🚀 go-pugleaf

>From OTA@S1-A Fri Dec 18 03:17:35 1981

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 2 : Issue 63

Today's Topics:
			    skyhook disasters
		   Re: Multiple-Laser Launching Systems
		     Multiple-Laser Launching Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Dec 1981 0951-CST
From: Clyde Hoover <CC.CLYDE at UTEXAS-20>
Subject: skyhook disasters
To: space at MIT-MC

	What makes you folks think that the surface-to-geosynch skyhook
would only be ONE cable? All that needs be done is to build a triangle, say
100-200 meters on a side, with three cables (each able to support its own
weight). If one snaps, you have cleanup work to do, but the replacement cable
could be quickly strung up (or down) on ANY of the remaining.
	Placing them sufficently far apart would solve the collision
problem. Oh yes, what makes you folks think the airspace around the skyhook
would'nt be restricted from air/LEO traffic -- try flying over the Kennedy
Space Center in your Piper Cub and see if the FAA doesn't get upset
(especially when a launch is scheduled -- the Air Force will chase your
ass away with T-38's).
-------

------------------------------

Date: 17 Dec 1981 at 2159-PST
From: Andrew Knutsen <knutsen@SRI-UNIX>
To: CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE
Cc: space at MIT-MC
Subject: Re: Multiple-Laser Launching Systems
In-reply-to: Your message of 16 Dec 1981 1604-PST.
Sender: knutsen at SRI-UNIX

	I dont think its obvious that one reaches a "point of
diminishing returns" in the laser/mirror ratio. Its possible
that a lot of little lasers are cheaper than a few big ones for
reasons like mass production and using lower-spec materials.
The question at least merits study...

	I sure hope this is tried at least. If air can be heated
to incandescence before blooming gets bad, the effect might be
like a cone of light with the ship at the top, lighting up the desert
if its done at night. Wouldnt help NASA's "showbiz" reputation any
though...

------------------------------

Date: 18 December 1981 03:25-EST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM at MIT-MC>
Subject: Multiple-Laser Launching Systems
To: CSD.MCGRATH at SU-SCORE
cc: SPACE at MIT-MC

 (relaxation time to return to normal) / (number of windows)
isn't a number, it's a unit of time.
Thus asking it to be a small number is totally meaningless.
I think you mean instead:
 ((relaxation t)+(excitation t)) / ((number of windows)*(excitation t)) < 1
For example, if relaxation time is 10 seconds and excitation time is
5 seconds, and number of windows is 3, you get (10sec + 5sec) / (3 * 5sec)
= 15sec / 15sec = 1 so you just break even and have no allowance for
safety, but with 5 windows you have 15sec/25sec=0.8 < 1 so you're ok.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest
*******************