.... In this case, 1 kg of facilities and components sent to
the moon will return approximately 1,400 times as much
energy to Earth as 1 kg of a solar-power satellite deployed
from Earth.
Greetings,
this argument is it's not reasonable. Why would you launch everything
from the Earth for a SPS and then use lunar resources for a LSP, there
is nothing about the moon that allows you to use local materials for the
LSP but stops you from using it in orbit for a SPS. This is a loaded
argument, the most blatant straw man, build your power generator with
lunar material but do it in orbit. On the moon you need two or more
power generators for each one in orbit and then you need to have
reflectors or re-transmitters in orbit to get the lunar power to
locations on the Earth were the moon is not above the horizon and if you
need to do that, why not turn them into SPS instead. After I was shown
this article for the first time I wondered why he used such a foolish
argument against SPS, I mean it didn't take a lot to see that he was
comparing apples to oranges in order to make SPS appear overly
expensive, so I put the name of the author into Google and found that he
has written many papers and when talking about power generation he
always went to the lunar option and it seems to be something of a hobby
horse of his and like some horses he seems to be wearing blinkers, well
at lest in my opinion, which I will gladly change if anybody can give me
a good reason to.
Darren
.... In this case, 1 kg of facilities and components sent to
the moon will return approximately 1,400 times as much
energy to Earth as 1 kg of a solar-power satellite deployed
from Earth.
http://www.envsci.rutgers.edu/~veron/moon.pdf
The individual in question is either incredibly
uninformed, ie, not conversant with Dr. Gerard K.
O'Neills research/proposals re: SPS, or was under
pressure to come up with a unique proposal. What a way
to keep a job!!! Comparing Dr. Glassners 1960s
proposal for SPS vs. Dr O'Neills is definitly apples
vs oranges. Perhaps someone should draw his attention
to Dr O'Neills work, ie, send him a copy of High
Frontier,,,
the moon will return approximately 1,400 times as much
energy to Earth as 1 kg of a solar-power satellite deployed
from Earth.
Yes, but what about a solar power system that's deployed in GEO but nonetheless built from lunar resources? That's always the comparison which Crisewell shies away from making.
Mike Combs
this article for the first time I wondered why he used such a foolish
argument against SPS, I mean it didn't take a lot to see that he was
comparing apples to oranges in order to make SPS appear overly
expensive, so I put the name of the author into Google and found that he
has written many papers and when talking about power generation he
always went to the lunar option and it seems to be something of a hobby
horse of his and like some horses he seems to be wearing blinkers, well
at lest in my opinion, which I will gladly change if anybody can give me
a good reason to. I pretty much have the same take on this as you. Did you happen to read this article of mine, where I talk a bit about this very topic (among other things I saw as examples of "planetary chauvinism)? http://members.aol.com/howiecombs/somewhere_else.htm
Mike Combs
uninformed, ie, not conversant with Dr. Gerard K.
O'Neills research/proposals re: SPS, or was under
pressure to come up with a unique proposal. What a way
to keep a job!!! Comparing Dr. Glassners 1960s
proposal for SPS vs. Dr O'Neills is definitly apples
vs oranges. Perhaps someone should draw his attention
to Dr O'Neills work, ie, send him a copy of High
Frontier,,, No, that's the bizarre thing. Crisewell is not only aware of O'Neill's work on GEO SPS from lunar materials, he even helped to work on those studies! Why he later chose to completely ignore the good points O'Neill made about the advantages of manufacturing in HEO, and the advantages of high orbits for power generation, is beyond me.
>
> .... In this case, 1 kg of facilities and components sent to
> the moon will return approximately 1,400 times as much
> energy to Earth as 1 kg of a solar-power satellite deployed
> from Earth.
>
Ah, but what about 1 kg of facilities and components sent to the Moon to
produce solar power satellites for Earth orbit? It comes out a little
more even then, and doesn't require quite the enormous scale Criswell's
plan does to start returning useful energy.
will build solar cell manufacturing plants, and then equipment that can
build the equipment that can build the solar-cell manufacturing plants,
etc. etc. with high levels of automation. Actual return in kg of useful
product per year relative to kg sent to the Moon varies in the estimates
I've seen from less than 1 to 100 or so, and then you have to factor in
how long you expect your facilities and components to function without
requiring replacement.
Nobody really knows the numbers to even an order of magnitude - we need
to start actually proving this stuff out on the lunar surface ASAP.
Luckily NASA is starting to fund the right sorts of studies again.
Arthur
> No, that's the bizarre thing. Crisewell is not only aware of
> O'Neill's work on GEO SPS from lunar materials, he even helped to work
> on those studies! Why he later chose to completely ignore the good
> points O'Neill made about the advantages of manufacturing in HEO, and
> the advantages of high orbits for power generation, is beyond me.
I've spoken with David Criswell a few times, and he does mention the use
of lunar resources for SPS on occasion, though I agree I've never seen
him make quantitative comparisons. I think from his perspective using
the Moon directly makes things simpler and therefore easier to convince
others about - which he may have some point on, since he got this
published in the "Industrial Physicist" and testified to the US Senate
about it all last year.
