From: vince@offshore.ai (Vincent Cate) Newsgroups: sci.space.policy Subject: Re: Space elevator vs Rotovator References: <1064366747.427110@kyle.snap.net.nz> <9186edb5.0309250713.288117f3@posting.google.com> <9186edb5.0310012226.955e53b@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.88.68.230 economic_refugee@yahoo.com (E.R.) wrote in message news:... > From the NIAC report - > http://www.isr.us/Downloads/niac_pdf/chapter4.html > > "A complete power beaming system with 200 kW of power is the aim of > Compower, a private company [Bennett, 2000] (see figure 4.1). The > laser power will come from a 200 kW freeelectron laser (FEL) which > University of California - Berkeley will be supplying for a fixed > price of $120M." > > I recall one participant at the 2nd SE conference claiming the FEL was > designed, and was waiting for a buyer. This implies it has been > tested in the lab, but I've no details on that. Claiming it has been designed and wanting a buyer does really imply it has been built and tested. Aerospace guys usually design, get money, then build. > I've seen reports that differ in opinion. It might be pointed out > that your tourists will need supplies ... It all depends on what cost/lb to orbit you think we will have. With a rotovator I think the costs can be low enough for tourists. The supplies may not be much if you are growing food in space. Even if you just bring up the nutrients for a hydroponic farm and only recycle the water and CO2, it does not take much at all. > As an aside - an SE can be used to make .. more SEs. And long > tethers. Of course a rotovator can be used to make more rotovators. -- Vince