Slashdot Mirror
Company Aims To Launch Spacecraft On Beams of Microwaves
MarkWhittington writes: The quest for cheap access to space, to make space travel as inexpensive as air travel, has eluded engineers, government policy makers, and business entrepreneurs from before the beginning of the space age. It has become axiomatic, almost to the point of being a cliché, that the true space age will not begin until launch costs come down significantly. Forbes reported about a company called Escape Dynamics that has a unique approach to the problem. The company proposes to launch payloads into low Earth orbit on beams of microwaves.
I hope this is built well away from tall buildings, airplane flight paths and other things that's don't mix well with high power microwaves.
...and underwear!
I don't think the article described the technology very well. Anybody find a better description elsewhere?
The correct phrase is "Lightweight Metal Headwear", and the community are "LMH Aficionados".
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
I have been reading about beamed propulsion for a while, this is an interesting concept. It is very nice to see progress is being made here. The advantage of beamed propulsion is that we can leave the power components on the ground (instead of needing to carry the energy as chemical propellant), which makes it far more efficient and can make spaceflight much more accessible (see rocket equation, most of the energy for a normal rocket is spend moving propellant and other things like propellant tanks up; we usually need to do things like multiple stages, etc. which add complexity and make resuability much harder). I think beamed propulsion is on the right track.
From the article, it seems that the hydrogen propellant (which is heated and blasted out) is used at all altitudes. This ship is then still described by the rocket equation, since it is effectively firing out hydrogen propellant at a given speed (the energy for the firing is external, but still, the propellant must be all on board at the beginning). Is it possible to instead use an air intake as long as feasible, switching to the hydrogen only at very high altitudes? This will greatly reduce the amount of hydrogen propellant needed, which will help a lot (again, refer to the rocket equation). I know this has been considered with usual spacecraft, there the situation is very different as chemical rocket spacecraft have to be using propellant always (even if not oxidizer in the air-breathing phase), here we can have a ship that can initially ascend as slowly as it wants while using air intake (since it is externally powered and isn't using hydrogen propellant yet), can accelerate fastest when air density is optimal (there is air for the intake, but not too much drag), and then switch to hydrogen at the end. Has this been considered?
Good luck Escape Dynamics, you have a very good project.
Because we finished doing that, we just didn't invite you. For obvious reasons.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
this has been demonstrated (on bang goes the theory, for eg, i don't have the link) to work using scale models, where a strobed laser pulse is used to turn air to plasma inside a simple parabolic reflector, to direct the explosion downward.
perhaps a combination of the two, begining with laser/air, and phasing toward h2/uwave?
You can look at the night sky for free, getting 100 kilometers "closer" to the rest of the universe achieves nothing.
Except for communication satellites... and environmental monitoring satellites, astronomy satellites in various bands that don't get through the atmosphere well, space weather monitoring, etc. Use of satellites is heavily commercial now, and finding a cheaper way to launch them would just be good business, no obsession required.
The airframe is a lifting body with a large flat undercarriage. This is the side that absorbs microwave energy, which is somehow transferred to the hydrogen fuel to provides thrust. After achieving orbit and delivering it's payload, the spacecraft deorbits and then the same lifting body surface that absorbed microwave radiation becomes the heat shield for reentry.
So how do you combine the ability to receive a large amount of microwave energy and then turn around and protect the airframe from reentry heat in the same structure? And in addition has the structural integrity to withstand launch and reentry stresses.
Microwaves are not invisible magic. They interact with the matter they encounter. Whatever heat shield material they use, it is going to absorb some of the microwaves that hit the vehicle. Can they keep this amount low enough and also fulfill the other requirements?
At this point there is so little technical detail, and so much marketing hype, that this has to go under the heading of geek fantasy daydreaming. I'm going to ignore this one until they show some real results or publish specific enough information that someone not on their payroll can say that it's feasible.
Why is Snark Required?
everybody believes the TI is crazy. But for gov/mil use? everything is fine and dandy.
I can't wait to see the first test flight when a flock of sea gulls intercepts the beam, explode into flames, and their burnt carcasses rain down on the beach. The subsequent loss of thrust and fiery crash or range safety termination should also make for interesting viewing on YouTube.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
It's not going to save that much. Calculate the size of klystron you'd need to generate the amount of microwaves for usable thrust.
This needs another EEVBlog bullshit segment.
The company proposes to launch payloads into low Earth orbit on beams of microwaves.
And fresh popcorn will be served when you get to obit.
i've heard about these ground based power systems before with microwaves and lasers but what about the inverse square law?
how massive of a signal would you have to generate in order to have enough power when the thing is at height?
i assume that people have worked the numbers and it works out but i just have no idea how it possibly could. anyone care to field this?
what if the vehicle's roof is a giant magnifying glass focusing the rays of the sun into a heat exchanger? i know i know... that sounds stupid but still, i'm curious as to why something like that wouldn't work given how much power the sun is putting out. is it just a matter of large the magnifying glass would have to be?
or if that's the case, how about a huge, ground based parabolic mirror that aims at the craft as it ascends... i assume then, there will be problems with atmosphere getting in the way... but is that insurmountable?
