SSP (Space Solar Power) Analysis
May 30th, 2009 by Mr.Burton
SSP (Space Solar Power) Analysis
Original “whitepaper”:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8736849/Space-Solar-Power-SSP-A-Solution-for-Energy-Independence-Climate-Change
My Analysis, Transcript:
The key economic factor in any space venture is weight. At $30,000-$15,000 / Pound. There is just no way that SSP can ever compete with low-tech terrestrial based solar power, which is constantly advancing in efficiency and decreasing in price. As long as spacecraft continue to use engines based on conventional physics the cost of sending a payload into space will remain relatively the same. Ironically, the propulsion problem is also an energy problem, so if we were capable to making an engine that can produce so much energy cheaply, it would be far more economical to use that technology to generate power here on earth, rather than send cargo into space.
The biggest weakness in SSP architecture is the necessity of shielding. i.e. protection against micro meteors and other space debris; Solar power = surface area = shielding = density = weight = cost. Similarly high tech = high cost. While the true value of solar is that it is inherently low-tech and therefore low-cost.
The whitepaper fails to produce any truly speculative advantages, the kind that you would expect, given the extremely speculative nature of the concept:
One thing I’ve mentioned before in other articles, extremely low temperatures allow for use of superconductors, but only from the point of the solar array to the earth’s upper atmosphere; so the value there is mostly negated. Not that they even bothered to mention this as a possibility.
As for incentives, they use the preposterous circular argument that the best justification for SSP is to achieve cheap and reliable access to space! The rest of the proposed advantages are far more absurd. However none of that matters because the annual global terrestrial solar fall is 800 TW (terawatts). With our current total consumption being only 15 TW, a factor of 53, it’s quite clear that space based solar power is nothing more than another lame ploy by the aerospace industry to appear relevant in a post-space-age world.
What exactly makes space so special? Aside from earth orbiting satellites I challenge anyone to name a single ubiquitous resource or product that is the direct result of our, or anyone else’s space program. Furthermore I’d even be satisfied with a short list of future benefits, uming that we continued sending people and equipment into space for the next 100 years.
Although it’s quite popular to refer to any time period post 1957 as the “space age”, aside from lots of pretty pictures, we have yet to see any concrete benefits from our astronomically expensive exploration attempts. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against real space exploration. What I am against is our preemptive, stone-age version. It doesn’t take a genius to see that rocket propelled spacecraft are far too primitive and impractical for reliable intergalactic travel, even within our own solar system.
This is money that would be far better spent on physics research. Realistically, there should be a moratorium on space exploration until two key technologies have been realized. 1) Faster-than-light locomotion. And 2) Maintenance-free shielding that can withstand the extreme conditions of space.
Duration : 0:5:16
I disagree. There …
I disagree. There is a huge -monumental even- difference between local and long distance space programs. For example the difference in cost between a mission to Mars and a satellite launch is several magnitudes. I hope that clarifies my remarks.
You challenge us to …
You challenge us to find anything beneficial from space programs, but then you qualify it with exclusion of satellites. This is sort of like saying, “I challenge anybody to show that diamonds are worth anything, aside from their use in jewelry and industry,” or “Aside from its use in construction and manufacturing, is steel actually good for anything.”
Anything can be made to seem worthless, if you exclude its usefulness.
For some reason …
For some reason your comment got marked as spam.. I can’t unmark it but I can reply. Google “First Solar”, this is a very recent advancement.
And no, unfortunately that is not a holistic cost value. However I would be exceedingly lucky to see widespread adoption of holistic economics in my lifetime.. so for now we have to be content with the crude status quo
“terrestrial solar …
“terrestrial solar has just broken the $1 / watt barrier”
Solarbuzz says solar installed costs are currently $9, $7, and $5 per watt for residential, commercial and industrial systems, respectively:
solarbuzz. com/SolarIndices. htm
Are you including the costs of labor, mounting hardware, wiring, regulators, invertors, etc.?
Given that …
Given that terrestrial solar has just broken the $1 / watt barrier, SSP is still 100 X more expensive, so it’s a very hard case to make exclusively as a solution to the global energy crisis. Seems like a long-shot, but the space program is its own entity, so the price may become competitive at some point in the distant future.
That’s a really …
That’s a really comprehensive report! I think that if conventional systems can’t be avoided it contains mostly sound advice. And I agree with the basic premise that design and innovation is the main bottleneck with cost efficiency, and that int. privatized R&D is also essential to solve this problem.
That being said, my main critique is that the net benefit is somewhat circular due to its basis on the projected ROI. Arguably anything is better than the current dinosaur of a space program.
Thanks. The Seth …
Thanks. The Seth Potter AIAA 2009 pdf here…
sspi. gatech. edu
…says (p32) that “First unit cost is for a 10 MW satellite is about $145 per installed watt (including launch but not non-recurring engineering), which is about 2 orders of magnitude higher than that of conventional power plants
Additional units will be somewhat
less expensive
$100/watt, excluding launch”
Therefore, launch is seen as only increasing the cost by 45%.
I’m reviewing the …
I’m reviewing the info right now. I’ll let you know what I think after I’ve read it all.
Neotoy,
…
Neotoy,
Regarding launch costs, have you read this?:
dunnspace. com/leo_on_the_cheap. htm
I think you …
I think you misunderstand my overall guiding mentality, which is more eastern than western and can be characterized by measured, reasoned and inevitable progress. If people want to sacrifices themselves prematurely that’s up to them, but I don’t have to support their psychosis.
It’s a nice plan, but even the limited exploration you’ve outlined is only an impatient and impotent gesture compared to what’s possible given sufficient science.
