belt.

This will cost another $75 billion for the second satellite - we place
the second satellite at this tremendous distance by using the energy
of the first satellite to power a propulsion system that's built into
it.

We're now at $150 billion.

At 550 AU or greater, the gravity of the Sun operates as a lens.

http://www.csa.mtu.edu/courses/presentations/ftaclas.htm

The diameter of the Sun's gravity lens exceeds the diameter of Pluto's
orbit! Using the most efficient section, we have a lens some 100 AU
across. A 0.27 um beam collimated by a 100 AU diameter emitter -
sourced from a 10 km diameter 'point' - forms an Airy disk 5.1 meters
across 30,000 LIGHT YEARS from Earth (the distance from Sol to Sag A*)
- a disk 25.3 m across 150,000 light years from Earth.

We can also build sensors and communications gear at this distance and
power it to any level we like - to survey and communicate with distant
points in the galaxy.


So, an investment of $150 billion - makes this pair of satellites with
these capabilities.

Using a pair of satellites like that just described, we can deliver 88
TW to a 5 meter spot anywhere within a distance of 30,000 light years!

If the Ergosphere of a spinning black hole operates like some people
believe, we can send signals and energy across the cosmos and through
time giving us further capabilities if properly understood and
exploited.

But let's not worry about that speculative leap for a moment. Lets
stick to the basics.

88 trillion watts of laser energy when reflected off a very highly
efficient mirror produces about 60 metric tons of thrust. Applying
this over a four month period to a 60 ton probe - covered with super
reflectors - creating photonic lift surfaces - attains a speed of 1/3
that of light. This puts alpha centauri within 12.9 years travel time
(12.8 years ship time) with an added 0.6 years acceleration time at
either end if it is slowed somehow at the same acceleration.

So, with this system we can send 180 metric tons of payloads at 1/3
light speed to fly by any point in the cosmos. We can communicate
with them, and power them remotely - as well as propel them remotely.

There are a few ways to slow them.

(1) Release a reflective light sail to bounce back the propulsive beam
to focus on the primary to slow it down. (this reduces the mass placed
remotely) and leaves a light sail hurtling through space at 2/3 light
speed.

(2) Deploy antennae and charge them to cause the spacecraft to circle
around in the galaxy's magnetic field and when its momentum is pointed
back toward Sol, slow it by direct beam action. (this doubles or
triples trip lengths)

(3) Orbit close to intense gravity fields (neutron stars and black
holes) to cause the spacecraft to point toward Earth and slow it when
its velocity vector is pointed toward Sol.

(4) Orbit close to a pair of intense gravity fields and use gravity
interaction to slow (and later send back) the probe.

(5) Erect a laser propulsion system at the target star and use it to
slow incoming spacecraft and accelerate departing spacecraft.

Here's the closest Neutron Star Binary I could find;

Star: J0437-4715

RA: 04h37m15.786514s

Dec: -47°15'08.46158"

Distance: 460

Mass: 1.35x Solar
Mass: 0.16x Solar

Period: 5.74104 days
Eccentricity: 0.00001919
Semi-major Axis 11,000,000 km

Their relative speed is 139 km/sec. Not high when compared to 100,000
km/sec, but a close flyby of the two if done smartly can put a high
speed probe into orbit around them.

It would take 1,380 years to get there at 1/3 light speed! :(

As mentioned earlier the amount of material this system can send out
of the solar system is 180 metric tons per year - if they are all fly
by. 90 metric tons per year if they spend the same time slowing at
remote locations as they spend departing Sol. 45 metric tons per year
if they fly out stop, come back and stop.

The cost of a $150 billion setup - is $7.56 billion per year if it
lasts 100 years and capital costs are discounted at 5% - and it is
fully automated like many satellite systems today. This translates to

180 tonnes $42,000 per kg - fly by
90 tonnes $84,000 per kg - orbit
45 tonnes $168,000 per kg - return

[Robert Clark]

On Mar 4, 1:52*am, Benj > wrote:
> On Feb 11, 1:38*pm, Robert Clark > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > *Just saw this:
>
> > We Won't Have Enough Power For Interstellar Travel Until At Least
> > 2211, According to New Calculations.
> > On the bright side, that's sooner than others suggest.
> > By Rebecca Boyle Posted 01.07.2011 at 5:00 pmhttp://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/interstellar-travel-won...
>
> > Interstellar Travel Not Possible Before 2200AD, Suggests Study.
> > A new estimate of the amount of energy needed to visit the stars
> > suggests we won't have enough for at least another two centuries.
> > kfc 01/07/2011http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26234/?ref=rss
>
> > The study first estimates how much energy it will take for such a
> > mission. Then it estimates how much energy we would be willing to
> > invest in such a mission based on how much energy the space shuttle
> > takes up from our total world-wide energy usage.
> > Finally it estimates how long, based on the rate of increase of our
> > global energy usage, it would take to get to the needed amount of
> > energy expenditure.
>
> > * Bob Clark
>
> So Bob,
> Do you believe this bull****? *This is just the kind of article that
> is SO embarrassing to real science. It's always a hoot to go read some
> prophesy from some scientific "experts" about what is or is not
> possible in the future. Cripes. Even Bill Gates (the smartest man in
> the universe) didn't manage to guess the internet was a big thing.
>
> Here's the deal. Anyone who says that this or that is "impossible" or
> in this case "Impossible for 200 years" is doing something that is the
> mathematical equivalent of saying "I'm a moron!".
>
> Nothing more needs to be said.


