Prev: NATURE: A CoGeNT result in the hunt for dark matter [?]
Next: Royal Society of Chemistry backs sharing of data in contrast toJones "standard practice" statement
From: Rick Jones on 1 Mar 2010 16:39
In sci.space.history Damien Valentine <valends3(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> So let's recap (since there's an awful lot of quoting being thrown
> around). Mr. Mook mentioned a "superlaser", which is a device from
> the "Star Wars" franchise.

> Someone criticized this plan, since it relies on a device that
> doesn't exist. Mr. Mook claimed that "none of my stuff is
> fictional", implying either that when he says "superlaser", he
> doesn't actually mean a device like the example he gave...or else
> that he has a fully armed and operational battle station in his
> attic.

> Then Misters Mook and McCall just started repeating their points
> over and over again, with Mr. Mook curiously insisting that since
> he's not writing a novel, his plan does not rely on "fictional"
> devices...and then claiming that his opponents are either stupid or
> "evil".

> Have I got this right?

I think you have caught the gist of it, yes.

rick jones
--
No need to believe in either side, or any side. There is no cause.
There's only yourself. The belief is in your own precision. - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
From: William Mook on 1 Mar 2010 17:10
On Mar 1, 4:39 pm, Rick Jones <rick.jo...(a)hp.com> wrote:
> In sci.space.history Damien Valentine <valen...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So let's recap (since there's an awful lot of quoting being thrown
> > around).  Mr. Mook mentioned a "superlaser", which is a device from
> > the "Star Wars" franchise.
> > Someone criticized this plan, since it relies on a device that
> > doesn't exist.  Mr. Mook claimed that "none of my stuff is
> > fictional", implying either that when he says "superlaser", he
> > doesn't actually mean a device like the example he gave...or else
> > that he has a fully armed and operational battle station in his
> > attic.
> > Then Misters Mook and McCall just started repeating their points
> > over and over again, with Mr. Mook curiously insisting that since
> > he's not writing a novel, his plan does not rely on "fictional"
> > devices...and then claiming that his opponents are either stupid or
> > "evil".
> > Have I got this right?
>
> I think you have caught the gist of it, yes.
>
> rick jones
> --
> No need to believe in either side, or any side. There is no cause.
> There's only yourself. The belief is in your own precision.  - Joubert
> these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
> feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

No, Rick, you got it wrong. I responded to Damien's points in a
separate post so won't repeat them here.

Basically, you can beam energy via solar pumped laser far from Earth
and still efficiently beam energy to Earth. As a result you can orbit
the sun for example, close in, and make far more efficient use of your
hardware than remaining near Earth. That's my first point.
Operating at 2,500x solar intensity found at Earth reduces capital
cost to 1/2500th that needed at Earth at first order. Power levels
being far higher also have advantages when the laser beams are used
for propulsion. Laser light sails for interplanetary travel. Laser
rockets for landing and take off and navigation near a high gravity
body. This combined with providing large quantities of power for
space stations, space colonies and cities and industry located
anywhere in the solar system.

I worked out in detail how to place two 8.8 ton solar power satellites
on Earth orbit, and use sunlight to navigate one to GEO from LEO in a
few months. Then, use sunlight to navigate one to Hohmann transfer
orbit to Jupiter from LEO in five months. After two and a half years,
the satellite passing Jupiter, uses a gravity sling shot to drop its
speed relative to the sun to zero - where it falls directly into the
sun - in about 2 years and 4 months. It then uses light pressure to
slow and hover above the sun at 2 million to 3.5 million km, well
below Earth's 150 million km altitude where the satellite beams energy
to its companion satellite(s) in GEO at a 60 GW rate.

Thirty such satellite pairs would replace all the energy use on Earth
ending the age of oil coal and natural gas, and require only 30
shuttle launches to complete. This could take place in less than 3
years and cost $15 billion for the Shuttle launches and $15 billion
for the satellites.

Humanity spends over $2,000 billion EACH YEAR for energy.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: NATURE: A CoGeNT result in the hunt for dark matter [?]
Next: Royal Society of Chemistry backs sharing of data in contrast toJones "standard practice" statement