NSSO on Space Based Solar Power 198
apsmith writes "About a year ago some of the people at the US National Security Space Office began looking into space-based solar power (SBSP) as a technology in the near-term strategic interests of the United States. At first the participants were skeptical, and the "phase 0 study" went along with no official funding. In a rather innovative move, they organized the study as a series of internet-based (bulletin-board and email) discussions, with the wordpress site open to the public, and a closed experts-only discussion using Google Groups. Initially expecting only a dozen or so interested parties, the discussion grew to include over 170 people with past expertise and interest in the issues. The final report was released Wednesday morning; it provides an excellent broad-brush review of the status of SBSP, showing immense potential, but also a number of challenges that appear only surmountable with a strong government commitment to the project. The big question is where it goes from here — NASA? DARPA? The new ARPA-E? Or something new? I was able to attend the press conference, which included Buzz Aldrin in an announcement of a new alliance to push for implementing the recommendations of the report."
cool (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, someone explain it to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for finding ways to utilize space, but I don't see how this is even remotely economical, especially at our current technology levels.
Convince me.
Re:Ok, someone explain it to me (Score:3, Insightful)
No weather, and a clear view (no atmosphere at all in the way).
That gives you a factor between 5 and 10 over on-the-ground systems to start with.
If you really lose 50% in transmission *and* 50% in receiving the case is harder to make - most estimates seem to have higher numbers for overall system end-to-end efficiency, but of course nobody's buit one yet.
Re:Ok, someone explain it to me (Score:3, Insightful)
how do you propose we maintain them from that distance? yes, solar cells aren't this eternal source of power people think they are. expect to need to do rolling replacments every 10 years atleast, if not more under those conditions.
Re:Ok, someone explain it to me (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a gun, a really big gigawatt class gun. (Score:2, Insightful)
Won't happen until one world, united. (Score:3, Insightful)
We're certainly not going to rely on a very fragile orbiting setup which is a sitting duck to anyone with a decent missile/launch vehicle.
Re:Ok, someone explain it to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Jimmy Carter must be laughing his ass off (Score:5, Insightful)
So, here we are today, some 27 years later, and the same proposal gets floated.
Imagine if laziness hadn't dropped the issue back then. Iran, Iraq and the whole business of 9/11 would have been less critical than they now are.
Re:Won't happen until one world, united. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope.
These things will be high up - in GSO, which takes it right out of the range of any ICBM based launcher. Unless you can figure out how to pack propulsion, power, guidance, and a Dangerous Payload into a five to ten pounds or so... (And no, the classic 'handful of sand' or 'paint chip' or 'styrofoam cup' won't cut it here - the interception geometry is different from that with orbital debris in LEO. Not to mention these things are Very Big - and hitting the very few, and very small, critical targets in the array is going to be Very Hard.) Guidance and control are going to be major headaches.
A major spacefaring nation might be able to carry it off with a few years R&D - but the launches aren't going to be stealthy and whodunit is going to be very obvious.
Fatal error in their assumptions? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Conflict prevention is of particular interest to securityproviding institutions such as the U.S. Department of Defense."
Hmmmm - not on recent evidence!
Re:Because you don't need batteries... (Score:3, Insightful)