I've been an admirer of the author of this study Marc Millis ever
since he headed NASA's Breakthrough Propulsion Physics program. Millis
founded also the Tau Zero Foundation, which works to promote the idea
of interstellar travel. He also served as the co-editor of a book
which collected some of the research on the types of propulsion
methods that could serve for interstellar travel:

Frontiers of Propulsion Science.
Marc G. Millis, NASA Glenn Research Center
Eric W. Davis, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin
Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics Series, 227
Published by AIAA, © 2009, 740 pages, Hardback
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=360&id=1743

My background is in pure mathematics. I'm impressed that you can
tease out such an interesting conclusion, based on certain premises,
from the information we know now. I'm also impressed by Millis's
mathematical focus in deriving this conclusion and in his focus in
general of thinking outside the box. My thinking is that we need
scientists like that, both in NASA and in industry, to make the next
step to making space travel a routine occurrence.
I'm quite sure Millis is aware that it's hard to predict when future
breakthroughs will occur. Such breakthroughs in energy production,
which for all we know could occur tomorrow, could make interstellar
travel feasible in a much shorter time frame.


Bob Clark

[william.mook@mokenergy.com]

On Mar 4, 6:43*am, wrote:
> On Mar 4, 1:52*am, Benj > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 1:38*pm, Robert Clark > wrote:
>
> > > *Just saw this:
>
> > > We Won't Have Enough Power For Interstellar Travel Until At Least
> > > 2211, According to New Calculations.
> > > On the bright side, that's sooner than others suggest.
> > > By Rebecca Boyle Posted 01.07.2011 at 5:00 pmhttp://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/interstellar-travel-won...
>
> > > Interstellar Travel Not Possible Before 2200AD, Suggests Study.
> > > A new estimate of the amount of energy needed to visit the stars
> > > suggests we won't have enough for at least another two centuries.
> > > kfc 01/07/2011http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26234/?ref=rss
>
> > > The study first estimates how much energy it will take for such a
> > > mission. Then it estimates how much energy we would be willing to
> > > invest in such a mission based on how much energy the space shuttle
> > > takes up from our total world-wide energy usage.
> > > Finally it estimates how long, based on the rate of increase of our
> > > global energy usage, it would take to get to the needed amount of
> > > energy expenditure.
>
> > > * Bob Clark
>
> > So Bob,
> > Do you believe this bull****? *This is just the kind of article that
> > is SO embarrassing to real science. It's always a hoot to go read some
> > prophesy from some scientific "experts" about what is or is not
> > possible in the future. Cripes. Even Bill Gates (the smartest man in
> > the universe) didn't manage to guess the internet was a big thing.
>
> > Here's the deal. Anyone who says that this or that is "impossible" or
> > in this case "Impossible for 200 years" is doing something that is the
> > mathematical equivalent of saying "I'm a moron!".
>
> > Nothing more needs to be said.
>
> If we elect to spend 10x as much per year on space travel as we
> currently spend, and we elect to spend 10x as much per kg as we
> currently spend to put things into orbit, then within 15 years we
> would have the capability to send over 100 metric tons to the stars
> each year, and within 50 years we would have detailed maps of hundreds
> of nearby star systems.
>
> Given that humanity over the past 50 years has spent over $20 TRILLION
> on warfare and nuclear weapons systems and military hardware - that
> resulted in the loss of life of over 100 million people - and that we
> are currently spending $10 TRILLION to bail out zombie banks that have
> made very bad decisions. - spending $0.15 trillion to establish an
> interesting space travel capability that would radically alter our
> understanding of the cosmos - seems like a good bet.
>
> Here's how its done;
>
> A collector made of 625 million 200 mm diameter hexagon 'wafers' that
> have an array of MEMS devices on them to collect sunlight on one side
> of them and emit 40% of the energy as collimated laser light on the
> other - form a disk some 10 km in diameter.
>
> We're talking about the focal point of this system
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/Solar-Power-Satellite-GEO
>
> Multiplied many many times.
>
> At $100 per wafer (in this quantity) the system costs $62.5 billion.
> At 24 grams per wafer this is 15,000 metric tons - and it takes 25
> launches of a vehicle this size
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum
>
> Which costs another $12.5 billion - including construction costs.
>
> A total of $75 billion.
>
> This system produces 88,000 GW of power (5x the energy use of
> humanity) when orbiting 3.5 million km from the Sun. *It is made up of
> 625 million units that self assemble into a single device and emit
> this vast amount of energy across an emitter 10 km in diameter at 0.27
> um wavelength. *(270 nm) using Free Electron Laser technology. *The