Also, I’m not quite …
Also, I’m not quite seeing what’s wrong with bringing biomass with us. That’s very much in the spirit of what biomass does, it spreads, it finds new niches to grow, and it adapts. Our primary adaptation is technology, and it gives us the ability to convert lunar soil into caves and tunnels and metals for our hermetically sealed hydroponic abodes while getting stinky rich in the process.
The technology for …
The technology for converting lunar regolith into usable resources has existed for 30 years, the chemistry is basic and the process has only been improved upon. I have had the pleasure of having the head of Boeing’s Phantom Works, Ed McCullough, outline in detail how it can be done, cheaply and effectively.
That said, economies of scale would help to make this an even more reliable enterprise. This is only speculative because of the cultural perception we have of space travel, not the tech.
Space travel is …
Space travel is inherently dangerous, but so is coal mining, oil drilling, and any other number of ventures where far more lives and far more multi-million dollar equipment has been sacrificed in the name of resourcing.
NASA can carry out robotic exploration of Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, the Sun, Pluto, Comets, have 4 orbiting observatories, loft humans into orbit aboard aging space shuttles, build a space station, develop aeronautics, all for $0.15 a day per tax payer.
Speculative. Ha!
And how do you …
And how do you expect to mine asteroids or even the moon for that matter with our current technology? NASA can’t even reliably launch satellites. I think you are still well in the realm of speculative and theoretical enterprise. But I look forward to you proving me wrong.
We bring our biomass because we can’t reach alien worlds with our technology, or even merely survive in space without constant terrestrial istance. Until we transcend that limit with science, it remains a “pipe dream”.
A single …
A single half-kilometer asteroid has about $500 trillion worth of nickel, iron, iridium, you name it.
The lunar surface is similarly covered in metals, silicates, and rare elements.
Your umption that gathering these materials and using them is outside of our technology is simply false. We have more than adequate technology, and have had it for 30 years. What we didn’t have was the business model and the launch platform that we get with SpaceX.
Yes, we will bring our biomes with us. So?
Resources, what …
Resources, what resources? There’s nothing in range of our technology worth the effort.
Live in space? No one lives in space, we export our ecosystem to space and then live in that, it’s intrinsically a hostile environment.
“sound judgment” How do you figure? If you mean in response to overpopulation, and resource depletion that is a problem that needs to be solved on its own.
And as I said I’m not against rational long-term space exploration.
And not just SpaceX …
And not just SpaceX. There are three other companies doing similar things, and beating aerospace giants out of lucrative contracts in the process.
The cost will go down, and it will do so drastically within the decade.
Tapping a new batch of resouces and learning to live, work, and navigate in our cosmic surroundings is not an example of ‘risky wasteful spending’, it’s just sound judgement.
The main leg that …
The main leg that your argument stands on is cost of launch. Yes, as long as the cost of launch remains high, SSP will remain a pipe dream.
Thankfully SpaceX is poised to change that. Having just beaten Lockheed Martin and Boeing out of a $3.1 billion contract with NASA, SpaceX’s business model will reduce the cost of launch by a factor of 10, and is well on its way to doing so.
That will make SSP more than cost effective. We need to encourage off-world resourcing, to un-burden Earth.
My view is that FTL …
My view is that FTL isn’t just a possibility, it’s a necessity. Deep space exploration in its current form is simply impractical. I think that just a few hundred years ago the idea of landing on the moon was thought to be impossible, but there is nothing to indicate an absolute limit to what we can accomplish. Although it’s far more important to recognize when we’ve reached a plateau that must be transcended before we can truly advance. I’ll check out the paper you cited.
I did cover …
I did cover satellite utilization in my analysis, which I fully support and addresses your list of current benefits.
As for the “Prospective benefits”.
1) Let’s face the facts, the closest habitable world is so far away that even a generational craft using our most advanced propulsion and shield technology would never reach it.
2) Once again this is only uming that acquiring extra or intra solar resources is economical, which is currently limited by our archaic propulsion technology.
Of course, I too …
Of course, I too hope for a post-rocket propulsion age, but we must also face up to the possibility that FTL or propellentless propulsion may not be possible, in which case, I recommend you read Gerald K. O’Neill’s High Frontier for a vision of what we really could accomplish without these hoped for technologies.
Short list of …
Short list of benefits of space exploration:
- Precision agriculture
- Weather Prediction (useful in evacuation for hurricanes and prediction of off-shore oil facilities)
- Overhead imagery
- Satellite TV & Radio
- Knowledge about potential existential threats (like asteroids and comets)
Prospective benefits:
- Room for additional freedom and population growth
- Expansion of industrial capacity and wealth for developing nations
Thx for the thx – …
Thx for the thx -thank *you*! The 1 thing that concerns me about earth based solar is its effect on the natural ecology of whatever area it takes sunlight away from. Unless panels are installed only on man-made structures, vast arrays constructed over desert regions could negatively affect that region’s ecosystems. SBS is not w/o its own problems – adding energy to the earth that it normally wouldn’t get, but we’re already doing that, releasing the *stored* energy of fossil/nuclear sources.
Thank you for the …
Thank you for the intelligent response. I’ll research the technology you cited. MLL sounds extremely cost efficient as you described it.
I still stand by the core of my argument, which is that abundant terrestrial solar fall negates the need for risk and cost intensive alternatives like SSP.
Even if planetary civilization was at 1st world level we would still be consuming only a fraction of the 800 terawatts available every year.
Good point about …
Good point about the cost of getting material into space – I thought about it, myself. At first I thought the construction of a “space elevator” could make getting payloads into space cheap enough to make space-based solar feasible, but then found out about a potentially better solution: a mag-lev launch platform – kind of like a giant rail gun. From what I’ve heard, MLL is even more cost efficient than the space elevator concept. Comments?