Space Solar Power Conference

cfrjlr 6 months ago

I invite NASA and all parties to hold this conference in Puerto Rico 23-27 October at the Puerto Rico Space Congress

johnp.lee 6 months ago

The Leeward Space Foundation invites NASA to hold this conference in Puerto Rico 23-27 October at the Puerto Rico Space Congress - Space Is The Answer

luke.stanley 6 months ago

It would be really cool to have people from all these forces in the same room looking eye to eye. It would be such a dynamic. If you could visualise the history possible from moments like this, it could be astounding what this means for Earth.

bmacknz 6 months ago

It should not be a separate conference. We have too many in-person conferences. Instead, a Space Based Solar Power Conference should be co-located with another existing conference, or just before or after one, or a track in an existing conference. This will allow more people to attend, including some who might not have bothered with the extra travel time & expense. I suggest the AIAA Space 2010 conference in Anaheim, California.

digitante 6 months ago

I think that the time has come to promote Solar Power Satellite development. This is a goal which has the potential to appeal to both conservatives and liberals alike -- for conservatives, it represents industrial development, national prestige, and national security; for liberals, it represents forward-looking "green" power and the only really effective long-term defense against global warming. Both are likely to approve of space technology and independence from (foreign) fossil fuel reserves.

I think the time is finally right for this.

gertschl 6 months ago

The idea is good, and yes, the time is ripe, but to do anything more than handwaving will require serious effort by conference organizers. The organizers would have to be people who know the fields thoroughly, and who would be vigilant to avoid rehashing old arguments and to focus instead on moving forward. A working meeting for the organizers could be held within 6-12 months, but a good, solid conference would need to be 12-18 months beyond that.

karen.shea 6 months ago

The conference should be at least 3 days and exclusively on space solar power and how to develop it. It should include all the major players and all those who want to be players. It should be held at a small hotel in Washington DC with just enough conference space for its needs. This will maximize interaction between participants during and between sessions while minimizing distractions. A Washington DC location will maximize participation of policy makers.

Day 1 of the conference would be laying out obstacles to space solar power development.

Day 2 would be working groups to find solutions to those problems.

Day 3 of the conference would be to come up with short medium and long term long term plans to move space solar power forward with business, government and academia working together.

hkeithhenson 6 months ago

The problem with this idea (which would have to be fixed first) is that way back, about 1980 NASA and DOE agreed that NASA would not fund anything to do with energy and DOE would not fund anything to do with space. Since SBSP is both, neither can fund it.

Peter Sage discusses this in a TED video you can find by searching on Peter Sage 1/2.

karen.shea 6 months ago

There is no evidence of an agreement between NASA and the Department of Energy not to develop space solar power. In fact they once had a joint program. It is more of effort on the part of each one to pass the buck. Hopefully in the face of climate change and rising energy prices both NASA and the DOE will take space solar power seriously. The Department of commerce is involved with both energy and space, but I doubt either NASA or the DOE would like it if Commerce developed space solar power with out them.

glassflorida 6 months ago

For illustration purposes:

A 5-gigawatt sunsat in geo orbit can match in clean fashion the entire baseload energy contribution of the Tennessee Valley Authority. That's 35,000 megawatts generated by 11 fossil fuel plants, 3 fission plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, and 6 combustion turbine plants.

A lunar-built sunsat is 97% cheaper than an earth-launched one, according to a mid-1980s study by the Space Studies Institute.

Even though some of the players you mention may be competitors to some degree, I'm all for a united powerful voice to define for the US government the most realistic public/private business implementation plan.

It seems to me that a federally-announced SSP program using lunar materials can solve the energy and environmental stewardship requirements and can focus the technology research directives under NASA FY2011 on needed services. The cis-lunar program can deliver to us in order of priority ALL of the other objectives with which we're familiar, including NEO capture, Mars, L-points, etc.

SSP is the revenue generator by which we win the solar system and give birth to extraterrestrial man.

I vote yes for a conference.

hkeithhenson 6 months ago

It's true there was once a joint SPS project 30 years ago when DOE was ERDA.

As to evidence, take a look 3:55 into this video:

http://spacemovement.blogspot.com/2009/11/peter-sage-speaks-on-ssp-at-ted.html

If Commerce could take the lead, that would be fine with me. But I think it is much more likely that Japan or China will develop SBSP first.

Toubo Collings 6 months ago

With all the environmental destructive forces such as tsunami, earthquakes, etc. it is imperative to get this orbiting energy source up and projecting power to where it is needed to a large group of people where ever it is need quickly.
We also need to be flexible and capable of sending power into space, for space projects in the future as well.

johndignut 6 months ago

Dear All,

Humanity's time has come to enter the commercialized era of Space Based Solar Power.

In the beginning of each evolutionary leap forward in mankind's history, there were the nay-sayers, the uninformed, and the those with a selfish interest to not pursue a course of change for the benefit of all.

