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

"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

"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.

VMCM1905 wrote:

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

Let's face it..._every_ space topic has been discussed to death on
sci.space.policy over the years. :-D
I still like my ground-based solar arrays and a giant space mirror to
illuminate the U.S. 24/7, as that will probably lead to the extinction
of bats, and I never saw a bat that I either liked or trusted.

Pat

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...
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.

Bull****. It's more economical to have the solar panels on home roofs than
to manufacture them and then launch them into space.

Clearly, neither you nore the idiot quoted in the story (O. Glenn Smith - I
note he's a "former manager of science and
applications experiments for the International Space Station at NASA's
Johnson Space Center" - what's he doing now; running a side show?) know
anything of the subject.

But nothing surprises me about a troll like you.

"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... ;-)

Alan Erskine wrote:
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... ;-)


I'll see your booze, and double you.
Or at least try.
Has OM ever run into the pure terror of "Steel Reserve High Gravity
Beer" from Texas?
Not only have I, but there's an ongoing slow-motion collision with it
occurring at the moment. :-)

Pat

On Jun 4, 9:35*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
VMCM1905 wrote:

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

Let's face it..._every_ space topic has been discussed to death on
sci.space.policy over the years. :-D
I still like my ground-based solar arrays and a giant space mirror to
illuminate the U.S. 24/7, as that will probably lead to the extinction
of bats, and I never saw a bat that I either liked or trusted.

Pat


Second by second, day by day, this world, in 2005, used an average
equivalent of 16 TW (terrawatts per unit time). 37, 25 and 23 %
billed to oil, coal and natural gas respectively...for a fossil fuel
victory of 85 to 15 %
of the total world energy consumption.

This would be equivalent to 3,200 'energy satellites'.
Think 20 megatons of mass or 200 aircraft carriers.

And all this for about 1/10000 the area of our beloved USA.

And what about the hours long morning eclipse for south Brazil,
Argentina and Chile....it could get chilly.

Also, it would not be difficult to use those mirror sections in
a 'fresnel' fashion.


May the road rise to meet you.....
May the sun shine warm apon your face....

(with an intensity of a MW/m^2).

Your's is a truly modest proposal.

On Jun 5, 1:09*am, asetnil wrote:
On Jun 4, 9:35*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

VMCM1905 wrote:

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

Let's face it..._every_ space topic has been discussed to death on
sci.space.policy over the years. :-D
I still like my ground-based solar arrays and a giant space mirror to
illuminate the U.S. 24/7, as that will probably lead to the extinction
of bats, and I never saw a bat that I either liked or trusted.

Pat

* * Second by second, day by day, this world, in 2005, used an average
equivalent of 16 TW (terrawatts per unit time). *37, 25 and 23 %
billed to oil, coal and natural gas respectively...for a fossil fuel
victory of 85 to 15 %
of the total world energy consumption.

* * This would be equivalent to 3,200 'energy satellites'.
* * Think 20 megatons of mass or 200 aircraft carriers.

* * And all this for about 1/10000 the area of our beloved USA.

(oops again)

As for your proposal:

What about the hours long morning eclipse for south Brazil,
Argentina and Chile....it could get chilly.

* * Also, it would not be difficult to use those mirror sections in
* * a 'fresnel' fashion.

* * May the road rise to meet you.....
* * May the sun shine warm apon your face....

* * (with an intensity of a MW/m^2).

* * Your's is a truly modest proposal.

Jonathan wrote:

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.
[snip rest of crap]

1) Vastly more expensive than International Space Station Freedom
FUBAR Space Hole One Alpha.
2) No way to get the stuff up there.
3) No way to construct it in orbit.
4) Huge surface area unstable in orbit to residual air resistance.
Solar constant is a kW/m^2. 100 GW is 10^8 m^2 minimum (conversion
efficiencies). That is 38.6 mi^2. HA HA HA.
5) Trivially uncreated by orbital debris and the occasional meteor
shower.
6) San Onofre is 6.6 GW. Bull**** orbital DCF/ROI if it is beaming
down 10 GW. 100 GW received at ground level starts looking
attractive.
7) Don't stand in the beam - or within 100 miles of it. Gonna heat
the atmosphere, too.
8) Are ya gonna put it in geosynchronous orbit over its receiver,
moron? What kind of microwave antenna - minimum antenna diameter vs.
broadcast wavelength re numerical aperture - stays collimated over
22,300 miles?
9) Anything passing through the beam gets fried, massively adding
to orbital debris.

Listen up, stooopids, ISS FUBAR has an unlimited budget. ISS FUBAR
has huge solar panels. ISS FUBAR is flaring the night sky with
reflections. Reflected light is not converted to solar power. The
idiots did not anti-reflection coat the solar panels because... Acres
of precision vacuum-deposited anti-reflection coat would bankrupt
Croesus and the local environment will chew it to pieces anyway. How
about 38 square miles of it? The Civilian Vacuum Coating Corps ending
unemployment in America with Green employment.

Wait... WAIT... the E*L*E*C*T*R*I*C rocket! GM will build giant
hibrid rockets that get excellent acceleration in vacuum and every
nation will buy lots because they are chick magnets.

THEY ARE LYING TO YOU like the Amazon River pours water into the
Pacific Ocean and you are too stoooopid to know it. Kill yourself out
of concern for others.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2