Solar-pumped laser power transmission, a way to dramatically decrease launch costs?
in [Physics]
|
From: William Mook on 6 Mar 2010 07:43 On Mar 5, 1:38 am, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 3, 7:25 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > William Mook <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > :On Mar 2, 5:20 pm, Damien Valentine <valen...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > :> On Mar 1, 4:01 pm, William Mook <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > :> > > :> > No, someone else mentioned superlaser, I asked what it was, and was > > :> > told it was a device from Star Wars. > > :> > > :> Ah, I see -- backtracking through a couple pages of argument. That > > :> might be part of the problem; nobody understands what anybody else is > > :> saying, because nobody can keep track of 100+ post threads. My > > :> apologies! > > : > > :That's probably the point of the bazillion posts Fred & Co. made - it > > :is the end result of their efforts that's for sure. > > : > > > ANOTHER conspiracy theory, Mookie? You really should seek help for > > these delusions of persecution of yours... > > > -- > > "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is > > only stupid." > > -- Heinrich Heine > > Are you suggesting that special interest groups (faith-based, cartel, > cabal and/or political) don't have there trusty army of brown-nosed > minions, spooks and moles hard at work? > > ~ BG On Mar 5, 1:38 am, Brad Guth <bradg...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 3, 7:25 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > William Mook <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > :On Mar 2, 5:20 pm, Damien Valentine <valen...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > :> On Mar 1, 4:01 pm, William Mook <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > :> > > :> > No, someone else mentioned superlaser, I asked what it was, and was > > :> > told it was a device from Star Wars. > > :> > > :> Ah, I see -- backtracking through a couple pages of argument. That > > :> might be part of the problem; nobody understands what anybody else is > > :> saying, because nobody can keep track of 100+ post threads. My > > :> apologies! > > : > > :That's probably the point of the bazillion posts Fred & Co. made - it > > :is the end result of their efforts that's for sure. > > : > > > ANOTHER conspiracy theory, Mookie? You really should seek help for > > these delusions of persecution of yours... > > > -- > > "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is > > only stupid." > > -- Heinrich Heine > > Are you suggesting that special interest groups (faith-based, cartel, > cabal and/or political) don't have there trusty army of brown-nosed > minions, spooks and moles hard at work? > > ~ BG Fred and Brad are two voices can be relied upon to drown out any real discussion and drive away anyone interested in learning more about space travel and space technology in these groups. Opposite side of the same coin. What motivates them to operate like this is unknown to me. That they operate together to block any meaningful and satisfying discourse is manifestly obvious. As long as everyone speaks of clearly fictional matters - Ewoks, superlasers, Yoda, conversation proceeds smoothly and friendly way. When someone speaks of something concrete and real, that discussion draws the negative attention of both Fred and Brad that turns into a perfect storm of controversy. Fred generally berates the post as being insane. Brad berates them as being a spook and operates in a generally insane way saying insane things. So, both operate to drown out and discredit anyone who has anything to say that is outside a rather range of uninteresting discourse - and we spend all of our time and energy off message until we give up. Yet all of this doesn't change reality (in this thread) that; (1) we have the ability today to build launch and operate solar power satellites that (a) cost less than a single nuclear power plant, yet (b) produce more power than all nuclear power plants (2) these solar power satellites operate with UV & IR solar pumped laser (3) UV & IR lasers used as power conduits (a) can be generated efficiently from sunlight (b) can be formed efficiently into long-range beams (c) can efficiently be converted to electrical and propulsive power (d) can be efficiently beamed to multiple users simultaneously (4) A pair of solar power satellites achieve all these goals; (a) by making use of today's launch infrastructure to LEO (b) by making use of solar sailing technique to travel far from LEO (c) by making use of gravity boost at Jupiter to travel close to the Sun (d) by operating one of the satellites close to the sun (5) The relevant science is; (a) vis viva equation / Gravity boost / Light Pressure (b) Stephan Boltzmann (c) Rayleigh Criterion / Airy Disk (d) bandgap energy calculation (6) The relevant engineering is; (a) MEMS devices (b) GBO films (c) Electrostatic FEL (d) multi-junction PV Which if you filter out the dross, the dregs, the scum generated by Fred and Brad you will find a few nuggets that describe each of the items above in detail. Good luck! lol.