Such is the case with "armchair quarterbacks" who wrongly dismiss the unlimited potential of Space Based Power to help meet our growing demand for clean energy, and our inability to keep using combustion-based methods to meet that need.

Mankind has reached its late adolesence of maturity, and just like the homes we have all grown up in, there comes a time when it is for the benefit of all to move out beyound our current home and seek greater potentials.

Such is the case with Space Based Solar,... we have now reached a point in our technological capabilities, idealogical views, and population needs to move beyond our earthly restraints by making space a commercially viable option for mankind's growth.

"Harvesting" unlimited, clean energy in space for use on the earth is an excellent starting point.

Let us unite in fostering this new and burgeoning industry by demanding that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and our next required step into the cosmos IS the development of Space Based Solar for all humanity.

Thank you - John DiNatale, Aerospace Engineer, Humantarian, Poet.

WilliamManess 6 months ago

I think this is a very good idea, but I would recommend that the conference avoid a focus on technical minutia. The SPACE Canada conference last year had many of the characteristics of the conference proposed here. I agree with Ms. Shea; this conference should focus on policy and "universal" issues that affect anyone working on SSP. A list of tasks might include, tax credits for private investment, orbital slot issues and assignment facilitation, power beaming frequencies and beam density limitations, preferential treatment/rate-based recovery of baseload clean/green power suppliers, etc.

I don't think we need yet another academic symposium, where interested parties present brilliant ideas to their peers, none of which can be translated into actions. I would like a conference like this to focus on funding, regulatory issues, and how government can help actually make it happen.

Lastly, we (as the SSP community) need to be aware that the US government is publicly committed to increasing the use of nuclear power. The DOE is going to be pretty well sold on this path, so we might encounter resistance from entrenched interests here.

Best,

William Maness, CEO
PowerSat Corp.

jgigantino 6 months ago

Beamed power is the solution to our energy needs. No emissions, unlimited energy, more scalable than any other solution. Lets do this.

glassflorida 6 months ago

William Maness, my concern is that Fission Done will lead to a satisfaction on the part of the Administration that clean energy and a few new American jobs is "job done".

For a couple of days, I was excited about Bill Gates' idea of recycling spent nuclear fuel to power things. I've read enough detractions now about that scheme to have my doubts. Gates has thrown away money before on an energy non-starter.

Lori Garver, now Number 2 at NASA, is a former NSS executive and an SSP advocate who knows the numbers. I would be very disappointed if she has been pushed back from that advocacy by politics and suspect lobbies.

If, as you say, another SSP academic symposium would be territory retread, and if SSP is ready for the political bucket, then representatives of the SSP community should have a sit down with Ms. Garver (and Bolden), among the purposes of which is to set a direct meeting with President Obama.

After forty years in the pipeline, SSP deserves a hearing in the White House. If The U.S. loses its invention to other nations, as is the current track, then we will remain dependent on energy from a foreign cartel while relinquishing leadership in space.

glassflorida 6 months ago

Holy mackeral! Let me correct myself. That's seven 5-gigawatt sunsats in orbit that can match the 35,000 megawatts generated by TVA, a bit more than one.

bellathekid 6 months ago

i'm less bright, i'm less inteligent, i'm not clever enough, but i think this is a good idea.

skymon861 6 months ago

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLma_QUcmWQ[/youtube]

skymon861 6 months ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLma_QUcmWQ

robertnsbe 6 months ago

I like the idea of the conference and would attend it assuming time and money permits, but we don't really need it to move forward. Pretty much any of the major (and some of the minor) space conferences have or will offer space power tracks.

What we really need is an open source collaboration (across the disparate space-based power interests: lunar power, orbital power, orbital power with lunar materials) to increase the number of surface, airborne, and orbital demonstrations to take some of the discussion out of the realm of theory and into the realm of history.

All I see in the literature is the 1975 California and 2008 Hawaii power beaming demonstrations. (Let me know if I've missed any others.) How far could we beam if we beamed airplane to airplane? Couldn't something like that almost fly as a secondary payload between White Knight Two and G Force One? Seems that would be a great precursor and create an irresistable case for flying a demonstrator on ISS, that I'm sure SpaceX would be all too happy to deliver to orbit.

karen.shea 6 months ago

robertsbe,

What is critical is not the conference but government involvement. A test of power beaming technology from the ISS would be a great step forward. There was such a test being developed but Griffin shut it down about a year ago.

