5 ms·

Again, your idea is vastly more complex. It falls in the same category as aerial battery swapping and global spanning vactrains. Sure, it could be done, but und

by _hypx 4y ago

Again, your idea is vastly more complex. It falls in the same category as aerial battery swapping and global spanning vactrains. Sure, it could be done, but under any realistic scenario, it is not going to happen. It is far more likely that we will find a much simpler solution in the meanwhile, such as a greener fuel, rendering this idea totally unnecessary and uneconomical. No one is "ruling it out," merely pointing out that it is absurdly unlikely. In fact, the only reason you are even giving your idea credence is because it is so far from reality that you can handwave the details. There are no serious studies nor experimental vehicles to criticize. Just a vague idea of how it might work on paper, with no hard challenges since you are free to imagine whatever technology you want. No one has even built any mechanism of beaming MWs of power via lasers before, but you are allowed to imagine such a system anyways. And apparently, a global network of such systems with built-in redundancies, all already working in your mind. The whole idea reminds me of the space elevator, which was another grand concept that works on paper, but was only seen as plausible until people started doing real calculations on it. Meanwhile, in the real world, real engineers have to overcome real world problems that are encountered in the development of real systems. These things only look hard because you have to see the gory details of real technologies. But in reality, they're far simpler than the crazy ideas you sometimes hear about. Which is why the greener fuel idea is far more plausible. It is far simpler, but only looks more complex because people have to solve the real world problems of it.

pfdietz 4y ago
Yes, the idea is more complex. "Vastly?" I think not. Nor are your attempts at analogy there at all persuasive. You are vigorously handwaving and arguing by bald assertion. Your objection to ME handwaving is obtuse. I am not the one claiming it is impossible. I don't have to show all possible ways it might be done don't work. Don't resort to the usual crank attempt of defending your initial claim by insisting I disprove it. You are obligated to explain in detail why the idea can't work. I don't think you can, your huffing and puffing notwithstanding. I think you could become more persuasive if you retreated to a time limited claim, say the next 30 years. The best argument would not be complexity, but rather the cost of the orbital lasers.
- _hypx 4y ago
  And what are you doing, but vigorous handwaving about how it is actually possible? Make a working version of it, or point to someone making it work. So far it is nothing but a paper concept. Again, no one is saying it is impossible. It is merely incredibly implausible and won't happen. You can pretty much pick an arbitrary timeframe on this. If you want 30 years, I'll give 30 years. It won't happen in that timeframe.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Your comparison to a space elevator is pretty disingenuous. We have planes that run on energy beaming down from space. Solar impulse 2 worked. Month-long endurance solar drones have existed for a year or two. Payload sucks, and wingspan is long, but that doesn't change the fact they work. We have battery powered planes. The tech is superior to ICE in every way but carrying enough energy to fly long distance (which is the deal breaker). Solar alone is insufficient due to energy density and efficiency, but a few kw per m^2 would work. A 2kW/m^2 monochromatic light would solve both of these. Existing PV tech is about 80-90% efficient at its bandgap. Epoxy some standard quarter cells into the top of an airbus, shine a 1000nm laser a few times as bright as the sun on it and your "complex" receiver is done. Nothing needs inventing to make it work. The batteries can provide a safe abort in anything except a transpacific route. Will it beat syn fuel economically? Almost certainly not. But there are no completely out there engineering challenges involved. Just a similar level of engineering to any new airframe.
- throwanem 4y ago
  > shine a 1000nm laser a few times as bright as the sun on it I saw you palm that card.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    This was the proposal to begin with. Nothing is being hidden. Or did you think that a 1-10kW/m^2 beam didn't involve a 1-10kW/m^2 beam for some reason?
    - throwanem 4y ago
      No, but I think there's a reason you aren't touching at all upon the mechanics of its generation or direction. Given that even under absurdly generous assumptions you need around five square kilometers, or about 2 ISS' worth, of solar panel area per beam, this omission is not surprising.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago

by _hypx 4y ago

pfdietz 4y ago

Yes, the idea is more complex. "Vastly?" I think not. Nor are your attempts at analogy there at all persuasive. You are vigorously handwaving and arguing by bald assertion. Your objection to ME handwaving is obtuse. I am not the one claiming it is impossible. I don't have to show all possible ways it might be done don't work. Don't resort to the usual crank attempt of defending your initial claim by insisting I disprove it. You are obligated to explain in detail why the idea can't work. I don't think you can, your huffing and puffing notwithstanding. I think you could become more persuasive if you retreated to a time limited claim, say the next 30 years. The best argument would not be complexity, but rather the cost of the orbital lasers.

_hypx 4y ago
And what are you doing, but vigorous handwaving about how it is actually possible? Make a working version of it, or point to someone making it work. So far it is nothing but a paper concept. Again, no one is saying it is impossible. It is merely incredibly implausible and won't happen. You can pretty much pick an arbitrary timeframe on this. If you want 30 years, I'll give 30 years. It won't happen in that timeframe.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

Your comparison to a space elevator is pretty disingenuous. We have planes that run on energy beaming down from space. Solar impulse 2 worked. Month-long endurance solar drones have existed for a year or two. Payload sucks, and wingspan is long, but that doesn't change the fact they work. We have battery powered planes. The tech is superior to ICE in every way but carrying enough energy to fly long distance (which is the deal breaker). Solar alone is insufficient due to energy density and efficiency, but a few kw per m^2 would work. A 2kW/m^2 monochromatic light would solve both of these. Existing PV tech is about 80-90% efficient at its bandgap. Epoxy some standard quarter cells into the top of an airbus, shine a 1000nm laser a few times as bright as the sun on it and your "complex" receiver is done. Nothing needs inventing to make it work. The batteries can provide a safe abort in anything except a transpacific route. Will it beat syn fuel economically? Almost certainly not. But there are no completely out there engineering challenges involved. Just a similar level of engineering to any new airframe.

throwanem 4y ago
> shine a 1000nm laser a few times as bright as the sun on it I saw you palm that card.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  This was the proposal to begin with. Nothing is being hidden. Or did you think that a 1-10kW/m^2 beam didn't involve a 1-10kW/m^2 beam for some reason?
  - throwanem 4y ago
    No, but I think there's a reason you aren't touching at all upon the mechanics of its generation or direction. Given that even under absurdly generous assumptions you need around five square kilometers, or about 2 ISS' worth, of solar panel area per beam, this omission is not surprising.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago