|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
Controversy Flares Over Space-Based Solar Power Plans
Jeremy Hsu space.com - Wed Dec 2, 10:15 am ET "Solaren would then need to launch a solar panel array capable of generating 400 megawatts. The total launch weight of all the equipment would be the equivalent of about 400 metric tons, or 20 shuttle-sized launches, according to Hoffert. But Solaren says that it would just require four or five heavy-lift rocket launches capable of carrying 25 metric tons, or about one fourth of Hoffert's weight estimate. The company is relying on developing more efficient photovoltaic technology for the solar panels, as well as mirrors that help focus sunlight. Solaren has not provided details on just how its technology works, citing intellectual property concerns. But it expects that its space solar power can convert to RF energy with greater than 80 percent efficiency, and expects similar conversion efficiency for converting the RF energy back to DC electricity on the ground in California. The company also anticipates minimal transmission losses from the space to the ground." http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200912...olarpowerplans The 'inevitable' is steadily becoming possible...imho. Jonathan s |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
..
.. Space Solar Power hoax/illusion DEBUNKED article: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/038sspdebunked.html .. .. Why the Ares-1 is already DEAD article: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/058ares1dead.html .. .. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
On Dec 13, 4:41*am, "Jonathan" wrote:
Controversy Flares Over Space-Based Solar Power Plans Jeremy Hsu space.com - Wed Dec 2, 10:15 am ET "Solaren would then need to launch a solar panel array capable of generating 400 megawatts. The total launch weight of all the equipment would be the equivalent of about 400 metric tons, or 20 shuttle-sized launches, according to Hoffert. But Solaren says that it would just require four or five heavy-lift rocket *launches capable of carrying 25 metric tons, or about one fourth of Hoffert's weight estimate. The company is relying on developing more efficient *photovoltaic technology for the solar panels, as well as mirrors that help focus sunlight. Solaren has not provided details on just how its technology works, citing intellectual property concerns. But it expects that its space solar power can convert to RF energy with greater than 80 percent efficiency, and expects similar conversion efficiency for converting the RF energy back to DC electricity on the ground in California. The company also anticipates minimal transmission losses from the space to the ground."http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20091202/sc_space/controversyflaresover... The 'inevitable' is steadily becoming possible...imho. Jonathan s Nice, if there's somebody in orbit who can use 400 MW. If you want to use it planet-side, you have to get it down here. THAT creates problems. A storage device has mass, which brings all the transport problems of a safe re-entry and recovery. A conduit would require materials with properties we have not developed yet. A beam would present an enormous safety and environmental hazard. You could cook an Airbus in milliseconds with a 400 megawatt microwave. That's about 200,000 heavy-duty microwave ovens - at once. Tom Davidson Richmond, VA |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
tadchem wrote:
[..] Nice, if there's somebody in orbit who can use 400 MW. If you want to use it planet-side, you have to get it down here. THAT creates problems. A storage device has mass, which brings all the transport problems of a safe re-entry and recovery. Anti-matter? A conduit would require materials with properties we have not developed yet. A beam would present an enormous safety and environmental hazard. You could cook an Airbus in milliseconds with a 400 megawatt microwave. That's about 200,000 heavy-duty microwave ovens - at once. Not so, actually - an Airbus weighs about 400 tons, call the exposure 1 kW/kg, or perhaps 1 degree C per second, so it would take several minutes, not milliseconds, before the Airbus might start losing structural strength. If it was flying rather than parked, the air would cool it so much that it wouldn't be affected at all. That's IF you can get it all into the Airbus, which is not even vaguely likely - a typical ground station covers maybe a square mile, GEO is a looong way away, and focussing enough energy at that distance to do any real short-term damage would take a maser, not the typical microwave transmitter used in these space solar power designs. The exposure on the ground could easily be low enough to be short-term survivable for an unshielded human, indeed it would be quite difficult to get even that amount of power per unit area, and impossible unless it was deliberately weaponised. Getting the power down to the ground is tricky, but it's not at all impossible from a technical or a political viewpoint. But I don't believe the Solaren numbers on the required uplift mass, they are too small by a lot, and even if they are correct it has to get to GEO not LEO (a power station in LEO is pretty much useless), which would take maybe 60 Shuttle launches, not 20. At a conservative $100 million per Shuttle launch, that's $6 billion - and at 10c per kWh it would take 68 years just to recover the launch costs, ignoring interest - in practice you could never do it. I don't think Space Solar Power is impossible BTW, but I don't think the way Solaren are going about it will work, at least not anytime in the near future. I'd be looking at a maybe 50 gigawatt system instead, using mirrors, boilers and turbines - possibly manned. And a much cheaper launch system. -- Peter Fairbrother |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
On Dec 13, 11:18*am, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
tadchem wrote: [..] Nice, if there's somebody in orbit who can use 400 MW. If you want to use it planet-side, you have to get it down here. THAT creates problems. A storage device has mass, which brings all the transport problems of a safe re-entry and recovery. Anti-matter? A conduit would require materials with properties we have not developed yet. A beam would present an enormous safety and environmental hazard. *You could cook an Airbus in milliseconds with a 400 megawatt microwave. That's about 200,000 heavy-duty microwave ovens - at once. Not so, actually - an Airbus weighs about 400 tons, call the exposure 1 kW/kg, or perhaps 1 degree C per second, so it would take several minutes, not milliseconds, before the Airbus might start losing structural strength. If it was flying rather than parked, the air would cool it so much that it wouldn't be affected at all. How long would the Airbus' avionics last in a 400 megawatt microwave beam? You can't fly those crates by the seat-of-the-pants. Knock out the electronic fly-by-wire systems and the plane becomes a brick. Tom Davidson Richmond, VA |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