Gaetano Marano 6 months ago

--
"Space Solar Power hoax/illusion DEBUNKED" article
--
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/038sspdebunked.html
--

Gaetano Marano 6 months ago

--
--
I've posted two times on this site the proposal below, but, both times, it disappeared... why?
--
--
I've too much ideas about spacecrafts and spaceflights since I've published dozens articles, concepts and suggestions (from September 2005) on my website [ http://www.gaetanomarano.it/ ] on my space blog [ http://www.ghostnasa.com/ ] and (now) on my NewSpaceAgency website [ http://www.newspaceagency.com/ ] and over 10,000 posts and comments on several space and science forums and blogs
--
my best idea was the FAST-SLV rocket concept [ http://www.gaetanomarano.com/homepage/1arrow.jpg ] published in May 12, 2006 (and that, IF adopted the same year, NOW could be READY TO FLY) but now it's too late to use it
--
however, today, my suggestion is “better use what you have” (like was done by the Apollo 13 crew) as explained in my “Houston, YOU have a problem” article: http://bit.ly/9Ubebs
–-
--

karen.shea 6 months ago

ghostNASA,

The time horizon for space solar power is a question, several companies believe it can be profitable this decade and are putting their own money behind it. These companies may be overly optimistic. What is not a question is that there are 6 billion people who would like access to more power. Fossil fuels are running out. Traditional green alternatives can not provide base load power. Power can not be stored efficiently. Power transport across long distances is difficult and inefficient. Also some believe we must stop burning fossil fuel because of climate change. For these reasons it is important that the US government invest in all possible alternative power sources.

Solar cells in space collect 7 times the power as solar cells on Earth. Solar cells in space collect power 24 hours a day. Power from space can easily be transfered to cities thousands of miles apart at different times of day.

Terrestrial solar is great but we can not destroy all life in the desert to use it. Powering the big North Eastern cities 24 hours a day with terrestrial solar would be a major challenge especially when they are experiencing multiple major blizzards dropping 3 feet of snow in a week.

starllc_4747 6 months ago

The big protest that came from the earlier efforts was people didn't want microwaves being sent to Earth from space

glassflorida 6 months ago

I'd like to mention an individual that I haven't seen here whose contribution to space solar power advocacy is important.

Dr. Gerard K. O'Neill, the late Princeton physicist and founder of the Space Studies Institute, laid out a rational but non-technical vision for the nation in his "Alternative Plan for U.S. National Space Program". Submitted I think in early 1990, the plan is accessible at http://ssi.org.

The plan is brief enough. I hope our President gives it a read. I like the reference to the "Beagle".

karen.shea 6 months ago

Starlic_4744,

I doubt there were big protests to microwave power beaming because that would require some recognition of space solar power.

There are safety concerns about microwaves and humans but the studies that have been done show it is safe at the levels needed for space solar power. Further study requires funding.

starllc_4747 6 months ago

It's a great idea, there weren't big protests to using nuclear propulsion on spacecraft either but it killed such projects as Orion. We were all for solar power transmission to rectennae in fields with cows grazing below during the big energy crisis' of the 70's. There was a lot of discussion. It's always good to revisit old concepts.

starllc_4747 6 months ago

It may have already been suggested, but add to the conference the people who can afford to fund it and will be running it if it is viable....EXXON

starllc_4747 6 months ago

This may give you some background info.

http://ursi.ca/SPS-2006sept.pdf

glassflorida 6 months ago

If Rex Tillerson and company in Las Colinas consider themselves to be in the energy exploitation business, they should sit in on the excitement of the potential we are discussing. It's time to drill up, as someone said. Five of the top ten firms in the Global 500 are oil companies.

I would be glad to attempt to contact them to bring them into such a meeting. That's what I do with major firms around the US and Canada, connect talent with talent.

So far, not much luck securing a hearing with Bill Gates through gatesnotes.com. He's doing a nuclear visioning thing.

Gaetano Marano 6 months ago

.
.
.
send one ton of solar panels in space costs 500 TIMES MORE than send the same ton to a desert
.
.
also, the solar panels sent to their 36,000 km. orbit never can be repaired if will be damaged
.
.
the Space Solar Power is ONLY a CRAZY and ABSURD idea invented to raise public and VC funds
.
.
.

karen.shea 6 months ago

Gaetano Marano,

Hopefully Obama's new commercial space policy will greatly reduce launch cost.

Space cell is space can be much lighter than those on Earth because they do not need to withstand wind and weather.

Putting solar panels on the desert hurts the ecosystem which is a cost.

Solar panels in the desert will get covered with sand and need to be cleaned in an area with little water.

If space solar power was invented to raise public funds it has done a very poor job. The US government has only spent $30 million on space solar power over the last 4 decades. Compare that with fusion getting $400 million a year.

Gaetano Marano 6 months ago

.

Q: Hopefully Obama's new commercial space policy will greatly reduce launch cost.

A: the "commercial space" price-per-ton to LEO will be FIVE TIMES than Shuttle costs as explained in this comparison table:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/061comparison.html

Q: Space cell is space can be much lighter than those on Earth because they do not need to withstand wind and weather.

