At the price point you're talking about -- even with the GEO orientation -- it seems more market research would benefit the project. PS: Sorry about the inadequate phraseology. I should have said "ground-based rectenna to laser Skylon bootstrap" On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:59 PM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx>wrote: > Jim, the transport system is so oriented to the power satellite > production project that I can't see any point in a generic orbital > launch service. It's like a mine road into the jungle to a copper > mine, single purpose. > > And, it's not ground based lasers. The lasers need to be out in GEO > so they can sweep along the equator for close to 4000 km to put the > vehicle in orbit. You can launch straight up with lasers, but it > takes about ten times as much laser for the same payload. > > The minimum transport rate is about 500,000 tons per year or 60 tons > per hour. It sounds like a lot, but the actual need is 20 times that > large, so this sized (100 GW/year) is sort of a pilot project. It > still makes an awful lot of money. > > Keith > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:28 PM, James Bowery <jabowery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The biggest hurdle (in time perspective) here will be overcoming the > > perception that reusable chemical rockets -- particularly in conjunction > > with nonterrestrial materials -- are inadequate to the task compared to > the > > risk-adjusted cost of the ground-based laser Skylon bootstrap. > > > > In a "Citizen's Advisory Council"/"Launch Services Purchase Act" > approach, > > what would be the minimum market size including price support at that > size), > > required to attract private funding to the ground-based laser Skylon > > bootstrap as a generic orbital launch service? > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson@xxxxxxxxx> > > wrote: > >> > >> China isn't the only country that could do it. Germany though the EU > >> could do it. Because Skylon is a big part of the way to make power > >> satellites economical, the EU has a big lead over the US. How about a > >> joint EU China project? That gets the investment down to $30 B each, > >> about the class of Three Gorges dam and the chunnel. Of course, once > >> a propulsion laser exists, US demands wouldn't mean much. > >> > >> There are geometry/geography considerations because the launch sites > >> need to be near the equator and over water. A three way split with > >> the US involved would be even better, for reasons involving Pacific vs > >> Atlantic weather and the need to prime the system with 12 GW for a few > >> months. > >> > >> Keith > >> > >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:02 AM, Uwe Klein <uwe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> wrote: > >> > Keith Henson wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 12:42 AM, Uwe Klein <uwe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> John Stoffel wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>>> Laser sounds neat, but I always wonder what happens when it loses > >> >>>> lock > >> >>>> and illuminates something else by accident... > >> >>>> > >> >>> > >> >>> What happens when the accident is intention > >> >>> is what will keep this on paper imho. > >> >>> > >> >>> An orbital laser is a potential weapon > >> >>> and for once I would actually take "second use" > >> >>> as a real threat. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> It's a real problem. Lots of people are thinking about it, including > >> >> one who says that the US would destroy any Chinese propulsion laser. > >> >> When I asked if the US would destroy a joint Chinese/Indian laser > they > >> >> were not so certain. But if the Chinese were really upfront about > >> >> keeping it from being used as a weapon and asked the US for help > >> >> securing it . . . . > >> >> > >> > The US is infatuated with limiting/regulating others > >> > applying rules and making demands > >> > that they never would follow themselves. > >> > > >> > A bully at work. > >> > > >> > No nation that has other options will submit. > >> > > >> > uwe > >> > > >> > -- > >> > > >> > Uwe Klein [mailto:uwe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > >> > Habertwedt 1 > >> > D-24376 Groedersby b. Kappeln, GERMANY > >> > phone: +49 4642 920 123 FAX: +49 4642 920 125 > >> > > >> > > > >