...NY Times op-ed......Harvest the Sun - From Space

Harvest the Sun - From Space
By O. GLENN SMITH
Published: July 23, 2008

O. Glenn Smith is a former manager of science and
applications experiments for the International Space Station
at NASA's Johnson Space Center.
..

AS we face $4.50 a gallon gas, we also know that alternative
energy sources - coal, oil shale, ethanol, wind and ground-based
solar- are either of limited potential, very expensive, require huge
energy storage systems or harm the environment. There is,
however,one potential future energy source that is environmentally
friendly, has essentially unlimited potential and can be cost
competitive with any renewable source: space solar power.

In fact, in a time of some skepticism about the utility of our
space program, NASA should realize that the American public
would be inspired by our astronauts working in space to meet
critical energy needs here on Earth

Science fiction? Actually, no - the technology already exists.
A space solar power system would involve building large
solar energy collectors in orbit around the Earth. These panels
would collect far more energy than land-based units, which are
hampered by weather, low angles of the sun in northern climes
and, of course, the darkness of night.

Once collected, the solar energy would be safely beamed to
Earth via wireless radio transmission, where it would be
received by antennas near cities and other places where large
amounts of power are used. The received energy would then
be converted to electric power for distribution over the existing
grid. Government scientists have projected that the cost of electric
power generation from such a system could be as low as
8 to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is within the range of
what consumers pay now.

In terms of cost effectiveness, the two stumbling blocks for
space solar power have been the expense of launching the
collectors and the efficiency of their solar cells. Fortunately, the
recent development of thinner, lighter and much higher efficiency
solar cells promises to make sending them into space less expensive
and return of energy much greater.

Much of the progress has come in the private sector. Companies
like Space Exploration Technologies and Orbital Sciences, working
in conjunction with NASA's public-private Commercial Orbital
Transportation Services initiative, have been developing the capacity
for very low cost launchings to the International Space Station. This
same technology could be adapted to sending up a solar power
satellite system.

Still, because building the first operational space solar power system
will be very costly, a practical first step would be to conduct a test
using the International Space Station as a "construction shack" to
house the astronauts and equipment. The station's existing solar panels
could be used for the demonstration project, and its robotic manipulator
arms could assemble the large transmitting antenna. While the station's
location in orbit would permit only intermittent transmission of power
back to Earth, a successful test would serve as what scientists call
"proof of concept."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/op...mith.html?_r=1




s

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...




Harvest the Sun - From Space
By O. GLENN SMITH
Published: July 23, 2008

O. Glenn Smith is a former manager of science and
applications experiments for the International Space Station
at NASA's Johnson Space Center.
.

AS we face $4.50 a gallon gas, we also know that alternative
energy sources - coal, oil shale, ethanol, wind and ground-based
solar- are either of limited potential, very expensive, require huge
energy storage systems or harm the environment. There is,
however,one potential future energy source that is environmentally
friendly, has essentially unlimited potential and can be cost
competitive with any renewable source: space solar power.

In fact, in a time of some skepticism about the utility of our
space program, NASA should realize that the American public
would be inspired by our astronauts working in space to meet
critical energy needs here on Earth

Science fiction? Actually, no - the technology already exists.
A space solar power system would involve building large
solar energy collectors in orbit around the Earth. These panels
would collect far more energy than land-based units, which are
hampered by weather, low angles of the sun in northern climes
and, of course, the darkness of night.

Once collected, the solar energy would be safely beamed to
Earth via wireless radio transmission, where it would be
received by antennas near cities and other places where large
amounts of power are used. The received energy would then
be converted to electric power for distribution over the existing
grid. Government scientists have projected that the cost of electric
power generation from such a system could be as low as
8 to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is within the range of
what consumers pay now.

In terms of cost effectiveness, the two stumbling blocks for
space solar power have been the expense of launching the
collectors and the efficiency of their solar cells. Fortunately, the
recent development of thinner, lighter and much higher efficiency
solar cells promises to make sending them into space less expensive
and return of energy much greater.

Much of the progress has come in the private sector. Companies
like Space Exploration Technologies and Orbital Sciences, working
in conjunction with NASA's public-private Commercial Orbital
Transportation Services initiative, have been developing the capacity
for very low cost launchings to the International Space Station. This
same technology could be adapted to sending up a solar power
satellite system.