A: I've considered these points (more light, more time, less weight) in my solar power DEBUNK article, but, also the most optimistic evaluations, put the price in space around 100 TIMES the price on Earth:

http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/038sspdebunked.html

Q: Putting solar panels on the desert hurts the ecosystem which is a cost.

A: not ALL the desert surface must be used to install panels to cover ALL the world energy needs but only a minimal fraction around a few % or less

Q: Solar panels in the desert will get covered with sand and need to be cleaned in an area with little water.

A: a ridiculous little problem compared with the panels maintenance in GEO and with the vacuum around

Q: If space solar power was invented to raise public funds it has done a very poor job. The US government has only spent $30 million on space solar power over the last 4 decades. Compare that with fusion getting $400 million a year.

A: every cent invested in the space power research is LOST, while, the fusion may succeed, someday, also, the space solar power companies and supporters hope to raise thousands times today's investment thanks to an energy-hungry world

.

Rob Mahan - Citizens for Space Based Solar Power 6 months ago

Launch costs and their environmental impact is certainly one of the primary challenges to the successful development and deployment of space-based solar power.

In my opinion, one possible solution to this challenge is the use of a non-rocket launch system (launch loop, maglev rails, etc.) powered by the initial solar power satellites. This provides an upward spiraling scenario for the required scale up of space-based solar power … and space-based solar power would be its own first, best customer.

Keith Henson has pointed out to me (on my blog) that the challenges of a non-rocket launch system are large. Perhaps a lunar based non-rocket launch system, powered by space-based solar power, would be more feasible from a physics analysis. Perhaps considering a similar earth-based system utilizing many, many small self-organizing payloads controlled with a swarm A.I. would open the door to further analysis.

George Friedman, CEO of Stratfor, believes that space-based solar power will be the earth's primary source of energy within the next 100 years ... and his track record for predicting large future events is pretty darn good!

It's time for some real out-of-the-box thinking to bring space-based solar power into the light of day.

Best regards,
Rob Mahan
Citizens for Space Based Solar Power

jlb39401 6 months ago

I concede that if the US government is going to be talking about 'space' issues, that NASA pretty much has to have a place at the table. That said, I have almost no faith in their ability to complete any tech-development project on any budget or any time-scale; nor do I believe that any such projects will be pursued with any zeal or enthusiasm unless tremendous sums are spent on pork-barrel concessions in Congress. This has been NASAs past track record, and while the current administration seems to hope to change this, I regard them as--at best--an unproven, unknown quantity. In order to truly push the envelope, to risk much to gain much, to ensure that the fruits of research end up being aggressively marketed after development, I believe we need to involve DARPA. That one addition, and I am all for it.

karen.shea 6 months ago

Gaetano Marano,

It does not matter the cost of the new commercial vehicles versus the shuttle the shuttle is no longer an option.

If your figure of space solar power costing 100 ties the equivalent area on Earth that is fine. The cells in space will collect 7 times more power, and provide base load power that can be easily transfered anywhere in the hemisphere.

Damage to Solar cells in space will not be a major problem as long as the damage is not cascading. It is not a problem for communication satellites which have be operating for decades.

Every cent invested in Space solar power will have applications for terrestrial solar, terrestrial wireless power transfer (so we can avoid running power lines through sensitive areas) and for other space applications.

We are in a serious power crisis we can not afford to ignore any possible alternative green power source. We have ignored solar power for far too long.

cfrjlr 6 months ago

A terrestrial solar power plant in the Arizona desert is completely useless for consumers in New York. The cost of transferring the power is prohibitive. Locations where terrestrial power plants can be located are severely limited. Space solar power plants, on the other hand, can deliver power anywhere in the world, 24/7.

glassflorida 6 months ago

NASA and DOE studies in the 1970s found SSP to be technically feasible but financially unjustified if using materials launched from the earth. Given improvements in solar photo-voltaics, robotics, and other relevant technologies, we still await cost-competitive space access.

Interestingly, a 1980s study by the Space Studies Institute found that 99% of the mass of a sunsat can come from the moon with a projected 97% cost savings opportunity. Lunar excavators can be placed on the lunar nearside and teleoperated with only a 2.67 second time delay. Because of the moon's one-sixth gravity, material can be launched to a collector in space by an electromagnetic machine rather than by expensive chemical rockets. Prototypes of this machine (called the mass driver) are built and tested by the Space Studies Institute.

In answer to increasing concerns about the necessity to defend the earth from NEOs (asteroids), a mass driver machine can be dispatched to an incoming object, land on it and, using its own material as reaction mass, manipulate it into a high parking orbit for processing into structures like sunsats and space habitats.

For the perennial naysayers with low sight-lines, no other energy pursuit protects life from future asteroid impacts and delivers us a diversified space program that provides a revenue reason for returning to the moon.

