[AR] Re: 500,000 tons per year to GEO (off topic)

  • From: Rick Dickinson <rtd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 10:12:05 -0700

Just finished reading the article, and I have to say that there are a number of hidden assumptions that could easily bite them in the ass and prevent this whole scheme from working out. The risks seem pretty clear, despite the author's optimism.
First up, the idea of shooting high-power lasers at the ground from space. Call me a pessimist, but in a world where kids with little button-cell powered laser pointers on the ground present a hazard to commercial airliners, I'm having a lot of trouble seeing how Skylon or whoever would ever get approval to deliberately fire multi-GW lasers towards the earth, even if they are trying real hard to only hit their own vehicles, and only in the right places on those vehicles.
Second, if this plan is completely successful, it will bring back dollar-a-gallon gasoline, while freeing us from dependence on the middle east. Gee, can anyone think of any countries where terrorism is a way of life, who might be non-plussed by the idea of dollar-a-gallon gasoline coming from places other than the middle east?
IMHO, there's a very real risk of having these big single-point-of-failure rectenna farms and other key pieces of the infrastructure targeted by "the bad guys". His cost analysis doesn't seem to include the costs of either preventing such attacks and/or accepting them as an ongoing cost of doing business, and building large numbers of redundant facilities to be able to continue working if any of them goes offline. (Redundant Array of Independent Rectennas, aka RAIR, anyone?) 

Sorry to throw a wet blanket over things....

Cheers,

 - Rick Dickinson


On 4/2/2014 9:27 AM, Keith Henson wrote:

http://theenergycollective.com/keith-henson/362181/dollar-gallon-gasoline

$350 million committed so far to the Skylon engines.

Keith

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. arocket
  3. Archive
  4. 04-2014