It is important for us to understand how ITAR (WIHWAP) can affect our space industry, because space-based solar power is such a huge undertaking that international partnerships will be required not only for construction, but also for ownership and development of an international customer base.

The Economist published an article yesterday criticizing ITAR (WIHWAP). The AIAA Daily Launch (an email news service for members of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics–you are a member, aren’t you?) described the article this way:

Economist: U.S. export rules handicap space industry.

The Economist (8/21) editorialized that “the zealous application of the export rules is the American space industry’s biggest handicap,” noting critics who say the system “fails to distinguish between militarily sensitive hardware that should be controlled and widely available commercial technologies.” The Economist cited several examples of “American components and satellites…suffering” on the international market “because of the cost and delays in doing business with the firms that make them,” and added that in the past “the State Department ignored such complaints.” However, “there are signs of change,” including “small adjustments” to the administration of ITAR regulations and “a promise that licensing decisions would be taken within 60 days of an application.” Additionally, “work is also afoot to update the munitions list, which contains the set of military technologies that must be protected.” The Economist concluded, “Such change is overdue.”

Here is the link to the Economist article, which is titled: “Gravity is not the main obstacle for America’s space business. Government is.” Please give it a good read.

What are your thoughts on the issues raised in the article? How can we ensure that the export control environment is conducive to the types of partnerships space-based solar power requires?

Cheers!

Coyote

“Your concern about weaponization of the system and environmental risks are proper and deserve solid answers. For the answers (and a whole bunch of other great information) let me point you to a special edition of Ad Astra magazine produced by the National Space Society.

If you look on page 29 you’ll see the answers as to why space-based solar power satellites cannot be weaponized. Let me add to that list the following items:

• The DoD will not own or operate SBSP satellites. Energy production and distribution is outside of its Title X authority. In my opinion the DoD merely wants to be a customer of safe, clean energy and is most comfortable purchasing its energy from commercial vendors, just as it does today. The interest shown by the National Security Space Office (NSSO) in hosting the work done by the Space-Based Solar Power Study Group was largely because NASA does not do energy and the DoE does not do space. In other words, it was a ball being dropped along organizational lines.
  
• The security-related interest of the NSSO as it stepped in to host the study was three fold:
  • Provide more energy sources to hopefully alleviate energy competition as a trigger for war between the major powers in the 21st Century
  • Achieve American energy independence from foreign oil suppliers who attract US vital interests in areas and with peoples with whom we really would prefer to interact with in ways other than a dependent customer-supplier relationship.
    
  • Provide a source of clean energy that provides America with broader options regarding carbon contamination and clean-up, as well as improved ability to make progress on treaties such as Kyoto.
    
• Simple inspections of the waveguides for either laser or microwave transmitters on the satellites can easily verify that the beam cannot be focused narrowly to create a weapons effect. Such inspections can and likely will be conducted at time of insurance inspection, licensing, and registration before launch. International inspectors would be welcome and encouraged.
• The goal is to have international corporations own and operate these satellites and provide power to international customers–that’s the key to defense of these huge birds–deterrence by mutual defense through broad international ownership and international customership–an attack on a satellite is an attack against all.
  

As for environmental safety, especially when transmitting power into disaster areas and feeding power to forward bases, I envision spreading the several kilometer in diameter rectifying antenna on air bases or other relatively secure areas in the theater of operations and using ground broadcasting from there to the forward forces, first responders, or relief workers. That way we keep the beam from space very broad and desaturated. No way do we want ANY accusation of this being a weapon.

Keep in mind that there are two forms of power broadcasting that can be done from satellites. The first form is by microwave at 2.45 GHz and 5.8 GHz. These are the same frequencies that are used by internet wifi, cordless phones, and blue tooth. Since the beam is fairly well focused on the rectifying antenna we will prevent interference with those systems. In addition, the intensity of a cellular telephone placed next to the head delivers more radiation to the user than space-based solar power possibly can. The second form of power transmission from space is by laser at 1.0 microns (silicon) or 0.86 microns (Galium Arsinide). Laser transmissions are obviously more focused than microwave, but still must be spread to prevent overheating of the system, which also removes the risk of weaponization.