> emitter acts as a single optical element.
>
> A beam 10 km in diameter formed with a 0.27 um wavelength can form an
> Airy disk 3,261 km in diameter 660 AU from Sol.
>
> That is, two 10 km diameter disks like this can efficiently transmit
> power between them deep into the Kuiper Belt.
>
> This will cost another $75 billion for the second satellite - we place
> the second satellite at this tremendous distance by using the energy
> of the first satellite to power a propulsion system that's built into
> it.
>
> We're now at $150 billion.
>
> At 550 AU or greater, the gravity of the Sun operates as a lens.
>
> http://www.csa.mtu.edu/courses/presentations/ftaclas.htm
>
> The diameter of the Sun's gravity lens exceeds the diameter of Pluto's
> orbit! *Using the most efficient section, we have a lens some 100 AU
> across. *A 0.27 um beam collimated by a 100 AU diameter emitter -
> sourced from a 10 km diameter 'point' - forms an Airy disk 5.1 meters
> across 30,000 LIGHT YEARS from Earth (the distance from Sol to Sag A*)
> - a disk 25.3 m across 150,000 light years from Earth.
>
> We can also build sensors and communications gear at this distance and
> power it to any level we like - to survey and communicate with distant
> points in the galaxy.
>
> So, an investment of $150 billion - makes this pair of satellites with
> these capabilities.
>
> Using a pair of satellites like that just described, we can deliver 88
> TW to a 5 meter spot anywhere within a distance of 30,000 light years!
>
> If the Ergosphere of a spinning black hole operates like some people
> believe, we can send signals and energy across the cosmos and through
> time giving us further capabilities if properly understood and
> exploited.
>
> But let's not worry about that speculative leap for a moment. *Lets
> stick to the basics.
>
> 88 trillion watts of laser energy when reflected off a very highly
> efficient mirror produces about 60 metric tons of thrust. * Applying
> this over a four month period to a 60 ton probe - covered with super
> reflectors - creating photonic lift surfaces - attains a speed of 1/3
> that of light. *This puts alpha centauri within 12.9 years travel time
> (12.8 years ship time) with an added 0.6 years acceleration time at
> either end if it is slowed somehow at the same acceleration.
>
> So, with this system we can send 180 metric tons of payloads at 1/3
> light speed to fly by any point in the cosmos. *We can communicate
> with them, and power them remotely - as well as propel them remotely.
>
> There are a few ways to slow them.
>
> (1) Release a reflective light sail to bounce back the propulsive beam
> to focus on the primary to slow it down. (this reduces the mass placed
> remotely) and leaves a light sail hurtling through space at 2/3 light
> speed.
>
> (2) Deploy antennae and charge them to cause the spacecraft to circle
> around in the galaxy's magnetic field and when its momentum is pointed
> back toward Sol, slow it by direct beam action. (this doubles or
> triples trip lengths)
>
> (3) Orbit close to intense gravity fields (neutron stars and black
> holes) to cause the spacecraft to point toward Earth and slow it when
> its velocity vector is pointed toward Sol.
>
> (4) Orbit close to a pair of intense gravity fields and use gravity
> interaction to slow (and later send back) the probe.
>
> (5) Erect a laser propulsion system at the target star and use it to
> slow incoming spacecraft and accelerate departing spacecraft.
>
> Here's the closest Neutron Star Binary I could find;
>
> Star: J0437-4715
>
> RA: 04h37m15.786514s
>
> Dec: -47°15'08.46158"
>
> Distance: 460
>
> Mass: 1.35x Solar
> Mass: 0.16x Solar
>
> Period: 5.74104 days
> Eccentricity: 0.00001919
> Semi-major Axis 11,000,000 km
>
> Their relative speed is 139 km/sec. *Not high when compared to 100,000
> km/sec, but a close flyby of the two if done smartly can put a high
> speed probe into orbit around them.
>
> It would take 1,380 years to get there at 1/3 light speed! *:(
>
> As mentioned earlier the amount of material this system can send out
> of the solar system is 180 metric tons per year - if they are all fly
> by. *90 metric tons per year if they spend the same time slowing at
> remote locations as they spend departing Sol. *45 metric tons per year
> if they fly out stop, come back and stop.
>
> The cost of a $150 billion setup - is $7.56 billion per year if it
> lasts 100 years and capital costs are discounted at 5% - and it is
> fully automated like many satellite systems today. *This translates to
>
> * * *180 tonnes * *$42,000 per kg - fly by
> * * * *90 tonnes * *$84,000 per kg - orbit
> * * * *45 tonnes *$168,000 per kg - return

If we use the ergosphere of Sag A* to send signals through time we can
communicate 'live' with a probe as it flies by a star 1,400 years in
the future.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_black_hole#The_possibility_of_time_travel

We might also send powerful beams around Sag A* to cause the light
beam to come back toward a probe we send out in the same direction.
Combination time signaling and sending energy through space and time -
would give us a means to slow distant probes thousands of years in the
future *today* and communicate 'real time' with them. This would
allow remotely operated robots to driven around distant stars - 'real
time'

