Pentagon Study: Power From Space

[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.

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.

I never said they were impressive, and I did back up my claims. And with an attitude like yours you would have hated my professor for 512. Dr James F. Peter author of Spacecraft Systems Design and Operations. Cause if you had to resort to limited mental capacity and insult everyone you met, you would never had passed his class or went to work for him or any one with a decent job.

Oh and by the way Dr. James Peters has over 19 years of Engineering Systems Design and Management experience having worked 13 years of those years with the Boeing Company as the Space Shuttle Upgrades Manager and as a Principal Scientist and Engineer on the Orbital Space Plane, JIMO, Hubble Space Telescope, Homeland Defense, Space Station, Shuttle and SeaLaunch Programs. And I don't feel like typing more on his back ground as its obvious he knows what he is doing.

And if I seem alittle out of sorts, well I am going cold turkey from my antidepressants because I was unable to get them renewed before the doctor went on vactaion.

[Xisiqomelir]

Gerard O'Neill, will you yet be vindicated?

[Sidewinder]

According to page two of the article:

A network of satellites would be constructed in space with arrays of lightweight mirrors extending for several miles (kilometers) on each side.

Those mirrors would focus sunlight on solar cells, generating electrical power. The electricity would be converted into microwaves suitable for transmitting through Earth's atmosphere, at frequencies of 2.45 or 5.8 GHz.

The microwaves would be directed down to antenna arrays on Earth, as a beam of radiation about one-sixth as intense as noon sunlight. The antennas would convert the radiation back into electricity for distribution via conventional grids.

I have reservations about the project, due to the dangers that microwave radiation poses to the human body.

[dragon]

According to page two of the article:

A network of satellites would be constructed in space with arrays of lightweight mirrors extending for several miles (kilometers) on each side.

Those mirrors would focus sunlight on solar cells, generating electrical power. The electricity would be converted into microwaves suitable for transmitting through Earth's atmosphere, at frequencies of 2.45 or 5.8 GHz.

The microwaves would be directed down to antenna arrays on Earth, as a beam of radiation about one-sixth as intense as noon sunlight. The antennas would convert the radiation back into electricity for distribution via conventional grids.

I have reservations about the project, due to the dangers that microwave radiation poses to the human body.

A variety of environmental considerations and safety-related factors should
continue to receive consideration because of public concerns about radio wave exposure
[470]. Above the centre of the rectenna, the SPS power flux density will be considerably
higher than the currently permissible safety levels for human beings. The corresponding
exposure limits for IEEE standards at 2.45 or 5.8 GHz are 81.6 W/m2 and 100 W/m2
averaged over six minutes, and 16.3 or 38.7 W/m2 averaged over 30 minutes [481]. The
ICNIRP, the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection, and Japan,
both apply more stringent limits of 50 W/m2 and 10 W/m2 for 2.45 or 5.8 GHz
respectively [492]. The latter level is equal to the power flux density at the perimeter of
the rectenna site ([1], section 4.3).
Since during normal operation of the SPS established safety limits for microwave
exposure are exceeded in an area around and above the rectenna, access would need to be
carefully controlled to ensure environmental safety and health standards are maintained.
Under normal operating conditions, the SPS microwave downlink will need to be
monitored continuously to ensure the tightly tuned phased-array techniques and beam
control are functioning correctly. Should there be a loss of control, beam defocusing
techniques to disperse the power would need to be applied.

From here
So yeah it does look a bit dangerous to people.

[dragon]

Some of the major problems that still need to be addressed.

The list of issues below is most likely not complete. Depending on the outcome of
the questions addressed, other issues may come up. Again, the list is limited to issues of
URSI’s scientific domain.
· Can the exposure level of the microwave density at the perimeter of the SPS
receiving rectenna site be adequately controlled to avoid exceeding the safety
level fixed by international standards?
• What is the impact of rectenna operation on (i) biological systems such as human
beings, birds, insects and plants, etc.; (ii) airborne vehicles such as airplanes; and
(iii) other electric/electronic equipment and telecommunication networks?
• Can SPS operations be made safe by a precise control of the high-power beam
using a pilot signal from the Earth, also taking the time delay of the signal into
account?
• The influence of atmospheric refraction, beam defocusing and of absorption and
diffraction by atmospheric gases, aerosols, clouds and precipitation have to be
further examined. Are there other effects caused by the SPS power beam on the
environment (magnetosphere, ionosphere, troposphere, etc.) that have not yet
been explored?
• What is the impact of SPS electromagnetic emissions - both intended and
unwanted (harmonics of the microwave frequency, unexpected and harmful
radiation resulting from malfunctions), at microwave frequencies and other
related frequencies - on telecommunications, remote sensing, navigation satellite
systems, and radio astronomical observations? What actions can be taken to
suppress this unwanted emission? Constraints imposed by the Radio Regulations
of the International Telecommunication Union must be taken into account; new
Recommendations and regulations probably have to be developed.
• How will reflections of sunlight from the huge satellite structure affect optical
astronomical observations, and how will passive thermal emissions affect radio
astronomical observations?
• What potential is there for damage to the SPS system from space weather?
• What are the consequences of long-term exposure to solar wind particles and
solar radiation of solar cells and other solid state devices on the reliability and
costs of SPS systems, taking maintenance and possible replacement into account?
• Will the SPS lead to congestion at the geostationary orbit and to interference with
communication satellites?
Even if it is beyond URSI’s scientific domain, the economics of SPS systems
have to be examined by competent organisations, since the cost advantage is a crucial
issue for the feasibility of the whole SPS concept.

