In a few weeks, I expect to be embroiled in a debate about SSPS and
the expansion of humanity into space in general. (Living in the
People's Republic of Boulder, I get into it a lot.)
I continually hear rants against nuclear power -ignoring that it's
considered to be safer & cleaner than coal-, and there's always
somebody talking about the advantages of solar & wind.

If anybody has heard of SSPS, it is considered a wierd fantasy that
surfaced a long time ago. (Even among people interested in space, the
disinformation about frying airplanes and terrorists using it to fry
cities, still is heard, along with bad ideas like using the Shuttle to
lift entire SPS)

Does not the simple fact remain?: you still need some form of large
scale energy production to support a technological society of 6+
billion humans. Note that over 60% of humans presently don't have
access to energy on a scale we in the West are used to (I arbritrarily
include anybody with access to the 'net, here)
Rooftop solar and wind cannot possibly account for more than a large
fraction of household needs (even if you extend out across the street
to the neighbors roof), so what about supplying the huge appetites of
industry & transportation?
We still hear that covering the deserts with solar panels would make
the difference... I have to wonder, what will that do to the ecology?
Not just the solar cells themselves, but the roads & infrastructure to
support it? What about the toxic residue of manufacturing the
mega-hectares of solar cells needed?

So, the space industry to build SSPS is a long way off. (although I
don't think it's as far out as it can be made to seem)
Query: What other energy source (not to mention large scale resource
access) can we dream up that can support our civilization into the
future of possibly thousands (millions?) of years? Which we can start
building anytime we decide to?

This is old news, but it shows that there is still interest in SPS.
25 Feb 2001
ProSpace Alert: Roundtable on Space Solar Power

ProSpace, in conjunction with our partners at the Space Frontier
Foundation and the Space Transportation Association, will host another
in their series of Space Roundtables on Capitol Hill on Wednesday,
February 28th. Entitled "Space Solar Power: Investing In Our Energy
Future", this program will begin at 8:30am in the House Space
Subcommittee hearing room (Rayburn House Office Building, Room 2325).
Senator Don Nickles (R-Ok) has agreed to serve as a sponsoring chair
of this important event.

In 1968, Dr. Peter Glaser first proposed the concept of Space Solar
Power, which involves using satellites to collect energy from the Sun
that would be converted to radio waves. These would be transmitted to
a ground antenna and converted back to electricity for power
consumption.
Further research was conducted by the Department of Energy and NASA,
and in 1997 NASA conducted a "Fresh Look" study. Based in part on
that study, many experts have concluded that the technology base has
sufficiently advanced, to warrant investing in a robust SSP
development program.
And the current crisis in the California electricity markets points
to the need to explore this important technology which shows promise
in providing much of the world's electric generation requirements in
the future without few or no environmental consequences.

The Roundtable will address the question of public investment and the
role of government agencies in making Space Solar Power a reality. In
addition, speakers will discuss SSP economics and a proposed
Space-to-Earth power transmission demonstration.

At 10:00am immediately following the Roundtable the full House
Committee on Science will hold a hearing next door in Room 2318
entitled, "The Nation's Energy Future: The Role of Renewable Energy
and Energy Efficiency".

www.prospace.org

From: "John Frazer"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 5:05 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] SSPS still viable?

[snikt]
> Query: What other energy source (not to mention large scale resource
> access) can we dream up that can support our civilization into the
> future of possibly thousands (millions?) of years? Which we can start
> building anytime we decide to?
[snikt]

There are still the ocean thermal-energy converters and the Carson towers.
However, they have the same problem of SPS: the investment to build one of
those things is BIG (many hundreds of millions of dollars, in a rough
estimate) and therefore no investor nowadays would put his money on that
instead of investing in some cheaper and/or proven technology. Sometimes I
think that we will have to wait for the exhaustion of all fossil fuels and
the building of all economically viable dams in order to see an OTEC or a
SPS being built...

By the way, on the way for getting information on Carson Towers I found this
interesting article comparing a lot of potential energy sources:
http://www.newaus.com.au/news134court.html .

Lucio

From: John Frazer
>> Query: What other energy source (not to mention large scale
resource access) can we dream up that can support our
civilization into the future of possibly thousands (millions?) of
years? Which we can start building anytime we decide to?
> [snikt]
Lucio "Dr. Omni" wrote:
> There are still the ocean thermal-energy converters and the
Carson towers.

