Pentagon Study: Power From Space

[Kanastrous]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21253268/

A new Pentagon study lays out the roadmap for a multibillion-dollar push to the final frontier of energy: a satellite system that collects gigawatts’ worth of solar power and beams it down to Earth.

The military itself could become the “anchor tenant” for such a power source, due to the current high cost of fueling combat operations abroad, the study says.
Story continues below ↓advertisement

The 75-page report, released Wednesday, says new economic incentives would have to be put in place to “close the business case” for space-based solar power systems — but it suggests that the technology could be tested in orbit by as early as 2012.

"I think we have found the killer application that we have been looking for to tie everything together that we're doing in space," Air Force Col. Michael V. "Coyote" Smith, who initiated the study for the Defense Department's National Security Space Office, told msnbc.com on Thursday.

[dragon]

Yeah but there has been studies done that say its current not feasible to do this. I see if I can find them.

[SirNitram]

Of course it's not feasible currently. No one's tried to build one!

Jesus Christ, people are idiots sometimes. I'll walk you through it. It's a sound scientific principle. We know how to make solar collection generators. We know we can build honking huge ones in space that won't suffer from cloudy days or, if deployed right, even nighttime. We know we can move power 'downhill' to Earth.

The feasibility of doing it currently comes from one, simple, fact. You need to get the engineers to work to hammer away at the problem. No technology will ever be feasible without getting some brainy guys together and telling them to put their shoulder into it. It takes prototypes, failed attempts, and effort to make these things feasible.

But no. The idiot brigades ignore these beautiful chances because it's space, and apparently, sitting on Earth with our thumbs up our asses is smarter. Nevermind arrays like this could solve the energy crisis for the immediate future.

[dragon]

Of course it's not feasible currently. No one's tried to build one!

Jesus Christ, people are idiots sometimes. I'll walk you through it. It's a sound scientific principle. We know how to make solar collection generators. We know we can build honking huge ones in space that won't suffer from cloudy days or, if deployed right, even nighttime. We know we can move power 'downhill' to Earth.

The feasibility of doing it currently comes from one, simple, fact. You need to get the engineers to work to hammer away at the problem. No technology will ever be feasible without getting some brainy guys together and telling them to put their shoulder into it. It takes prototypes, failed attempts, and effort to make these things feasible.

But no. The idiot brigades ignore these beautiful chances because it's space, and apparently, sitting on Earth with our thumbs up our asses is smarter. Nevermind arrays like this could solve the energy crisis for the immediate future.

Ok thats completely on called for. I personally love space and thats what my masters are in. The primary guy that says that this is not feasible is the gentleman that wrote several books advocating space and is one of the leading companies pushing for space.
The gentleman in question is Dr. Robert Zubrin, Phd Astronautics. He is the author of The Case for Mars and Entering Space. He was the senior engineer at Lockheed Martian and now is the president of the Mars Society and founder of Pioneer Astronautics.

So I think that he just might know what he is talking about. And the reasons he mentioned has nothing to do with what you said.

[Shinova]

Feasible as in more useful now to put our resources into nuclear energy than use that time and energy to develop, test, and then deploy something that hasn't ever been tried before, seeing that we have a limited amount of time.

[Qwerty 42]

Out of an academic interest, how does the energy move down to earth? Laser, or?

[SirNitram]

Ok thats completely on called for. I personally love space and thats what my masters are in. The primary guy that says that this is not feasible is the gentleman that wrote several books advocating space and is one of the leading companies pushing for space.
The gentleman in question is Dr. Robert Zubrin, Phd Astronautics. He is the author of The Case for Mars and Entering Space. He was the senior engineer at Lockheed Martian and now is the president of the Mars Society and founder of Pioneer Astronautics.

So I think that he just might know what he is talking about. And the reasons he mentioned has nothing to do with what you said.