In the view of the Space Solar Power Workshop (www.sspi.gatech.edu), lunar development would not be in the charter of a proposed "Sunsat Corporation", but would rather be the purview of NASA, its business contractors and international partners for general-capability development. A whole range of products and industries can benefit from lunar resource utilization, not just SSP.

SSP delivers to us the solar system in good order on the back of this cis-lunar activity which is in the chartered business of solving problems on earth.

I perused again last night Gerard K. O'Neill's landmark book, "The High Frontier".

O'Neill's testimony on July 23, 1975 before the House Subcommittee on Space Science & Applications, and again his testimony on January 19, 1976 before the Senate Subcommittee on Aerospace Technology & National Needs is in the record.

The nation is long overdue in leading humankind in commencing the plan so ably laid out in O'Neill's testimony. The plan solves the energy and environmental stewardship requirements, elevates living standards around the world, and opens up the ecological niche and the wealth of resources that await us beyond the surface of the earth.

Gaetano Marano 6 months ago

"Space solar power plants, on the other hand, can deliver power anywhere in the world, 24/7."

true, but the energy price will be about $10,000 per kwh...

.

Gaetano Marano 6 months ago

@karen.shea

ok, if you're sure of what you say, just build a space solar power plant, launch it to GEO with the rockets you want, send its energy on Earth with microwaves and sell the space-electricity to at a COMPETITIVE price

it's all that simple, after all... :)

.

cfrjlr 6 months ago

The cost estimate of $10K per kwh is a ridiculous exaggeration. What is your basis for such a ludicrous claim?

At first the costs will be relatively high, e.g. $100 per kwh, but even at that price, there are already accessible markets

karen.shea 6 months ago

@Gaetano. I would love to build a space solar power satellite. But I need a larger launch system which Obama is now funding the development of. I need ITU to allocate some bandwidth world wide, for which I will need the help of the government. I need to negotiate a deal with the DOD to sell power to their forward bases since for them the price for kilowatt hours are measured in lives not just dollars, as the generator fuel trucks are easy targets which burn well. I need the same loan guarantees the Department of Energy just gave the nuclear industry. I also need help determining which frequency is best for returning power from space and which solar cells would be best for space solar power.

Which is why a space solar power conference with government involvement is critical.

spaceroboteer 6 months ago

OK the conference is cool, but we are too slow with this idea. The Japanese are talking about spending already $21 billion dollars on their project. We are not even on the table talking about it. NASA wants to go to Mars, like thats more important than our energy conserns.
I also like this forum to be able to talk about these ideas. Thanks to who ever established this idea. I generally think NASA is too narrow in its approach to things. The Japanese are not even talking about going to Mars. They are thinking their energy needs for the future. Maybe we should be doing the same thing and get on board with the Japanese and make it a world venture with the Europeans, maybe Russians, or the Chinese.
Let's do it man, go, go, go...
To reference what I am saying about the Japanese, please go to this web site.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aJ529lsdk9HI
http://inventorspot.com/articles/space_based_solar_power_lights_j_10628
Or just google it and find out the others.

Dinesco 6 months ago

Very good idea. Energy is the most important thing we should look for in space and bring down on earth.

starllc_4747 6 months ago

Excellent discussion, it sparks good debate. Just from that it's worth a try, remember power can be beamed anywhere, maybe, depends on where the rectenna are located and can it send the same power to multiple sites from it's geosync location. The energy is beamed in the form of either LASER or MASER heating the upper atmosphere, a benefit might be altering the weather. Also how much space is available in geosync?

starllc_4747 6 months ago

Just remember that a geosync power sat over the United States is not likely going to benefit Australia for instance. Wouldn't it be nice to have this web discussion with NASA, Exxon, DARPA, Congress, etc. joining in. The conference could easily be done here.

starllc_4747 6 months ago

Another benefit of SPS is they can beam power to other spacecraft, this may help sell the development of the technology. We proposed using Modular Astronautical Structure Technology (MAST) we developed in the 80's. Panels could easily be replaced. There is a problem of degradation in the doping material in the cells due to solar winds,and cosmic rays, that big an area is also going to make a great target for any objects raining in. Just don't increase the level of orbital debris. Before the conference be sure to study all that has been written or it will stall. Anticipate pros and cons, imagine problems not discussed and solve them ahead of time. Lunar material would be nice but that's decades away. Also be aware that some members will contribute, others will listen and those who have the funds will run with it. If there is a dollar to be made they will make it. Legislation will be passed to control various aspects, like now I can't set up a solar panel in my backyard and legally sell the extra energy to the guy next door. Was the idea originally geosync or Lagrange Point? I like this discussion. Before the time is out for Open NASA Shea should condense the pros and cons, in brainstorming there are no negatives it's all contributions. Look at the Economic, Social, and Political ramifications, arguments, etc. Remember that the Shuttle was going to allow launches for pennies, never happened, there was money to be made. SPS will be the same. Any threat to established power systems will be vigorously challenged. Also one thing that has bothered me for some time, with the WTO can we get away with not buying oil from OPEC? We have to but something from them to balance trade, like what sand?

