Slashdot Mirror
NASA Looking To Power Spacecraft With Lasers
msmoriarty writes "NASA has decided to develop methods for using lasers and/or microwave energy to 'provide external power on demand for aerospace vehicles' as part of its 'Game-Changing' technology development program. According to the announcement, 'The project will attempt to develop a low-cost, modular power beaming capability and explore multiple technologies to function as receiving elements of the beamed power. This combination of technologies could be applied to space propulsion, performance and endurance of unpiloted aerial vehicles or ground-to-ground power beaming applications. Development of such capabilities fulfills NASA's strategic goal of developing high payoff technology and enabling missions otherwise unachievable with today's technology."
Wow, that's great. It's just a shame that NASA can't get humans into space.
Oh, wait . . . scratch that. It should read, "It's just a shame that Congress isn't capable of letting NASA get humans into space."
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
If it does work, efficiently and at long range, we can finally get started on sending solar collectors up into space for space based solar power. Which'll go a damned long way towards moving us along the way to a type I civilization.
And, if we happen to get excess power, maybe we can funnel that off into building a mass driver so we can get back up to space cheaply and efficiently instead of this irritating rocket based technology.
GET ON IT NASA! Work on REAL advances instead of listening to people harping on about sending people into space in order to do...what, exactly? Make people on the ground feel good about themselves? (If they advance their robots enough, a robot will be able to do experiments just as well as a human with proper human supervision)
If the laser propulsion tech that they are talking about is focusing light to create plasma of the surrounding air, then would this not create enormous amounts of ozone as a by-product?
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
Ion engines have been around for decades now and NASA still celebrates their use as a demonstration of how "high tech" NASA is.
Most satellites and space probes still use extremely inefficient fuels even for large, energy intensive maneuvers - like going from Geostationary Transition Orbit(GTO) to the geostationary orbit (GSO) - mandating that they consist mostly of fuel for those maneuvers and having their life-time limited to however long it takes to deplete the fuel.
Spaceflight is one of the most conservative and unchanging industries out there. There are dozens of game changers that didn't change the game. And using extremely expensive ground installations that will provide only part-time power to a satellite - doing worse than what cheap solar panels can do much better anyway - is a particularly inauspicious candidate to actually do change anything at all.
In short: NASA, do us all a favor and shut up!
getting stuff into orbit would be a whole lot easier if you aim a array of lasers at a heat exchanger on the launch vehicle, and use it to heat up hydrogen for thrust. it would make easily reusable single stage launch vehicles feasible.
Arf.
NASA has had a Centennial Challenge open in power beaming for some years now. From :
This challenge is a practical demonstration of wireless power transmission. Practical systems employing power beaming would have a wide range of applications from lunar rovers and space propulsion systems to airships above the Earth. Another future application of power beaming would be the space elevator concept.
In 2009 the competitors drove their laser-powered devices up a cable one kilometer high, suspended from a helicopter, and LaserMotive LLC was awarded $900,000.
It turns out that it is really tough and actually somewhat dangerous to have a helicopter dangle a 1 km string perfectly vertical. This also "doesn't scale" (i.e., there is no way a helicopter is going to dangle a 5 km string for a longer test), and future competitions will be done horizontally, on the ground. (This also fits in with the idea of power beaming to rovers, say one exploring the always dark Shackleton Crater at the Lunar South pole, which is frankly a more realistic near-term prospect than a terrestrial space elevator.)
I believe there is still $ 2 million (USD) to be awarded, so slashdotters should get to it and go out there and take the Governments money.
I have been writing one senator who sat on the Senate Arms Committee for the last 3 years suggesting that we do an X-Prize in America (or in the west) for 2 technologies. .5 to 5 km again at 25%, while the second is .5 Km at 50% efficiency. With a 5 km range, it enables a tank battalion to have electric weapons, with another tank in the rear that can provide lots more power (think a nuke reactor in a tank). In addition, it allows something like an Aircraft Carrier to provide power to other ships that would then have electric weapons. Again for civilian uses, the high efficiency not only improves current equipment, but it will be picked up by Ag tractors, and other new equipment. The 5 km also allows trains to pick this up. With such an approach, it makes it cheap to provide electric power to a train. Maintenance is a huge costs in a train. Likewise, it can provider energy at an airport for electric planes esp. for take-offs. We speak of wanting electric planes, but carrying all your energy is expensive. But the truly expensive portion is getting to altitude. After that time, you cut way back on power. For beaming on a disaster area, 5 kms allows floating the balloon much higher and covering a great deal more area. .5 km, while only getting 30% efficiency at 200 miles, it is still major gains all over.
The first is energy storage. It must have the ability to last for millions of cycles, have the ability to take an extremely fast charge with extreme energy and power densities. Basically, this is almost certainly a better ultra-cap, however, you do not want to limit it just to ultra-caps. If somebody can figure out a new better device that fits the bill, then you want to support it. After all, it is possible (not likely) that a battery would do the trick.
The second IS beaming power. This was to be in steps. The first was to be 1/2 km at 25% efficiency. THat would allow setting up local power. In particular, you can set up a power station and beam it to multiple points without wires. Think of a FOB or any place that needs to be set p quickly, but disassemble quickly as well. From a Civilian POV, it can be used to provide power to earth movers, diggers, etc At 25%, it has the same efficiency of a diesel. It can also be used to float a small balloon over a disaster area and provide local power QUICKLY. In any disaster, providing energy quickly makes the difference of life or death for many ppl. In addition, something like this will be a great deal lighter than loads of generators AND fuel.
Then create 2 X-prize to jump this from
Obviously, we need iterative prizes to continue jumping up efficiencies as well as distance. If it was possible to get 90% efficiency at
So, good to see that NASA has more brains than my senator. But I guess that was a given.
I really like this approach. If we can get hydrogen to expand via the electric heat, than we can make great strides in space travel. Now, if we can just get CONgress to kill the SLS and devote that money to private space launches as well as advanced R&D like this, we could get America back on track. Sadly, our CONgress is ran by a bunch of MBA/lawyer types esp. the house that are far more interested in helping themselves, rather than our nation.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
What we really need is a nice, big laser in a nice, high orbit. It should use photovoltaic cells to charge and have the range and power to give a meaningful kick to any spacecraft between Earth and Jupiter.
It would be expensive to build, but if it was done properly, it could provide "free delta v" to a lot of suitably-equipped spacecraft for a very, very long time.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
It couldn't plan ahead and see that the Space Shuttle - as part of a huge plan to build a space station and spaceships in orbit - was a failure from the start,
It was not a failure from the start. Not only other projects got canceled and made teh shuttle less usefull also the shuttle itself and its missions got stripped down. In the original concepts e.g. it was planned that the huge fuel tanks of the shuttle would go up into orbit with the shuttle. There they would have been decoupled and moved with a small engine into a parking orbit.
And there they would be combined later to a space station.
If that had not been scratched we had now over 130 "tanks" orbiting earth ready to be assembled into space station(s) small crusing space vessels etc.
Also I for myself don't see the shuttle program as a complete failure, after all it gave us Hubble, and let us repair it etc.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
It would be ridiculously expensive and dangerous, and it would tell us little that safer one-way robot missions cannot tell us for a fraction of the price.
Don't get me wrong, I am as excited as anyone about space exploration and colonization; but the point is, for now the technology just isn't mature enough.
Now, one could argue that sending people in space would be a good way to test our current technology and improve it; but the point is, most of the research and the testing that we _could_ do in space can be done just as well by unmanned missions, or by earth-based experiments.