233 feet isn't very high... -- I had some fun with model rockets vacationing
this past week; getting to over 1000 feet for a 2-3 ounce rocket is pretty
trivial (with a reusable launch pad and rocket the cost is the engine - $2
per shot or so)... And they have to get special NORAD permission? Nice
technology, but is this really going to get us there?
> 233 feet isn't very high... -- I had some fun with model rockets vacationing
> this past week; getting to over 1000 feet for a 2-3 ounce rocket is pretty
> trivial (with a reusable launch pad and rocket the cost is the engine - $2
> per shot or so)... And they have to get special NORAD permission? Nice
> technology, but is this really going to get us there?
the importance of a technology that has similar capabilities to
a mass driver, but can operate from the earth.
They're only using a 10kw laser.
They've got a 100kw laser they're working on that should give 30km
altitude or so.
Their calculations show a 1Mw laser can put 1kg into orbit for a few
tens or hundreds dollars. c.f. $2600 with Russian Proton V.
The difference between this and a rocket is that they can put something
up every minute or so.
Assuming 1 per minute, this makes 525 tonnes per year... that's
more launch capability than all the other launchers put together,
but for lower cost.
Solid rockets such as the one you mentioned are capable of making
orbit, but at much, much greater cost.
> Arthur (apsmith@...
>
>> Lightcrafttechnologies.com
>
civilization?"
>
> 233 feet isn't very high... -- I had some fun with model rockets vacationing
> this past week; getting to over 1000 feet for a 2-3 ounce rocket is pretty
> trivial (with a reusable launch pad and rocket the cost is the engine - $2
> per shot or so)... And they have to get special NORAD permission? Nice
> technology, but is this really going to get us there?
>
Flights of aircraft and rockets within the atmosphere are regulated by
the FAA.
NORAD does not regulate anything, they just track space objects.
To launch into orbit requires licenses from the DOT.
Shop online without a credit card
http://www.rocketcash.com
I'm not sure that lightcraft - in theory a major new launch technology -
really has the right to be considered to have potential at this stage: the
results Myrabo & the team have achieved a very modest; & the problems in
scaling up the technology to useable levels that these results have revealed
are suitably astronomical.
in a microsat system isn't large by terrestrial generation purposes; but is
massive in terms of keeping the launch craft intact during launch; & even
the current system (which has achieved lifts no better than Chinese military
rockets of a thousand years ago; & a lot less than the 200 yr old British
bombardment rockets which appear in the USAmerican national anthem) is
tending to burn out the expensive test probes faster than the team can build
'em.
The situation is not dissimilar to Dr Rob Wing Lee's M2P2 virtual sail
technology: in theory, this plasma sail would open up the potential for a
huge number of solar system missions (both robotic & manned) as well as
interstellar precursor missions; but a) proving that the system works; & b)
proving that it will work without frying everything inside the M2P field is
another question entirely.
That said, i'm still pleased that both technologies are being researched; &
must add some links to both these theoretical technologies to the e2 links
page....
All the best,
Robert Clements Robert.Clements@...
endeavour2 project http://www.geocities.com/robtclements/endeavour2.html>
> Their calculations show a 1Mw laser can put 1kg into orbit for a few
> tens or hundreds dollars. c.f. $2600 with Russian Proton V.
required to support it all, you can't just count the cost
of the energy to send the thing up. If laser (or even mass launcher)
systems mean significantly less complex machinery to install
with each payload, that should certainly help. But payload
preparation, and postlaunch communications, tracking etc are other
costs that will still be there, and will be worse if you're
launching lots of small things rather than one large one.
> Assuming 1 per minute, this makes 525 tonnes per year... that's
> more launch capability than all the other launchers put together,
> but for lower cost.
Truax's "big dumb" Sea Dragon was supposed to be capable of
launching 500 tonnes of payload in one launch. If there was a market
for it (should be cheaper than Energiya launches, supposedly under $1000
per kg). Laser-based launch systems should make more sense when they can move
bigger payloads; at least this proves it can be done.
Arthur Smith (apsmith@...
> In the USA or if owned/registered by by US citizen/corporation :-
>
> Flights of aircraft and rockets within the atmosphere are regulated by
> the FAA.
1 pound. The lightwave system was 3 ounces.
>
> NORAD does not regulate anything, they just track space objects.
According to the article they had to go through NORAD to avoid their
laser damaging orbiting satellites.
Arthur (apsmith@...
Ok. You don't get it do you?
>> Their calculations show a 1Mw laser can put 1kg into orbit for a few
>> tens or hundreds dollars. c.f. $2600 with Russian Proton V.
>
> The cost of current launch systems is primarily the number of people
> required to support it all,
Oh you do understand!
> you can't just count the cost
> of the energy to send the thing up.
Unless that cost starts to dominate because everthing else gets
cheaper right?
> If laser (or even mass launcher)
> systems mean significantly less complex machinery to install
> with each payload, that should certainly help. But payload
> preparation,
Hint: mass production. Launch 1 and it costs X. Launch 600 and
costs go down by 50% or more. 15000 we're down to 30%. And
these are the short term price. Also, quality control isn't
quite so important- if even 10% fail you just buy a few more.
> and postlaunch communications, tracking etc are other
> costs that will still be there,
These cost look fixed to me.
> and will be worse if you're
> launching lots of small things rather than one large one.
That turns out not to be the case.
Lightcraft can launch 1 per day or 1000 per day. Same number of
people. Same number of tracking systems. Same number of launch
pads. Same number nearly everything. More payloads and launches
same amount of equipment.
>> Assuming 1 per minute, this makes 525 tonnes per year... that's
>> more launch capability than all the other launchers put together,
>> but for lower cost.
Hence cheaper per pound.
> Truax's "big dumb" Sea Dragon was supposed to be capable of
> launching 500 tonnes of payload in one launch. If there was a market
> for it (should be cheaper than Energiya launches, supposedly under $1000
> per kg).
Maybe. But nobody has managed to get enough money to build one.
And it is difficult to scale up to. Laser launchers can SCALE.
> Laser-based launch systems should make more sense when they can move
> bigger payloads; at least this proves it can be done.
Yes, but look at the sheer tonnage.
Rhetorical question: What happens if you launch lots of small stuff
(e.g. cans of propellent) into LEO and catch it in a net?
> Arthur Smith (apsmith@...
civilization?"
Leik's web site is:
It doesn't look like it has been updated since the last time the address
was posted to this list.
Mitchell James