From here But other problems that occur are launch ability, construction, materials, solar cell effiniency and many others.

[rhoenix]

But other problems that occur are launch ability, construction, materials, solar cell effiniency and many others.

The people behind the project are well aware of all of these concerns, dragon. You nay-saying the project just because all the pieces aren't perfectly in place now, before they even begin the project, is stupid and meritless in argument.

"You've got a lot of technology breakthroughs that you have to make," Mike Taylor, technical services manager for the Solar Electric Power Association, told msnbc.com.

Charles Miller, president of Space Policy Consulting as well as president and chief executive officer of Constellation Services International, said the key to the plan's success has more to do with economics than physics.

"The issue here is not technology, OK?" said Miller, who was a contributor to the study. "You could figure out how to do space solar power in the '70s. [But] you couldn't close the business case in the '70s. You couldn't close it in the '90s. How do you close the business case? That is the No. 1 question to be answered."

They know of these limits. But how else do you suggest said concerns be overcome without testing, and trying to invent ways to solve the problems?

Even if the project doesn't end up as a magic bullet for solving our current energy problems doesn't even compare to the potential technological advances this project promises.

[dragon]

But other problems that occur are launch ability, construction, materials, solar cell effiniency and many others.

The people behind the project are well aware of all of these concerns, dragon. You nay-saying the project just because all the pieces aren't perfectly in place now, before they even begin the project, is stupid and meritless in argument.

"You've got a lot of technology breakthroughs that you have to make," Mike Taylor, technical services manager for the Solar Electric Power Association, told msnbc.com.

Charles Miller, president of Space Policy Consulting as well as president and chief executive officer of Constellation Services International, said the key to the plan's success has more to do with economics than physics.

"The issue here is not technology, OK?" said Miller, who was a contributor to the study. "You could figure out how to do space solar power in the '70s. [But] you couldn't close the business case in the '70s. You couldn't close it in the '90s. How do you close the business case? That is the No. 1 question to be answered."

They know of these limits. But how else do you suggest said concerns be overcome without testing, and trying to invent ways to solve the problems?

Even if the project doesn't end up as a magic bullet for solving our current energy problems doesn't even compare to the potential technological advances this project promises.

For the last time I am not nay saying the idea, I love the idea and think that they need to run full speed ahead. Hell I even wrote a stupid 20 page paper supporting the idea a few years back. After all even if it never does work, the R&D done will have so many other uses. All I am saying is that there are many areas to work on yet currently very few people are actively pursuing it.

[General Trelane (Retired)]

For the last time I am not nay saying the idea, I love the idea and think that they need to run full speed ahead. Hell I even wrote a stupid 20 page paper supporting the idea a few years back. After all even if it never does work, the R&D done will have so many other uses. All I am saying is that there are many areas to work on yet currently very few people are actively pursuing it.

Funny, then, that your first post, in its entirety, was this:

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

Anybody else smell the burning rubber?

[Uraniun235]

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.

Space elevators are totally infeasible until we develop the necessary materials, and I'm personally betting one can't be built until after you and I are both dead of old age. I love the idea of the space elevator and I think it's a crucial step in the utilization of space, but I've heard nothing optimistic about our ability to build one.

What are the figures on how much better nuclear-thermal and pulse-detonation are compared to chemical rockets?

You should not look at the cost of the project in dollars. The cost of project is energy.

In my opinion, in the short-term, resources should be prioritized to replacing existing fossil-fuel electrical plants with new fission plants and providing sufficient interim energy surplus to then allow for the development and construction of a space solar array.

Also please provide a unit of measure for your proposed abstraction of society's resources in terms of energy.

[Illuminatus Primus]

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.

Couldn't they assembled at least partially in LEO then use their power input to drive ion drives or something to push them to GSO?

[SirNitram]

I never said they were impressive, and I did back up my claims.

After you were repeatedly reminded to follow DR6 and repeatedly made excuses and even whined I wasn't polite. In short, I had to pull it out of you, kicking and screaming, you miserable little whelp.