Yes, yes, appeal to vague things you're too lazy to actually show. Come back when you're ready to stand up to DR6. BTW, how can you have a masters in 'space', precisely? You're not doing yourself any favors in trying to look intelligent.

[SirNitram]

Out of an academic interest, how does the energy move down to earth? Laser, or?

Lots of various plans have been tossed around. They include a literal cable(Which has some implications for flight traffic, but no more than the space elevators being designed), a coherent energy beam(Yes, like a laser, or another portion of the EM spectrum), and I think a few others.

[Nephtys]

This is likely to be ridiculously cost ineffective, especially compared to nuclear generation. While it's true you'll get much higher output from solar collectors in orbit, power transmission down to Earth is a massive issue, as is getting enough volume of collectors to provide a worthwhile amount of generation. Or the cost of launching all of those cells into orbit, etc.

It's certainly possible. But I can't see again, how it's in any way more effective than churning out fission plants.

And to be fair, 'feasible' it probably is. That merely means it's possible. Practical or not is a whole different question. But then again, if you're going to get 'gigawatts' of power through the atmosphere by microwave, laser, whatever, there's going to be plenty of loss there. And while you're at it, GDI has a new orbital Ion Cannon idea to sell you, coincidentally.

[Shinova]

Pity to the fool who gets zapped by accidental misalignment. It'd be like that microwave power plant from Sim City 2000.

[SirNitram]

Pity to the fool who gets zapped by accidental misalignment. It'd be like that microwave power plant from Sim City 2000.

But it's the perfect way to stop alien invaders!

[dragon]

Ok thats completely on called for. I personally love space and thats what my masters are in. The primary guy that says that this is not feasible is the gentleman that wrote several books advocating space and is one of the leading companies pushing for space.
The gentleman in question is Dr. Robert Zubrin, Phd Astronautics. He is the author of The Case for Mars and Entering Space. He was the senior engineer at Lockheed Martian and now is the president of the Mars Society and founder of Pioneer Astronautics.

So I think that he just might know what he is talking about. And the reasons he mentioned has nothing to do with what you said.

Yes, yes, appeal to vague things you're too lazy to actually show. Come back when you're ready to stand up to DR6. BTW, how can you have a masters in 'space', precisely? You're not doing yourself any favors in trying to look intelligent.

My Master's is Aeronautics Sciences with a specialization in Space Sciences from Embery Riddle. And I am not appealing to things that I am to lazy to show. I am typing the passage from the book, and I am a slower typer. The primary reason why the plan won't work is that we currently don't have the lift technology necessary to lift the amount of material needed into orbit. Now in a few years when the technology is there then sure it's more feasible.

Now I have a few things to do, and when I come back I'll show you the stupid studies.

[SirNitram]

My Master's is Aeronautics Sciences with a specialization in Space Sciences from Embery Riddle.

Gosh, look at all that herculean effort to actually say something not fucking moronic. How do you manage.

And I am not appealing to things that I am to lazy to show. I am typing the passage from the book, and I am a slower typer. The primary reason why the plan won't work is that we currently don't have the lift technology necessary to lift the amount of material needed into orbit. Now in a few years when the technology is there then sure it's more feasible.

Then you work with smaller parts. You do it incrementally. Or, gosh and gasp, you start work so you can develop heavier lifters for this project, solving the energy issue and also improving spaceflight!

You know, that bit where I said you have to get engineers working on a problem before they can be expected to make it feasible.

Now I have a few things to do, and when I come back I'll show you the stupid studies.

Yes, you couldn't possibly be expected to simply answer DR6 when asked, you're going to instead whine about being a slow typer(But not so slow that you can't repeatedly make an ass out of yourself; no, that slow typing only shows up when you have to show evidence) and piss off. Right. Thanks. Run along.

[Uraniun235]

This is likely to be ridiculously cost ineffective, especially compared to nuclear generation. While it's true you'll get much higher output from solar collectors in orbit, power transmission down to Earth is a massive issue, as is getting enough volume of collectors to provide a worthwhile amount of generation. Or the cost of launching all of those cells into orbit, etc.

