Power from space?

[FutureTank]

A recent news item from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21253268/_

I'd like to find out if anyone knows where the National Security Space Office report mentioned in the article can be obtained from.

First couple of sentences

"A new Pentagon study lays out the roadmap for a multibillion-dollar push to the final frontier of energy: a satellite system that collects gigawatts’ worth of solar power and beams it down to Earth.
The military itself could become the “anchor tenant” for such a power source, due to the current high cost of fueling combat operations abroad, the study says.
The 75-page report, released Wednesday, says new economic incentives would have to be put in place to “close the business case” for space-based solar power systems — but it suggests that the technology could be tested in orbit by as early as 2012."

[Ozzy Blizzard]

A recent news item from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21253268/_

I'd like to find out if anyone knows where the National Security Space Office report mentioned in the article can be obtained from.

First couple of sentences

"A new Pentagon study lays out the roadmap for a multibillion-dollar push to the final frontier of energy: a satellite system that collects gigawatts’ worth of solar power and beams it down to Earth.
The military itself could become the “anchor tenant” for such a power source, due to the current high cost of fueling combat operations abroad, the study says.
The 75-page report, released Wednesday, says new economic incentives would have to be put in place to “close the business case” for space-based solar power systems — but it suggests that the technology could be tested in orbit by as early as 2012."


interesting report.

Apart from the obvious benifits for the planets energy needs and climate change, which will end up affecting the military as much as everyone else, the effect this system would have on logistics is well worth the effort. No more PLUTO (Pipe Line Under The Ocean) like logistical structures!

Anyways its promising that the military is driving this. Look what it did for the internet, now it runs the world. Hopefully with the US military as an anchor customer it might just get this stuff off the ground.

[FutureTank]

That was just the article. I can't find the report.
Yes, I can see lots of potential applications, particularly for water and air based systems large enough to carry 1st generation collectors.

[radiosilence]

I'd like to find out if anyone knows where the National Security Space Office report mentioned in the article can be obtained from.


The report can be found here (http://spacesolarpower.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release__01.pdf)

This idea has been around close to 40 years and the technology is now catching up.

[FutureTank]

The report can be found here (http://spacesolarpower.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/final-sbsp-interim-assessment-release__01.pdf)

This idea has been around close to 40 years and the technology is now catching up.

Thank you for the link. I had a search and nothing came up, but I was sure someone would know where to look.

Yes, I read about it in a sci-fi novel when I was in school ;-) It was promised for the 1980s ;-)

[Firehorse]

Реализации проекта препятствует высокая стоимость доставки полезных грузов на орбиту. Спутник такого назначения, равный по мощности современной электростанции, будет весить около трех тысяч тонн – в десять раз больше, чем вся МКС. Для транспортировки потребуются сотни ракетных стартов. Сегодня США запускают около 15 ракет в год.
http://www.pravda.ru/science/technolgies/241750-1/

Auto translation:
Realization of the project is prevented with high cost of delivery of payloads into an orbit. The satellite of such purpose equal on capacity of modern power station, will weigh about three thousand tons – ten times more, than all ISS. For transportation hundreds rocket starts be required. Today the USA start about 15 rockets in a year.

Don't hold your breath-until they figure out the more economical way to assemble it in orbit!

[radiosilence]

If the SBSP idea is sucessful, some military benefits are dramatically reduce the energy logistics train to forward operating bases and reduce the need to secure massive energy convoys and stores in Combat zones, Nation building efforts and Disaster relief efforts.

[FutureTank]

Auto translation:


Don't hold your breath-until they figure out the more economical way to assemble it in orbit!

Much of the materials can come from the actual delivery systems by not disposing of them after the payload reaches orbit. I haven't read the report yet, but the USA alone has sufficient missiles that can be used for orbital delivery by using decommissioned/ing strategic units..

[Chrom]

Much of the materials can come from the actual delivery systems by not disposing of them after the payload reaches orbit. I haven't read the report yet, but the USA alone has sufficient missiles that can be used for orbital delivery by using decommissioned/ing strategic units..

And then small missile will leave your entire army powerless.... great!

[FutureTank]

And then small missile will leave your entire army powerless.... great!

I'm not sure I understand what you mean Chrom. What I meant is that large older missiles can be used to deliver payloads to orbit. Many are decommissioned or will be decommissioned, and therefore surplus to requirements. Only USA and Russia are in this position. In fact if the two cooperated, they could put the satelite network in place much faster.

[eckherl]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean Chrom. What I meant is that large older missiles can be used to deliver payloads to orbit. Many are decommissioned or will be decommissioned, and therefore surplus to requirements. Only USA and Russia are in this position. In fact if the two cooperated, they could put the satelite network in place much faster.

He most likely did not realize that you are not American :D

[FutureTank]

He most likely did not realize that you are not American :D

What part of this project is negative to warrant being anti-American?
In all prospects this is likely to be a partly commercialised project since the US DoD can not use the satellite network around the globe all the time, so others would benefit.
Reduction in demand for fossil fuels would also reduce the cost of fuel to ordinary people around the World, increasing individual's prosperity and therefore quality of life, never mind the benefits for the environment.

[eckherl]

What part of this project is negative to warrant being anti-American?
In all prospects this is likely to be a partly commercialised project since the US DoD can not use the satellite network around the globe all the time, so others would benefit.
Reduction in demand for fossil fuels would also reduce the cost of fuel to ordinary people around the World, increasing individual's prosperity and therefore quality of life, never mind the benefits for the environment.

He threw the dig in there because of the use of American missiles comment that you made so in part I was referring to Chroms remark. Other than that it would be a good project if we could get the Russians involved or maybe the U.S could do it on their own. With the economic growth of China and India natural resources like oil and natural gas will be scarce in future times.