[Brad Guth[_3_]]

On Mar 4, 3:59*am, wrote:
> On Mar 4, 6:43*am, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 1:52*am, Benj > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 11, 1:38*pm, Robert Clark > wrote:
>
> > > > *Just saw this:
>
> > > > We Won't Have Enough Power For Interstellar Travel Until At Least
> > > > 2211, According to New Calculations.
> > > > On the bright side, that's sooner than others suggest.
> > > > By Rebecca Boyle Posted 01.07.2011 at 5:00 pmhttp://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/interstellar-travel-won...
>
> > > > Interstellar Travel Not Possible Before 2200AD, Suggests Study.
> > > > A new estimate of the amount of energy needed to visit the stars
> > > > suggests we won't have enough for at least another two centuries.
> > > > kfc 01/07/2011http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26234/?ref=rss
>
> > > > The study first estimates how much energy it will take for such a
> > > > mission. Then it estimates how much energy we would be willing to
> > > > invest in such a mission based on how much energy the space shuttle
> > > > takes up from our total world-wide energy usage.
> > > > Finally it estimates how long, based on the rate of increase of our
> > > > global energy usage, it would take to get to the needed amount of
> > > > energy expenditure.
>
> > > > * Bob Clark
>
> > > So Bob,
> > > Do you believe this bull****? *This is just the kind of article that
> > > is SO embarrassing to real science. It's always a hoot to go read some
> > > prophesy from some scientific "experts" about what is or is not
> > > possible in the future. Cripes. Even Bill Gates (the smartest man in
> > > the universe) didn't manage to guess the internet was a big thing.
>
> > > Here's the deal. Anyone who says that this or that is "impossible" or
> > > in this case "Impossible for 200 years" is doing something that is the
> > > mathematical equivalent of saying "I'm a moron!".
>
> > > Nothing more needs to be said.
>
> > If we elect to spend 10x as much per year on space travel as we
> > currently spend, and we elect to spend 10x as much per kg as we
> > currently spend to put things into orbit, then within 15 years we
> > would have the capability to send over 100 metric tons to the stars
> > each year, and within 50 years we would have detailed maps of hundreds
> > of nearby star systems.
>
> > Given that humanity over the past 50 years has spent over $20 TRILLION
> > on warfare and nuclear weapons systems and military hardware - that
> > resulted in the loss of life of over 100 million people - and that we
> > are currently spending $10 TRILLION to bail out zombie banks that have
> > made very bad decisions. - spending $0.15 trillion to establish an
> > interesting space travel capability that would radically alter our
> > understanding of the cosmos - seems like a good bet.
>
> > Here's how its done;
>
> > A collector made of 625 million 200 mm diameter hexagon 'wafers' that
> > have an array of MEMS devices on them to collect sunlight on one side
> > of them and emit 40% of the energy as collimated laser light on the
> > other - form a disk some 10 km in diameter.
>
> > We're talking about the focal point of this system
>
> >http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/Solar-Power-Satellite-GEO
>
> > Multiplied many many times.
>
> > At $100 per wafer (in this quantity) the system costs $62.5 billion.
> > At 24 grams per wafer this is 15,000 metric tons - and it takes 25
> > launches of a vehicle this size
>
> >http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum
>
> > Which costs another $12.5 billion - including construction costs.
>
> > A total of $75 billion.
>
> > This system produces 88,000 GW of power (5x the energy use of
> > humanity) when orbiting 3.5 million km from the Sun. *It is made up of
> > 625 million units that self assemble into a single device and emit
> > this vast amount of energy across an emitter 10 km in diameter at 0.27
> > um wavelength. *(270 nm) using Free Electron Laser technology. *The
> > emitter acts as a single optical element.
>
> > A beam 10 km in diameter formed with a 0.27 um wavelength can form an
> > Airy disk 3,261 km in diameter 660 AU from Sol.
>
> > That is, two 10 km diameter disks like this can efficiently transmit
> > power between them deep into the Kuiper Belt.
>
> > This will cost another $75 billion for the second satellite - we place
> > the second satellite at this tremendous distance by using the energy
> > of the first satellite to power a propulsion system that's built into
> > it.
>
> > We're now at $150 billion.
>
> > At 550 AU or greater, the gravity of the Sun operates as a lens.
>
> >http://www.csa.mtu.edu/courses/presentations/ftaclas.htm
>
