Space Solar Power Looks For Shortcuts

On 11/1/2012 12:53 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:

Only if the people setting that agenda are absolute idiots.

Oh!


Be afraid Fred, be very afraid....

David Spain wrote:
On 10/31/2012 2:33 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
The "formula" doesn't change, but you may want to plug-in
$0.10/kW-hr based on
http://www.eia.gov/beta/enerdat/#/to...2&geo=g&freq=A
(assuming that comes through OK)

Took a quick look, not clear to me if these average 'retail' prices
are for just generation or include generation + distribution + etc.

I interpreted it as what the average customer paid per kW-hr consumed.

rick jones
--
No need to believe in either side, or any side. There is no cause.
There's only yourself. The belief is in your own precision. - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

In sci.space.policy message
om, Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:58:28, David Spain posted:

My avg. monthly consumption is currently running about 50kWH but goes
higher in cold weather.

50kWh per month is 600 kWh per year; a year is nowadays on average 8742
hours, so your mean consumption is under 70 watts. That's atypical for
developed countries.

--
(c) John Stockton, near London. Mail
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, and links.

On 11/1/2012 4:11 PM, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In sci.space.policy message
om, Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:58:28, David Spain posted:

My avg. monthly consumption is currently running about 50kWH but goes
higher in cold weather.

50kWh per month is 600 kWh per year; a year is nowadays on average 8742
hours, so your mean consumption is under 70 watts. That's atypical for
developed countries.


See followups, that was per day not per month, my bad...

Dave

David Spain wrote:
BTW i should have said my avg monthly consumption must be about
50kWH / day. I just did the math, I have to multiply by 30 days to
get a figure close to what my utility bill is per month, based on
that $0.08 figure. I would say the vast majority of that is due to
my refrigerator! Maybe time for an upgrade?

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?...rig.calculator

Might be a bit over-simplified but should give you a flavor.

rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why." I think more often in terms of
"when," sometimes "where;" always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

This approach
https://vimeo.com/37102557

Works.

It does several things at once;

(1) lowers the cost of space access,
(2) increases lift capacity,
(3) reduces mass requirements,
(4) builds all systems on Earth at start,


Since the USA has abandoned the Space Shuttle and the Michoud facility which made the External Tank, the hydrogen oxygen rocket is updated with a rocket that uses graphite and hydrogen peroxide mix that is detonated with a colloidal silver solution.

This high density monopropellant masses 1.53 kg/liter and produces 3.3 km/sec exhaust speeds in vacuum and 2.9 km/sec exhaust speeds at sea level. With it, structural fractions of fully reusable flight elements, built along the lines described for the External Tank, have a structural fraction of only 3.8%

http://www.rocketlab.co.nz/propulsio...onopropellant/

A seven element system that puts up 650 metric tons of payload to LEO is built around seven flight elements each one that's 6.88 meter in diameter and 38.40 m long (81% the size of the Space Shuttle External Tank) with a total propellant volume of 1,335,763 liters carrying 2,043,718 kg of propellant in a tank only 77,661 kg in mass.

Empty this slightly smaller tank masses 2.9x the weight of the original Space Shuttle External Tank's 26,500 kg empty weight. This is built at far lower cost than the External Tank and is fully reusable.

The payload is carried at the base of the central element. Inserted above the aerospike engine and below the aft bulkhead of the central propellant tank in a cylinder 3.88 m in diameter and up to 43.71 meters long making the central stage top out at 80.11 m.

Element Diameter: 22.5664 ft 3.88 m
Element Length: 125.9520 ft 38.40 m
Launcher Width: 67.6992 ft 11.64 m
Launcher Length: 262.7608 ft 80.11 m
Payload Bay Diam: 22.5664 ft 3.88 m
Payload Bay Len: 143.3688 ft 43.71 m

Element Mass: 4,667,033.8 lb 2,121,379 kg (x7)
Payload Mass: 1,430,000.0 lb 650,000 kg

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO

Launched to LEO and then using solar powered ion engines, the craft ascends to GEO and takes up position there and operates using ion engine ACS to maintain its position for 30 years.

Each satellite produces 11.8 GW usable power on the ground once in position and delivers it to 472 separate ground stations at a rate of 25 MW each. These power plants may be located anywhere visible to the satellite.

At a cost of $0.11 per kWh each ground station produces a revenue of $2,750 per hour. Operating at 80% capacity throughout the year each station produces $2,200 per hour and $19,285,200 over the entire year. Spread over 472 ground stations $9,102,614,400 is earned each year. Over thirty years $273.03 billion is earned by each satellite.

Finding 472 buyers who agree to pay $15 million per ground station and $0.06 per kWh for power delivered by the ground station, who also own 40% of the satellite cooperatively, with the other 60% owned by the rocket company and satellite company, we have a commitment of $7.08 billion - sufficient to build the satellite supply chain, the rocket supply chain and the launch center, and to launch a rocket.

Once the first satellite is operating, additional ground stations may be sold to support additional satellites under similar terms.

Three flights per week put up 156 satellites totaling 1,840.8 billion watts per year. In seven years sufficient satellites will be launched to provide 7.054 billion people with power needed to meet all their personal and industrial needs, displacing legacy fuels and power systems.

1,092 satellites separated by 105.6 km on GEO beaming 12.9 trillion watts of power to 515,424 ground stations around the world earning as much money as the major energy companies do today.

Once this first stage is achieved, the next stage is to develop a Sun orbiting power satellite that operates 3.8 million km from the Sun - built around the same basic platform, except this power satellite beams 220 GW to an Earth orbiting satellite equipped to handle the increased power using advanced beam steering that beams energy DIRECTLY to end users - and does so at $0.03 per kWh - while increasing revenues 5x for the owners of the plant. A classic WIN/WIN.

The Sun orbiting system uses solar ion rockets to fly to a hyperbolic excess velocity from Earth along a path that takes it to Jupiter. At Jupiter the satellite executes a gravity assist maneuver that drops it directly into the Sun. At 3.8 million km the satellite uses a combination of solar wind and light pressure to maintain its orbit and clear visibility of Earth. Here it uses its inflatable concentrator as a heat shield and radiator, while the high intensity solar pumped laser beams immense energy to an Earth orbiting satellite that reforms the laser beams to more manageable beams for use on Earth.

One major use will be to drive laser rockets operating at 9.2 km/sec exhaust speed on Earth and laser ion engines operating at 54 km/sec exhaust speed in space. Laser light sails and even laser thrusters which consume no propellant are also possible at these power levels.

Which opens up the solar system further.

https://vimeo.com/38431018

472 early adopters at $15 million each - gets the ball rolling. The money goes into an escrow account, a reserve account that bears interest, and is not encumbered in any way, save upon delivery of an operating ground station and satellite.

The order along with the deposits become the basis on which loans are made to the operating companies to build the launchers and satellites.