Uh, they say they need 300-400 MW, and klystrons of 10s of MW are standard contracts for some particle and plasma physics projects and no big deal to get (with higher powers achieved by running them in parallel essentially). They cost far less than a typical satellite launch, and while represent a capital investment for a small business, are in no way prohibitive for a business on the scale of what would be needed for satellite launches anyway.
And besides, that is for them and their investors to worry about whether or not they can make things cheap enough to compete with other methods, and has nothing to do with the the point the GP was countering. There very much is a demand for getting things "100 km closer to the rest of the universe," and furthermore quite a bit of interest in doing it cheaper, regardless of how viable this particular idea is.
We haven't finished colonizing the ocean bottoms. We've barely started, and I'm not sure it's such a good idea. (It needs a lot more study than it's had so far before I'll say that. It could be an ecological nightmare. Space, OTOH, is only dangerous to the explorers....well, colonization of space is only dangerous to the explorers.)
So I consider the colonization of space to be a lot better. It's also true, however, that human occupancy of space is going to require a lot of technical development that hasn't happened. As long as the International Space Station reuires more than yearly service missions (including, especially, supplies) that we need more technical development. A permanent occupancy of space cannot be managed until one can derive all the necessities for life (and support of the habitat) by mining asteroids *occasionally*.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Free and unlimited popcorn for all!
I realize that moving the power source off of the craft is going to help some but isn't THE major problem in the rocket equation reaction mass? Rockets have to carry it with them and this craft seems no different. Unless this propulsion system produces much higher exhaust velocities I don't see how its going to help much.
I recall a prof from RPI with a plan for something called "lightcraft" fairly similar to this. He was using microwaves and also lasers, as I recall; I think he might have built a small scale prototype.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leik_Myrabo
Good luck to Escape Dynamics, this could reduce the cost of orbit access if it works. Myrabo's lightcraft always had the problem of small payloads (1-2 tons I think), I wonder if ED has gotten around that or just plans to launch cubesats and ISS supply loads so it doesn't matter? You need a lot of power and beamed delivery isn't exactly 100% efficient either, something I suspect puts a ceiling on payload given realistic limits on power supply (you're not going to build a 10GW power plant for this, though in theory you could).
Another website with pretty pictures and empty promises by people who don't know what they're talking about.
Because we're Republicans. We hate you and we want you to suffer and die. We want to send you into that radiation-blasted hard vacuum and watch with relish as high-energy galactic cosmic rays pepper you like a subatomic machine gun firing relativistic bullets. We want to savour your agonizing death. We want those valves built by the lowest bidder fail and vent the atmosphere into space, so you can die of asphyxiation after suffering of massive embolism. We want to see those rockets explode in midflight and watch as the charred chunks of what used to be your bodies plummet into the ocean. Because we're Republicans, we're evil and this is the way of our kind.
As of sometime around last year there are now MASERs which could be used instead of throwing most of the microwave energy in directions other than the one desired. Their snakeoil is out of date.
The second snakeoil clue is we are getting this from Forbes and not Scientific American or New Scientist.
http://www.popsci.com/blog-net...
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
Some haven't noticed it's got more than four words, but you people are brighter than that and will see the part which could be used on the end. Earlier MASERs had some shortcomings compared with the recent solid state room temperature devices so now they can be used for applications like this despite them being impractical before.
A link with no commentary? Well here's some more. NASA said recently we can't get through the Van Allen belts: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c46_1381883600
In addition, I direct your attention to the video of the spacecraft which purportedly landed on the moon, when it leaves. The camera is on the moon. The camera pans upwards as the "lander" rises.
Nowhere in NASA's documentation of the moon missions did they describe this remote-controlled (or autonomously moving) camera mechanism, not did they describe how the footage was returned to earth.
I encourage you to read http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za00.htm, and attempt to debunk the experiments carried out therein. It took me a while to wrap my mind around the cage we're in. Now, I want to explore its boundaries, as any critically-thinking human should want to do.
See HBO's From the Earth to the Moon, episode 12, discussing how the TV camera on the rover was remotely-controlled from earth (operators trying to manually account for command delay, resulting in some missed liftoff footage on some missions.)
The rover had its own high-gain antenna for direct communication with Earth, including transmitting TV footage while the rover was stopped (audio only while moving, using low-gain antenna.)
If you are just heating a gas to large pressures and then letting it expel out the back, you get the same thrust from any mass at the same velocity.
So why use hydrogen? which is somewhat uncommon down here on earth (at least as a pure gas), and erm wouldn't it burst into flame as it encountered O2 while it was still extremely hot? on a geologic scale, earth is already losing hydrogen to the solar window blowing it away from the upper atmosphere -- unless there's some huge advantage of using hydrogen, seems kinda strange to select it. ?
I guess it seems like H20, which seems to be extremely easy to heat with microwaves, would be a better reaction mass? easy to carry as a liquid, just boil it and get lots of steam pressure ?
Does the article say why? Is there some known property of hydrogen that reacts well with microwaves ?
Actually at very high temperatures water disassociates into 2xH & O.
Not sure that the fact that it holds more heat has as much to do with ISP as the molecular weights.
Most of what's on TV is fake(d). That's why I asked [the collective] you to try to replicate the experiments; the zetetic method is very similar to Occam's razor, or Sherlock's deductive process.