|
|
|
#11 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2007
|
Don't mind sanity too much. I am a Girl Genius fan. My motto is "What would Baron Wulfenbach do?"
Last edited by Chansith; 12-31-2007 at 09:28 PM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
"Gimme 18 minutes . . ."
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Albuquerque, NM
|
Reaction Engine, Laser Rocket (TL 9) [REAR]
Laser rockets uses a ground based laser battery that evaporates reaction mass producing thrust. Each Laser Rocket engine must be powered by a laser battery, 10 GW for sm+5, 30 GW for sm +6, 100 GW for sm+7, 300 GW for sm+8 etc (the standard 1-3-10 progression). Each engine produces 2G of thrust, and each fuel tank of ablative plastic propellant gives 0,45mps of delta-V. Cost for the spaceship part of the engine is as a chemical rocket of same size, ablative plastic costs $200/ton. This is the Laser Launch Engine system as converted by Boobis, and numbers double checked by me. Mind if we use that? Main cost of launch is in the ground based power station, and a dedicated nuclear reactor should produce enough juice to send up a flight every five minutes. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2007
|
Quote:
Assume 10% per annum cost of capital (depreciation plus insurance plus interest), and that ground workers have average jobs. 1/6 down time for maintenance. The big issue might turn out to be getting enough traffic to keep the load factor up. Assume a 75% load factor, but keep an eye on passenger numbers: if you start pushing a billion passenger movements a year that might be a problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
"Gimme 18 minutes . . ."
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Albuquerque, NM
|
Well, you wire the plant into a local grid, any time traffic drops, you sell power output on the market for ground-based power
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2007
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
"Gimme 18 minutes . . ."
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Albuquerque, NM
|
Lasers. You build about 40,000 small ones, so you have exceptionally high reliability. Even if somehow, 5% of the lasers failed all at once, there would probably still be enough to get your payload in orbit, and you can do maintenance on the lasers without stopping launches. Plus, building one huge laser is much more expensive/technically difficult. And if you want to scale up your payload that you can launch, you just build more lasers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 | |
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
|
Quote:
I would normally calculate Return on Investment. So build cost may be only a small consideration. What ticket price can we charge? (what will the market bear?)
__________________
Always challenge the assumptions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 | |
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
|
Quote:
Hmm, this seems like two different competitions.
__________________
Always challenge the assumptions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 | |||
|
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2007
|
Quote:
What is (at each TL) the shuttle that has the lowest ratio of total cost (ie. operating costs plus amortisation of investment) to the number of trips to orbit that it provides? Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Chansith; 01-03-2008 at 06:44 PM. |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#20 | ||
|
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2007
|
Quote:
Quote:
The essence is to establish what the price of a ticket to/from orbit is likely to be for a developed planet. |
||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Tags |
| spaceships |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|