The exorbitant half-penny fuel cost of nuclear. Density is the key t

OK, you've made your point. You are favorably inclined toward nuc. power.It does have its uses, on earth AND in space however, SSps are about:
1) an OPEN ended power source and
2) a resource that can be cost effectively returned to Earth as a rationale for space settlement.

SSPs fulfill that rationale.

Uranium ubiquitous? So is iron but we don't mine iron from random samples of dirt.

Iron doesn't produce the benefits of anything like the kind of extreme energy-dense payback that nuclear fuels do.

As far as random samples of dirt are concerned, it's worth noting that an average of 10 grams out of every cubic meter of ordinary dirt worldwide is uranium.

With regard to accusations that "hitssquad" is in bed with the nuclear power industry (and therefore supposedly "trying to squelch it [solar power satellites] in its infancy"), regardless of whether hitssquad is trying to do that (concerning which I have no knowledge), I can assure you that I have no such affiliation, nor am I "trying to squelch it in its infancy."

I'm actually very much in favor of solar power satellites and other developments that will motivate us to move into space in a big way, but I also try to keep a clear head where other promising sources of energy are concerned -- and nuclear power is eminently available, and the technology therefor more than ready.

Michael McNeil

Communications sats have limited lifetimes precisely BECAUSE they are not maintainable and THAT is because we're limited in our access to them. As we develop more effective launch technologies(which we will have to do to build SSPs) I expect a side effect will be the ABILITY to also maintain comsats, thus their operating life times can be substantially extended. The same is true of power sats, with the addendum that for a 5 GW power plant it would be a necessity. Thus SSPs should have an indefinite life span, something which cannot be said for nuc plants, as hard neutron radiation eventually destroys the containment shell. Micro meteorites and charged particle radiation in orbit ARE the maintenance load for an SSPs and if we're using thermal collector rather than solid state electronics, that is not a particular problem either. SSPs should be maintainable indefinitely, thus there are NO disposal costs. I don't recall the exact orbital life time of a sat
in geosync orbit but as I recall it is in the 10s of thousands of years(assuming no reboost).

Gary 7