(from the site you provided)
"It is not possible for developments of the OTEC system to
provide electricity as cheaply as coal-fired power stations."

I've heard this from several other sources, so I'd believe it.
I note that the most promising energy soource he mentioned
was Nuclear Breeder. Pity we haven't got the sense to use it
wisely.

> However, they (thermal gradient systems) have the same
problem of SPS: the investment to build one of those things is
...many hundreds of millions ... and therefore no investor
nowadays would put his money on that instead of investing in
some cheaper and/or proven technology.

And getting into space to build SSPS also gives us asteroid
resources, and hopefully, eventual breakout from this "Only One
Earth, Limits-to-Growth" trap.
My original question stands (see above)
Actually I doubt that the initial investment for a total SSPS
infrastructure could be much less than this "many hundreds of
millions".
However, the initial LEO station might be (a few hundred million,
up to) several hundred millions, and a similar amount for a
Lunar mine. After these 2 things are up, the system should be
able to bootstrap itself.

> Sometimes I think that we will have to wait for the exhaustion of
all fossil fuels and the building of all economically viable dams
in order to see an OTEC or a SPS being built...

I think it was an OPEC minister who said (paraphrase) "The
stone age didn't end when we ran out of stones, and the oil age
won't end because we've run out of oil". Meaning that something
else will replace fossil fuels before we've run out of all options
for recovering it.

> By the way, on the way for getting information on Carson
Towers I found this interesting article comparing a lot of potential
energy sources:
> http://www.newaus.com.au/news134court.html

Note about the author: Richard S. Courtney is Technical Editor,
CoalTrans International. Is it any surprise that he'd say that
renewable energy won't help?

Note that he also says of a SPS power beam "Failure to sustain
focus on the ground targets could provide a disaster on an
unprecedented scale."

More of the disinformation and sneering derision I mentioned.

--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Dr. Omni" wrote:
> From: "John Frazer"
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 5:05 PM
> Subject: [spacesettlers] SSPS still viable?
>
> [snikt]
> > Query: What other energy source (not to mention large scale
resource
> > access) can we dream up that can support our civilization into the
> > future of possibly thousands (millions?) of years? Which we can
start
> > building anytime we decide to?
> [snikt]
>
> There are still the ocean thermal-energy converters and the Carson
towers.
> However, they have the same problem of SPS: the investment to build
one of
> those things is BIG (many hundreds of millions of dollars, in a
rough
> estimate) and therefore no investor nowadays would put his money on
that
> instead of investing in some cheaper and/or proven technology.
Sometimes I
> think that we will have to wait for the exhaustion of all fossil
fuels and
> the building of all economically viable dams in order to see an
OTEC or a
> SPS being built...
>
> By the way, on the way for getting information on Carson Towers I
found this
> interesting article comparing a lot of potential energy sources:
> http://www.newaus.com.au/news134court.html .
>
> Lucio

How about building a Tesla coil a few kilometers tall, and sucking
power from the Earth's magnetic field?

:) ed

the
> disinformation about frying airplanes and terrorists using it to fry
> cities, still is heard, along with bad ideas like using the Shuttle
to
> lift entire SPS)

I beg to differ about using the shuttle.
Consider the following:
Shuttle Fight 1 - 10 megawatt trubine generator put in space.
SF 2,3 - boiler, and plumbing put in space and assenbled.
SF 4 - 100 meter diameter of aluminum mylar put in space and assembled
in a concave mirror.
SF 5 - microwave rectannea put in space and assembled. The whole thing
is put together and pointed at a test site.

Result is about 7-8 MegaWatt of power to the grid.

It won't run New York, but it can be done. The power is probably more
important to the space station though.

>
> Does not the simple fact remain?: you still need some form of large
> scale energy production to support a technological society of 6+
> billion humans. Note that over 60% of humans presently don't have
> access to energy on a scale we in the West are used to (I
arbritrarily

The number is probably more like 80% of humanity.

> include anybody with access to the 'net, here)
> Rooftop solar and wind cannot possibly account for more than a
large
> fraction of household needs (even if you extend out across the
street
> to the neighbors roof), so what about supplying the huge appetites
of
> industry & transportation?

transport is the big one because electric storage is not as effiecient
as chemical storage. In the perfect world I guess we could make liquid
fuel from CO2 and water from the atmosphere directly or through the
process of photosynthesis via plants.

