Author Topic: Beamed Energy Propulsion  (Read 35615 times)

Offline biglio

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Beamed Energy Propulsion
« on: 08/05/2008 06:04 am »
In light of the last debacle form spacex isn't it time we should give a good look at Beamed Energy Propulsion?
I know professor Myrabo (arguably the biggest expert on the matter and the one who was able to actually fly something) re-set up his company (lightcraft LLc) and is trying to finance it to try to solve the engineering problems that come with BEP, if he succeeds it will be the end of the chemical rockets era. And we might finally have a reliable cheap and reusable system to access space!
I know he's interested into having his business plan circulating, does anyone already have it?
thanks, biglio

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Beamed Energy Propulsion
« Reply #1 on: 08/05/2008 11:08 am »
if he succeeds it will be the end of the chemical rockets era.


highly doubtful.  The implementation constraints are too many.  This is only practical at a few sites around the globe

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Beamed Energy Propulsion
« Reply #2 on: 08/05/2008 11:35 am »
I'd have to say "no", it's probably not time for beamed power yet. A working technology hasn't been shown and it'll probably require more demand for launch services to support R&D and the infrastructure.
Karl Hallowell

Offline biglio

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Beamed Energy Propulsion
« Reply #3 on: 08/05/2008 03:30 pm »
I would say yes!
Myrabo was able to fly a lightcraft in 2000 and apparently haven't been idle all these years (he recieved a 2.5 million grant from USAF to further develop the concept) and now says that the technology is out of science and into engineering, he said there is a nasa white paper that gives the technology a TRL (Technology Readiness Level) of 2 but he says they are now at least at TRL6 and I believe the guy, he has a ton of credibility, it's not one of those "mad scientists", to be sincere the more I read about it the more it makes sense to me, the hurdles i think are the fact that is so multidisciplinary that it's difficult for a big organization (like NASA or it's peers) to put up a study group, that's why maybe a one man team is more suited to bring it to fruition.
I''m sincerely interested into seeing the BP and eventually investing into it, he told me that was interested in a "diffused" shareholder base more than a VC or big investor money. sincerely if it works it's the only technology right now that could be a paradigm shift from chem rockets, that remain unreliable, expensive and somewhat dangerous.
i think he told me that there is a 5 years time horizon to get to orbit if adequately funded or at the worst to suborbital. sincerely i really hope he succeeds.
biglio

PS there are bep groups in china, japan, russia, germany, brazil and the us now and there are new ones being set up as we speak

Offline biglio

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Beamed Energy Propulsion
« Reply #4 on: 08/05/2008 08:06 pm »
If someone wants to get a grasp of where the research on BEP stands should look at the proceedings of the fifth world congress on BEP.
you can buy the whole mass of works at http://www.aibep.org/Bookstore/Bookstore.htm
It's very interesting I think and shows that the technology is being picked up worldwide and is very promising.
biglio
« Last Edit: 08/05/2008 08:07 pm by biglio »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Beamed Energy Propulsion
« Reply #5 on: 08/05/2008 08:08 pm »
the hurdles i think are the fact that is so multidisciplinary that it's difficult for a big organization (like NASA or it's peers) to put up a study group, that's why maybe a one man team is more suited to bring it to fruition.


That statement contradicts itself.  multidisciplinary tasks are what larger organization excel at. 

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Beamed Energy Propulsion
« Reply #6 on: 08/05/2008 08:12 pm »
sincerely if it works it's the only technology right now that could be a paradigm shift from chem rockets, that remain unreliable, expensive and somewhat dangerous.


It isn't going to replace them.  Physically impossible from fixed sites. 

You have no proof that BEP won't be unreliable, expensive and somewhat dangerous.

It would be dangerous for anything to come near the beam. It could hit something in the atmosphere or in orbit.

Offline biglio

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Beamed Energy Propulsion
« Reply #7 on: 08/05/2008 08:19 pm »

It isn't going to replace them.  Physically impossible from fixed sites. 

You have no proof that BEP won't be unreliable, expensive and somewhat dangerous.