[Chrom]

He threw the dig in there because of the use of American missiles comment that you made so in part I was referring to Chroms remark. Other than that it would be a good project if we could get the Russians involved or maybe the U.S could do it on their own. With the economic growth of China and India natural resources like oil and natural gas will be scarce in future times.
I have absolutely nothing against USA or Russia using they old missiles to deliver payload to space. In fact, Russia do it, and funny part, in cooperation with USA.


My (sarcastic) comment was refered to your "power from space". One single shot by 1 small missle, laser, or whatever - and entire army depended from this "power from space" is powerless. It is already very bad with GPS, but this proposed thing will have 1000 times worse effect.

In short, i dont see much gain for military here.

In civilian use there is however 1 feasible project i know of - space mirrors. These (relatively) cheap things can direct sun light to ground electrical solar panels and increase they power output tenfold, also providng sun light at night. This project is actively being developed right now.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

And then small missile will leave your entire army powerless.... great!

How many missile can reach geo stationary orbit??????? Not many i would think!

Pluss these instalations are huge, the small damage from a single missile or laser would only degrade the system, and i doubt significantly. You would need to hit it with massive ammounts of firepower, and when its 30 000 miles above you thats not easy.

Anyway its a complementry system, used in conjunction with other energy sources.

[Chrom]

How many missile can reach geo stationary orbit??????? Not many i would think!

Pluss these instalations are huge, the small damage from a single missile or laser would only degrade the system, and i doubt significantly. You would need to hit it with massive ammounts of firepower, and when its 30 000 miles above you thats not easy.

Anyway its a complementry system, used in conjunction with other energy sources.

If you ever dealt with space constructions - you know HOW fragile they are. They can be destroyed litteraly by single bullet. Weight saving, you know... And geo orbit is much too far for any usefull energy transfer.
The project itself is about as real as plasma guns and laser rifles. While we can theoreticaly build laser rifle right now, but it will have huge cost, require own power plant, and weight 400kg. On top of that will not work in bad weather.
In other words - unless major science breakthrougt - not gonna happen.

[FutureTank]

If you ever dealt with space constructions - you know HOW fragile they are. They can be destroyed literally by single bullet. Weight saving, you know... And geo orbit is much too far for any useful energy transfer.
The project itself is about as real as plasma guns and laser rifles. While we can theoretically build laser rifle right now, but it will have huge cost, require own power plant, and weight 400kg. On top of that will not work in bad weather.
In other words - unless major science breakthrough - not gonna happen.

Ok, I misunderstood what you said.
Firstly these installations are going to be huge. Given their size, they will be able to house a countermeasures suit and probably include anti-missile defences to cope with possible terrorist threats.

The collectors have to be in geo orbit to be effective, the issue is with the surface reception.

If the laser rifle could be built now, and only required a 400kg powerplant, even if it only worked in good weather there would be lots of them mounted on various existing chassis.
The reason there aren't any is because the powersource would weigh about 400 ton and not kgs.

[Chrom]

Ok, I misunderstood what you said.
Firstly these installations are going to be huge. Given their size, they will be able to house a countermeasures suit and probably include anti-missile defences to cope with possible terrorist threats.

The collectors have to be in geo orbit to be effective, the issue is with the surface reception.

If the laser rifle could be built now, and only required a 400kg powerplant, even if it only worked in good weather there would be lots of them mounted on various existing chassis.
The reason there aren't any is because the powersource would weigh about 400 ton and not kgs.

I said laser RIFLE, and NOT laser cannon as you suggested. Understood it? We cant build laser cannon yet even if we try. And laser rifle with the weight and cost of laser cannon is not very usefull. We CAN build it. But name me where it can be used.... And its advantage compared to similar size and cost normal weapon...

As for Star Fortress (and your propose IS Star Fortress) - well, we are struggling to build very small ISS. And you want something much bigger, and much more expencive... Economic nonsence.

P.S. In fact, Israel already advertise anti-missile laser SAM. In fact, it is nothing more than laser rifle married with radar control. Reportedly, they already even tested it against some MLRS rockets.
We can also remember THEL, what is first step to true laser cannon.

[kato]

As for Star Fortress (and your propose IS Star Fortress) - well, we are struggling to build very small ISS.


Actually, we aren't. The last components that were planned to be added are rotting in NASA halls though and will never be added. Columbus for example has been stowed around for like the last 3-4 years. Due to NASA being too afraid to launch another Shuttle, and certain loads for ISS specifically designed for Shuttle launch (in both size and weight).

[Chrom]

Actually, we aren't. The last components that were planned to be added are rotting in NASA halls though and will never be added. Columbus for example has been stowed around for like the last 3-4 years. Due to NASA being too afraid to launch another Shuttle, and certain loads for ISS specifically designed for Shuttle launch (in both size and weight).

Is there a reason for NASA to be afraid? Or NASA is just angsty?
See, it is not that simply even with small ISS...

[FutureTank]

As for Star Fortress (and your propose IS Star Fortress) - well, we are struggling to build very small ISS. And you want something much bigger, and much more expensive... Economic nonsense.

Not an Orbital Fortress. It will be a large array, but due to its bulk, it will comfortably accommodate a range of countermeasures. It will have to have capability to move and even rotate to evade any damage from space objects, and destroy small objects such as stones, etc., so missiles will be a part of a larger and non-directed threats.

