Solar-pumped laser power transmission, a way to dramatically decrease launch costs?
in [Physics]
|
From: William Mook on 17 Feb 2010 11:35 On Feb 17, 12:36 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > William Mook <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > :On Feb 16, 1:42 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > :> William Mook <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > :> > :> :On Feb 14, 10:19 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > :> :> William Mook <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > :> :> > :> :> :On Feb 14, 6:01 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > :> :> :> William Mook <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > :> :> :> > :> :> :> :On Feb 14, 2:00 pm, "Scott M. Kozel" <koze...(a)comcast.net> wrote::> "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_u> wrote: > :> :> :> > :> :> :> :> > :> :> :> :> > "William Mook" <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > :> :> :> :> > :> :> :> :> > That is absolutely correct. It will be on solar orbit. The orbital > :> :> :> :> > period will be 24 hours at 3 million km radius. > :> :> :> :> > ============================================== > :> :> :> :> > You may find it a tad warm 2 million miles from the sun. It will gather > :> :> :> :> > rather more energy than you wanted, and having a 24-hour year it won't > :> :> :> :> > be in sight of Earth for more than 14 hours each Earth day as it > :> :> :> :> > disappears behind the Sun for 10 hours of that period. > :> :> :> :> > :> :> :> :> It would take an enormous amount of energy to put a satellite that far > :> :> :> :> down into the Sun's gravity well. > :> :> :> :> > :> :> :> :> It has been difficult enough to get a satellite into the same orbit as > :> :> :> :> Mercury, which is 35 million miles from the Sun. > :> :> :> : > :> :> :> :Solar sails are ideally suited for this mission. I am considering > :> :> :> :fully reusable vehicles capable of putting 1,000 metric ton payloads > :> :> :> :on orbit for very little cost per ton. This sort of vehicle is > :> :> :> :required to build any sort of orbital or lunar or Martian > :> :> :> :infrastructure. Its well within our capacity to build it. > :> :> :> : > :> :> :> :http://www.scribd.com/doc/24390383/mokaerospace-3 > :> :> :> : > :> :> :> > :> :> :> There is a BIG difference between a few line drawings and some web art > :> :> :> and an actual, working vehicle. > :> :> : > :> :> :So, you are proposing that we proceed without any calculations > :> :> :drawings or visualizations? Why? > :> :> : > :> :> > :> :> Just the opposite. I'm proposing that you've got a hell of a long way > :> :> to go before you start talking about having 'engineered' a vehicle. > :> : > :> :I've engineered a vehicle when I give propellant combinations, > :> :specific impulse, delta vees, structural fractions, throw weights, > :> :take off weights, - all the things in the drawings you disclaim > :> :without reason. > :> : > :> > :> No. > : > :Yes! Why do you think dimensioned drawings, propellant selections, > :structural fractions, delta vees, vehicle weights, payload weights- > :are not needed when designing a rocket? Sheez. > : > > You're lying again. Not really. > Please show where I said any such thing. ?? Since when do I have to do what you say? lol. > : > :> > :> You've engineered a vehicle when you can take your data package, > :> hand it to a bunch of metal benders, and get back a working vehicle > :> that performs approximately as you claimed it would. > :> > : > :Yes, so you want the vendor reports and CAD files which the overview > :drawings were based on? To 'bend metal' requires lots and lots of > :dimensioned drawings, some of which I've provided here; > : > :http://www.scribd.com/doc/24390383/mokaerospace-3 > : > > I did drawings like that in Junior High School. No you didn't. > Totally inadequate > and not 'design' at all. If you can use it to predict performance and estimate budgets, its perfectly adequate. > : > :> > :> You're not even close. > :> > : > :No, you're not even wrong. > : > > Quite right. I'm not even wrong; I'm right. Not really. > :> :> :> : > :> :> :> :There are 10 million millionaires in the world and they control $40 > :> :> :> :trillion of the world's $58 trillion in liquid wealth. Selling 5,000 > :> :> :> :tickets to 0.05% of them for $200,000 raises $10 billion - enough to > :> :> :> :build a fleet of ships. > :> :> :> : > :> :> :> > :> :> :> For a very small fleet numbering something less than one. > :> :> : > :> :> :You aren't getting it. Money buys things. > :> :> : > :> :> > :> :> Yes, it does. > :> : > :> :I'm glad you agree. > :> : > :> > :> Yes, well I'd also agree were you to claim that water is wet, > : > :So, you're not totally insane. > : > > But you are apparently totally lacking in intellectual integrity, Interesting phraseology. I see now you're merely engaging in word games and have no interest whatever in any useful discussion. > given the way you've been acting in this thread. You're the one calling names. > :> although > :> I might feel compelled to recheck it and make sure something hadn't > :> changed before doing so. > : > :Sorry, I guess I was wrong about that one. > : > > That's