It's certainly possible. But I can't see again, how it's in any way more effective than churning out fission plants.

And to be fair, 'feasible' it probably is. That merely means it's possible. Practical or not is a whole different question. But then again, if you're going to get 'gigawatts' of power through the atmosphere by microwave, laser, whatever, there's going to be plenty of loss there. And while you're at it, GDI has a new orbital Ion Cannon idea to sell you, coincidentally.

I think that in the very long run, this sort of system will eventually become the primary source of electrical energy. Eventually. Someday.

Then you work with smaller parts. You do it incrementally. Or, gosh and gasp, you start work so you can develop heavier lifters for this project, solving the energy issue and also improving spaceflight!

Barring an unforeseeable revolution in rocket technology, lifting material into Earth orbit will cost thousands of dollars per kilogram, regardless of whether we're chucking five or fifty or five hundred tons per launch. In addition to the sheer cost of lifting material, there are also the additional costs of launching several astronauts into space to assemble these solar arrays, as well as ongoing maintenance.

It may be "feasible" insofar as it is possible, but it is questionable as to whether it would be an effective application of our limited resources.

[SirNitram]

Then you work with smaller parts. You do it incrementally. Or, gosh and gasp, you start work so you can develop heavier lifters for this project, solving the energy issue and also improving spaceflight!

Barring an unforeseeable revolution in rocket technology, lifting material into Earth orbit will cost thousands of dollars per kilogram, regardless of whether we're chucking five or fifty or five hundred tons per launch. In addition to the sheer cost of lifting material, there are also the additional costs of launching several astronauts into space to assemble these solar arrays, as well as ongoing maintenance.

It may be "feasible" insofar as it is possible, but it is questionable as to whether it would be an effective application of our limited resources.

NTRs, space elevators, pulse-det(Both nuclear and non-nuke flavours), and so forth. These methods of propulsions all exist, and all offer superior lift for cost. Would those merit being called a 'Revolution in rocket technology'? I wouldn't call it 'Unforeseeable', as these technologies either exist or are being explored now.

[K. A. Pital]

You should not look at the cost of the project in dollars. The cost of project is energy. If it's energetically viable, and it solves the energy problem in practice, then the energy balance of the Earth DICTATES that this solution should be enacted.

Why the fuck look at MONEY of all things? Nuclear power was born from massive open-ended investment and now is looked at as a good possible interim solution to Earth's power crisis. Energy accounting is much more sane than monetary accounting in such a case.

[dragon]

Nah I don't think I'll piss off as you put it. I might be missing DR6 by a little but you are also missing out on being even half way polite. So in that case you are making more of an ass out of your self than I am.

The cost of delivering payloads to GEO, however, is about four times that of LEO, running the range of $40,000/kg. So just the launch cost of the SPS would be about $3,300/W or about $3.3 trillion for a 1,000 megawatt (MW) unit suitable for providing the power needs of a city the size of Denver. And that’s just is the launch cost.
Combined with salaries, maintenance, insurance and others the cost could raise as $6 trillion a year.
Which is about 3000 times as much as a nuclear power plant providing the same amount of power.At this give it would give the user a price of $1.14 per kilowatt hour (assuming that nothing is added for profit), over 2000 time the $0.05 per kilowatt-hour that currently prevails in the United State.
So in order for SPS to become competitive, the price of space lift needs to drop by a factor of more than 2000 to 4$.03/kg to LEO or $17/kg to GEO. That’s impossible. The reason I say this is the cost for propellant alone is greater than this.

By Dr. Robert Zubrin (2000) Entering Space, Penguin Puntam INC.

[Gerald Tarrant]

My Master's is Aeronautics Sciences with a specialization in Space Sciences from Embery Riddle. And I am not appealing to things that I am to lazy to show. I am typing the passage from the book, and I am a slower typer. The primary reason why the plan won't work is that we currently don't have the lift technology necessary to lift the amount of material needed into orbit. Now in a few years when the technology is there then sure it's more feasible.