From: William Mook on 6 Mar 2010 14:26 On Mar 6, 11:40 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > William Mook <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > :On Mar 3, 10:25 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > :> William Mook <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > :> > :> :On Mar 2, 5:20 pm, Damien Valentine <valen...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > :> :> On Mar 1, 4:01 pm, William Mook <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > :> :> > :> :> > No, someone else mentioned superlaser, I asked what it was, and was > :> :> > told it was a device from Star Wars. > :> :> > :> :> Ah, I see -- backtracking through a couple pages of argument. That > :> :> might be part of the problem; nobody understands what anybody else is > :> :> saying, because nobody can keep track of 100+ post threads. My > :> :> apologies! > :> : > :> :That's probably the point of the bazillion posts Fred & Co. made - it > :> :is the end result of their efforts that's for sure. > :> : > :> > :> ANOTHER conspiracy theory, Mookie? > : > :No. > : > > So is there a "Fred & Co" who all have the same 'point' of their > postings or not? You two certainly operate together to restrict the free flow of information beyond a very narrow range. > You can't claim a conspiracy in one breath and then > deny you're doing so in the next, Mookie. YOU are claiming conspiracy. I am pointing out the obvious impact you and Brad have on sane rational discourse. > Well, you can't if you expect to have any credibility, anyway. Riiight - and you have so very much credibility right Freddie? lol. > :> You really should seek help for > :> these delusions of persecution of yours... > : > :You are confused - since you're projecting again. > : > > Projecting? Yes. > How could that be? Because you're attributing to me things you are doing. > *I* don't feel persecuted. That's the point of projection Freddie. To assign to others feelings you have so you don't have to own them. See, Freddie, you think I do feel persecuted, and you don't know anything about me - despite that fact, you are CERTAIN absolutely certain, how I feel. That says it all Freddie. You're nuts. > I think > you're a loon. OF COURSE you do. > YOU feel persecuted BECAUSE I think you're a loon. Not at all. Fred, you and Brad are the loons. You both abuse people who don't fall within a very narrow range of discussion of space related topics. > "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is > only stupid." > -- Heinrich Heine
From: William Mook on 6 Mar 2010 14:43 On Mar 6, 11:50 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > William Mook <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > : > :Fred and Brad are two voices can be relied upon to drown out any real > :discussion and drive away anyone interested in learning more about > :space travel and space technology in these groups. Opposite side of > :the same coin. > : > > That coin is the one that has 'sane' on one side and 'insane' on the > GuthBall side. Both operate together to keep discussion of space related topics within a very narrow range. > Your fictions aren't "space travel and space technology", Mookie. > They're fantasies. Prove it. > :What motivates them to operate like this is unknown to me. That they > :operate together to block any meaningful and satisfying discourse is > :manifestly obvious. > : > > And once again we see Mookie exhibiting his paranoid delusions. You always attempt to frame any criticism of what you do as someone else's fault. Ever notice that Freddie? For the record, a paranoid would never say they don't know what motivates someone. They would be certain of everyone's motivation - haha - just like you Freddie. > It > would be kind of hard for the GuthBall and I to "operate together", Your interaction is predictable - the results of that interaction is also completely predictable - whether you choose to see it or not. > since I've had that fuckwit killfiled for years. That doesn't stop you from commenting extensively on what he says, or he commenting extensively on what you say, or both of you interacting in ways to keep the range of discussion very narrowly focused on uninteresting stupid topics. > He's one of the few > 'permanent nutballs' that no longer gets the opportunity to 'age out' > of my killfile. <shrug> That is totally beside the point. What you kill file and what you don't doesn't change the nature of the interaction or its inevitable outcome. > : > :As