[Chrom]

Not an Orbital Fortress. It will be a large array, but due to its bulk, it will comfortably accommodate a range of countermeasures. It will have to have capability to move and even rotate to evade any damage from space objects, and destroy small objects such as stones, etc., so missiles will be a part of a larger and non-directed threats.
I cant see how you can possible destroy a set of stones flying 15 km/s in opposite direction. Any countermeasure will only amplify damage done, and not prevent it.

[FutureTank]

I cant see how you can possible destroy a set of stones flying 15 km/s in opposite direction. Any countermeasure will only amplify damage done, and not prevent it.

You can't see it because the installation is so high in orbit, and the stones are so small ;-)

Seriously though, where there is a will, and lots of money involved, there is a way :)

[Chrom]

You can't see it because the installation is so high in orbit, and the stones are so small ;-)

Seriously though, where there is a will, and lots of money involved, there is a way :)

Eh, if everything would be as simple... man, A LOT of money cant buy a safe bet for CBG against simple 3 mach missile... in hundreds of thousands tonns hulls... now you want to convince me what somehow money will buy a protection from A LOT of small 50 mach stones in SPACE?

There is nothing absolute in the world, and power of money is also not absolute!

P.S. Give me idea how that protection can be done even theoretically. I cant imagine such protection on the current tech level.

[kato]

Is there a reason for NASA to be afraid? Or NASA is just angsty?

The latter. NASA is currently launching another module (this week iirc?) on a Shuttle, then the two remaining modules will be added over the next year or two. Just 4-5 years late compared to original plans.

[NathanS]

A couple of points:

- Like GPS, I'd imagine it's built in an array. Take some out, that's okay - there's redundancy.

- Shooting satellites out of the sky is actually pretty hard. There are only a few countries in the world with this capability at the moment. You need to get an explosion very close to take out a satellite because of the vacuum of space. You don't get the 'shockwave' like on earth. You more or less need a direct hit, and space is very big. And you can forget about 'flaps' on missiles giving you pin-point directional control. China only recently proved this capability. Satellite positions are well hidden secrets anyway.

- It would not be the US military's only source of power. I'm sure they would have backup generators. They only need fuel reserves that will last long enough to obtain another power source - or more fuel.

- My biggest concern is wouldn't it be possible for the enemy to track where the US positions are, by detecting where the microwaves are being beamed? It'd more or less 'illuminate' their position, even with relatively primative equipment. Fine for US bases - not so good for front-line troops.

[Chrom]

A couple of points:

- Like GPS, I'd imagine it's built in an array. Take some out, that's okay - there's redundancy.
Valid remark. If there are 10 stations, taking all of them out would be difficult for anyone but most capable opponent.

- Shooting satellites out of the sky is actually pretty hard. There are only a few countries in the world with this capability at the moment. You need to get an explosion very close to take out a satellite because of the vacuum of space. You don't get the 'shockwave' like on earth. You more or less need a direct hit, and space is very big. And you can forget about 'flaps' on missiles giving you pin-point directional control. China only recently proved this capability. Satellite positions are well hidden secrets anyway.
Complely false in all points. You dont need any explosive device. A simple BULLET, traveling in opposite direction, will have kinetic energy equal to 100mm APFSDS. And will do as much damage. Now, in 1 kg payload you can cram 100 bullets... in 100kg payload - 10 thousands bullets....
Traveling at geo orbit is NOT ANY HARDER than traveling to any other orbit - you forget the simple fact what bullets dont need to stay at that orbit, they merery have to cross it. High elliptical orbit will do it.

Also, you cant keep satellite location secret. There are things called "radars" and "LRF's". Even 3rd-world country have enouth knowledge and technical means to exactly locate such big object...


- It would not be the US military's only source of power. I'm sure they would have backup generators. They only need fuel reserves that will last long enough to obtain another power source - or more fuel.

- My biggest concern is wouldn't it be possible for the enemy to track where the US positions are, by detecting where the microwaves are being beamed? It'd more or less 'illuminate' their position, even with relatively primative equipment. Fine for US bases - not so good for front-line troops.

All in all, viable idea BUT we need to reach much higher technical and scientifical level to make it work. Then again, at such level we might obtain 1000 times better accus to store energy, or other means to fuel military vessels - so these space stations would be useless.

[FutureTank]

Valid remark. If there are 10 stations, taking all of them out would be difficult for anyone but most capable opponent.
Complely false in all points. You dont need any explosive device. A simple BULLET, traveling in opposite direction, will have kinetic energy equal to 100mm APFSDS. And will do as much damage. Now, in 1 kg payload you can cram 100 bullets... in 100kg payload - 10 thousands bullets....
Traveling at geo orbit is NOT ANY HARDER than traveling to any other orbit - you forget the simple fact what bullets dont need to stay at that orbit, they merery have to cross it. High elliptical orbit will do it.

Also, you cant keep satellite location secret. There are things called "radars" and "LRF's". Even 3rd-world country have enouth knowledge and technical means to exactly locate such big object...

All in all, viable idea BUT we need to reach much higher technical and scientifical level to make it work. Then again, at such level we might obtain 1000 times better accus to store energy, or other means to fuel military vessels - so these space stations would be useless.

Sand casters would stop bullets, or at least slow them down significantly.
The space equivalent of the Claymore would also do as a defensive measure.

Satellite targeting is not so simple, however it is not impossible either. The issue becomes one of engineering.

The transmission can be performed on the move, and in bursts, assuming a storage capacity on the collector satellite. The delivery need not be regular, and also can be delivered to mobile charger units, so hybrid electric military vehicles can recharge. However I think they would still retain a degree of independence from the charger stations.

[Chrom]

Sand casters would stop bullets, or at least slow them down significantly.
The space equivalent of the Claymore would also do as a defensive measure.