As for multinational approaches, when it comes to space, government-led multinational ventures are risky for a very strange and almost counterintuitive reason. The International Space Station (ISS) is a case in point. We assembled it with our very best allies and partners, but everybody got their feelings hurt in the process. In my opinion, it is far less likely that we will cooperate on such projects government-to-government in the near future because of the miserable experience of the ISS. Everybody was waiting for various governments to cut their red tape and stood around tensely waiting for last-minute funding and various approvals for go-aheads. Budgets changed frequently which drove some dramatic redesigns that impacted several other players. As a result, the project had all the joy of loaning money to relatives with gambling problems.

I personally believe that in order to make space-based solar power a reality that business must lead the way. However, government does have a role. Governments should conduct some R&D to improve efficiencies inherent to the system, remove bureaucratic barriers, and fund experiments to incrementally buy down some of the risk that business must take on. Examples include increasing the efficiencies of solar cells, lowering the cost and increasing the turnaround rate for launch vehicles, advancing the development of an international space traffic control system, securing the orbital parking slots and frequency allowances for these satellites, and conducting concept demonstrators.

It is also my opinion that it is best if commercial companies take government research and lead the development effort for space-based solar power, and then own and operate such systems. In the first instance, they partner more broadly and far easier than governments do. Take a Boeing aircraft for example. Nearly 40% of the components on the latest Boeing aircraft are made by Airbus. Conversely, nearly 40% of the components on the latest Airbus aircraft are made by Boeing. That did not take massive government negotiations. Business is international by its very nature. Take a look at the products in your home. They are likely a hodgepodge of gadgets with parts made all over the world and assembled somewhere else. It’s nothing personal, it’s just business. The problem with government leadership is that it often gets personal.

Best of all, when business is enabled to get the job done, they do so on their own dime, not the taxpayer’s. I like it when the taxpayers get a break. I want space-based solar power in the worst way, but not on the backs of the taxpayer, and only when the business case is sufficiently made that industry can profitably sustain the effort over the long run. We must avoid the fits and starts in industry that did such great damage to the overall space industry in the 1990s when wild enthusiasm collided with reality on several projects. In the end, I want the commercial sector to do it, and I want my government to clear the obstacles, such as ITAR (which I hate with a passion), out of the way so Americans can work with their international business partners to start bending the steel to make it happen!

Space-Based Solar Power is a huge undertaking. I need fleets of reusable rockets and spaceplanes to get ‘er done. Since these birds MUST be launched into a prograde orbit, I need lots and lots of lift coming out of Florida and hopefully other domestic launch sites to make it happen. That said, current sites cannot accommodate the full compliment of launches that I will need without massive expansion. I will need launches from international partners as well. If led by American industry, this will make America the hub of commercial space launch once again–with the busiest launch industry in the world. Think jobs, jobs, jobs. The shuttle is peanuts compared to this project.

I want to hit on the fact that space-based solar power transcends other projects because it crosses the lines of 6 major policy areas; Energy, Environment, Commerce, Space, Education, and Defense. Every dollar spent on SBSP addresses six sets of policies. Where else can government and the business sector collaborate to get a 6-to-1 return on investment for our future? As you see, there is no bureaucratic home for SBSP inside any single government organization. Perhaps this is another argument why this is best done in the business sector.

Space-based solar power is part of an energy diet that should be rich with a variety of safe, clean energy sources for America, its Allies, and the World. It is NOT the answer to ALL problems, but it IS part of solution.”

Your thoughts on my reply?

Included here are the slides he used to describe a new way of thinking of national energy consumption. \”SSP In a Changing Energy Diet\” Instead of discussing the energy “mix” of sources, he rightly points out that like calories in a person’s diet, not all calories are equal.

He wants us to think in terms of our national energy “diet.” In my own terms, I think of petroleum as calories from a delicious fatty steak and solar-electric as calories from a healthy piece of fruit. (Boy, that steak sounds good right now! Note to self; never blog on an empty stomach!)

Take a look at his slides. Please consider the questions he poses at the end and please discuss your thoughts here. Does he change the way you think? Adjust it a little? Give you new analogies to describe our energy consumption?

Cheers!

Coyote

Our very good friend, Hu Davis, recently circulated some good questions regarding the who, what, when, where, why, and hows of demonstrating space solar power. He poses the questions from the perspectives of two groups; space solar power enthusiasts, and some NASA people who work the International Space Station (ISS). (Please note that like the rest of us, our friends at NASA-ISS are just brainstorming with us to see what help the ISS might be able to lend to advance space solar power concepts–there is no official NASA position or policy on any of this yet.)