certainly how I'd bet it, for any given 'one'. Certainly -makes perfect sense to a paranoid fruitcake like you - you are showing signs of paranoia I see. > :> :> You have no conception of what it can and cannot buy. > :> : > :> :Yes I do. I've taken this course (among other similar courses) - have > :> :you? > :> : > :> :http://www.springerlink.com/content/vp3n0801340171v5/ > :> : > :> > :> That's not a 'course', you stupid fuckwit. It's a JOURNAL ARTICLE. Who's the fuckwit dude? You've never taught courses using journals? Its not the article - its the journal itself. Please look at the title of the JOURNAL! lol. > :No, its a text book used in a number of courses on the subject of the > :title > : > > Jaysus, do you not even read? Let's try it for you. Here's what we > see: > > Content Types Subject Collections > > JOURNAL ARTICLE <<<========= See that, fuckwit? > > Volume 1, Number 2 / June, 1998 <<<========= See that, fuckwit? > > Pages 133-158 <<<=========== A 25 Page Journal Article, fuckwit. > So? http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=L8YVLj1dyV3HfcBNp0ycd4qVVT0pMDXqJbrBntlnQ044QTJQq0vy!-409864746!1823011750?docId=77007019 > :> > :> :> : > :> :> :At $10 million per metric ton for hardware $10 billion buys 1,000 > :> :> :metric tons of hardware. > :> :> : > :> :> > :> :> Except for the small fact that you're going to spend a lot more than > :> :> that designing and troubleshooting that hardware before you get to > :> :> start buying it by the pound. > :> : > :> :No, that's included in this price. > :> : > :> > :> Then you're merely spouting bullshit. > : > :No, you are. The non-recurring costs can be divided by the amount of > :materials used in building the fleet you are amortizing it over. In > :fact low production runs is one of the reasons aerospace costs are > :sometimes very high. You'd know this if you actually knew what you > :were talking about. > : > > Yeah, I mean I'm only actually in the business. What business is that? The name calling business? If you are in the aerospace business I am profoundly sorry to hear that. It explains in part the abject lack of success we've had as a nation and as a species in this important field of development. The sooner you retire dude, the better off we'll ALL be. What can I do to accelerate your departure? > I'm sure you know > much better, Only better than you - and that's not saying much. > with your 'journal article as course' education and your > 'a few line drawings is a design' school of engineering. What do you expect to get in online references in response to a usenet harangue from you? haha - what journal articles and drawings have you provided to illustrate YOUR points? hmm? NONE. Idiot. > :> :> > :> :> : > :> :> :With MEMS based rockets T/W of 1,000 have been achieved. Structural > :> :> :fractions of 5% are achieved with this T/W which mean a vehicle 20..0x > :> :> :the mass of the structure. So, this is 20,000 tons of vehicle. > :> :> : > :> :> > :> :> Except MEMS based 'rockets' are LOW THRUST systems for MICRO payloads. > :> : > :> : > :> :Wrong Again! MEMS rockets achieve pressures of 50 psi - 100x greater > :> :than wings! Obviously one rocket produces micro-thrust - ARRAYS of > :> :rockets - produce substantial thrusts. > :> : > :> :http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMJPC2005_1177/PV2005_3650.pdf > :> : > :> > :> Sorry, but no. > : > :??? Did you actually read the article (and citation list)???? Just > :shouting no that can't be right in the face of peer reviewed articles > :and solid research at places like MIT and Stanford isn't really > :engaging in useful discourse - its just being stupid. Something you > :apparently excel at. > : > > Your cite give ONE PAGE, fuckwit. I don't own the copyright. AIAA does. You are in the business right? You're an AIAA member in good standing? You've written journal articles right? READ THE FREAKING PAPER. You want me to pay for it? Does that mean you're not currently an AIAA member? What business are you in again? > It's largely an OVERVIEW page, Right, read the abstract before you open it. You *are* an AIAA member right? Since you are in the business? > fuckwit. There is no citation list, fuckwit. If you would open the article there is a citation page - I assumed that you could do so since you are in the business. I see that is ah - ahem - an exaggeration on your part? > Speaking of being stupid and excelling at it and all... Yeah, that would be you. > Bored now... Typical of stupid people to be bored when things get most interesting. Psychologists call this an avoidance reaction. You begin to see against all odds just how stupid you are, and your subconscious shuts you down before your stupidity dawns on you. > <Remaining Mookery Chopped Unread> Of course - since you couldn't say anything mean nasty and derogatory about it. Nice... > I almost hope we meet some day. I don't. > Given your threats of violence, I'd > have no choice but to act to protect myself, There's that paranoia again. You call people names and get them angry at you and then blame them for the insecurity you feel. Very typical - haha - you're a chapter in a psych text (and a few journal articles as well) haha. > me being so frightened of > you and all.... Yep, paranoia definitely. > -- > "Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die." > -- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