tadchem wrote:
On Dec 13, 11:18 am, Peter Fairbrother wrote: Not so, actually - an Airbus weighs about 400 tons, call the exposure 1 kW/kg, or perhaps 1 degree C per second, so it would take several minutes, not milliseconds, before the Airbus might start losing structural strength. If it was flying rather than parked, the air would cool it so much that it wouldn't be affected at all. How long would the Airbus' avionics last in a 400 megawatt microwave beam? You can't fly those crates by the seat-of-the-pants. Knock out the electronic fly-by-wire systems and the plane becomes a brick. As Peter said, a microwave energy beam would be spread over an area in the square kilometre range. This is not really for security's sake it is because of basic physics making it impossible to focus a microwave beam very tightly over long distances. The beam would be survivable by an unshielded human being (or more likely by a bird flying through it). The electronics in the jetliner are shielded by the hull of the plane and will survive the beam even more so than the human wandering into the beam. This is not a problem. Alain Fournier |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
Jonathan wrote:
Controversy Flares Over Space-Based Solar Power Plans Jeremy Hsu space.com - Wed Dec 2, 10:15 am ET "Solaren would then need to launch a solar panel array capable of generating 400 megawatts. The total launch weight of all the equipment would be the equivalent of about 400 metric tons, or 20 shuttle-sized launches, according to Hoffert. 1) Energy of a Space Scuttle launch, altitude plus velocity, is no less than 4.2*10^12 J. $500 million/mission. 2) 20 missions = 9x10^13 J and $10 billion. 3) Solar cell efficiency real world is no better than 20% with crystalline silicon. 80% bull**** business plan number for RF conversion, 80% bullh****^2 number for ground recovery. (0.2)(0.8)(0.8) = 13% orbita; insolation to ground electrical transfer, assuming absolute perfection. Look up the solar constant for square mileage of solar cells required. 4) After the power plant delivers 2.5x10^6 kW/hr of electricity it covers its launch energy. After it delivers another 10^11 kW/hr of electricity at $0.10/kW/hr net profits, it covers its launch cost. 5) At 400 megawatts 24/7, the bottom of the hole reaches ground level - assuming no intermediate costs, after 28.52 years (including leap years). 6) Add in amortization of the cost of materials, maintenannce, salaries, pensions, healthcare coverage, expense chits... and teh lfie of a soalr cell installation under solar hard UV, radiation, meteor showers, and orbital debris. Ground solar cells last about 20 years. 7) If every impossible assumption works dead center double bullseye, BULL****. But Solaren says that it would just require four or five heavy-lift rocket launches capable of carrying 25 metric tons, or about one fourth of Hoffert's weight estimate. The company is relying on developing more efficient photovoltaic technology for the solar panels, as well as mirrors that help focus sunlight. Solaren has not provided details on just how its technology works, citing intellectual property concerns. But it expects that its space solar power can convert to RF energy with greater than 80 percent efficiency, and expects similar conversion efficiency for converting the RF energy back to DC electricity on the ground in California. The company also anticipates minimal transmission losses from the space to the ground." http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200912...olarpowerplans The 'inevitable' is steadily becoming possible...imho. Jonathan idiot -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
Alain Fournier wrote:
tadchem wrote: On Dec 13, 11:18 am, Peter Fairbrother wrote: Not so, actually - an Airbus weighs about 400 tons, call the exposure 1 kW/kg, or perhaps 1 degree C per second, so it would take several minutes, not milliseconds, before the Airbus might start losing structural strength. If it was flying rather than parked, the air would cool it so much that it wouldn't be affected at all. How long would the Airbus' avionics last in a 400 megawatt microwave beam? You can't fly those crates by the seat-of-the-pants. Knock out the electronic fly-by-wire systems and the plane becomes a brick. As Peter said, a microwave energy beam would be spread over an area in the square kilometre range. This is not really for security's sake it is because of basic physics making it impossible to focus a microwave beam very tightly over long distances. The beam would be survivable by an unshielded human being (or more likely by a bird flying through it). The electronics in the jetliner are shielded by the hull of the plane and will survive the beam even more so than the human wandering into the beam. This is not a problem. That's correct. The beam power density will be about one-fourth the solar constant. Even then, the aircraft hull is a perfect Faraday cage against the frequencies of the beam. The safety issues are overblown (the economic issues are not). |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
Jonathan wrote:
[...] Solaren has not provided details on just how its technology works, citing intellectual property concerns. But it expects that its space solar power can convert to RF energy with greater than 80 percent efficiency, and expects similar conversion efficiency for converting the RF energy back to DC electricity on the ground in California. hahahahahahahahahahahahah If both numbers summed to 10% I would be impressed. Instead I'm insulted for being lied to so blatantly. Is the technology 'not existing' an 'intellectual property concern'? [...] |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
gaetanomarano wrote:
. . Space Solar Power hoax/illusion DEBUNKED article: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/038sspdebunked.html . . Why the Ares-1 is already DEAD article: http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/058ares1dead.html . . Aaagh. More excessive highlighting. Sylvia. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
...Why Space Solar Power should be the future of NASA! | Jeff Findley | Policy | 62 | June 7th 09 09:53 PM |
Solar power from space... | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 1 | May 29th 09 12:56 PM |
Space Solar Power Gets A Boost | [email protected] | Policy | 26 | October 21st 07 03:57 PM |
Virgin Space Solar Power? | Joe Strout | Policy | 7 | October 4th 06 03:25 AM |
Zubrin's panning of space solar power in Entering Space | TomRC | Technology | 10 | February 25th 04 12:26 PM |