> > The diameter of the Sun's gravity lens exceeds the diameter of Pluto's
> > orbit! *Using the most efficient section, we have a lens some 100 AU
> > across. *A 0.27 um beam collimated by a 100 AU diameter emitter -
> > sourced from a 10 km diameter 'point' - forms an Airy disk 5.1 meters
> > across 30,000 LIGHT YEARS from Earth (the distance from Sol to Sag A*)
> > - a disk 25.3 m across 150,000 light years from Earth.
>
> > We can also build sensors and communications gear at this distance and
> > power it to any level we like - to survey and communicate with distant
> > points in the galaxy.
>
> > So, an investment of $150 billion - makes this pair of satellites with
> > these capabilities.
>
> > Using a pair of satellites like that just described, we can deliver 88
> > TW to a 5 meter spot anywhere within a distance of 30,000 light years!
>
> > If the Ergosphere of a spinning black hole operates like some people
> > believe, we can send signals and energy across the cosmos and through
> > time giving us further capabilities if properly understood and
> > exploited.
>
> > But let's not worry about that speculative leap for a moment. *Lets
> > stick to the basics.
>
> > 88 trillion watts of laser energy when reflected off a very highly
> > efficient mirror produces about 60 metric tons of thrust. * Applying
> > this over a four month period to a 60 ton probe - covered with super
> > reflectors - creating photonic lift surfaces - attains a speed of 1/3
> > that of light. *This puts alpha centauri within 12.9 years travel time
> > (12.8 years ship time) with an added 0.6 years acceleration time at
> > either end if it is slowed somehow at the same acceleration.
>
> > So, with this system we can send 180 metric tons of payloads at 1/3
> > light speed to fly by any point in the cosmos. *We can communicate
> > with them, and power them remotely - as well as propel them remotely.
>
> > There are a few ways to slow them.
>
> > (1) Release a reflective light sail to bounce back the propulsive beam
> > to focus on the primary to slow it down. (this reduces the mass placed
> > remotely) and leaves a light sail hurtling through space at 2/3 light
> > speed.
>
> > (2) Deploy antennae and charge them to cause the spacecraft to circle
> > around in the galaxy's magnetic field and when its momentum is pointed
> > back toward Sol, slow it by direct beam action. (this doubles or
> > triples trip lengths)
>
> > (3) Orbit close to intense gravity fields (neutron stars and black
> > holes) to cause the spacecraft to point toward Earth and slow it when
> > its velocity vector is pointed toward Sol.
>
> > (4) Orbit close to a pair of intense gravity fields and use gravity
> > interaction to slow (and later send back) the probe.
>
> > (5) Erect a laser propulsion system at the target star and use it to
> > slow incoming spacecraft and accelerate departing spacecraft.
>
> > Here's the closest Neutron Star Binary I could find;
>
> > Star: J0437-4715
>
> > RA: 04h37m15.786514s
>
> > Dec: -47°15'08.46158"
>
> > Distance: 460
>
> > Mass: 1.35x Solar
> > Mass: 0.16x Solar
>
> > Period: 5.74104 days
> > Eccentricity: 0.00001919
> > Semi-major Axis 11,000,000 km
>
> > Their relative speed is 139 km/sec. *Not high when compared to 100,000
> > km/sec, but a close flyby of the two if done smartly can put a high
> > speed probe into orbit around them.
>
> > It would take 1,380 years to get there at 1/3 light speed! *:(
>
> > As mentioned earlier the amount of material this system can send out
> > of the solar system is 180 metric tons per year - if they are all fly
> > by. *90 metric tons per year if they spend the same time slowing at
> > remote locations as they spend departing Sol. *45 metric tons per year
> > if they fly out stop, come back and stop.
>
> > The cost of a $150 billion setup - is $7.56 billion per year if it
> > lasts 100 years and capital costs are discounted at 5% - and it is
> > fully automated like many satellite systems today. *This translates to
>
> > * * *180 tonnes * *$42,000 per kg - fly by
> > * * * *90 tonnes * *$84,000 per kg - orbit
> > * * * *45 tonnes *$168,000 per kg - return
>
> If we use the ergosphere of Sag A* to send signals through time we can
> communicate 'live' with a probe as it flies by a star 1,400 years in
> the future.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_black_hole#The_possibility_of_t...
>
> We might also send powerful beams around Sag A* to cause the light
> beam to come back toward a probe we send out in the same direction.
> Combination time signaling and sending energy through space and time -
> would give us a means to slow distant probes thousands of years in the
> future *today* and communicate 'real time' with them. *This would
> allow remotely operated robots to driven around distant stars - 'real
> time'