Now I have a few things to do, and when I come back I'll show you the stupid studies.

This is the next step in lift developments that Alliant/Thiokol is going through Link. By way of comparison the Shuttle and the Saturn 5 are listed here along with their lift values.

Shuttle has 55k lbm to Low Earth Orbit, Saturn 5 was capable of 262k to LEO. The new design for Ares 5 is 290k lbm to LEO . Like Sir Nitram said it's a question of engineering, and the rocket equation is one of the oldest and simplest parts of the engineering hurdles to overcome in this area. And at one point the US had much higher heavy lift capability than the shuttle in the form of the Saturn V. So the capability for heavy lift was there. And given a little time and effort it will come back. As a further point there's no reason that US space flight should have it's choices reduced to only domestically produced rockets. According to wiki Energia is superior to the Shuttle in LEO lift weight, and it compares favorably to Ares V. I also thought I saw a reference to a "Super Energia" with more strap on rockets that had higher lift than Ares V, but I don't have a link to it.

This page explores the superiority of one big launch to lots of little launches.

Finally it's silly to provide a lower weight limit for a sattelite 3 or 4 years ago and then assume that weight limit will hold true in the future. Among other changes that have come along we have triple junction solar cells link

High-efficiency cells have been developed for special applications such as satellites and space exploration. These multijunction cells consist of multiple thin films produced using molecular beam epitaxy. A triple-junction cell, for example, may consist of the semiconductors: GaAs, Ge, and GaInP2.[15] Each type of semiconductor will have a characteristic band gap energy which, loosely speaking, causes it to absorb light most efficiently at a certain color, or more precisely, to absorb electromagnetic radiation over a portion of the spectrum. The semiconductors are carefully chosen to absorb nearly all of the solar spectrum, thus generating electricity from as much of the solar energy as possible.

GaAs multijunction devices are the most efficient solar cells to date, reaching a record high of 40.7% efficiency under solar concentration and laboratory conditions.[16] These devices use 20 to 30 different semiconductors layered in series. At the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, a new cell of area 0.26685 cm2 will generate a power of 2.6 W. They estimate that this technology could eventually produce electricity at a mere 8-10 cents/ kW/ hr. This is similar to the price of electricity today. Thus, this breakthrough could ultimately result in increased consumer use of solar cells.

This technology is still months away from commercial manufacture, but similar technology is being used right now on the Mars rover missions. The rovers have outlived their predicted life spans and have worked for over two years. Their success in the dust-ridden Martian environment is a strong testament to the durability and longevity of these types of solar cells.[17]

The 40.7% efficiency in lab conditions will almost certainly change in operating conditions, but it does suggest that weights needed for Solar Power Satellites will go down. I think my favorite new development is ultrasonic consolidation link (from the company so take it with a grain of salt) .

Ultrasonic Consolidation also allows the technology to embed other materials onto a metal substrate, opening the door to an incredible future of advanced materials and smart devices.

Imagine the applications for metal parts with embedded piezoelectrics, sensors, circuitry, or microfluidic devices. The ability to embed ceramic, carbon fiber, and lightweight materials allow for extraordinarily strong, light parts that make possible a new generation of manufacturing.

I went to school with a guy who was working on this machine trying to embed stuff in Honeycombed aluminum. that would introduce it's own weight savings, normally when you want to alter honeycomb you just cut out a chunk and put in solid aluminum.

[dragon]

As for Space Elevator we are still decades away, even though we are making enormous strides in the materials sciences needed. As for looking the dollar cost, well money makes the world go around. And we weren't talking about the impossibility of the idea of SPS, but the feasibility of the pentagon plan for what they want in the time frame they want.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

My Master's is Aeronautics Sciences with a specialization in Space Sciences from Embery Riddle.

You mean, perhaps, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University?