Satellite targeting is not so simple, however it is not impossible either. The issue becomes one of engineering.

The transmission can be performed on the move, and in bursts, assuming a storage capacity on the collector satellite. The delivery need not be regular, and also can be delivered to mobile charger units, so hybrid electric military vehicles can recharge. However I think they would still retain a degree of independence from the charger stations.

Sand casters, unless notoriosly thick (remember Star Fortress?) will only apmlifiy damage due to added debris. Imagine how thick should be sandcasters to stop 100mm APFSDS... And now keep in mind, the energy is focused in much smaller cross-section, so even better penetration...

As i said, theoreticaly valid idea what about as feasible at current technological level as plasma guns and X-Fighters.

[FutureTank]

Sand casters, unless notoriosly thick (remember Star Fortress?) will only apmlifiy damage due to added debris. Imagine how thick should be sandcasters to stop 100mm APFSDS... And now keep in mind, the energy is focused in much smaller cross-section, so even better penetration...

But where are you going to get a 100mm APFSDS in space from? Is there a capability ion the BMP-3 we are not aware of? ;-)

"Faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to leap tall buildings at a single bound! "Look! Up in the sky!" "It's a bird!" "It's a plane!" "It's satellite-busting BMP-3!" :D

suggested countermeasure: depleted Kryptonite round ?

[Chrom]

But where are you going to get a 100mm APFSDS in space from? Is there a capability ion the BMP-3 we are not aware of? ;-)

"Faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to leap tall buildings at a single bound! "Look! Up in the sky!" "It's a bird!" "It's a plane!" "It's satellite-busting BMP-3!" :D

suggested countermeasure: depleted Kryptonite round ?

Did you even read what i wrote? A bullet traveling 15 km/s have about as much kinetic energy as 100mm APFSDS flying 1km/s , and will do about as much damage.

[NathanS]

Complely false in all points. You dont need any explosive device. A simple BULLET, traveling in opposite direction, will have kinetic energy equal to 100mm APFSDS. And will do as much damage. Now, in 1 kg payload you can cram 100 bullets... in 100kg payload - 10 thousands bullets....
Traveling at geo orbit is NOT ANY HARDER than traveling to any other orbit - you forget the simple fact what bullets dont need to stay at that orbit, they merery have to cross it. High elliptical orbit will do it.

Name one country that uses "bullets" to take out satellites? It would be near on impossible to get a bullet in exactly the right orbit at the right time to begin with. Even a geo-stationary orbit is a very large area of space. Why do you think so many countries seriously look at nuclear weapons to knock out satellites (as a result of the EMP blast)? Because they're really hard to hit. Notice that the only countries that have the means to take out satellites are those with advanced ballistic missile systems?

Notice when a space module is going to land back on earth, the landing area is an area of several thousand miles? Same principle... even having calculated it's trajectory it's difficult to calculate even the ballpark where it will land because the scales are that big. A small decimal point of imperfection leads to missing by hundreds of miles.

Also, you cant keep satellite location secret. There are things called "radars" and "LRF's". Even 3rd-world country have enouth knowledge and technical means to exactly locate such big object...

There are hundreds and hundreds of satellites in the sky for all sorts of purposes. Research, weather, communications, junk, military. You can't just knock them all out. Mind you you could just see which one is emitting the beaming the microwaves.

[Chrom]

Name one country that uses "bullets" to take out satellites? It would be near on impossible to get a bullet in exactly the right orbit at the right time to begin with. Even a geo-stationary orbit is a very large area of space. Why do you think so many countries seriously look at nuclear weapons to knock out satellites (as a result of the EMP blast)? Because they're really hard to hit. Notice that the only countries that have the means to take out satellites are those with advanced ballistic missile systems?

Notice when a space module is going to land back on earth, the landing area is an area of several thousand miles? Same principle... even having calculated it's trajectory it's difficult to calculate even the ballpark where it will land because the scales are that big. A small decimal point of imperfection leads to missing by hundreds of miles.



There are hundreds and hundreds of satellites in the sky for all sorts of purposes. Research, weather, communications, junk, military. You can't just knock them all out. Mind you you could just see which one is emitting the beaming the microwaves.

Most anti-satellite plans i know of include so-called "bucket with nails" as main killing factor. Either way, it is much, much, much easer to hit space object with several nails from the bucket than guide missile with explosives to exact right spot... And anyway, what is purpose of explosives? Is it not to accelerate nails toward target? But in satellite case the speed of nails already order of magnitude higher than any speed they can gain from explosion...

In landing case unpredicable atmosthere take a toll. In space there is nothing unpredicable, and warhead could be aimed VERY accurate. Btw, controlled landing from space achieve very good results - e.g. space shuttle landed on airfield last i checked, and russian space modules land in 1 km2 area in normal case - but if really needed, they could be modified to land in 1 m2...

As for "many satellites"... First, they will be damaged exactly as much in case of simple explosive missille hitting said station due to debris. Second, i think it is acceptable toll to render your enemy army useless.

[NathanS]

Yeah, I don't deny that it's kinetic damage that's usually applied from metal fragments. But it's a ballistic missile that has to deliver the payload, and there are very few countries capable of launching long range ballistic missiles with the range and accuracy required. It's far from an 'easy' exercise.

On current estimates, China has around 150 ballistic missiles in their stockpile. Plenty to wipe out a country in a nuclear strike, but not enough to take out every satellite in orbit.

I doubt a middle-eastern nation, or North Korea has the technology to shoot down satellites - and currently they're painted as the biggest US threats.

