Re: White Elephant (was Re: Naming 'the stick')

Since the Nova is capable of lofting 1,000,000 lbs and more into LEO
and this vehicle is capable of lofting at most 860,000 lbs into LEO,
I'd say SUPERNOVA isn't a good name for it.

http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/lvfam/nova.htm

I like the idea of upgrading the ET volume so that it could flyback
after use. The first four elements could glide back on their own power
under most circumstances with a L/D of about 12 - and the two could be
recovered downrange snagged like the old discovery satellites - mid
flight - and towed back to the launch center for release

http://www.spygames.com/cal1.htm

The third and orbital stages complete an entire orbit of the Earth, and
can re-enter to glide back to the launch center again, depending on the
mission. But, if they re-enter too far from the launch center, a third
recovery plane can be positioned at the entry point.

In this way all elements can be fully recovered and the hydrogen and
oxygen and refurbishment costs are the only recurring costs.

Allowing say $43 million per flight and 430 tons per flight, we end up
with $100,000 per ton - or $50 per pound. Which is a breakthrough
price structure.

Two launches and an on orbit docking, allow 400 tons of payload to be
put into GEO - with recovery of the orbiting kick stage... to place a
1 km diameter thin film concentrator satellite - capable of generating
227 MW of laser power - delivering 200 MW continuously to 20,000 ground
stations simultaneously. Over the course of a year 1.75 billion kWh of
energy are delivered. Charging only $0.04 per KWh this generates $70
million per year.

http://magnet.consortia.org.il/ConSolar/hpspl.html

At a cost of $350 million per satellite (including launch) this
provides for 20% annual rate of return. With a 15 year lifespan the
satellite generates 3x its cost over its lifetime.

Five satellites generate a GW, and 5,000 satellites generate a TW.

Humanity uses energy at a rate of about six TW -so 30,000 satellites of
the type described would be needed to supply all of humanity's current
energy needs.

Thus, 10 launches per day could be supported - to supplant all use of
fossil fuels within 15 years... and 10 launches per day would be
required to replace spent satellites at that time!

30,000 satellites making $70 million per year would represent an income
stream of $2.1 trillion. This is 2.5 x what humanity now spends on oil
at the well - and about what's spent at retail! Which is appropriate
since the laser/maser beams could deliver power anywhere anytime its
needed.

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=6595781
http://www.islandone.org/LEOBiblio/SPBI115.HTM

If all humans used energy at the same rate as the average US citizen,
energy use would rise 11x - requiring 330,000 satellites this size.
THis means 100 launches per day - about one every 15 minutes would be
needed.

If all humans had personal flying machines and used them the way
Americans use autos - we would require 3,000,000 satellites of this
size. But at this point, we could use the lasers on orbit to power
laser driven launchers - to loft satellites on a nearly continuous
basis from several points across the globe. By this time costs would
drop, which would accelerate economic development, within the 15 year
period we're describing all people would rise in living standard to
that of today's millionaires - of course there would still be
disparities, but the poorest of us would be well above what the average
American earns today.

http://www-phys.llnl.gov/clementine/ATP/Lsrprp1.gif
http://sfwrg.org/l002.html

Within this development cycle would be considerable opportunity to loft
serious payloads into LEO in support of industrial development of the
moon mars and other planets.

Sun orbiting solar power sats, operating inside the orbit of mercury
would send TW beams across the solar system to support serious
interplanetary travel. Among the missions, recover rich asteroids
fragments and send them INTO ORBIT AROUND THE EARTH.

http://www.rednova.com/modules/news/tools.php?tool=print&id=71886

Once sufficient resources are placed on orbit remotely controlled
robots driven by workers on the ground, would process the asteroid
feedstock into all manner of useful materials - for use on orbit and on
Earth.

http://www.teleroboticsurgeons.com/davinci.htm

Ultimately, all mining, all fabrication, all farming, all forestry,
would take place on orbit and deliver food, fiber, and manufactured
goods would take place directly from orbit - the Earth would be one
vast nature preserve, people spread across the Earth conncted by
suborbital vehicles powered by laser beams from orbit - and
communicating by direct broadcast to and from orbit - would create a
great residential area serviced from orbit. Ultimately, low cost
access to orbit would allow the creation of space homes as predicted by
Isaac Asimov and developed further by others.


http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/

Gerald O'Neil first considered very large space structures when
teaching graduate students how to make very large vacuum chambers.
Just change the sign of the pressure vector and you've converted a
large vacuum chamber to a large pressure vessel. What are the largest
vacuum chambers made? The ones surrounding particle accelerators! So
we already have serious industrial knowledge on how to make pressure
vessels kilometers in diameter.

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=4032921

http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/70sArt/AC75-1085f.jpeg
http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/70sArt/AC75-1921.GIF

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Modest Proposal - Common Interplanetary Booster
    ... Recall, that high specific impulse on orbit, translates to more ... sized vehicle can do much to reduce costs as well. ... It is attached to a flight element that has 15,384 pounds ... per launch. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: top ten reasons therell be faster progress
    ... and there isn't much money in that (in the short term ... weather satellites, mapping satellites, and on and on. ... launch costs were not significant ... Iridium might have been profitable if the costs of keeping the satellites ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
    ... If orbital tourism reduces launch costs ... developed for under $5G and deliver payloads to orbit for under $4K/Kg ... Not if you factor in the development costs. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Economics of Spaceflight
    ... Satellite launch makes economic sense. ... The returned value of satellites ... Earth orbit. ... What might, however, is the economies ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Sputnik Plus Fifty
    ... nuclear weapons carried by the same kind of rockets that could launch ... satellites into orbit, haunted the world... ... the rockets were created to carry nuclear ...
    (sci.space.policy)