Focus on terrestrial energy, and do it right now, or forever give it a
rest. Do the basics first, becoming that trillionaire that you claim.

You can't possibly be the all-knowing expert about everything, which
is not saying that every idea or interpretation of yours is wrong.
However, if you can't deliver your $100/tonne of hydrogen, then what
else about William Mook or Mokenergy should we pay any attention to?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

[Robert Clark]

On Mar 4, 6:43*am, wrote:

> > On Feb 11, 1:38*pm, Robert Clark > wrote:
> > > *Just saw this:
>
> > > We Won't Have Enough Power For Interstellar Travel Until At Least
> > > 2211, According to New Calculations.
> > > On the bright side, that's sooner than others suggest.
> > > By Rebecca Boyle Posted 01.07.2011 at 5:00 pmhttp://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/interstellar-travel-won...
>
> > > Interstellar Travel Not Possible Before 2200AD, Suggests Study.
> > > A new estimate of the amount of energy needed to visit the stars
> > > suggests we won't have enough for at least another two centuries.
> > > kfc 01/07/2011http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26234/?ref=rss

>
> If we elect to spend 10x as much per year on space travel as we
> currently spend, and we elect to spend 10x as much per kg as we
> currently spend to put things into orbit, then within 15 years we
> would have the capability to send over 100 metric tons to the stars
> each year, and within 50 years we would have detailed maps of hundreds
> of nearby star systems.
>
> Given that humanity over the past 50 years has spent over $20 TRILLION
> on warfare and nuclear weapons systems and military hardware - that
> resulted in the loss of life of over 100 million people - and that we
> are currently spending $10 TRILLION to bail out zombie banks that have
> made very bad decisions. - spending $0.15 trillion to establish an
> interesting space travel capability that would radically alter our
> understanding of the cosmos - seems like a good bet.
>
> Here's how its done;
>
> A collector made of 625 million 200 mm diameter hexagon 'wafers' that
> have an array of MEMS devices on them to collect sunlight on one side
> of them and emit 40% of the energy as collimated laser light on the
> other - form a disk some 10 km in diameter.
>
> We're talking about the focal point of this system
>
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/Solar-Power-Satellite-GEO
>
> Multiplied many many times.
> ...

Mook, I haven't read your calculations in detail. But I can tell you
spent a great deal of time on the mathematics and in looking up
references. Based on that alone, I would suggest you submit your ideas
for publication to a peer reviewed journal. That's the best way to
have your suggestions to be taken seriously.
I recommend the journal Acta Astronautica. They seem to be more open
to speculative proposals for space travel. See for instance the
articles in the current issue of April-May 2011:

Acta Astronautica.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00945765

Probably the most highly regarded journal in the field is:

Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets.
http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=322&lupubid=25

but they seem to have a more restrictive policy about the types of
articles they'll publish.
As a prelude to this, you could also write up your proposals in
publishable form and put them on the arxiv.org archive. That would
allow someone interested in the topics you're writing on to do a
search for them on the archive:

http://arxiv.org/find

However, you should first check with the journals you plan on
submitting to. Some of them have policies about their articles
appearing beforehand freely available on internet archives.

Bob Clark

[william.mook@mokenergy.com]

On Mar 4, 11:15*am, Robert Clark > wrote:
> On Mar 4, 6:43*am, wrote:
>
>
>
> > > On Feb 11, 1:38*pm, Robert Clark > wrote:
> > > > *Just saw this:
>
> > > > We Won't Have Enough Power For Interstellar Travel Until At Least
> > > > 2211, According to New Calculations.
> > > > On the bright side, that's sooner than others suggest.
> > > > By Rebecca Boyle Posted 01.07.2011 at 5:00 pmhttp://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/interstellar-travel-won...
>
> > > > Interstellar Travel Not Possible Before 2200AD, Suggests Study.
> > > > A new estimate of the amount of energy needed to visit the stars
> > > > suggests we won't have enough for at least another two centuries.
> > > > kfc 01/07/2011http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26234/?ref=rss
>
> > If we elect to spend 10x as much per year on space travel as we
> > currently spend, and we elect to spend 10x as much per kg as we
> > currently spend to put things into orbit, then within 15 years we
> > would have the capability to send over 100 metric tons to the stars
> > each year, and within 50 years we would have detailed maps of hundreds
> > of nearby star systems.
>
> > Given that humanity over the past 50 years has spent over $20 TRILLION
> > on warfare and nuclear weapons systems and military hardware - that
> > resulted in the loss of life of over 100 million people - and that we
> > are currently spending $10 TRILLION to bail out zombie banks that have
> > made very bad decisions. - spending $0.15 trillion to establish an
> > interesting space travel capability that would radically alter our
> > understanding of the cosmos - seems like a good bet.
>
> > Here's how its done;
>
> > A collector made of 625 million 200 mm diameter hexagon 'wafers' that
> > have an array of MEMS devices on them to collect sunlight on one side
> > of them and emit 40% of the energy as collimated laser light on the
> > other - form a disk some 10 km in diameter.
>
> > We're talking about the focal point of this system
>
> >http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/Solar-Power-Satellite-GEO
>
> > Multiplied many many times.
> > ...
>
> *Mook, I haven't read your calculations in detail. But I can tell you
> spent a great deal of time on the mathematics and in looking up
> references. Based on that alone, I would suggest you submit your ideas
> for publication to a peer reviewed journal. That's the best way to
> have your suggestions to be taken seriously.
> *I recommend the journal Acta Astronautica. They seem to be more open
> to speculative proposals for space travel. See for instance the
> articles in the current issue of April-May 2011:
>
> Acta Astronautica.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00945765
>
> *Probably the most highly regarded journal in the field is:
>
> Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets.http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=322&lupubid=25
>
> but they seem to have a more restrictive policy about the types of
> articles they'll publish.
> *As a prelude to this, you could also write up your proposals in
> publishable form and put them on the arxiv.org archive. That would
> allow someone interested in the topics you're writing on to do a
> search for them on the archive:
>
> http://arxiv.org/find
>
> *However, you should first check with the journals you plan on
> submitting to. Some of them have policies about their articles
> appearing beforehand freely available on internet archives.
>
> * *Bob Clark

Bob,

Thank you for the encouraging words. What I have written here is a
general outline. There are sufficient details that I have omitted in
this venue to make publication possible in some of the journals you
mention. I am a member of AIAA so I am aware of the journals you
mention. All I can say is I will look into it.