[Chrom]

Yeah, I don't deny that it's kinetic damage that's usually applied from metal fragments. But it's a ballistic missile that has to deliver the payload, and there are very few countries capable of launching long range ballistic missiles with the range and accuracy required. It's far from an 'easy' exercise.

On current estimates, China has around 150 ballistic missiles in their stockpile. Plenty to wipe out a country in a nuclear strike, but not enough to take out every satellite in orbit.

I doubt a middle-eastern nation, or North Korea has the technology to shoot down satellites - and currently they're painted as the biggest US threats.

Yes, but 1st - we are talking about future. More countries will posses capable ballistic missiles. It is even possible they would be sold on open commercial market like aircrafts now.
2nd, shaping your army against very low-tech weak opponent is not good idea. Against such enemy every solution will do well, and there is no need to deploy multi-trillion dollars platforms in space.

[NathanS]

Yes, but 1st - we are talking about future. More countries will posses capable ballistic missiles. It is even possible they would be sold on open commercial market like aircrafts now.
2nd, shaping your army against very low-tech weak opponent is not good idea. Against such enemy every solution will do well, and there is no need to deploy multi-trillion dollars platforms in space.

Hardly shaping against a low-tech opponent. For example; spy satellites. The Russians have had the ability to shoot them down since the 60's. Yet you'd hardly dream of reverting to solely spy planes now, unless you had to. Almost everything has a counter - that's why you build redundancy, and secondly, have a back-up plan. I can't see why this is so different.

Also, the reason it's being considered now is that the technology is pretty much here. It's no more difficult then it was to develop then a lot of military / space technology initially was. And now there is GPS, Spy Satellites, and Military communications satellites. It's not like large solar arrays in space is anything new either.

[Chrom]

Hardly shaping against a low-tech opponent. For example; spy satellites. The Russians have had the ability to shoot them down since the 60's. Yet you'd hardly dream of reverting to solely spy planes now, unless you had to. Almost everything has a counter - that's why you build redundancy, and secondly, have a back-up plan. I can't see why this is so different.

Also, the reason it's being considered now is that the technology is pretty much here. It's no more difficult then it was to develop then a lot of military / space technology initially was. And now there is GPS, Spy Satellites, and Military communications satellites. It's not like large solar arrays in space is anything new either.

The difference is like between 18th century rockets and 21th century ballistic missile. While they use basically some laws, there are 3 hundreds years of technical development between. Some case with this "power from space" - there are so many unsolvable (on current technical level) obstacles - what it is pure fantasy. Cold thermonuclear reactors are probably more real than this...

[NathanS]

From all accounts, it is far less outlandish then other things being seriously worked on at the moment, such as the space elevator.

And unlike the space elevator, the technology is here, just not the economies of scale.

[Chrom]

From all accounts, it is far less outlandish then other things being seriously worked on at the moment, such as the space elevator.

And unlike the space elevator, the technology is here, just not the economies of scale.

Technology is not there in the sence what it will be 1000 times more effective to power devices with other means. Sure, even now we can spend 300 billions $$ and launch such space station in space what will be able to power may be 2-3 tanks, with devices to recive power being larger than tank itself... Are you really sure this is what you call "technology is there" ?

[NathanS]

Technology is not there in the sence what it will be 1000 times more effective to power devices with other means. Sure, even now we can spend 300 billions $$ and launch such space station in space what will be able to power may be 2-3 tanks, with devices to recive power being larger than tank itself... Are you really sure this is what you call "technology is there" ?

Hmmm.... from the Pentagon report, the power they're asking for is only 5-50 megawatts as being enough to be worthwhile. Most previous studies were looking at commercial power generation, and were looking at systems up to 1 km big that would generate up to 50 gigawatts (1000 times more then needed). Proponents of the scheme point out that it's more promising then fusion technology currently is (has costed over 20 billion in research so far).

[Chrom]

Hmmm.... from the Pentagon report, the power they're asking for is only 5-50 megawatts as being enough to be worthwhile. Most previous studies were looking at commercial power generation, and were looking at systems up to 1 km big that would generate up to 50 gigawatts (1000 times more then needed). Proponents of the scheme point out that it's more promising then fusion technology currently is (has costed over 20 billion in research so far).

Now, imagine the station size needed to generate 50 MW energy.... easely thousands of tons - and that even not counting big problem with heat dissasipation - you cant easely cool things in space! 1 kg currently cost about 20.000 $ to lift in space (low orbit). 1000t - 20 billions. 10.000t - 200 billions. And THAT is just lifting - not taking in account the price of components itself. Good luck...

[NathanS]

Now, imagine the station size needed to generate 50 MW energy.... easely thousands of tons - and that even not counting big problem with heat dissasipation - you cant easely cool things in space! 1 kg currently cost about 20.000 $ to lift in space (low orbit). 1000t - 20 billions. 10.000t - 200 billions. And THAT is just lifting - not taking in account the price of components itself. Good luck...

Where did you get your figures from for lifting things into space? The current figures I've read for the shuttle are between $6,600/kg and $11,000/kg.

Just been reading the National Security Space Office report. They believe that 10 megawatts can be delivered within 10 years for less then 10 billion dollars. They acknowledge launch costs as the single highest cost, and that is the one area they hope to drive down with the economy of scale that would make further development in that area worthwhile.

[kato]

Launch costs have risen quite a bit again lately (since 2004), but still - the bigger your payload gets, the cheaper the per-kg price usually.

1000 tons (50 launches) via Proton-M would cost you around US$ 4.5 to 5 billion at the moment. Angara will probably be
If you can handle it via smaller payloads, Russia and ESA together could soon offer Soyuz-ST out of Kourou for you - 7.8 ton payloads for $25 million (ie $3200 per kg) will be the medium-term intended launch price.