> We still hear that covering the deserts with solar panels would make
> the difference... I have to wonder, what will that do to the
ecology?

The short answer is it would decrease the albedo of th planet and
increase the mean tempeature. It would also change weather patterns
such that some deserts won't be deserts anymore, while other places
become deserts.

> Not just the solar cells themselves, but the roads & infrastructure
to
> support it? What about the toxic residue of manufacturing the
> mega-hectares of solar cells needed?

There is a price to civilization. This is part of that proce. The best
that can be done is try to minimize it.

>
> So, the space industry to build SSPS is a long way off. (although I
> don't think it's as far out as it can be made to seem)

Given a decision by NASA, I believe they could put an SSPS in space
within a year. This is my opinion though.

> Query: What other energy source (not to mention large scale
resource
> access) can we dream up that can support our civilization into the
> future of possibly thousands (millions?) of years? Which we can
start
> building anytime we decide to?

Energy is the key. Resources are not really limited if you have a
cheap enough energy source.

The only other truly long term energy source I could think of is
nuclear fusion. Unfortuantely it is even more remote today as SPS are.

Bill

From: "John Frazer"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2001 10:28 PM
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: SSPS still viable?

[snikt]
> I think it was an OPEC minister who said (paraphrase) "The
> stone age didn't end when we ran out of stones, and the oil age
> won't end because we've run out of oil". Meaning that something
> else will replace fossil fuels before we've run out of all options
> for recovering it.
>

I hope so.

[snikt]
> Note about the author: Richard S. Courtney is Technical Editor,
> CoalTrans International. Is it any surprise that he'd say that
> renewable energy won't help?
>
> Note that he also says of a SPS power beam "Failure to sustain
> focus on the ground targets could provide a disaster on an
> unprecedented scale."
>
> More of the disinformation and sneering derision I mentioned.
>

There are not only fallacies, but also plain lies, like "It is not possible
for wind turbines to produce electricity as cheaply as coal-fired
electricity.". In fact, the cost of wind energy is the same of coal energy
since several years ago, and the use of this renewable source is growing
impressively in Europe, for example.

When I said that the article was "interesting", I was being half-ironic and
half-serious. Sometimes, it is interesting to see an opposite point of
view...

[snikt]
Lucio

John Frazer wrote:

>
> Actually I doubt that the initial investment for a total SSPS
> infrastructure could be much less than this "many hundreds of
> millions".

Data point: a single new 747 costs on the order of a 1-2 hundred million
dollars (anyone know the exact figure?).

One large communication satellite launch costs about $80 million.

One medium LEO launch costs about $30.

SPSS is going to cost a lot more than "many hundreds of millions."

>
> However, the initial LEO station might be (a few hundred million,
> up to) several hundred millions, and a similar amount for a
> Lunar mine. After these 2 things are up, the system should be
> able to bootstrap itself.

This estimate is extremely low. An average new, large airport costs about a
billion dollars. At present, we have no way to get the moon at all, much
less build a mine there. We can't make machinary that will survive the lunar
night. We don't have power plants that will work on the Moon. We can
imagine how all this might work, but we can't do it at the moment. Doing is a
lot harder than imagining. Airports don't even require new technology, just
application of what's already well known and currently in operation.

Al Globus
aglobus@..., (650) 604-4404
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html

The dinosaurs weren't spacefaring. We are. I don't think that's an accident.
Maybe we are life's taxi to the stars.

I think we should:

1. Devote half of NASA's budget ($7 billion) to reaching NASA's 2020 goal of
reducing launch costs to Low-Earth-Orbit to $220/kg with a 0.01% failure
rate.
This should enable space tourism. The resulting orbital hotels will need to
develop efficient orbital life support and other necessary technologies.

2. Build orbital space colonies. The materials in the largest asteroid are
sufficient for orbital colonies with a combined surface area about 500 times
greater than Earth's. Eros alone could make over ten thousand space colonies,

each with about about 10 square kilometers of 1g living area.

3. After a few generations of orbital living, people won't need their colony
to be near Sol. Then small groups of colonies with populations in the
tens-of-thousands can set out on multi-decade journeys to nearby stars.

Except the launch goals, none of this is even a little bit official.