3 ms·

Good point. Going further, a big advantage of an electric plane is that it can fly at much higher altitudes since it doesn't burn atmospheric oxygen like normal

Good point. Going further, a big advantage of an electric plane is that it can fly at much higher altitudes since it doesn't burn atmospheric oxygen like normal jets. At high altitudes, it may be more efficient to beam the power from orbit then from the ground or flying tankers. EDIT: replaced "the biggest" with "a big", point well taken.

stcredzero 14y ago
> the biggest advantage of an electric plane is that it can fly at much higher altitudes since it doesn't burn atmospheric oxygen The biggest? Not sure about that. Eliminating most of the fuel tankage is pretty huge. > more efficient to beam the power from orbit than from the ground That would be vital for over water flights. This might even be a way to jump start orbital solar power satellites. > flying tankers. By "electric tankers" I meant using beamed electric power to haul jet fuel to altitude, as a first step. Airplanes purpose built for this use case would have range or efficiency advantages.
flyinglizard 14y ago
True, but I assume it will use a fan or prop design, which loses efficiency as air density decreases (like swimming in air vs. water). And you will still need to pressurize the cabin.
TeMPOraL 14y ago
> At high altitudes, it may be more efficient to beam the power from orbit then from the ground or flying tankers. In line with InclinedPlane's comment upthread, I do have a question: how do you prevent such power delivery systems from becoming orbital weapons platforms? It wouldn't be difficult to make such satellite transmit power to a building or road insatead of a plane.
- robbiep 14y ago
  You could use frequencies that dont interfere with a lot of materials/biological tissues. But once we have the technology to beam huge qtys of power from orbit this will always be a risk: simply retune or develop a satellite just for weapons purposes. Perhaps another way of looking at it is how is it different from ICBMs etc? Most technologies can be weaponised, on 911 some enterprising bastards managed to do it with commercial transport.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  > how do you prevent such power delivery systems from becoming orbital weapons platforms? Rectennas proposed for power transmission are quite large. You can probably design these, such that diffraction limits make spot focusing the beams difficult. You probably can't prevent them from being used as weapons, but you can probably make them rotten weapons. In any case, you can secure these from most personnel by using crypto and formal methods. This stuff had better work, because if we have powersats, then we'll also have lots of very capable orbital rockets which will use the same security schemes, and those will be >much< more potent weapons.
jvm 14y ago
> a big advantage of an electric plane is that it can fly at much higher altitudes since it doesn't burn atmospheric oxygen like normal jets. My understanding is that air is still the medium they use for propulsion so I'm not sure how big this benefit will be (like how a jetski jet doesn't work out of water).

stcredzero 14y ago

> the biggest advantage of an electric plane is that it can fly at much higher altitudes since it doesn't burn atmospheric oxygen The biggest? Not sure about that. Eliminating most of the fuel tankage is pretty huge. > more efficient to beam the power from orbit than from the ground That would be vital for over water flights. This might even be a way to jump start orbital solar power satellites. > flying tankers. By "electric tankers" I meant using beamed electric power to haul jet fuel to altitude, as a first step. Airplanes purpose built for this use case would have range or efficiency advantages.

flyinglizard 14y ago

True, but I assume it will use a fan or prop design, which loses efficiency as air density decreases (like swimming in air vs. water). And you will still need to pressurize the cabin.

TeMPOraL 14y ago

> At high altitudes, it may be more efficient to beam the power from orbit then from the ground or flying tankers. In line with InclinedPlane's comment upthread, I do have a question: how do you prevent such power delivery systems from becoming orbital weapons platforms? It wouldn't be difficult to make such satellite transmit power to a building or road insatead of a plane.

robbiep 14y ago
You could use frequencies that dont interfere with a lot of materials/biological tissues. But once we have the technology to beam huge qtys of power from orbit this will always be a risk: simply retune or develop a satellite just for weapons purposes. Perhaps another way of looking at it is how is it different from ICBMs etc? Most technologies can be weaponised, on 911 some enterprising bastards managed to do it with commercial transport.
stcredzero 14y ago
> how do you prevent such power delivery systems from becoming orbital weapons platforms? Rectennas proposed for power transmission are quite large. You can probably design these, such that diffraction limits make spot focusing the beams difficult. You probably can't prevent them from being used as weapons, but you can probably make them rotten weapons. In any case, you can secure these from most personnel by using crypto and formal methods. This stuff had better work, because if we have powersats, then we'll also have lots of very capable orbital rockets which will use the same security schemes, and those will be >much< more potent weapons.

jvm 14y ago

> a big advantage of an electric plane is that it can fly at much higher altitudes since it doesn't burn atmospheric oxygen like normal jets. My understanding is that air is still the medium they use for propulsion so I'm not sure how big this benefit will be (like how a jetski jet doesn't work out of water).