Cheers
William

[william.mook@mokenergy.com]

PLACING THE STATION IN THE OORT CLOUD

An 88 TW beam efficiently used to propel a receiver or beam reforming
unit to 550 AU and beyond will be placed there in 2 years - less time
than it took for the Sun orbiting transmitter section to be put in
place at 3.5 million km from the Sun via its encounter with Jupiter.

Accelerating a 15,000 ton assembly with an advanced laser plasma
rocket that has an exhaust velocity of 11,800 km/sec using the 88 TW
power source produces 1/100th gee on the system. At half-way point
275 AU from the Sun, 335 days 18 hours after departure, the vehicle is
traveling at 2,843 km/sec. Reversing its thrusters the vehicle then
slows to the desired velocity 1 year 10 months and 2 days after
departure - where the system is ready for deployment. 38.23% of the
total vehicle weight at departure is ion propellant.

Starting with a 15,000 ton payload requires an added 9,287 tons of
propellant prior to departure- more when propellant tank fractions are
added, but not much more. At least an added 16 heavy lift launches at
a cost of $54 billion using the chemical launchers described earlier
and $3 billion nominal cost per launch. A standardized 'drop tank'
reduces these costs by half to $27 billion.

Since the construction of the first sun orbiting section entailed
building a supply chain for these devices, it is expected significant
learning curve effect will allow reduction of the cost of construction
of the second satellite from $75 billion to $55 billion. This nearly
covers this cost. So, costs of the entire program - assuming no
significant improvement in launcher technology over the period - will
be done for $152 billion.

Once the two systems are operational, I suggest that the availability
to beam abundant photons in a controlled way around space be used to
improve underlying rocket technology. For example, an 880 GW beam (1%
of the total) operating a rocket with 1,000 km/sec exhaust speed
producing 179.5 metric tons of thrust (400,000 lbs). Such a rocket
launched from Earth executes a 1 gee trek to the moon in 3 hours while
carrying only 10.3% propellant fraction.

Allowing 20% structure fraction which is typical of aircraft
construction - 2/3 of the take off weight, is payload. Allowing 2.5
gees at take off - falling off with distance to 1.0 gees during
transit - implies a 71.8 metric ton vehicle carrying 47.8 ton
payload. A single ship operating three times per day between Earth
and Moon could shuttle over 143 metric tons per day between worlds.

By reducing the interstellar probe mass from 60 tonnes to say 20
tonnes, allows 60 of these ships to operate continuously throughout
the solar system. With a reasonable down time between operations -
something like a fleet of 210 are supported. An added benefit of the
program described. A fleet of 200 ships operating between Earth Moon
allows 28,600 tonnes per day - enough to support a colony of 5 million
people - even if there is no local production. A nation larger than
New Zealand or Switzerland.

Of course, operating a fleet of only 84 ships allows us to provide 20
TW for direct beaming to Earth - to support Earth industry without
burning fossil fuels or using any form of fuel on Earth. 84 ships
this size would change our relation to the solar system, while many
probes sent to the nearby stars, and the big brother of Hubble deep
within the Oort Cloud changed our relationship to the cosmos.

Of course an 8 year $160 billion program on top of what we spend on
space today would not and should not end after we complete the systems
described. The sale of power to distribution grids on Earth - a
remnant of today's energy companies - provides a means to lower energy
costs, increase wealth for all and increase spending to reach even
deeper in the cosmos.


That means every 8 years for less and less money, $120 billion for the
second pair, $90 billion for the third pair, $70 billion for the
fourth pair - our ability to move in space beyond Earth, beyond the
Sun increases. This assuming no change in the underlying technologies
described here. Of course, strong AI, self-replicating nano-
technology, and a whole host of fundamentally more advanced
technologies reduce these costs further.

With these added power systems on orbit we add new capabilities.
Large launchers to place solar powered factories on orbit. 45 TW of
laser driven ion rockets to bring all the materials humanity now uses
to Earth orbit from Ceres and other locations in the asteroid belt.

But my point is clear. We don't have to wait for these more advanced
technologies to do something today. We can move today to transform
our relationship to the cosmos, and make use of extraterrestrial
resources to end want on Earth in a sustainable way, while ending our
reliance on resources found within the biosphere of Earth, all by
spending about 2% of what we now spend on military adventures to
control vanishing resources here.

Another minor benefit of such an interstellar program in the early
part of the 21st century.

[william.mook@mokenergy.com]

Sedna is at present inside the focal length of the Sun's gravity
field, but will not remain there. Tyche is 10,000 AU out. Well
beyond the ranges we're considering. The Oort cloud ends around
50,000 AU.

88 TW powering a variable exhaust velocity plasma/ion system can send
reflector reformer satellites into these regions in 1 to 5 years. We
can also send probes to explore these regions as well as nearby star
systems.

[Brad Guth[_3_]]

On Mar 4, 2:14*pm, wrote:
> On Mar 4, 11:15*am, Robert Clark > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 4, 6:43*am, wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 11, 1:38*pm, Robert Clark > wrote:
> > > > > *Just saw this:
>
> > > > > We Won't Have Enough Power For Interstellar Travel Until At Least
> > > > > 2211, According to New Calculations.
> > > > > On the bright side, that's sooner than others suggest.
> > > > > By Rebecca Boyle Posted 01.07.2011 at 5:00 pmhttp://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-01/interstellar-travel-won...
>
> > > > > Interstellar Travel Not Possible Before 2200AD, Suggests Study.
> > > > > A new estimate of the amount of energy needed to visit the stars
> > > > > suggests we won't have enough for at least another two centuries.
> > > > > kfc 01/07/2011http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26234/?ref=rss
>
> > > If we elect to spend 10x as much per year on space travel as we
> > > currently spend, and we elect to spend 10x as much per kg as we
> > > currently spend to put things into orbit, then within 15 years we
> > > would have the capability to send over 100 metric tons to the stars
> > > each year, and within 50 years we would have detailed maps of hundreds
> > > of nearby star systems.
>
> > > Given that humanity over the past 50 years has spent over $20 TRILLION
> > > on warfare and nuclear weapons systems and military hardware - that
> > > resulted in the loss of life of over 100 million people - and that we
> > > are currently spending $10 TRILLION to bail out zombie banks that have
> > > made very bad decisions. - spending $0.15 trillion to establish an
> > > interesting space travel capability that would radically alter our
> > > understanding of the cosmos - seems like a good bet.
>
> > > Here's how its done;
>
> > > A collector made of 625 million 200 mm diameter hexagon 'wafers' that
> > > have an array of MEMS devices on them to collect sunlight on one side
> > > of them and emit 40% of the energy as collimated laser light on the
> > > other - form a disk some 10 km in diameter.
>
> > > We're talking about the focal point of this system
>
> > >http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/Solar-Power-Satellite-GEO
>
> > > Multiplied many many times.
> > > ...
>
> > *Mook, I haven't read your calculations in detail. But I can tell you
> > spent a great deal of time on the mathematics and in looking up
> > references. Based on that alone, I would suggest you submit your ideas
> > for publication to a peer reviewed journal. That's the best way to
> > have your suggestions to be taken seriously.
> > *I recommend the journal Acta Astronautica. They seem to be more open
> > to speculative proposals for space travel. See for instance the
> > articles in the current issue of April-May 2011:
>
> > Acta Astronautica.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00945765
>
> > *Probably the most highly regarded journal in the field is:
>
> > Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets.http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=322&lupubid=25
>
> > but they seem to have a more restrictive policy about the types of
> > articles they'll publish.
> > *As a prelude to this, you could also write up your proposals in
> > publishable form and put them on the arxiv.org archive. That would
> > allow someone interested in the topics you're writing on to do a
> > search for them on the archive:
>
> >http://arxiv.org/find
>
> > *However, you should first check with the journals you plan on
> > submitting to. Some of them have policies about their articles
> > appearing beforehand freely available on internet archives.
>
> > * *Bob Clark
>
> Bob,
>
> Thank you for the encouraging words. *What I have written here is a
> general outline. *There are sufficient details that I have omitted in
> this venue to make publication possible in some of the journals you
> mention. *I am a member of AIAA so I am aware of the journals you
> mention. *All I can say is I will look into it.
>
> Cheers
> William

At best, the USA only imported a little over 20 million barrels per
year from Libya before everything turned ugly, which is hardly a drop
in the overall Big Energy bucket that's currently making us pay more
than $4/gallon (with their summer sights set on $5/gallon). In other
words, the disruption to the US market is only shot us down by at most
a couple million barrels thus far, although I'd bet we've only missed
out on one supertanker load, because if anyone can get a supertanker
hauling a million barrels of Libyan oil safely underway, that would be
us.

I'm certain that yourself and others can add a great deal of valuable
history and current event information to this most recent topic by
Michael Moore.

"America is not broke" (w/video clip of Michael Moore’s rant)
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/america-is-not-broke
It seems our very own homegrown banking, investment and insurance
cabals of monetary terrorist have each gotten the Rothschild green
light and their stamp of approval.

Any time a government agency or their special ops and hired
mercenaries need loot and/or spendy resources, there’s never any
shortage. Just like when the rich and powerful decide to play
monopoly with public and privet loot that’s leveraged way past the
point of no return as is, there’s little if anything to fear as long
as those offshore banks and stealth investments are being kept as
covert or secret and untaxable to boot.

So, unless your God has a robust ledger of offshore accounts stuffed
with loot and other precious resources, it’s unlikely that the rich
and powerful that are above government and in charge of most
everything that counts, have anything to fear.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”