And with an attitude like yours you would have hated my professor for 512. Dr James F. Peter author of Spacecraft Systems Design and Operations. Cause if you had to resort to limited mental capacity and insult everyone you met, you would never had passed his class or went to work for him or any one with a decent job.

Good thing I never met this man, and of course, I'm not that limited(I understand the idea of presenting evidence when asked, unlike you), and of course, I'm only rude to stupid little cretins who backpeddle so fast they trip over themselves.

Get over yourself, child.

Oh and by the way Dr. James Peters has over 19 years of Engineering Systems Design and Management experience having worked 13 years of those years with the Boeing Company as the Space Shuttle Upgrades Manager and as a Principal Scientist and Engineer on the Orbital Space Plane, JIMO, Hubble Space Telescope, Homeland Defense, Space Station, Shuttle and SeaLaunch Programs. And I don't feel like typing more on his back ground as its obvious he knows what he is doing.

Fascinating, child. Why should I give a shit?

And if I seem alittle out of sorts, well I am going cold turkey from my antidepressants because I was unable to get them renewed before the doctor went on vactaion.

Cry some more, child, because I don't give a shit. Some of us handle our biochemical states without chemical assistance.

[SirNitram]

Space elevators are totally infeasible until we develop the necessary materials, and I'm personally betting one can't be built until after you and I are both dead of old age. I love the idea of the space elevator and I think it's a crucial step in the utilization of space, but I've heard nothing optimistic about our ability to build one.

What are the figures on how much better nuclear-thermal and pulse-detonation are compared to chemical rockets?

It's entirely possible a space elevator is beyond us now, but until we start down the road, it'll never get closer.

One particularly impressive NTR is the 'MITEE-B' model. Some stats When the impulse is ~1000 seconds, it hauls ass.

Pulse-Det includes the venerable hallmark of alt-history, the Orion Engine(Yes, I've come around on the viability of that one). It also includes the idea of mixing fuel and air and igniting that. I don't have specs on the conventional pulse-det, but even scaled-down Orion's for non-atmospheric work have impulses in the ~2000 second range.

They haul the mail.

[Adrian Laguna]

Nuclear power is an interim solution to power generation.

IIRC there's enough uranium in Earth to satisfy current energy needs for at least tens of thousands of years. So by extension if power consumption goes up by an order of magnitude we'd still have enough for thousands of years. I think "thousands of years" qualifies as long term.

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.

Now let's not get ahead of ourselves. First we need to become a Kardashev-I civilization.

[Medic]

Nuclear power is an interim solution to power generation.

IIRC there's enough uranium in Earth to satisfy current energy needs for at least tens of thousands of years. So by extension if power consumption goes up by an order of magnitude we'd still have enough for thousands of years. I think "thousands of years" qualifies as long term.

Ah, this reminds me of a paper Admiral Valdemar (IIRC) used to have linked-to in his signature.

The main thrust of the paper was detailing how diminishing returns effected not just oil but all of it's potential-replacements too. Uranium as with coal, or oil or wood or any limited natural resource, will be extracted quickly and efficiently early-on where it is richest or most abundant -- your large oil fields, large forests, and quarries with a high-concentration of Uranium. I remember the paper in enough detail to point out the aptness of one analogy: these bounties represent the "low hanging fruit" of all non-renewable resources.

Problem is you run out of resources in that area sooner or later and you move onto slimmer and slimmer pickings, since not all resource deposits are created equal.

With Uranium, sheer manpower or more efficient means of extraction could curb the bite but the sheer tonnage of ore needed to get to some meaningful amount of Uranium (we're talking parts per million in a ton of ore IIRC that has to then be transported to a refinement facility before being moved again, though much more efficiently at this weight, to nuclear reactors) really does necessitate heavy equipment which is fossil-fuel intensive. You use energy to get energy in this case. There's also the method of extracting Uranium from the ocean's but this paper also derailed that plan based on the limitations of the technology. I can't remember specifics on this point so I really need the paper to cite but it's coastline-area-intensive and takes time. There's likely a finite RATE that Uranium will ever be able to be extracted with this method so alone it won't maintain our standard-of-living in the absence of fossil fuels.

Forests grow too slowly, ethanol-crops are subject to limited agricultural real estate and dry seasons, oil simply runs dry, coal simply runs out, the list goes on with non-renewables and renewable resources alike.
As an aside as we use up more and more of the earth's "low hanging fruit," it will push the envelope of exploration and investment efforts to find and extract ever-more-distant and hard-to-reach sources of fossil fuels (Siberia, ocean floors) and increase efforts at using less-coveted ones like oil shales or synthetic oil from coal. These are stop-gaps and fall-backs though since diminishing returns catches up with these too.