Below you will find the questions posed by Hu. Please comment!

From the SBPS crowd:

1. What should be the content, scope and cost of an updated systems study to re-examine the cost effectiveness of a full scale network of 5 to 10 GWe satellites and their necessary space and ground systems? There are many subordinate questions not yet answered, including how to pay for it and who should run it.

2. What should be early, low cost (< $100 Millions total) demonstrations? By whom? When? Source of funds?

3. What should be demonstrated at higher cost, but costing much less (10-20% of that of a full scale prototype)? Sequence? Timing? Cost? Whose money?

4. How should we address the “space infra-structure” matter? When? Who? In what order? Time and costs?

5. What will the full scale prototype be? When can it become operational? Schedule? Cost? Barriers?

From the ISS bunch:

1. What can the ISS support? Power / time? Suspended mass? Torques? Dimensions of test articles? Pointing? RMS usage? EVA? Expected end date of availability? We need an “ISS User’s Guide” for space power development.

Thanks! Coyote

Click here for the “Interim Assessment!”

From the Foreword of the report itself:

Preventing resource conflicts in the face of increasing global populations and demands in the 21st century is a high priority for the Department of Defense. All solution options to these challenges should be explored, including opportunities from space.

In March 2007, the National Security Space Office’s Advanced Concepts Office presented the idea of space‐based solar power (SBSP) as a potential grand opportunity to address not only energy security, but environmental, economic, intellectual, and space security as well. First proposed in the late 1960’s, the concept was last explored in the NASA’s 1997 “Fresh Look” Study. In the decade since this last study, advances in technology and new challenges to security have warranted a current exploration of the strategic implications of SBSP. For these reasons, my office sponsored a no‐cost Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study of SBSP during the Spring and Summer of 2007.

Unlike traditional contracted architecture studies, the attached report was compiled through an innovative and collaborative approach that relied heavily upon voluntary internet discussions by more than 170 academic, scientific, technical, legal, and business experts around the world. I applaud the high quality of work accomplished by the team leaders and all participants who contributed in the last six months. I encourage them to continue their work in earnest as they move beyond this interim report and seek to answer the question of whether SBSP can be developed and deployed within the first half of this century to provide affordable, clean, safe, reliable, sustainable and expandable energy for mankind.

This interim assessment contains significant initial findings and recommendations that should provide pause and consideration for national and international policy makers, business leaders, and citizens alike. It appears that technological challenges are closing rapidly and the business case for creating SBSP is improving with each passing year. Still absent, however, is an appropriate catalyst to stimulate the various interested parties toward actually developing a SBSP capability. I encourage all to read this report and consider the opportunities that SBSP presents as part of a national and international debate for action on how best to preserve security for all.

//signed 9 Oct 07//
JOSEPH D. ROUGE, SES
Acting Director, National Security Space Office

Immediate military tactical and operational needs:

1. Dramatically reduce the energy logistics train to forward operating bases and reduce the need to secure massive energy convoys and stores in:
   1. Disaster relief efforts
   2. Nation building efforts
   3. Combat zones
2. Beam power directly to vehicles in all operating media for the following reasons
   1. Reduce weight of carrying fuel
   2. Increase range and loiter time
   3. Eliminate need for refueling and reduce the need for refueling vehicles
   4. Reduce the need for consuming local energy supplies
   5. Reduce size and signature
3. Use SSP for liquifaction of carbon-neutral fuels for current generation of liquid-fueled systems
   1. Continue to exploit current liquid fuel infrastructure, using carbon neutral fuels
   2. Gain independence from foreign liquid fuel providers

Urgent national security strategic goals:

1. Assist in achieving national energy independence from current liquid fuel providers
   1. Reduce level of national interest in unstable regions
   2. Reduce national dependence on unfriendly foreign governments
   3. Reduce the risk of energy competition wars in the 21st Century
2. Assist allies in achieving their national energy independence
   1. Develop and strengthen broad international partnerships
   2. Participate in international energy consortia and alliances
3. Economic: Become an energy exporter
   1. Increase national ability to influence or avoid geopolitical events
   2. Increase GNP, wealth of the nation, and increase tax revenue
   3. Use energy earnings to pay off national debt
4. Environmental: Dramatically reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere
   1. Prevent food wars which might happen if global warming continues
   2. Enhance soft power and green credibility around the world
   3. Lead the international clean energy movement by example

So you can see, this is a disruptive technology for security operations, but far more importantly, it will redefine geopolitical relationships and removes energy competition as the major driver for wars. Personally, I think war prevention is the highest form of security.

