ESA funds technology for Earth and Moon base SBSP (Space-Based Solar Power)

[bananas]

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2008/08/esa-funds-technology-for-earth.html

ESA funds technology for Earth and Moon base SBSP
By Rob Coppinger on August 15, 2008 2:17 PM

The European Space Agency's general studies programme is to assess a laser-based SBPS concept for Earth and for the lunar surface. Small scale science missions' laser power transmissions will also be considered

The ESA work will include an assessment of the integration of space-based solar power plants into terrestrial ones, "including innovative approaches to orbit selection methods for the adaptation of terrestrial solar power plants to serve in addition as receiving stations for space solar power plants"

According to the European agency direct solar pumped laser technologies offer the option of increasing total laser conversion efficiencies "by an order of magnitude" and innovative beam control and steering technologies, laser to electricity conversion systems and a combination of parallel data, power transmission techniques are of interest

An earlier ESA study found that some SBSP related technologies were now showing "near- to mid-term potential"

[phantom power]

1. This is never going to compete with regular ground-based solar.

I don't get why people pursue this. Economically, it's completely laughable. It's like saying "Hey, let's take our basic business model, and add in an extra few trillion dollars of transportation cost."

[Dead_Parrot]

2. Dude, it's a giant laser, on the moon, pointing at Earth

C'mon, what reasons do you need, other than "Just Because"?

[phantom power]

5. Well, when you put it like that, I agree it's a no brainer.

[Dead_Parrot]

7. Yum...

:popcorn:


Must be getting old. :(

[The Traveler]

3. Vast oversimplification

Figuring out the engineering economics of this is a lot more subtle than you suggest. For one thing, ground based solar power systems must be designed around anticipated environmental considerations ... climate ... which is changing.

Some solid studies of this were done back in the 80s when life cycle costs of collection surfaces were estimated to be rather high. In that context, power density becomes very significant economically ... and let's face it, above the atmosphere, solar power is really, really dense and available 24/7.

But collection technology has come a long way in 20 years, transportation technology has not made the anticipated advanced, and those analysis may well no longer be reasonable. It is worth looking at, but that admission does not imply I am optimistic about it.

Analysis of this kind can be tricky and lead to some counter intuitive results. For example, some estimates for total life cycle energy cost of TMI era nuclear reactors suggests that the reactors could barely reach "energy output break even" at the end of their anticipated operational lives. That means, according to this analysis, they would over their lifetime produce about the same energy as was required to manufacture their components, transport them, install them, make them operational, fuel them, maintain them, and dispose of them. Not a good deal, if that were true. And apparently this argument was not easily settled ... which does not bode well for the efficacy of nuclear power production.

The TMI incident kinda shut down the debate, but it was still a subject of contention untilt that event.

One more point. Earlier studies proposed different, low density transmission methods and not a freakin' laser, for chrissakes. The weapons potential of such a device would be a game changer. That does not make me feel better about the proposal.

[GliderGuider]

4. Early proposals I saw used a solar thermal approach...

A honkin' great parabolic mylar mirror focused on a boiler. The energy came came down to the surface as a large diameter, low density microwave beam that was picked up be a rectenna farm in a desert. There ought to be enough devil in those details to keep a whole bunch of risk managers employed for decades...

On edit: not to mention you really need a beanstalk to make the system affordable.

[The Traveler]

8. Or a space elevator

materials for which are perhaps almost within grasp ... but talk about driving risk management types crazy! Imagine losing control of that thing ... say a cable break 5,000 miles up and the pure hell unleashed when all that mass comes down twisting a several thousand kph ...

The rectenna approach looked pretty safe but no long term environmental or health impact studies have been done and clearly that should be done before investing in hardware development.

[bananas]

6. Weaponization, Environmental Risk, and Multinational Approaches

A recent post by Colonel Coyote on his blog:

http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com/2008/08/10/weaponization-environmental-risk-and-multinational-approaches/

Weaponization, Environmental Risk, and Multinational Approaches
Posted by Coyote on August 10, 2008

Today I was asked by a politically-minded individual what political hurtles space-based solar power might face when confronted with questions of weaponization, safety, and multinational approaches. My reply is below. Please check my work!

<snip>

[The Traveler]

9. Fascinating reply

One problem with the good Colonel's conceptual plan is the number of launches involved. Studies of the effect of space shuttle launches on the upper atmosphere make it clear that there is a very finite limit to the number of launches we can safely support. Of course, the chemical composition of booster exhaust is a factor in determining that limit. A hydrogen/oxygen system (like the Saturn V) imposes a far lesser burden than a hydrazine based or other hypergolic fuel system, or a solid fueled motor system like the Shuttle solid rocket boosters.

Even so, mother nature does not seem to like having her ceiling punched by too many pencils over too short a period of time.

I really like the orbital solar power idea. One of the main attractions it has for me is it would demand so many enabling technologies that it would open a zillion new doors. The other is that it is massively scalable.

But ... there are unresolved issues. Low cost, low impact and frequent access to low earth orbit has yet to be achieved.