Comments on: Space-based solar farms power up

By: Brent Sherwood

Brent Sherwood — Tue, 05 Mar 2013 03:33:34 +0000

So much is involved in approving, planning, and executing any power utility project, that the focus should not be on the “$15-20B” cost. Rather, it should be on the extremely modest (e.g., $200M, affordable to billionaires who want to change the world) cost of a precursor, end-to-end, space-based DEMONSTRATION project. This would catapult the topic into instant legitimacy and force a genuine conversation about it.

By: Editor

Editor — Sat, 02 Mar 2013 21:26:21 +0000

Different design

By: A4i

A4i — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 20:05:18 +0000

Down to Earth we have day and night cycle. At night no electricity is produced in the solar panels. Out there in space a day is 24 hours long. Also there is no atmospheric absorption and the whole solar radiation (of 1400Watt/m^2) can be collected. Another benefit is the luck of bad weather and dust. No need for constant cleaning and maintenance. Solar radiation is nearly constant all year. It only slightly varies, depending on how far from the Sun on the Earth ecliptic orbit we are.

By: John

John — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 16:28:43 +0000

An article on page 84 of the 5th November 2012 issue of Aviation Week describes the progess being made in China on the development of a revolutionary propellentless type of propulsion. The significance of this news lies in the fact it means the chinese now understand how to launch satellites into geostationary orbit using 130 times less energy than is needed when using rocket propulsion. A difference that will radically improve the economics of SBSP, and the futures of space industries everywhere. China pioneered rocketry in about 300 BC, now it’s doing the same with its replacement. China has announced plans to have their first SBSP operating by 2020, long before any other nation.

By: josdorpjossie

josdorpjossie — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 06:43:05 +0000

Isn’t it much easier, cheaper, safer to place these solar panels on the ground. If we only cover a tiny fraction of the eath surface with solar panels we can easily deliver the current (and future) energy demand. Do the math yourself, you’ll find out it’s true.

By: your name

your name — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 06:11:59 +0000

No. If we use the energy we collect then it’s still dispersed on earth. If we build a lot it will probably accelerate global warming.

By: Bri

Bri — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 05:21:42 +0000

Cost wise the easiest way would be to fabricate all the components in space from lunar materials and possibly asteroid materials. Roping an asteroid ain’t gonna be easy. The first solar installations could beam energy to lunar processing centers. It’s easier to build that near earth. The regolith processing could then build ones on the moon. Once power is generated there future ones could be brought back to earth. The first few near earth ones I’d send the materials up by rail gun. Most of those components should be able to be hardened to withstand the G forces. Most of the work I would do robotically. They could be remotely controlled from earth if it’s in earths orbit. For lunar activities the robots would have to be semi autonomous or remotely controlled from lunar positions till robots get smart enough. The near earth solar could be started tomorrow. There are plenty of designs available. Again I’d start small with a scalable design. That way the costs are minimal and there could be rapid payback. Even small micro satellites that turned the small amounts of electricity into fuel from water would be useful. Tossing up those little guys would be that expensive and almost immediately they could have payback. Systems could be put in place that would ferry the materials from low earth orbit into higher orbits.. Small and inexpensive is the way to go. Not the big grandiose projects. The focal point energy conversion area first. Add mirrors individually till it’s power production hits it’s design maximum. Send up another. Toss up some frozen water in sealed containers. Process it into fuel. Now you don’t have to be lugging around all your fuel. Shuttle materials to the moon for processing centers. Toss stuff up from the moon by rail gun again. The electricity to fire them can be beamed from the solar energy converters in earth orbit and eventually from solar converters on the moon.

By: bob

bob — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 03:50:16 +0000

From 36000km, I’m pretty sure the restricted area will be about the size of… NORTH AMERICA. Get your tin hats and have your kids now…

By: spikosauropod

spikosauropod — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 03:21:25 +0000

If we built enough of them–I mean really a lot–they could curb global warming. They would serve double duty.

By: Bri

Bri — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:26:34 +0000

From the NASA proposal they say you could walk across the receiving dish with no I’ll effect. You can’t do that with any of the large telecommunication dishes. The beam will be tightly focused on the receiver and it will probably be a restricted area.

By: Bri

Bri — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:22:06 +0000

That time line is from linear thinkers. It will probably happen much sooner.

By: Bri

Bri — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:14:54 +0000

It would take a rather large beam with a very high power density. Do I hear James Bond music playing?

By: Bri

Bri — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:12:48 +0000

Not to mention it can be relayed in space rather easily.

By: Astrojensen

Astrojensen — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 20:49:29 +0000

The geosynchronous orbit is 36000 kilometers from earth, thus earth blocks a rather small percentage of the sky in the direction of the sun, about 13° acros as seen from the vantage point of the solar power satellite, when the satellite is in opposition. It will only be without direct sunlight for an hour or so. Two satellites in orbit and you’ve got energy 100% of the time.

By: Leonard Schneider

Leonard Schneider — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 19:05:46 +0000

Well. It’s got to be geosynchronous to be able to get the beam down here and therefore it won’t receive sunlight during night. Who wants to spend $20 billions for something working half of the time?

By: eldras

eldras — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 18:19:01 +0000

yep, but being pioneered by men. A.I. is surely coming

By: Dennis

Dennis — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:34:52 +0000

The additional energy would, but it would be more than offset by fewer greenhouse gasses emitted by the fossil fuel that would not have to be burned to generate the equivalent amount of energy. Over time as the greenhouse gasses are consumed by plants and/or degraded, it should begin to reverse the warming as more of the infrared that is now reflected back by those gasses will radiate to space.

By: Bruce Wright

Bruce Wright — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:08:30 +0000

My guess is not appreciably – if it did, things like nuclear energy and fossil fuels would be significant contributions to global warming simply because of the heat produced rather than from any greenhouse gases. The amount of energy that we actually use is a tiny fraction of what arrives here.

By: hakan1997

hakan1997 — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:41:11 +0000

Let us hope that this facility can’t be hacked. Then we will all be cooked chickens.

By: DrDubious

DrDubious — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:39:20 +0000

How about we stop subsidizing the “Too Big To Fail” banks for $80 billion a year and use that money to build three or four of these things? Even if it doesn’t work we’re no worse off.

By: David

David — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:52:39 +0000

Would adding this amount of energy to the earth’s biosphere that would othrwise (I assume) not strike the earth contribute to global warming?

By: Uri

Uri — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:46:36 +0000

im saying the eletro heat shooting back to earth. just like Circuit Breaker Box will cause you cancel if you staying near for too long.

By: Rob B

Rob B — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:40:48 +0000

are you planning on ingesting the components?

By: Rob B

Rob B — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:40:03 +0000

Commercially viable within 30 years? That’s disappointing.

By: Uri

Uri — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 14:38:15 +0000

will it cause cancel ?