Also, my principle objection to the lunar system is the huge start-up
cost, but I think he sees that as a plus - it emphasizes the magnitude
of the task ahead of us, and means we can't stop after we build just a
few GW - we have to go for hundreds of GW from the start. Whether that's
actually a practical way to tackle it is perhaps a matter of opinion...
Arthur
Amen on the actually proving this stuff on the lunar surface. Even in the small scale a little experimenting on the moon would put some numbers in place like the Mars rovers have done. Very few people I know expected them to last as long as they did, go as far as they did, or make the kinds of discoveries they did. Robotic exploration of Mars and thus all nearby space activities got a huge shot in the arm from this. The key weaknesses of Criswell's LSP plan if I understood them correctly is that he relied on mobile manufacturing facilities operated by astronauts. Anything that rolls around is going to be fairly small scale and the cost of getting a person safely to and from the moon is still huge. If it can be shown that smaller robots can take up a lot of the tasks and be to some degree maintainable in support of a central facility then you really might have something. With robots you can survive funding cutbacks and mission mishaps. At this time you can't really do this with astronauts that far out. This would lower the startup proving cost to less than a billion and find out it the technology is really as good as we hope it is. Cheers, Thor
> .... In this case, 1 kg of facilities and components sent to
> the moon will return approximately 1,400 times as much
> energy to Earth as 1 kg of a solar-power satellite deployed
> from Earth.
>
Ah, but what about 1 kg of facilities and components sent to the Moon to produce solar power satellites for Earth orbit? It comes out a little more even then, and doesn't require quite the enormous scale Criswell's plan does to start returning useful energy.
Also he's (I think) a little optimistic that we can send equipment that will build solar cell manufacturing plants, and then equipment that can build the equipment that can build the solar-cell manufacturing plants,
etc. etc. with high levels of automation. Actual return in kg of useful product per year relative to kg sent to the Moon varies in the estimates I've seen from less than 1 to 100 or so, and then you have to factor in how long you expect your facilities and components to function without requiring replacement.
Nobody really knows the numbers to even an order of magnitude - we need to start actually proving this stuff out on the lunar surface ASAP. Luckily NASA is starting to fund the right sorts of studies again.
Arthur
> I've spoken with David Criswell a few times, and he does mention the
use
> of lunar resources for SPS on occasion, though I agree I've never seen
> him make quantitative comparisons. I think from his perspective using
> the Moon directly makes things simpler and therefore easier to convince
> others about - which he may have some point on, since he got this
> published in the "Industrial Physicist" and testified to the US Senate
> about it all last year.
Let's not neglect the issue of human vanity. Lunar stations are
intimately tied to Criswell. Being an advocate of SPS would make him
just one voice of many.
Granted this may not be an overriding feature but I certainly wouldn't
discount ego from the calculation. Especially, since I see no merit of
LPS when compared against SPS. Ego could in fact explain why loaded
arguments are necessary.
TangoMan
this article for the first time I wondered why he used such a foolish
argument against SPS, I mean it didn't take a lot to see that he was
comparing apples to oranges in order to make SPS appear overly
expensive, so I put the name of the author into Google and found that he
has written many papers and when talking about power generation he
always went to the lunar option and it seems to be something of a hobby
horse of his and like some horses he seems to be wearing blinkers, well
at lest in my opinion, which I will gladly change if anybody can give me
a good reason to. I pretty much have the same take on this as you. Did you happen to read this article of mine, where I talk a bit about this very topic (among other things I saw as examples of "planetary chauvinism)? http://members.aol.com/howiecombs/somewhere_else.htm
Mike Combs
Regards,
Mike Combs
My personal review of Criswell's LSP plan indicated to me that it had a higher chance of success than straight SPS in the short run. I really like the idea that things stay put and don't fly around needing maintenence and orbital correction. Youhave to faceconcerns about anything in the thousands of tons range anywhere save the surface of the moon and L4, L5. It would be good to kick around some comparisons now that a few things have changed. I'm notconvinced that Criswell had the best plan of LSP development. Cheers, Thor
> Arthur
Let's not neglect the issue of human vanity. Lunar stations are intimately tied to Criswell. Being an advocate of SPS would make him just one voice of many.
Granted this may not be an overriding feature but I certainly wouldn't discount ego from the calculation. Especially, since I see no merit of LPS when compared against SPS. Ego could in fact explain why loaded arguments are necessary.
TangoMan
Just an observation regarding SPS versus LPS. As I see it the crucial factor in all this speculation is the space elevator system, ifCNT research makes it a go then almost any scenario imaginable is possible, from mass (100's of millions) migrating to space habitats at L1 to L5, to the total renewal of Earths ecosystemdue to space based energy systems freeing humanity from all energy restrictions. Call this view Pollyanna, but it is in the realm of possibility with mass colonization achieved. Comments:
Good point. As soon as there is "cheap", "safe" way to access space from the surface of the earth, I would expect all of these issues are moot. The trick is that all attempts so far have not been very successful. My concept of sustainable development in space revolves around bullet proof power and housing installations. Currently the only closeby place that I know of to get enough cheap material for radiation / micrometeorite shielding is the moon. Asteriods are a bit too far out there for my taste. The moon has at worst a 3 second communication and 2 day travel / resupply delay. That is pretty unbeatable for starting out. Even if SPS is superior on paper, you don't have any of the assurances of a wide margine of error should anything unforseen go wrong. Either way I favor starting on the moon and then pursuing SPS, colonies & everything else. Cheers, Thor
Nature has ways of correcting mistakes!