I stress though, I really need that URL from Valdemar. PM'ing now...

Anyway, we can plod on the course we're on for who-knows-how-many-more dozens or hundreds of years but whatever the number of years, it is a finite number which we subtract from annually at an increasing rate, not a linear rate. You can't blame human desire to push standard of living up if at all possible. China and India industrializing as they are is good for them but it does come at a bad time. (or if your glass is half-full, the perfect time since it could increase competition for energy-independence / abundance) Bottom line though, we haven't quite hit a wall yet so any money spent towards something like space solar-arrays is money well-spent. Every venture won't be fruitful but if that's the over-arching reason for opposing attempted progress then we deserve to burn ourselves out.

[Medic]

Self nitpick: when I say "diminishing returns" what I should be saying is:

Energy Return on Investment. EROI is the energy you need to invest in order to get an amount of energy.

For example...if it takes me 5 barrels of oil to produce 4...then that oil stays in the ground. It's not about diminishing returns it's about ANY return.

It's ... almost a semantic difference it seems but it's a clear illustration of the problem encountered with Peak A, B, C [...], X, Y, Z

Now that I've seen this term again I remember it's use littered throughout the paper I'm now googling frantically for...

[K. A. Pital]

In my opinion, in the short-term, resources should be prioritized to replacing existing fossil-fuel electrical plants with new fission plants and providing sufficient interim energy surplus to then allow for the development and construction of a space solar array.

I also think that way, but if the energy demands allow to use it for construction, why not?

Also please provide a unit of measure for your proposed abstraction of society's resources in terms of energy

Energy output per year required to put the thing in place over the project course, in metric tons of burnt fuel or whatever unit you want to use.

IIRC there's enough uranium in Earth to satisfy current energy needs for at least tens of thousands of years.

There's only so much uranium in the ore, that given total ore reserves, it's enough for 1500 years only. Currently discovered reserves allow for 70 years use with current intensity only. Mind that intensity of use would be rising many times from current. The extraction from unconventional sources is only speculated, technically we have not hit that possible barrier yet.

[Illuminatus Primus]

There's also thorium extraction and fuel breeding. Basically we need to use nuclear to stopgap until we have fusion, advanced renewables, and space solar.

[phongn]

It's entirely possible a space elevator is beyond us now, but until we start down the road, it'll never get closer.

At least for the space elevator, we can't even begin to try and do any real work with it until the problems with carbon nanotube production are resolved - if they are ever resolvable.

[Ender]

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.

I have the book he is talking about, and it actually has a section in it dealing with this and how the entire industry is currently geared specifically against the development of heavy lifters. It was a real eyeopener.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

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.

I have the book he is talking about, and it actually has a section in it dealing with this and how the entire industry is currently geared specifically against the development of heavy lifters. It was a real eyeopener.

The entire industry didn't want to develop heavy lifters to protect a cash cow?

[Ender]

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.

Couldn't they assembled at least partially in LEO then use their power input to drive ion drives or something to push them to GSO?

Solar panels eventually stop workiing, they steadily become less efficient over time. So you will have to move the replacements to GEO, which puts you back at the same costs problem.

The chapter this comes from in the book is basically him saying why it isn't good now, but then going on to cheerlead it like crazy once we get to the belt.

[Ender]

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.

I have the book he is talking about, and it actually has a section in it dealing with this and how the entire industry is currently geared specifically against the development of heavy lifters. It was a real eyeopener.

The entire industry didn't want to develop heavy lifters to protect a cash cow?

Pretty much, yeah. It sounds implausible as all hell until you realize how few companies are making rockets, and how massive that cash cow is. The few people who try to go outside and develop heavy lifters get ground down in legal issues, legislation, permits, financing, etc. The first or second chapter devotes a lot to this, it makes that whole "OPEC IS HIDING THE WATER BURNING 50000 MPG ENGINE!!!!!11oneone" thing look like nothing, with the added bonus of being true.

[K. A. Pital]

Perhaps the very efficient "Energia" heavylifter project done in the USSR might be of some use? After all, "Energia" was one of the best heavylifter rockets, probably the best there is by TTC.

I guess it's rather sane to make rocketry a government institution, so then policymaking is not dependent on their lust for cash, but rather, taken by some high technical commitee?

[phongn]

Thoughts on Ares V, Ender?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Perhaps the very efficient "Energia" heavylifter project done in the USSR might be of some use? After all, "Energia" was one of the best heavylifter rockets, probably the best there is by TTC.

I guess it's rather sane to make rocketry a government institution, so then policymaking is not dependent on their lust for cash, but rather, taken by some high technical commitee?

Do they still make those? I remember Russian liquid fueled rockets were among the most efficient in the world, but I am not so sure now. But then again, there isn't that much development in rocketry that I have seen in the last few years.