The other key to improving security with this concept is moving it quickly into the commercial sector at the earliest possible time. The DoD merely wants to be a customer of a commercially available product–energy. We do NOT want to trigger false security dilemmas. This will drive multinational partnering and international engagement, which is called for in our National Space Policy. This is one of the key reasons why we initiated this study on the Internet and in the media–to provide openness.

Your comments???

To give you a basis for analysis, by 2050 the goal is to have forty or so concentrator-photovoltaic space-based solar power (SBSP) satellites in geostationary orbit, each broadcasting via microwave between 2-5 gigawatts of power to terrestrial electrical power grids, with 1-to-5 broadcast antennas that can beam power to as many locations.

This must be done using a sound business case. John Mankins calculates that this can be achieved by keeping the costs of delivery and assembly on orbit below $3,500 per kilogram–keeping the cost to customers below $0.10 per kilowatt/hour. This will drive robotic assembly and tug systems to pull these enormous structures from low orbits to geostationary. On orbit fueling stations will be required. Paul Werbos believes the best way to do this is to get launch costs down below $200 per kilogram.  But several other factors help make the business case. For example, if the price of other energy sources goes up it helps to close the business case for SBSP. Other factors include the efficiencies associated with solar collectors, energy conversion, antennas/rectennas, signal path loss, etc. Dennis Wingo and others have suggested that the first customers for space-based solar power will be international–in areas such as India and Japan where the price per kilowatt/hour is astronomical compared to the Americas or Europe. All of this goes into making the business case.

There will also be times when space-based solar power becomes priceless. When the Tsunami crushed the Pacific rim, when Hurricane Katrina flattened America’s Gulf Coast, and when United Nations forces responded to the beleaguered Darfur region the value of simply broadcasting power immeidately to the relief efforts would have been priceless in assisting the salvation of countless lives and facilitated the more immediate recovery of these disaster torn regions.

Keep in mind American and Allied forces operating inside Iraq. Convoying petroleum through the streets of Iraqi cities is a large source of casualties…and the electrical power plants that convert that petroleum into electricity are under frequent attack…and the lights go out…and the people aren’t happy. As I’ve mentioned before, one of our defense analysts calculated that the U.S. is paying between $300-to-$800 per gallon for fuel delivered to the Iraqi electric plants. Mike Hornetschek reports that 70% of all logistics movements inside Iraq is petroleum.

Inside Iraq, at this very moment–where people are dying–a supply of space-based solar power would have that priceless quality. And this is true wherever military forces and others are engaged not only in combat, but in nation building, humanitarian relief, disaster response, etc, etc, etc.

The question was posed to me today, “What does the military need.” Here goes:

According to Mike Hornitschek, a military base inside the United States consumes approximately 10 megawatts of electrical power. Forward military base overseas are consuming approximately 5 megaWatts of electrical power.

I need space-based solar power satellites of the 5 megawatt class. Let’s say by 2015. This capability will transform our logistics and reduce our vulnerabilities. The development of this class of space-based solar power satellite is designed to deliver that priceless quality of energy. Best of all, it can be done with current technology using current spacelift vehicles. Think about that.

But most important of all, developing the 5 megawatt class of satellite gets the ball rolling towards the 2050 vision that started this discussion. We WILL learn a great deal and we WILL find new efficiencies. We may make huge adjustments in the trade spaces as detailed in a previous discusion, and must be prepared to do so. In pressing ahead to field a 5 megawatt system, we will also be building the space industrial base and developing the rquisite spacefaring infrastructure to make the business case for the 2050 vision all the more viable.

There will likely be cities or regional utilities that will want to buy their own 5 megawatt satellite (or larger) as a backup, which will help the business case even more and give us a better look at problems that lie waiting for us as we build bigger systems.

The goal, then, for 2020 would be building/fielding a 10 megawatt system…1 gigawatt sytem by 2030…2-5 gigawatt system by 2040…on the way to fielding 40 2-5 gigawatt systems by 2050 as described above.

All the while the drive must be towards commercializing this effort at the earliest possible time. Energy must move at the speed and price established by free markets, not by government bureaucracy. To that end, I am working with Ed Morris and Mike Beavin at the Department of Commerce-Office of Space Commericalization to make this happen.

Your thoughts???