tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8628325.post114306258244670476..comments2024-03-15T05:59:53.929-07:00Comments on Ambivalent Engineer: Crackpots and Rocket ScienceAmbivalent Engineerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491915174390340818noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8628325.post-1151617530068029032006-06-29T14:45:00.000-07:002006-06-29T14:45:00.000-07:00Just a 'small' point;Not being an engineer (mechan...Just a 'small' point;<BR/>Not being an engineer (mechanic, says my job description :o) either, but having followed Space Elevator 'theory' for awhile.<BR/>(Let's face it, I've followed EVERY new idea for GTO travel at some point)<BR/>I need to ask 'why' your assuming that the lasers would be so 'hard' to do? My understanding is we've had megawatt laser cability for a while now, just no real need for them. Most of the research on laser launch has focused on 'pulse' lasers while little has been said about the power of the easier to produce 'beam' type.<BR/><BR/>I'd attended a Laser Launch panel given by Jodin Kare where he showed that instead of focusing on huge 'monolithic' lasers such as are suggested in the orginal Space Elevator proposal, or most laser launch system proposals, smaller, moduler laser systems would be cheaper, easier to maintain, and very near term.<BR/><BR/>While I still see the 'hesitation' over cheap/mass-produced carbon nanotubes themselves, the lasers don't and haven't seemed a problem.<BR/><BR/>Of course I should note, that I (frankly) don't see any 'single' method bringing launch costs down, nor any single system being 'the' GTO system either.<BR/><BR/>RandyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com