From: William Mook on 17 Feb 2010 20:27 Carbon/Boron - diamond based - structures formed on Si substrate, and then peeled off to form thin free standing structures - are one way to go. http://www.nrc.org/procs/Nanotech2003v1/12/M64.03 Diamond semi-conductors have been prepared, and given the high bandgap energies possible with diamond, UV emitters are easily made with them. http://www.aist.go.jp/aist_e/latest_research/2005/20050615/20050615.html bandgap energies can be adjusted - for example, graphite can be a semiconductor under the right conditions http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090304091512.htm So, a wide range of possibilities exist drawing from the tool kit of carbon based systems. These systems can operate reliably at 1600K and higher. Diamond systems should be able to operate reliably down to 2 million km radius. This is 7.76 MW/m2. Which means that 2.24 MW of laser energy can be transmitted per square meter from the system given the efficiencies achievable. Distance km(e6) W/m2 K C F 15 138,000 735.1 462.0 863.6 12 215,625 821.9 548.8 1,019.8 9 383,333 949.1 675.9 1,248.6 6 862,500 1,162.4 889.2 1,632.6 3 3,450,000 1,643.8 1,370.7 2,499.2 2 7,762,500 2,013.3 1,740.1 3,164.2 1 31,050,000 2,847.2 2,574.0 4,665.3 Diamond has a 3820 K melting point! Silicon operates in the near IR (1 micron) wavelength. Diamond operates in the near UV (0.2 micron) So, a Free Electron Laser operating at 200 nm can send energy efficiently to a Diamond semiconductor; http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=5207 The Rayleigh criterion applies, so the divergence angle is far less for UV based systems. Also, errant beams are efficiently absorbed by the atmosphere. The GEO based satellite converts from UV to IR for easy transmission to Earth. Alternatively, high altitude balloons or eternal aircraft are used to receive the power and transmit it to Earth via IR laser using techniques I've developed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QAUkt2VPHI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWuL4sZ3ppY Two systems, one near the sun and one on GEO efficiently transmits UV light at 200 nm wavelength between two apertures 191.3 m in diameter. This disk has an area of 20,434 square meters. A system that reflects 25% of the light at the Sun, and takes 30% of the remainder to power on board refrigeration and other systems and has 55% overall conversion efficiency solar photons to laser photons for the rest, operating at 1 million km radius orbit, sends 152.2 giga-watts of laser energy to GEO. The GEO satellite regenerates the UV beam as IR laser for receiving by silicon recievers on earth - netting 120 giga- watts for the system. The GEO sat performance is also impressive. A 191.3 m diameter emitter at GEO beaming 1 micron IR energy to Earth forms spot sizes as small as 25 cm. UV light is also reformed and is sent to any spot above the ozone layer with accuracies of 5 cm. Each satellite masses 8.78 metric tons. The pair is easily launched simultaneously by the Space Shuttle. They deploy near the Space Station in LEO. There they use sunlight to navigate to their final orbits. The GEO bound satellite takes 3 months to raise its orbit from LEO to GEO. The Sun bound satellite takes 5 months to escape Earth altogether and fly to Jupiter. At Jupiter, 2.8 years later, the Sun bound satellite executes a gravity boost maneuver to kill nearly all its orbital velocity around the Sun, falling into the Sun. The Sun bound satellite reaches its final orbital altitude 2.2 years after the gravity boost maneuver. Near the sun, the satellite uses the intense solar radiation to circularize its orbit at 1 million km The systems cost $300 million to build, $600 million to orbit with the Shuttle, another $100 million to operate over their life. Five pairs are launched in a year after three years of development. The five pairs produce 600 GW of energy on Earth - equivalent to all the coal fired power plants in the USA - at a cost of half that of an 1.1 GW nuclear power plant. 125 pairs replace ALL PRIMARY ENERGY PRODUCTION ON EARTH! For less than the cost of developing the Space Shuttle. The world spends over $2 trillion per year on energy. These satellite pairs each generate $15 billion per year producing energy for 1.4 cents per kWh. They pay for themselves in 3 weeks of operation. By collecting 10% on each one, NASA collects $1.5 billion per year per satellite. So, 125 satellites net $187.5 billion per year for NASA - which supports a helluva space program. The first five generate $7.5 billion per year, which supports 10 additional shuttle launches per year. Which generates $15.0 billion MORE per year, which supports 20 additional shuttles per year - 30 total - which generates $22.5 billion per year - which supports 40 more shuttle launches - 70 total - which supports the entire NASA budget. In five years, ten years after program start, in this way, the USA dominates the worlds energy markets, has a carrot to match its sizeable stick it has in its military, and a means to even its balance of trade with the rest of the world.