spaceroboteer 6 months ago

I would like to add an additional comment. Could we not use that power we get from this space solar power station to launch future spacecraft into orbit? I recall some study of lasers used to lift a cone device into space. I do not know what became of that idea. I am sure the engineers can come up with something to this effect. I think that would be cheaper than the way we are doing it now. If this is practical, then we could use the first station for the power to send the other parts to space for the next station.

jlb39401 6 months ago

Folks seem to keep making some basic assumptions about these SSPSs. Who is to say that photovoltaic is better than thermionic or solar-thermal? Why assume geosynchronous orbit? Why assume that the power is beamed to only directly to the ground, and not between satellites before being sent ground-ward? Why assume that power from space must be priced to be competitive in the mass-consumer market? Why assume that all or most of the installation must be built on & launched from Terra -- when materials from NEOs and Luna might be usable? Why assume single-purpose SSPSs? Why assume technology is the only issue that needs to be addressed to make these viable?

You know what I would like to see? An industry standard protocol which would allow satellites going up today to send, receive, relay, and sell whatever leftover power they generate. As a next step, use inflatable collectors to fill any excess capacity on the launchers which the satellite providers are already buying. All this can be used to lay the legal, commercial, and technical groundwork for dedicated SSPSs. In the mean time other enabling abilities can be pursued (perhaps by offering prizes for particular milestones) -- cheaper access to space, space resource prospecting, refining, & manufacturing, etc.

Gaetano Marano 6 months ago

.
.
.

I suggest to use the Star Trek Enterprise to put the solar panels in GEO and sell the space-energy at only 1 cent per kwh ... :)

.
.
.

Gaetano Marano 6 months ago

.
.
.

April 15 Florida Space Summit Facebook Group: http://bit.ly/di4bD4

.
.
.

starllc_4747 6 months ago

These are excellent discussions but like jlb points out there are alternatives. My suspicions are that fusion is very nearly a reality. It not only provides a system of unlimited power but also a new propulsion system. The reluctance of agencies to discuss this is very interesting.

aplondon 6 months ago

As much as I would like to see the development of the launch capability and in-space construction/assembly infrastructure that would enable the creation of km-scale structures in GEO, I am concerned that wide-spread deployment of Space-based Solar Power is doomed given economic and physical realities.

The fundamental problem that I see is that terrestrial-based solar power is getting less and less expensive, following a learning curve that has been quite consistent since the 1970s.

If you compare a GEO solar power station to a terrestrial solar power station in a favorable environment, my understanding is that, very optimistically, SSP system could produce up to 20x the energy per average day per unit area as a terrestrial system (SSP could have 3-5x efficiency of inexpensive terrestrial and 4-7x more incident power per day (no nighttime, seasons, atmosphere, clouds, etc.)) But I have yet to see a compelling case that that one could produce and install the system for less than 20x the per-area cost of a terrestrial based system. And that multiple is today. It will get smaller as terrestrial systems improve their performance and further decrease their cost.

I fear that space-based solar will follow a similar path to that of Teledesic – lots of excitement and hope, but in the end, not commercially viable given a rapidly developing and much less expensive to install terrestrial-based competitor (cell-phones and home broadband).

This is not to say that there are not technical barriers to wide-spread use of terrestrial solar, like energy storage, long-distance transmission, etc., (which there are – but surely these are more easily and less expensively solved than by one approach suggested above to improve the economics of SSP: building a sufficient space infrastructure to manufacture the SSP from lunar material!!); nor that there could be some niche markets that would justify the investment in a relatively small SSP system that could provide beamed power to localized areas (there may well be). But if there is going to be widespread adoption of solar power as a primary energy source for Earth, I’m betting that it will be collected in the deserts on land, and not via giant spacecraft in GEO.

cfrjlr 6 months ago

Terrestrial solar will never supply more than a few per cent of the energy needs of the USA nor the world. The Achilles heel for terrestrial solar is the high cost of power transmission. For that reason alone, terrestrial solar will never be a major player in the energy sector.

Even if the cost of building and operating a terrestrial solar plant were zero (which it ain't), the cost of power transmission makes it useless for most of the energy consumers in the world, and in the USA.

The competitors for space solar power are twofold: a) fossil fuels b) nuclear power.

Space solar power at first will be too expensive to compete in the general price market for baseload power. However, it is much more environmentally attractive than the alternatives (fossil/nuclear).

And the cost of electric power around the world is not uniform, it varies tremendously with geography, climate, time of year and time of day. At peak cost/demand, space solar power can be sold at a profit from day one.

