Intel recently brought the concept closer to reality with a live demo illuminating a 60 watt bulb on stage at an annual meeting in San Francisco of the company’s developers. Their goal is simple, free computers and other devices from power cords.

The event was reported by staff writers on Spacemart.com in an article titled, “Intel Cuts Electric Cords With Wireless Power System.”

I think if people used wireless power broadcast systems in their own homes, the concept of power beaming from space wouldn’t seem so strange or even dangerous. Perhaps we need to give a push to this idea?

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?

On 23 July 2008, he published an op-ed piece titled “Harvest the Sun – From Space” in the New York times.

Then on 29 July 2008, he was interviewed on NPR (National Public Radio) in a piece titled, “Can We Run the World Off the Sun?”

He an I have enjoyed a couple of very interesting discussions about various opportunities to use the International Space Station for some bits and pieces of the research. I think thats a great idea; every little bit helps.

To provide a sort of balance to the discussion, on 25 July 2008, Paul Rako, the Technical Editor for EDN (Electronics, Design, Strategy, News) wrote a piece titled “Solar Power in Space, A Really Stupid Idea” in response to Glenn’s NY Times article. It is the most scathing review of the concept of space-based solar power I’ve ever seen. In a nutshell, he thinks it’s a veiled attempt to build some sort of weapon. Fair enough. He’s just now learning about the concept and spent only a few hours browsing before writing his article.

Don’t miss the opportunity to read the comments from the bloggers that appear below the article. Some are precious. By the way, keep in mind that a simple inspection of the transmitting antenna can quickly verify that the energy beam cannot be narrowed into a weaponizable configuration.

Let’s be clear on this point; we are pushing for the production of all forms of safe, clean energy in order to prevent energy wars in the future. We’re a bunch of space savvy citizens from many different sectors, but we’re trying to do our part to solve the energy and environmental problems we face while trying to give direction to our space policy and provide real goals to our educational programs. Space-based solar power is one of the things we can do that addresses all of that. We also want these systems to be owned and operated by companies, not governments. That way space becomes an even larger part of our normal, everyday economic environment.

What are your thoughts about these two authors and their opinions? (keep it clean and impersonal)

Cheers!

Coyote

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

Your thoughts?

Cheers!

Coyote (with posting help from Rocket Sellers)

Our very good friends at the National Space Society recently published a special report of their acclaimed Ad Astra magazine covering Space-Based Solar Power! It goes into some technical details, but best of all it tells the story about how the Caballeros worked with the National Security Space Office to make the Space-Based Solar Power Study Group report become reality.  It was based on a lot of the work done right here, on this blog!

So for those of you who have been contributing to the discussions here, THIS IS A STORY ABOUT YOU and the good things you’ve been doing here. So, the next time your spouse or significant other complains that you are spending way too much time in the blogosphere…toss him or her a copy of this magazine and say, “I’ve been doing important work to solve the energy crisis!” You’ll be telling the truth!

Kudos to the National Space Society and their Ad Astra team–they are great people to work with and are doing a great job advancing humanities spacefaring prowess. You are a member, aren’t you?

Guy Pignolet from the Sunsat Energy Council gave an interesting presentation about Space Solar Power on 7 February 2008 at a recent LIFT08 Conference.

To see the presentation, click here: Space Solar Power by Guy Pignolet (Moderator- Bruno Guissani)

Enjoy!

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

How did the term Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP) ever come about? Okay, I confess that’s sort of my fault. Read on. You’re going to laugh (as we do here).

When the Green Hornet, Lips, and the Evil Dr Mankins (my fellow conspirators; the original SSP Caballeros) began discussing space solar power we sent lots of emails to each other. This was before texting was popular, apparently. Unfortunately, whenever they would use the acronym “SSP” it would trigger a very aggressive anti-virus software on the particular unclassified network that I used inside the Pentagon. It would not only trash the email and attachments, but usually would lock me out of the network!

Each time this occurred I was visited by our lovely and talented security and IT personnel who only wanted to help! They were very patient and taught me how to fill out many forms and reports. With so many emails with “SSP” contained therein, we became good friends. (Actually, I suspect Lips was entertaining himself at my expense by sending me several such emails every hour, despite my protestations).