From: William Mook on 17 Feb 2010 20:39 A system the right areal density can hover above the solar surface reflecting ineffective photons away from it in a controlled way. So, a system falling in from Jupiter, brakes as it approaches its designed operating altitude, and then hovers beneath the planet it serves. In the first instance, this would be Earth. The satellites in GEO would be tilted most of the year so would be visible from the satellite nearly continuously except a few minutes twice a year. Of course, the orbit an be made to use laser light pressure itself to cause its orbit to precess in such a way as to always remain visible from the solar surface. So, each pair would always be operational. Laser light pressure would exceed 50 Newtons (5 kg) per square meter at the intensities I'm operating. This too would be used to help navigate the satellite. It would also be used to propel a laser light sail to near optical speeds. A 100 ton payload could be accelerated at 1 gee for 4 months to reach 1/3 light speed in that time using a 191.3 m diameter light sail massing only 1 ton using a variation of these power satellites. Payloads can also be sent through interplanetary space in a matter of days and weeks - anywhere in the solar system. A laser receiver at any of the Lagrange points around the Moon would be able to power substantial lunar industry and settlements. Satellites on orbit around Mars would be able to power substantial Mars industry and settlements.
From: William Mook on 18 Feb 2010 12:57 Nothing really worth responding to since Fred makes no sense.
From: William Mook on 19 Feb 2010 09:23
On Feb 15, 10:52 pm, "Scott M. Kozel" <koze...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > OM <o...(a)sci.space.history> wrote: > > > "Scott M. Kozel" <koze...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > >I can see that you have put a lot of thought into this > > > ...Most of it the result of years of substance abuse, especially > > sniffing paint fumes from a paper bag while high on really poorly made > > acid. > > I asked about the temperature at 2 million miles from the Sun, because > I wonder if there is any substance that would not melt if that close. > > Mercury at 35 million miles is 800 F ... at 2 million miles it might > be hot enough to melt tungsten ... i.e. a satellite would melt or > maybe even vaporize long before it got that close. > > "The metal with the highest melting point is tungsten (W) at 3410 > degrees Celcius (6170 degrees Fahrenheit). However, technically Carbon > has a higher melting point, though not under normal atmospheric > conditions. This is because it sublimates (turns directly from a solid > to a gas) at 6740 degrees Fahrenheit under normal circumstances." > > http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_metal_element_has_the_highest_melting_... > ...... > > "The Sun is the most prominent feature in our solar system. It is the > largest object and contains approximately 98% of the total solar > system mass. One hundred and nine Earths would be required to fit > across the Sun's disk, and its interior could hold over 1.3 million > Earths. The Sun's outer visible layer is called the photosphere and > has a temperature of 6,000°C (11,000°F). This layer has a mottled > appearance due to the turbulent eruptions of energy at the surface." > > http://www.solarviews.com/eng/sun.htm > > The Sun itself has a diameter of 0.84 million miles. Scott, Its a question of heat balance. The sun's surface - at a radius of 700,000 km - radiates power at 63.4 mega-watts per square meter. This results from its temperature of 5,780 K Temperature and power radiated by light per square meter are related by the Stephan-Boltzman equation; j* = rho * T^4 where T is temperature is Kelvin degress (where absolute zero =0) rho = 5.67e-8 j* = watts/m2 At 3.5 million km by operation of the inverse square law power level has dropped to 63.4e+6 Watts/m2 * (0.7e+6 km / 3.5e+6 km)^2 = 2.54e+6 Watts/m2 Which we can drop into Stephan Boltzman to figure out the temperature j* = rho * T^4 ----> rearranging ---> T = (j*/rho)^(1/4) (2.54e+6 / 5.67e-8)^(0.25) = 2,587 K This is a surface that would radiate the same power outward as the sun at this distance. The color obviously would be a lot redder. This over-estimates the temperature of an object though! That's because things have depth to them, so they have more surface area than their shadows. That is, this energy 2.54 mega-watts per square meter is what the sunlight puts into a perfectly absorbing black body. In the vacuum of space the body rises in temperature until the same amount of energy comes out as is dumped in. A ball has four times the surface area of its shadow. A sheet of film has two times the surface area of its shadow. So, actual temperatures at 3.5 million km would be 1,600 K or less for a black object, like a solar panel, and since the panel reflects away ineffective light (see my patent on the subject) http://www.scribd.com/doc/21832226/Mook-Patent-Solar-Energy-Spectral-Cooling and then radiates away energy it converts for transmission to Earth, the temperature is even cooler than 1,600K |