Still, because building the first operational space solar power system
will be very costly, a practical first step would be to conduct a test
using the International Space Station as a "construction shack" to
house the astronauts and equipment. The station's existing solar
panels
could be used for the demonstration project, and its robotic
manipulator
arms could assemble the large transmitting antenna. While the
station's
location in orbit would permit only intermittent transmission of power
back to Earth, a successful test would serve as what scientists call
"proof of concept."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/op...mith.html?_r=1


Oh brother... here we go again.
This topic has been discussed to death on s.p for well over 14 years.

On Jun 4, 6:23*pm, "VMCM1905" wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote in message

...





Harvest the Sun - From Space
By O. GLENN SMITH
Published: July 23, 2008

*O. Glenn Smith is a former manager of science and
applications experiments for the International Space Station
at NASA's Johnson Space Center.
.

AS we face $4.50 a gallon gas, we also know that alternative
energy sources - *coal, oil shale, ethanol, wind and ground-based
solar- are either of limited potential, very expensive, require huge
energy storage systems or harm the *environment. There is,
however,one potential future energy source that is environmentally
friendly, has essentially unlimited potential and can be cost
competitive with any renewable source: space solar power.

In fact, in a time of some skepticism about the utility of our
space program, NASA should realize that the American public
would be inspired by our astronauts working in space to meet
critical energy needs here on Earth

Science fiction? Actually, no - the technology already exists.
A space solar power system would involve building large
solar energy collectors in orbit *around the Earth. These panels
would collect far more energy than land-based units, which are
hampered by weather, low angles of the sun in northern climes
and, of course, the darkness of night.

Once collected, the solar energy would be safely beamed to
Earth via wireless radio transmission, where it would be
received by antennas near cities and other places where large
amounts of power are used. The received energy would then
be converted to electric power for distribution over the existing
grid. Government scientists have projected that the cost of electric
power generation from such a system could be as low as
8 to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, which is within the range of
what consumers pay now.

In terms of cost effectiveness, the two stumbling blocks for
space solar power *have been the expense of launching the
collectors and the efficiency of their solar cells. Fortunately, the
recent development of thinner, lighter and much higher efficiency
solar cells promises to make sending them into space less expensive
and return of energy much greater.

Much of the progress has come in the private sector. Companies
like Space Exploration Technologies and Orbital Sciences, working
in conjunction with NASA's public-private Commercial Orbital
Transportation Services initiative, have been developing the capacity
for very low cost launchings to the International Space Station. This
same technology could be adapted to sending up a solar power
satellite system.

Still, because building the first operational space solar power system
will be very costly, a practical first step would be to conduct a test
using the International Space Station as a "construction shack" to
house the astronauts and equipment. The station's existing solar
panels
could be used for the demonstration project, and its robotic
manipulator
arms could assemble the large transmitting antenna. While the
station's
location in orbit would permit only intermittent transmission of power
back to Earth, a successful test would serve as what scientists call
"proof of concept."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/op...mith.html?_r=1

Oh brother... here we go again.
This topic has been discussed to death on s.p for well over 14 years.

But you haven't even considered the William Mook alternatives, or
those of mine.

btw, this old infomercial "Harvest the Sun - From Space" is bogus.
Who paid for having this republished?

~ BG

"VMCM1905" wrote in message
...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/op...mith.html?_r=1


Oh brother... here we go again.
This topic has been discussed to death on s.p for well over 14 years.



Right.

But NOW is the time when NASA is getting it's Presidential review.
With the potential for a completely new direction for NASA.
For those that care about these issues, for those that care about
our future, NOW is the time to make your opinions known.

Loud and clear!

If anyone thinks a few people can't make a difference, they're wrong.
The better idea, which SSP is, has a way of getting around with half
a chance. The better idea, when the conditions are just right, has
a way of taking on a life of it's own.

The time is right for this idea, if not now, then soon enough.

If we want an elegant common solution to climate change and
fossil fuel dependence, SSP could be that answer.
If we want America to switch from being the largest abuser
of energy, to the largest ...supplier... of world energy, then the
idea is sound.

Energy is America's 'Achilles heel', our enemies are counting on it.
It doesn't have to be that way.




Jonathan

s

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

"VMCM1905" wrote in message
...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/op...mith.html?_r=1


Oh brother... here we go again.
This topic has been discussed to death on s.p for well over 14 years.



Right.

But NOW is the time when NASA is getting it's Presidential review.
With the potential for a completely new direction for NASA.
For those that care about these issues, for those that care about
our future, NOW is the time to make your opinions known.