long as everyone speaks of clearly fictional matters - Ewoks, > :superlasers, Yoda, conversation proceeds smoothly and friendly way. > : > :When someone speaks of something concrete and real, that discussion > :draws the negative attention of both Fred and Brad that turns into a > :perfect storm of controversy. > : > > Outright lie, Mookie. Prove it. > I've repeatedly pointed out that you are NOT > speaking "of something concrete and real". That would make you a liar since I have repeatedly provided peer reviewed research to support my points. > This is what drives you > now. See? How the hell do you know what drives me Freddie? haha - you don't. You *think* you do, which speaks volumes about your mental problems. You just don't see it - and how your insanity interacts with Brad's insanity to keep the range of discussion narrowly focused on Ewoks. > I've had the temerity to point out that Emperor Mookie has no > clothes. Interesting portrayal of me - sounds very much like something Brad would say. I perfectly well clothed - in Burberry Jacket no less. > : > :Fred generally berates the post as being insane. > : > > Only because you are. > You only think that because you are - see? > :Brad berates them as being a spook and operates in a generally insane > :way saying insane things. > : > > And you and the GuthBall exhibit equal levels of sanity. Yet, you are the one who loves talking about yourself and about your enemies - and complains when I provide a peer reviewed reference - haha. > : > :So, both operate to drown out and discredit anyone who has anything to > :say that is outside a rather range of uninteresting discourse - and we > :spend all of our time and energy off message until we give up. > : > :Yet all of this doesn't change reality (in this thread) that; > : > : (1) we have the ability today to build launch and operate solar power > :satellites that > : (a) cost less than a single nuclear power plant, yet > : (b) produce more power than all nuclear power plants > : (2) these solar power satellites operate with UV & IR solar pumped > :laser > : (3) UV & IR lasers used as power conduits > : (a) can be generated efficiently from sunlight > : (b) can be formed efficiently into long-range beams > : (c) can efficiently be converted to electrical and propulsive > :power > : (d) can be efficiently beamed to multiple users simultaneously > : (4) A pair of solar power satellites achieve all these goals; > : (a) by making use of today's launch infrastructure to LEO > : (b) by making use of solar sailing technique to travel far from > :LEO > : (c) by making use of gravity boost at Jupiter to travel close to > :the Sun > : (d) by operating one of the satellites close to the sun > : (5) The relevant science is; > : (a) vis viva equation / Gravity boost / Light Pressure > : (b) Stephan Boltzmann > : (c) Rayleigh Criterion / Airy Disk > : (d) bandgap energy calculation > : (6) The relevant engineering is; > : (a) MEMS devices > : (b) GBO films > : (c) Electrostatic FEL > : (d) multi-junction PV > : > > And when tossed all together and then claimed as 'reality', it is > FICTION. Not at all. Ewoks and phasers, transporters and warp drives are fiction Freddie. Rockets, sunlight, MEMS, BGO, FEL, PV are not. > The costs are FANTASY. Not really. I've repeatedly given references from MIT coursework on space project costing to back up my numbers. > The technology is currently > non-existent What technology is that? > as anything but lab toys Something that has been demonstrated in the lab exists wouldn't you say? > and you won't develop working > tech for an order of magnitude of the amount of money you claim. Prove it. I've given you my references and my calculations. Where am I an order of magnitude off, specifically? Do the work to prove me wrong - if you can. > > If you put your stuff forward as THEORETICAL discussion (like space > elevators) it would be fine. Space elevators will never be practical in the same sense as MEMS rockets and FE lasers - and they are theory for that reason. > But the minute you talk about how it all > already exists In the lab certainly. > and could be done for preposterously tiny amounts of > money, Since when is $60 billion a perposterously tiny amount of money? > you're as firmly over in to Loonie Land as The GuthBall and > Jonathan. You speak in generalities, I've given budgets, and my rationale for these budgets - and the references I used to develop them. Go read the references, analyze the calculations and prove that I've gotten it wrong - if you can. You haven't done any of this - so, you don't get to say these things without me pointing out that my numbers are backed up by hard work. If you haven't done the work to ferret out mistakes - then you don't have the right to say there are mistakes. > -- > "I would not want to put him in charge of snake control in Ireland." > -- Eugene McCarthy