As time goes on, the cost of space solar power will inevitably decline.

angelo.antunes34 6 months ago

Unit and maybe we can make the change,in so many ways...God bless we all,and the future generations...

glassflorida 6 months ago

A report released 3/9/10 by the DC-based Environment America "Building a Solar Future: Repowering America's Homes, Businesses, and Industry" found that 10% of America's energy needs can be met by solar by 2030. That's using all known ground-based technologies: photovoltaics, concentrating solar, solar space heating, solar water heaters, passive solar, etc.

Ground solar is a drop in the bucket. Space solar can scale over the next decades to meet worldwide clean base load energy requirements. The nation that leads in this wins.

If you're going to do a serious energy plan, why not do one that also powers interplanetary ships of exploration and large free-space habitats for new populations? Why not do one that utilizes inbound asteroids for construction? No ground alternative protects the kids from the big rocks.

Why not do an energy plan that gives birth to extraterrestrial man?

If we're going to fear anything, I suggest fear thinking 2-D.

Reagan's former science advisor told me in 1990 that he would put space solar power "amongst any list of serious contenders for new energy technologies".

spaceroboteer 6 months ago

We have spent billions and billions and billions and decades of time on chasing a dream of fusion power and what has it got us... Nothing. Who's to say it is close to reality, they been saying this for years. I say, get out of the way and let’s try something new... Stop wasting our tax dollars...
I say to planet solar power- who's going to provide the land? Every acre is precious to us. No one wants these objects in their back yard or they do not have the space to do it.
Solar power and space solar power is easy to come to reality. That’s why the Japanese are spending $21 billion to get this going. As far as beaming power from one location to another we have been doing this for years and years.

You are right about the initial cost of sending this up to space this will be true. And there will be some orbital meteor hits. But this should be correctable with well designed repairing robotic activities. With multiple solar power structures in place this will not disrupt every solar base. As far as human targeting; one- we need this to be a world affair that we all have a stake in it. It is easier to target something on the ground than it is in space; we need to think of that as well. Two- terrorist does not have missiles that can reach space. Plus we have counter measures for that.
We do not have to worry about contamination of our planet with this technology. And the concern over radiation- the sun radiates this planet by far more each day than what this device can even remotely capable of.

starllc_4747 6 months ago

Fusion power is not a dream, it's as real as SPS. That dream has been going on for decades as well. 1st where in GEO are you going to put it? They are staggering GEO sats as it is, also transmission of data thru microwaves doesn't work very well. So who gets cut off? Cellphones? HD Television? We can use STAR Groups satellite reclamation system to clean up GEO but the problem there is do we have the right to remove another countries satellite even if it's dead? Who pays for it? One reason given for going back to the Moon is to get the fuel for fusion. Cold fusion is a dream not likely to happen that is true. Solar Power Satellites are not any newer than fusion.

cfrjlr 6 months ago

There is plenty of room in Geosycnronous orbit. GEO comms-sats are separated to avoid signal interference and to allow ground stations to discriminate between them.

For power-sats that is simply not an issue.

maness_allen 6 months ago

Mr Radley is correct. It isn't a matter of GEO real-estate, it's wide antenna patterns overlapping on earth, and pointing accuracy of a small satellite TV dish antenna. In the case of PowerSats the antenna spot size on earth is confined to the rectenna array. Further, there is no fundamental reason for PowerSats to be in a zero inclination orbit. Having some apparent movement, up and down in the sky isn't a significant issue.

The big difference between Fusion power and SSP has been the money spent on them and the resultant power delivered. On the close order of $15 Billion has been spent on studying the Tokamak reactor, and the new ITER facility looks to be on the close order of $9 Billion itself. In sharp contrast, I would be hard pressed to find a total funding effort of $100 million, over the entire life of the SSP concept. It is true that SSP has delivered exactly the same useful power as fusion research.. i.e. zero watts. However, to date, SSP has cost 1/240th for the same result.

Best regards,

William Maness
PowerSat Corporation

P.S. The notion that microwaves aren't appropriate for data transmission is specious nonsense. Data has been transmitted commercially at microwave frequencies for 40 years.

starllc_4747 6 months ago

I've known people who have owned businesses where satellite receiving antenna had to avoid microwave transmission corridors or they received no signal.

starllc_4747 5 months ago

Perhaps a final comment. Conversion always means some loss. Fusion works or you wouldn't have anything to convert with solar cells. The importance of fusion was pointed out by Shea in another post. When you can put up SPS, which no doubt you will sometime, who will own it and who will pay? If I had a company with a workable SPS would I resist an offer from a very rich company to buy it at some early point? Would they inturn be inclined to give away that energy?

jlbrown.roadie 5 months ago

Folks, we already have a fusion reactor going. It's called the sun. Okay, so it's 93mm miles away. We already have SSP, last I looked the ISS has lots of space-based solar power as do GPS satellites and comms satellites. We are currently using the energy produced in space to deliver information to the surface. Can we use existing SSP production to build more SSP from matter in our area, e.g. lunar and asteroid?