I've looked into the whole subject of LSP vs SPS many years ago, and the old bugaboo of micrometeorites and solar mass ejection radiation makingthings untenable is to my mind solvable.when faced witha new concept 'mainstream' science tends to think inside the box when it comes to solutions. As a space cadet from the mid 50's I've seen every mistake possible being made by the back room boffins, resulting from plain lack of vision. Lets face facts when it comes to looking for a new paradigm it ain't gonna happen in JPL, Ames, or NASA.The driving force in all technical progress has come from the entrepreneur willing to invest the big bucks for a 'good' profit. So speaking for myself, the way I see things going is, when someone can say show me the money (and its there). That will be the moment that any space based power system will begin.
My personal review of Criswell's LSP plan indicated to me that it had a higher chance of success than straight SPS in the short run. Do you define "straight SPS" as components manufactured on Earth and then launched via some HLLV, or as GEO SPS from lunar resources? I might have to allow that the former plan probably has fewer unknowns (although I would still insist that any SPS program large enough to make a significant contribution needs to transition to the latter scenario as soon as practical). But it always seemed to me that Criswell's plan involved all of the High Frontier uncertainties of establishing industrial infrastructure from scratch in a hostile environment remote from Earth, without any of the continuous operation advantages of GEO SPS. I really like the idea that things stay put and don't fly around needing maintenence and orbital correction. Youhave to faceconcerns about anything in the thousands of tons range anywhere save the surface of the moon and L4, L5. This is the "stability" argument that I hear quite a bit, but I tend to view it as a bias. Look at it this way: Which is going to impact profitability most profoundly - occasionally requiringasmall burp from some kind of RCS jet, or your power plant being out of commission for 2 weeks out of every 4? (Or alternately, having to build 2 power plants on the moon for every one needed in GEO?)
Mike Combs
Greetings Mike, Yes, you are correct that there are many flavors of SPS out there so I should be more specific. I tend to focus on the final result andthen look forthe most likely way to get there. For straight SPS I used the concepts of mining the moon to eject pellets to L2 and manufacturing solar panels in space either at L4 or L5. I treat the delivery of power back to the earth as a separate issue having waded through the nuclear power arguments long ago. Just because it works and you are "right" does not mean you win in the court of public opinion. I rather dread the thought that people would prefer nuclear energy over any space based solution simply because it is a devil they know over one they don't. The trick with all orbiting systems around the earth is that it is getting to be a very cluttered place at low altitudes. The bigger and heavier your satellites are the more intensively you have to refuel the rockets to keepthem on course. As evidenced with the troubles of space station, if your funding is slim or your deliveries experience technical problem (ie explosions, burn ups, collisions, etc) you face junking your startup equipment if something happens you didn't plan on. That said it was impressive to read Criswell's approach that did away with some of these uncertainties especially in the incubation years when the output is small and the costs are high. You can survive a funding cut since your infrastructure is ground based. You can learn the ropes of extraterrestrial manufacturing in a gravity environment where every gram of material is not so precious. Best of all you can get/give support to any Mars initiative and thus lower the costs for both. Having megawatts of power developed on the moon is highly valuable regardless if you can beam it to earth or not. You don't need to beam power anywhere if you are on the moon for the first decade or so and still can appeal for investors/ledgislation (ie show them the goods and let them figure out a way to bring it back to earth). I'll follow up with a different version that combines several of the concepts of Criswell and SPS plus a few that have not been well aired to date.
Cheers, Thor
My personal review of Criswell's LSP plan indicated to me that it had a higher chance of success than straight SPS in the short run. Do you define "straight SPS" as components manufactured on Earth and then launched via some HLLV, or as GEO SPS from lunar resources? I might have to allow that the former plan probably has fewer unknowns (although I would still insist that any SPS program large enough to make a significant contribution needs to transition to the latter scenario as soon as practical). But it always seemed to me that Criswell's plan involved all of the High Frontier uncertainties of establishing industrial infrastructure from scratch in a hostile environment remote from Earth, without any of the continuous operation advantages of GEO SPS. I really like the idea that things stay put and don't fly around needing maintenence and orbital correction. Youhave to faceconcerns about anything in the thousands of tons range anywhere save the surface of the moon and L4, L5. This is the "stability" argument that I hear quite a bit, but I tend to view it as a bias. Look at it this way: Which is going to impact profitability most profoundly - occasionally requiringasmall burp from some kind of RCS jet, or your power plant being out of commission for 2 weeks out of every 4? (Or alternately, having to build 2 power plants on the moon for every one needed in GEO?)
Mike Combs
Regards,
Mike Combs