Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!sri-spam!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!GE-CRD.ARPA!OCONNORDM
From: OCONNORDM@GE-CRD.ARPA (OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Powersats
Message-ID: <8611032037.AA00701@s1-b.arpa>
Date: Mon, 3-Nov-86 15:35:00 EST
Article-I.D.: s1-b.8611032037.AA00701
Posted: Mon Nov  3 15:35:00 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Nov-86 02:38:40 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 35


Date:  3-NOV-1986 14:25
From: Dennis O'Connor
Sender: OCONNORDM
Subject: Powersats
To: space@angband@smtp
--------

	Does anyone know the proposed power densities
    of powersat receivers? Also, how flexible do the
    focusing mechanism have to be to compensate for
    thermal warpage of the transmission antenna, atmospheric
    changes, et cetera.

	The reason I'm asking this is to get a feel for 
    how good a weapon a powersat would be. Personally, I
    think I'm most likely to stay at the bottom of the
    gravity well, and I don't particularly want anyone
    sitting in the relative security of geo-sync orbit
    ( it takes hours to get there ) deciding to write
    his name on a glacier with a laser, or boil Lake Placid
    with a microwave. Just call me paranoid, but where
    people are concerned, these types of things happen.

	This whole infrastructure-in-space discussion
    ignores the tactical superiority of a position
    at the top of a gravity well, relative to us poor
    taxpayers at the bottom. Remember that anything that
    deliver energy to a target is a weapon. And it is one
    of the major tenants of the infrastructure supporters
    that delivering anything to the top of a well starting
    at the bottom is very very difficult.


--------