From: Brad Guth on 6 Mar 2010 16:35 On Mar 6, 11:43 am, William Mook <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 6, 11:50 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > William Mook <mokmedi...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > : > > :Fred and Brad are two voices can be relied upon to drown out any real > > :discussion and drive away anyone interested in learning more about > > :space travel and space technology in these groups. Opposite side of > > :the same coin. > > : > > > That coin is the one that has 'sane' on one side and 'insane' on the > > GuthBall side. > > Both operate together to keep discussion of space related topics > within a very narrow range. > > > Your fictions aren't "space travel and space technology", Mookie. > > They're fantasies. > > Prove it. > > > :What motivates them to operate like this is unknown to me. That they > > :operate together to block any meaningful and satisfying discourse is > > :manifestly obvious. > > : > > > And once again we see Mookie exhibiting his paranoid delusions. > > You always attempt to frame any criticism of what you do as someone > else's fault. Ever notice that Freddie? > > For the record, a paranoid would never say they don't know what > motivates someone. They would be certain of everyone's motivation - > haha - just like you Freddie. > > > It > > would be kind of hard for the GuthBall and I to "operate together", > > Your interaction is predictable - the results of that interaction is > also completely predictable - whether you choose to see it or not. > > > since I've had that fuckwit killfiled for years. > > That doesn't stop you from commenting extensively on what he says, or > he commenting extensively on what you say, or both of you interacting > in ways to keep the range of discussion very narrowly focused on > uninteresting stupid topics. > > > He's one of the few > > 'permanent nutballs' that no longer gets the opportunity to 'age out' > > of my killfile. > > <shrug> That is totally beside the point. What you kill file and > what you don't doesn't change the nature of the interaction or its > inevitable outcome. > > > : > > :As long as everyone speaks of clearly fictional matters - Ewoks, > > :superlasers, Yoda, conversation proceeds smoothly and friendly way. > > : > > :When someone speaks of something concrete and real, that discussion > > :draws the negative attention of both Fred and Brad that turns into a > > :perfect storm of controversy. > > : > > > Outright lie, Mookie. > > Prove it. > > > I've repeatedly pointed out that you are NOT > > speaking "of something concrete and real". > > That would make you a liar since I have repeatedly provided peer > reviewed research to support my points. > > > This is what drives you > > now. > > See? How the hell do you know what drives me Freddie? haha - you > don't. You *think* you do, which speaks volumes about your mental > problems. You just don't see it - and how your insanity interacts > with Brad's insanity to keep the range of discussion narrowly focused > on Ewoks. > > > I've had the temerity to point out that Emperor Mookie has no > > clothes. > > Interesting portrayal of me - sounds very much like something Brad > would say. I perfectly well clothed - in Burberry Jacket no less. > > > : > > :Fred generally berates the post as being insane. > > : > > > Only because you are. > > You only think that because you are - see? > > > :Brad berates them as being a spook and operates in a generally insane > > :way saying insane things. > > : > > > And you and the GuthBall exhibit equal levels of sanity. > > Yet, you are the one who loves talking about yourself and about your > enemies - and complains when I provide a peer reviewed reference - > haha. > > > > > : > > :So, both operate to drown out and discredit anyone who has anything to > > :say that is outside a rather range of uninteresting discourse - and we > > :spend all of our time and energy off message until we give up. > > : > > :Yet all of this doesn't change reality (in this thread) that; > > : > > : (1) we have the ability today to build launch and operate solar power > > :satellites that > > : (a) cost less than a single nuclear power plant, yet > > : (b) produce more power than all nuclear power plants > > : (2) these solar power satellites operate with UV & IR solar pumped > > :laser > > : (3) UV & IR lasers used as power conduits > > : (a) can be generated efficiently from sunlight > > : (b) can be formed efficiently into long-range beams > > : (c) can efficiently be converted to electrical and propulsive > > :power > > : (d) can be efficiently beamed to multiple users simultaneously > > : (4) A pair of solar power satellites achieve all these goals; > > : (a) by making use of today's launch infrastructure to LEO > > : (b) by making use of solar sailing technique to travel far from > > :LEO > > : (c) by making use of gravity boost at Jupiter to travel close to > > :the Sun > > : (d) by operating one of the satellites close to the sun > > : (5) The relevant science is; > > : (a) vis viva equation / Gravity boost / Light Pressure > > : (b) Stephan Boltzmann > > : (c) Rayleigh Criterion / Airy Disk > > : (d) bandgap energy calculation > > : (6) The relevant engineering is; > > : (a) MEMS devices > > : (b) GBO films > > : (c) Electrostatic FEL > > : (d) multi-junction PV > > : > > > And when tossed all together and then claimed as 'reality', it is > > FICTION. > > Not at all. Ewoks and phasers, transporters and warp drives are > fiction Freddie. Rockets, sunlight, MEMS, BGO, FEL, PV are not. > > > The costs are FANTASY. > > Not really. I've repeatedly given references from MIT coursework on > space project costing to back up my numbers. > > > The technology is currently > > non-existent > > What technology is that? > > > as anything but lab toys > > Something that has been demonstrated in the lab exists wouldn't you > say? > > > and you won't develop working > > tech for an order of magnitude of the amount of money you claim. > > Prove it. I've given you my references and my calculations. Where am > I an order of magnitude off, specifically? Do the work to prove me > wrong - if you can. > > > > > If you put your stuff forward as THEORETICAL discussion (like space > > elevators) it would be fine. > > Space elevators will never be practical in the same sense as MEMS > rockets and FE lasers - and they are theory for that reason. > > > But the minute you talk about how it all > > already exists > > In the lab certainly. > > > and could be done for preposterously tiny amounts of > > money, > > Since when is $60 billion a perposterously tiny amount of money? > > > you're as firmly over in to Loonie Land as The GuthBall and > > Jonathan. > > You speak in generalities, I've given budgets, and my rationale for > these budgets - and the references I used to develop them. Go read > the references, analyze the calculations and prove that I've gotten it > wrong - if you can. You haven't done any of this - so, you don't get > to say these things without me pointing out that my numbers are backed > up by hard work. If you haven't done the work to ferret out mistakes > - then you don't have the right to say there are mistakes. > > > -- > > "I would not want to put him in charge of snake control in Ireland." > > -- Eugene McCarthy Correct, our Fred J. McCall is usually up to topic/author stalking and otherwise no good, seldom being on-topic constructive or allowing others to appreciate any value in whatever you or anyone else has to offer (in some ways not at all unlike yourself). btw, do you see anyone other than myself giving your topics and replies those Google gold stars? ~ BG
From: Marvin the Martian on 6 Mar 2010 19:49
On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:43:21 -0800, William Mook wrote: Actually, I think Mr. Mook's idea has merit. The military has been working on delivery energy to moving rockets up to the edge of space for about a decade, now. For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6w-ql8msl0U "Boeings Airborne Laser (ABL) will locate and track missiles in the boost phase of their flight, then accurately point and fire the high-energy laser, destroying enemy missiles near their launch areas." The technology to do what Mook proposes is slightly different: easier because you know and control the telemetry of the target and can use a ground based laser. A bit more difficult because it requires increased accuracy and a method to convert it to impulse. The subject of using lasers to power rockets dates back back to the Post Apollo NASA days; I have one reference to doing so, in Lewis' book IIRC, to using this method. |