It would be dangerous for anything to come near the beam. It could hit something in the atmosphere or in orbit.

[/quote]

Why impossible form a fixed site? actually the beam generator is in a fixed position on the ground and you can "follow" your lightcraft from ground up from a single location.
all the numbers i've seen point to the fact that you might be right only on the somewhat dangerous part.
all the "firings" done were done using a NORAD window, exactly to be sure that nothing happens to third parties.

BTW if you are interested why don't you look at this
http://www.lightcrafttechnologies.com/gallery_video.html
it's pretty interesting even if a little naive

PS big organizations aren't good at multidisciplinary things at all! Unless they have all the "pieces" in house and anyway good luck having different dept work together. Here we are talking about cross organization resources (in addition to the fact i have my doubts the big players are interested in perturbing the status quo)
« Last Edit: 08/05/2008 08:22 pm by biglio »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Beamed Energy Propulsion
« Reply #8 on: 08/05/2008 08:40 pm »

PS big organizations aren't good at multidisciplinary things at all! Unless they have all the "pieces" in house and anyway good luck having different dept work together. Here we are talking about cross organization resources (in addition to the fact i have my doubts the big players are interested in perturbing the status quo)

This means you have no idea about the aerospace business.   They have all the piece, they use cross organization resources.  It is called system engineering.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Beamed Energy Propulsion
« Reply #9 on: 08/05/2008 08:42 pm »
actually the beam generator is in a fixed position on the ground and you can "follow" your lightcraft from ground up from a single location.

Can't.  It will go past the horizon.  If not, it won't be in orbit and still will need a chemical stage for insertion.

Offline biglio

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Beamed Energy Propulsion
« Reply #10 on: 08/05/2008 08:53 pm »


Can't.  It will go past the horizon.  If not, it won't be in orbit and still will need a chemical stage for insertion.
[/quote]

Jim, looks like we disagree here, first evidently i know much more about BEP than you do (maybe because i've been working in aerospace start ups for quite a while), do your homework, in all the reports and projections i've seen there is only one energy source on the ground and having studied the physics of the system i agree, you don't need more.
Second I'm amazed at your faith in big organizations cooperating on multidisciplinary breakthrough projects, i really think hard and very few come to mind, especially if the disciplines involved are different from one another.....
biglio

anyway, i'll keep my faith in BEP and you your skepticism and we'll talk again down the line.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Beamed Energy Propulsion
« Reply #11 on: 08/06/2008 12:01 am »

1.  maybe because i've been working in aerospace start ups for quite a while),

2.  Second I'm amazed at your faith in big organizations cooperating on multidisciplinary breakthrough projects, i really think hard and very few come to mind, especially if the disciplines involved are different from one another.....


1.  That has nothing to do with BEP and also doesn't qualify you for anything.  Especially, since it looks like none of the many startups were successful.  BTW, I worked for the 2nd most successful startup.

2.  Mahattan project, Atlas missile, Apollo, etc. BEP has nothing on these.
Also by your comment you don't know that basic rocket science is multidisciplinary.

Offline biglio

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Beamed Energy Propulsion
« Reply #12 on: 08/06/2008 12:59 am »
Jim i won't comment on the first.
on the second I might have expressed myself badly, in the sense that BEP is more multidisciplinary definitely than "basic rocket science" or put it this way the disciplines involved are are not closely related (aerodynamics from sub to hyper sonic, airbreathing engines physics, advanced optics, power transmission, optoelectronics, material sciences, avionics, etc.).
And if you use examples like the manhattan project or the apollo program, which were unique cases you just make my point, but again, i'm not trying to convince anybody here, I just think that it's a technology that has potential and has finally came out of the lab to get into the "real" world.
As said we'll talk down the line on how BEP is delivering on its promises.
« Last Edit: 08/06/2008 01:11 am by biglio »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Beamed Energy Propulsion
« Reply #13 on: 08/06/2008 01:29 am »
aerodynamics from sub to hyper sonic  -  Rocket science
airbreathing engines  -   rocket science
physics  - rocket science
advanced optics  - spacecraft (rocket) science
power transmission  -  spacecraft (rocket) science
optoelectronics -   - spacecraft (rocket) science
material sciences   -   rocket science
avionics  -   rocket science

Launch vehicle and spacecraft organizations do all of this on a daily basis.

