4 ms·
We're a long way from geostationary orbit with this tech, though. They got 1 km, now you need 35,000.
by scythe 5y ago
We're a long way from geostationary orbit with this tech, though. They got 1 km, now you need 35,000.
- giantg2 5y agoI guess it depends on how tight the maser beam stays. Most of that 35k km has little to no atmosphere, so that part is a little less important.
- scythe 5y agoThere's an equation for that. The effective range of a Gaussian beam is roughly equal to (beam width)^2 / wavelength. I'm not sure what wavelength or beam width they used here, though.
- engineer_22 5y ago10Ghz from the article, and photo of the target appears to be 3 meters square
- scythe 5y agoThat means they're right at the Rayleigh length. You'd need a significantly wider beam or higher frequency to send power from orbit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_length https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_length
- DennisP 5y agoIn fact, SPS designs involve receivers measured in square kilometers. But they'd be mostly wire and would only contribute about 0.7 cents/kWh to the cost.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- pfdietz 5y agoWhy do you think it's a maser? High power microwave beams are a thing in radar. We don't use masers to make them. We don't use masers in microwave ovens, either, or in industrial applications requiring high power microwaves.