US systems aren't really that competitive, price-wise, on the international market. Delta IV somewhat for heavier lifts, STS (Shuttle) for stuff with weird outgrown dimensions.

[Chrom]

Where did you get your figures from for lifting things into space? The current figures I've read for the shuttle are between $6,600/kg and $11,000/kg.

Just been reading the National Security Space Office report. They believe that 10 megawatts can be delivered within 10 years for less then 10 billion dollars. They acknowledge launch costs as the single highest cost, and that is the one area they hope to drive down with the economy of scale that would make further development in that area worthwhile.

I wonder, EVEN if we believe NASA (and we know how they like to overrun costs!) - it is 10.000 KW for 10 billions USD! I mean, enouth power for 10 tanks - for 10 billions!!!

1 billion $$ for 1 tank - it is rather expencive power battery...

P.S. See, i wasnt that far off in my assumtions. 10 MW for 10 billiions - 50 MW for 50 billions... i was pretty close.

[FutureTank]

Yes, but 1st - we are talking about future. More countries will posses capable ballistic missiles. It is even possible they would be sold on open commercial market like aircrafts now.
2nd, shaping your army against very low-tech weak opponent is not good idea. Against such enemy every solution will do well, and there is no need to deploy multi-trillion dollars platforms in space.

It seems to me that it will be a very far future before missiles are sold on open market, never mind long range missiles (they are all ballistic).

I can think of at least one engineering solution to reduce the possibility of a collector satellite being damaged by a missile.
A Claymore-type warhead is more dangerous. However when you consider that the satellite has at any one time at least 10,000 kW of energy passing thought it, it is not unfeasible to equip it with a laser weapon given in space there is no atmosphere to punch through. Tracking threats, and targeting them is not an issue. Destroying them would only require the onboard systems, or a surface controller to switch power collection from transmission to firing mode for the very short time it would be required to destroy a missile. This includes very small missiles, including those the size of a nail because with laser one can not only hit them on the head, but even on the point.
The problem is safety, because in case of a miss, the laser will continue to travel into the atmosphere. I'm not sure of the physics, but I think it would be safe enough for commercial air traffic after passing some of the higher altitudes. Might have to ask on the science fiction forum. :)

Note: original intercontinental missiles were so called in USA because IBM (the company) did not like the association it would have created, and IM was too short. It is of course very difficult to make a non-ballistic missile ;)

[Chrom]

It seems to me that it will be a very far future before missiles are sold on open market, never mind long range missiles (they are all ballistic).

I can think of at least one engineering solution to reduce the possibility of a collector satellite being damaged by a missile.
A Claymore-type warhead is more dangerous. However when you consider that the satellite has at any one time at least 10,000 kW of energy passing thought it, it is not unfeasible to equip it with a laser weapon given in space there is no atmosphere to punch through. Tracking threats, and targeting them is not an issue. Destroying them would only require the onboard systems, or a surface controller to switch power collection from transmission to firing mode for the very short time it would be required to destroy a missile. This includes very small missiles, including those the size of a nail because with laser one can not only hit them on the head, but even on the point.
The problem is safety, because in case of a miss, the laser will continue to travel into the atmosphere. I'm not sure of the physics, but I think it would be safe enough for commercial air traffic after passing some of the higher altitudes. Might have to ask on the science fiction forum. :)

Note: original intercontinental missiles were so called in USA because IBM (the company) did not like the association it would have created, and IM was too short. It is of course very difficult to make a non-ballistic missile ;)


See SOI, and how much was projected cost. Also, good luck completely evaporate even 1 kg stone with laser. Good luck shooting down 1000000 small 1g (or even 0.1g) debris. It is not HEAT warhead what only need punctured to become useless.

[FutureTank]

See SOI, and how much was projected cost. Also, good luck completely evaporate even 1 kg stone with laser. Good luck shooting down 1000000 small 1g (or even 0.1g) debris. It is not HEAT warhead what only need punctured to become useless.

Chrom, do you have something positive to add?

[Chrom]

Chrom, do you have something positive to add?
On positive note - better spend 20 billions on space than 20 billions on F-22 or war in Iraq :)

[FutureTank]

On positive note - better spend 20 billions on space than 20 billions on F-22 or war in Iraq :)

That's not positive. Its either OT in the case of F-22 (see relevant thread) or a political statement that has even less to do with the subject of this thread.

What I meant is, do you have a positive and constructive contribution to make to this thread. I think everyone is aware of the challenges of the proposal, but there is a lot more interest in solutions :)

[Chrom]

That's not positive. Its either OT in the case of F-22 (see relevant thread) or a political statement that has even less to do with the subject of this thread.

What I meant is, do you have a positive and constructive contribution to make to this thread. I think everyone is aware of the challenges of the proposal, but there is a lot more interest in solutions :)

You mean, i should somehow solve yet unsolvable by best scienitists problems? No, i dont have easy solution for "power from space".
Only REAL and economically VIABLE power from space are solar mirrors. BTW, with ground solar panels they can even supply military installations :) Day and night - not too bad?
They can also provide battlefield illumination - could be usefull too!

[FutureTank]

You mean, i should somehow solve yet unsolvable by best scientists problems? No, i don't have easy solution for "power from space".
Only REAL and economically VIABLE power from space are solar mirrors. BTW, with ground solar panels they can even supply military installations :) Day and night - not too bad?
They can also provide battlefield illumination - could be useful too!

Some of the greatest inventions and innovations in history were made by amateurs :)

[Awang se]

I rather put my vote on the operational Tokamak Fusion Reactor.