BEP has got nothing special.  It is no more different than nuclear rockets.

As far as what you know about BEP doesn't mean it is anymore viable.  My comments still stand.  BEP has holes in it and it has no more than a fringe applications.

We won't talk down the line since you will be too embarrassed to admit that it didn't amount to anything. 
« Last Edit: 08/06/2008 01:31 am by Jim »

Offline jimvela

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1662
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Beamed Energy Propulsion
« Reply #14 on: 08/06/2008 01:31 am »

do your homework, in all the reports and projections i've seen there is only one energy source on the ground and having studied the physics of the system i agree, you don't need more.

Sure.  All you need is an orbiting reflector in a relatively high orbit, with sufficient positioning accuracy to follow the S/C with that beam, which is being pointed sufficiently accurately and with such tight collimation that the reflector can bounce it.

What could possibly go wrong with that?

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37442
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Beamed Energy Propulsion
« Reply #15 on: 08/06/2008 01:32 am »
Notice the lack of interest by the rest of everyone?  Take a hint

Offline biglio

  • Member
  • Posts: 39
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Beamed Energy Propulsion
« Reply #16 on: 08/06/2008 01:51 am »
jimvela, i have no idea where you got the idea you need something in orbit, do you have a link?

the other jim, you know I usually put my money where my mouth is, so i will contact Myrabo, get the BP and invest, I did my homework and i'm convinced that there is meat (after all to just quote someone, it's all rocket science, or not? ) and if i was wrong at least i tried and won't have any regrets (the x-prize was another thing I joined early that was worth every penny invested, not everyone is looking just for ROI).
As for the lack of interest, goddard had to scrape by for quite a while before the V2 made people realize maybe rockets had some interest, also maybe the topic is too mundane and "down to earth", if nuclear propulsion, anti-gravity, missions to mars, etc. get people interested it means BEP is too mature a technology (heck there are even prrof of things flying, university study groups, grants allotted, boring, I admit).
As said, we'll see, I'll have no problem admitting it was a failure if that's the way it's going to go, but again, i think the technology is mature for a stab at making it a business. i kind of find difficult to understand all this skepticism, when clearly a technology like this if successful will impact positively the whole sector and bring a real and much needed change, any rocket scientist can tell you the technology has reached it's limits.
« Last Edit: 08/06/2008 01:58 am by biglio »

Offline lewis886

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 171
    • OldFutures
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Beamed Energy Propulsion
« Reply #17 on: 08/06/2008 08:08 pm »
i had asked some questions about this in a thread i started earlier.... you responded with a few things that have been happening.... but then i asked a few general questions about the state of the technology/development, and you never answered...

look at the 3rd to the last post....
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13084.0

Offline jimvela

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1662
  • Liked: 900
  • Likes Given: 71
Re: Beamed Energy Propulsion
« Reply #18 on: 08/06/2008 08:38 pm »
jimvela, i have no idea where you got the idea you need something in orbit, do you have a link?

No need for a link just think:  You stated that  you don't need multiple sources, and that you don't have a problem when you go over the horizon (which you would be most of the time)

How are you going to beam energy to your vehicle when you're over the horizon? (e.g. you have to shoot it through this little ball of rock called the Earth).


Offline Bruce

  • Spaceflight Spectator
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • I'll never see this view. Glad that others have :)
  • Kent, UK
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Beamed Energy Propulsion
« Reply #19 on: 08/06/2008 09:23 pm »
How are you going to beam energy to your vehicle when you're over the horizon?

Use a second ground station? :) and a third...and a fourth.

This sounds like science fiction. Is it really science fact? I can't imagine a "death ray" replacing the shuttle's boosters and SSME
Here's something useful in a signature: This the last post in a thread? Goto Unread Topics

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0