Loud and clear!

If anyone thinks a few people can't make a difference, they're wrong.
The better idea, which SSP is, has a way of getting around with half
a chance. The better idea, when the conditions are just right, has
a way of taking on a life of it's own.

The time is right for this idea, if not now, then soon enough.

If we want an elegant common solution to climate change and
fossil fuel dependence, SSP could be that answer.
If we want America to switch from being the largest abuser
of energy, to the largest ...supplier... of world energy, then the
idea is sound.

Energy is America's 'Achilles heel', our enemies are counting on it.
It doesn't have to be that way.



*sigh*

Do some back of the envelope calculations on parameters like conversion
and transmission losses, entropy etc. Power loss to the atmosphere, etc.
etc. etc.
Solar panel area, pollution from boosting said panels into orbit.
How much **** is in LEO to perforate the panels, etc. etc. etc.

Before you pontificate in the slightest on such alternative sources of
power at least learn to think critically, a skill you seem to lack.

On Jun 4, 8:27*pm, "VMCM1905" wrote:
"Jonathan" wrote in message

...





"VMCM1905" wrote in message
...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/op...mith.html?_r=1

Oh brother... here we go again.
This topic has been discussed to death on s.p for well over 14 years.

Right.

But NOW is the time when NASA is getting it's Presidential review.
With the potential for a completely new direction for NASA.
For those that care about these issues, for those that care about
our future, NOW is the time to make your opinions known.

Loud and clear!

If anyone thinks a few people can't make a difference, they're wrong.
The better idea, which SSP is, has a way of getting around with half
a chance. The better idea, when the conditions are just right, has
a way of taking on a life of it's own.

The time is right for this idea, if not now, then soon enough.

If we want an elegant common solution to climate change and
fossil fuel dependence, SSP could be that answer.
If we want America to switch from being the largest abuser
of energy, to the largest ...supplier... of world energy, then the
idea is sound.

Energy is America's 'Achilles heel', our enemies are counting on it.
It doesn't have to be that way.

*sigh*

Do some back of the envelope calculations on parameters like conversion
and transmission losses, entropy etc. Power loss to the atmosphere, etc.
etc. etc.
Solar panel area, pollution from boosting said panels into orbit.
How much **** is in LEO to perforate the panels, etc. etc. etc.

Before you pontificate in the slightest on such alternative sources of
power at least learn to think critically, a skill you seem to lack.

You seem to be talking to yourself. Was that your instructions?

~ BG

"VMCM1905" wrote in message
...



*sigh*

Do some back of the envelope calculations on parameters like conversion and
transmission losses, entropy etc. Power loss to the atmosphere, etc. etc. etc.


I've done my homework, have you? Some folks over at ....NASA seem
to think the idea is becoming more realistic.

Reinventing the Solar Power Satellite
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/20...004-212743.pdf

Some over at the ....Pentagon seem to think much the same thing.

Pentagon Eyes Orbiting Power Station
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004586.html


Some over at the Space Review also like SSP;

Whatever happened to solar power satellites?
(of course the answer is George Bush, best friend to Texas and Saudi oil)
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/214/1

Before George Bush, some over at Marshall Space Flight Center seemed
to like the idea too; not just me!

NASA Looks For New Ways to Harness
Sun's Energy for Earth and Space
http://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/news/r...99/99-096.html


And a former Science Manager of the Space Station likes the idea;
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/op...mith.html?_r=1


And some of those kooks over at MIT like the idea of SSP too;

MIT Space Solar Power Workshop
http://web.mit.edu/space_solar_power/


And before George Bush the US Congress thought is was
a good idea. As well as the National Research Council

Laying the Foundation for Space Solar Power: An Assessment of NASA's
Space Solar Power Investment Strategy (2001)
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...d=10202&page=1


And some from the National Space Society like SSP.
http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf



I'm in pretty good company on this issue. On your side so far all I see is.....


How much **** is in LEO to perforate the panels, etc. etc. etc.



Not very convincing I must say, but nice try. Do you have a source
for that? Or did it just 'come to you' while typing?
Can you defend your position with anything more than hot air?


Before you pontificate in the slightest on such alternative sources of power
at least learn to think critically, a skill you seem to lack.


Speak for yourself please. Are you calling all of the above writers
idiots also? If so, you're credibility would vanish.
Hint; it appears I must remind you that in a debate responses like
....."you're full of crap" or threats to killfile doesn't win.