Some of the greatest inventions and innovations in history were made by amateurs

But today's technology are so expensive, i doubt that any amateurs have enough fund to build it. I doubt we'll see a homemade F-22 or garage build ASAT missile in the near future.

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I rather put my vote on the operational Tokamak Fusion Reactor.

Fusion looks promicing, but it is still fuel constrained. Trinium supplies are finite, and there is some radioactive reactor parts plus small amounts of exhaust. Also the only realistic fusion power generation source seems to by a variation of the Zpinch machine.

Anyway this is an unlimited, renewable, clean and once it is constructed free energy source that doesnt require any masive technological breakthroughs. We just really need lower orbital launch costs. EM/Maglev launch assist shounds promicing, AFAIK currenly planned models can get the payload to a velocity of several hundred miles per hour before launch which helps a far bit. If you could put the tube in a vacume and make it long enough you could get the payload to velocities of thousands of mils an hour before launch, but the G loads and deceleration when it left the launch tunnel and hit the atmosphere would probably destroy the payload. The launch facility would probably need to be at as high an altitude as possible, in adition to some sort of plasma/EM shielding/cone to part the air infront of the vehical. That should allow launch costs to be an order of magnitude cheaper than current tech.

[Chrom]

Fusion looks promicing, but it is still fuel constrained. Trinium supplies are finite, and there is some radioactive reactor parts plus small amounts of exhaust. Also the only realistic fusion power generation source seems to by a variation of the Zpinch machine.

Anyway this is an unlimited, renewable, clean and once it is constructed free energy source that doesnt require any masive technological breakthroughs. We just really need lower orbital launch costs. EM/Maglev launch assist shounds promicing, AFAIK currenly planned models can get the payload to a .
You are mixing 2 totally different aspects here: power from space anywhere (i.e. fueling distant vehiles or hard-to-reach places - NASA suggestion) and CHEAP power from space. Fusion reactor compete with 2nd cathegory.

Both are not viable right now - vehiles and hard-to-reach places much cheaper could be supplied with oil, wind or solar energy. As for CHEAP power from space (i.e. ground power plant replacement) - it is much, much cheaper to just install solar panels on ground. True, they will give somewhat less energy - but they dont need to be launched in space, and produced energy is right there, without any need to transfer it from space with whatever expencive means and corresponding losses.
Basically, this is nail in the coffin for all these projects - no matter how good you make solar panels in space - solar panels on ground will be only slightly worse.

[FutureTank]

I rather put my vote on the operational Tokamak Fusion Reactor.


But today's technology are so expensive, i doubt that any amateurs have enough fund to build it. I doubt we'll see a homemade F-22 or garage build ASAT missile in the near future.

No, but if you put enough of them together, you get Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company...

It seems to me that you missed the point...

[Awang se]

maybe i'm. But if you put it all together, we can no longer call it an amateur. we call it a Corporation.

[FutureTank]

maybe i'm. But if you put it all together, we can no longer call it an amateur. we call it a Corporation.

Having worked in the corporate world I can assure you that it will source ideas and skills from anywhere so long as they add value to their product or service. There are still many tinkerers out there who do stuff in their back-of-the-house workshop that their employer would never go for. This is the sort of basic/experimental research that made engineering what it is today but most companies are shy of because it takes a lot of time and effort...so they wait for university labs to come up with something. There is no reason to think that the 1% of the design we are discussing which is not already in existence within the realms of engineering knowledge will not be discovered in just such a workshop by some stubborn soul :)

[NathanS]

You are mixing 2 totally different aspects here: power from space anywhere (i.e. fueling distant vehiles or hard-to-reach places - NASA suggestion) and CHEAP power from space. Fusion reactor compete with 2nd cathegory.

Agreed.


Both are not viable right now - vehiles and hard-to-reach places much cheaper could be supplied with oil, wind or solar energy. As for CHEAP power from space (i.e. ground power plant replacement) - it is much, much cheaper to just install solar panels on ground. True, they will give somewhat less energy - but they dont need to be launched in space, and produced energy is right there, without any need to transfer it from space with whatever expencive means and corresponding losses.
Basically, this is nail in the coffin for all these projects - no matter how good you make solar panels in space - solar panels on ground will be only slightly worse.

Except that ground solar panels only work during the day time - and sunny days at that. And storage is difficult: Batteries are heavy, bulky, are climate sensitive, and become inefficient over time. And there's a problem with scale: sure collecting more sunlight is easy, but storing it at a large scale is hard. Batteries don't scale up well to large sizes.

[Awang se]

Yeah, I don't deny that it's kinetic damage that's usually applied from metal fragments. But it's a ballistic missile that has to deliver the payload, and there are very few countries capable of launching long range ballistic missiles with the range and accuracy required. It's far from an 'easy' exercise.

On current estimates, China has around 150 ballistic missiles in their stockpile. Plenty to wipe out a country in a nuclear strike, but not enough to take out every satellite in orbit.

I doubt a middle-eastern nation, or North Korea has the technology to shoot down satellites - and currently they're painted as the biggest US threats.

The real trick will be to detect and identify the target satellite and predict it's orbital path. when you get that info, half the process is accomplish. next is a process of killing the satellite. if you intended to send a missile on intercept course, i agree, it's damn difficult. the closing speed must've been hundreds of thousand of miles per hour. The window is extremely small and very precise guidance is required.

But why bother. Satellite is not an RV. You have plenty of time in your hand. The easiest way is to send an Exo-Atmospheric Kill Vehicle on a slightly lower orbit behind the target satellite. a slightly lower orbit means the ASAT weapon will have a higher orbital speed than the target satellite so it will pursue the target and slowly closing in. once within effective killing range, the directional warhead will explode and send thousands of fragments toward the target satellite. that's easier.

