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

  • From: "Monroe L. King Jr." <monroe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 10:50:36 -0700

 I would not worry about it Skylon is indeed interesting but non trivial
to accomplish. Perhaps 10 years AFTER Skylon this idea could be looked
at. Skylon would have to accomplish it's task and prove reliable over
many years to even consider it.

 Monroe

 I happen to know 2 guy's working on Skylon don't get your panties in a
wad yet. Not even an issue for quite some time to come.  

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [AR] Re: 500,000 tons per year to GEO (off topic)
> From: Rick Dickinson <rtd@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wed, April 02, 2014 10:12 am
> To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 
> 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