1. How would a company obtain a geostationary parking slot for a SBSP satellite?
2. How would a company obtain a license to broadcast power from space over radio frequencies?

Excellent questions. Here are the answers that I slapped together from the Internet. (Special thanks to Maldivian Digital, and Wikipedia for having some well researched info posted on their sites!) Please check my work and let me know if I’ve embarrassed myself in public (again):

1. How does a company obtain a geostationary parking slot for a SBSP satellite?
   • Parking slots are allotted internationally, by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU).
   • However, the ITU only allocates orbital slots to countries, and not to private sector companies.
   • Companies must negotiate with countries who hold the rights to orbital slots of interest. They must establish an agreement whereby space-based solar power satellites can thereafter occupy the countries’ allocated orbital slot(s).
   • This is a common and standard practice by companies operating communications satellites in the geostationary belt. Space-based solar power companies will follow these routine and well established procedures to acquire orbital parking slots.
   • When satellites are located close to each other, their up-link and downlink frequencies and polarisations are to be coordinated, so that there is no interference. Sometimes this requires that existing frequencies or polarisations be altered by existing satellites, to accommodate a new entrant.
   • The ITU which allocates the orbital slots (to countries who in turn may grant use of their slots to commercial ventures) requires that all players coordinate their frequencies so that there is no disruption of service. The new entrant is obliged to ensure that their transmissions will not disrupt existing services.
   • Frequency coordination is a technical matter, and not easily resolved, particularly in regions over India, where practically every orbital slot is occupied by one or more satellites.
2. How would a company obtain a license to broadcast power from space over radio frequencies?
   • Space-based solar power companies most likely will broadcast power from space to Earth using radio frequencies in the industrial, scientific, and medical (ISM) radio bands originally reserved internationally for the use of RF electromagnetic fields for industrial, scientific, and medical purposes other than communications. In general, communications equipment must accept any interference generated by ISM equipment.
   • ISM bands are defined by the ITU-R in 5.138, 5.150, and 5.280 of the Radio Regulations. Individual countries’ use of the bands designated in these sections may differ due to variations in national radio regulations. Because communication devices using the ISM bands must tolerate any interference from ISM equipment, these bands are typically given over to uses intended for unlicensed operation, since unlicensed operation typically needs to be tolerant of interference from other devices anyway. In the United States of America, ISM uses of the ISM bands are governed by Part 18 of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules, while Part 15 Subpart B contains the rules for unlicensed communication devices, even those that use the ISM frequencies. Thus, designers of equipment for use in the United States in the ISM bands should be familiar with the relevant portions of both Part 18 and Part 15 Subpart B of the FCC Rules.
   • Specifically, space-based solar power companies will broadcast energy from space to Earth at 2.45 GHz, or 5.8 GHz
   • In recent years these bands have also been shared with license-free error-tolerant communications applications such as wireless LANs and cordless phones in the 0.915 GHz, 2.45 GHz, and 5.8 GHz bands. Because licensed devices already are required to be tolerant of ISM emissions in these bands, unlicensed low power uses are generally able to operate in these bands without causing problems for licensed uses.
   • SBSP companies must engage with the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) to secure general approval for the use of these frequencies.
   • SBSP companies must also engage with customer countries’ agencies responsible for national radio regulations (eg, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the US) to obtain approval to use either 2.45 GHz or 5.8 GHz for power broadcasts in their country.
   • If these radio frequencies are unavailable, SBSP companies might pursue power beaming using lasers at 1.0 micron or 0.86 micron wavelengths. This removes the need for any frequency approval, as lasers are not regulated as radio frequencies.
   • SBSP companies must also engage with national aviation agencies (eg, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the US) to establish no-fly zones around radio or laser energy corridors between the satellite and its ground-based receivers, as may be required by national or local laws.

There’s a lot that goes into building space-based solar power systems. Let’s get it out on the table so we can take a look at all that goes into it and think together about how to grease the tracks of progress.

Cheers!

Coyote

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

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

Do international treaties and laws impede the development of space-based solar power?

Last week at small symposium in Colorado, a professor of space law argued that the profits from any resource harvested from space, to include energy, must be shared with all of humanity and that this principle is enshrined in Article I of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967:

“The exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.”

Well, so much for making a business case for space-based solar power!

But wait a minute you might say, what about profits from commercial ventures already on orbit, such as communications, imagery, plans for Galileo, and the like…should those companies be sharing profits with all of us?

Extrapolating from the professor’s comments, no, those companies are not removing anything from space, but space-based solar power would–it would remove energy from space and broadcasting it to Earth for profit–therefore the profits must be shared with everyone on the planet.

What is up with that? More importantly, what is to be done about that?