[Firehorse]

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 East-Asia-Intel.com

Report: China targeting all 'enemy space vehicles' including GPS satellites

China’s anti-satellite and space warfare program includes plans to destroy or incapacitate 'every enemy space vehicle' that passes over China.

The annual report of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, released last week, listed among Beijing's goals that of ensuring that Chinese space weapons are “conducted covertly so China can maintain a positive international image.” China has called for a ban on space weapons at the United Nations.
The report said that China also is developing civilian technology that can be applied to military space programs and is acquiring the “ability to destroy or temporarily incapacitate every enemy space vehicle when it is located above China,” the report said.
The Chinese also plan to attack U.S. global positioning system (GPS) satellites through various means, including anti-satellite weapons, high-energy weapons, high-energy weather monitoring rockets and ground attacks on earth-based stations.
One section of the report, based on public and classified briefings, concluded there was a need for more information about Chinese activities and intentions.

Research from nearly 100 Chinese sources identified 30 proposals and recommendations by Chinese military leaders “regarding the development of space and counter-space weapons and programs.”

The military is also developing stealth satellites and a space program that will “provide key support for Chinese combat forces.”

“Some of these proposals appear to have been implemented already, as evidenced by January’s kinetic anti-satellite test and earlier laser incidents involving American satellites,” the report said.
www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/WTARC/2007/ea_china_11_29.asp



Space is the ultimate "high ground"- I won't be at all surprised if some day the Moon will be used by the militaries of spacefaring nations, inernational agreements notwithstanding.

[SlyDog]

Agreed.



Except that ground solar panels only work during the day time - and sunny days at that. And storage is difficult: Batteries are heavy, bulky, are climate sensitive, and become inefficient over time. And there's a problem with scale: sure collecting more sunlight is easy, but storing it at a large scale is hard. Batteries don't scale up well to large sizes.


In some areas is it sunny most days. Deserts is one example. And I think it's not THAT difficult to solve the problem with energi storage. How its should be dune depends on the intended use of the energy. I think also it´s useful to place at some buildings and use en energi for air condition - which is most needed during hot days. Or mayby heat up water to an "ackumulator tank". There ARE possibilities indeed.

[Chrom]

In some areas is it sunny most days. Deserts is one example. And I think it's not THAT difficult to solve the problem with energi storage. How its should be dune depends on the intended use of the energy. I think also it´s useful to place at some buildings and use en energi for air condition - which is most needed during hot days. Or mayby heat up water to an "ackumulator tank". There ARE possibilities indeed.

Water -> Hydrogen is quite promising for energy storage. It have several advantages - scales very well, could be used for fueling, can be (relative) easy transported. There are some problems here of course.

Coupled with solar batteries, water->hydrogen process can supply very large chunk of worlds needs in energy. Noone uses Sahara anyway ')

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Water -> Hydrogen is quite promising for energy storage. It have several advantages - scales very well, could be used for fueling, can be (relative) easy transported. There are some problems here of course.

Coupled with solar batteries, water->hydrogen process can supply very large chunk of worlds needs in energy. Noone uses Sahara anyway ')

The problem with ground based solar energy is the lack of controll or predictability over the level of energy production. Unless you can produce sufficient excess that can be stored, ground based soldar alone is not viable. You may have high energy needs on a cloudy day, then your stuffed!

Carbon capture on fossil fuel plants should cover economic growth for the next 40 years, includeing more solar and wind farms. 40 years is about the projected timescale before an operational fusion reactor is actually produceing energy, then we can convert over 20 years.

[Chrom]

The problem with ground based solar energy is the lack of controll or predictability over the level of energy production. Unless you can produce sufficient excess that can be stored, ground based soldar alone is not viable. You may have high energy needs on a cloudy day, then your stuffed!

.

As i said, Solar -> hydrogen process lack this described problem. Hydrogen serve as accumulator and mean to transport the energy. As such, bad day / good day doesnt matter in the slightest. Sahara alone can cover ALL current worlds needs in energy.

[SlyDog]

Besides...there are also possibilties to REDUSE consumption of energy. Improved thermal insulasion is one area.

[FallingDown]

Whyy can't we power things with trash

[SlyDog]

FallingDown: I Sweden we do that in "District heating"-system. Seems to work fine. A bit expensive (with all pipes) perhaps.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_heating

[Marc 1]

Don't be blinkered to the alternatives either- geothermal, tidal, wind, solar thermal, solar photovoltaic, ocean current, solar wind chimneys, biomass, and the list goes on. Power from space should be seen as another string to the bow.

Efficiency should be the first target - how stupid are we now? We cool our food in a fridge by pumping the heat out the back of the fridge. This heat adds to the heat load in our homes so we install airconditioning to pump the heat outside. In the home I rent, this heat is released to the atmosphere... Right next to the water heater that then uses more energy to heat our hot water etc etc. It would almost be impossible to design a more inefficient system than the way we live today.

[rev1861]

A recent news item from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21253268/_

I'd like to find out if anyone knows where the National Security Space Office report mentioned in the article can be obtained from.

First couple of sentences

"A new Pentagon study lays out the roadmap for a multibillion-dollar push to the final frontier of energy: a satellite system that collects gigawatts’ worth of solar power and beams it down to Earth.
The military itself could become the “anchor tenant” for such a power source, due to the current high cost of fueling combat operations abroad, the study says.
The 75-page report, released Wednesday, says new economic incentives would have to be put in place to “close the business case” for space-based solar power systems — but it suggests that the technology could be tested in orbit by as early as 2012."

Very interesting.