The Maine Solution - Updated

I haven't the vaugest idea but I do know that
expending 90% of your initial launch mass is not the
most cost effective means of getting a payload to
orbit, regardless of the number of launches. Some
critisize electric drive for cars because it's
technology that needs to be scaled up to make it
competitive with IC engines but electric is
intrinsically more efficient than IC engines, with
only one moving part and that going in only one
direction so comparing one technology to another
really requires looking at the relative thermodynamic
efficiencies involved. Leaving the energy source on
the ground is inherently more efficient than lifting
the power source against one gravity.

I had a brief email conversation with a representative
of Launch Point Tech. who pointed out that with a much
cheaper alternative to rockets a dramatic increase in
total number of launches was highly probable. I
suggested they address the possible disposal of
radioactive waste into a million year orbit as one way
of guarenteeing a significant number of launches
annually. In the early days of commercial aviation,
the government provided a guarenteed income to
aircraft manufacturers via the postal service. It was
quid pro quo. Both received value and we (the
consumer) received a greatly accelerated technology
development. I don't see why we can't have something
similar with nuc. waste disposal??? Launch point is
hoping to build a proof of concept, 30 to 50 meter
diameter unit in the next year or so. The 2 km unit is
a single , albeit useful, baby step in the right
direction and small is financially feasible. I wish I
was rich. I'd do the Man Who Sold the Moon
routine,,,(Heinlien). But I am certain this has real
world viability,,,

Gary 7