Let's see, they offer a Bachelor of Science in Aeronautical Science:

The purpose of the Aeronautical Science degree program is to prepare the graduate for a productive career as a professional pilot and responsible citizenship in support of the aviation and aerospace industries. Upon completion of the curriculum, the student will possess an FAA Commercial Pilot Certificate with multi-engine and instrument ratings. Optional advanced flight training includes upset training, certification as a flight instructor and instrument flight instructor, and training as a flight crewmember in a jet transport aircraft.

That just fails to impress.

They do have a Master of Aeronautical Science (not to be confused with their Master of Science in Aeronautics):

Students appreciate the MAS program's solid core of classes, partnered with a range of specialties that are tailored to individual interests. You'll master the tools needed in the development, manufacture and operation of aircraft and spacecraft, and gain a comprehensive understanding of the infrastructure that supports the industry. MAS graduates have used their degrees to secure positions ranging from Superintendent of Operations at Los Angeles International Airport to Chief of Weapons Safety in the United States Air Force.
[. . .]
Whether you're a pilot, an educator, an air traffic controller or otherwise involved in the wide-ranging spectrum of aviation -- an MAS degree can open doors, often positioning graduates for a move into supervisory or management positions.

Wow! Just wow!

And yes, they do have a Space Studies specialization. So your curriculum would be 4 core courses:
ASCI 602 The Air Transportation System
ASCI 603 Aircraft and Spacecraft Development
ASCI 604 Human Factors in the Aviation/Aerospace Industry
GCPP 605 Methods and Procedures for the Graduate Capstone Project

Plus your 4 specialization courses:
ASCI 511 Earth Observation and Remote Sensing
ASCI 512 Space Mission and Launch Operations
ASCI 513 Space Habitation and Life Support Systems
ASCI 601 Applications in Space: Commerce, Defense, and Exploration

And apparently ASCI 690 Graduate Capstone Project.

Colour me unimpressed. Now if you had taken the Aerospace Engineering program, that would be something.

I'll leave the real fun to SirNitram, so I'm done here.

[dragon]

Now when we eventually have a way to mine the necessary materials form the moon we can reduce the cost dramatically after you had spent billions if not trillions getting there. But by that time hopefully we'll be able to mine The He3 from the lunar regolith for fusion reactors.

[K. A. Pital]

As for looking the dollar cost, well money makes the world go around.

Are you looking to supply the human civilization with energy, or are you looking to make it "profitable", "not costly" or some other bullshit associated with a narrow monetary understanding of development?

And the OP says Pentagon thinks technology can be tested in 2012, not put in full-scale use.

The only reason NOT to do it is the following: energy balance of the Earth does not allow it. I.e. we will waste more energy than we can possibly afford to and not achieve more energy as a result. If we need to waste an economically affordable amount of energy (oh, Earth will need to tighten the belt to run such a program, oh, that's very costly - well, too fucking bad. Fossil fuel crisis has been coming for a long time and none of the enlightnened "efficient businesses" gave a fucking shit, so time's up), then we NEED to do it.

Nuclear power is an interim solution to power generation.

Mass solar is technically an ultimate solution, and ALSO the first step towards becoming a Kardashev-II civilization with eenrgy output harnessed at Solar system levels, not planetary levels.

[dragon]

My Master's is Aeronautics Sciences with a specialization in Space Sciences from Embery Riddle.

You mean, perhaps, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University?

Let's see, they offer a Bachelor of Science in Aeronautical Science:

The purpose of the Aeronautical Science degree program is to prepare the graduate for a productive career as a professional pilot and responsible citizenship in support of the aviation and aerospace industries. Upon completion of the curriculum, the student will possess an FAA Commercial Pilot Certificate with multi-engine and instrument ratings. Optional advanced flight training includes upset training, certification as a flight instructor and instrument flight instructor, and training as a flight crewmember in a jet transport aircraft.

That just fails to impress.

They do have a Master of Aeronautical Science (not to be confused with their Master of Science in Aeronautics):

Students appreciate the MAS program's solid core of classes, partnered with a range of specialties that are tailored to individual interests. You'll master the tools needed in the development, manufacture and operation of aircraft and spacecraft, and gain a comprehensive understanding of the infrastructure that supports the industry. MAS graduates have used their degrees to secure positions ranging from Superintendent of Operations at Los Angeles International Airport to Chief of Weapons Safety in the United States Air Force.
[. . .]
Whether you're a pilot, an educator, an air traffic controller or otherwise involved in the wide-ranging spectrum of aviation -- an MAS degree can open doors, often positioning graduates for a move into supervisory or management positions.

Wow! Just wow!

And yes, they do have a Space Studies specialization. So your curriculum would be 4 core courses:
ASCI 602 The Air Transportation System
ASCI 603 Aircraft and Spacecraft Development
ASCI 604 Human Factors in the Aviation/Aerospace Industry
GCPP 605 Methods and Procedures for the Graduate Capstone Project

Plus your 4 specialization courses:
ASCI 511 Earth Observation and Remote Sensing
ASCI 512 Space Mission and Launch Operations
ASCI 513 Space Habitation and Life Support Systems
ASCI 601 Applications in Space: Commerce, Defense, and Exploration

And apparently ASCI 690 Graduate Capstone Project.

Colour me unimpressed. Now if you had taken the Aerospace Engineering program, that would be something.

I'll leave the real fun to SirNitram, so I'm done here.

You know I don't whether or not you are impressed. Most of the graduates from ERAU in this field have gone on to become managers for NASA, SCaled Composites, Lockheed Martian and many other space companies. So apparently someone is impressed and thats all that matters.

[SirNitram]

Nah I don't think I'll piss off as you put it. I might be missing DR6 by a little but you are also missing out on being even half way polite. So in that case you are making more of an ass out of your self than I am.

Oh, cry some more you ignorant peice of shit. You've violated a board rule and I'm not playing by Miss Manners. Guess what? You can't dismiss arguments or demands for you to present evidence based on me being rude. I'm hardly 'making an ass out of myself' to demand you put up already. You're stalling, yet again. And what's this? Someone checked your claims and they're not as impressive as you want people to think?

Come on, kiddo. You're not some wet behind the ears newbie. Re-read the rules of the forum if you must.

[Gerald Tarrant]

Nah I don't think I'll piss off as you put it. I might be missing DR6 by a little but you are also missing out on being even half way polite. So in that case you are making more of an ass out of your self than I am.

The cost of delivering payloads to GEO, however, is about four times that of LEO, running the range of $40,000/kg. So just the launch cost of the SPS would be about $3,300/W or about $3.3 trillion for a 1,000 megawatt (MW) unit suitable for providing the power needs of a city the size of Denver. And that’s just is the launch cost.
Combined with salaries, maintenance, insurance and others the cost could raise as $6 trillion a year.
Which is about 3000 times as much as a nuclear power plant providing the same amount of power.At this give it would give the user a price of $1.14 per kilowatt hour (assuming that nothing is added for profit), over 2000 time the $0.05 per kilowatt-hour that currently prevails in the United State.
So in order for SPS to become competitive, the price of space lift needs to drop by a factor of more than 2000 to 4$.03/kg to LEO or $17/kg to GEO. That’s impossible. The reason I say this is the cost for propellant alone is greater than this.

By Dr. Robert Zubrin (2000) Entering Space, Penguin Puntam INC.

Do you have a link to where Dr. Zubrin derives his cost estimates? If they come from NASA operating costs I'm going to laugh. Using the American civilian agencies as a benchmark would be a mistake. It's terribly parochial and if I were to guess, I'd say both Arianespace, and the Russian space agency are capable of better efficiency than NASA. Of course I think we need to see the Dr's methodology to draw any conclusions here, but if he does derive his numbers from NASA's costs then his numbers don't mean much.