5 ms·

So far every comment on this thread miss the main customer for this tech: the military. Driving fuel trucks along thousand of kilometers where the enemy can bom

So far every comment on this thread miss the main customer for this tech: the military. Driving fuel trucks along thousand of kilometers where the enemy can bomb your convoy anywhere, just to run the lights and computers, is incredibly dangerous, costly and inefficient (see the wagon equation). Plus, any kind of power source you bring to the battlefield can be captured by your enemy and used against you. Who cares if beaming it from space is a thousand times more costly than what your local utility company charges you. If it can bring an advantage on the battlefield, army people will research, develop and use it.

anonporridge 4y ago
And beyond electricity generation, if you can beam enough solar energy down from space to power the military machine in a remote location, it's not a terribly big step to build a fucking space laser to incinerate any point of the planet at will.
- dirtball_ 4y ago
  I'm excited for the orbital gravity mirror
- xnx 4y ago
  The Crossbow Project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTx_qTwQqjU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTx_qTwQqjU
Retric 4y ago
Solar + batteries + sabotage charges is a fuck of a lot cheaper for the military. Alternatively generators use vastly less fuel than tanks or aircraft etc so logistically it’s not a major issue. What they might be interested in is drones and missiles. In theory you can make a very lightweight and powerful jet engine using beamed power which then gets unlimited range. Being able to launch cheap Mach 4+ missiles from a gunboat to hit some target 5,000+ miles away is on somebody’s wishlist.
mirekrusin 4y ago
It would also act as high precision targeting system for enemy?
qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
Space is the soft belly of all tactical components. One shotgunshell of a rocket can destroy your whole powersupply and any orbital industry for decades. MAD applies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome I highly doubt that any military, no matter how tech affine, would expose itself to this. Producing fuel in situ with below water solar panels - just off the coast, yes, but not spaced based pre-collection. All you need is industrial strength (chemical/coil) gun and compressed, heat unfolding foil projectiles, to shoot at satellites today.
- pjc50 4y ago
  I don't believe anyone has successfully demoed gun attacks on satellites - and I thought it was infeasible because you'd have to be hypersonic at ground level and lose too much energy. MAD aside, it seems great for the sort of COIN wars that the US spent the last 20 years fighting. The Taliban don't have anti-satellite weapons.
  - qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
    Yet. With so many sattelites, somebody is going to get sloppy. We already had instances, were people hacked "dead" sattelites. All thats needed is a crash, not something designed to be damaged. Space is the soft underbelly of the soft underbelly that is civilized society.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Space is also vast, Kessler syndrome is mostly a threat to a small percentage of orbits. The bottom of LEO blurs the line between space flight and aircraft because nothing can stay there for long without active boosters. At the other end there is a vast mostly empty space above, below, and around geostationary orbit.
      - qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
        A Kessler syndrom is a exponential thing. Shrapnell hitting shrapnell, becoming smaller all the time, some of those shrapnells will recieve sufficient energy to be sling shotted into higher orbits. Also, several parties have threatened a kessler syndrom indirectly, the last being the russians atm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon Space is vast, but orbits cover vast distances regularly, making it a thing of propability and syncing up cycles. Throw a dice often enough and you win this lottery with certainty, because with every hit you get exponential more lottery tickets. So, to sum it up, its not about if unless action is taken, its about when..
bearmode 4y ago
It would be unbelievably easy for any modern military to take down a satellite like this.

anonporridge 4y ago

And beyond electricity generation, if you can beam enough solar energy down from space to power the military machine in a remote location, it's not a terribly big step to build a fucking space laser to incinerate any point of the planet at will.

dirtball_ 4y ago
I'm excited for the orbital gravity mirror
xnx 4y ago
The Crossbow Project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTx_qTwQqjU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTx_qTwQqjU

Retric 4y ago

Solar + batteries + sabotage charges is a fuck of a lot cheaper for the military. Alternatively generators use vastly less fuel than tanks or aircraft etc so logistically it’s not a major issue. What they might be interested in is drones and missiles. In theory you can make a very lightweight and powerful jet engine using beamed power which then gets unlimited range. Being able to launch cheap Mach 4+ missiles from a gunboat to hit some target 5,000+ miles away is on somebody’s wishlist.

mirekrusin 4y ago

It would also act as high precision targeting system for enemy?

qikInNdOutReply 4y ago

Space is the soft belly of all tactical components. One shotgunshell of a rocket can destroy your whole powersupply and any orbital industry for decades. MAD applies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome I highly doubt that any military, no matter how tech affine, would expose itself to this. Producing fuel in situ with below water solar panels - just off the coast, yes, but not spaced based pre-collection. All you need is industrial strength (chemical/coil) gun and compressed, heat unfolding foil projectiles, to shoot at satellites today.

pjc50 4y ago
I don't believe anyone has successfully demoed gun attacks on satellites - and I thought it was infeasible because you'd have to be hypersonic at ground level and lose too much energy. MAD aside, it seems great for the sort of COIN wars that the US spent the last 20 years fighting. The Taliban don't have anti-satellite weapons.
- qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
  Yet. With so many sattelites, somebody is going to get sloppy. We already had instances, were people hacked "dead" sattelites. All thats needed is a crash, not something designed to be damaged. Space is the soft underbelly of the soft underbelly that is civilized society.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Space is also vast, Kessler syndrome is mostly a threat to a small percentage of orbits. The bottom of LEO blurs the line between space flight and aircraft because nothing can stay there for long without active boosters. At the other end there is a vast mostly empty space above, below, and around geostationary orbit.
    - qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
      A Kessler syndrom is a exponential thing. Shrapnell hitting shrapnell, becoming smaller all the time, some of those shrapnells will recieve sufficient energy to be sling shotted into higher orbits. Also, several parties have threatened a kessler syndrom indirectly, the last being the russians atm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon Space is vast, but orbits cover vast distances regularly, making it a thing of propability and syncing up cycles. Throw a dice often enough and you win this lottery with certainty, because with every hit you get exponential more lottery tickets. So, to sum it up, its not about if unless action is taken, its about when..

bearmode 4y ago

It would be unbelievably easy for any modern military to take down a satellite like this.