Toubo Collings 5 months ago

I know this might seem like a wild idea. But it may have the benefits we need if we could agree on it.
I think the issue of using the shuttle after 2010 was safety of the occupancy on board correct. We have the technology to make Predator drones and such. Why not continue using the space shuttle as a Remote Operating Vehicle, no one will be riding on it in this conversion. It is used as a platform to hoist the parts needed for the Space Base Solar Power. Now everyone says wait a minute, but I say fly it over the Ocean where there is no one around and then land it at a place where there is few around.
But this is on the condition of how decrepit the shuttle is and only NASA would know that answer.
Benefit of this idea:
1. Allot people will still have their jobs.
2. We have a functional platform.
3. We capitalize on the continued use.
4. Space Base Solar Power maybe up and running sooner.

johnp.lee 5 months ago

There are those who would like for NASA to sell off the Shuttle to commerical interests. NASA will make money to support their other interests and the Shuttle can still be flown from the Cape under new ownership. It would still be man rated and can put the largest payloads in orbit at the best price/kg.

jgigantino 5 months ago

Darel Preble of the Space Solar Power Institute continues to do research on SPS. His institute should be included in any SPS conference. http://www.sspi.gatech.edu/

My concerns for SPS are economic and environmental. It will be much cleaner, have a smaller impact on the Earth and be able to provide baseload power much closer to urban cores, cutting transmission loss and reliability issues. Economically SPS can scale faster than other new power technologies like fusion or large scale ground solar.

SPS offers the opportunity for electricity to anyone around the world, beamed to the receiver of their choice as an over-the-air utility. 1-2 billion people live without electricity and this is the best way to solve that tragedy.

SPS can also provide power to other in-space systems. It could be used for powering a VASIMR or other plasma rocket, for space radar and communications, for powering human habitats and mining facilities.

If you can build 1 SPS you can build 1000 of them. There have been plans for SPS demonstrators that could be flown on Delta or Atlas rockets. The technology is robust enough that there are contracts let on delivery of beamed power. When and where will there be a conference?

glassflorida 5 months ago

We can all meet at Village Inn in the back room. Maple or boysenberry? Sorry..

lereyna 5 months ago

I think Solar Power Satellite is a great idea, and one we should go for. For several reasons, environmental reasons, and industry development reasons, this would be a great development. But before we it can prove economically viable, I think cheaper ways to get to space are a necessity. Weather it is lunar-built or earth-launched, quoting one of the comments, we still would have to get to the moon first and develop a moon mining capability, and that would also benefit from a cheaper way to get to space. I posted an idea myself on that topic, but regarding this Space Solar Power idea, I think it´s great and one thing in which Nasa, DoE, Industry and International Partners could and should be all working together.

tomwray 5 months ago

To solve a problem, one first needs to ask the proper questions. After reading all of the comments on this Idea, I noticed that there was no mention of where all the generated power goes. Once energy from any source, whether from coal, oil or Space, enters the grid, about 30% will be lost due to conversion inefficiency and electrical resistance losses. Those losses are in the form of heat, and that heat does indeed heat the atmosphere.

Then, once it reaches the homes and offices, about 80% of the remaining energy will be wasted, due the inherent inefficiency of our current structures. Remembering the first law of thermodynamics, Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be converted from one form to another. Once used in the home, most of the energy consumed is converted to heat.

Here in Florida, 50% of an average homeowner's electric bill is for Air Conditioning, and the AC compressor heat is dumped to the outside air. 25% is for hot water... heat leaks from the tank and lines, then from the drains to the slab an ground, then to the air. Almost 10% is for lighting, and if that is incandescent, it is mostly heat... which then has to be removed by the Air Conditioner. Another portion is for cooking... more heat. The rest is for appliances, many of which are actually Direct Current devices, and they use transformers to convert AC energy to DC... these power supplies can waste 40% of the energy which the appliance can draw. These appliances are also mostly responsible for the Phantom Loads, which waste energy when the devices are not in use.

Bottom line, is that most of the energy that comes into the house is eventually converted into heat, which then will warm up the atmosphere.

If we were to put enough Solar Power Satellites in Space to power the industrialized countries, and also bring up the developing world to our current standard of living(which includes the waste and inefficiency), we might need, realistically, about 10 times the energy currently being produced from terrestrial sources. So, if enough solar energy in space was collected and beamed down to an earth rectenna, even at 100% efficiency, almost all of that energy would eventually heat up the atmosphere.

Since it would take decades to implement Solar Power Satellite technology to any scale, it would be prudent to do as much as possible, here on the ground, to utilize that energy as efficiently as possible. That would reduce the total size, and cost, of a Space based power system.

And finally, if some portion of the cost savings from efficiency increases were used to implement a Space Based power system, the project would be easier to finance.

Categories