Power from space?

[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.