Jonathan


s

On Jun 11, 7:07*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
"VMCM1905" wrote in message

...



*sigh*

Do some back of the envelope calculations on parameters like conversion and
transmission losses, entropy etc. Power loss to the atmosphere, etc. etc. etc.

I've done my homework, have you? Some folks over at ....NASA seem
to think the idea is becoming more realistic.

Reinventing the Solar Power Satellitehttp://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2004/TM-2004-212743.pdf

Some over at the ....Pentagon seem to think much the same thing.

Pentagon Eyes Orbiting Power Station
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004586.html

Some over at the Space Review also like SSP;

Whatever happened to solar power satellites?
(of course the answer is George Bush, best friend to Texas and Saudi oil)http://www.thespacereview.com/article/214/1

Before George Bush, some over at Marshall Space Flight Center seemed
to like the idea too; not just me!

NASA Looks For New Ways to Harness
Sun's Energy for Earth and Spacehttp://www.msfc.nasa.gov/news/news/releases/1999/99-096.html

And a former Science Manager of the Space Station likes the idea;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/23/op...mith.html?_r=1

And some of those kooks over at MIT like the idea of SSP too;

MIT Space Solar Power Workshophttp://web.mit.edu/space_solar_power/

And before George Bush the US Congress thought is was
a good idea. As well as the National Research Council

Laying the Foundation for Space Solar Power: An Assessment of NASA's
Space Solar *Power Investment Strategy (2001)http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?re...d=10202&page=1

And some from the National Space Society like SSP.http://www.nss.org/adastra/AdAstra-SBSP-2008.pdf

I'm in pretty good company on this issue. *On your side so far all I see is.....



How much **** is in LEO to perforate the panels, etc. etc. etc.

Not very convincing I must say, but nice try. Do you have a source
for that? Or did it just *'come to you' *while typing?
Can you defend your position with anything more than hot air?

Before you pontificate in the slightest on such alternative sources of power
at least learn to think critically, a skill you seem to lack.

Speak for yourself please. Are you calling all of the above writers
idiots also? If so, you're credibility would vanish.
Hint; it appears I must remind you that in a debate responses like
...."you're full of crap" or threats to killfile doesn't win.

Jonathan

s

Yourself and William Mook should get a room. At least have some
mutual intercourse before either of you start suggesting such matters
that most of us can't afford to pull off, especially when there's
terrestrial thorium energy at not 1% the installed and sustained cost.

~ BG

On Jun 11, 10:07*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

And some of those kooks over at MIT like the idea of SSP too;

MIT Space Solar Power Workshophttp://web.mit.edu/space_solar_power/

Jonathan, you are every bit as STOOOPID as everyone says you are. Who
hired you as spokesman for MIT? Did you even READ the **** you posted
as "proof"? No. that link is for a conference held at MIT in 2007 to
investigate the "FEASIBILITY" of such a plan! It does certainly NOT
indicate they "like" the idea. In fact we have heard nothing from MIT
since 2007 on this plan. Maybe they didn't "like" it's bogosity while
Dubya was in office. Now that the commies are back in power, I'm sure
MIT is willing to propose sending their own grandmothers into LEO
without spacesuits if it would get them some of that "science welfare"
money.

And before George Bush the US Congress thought is was
a good idea. As well as the National Research Council

Here's the real action, isn't it? It's all about pyramid building and
other bogus schemes to fuel the "tax and spend" administration. The
fact that all the money spent on the "great society" and other former
bogus schemese didn't do crap, doesn't matter. Keep 'em broke. And
keep 'em slaving away and you'll have that "worker's paradise" to rule
over!

Listen to Uncle Al. He truly has your number.





Before you pontificate in the slightest on such alternative sources of power
at least learn to think critically, a skill you seem to lack.

Speak for yourself please. Are you calling all of the above writers
idiots also? If so, you're credibility would vanish.
Hint; it appears I must remind you that in a debate responses like
...."you're full of crap" or threats to killfile doesn't win.

"OM" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 21:27:49 -0600, "VMCM1905"
wrote:

Before you pontificate in the slightest on such alternative sources of
power at least learn to think critically, a skill you seem to lack.

...Before your reply to "jonathan" again, be advised he's a known
troll. Just killfile the little ******* and put him out of our misery,
please.

I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with Bob.

I'm seeking psychological intervention (with a large dose of alcohol for
'medicinal purposes) for the above sentence... ;-)