A couple of weeks later, after I became bored with my new friends, I asked the others if we could please start calling it space-based solar power (SBSP) so other people in my organization could spend more time with our security and IT staff. They reluctantly consented, and the term space-based solar power (meaning space solar power) was created.

Well, progress has been made and “SSP” is not a problem for the networks inside the Pentagon anymore. Don’t worry, we’ve found other work for the security and IT managers in my old office.

In the meantime, you were probably wondering what idiot lied awake at night and invented an entirely new acronym for good ol’ SSP.

As Paul Harvey says, “and now you know…the rest of the story.”

Cheers!

Coyote

P.S. Someone referred to me as the “Che Guevara of spacepower” the other day. Great. I guess our mantra becomes “SOLAR POWER TO THE PEOPLE!”

P.P.S. Dude, if it advances space solar power, I’ll take up wearing a beret and khakis.

One of our regular contributors, Dan Lantz, provided us with a link to an incredibly well done Internet video that explains the Google Lunar X-Prizes for Lunar Exploration in a production called “Moon 2.0.” Space-Based Solar Power makes a cameo appearance!

Personally, I think it steals the scene, like Sean Connery arriving triumphantly in the last scene of Keven Costner’s movie “Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves.” Oops, did I spoil it? Sorry.

The long term plan is to eventually produce such satellites on the Moon and boost them back to Earth orbit to provide clean energy! That way we take advantage of the Moon’s lower gravity that makes launching them back to Earth an much easier energy proposition. Naturally we will have to construct considerable infrastructure on the Moon first to make it happen. I’d like to point out that we may also need solar power satellites in Lunar orbit and eventually Martian orbit as well.

The short term plan, of course is to produce solar power satellites on the Earth and boost them into our orbit until the Moon is developed sufficiently to begin production and launch from there.

Please take a look at the video. Think about it. What type of incentives do you think are appropriate and effective stimuli to promote private sector investment in space-based solar power and its supporting infrastructure? Who might offer such prizes?

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

September 15th is here…so where’s the final report from the National Security Space Office that was promised???

There won’t be any. Well, not a final report, and not by close of business today.

On the 6th of September, following the first day of the Space-Based Solar Power Conference held in Breckenridge, Colorado, Mr Joe Rouge, the Deputy Director of the National Security Space Office, issued new orders to the director of the study (me). It was jointly determined between several officials and conferees that space-based solar power merits even closer look in several areas. No findings are yet final. We still have more questions than answers. Therefore the National Security Space Office will issue an interim report in October, and will continue thereafter!

Tentatively, the National Security Space Office may release its interim report at a National Space Society event held at the National Press Club on 10 October, 2007. This has not yet been finalized, but it may be the right type of event to get the word out about the awesome potential of space-based solar power and the challenges that must be overcome to help the commercial sector proceed in this endeavor with a successful business case.

The emphasis throughout this study is that the DoD wants to be a customer of clean energy from space, not a producer.

To foreshadow the interim report, it will likely address the following in some form or fashion:

• The study design: The first-ever DoD led study using the Internet in a wide open public forum to develop a future concept, including:
  • Vision
  • Mission
  • Assumptions
  • Methodology
  • Limitations
• Goals:
  • 10% U.S. electric baseload by 2050
  • Crawl, walk, run approach
• Open Trade Spaces (Requiring greater analysis and testing):
  • Lift: Expendables? Reusable rockets? Spaceplanes? A mix? How many? Launch sites?
  • Energy generation on orbit: Photovoltaics (panels or concentrators?)? Solar dynamic (what type?)?
  • Power transmission to Earth: Microwave? Laser? What frequencies for either?
  • Scalability of small space solar power satellites to large (Kilowatt range to Megawatt range to Gigawatt range): Which technologies are best in each scale? What testing is unique to each scale? What learning is needed?
  • Earth reception: size and types of rectennas? Intellectual properties?
  • Legal issues: Liability? Indemnity? Licensing? Frequency managment?
  • Orbitology: Which orbits are best suited for each scale? What geostationary slots will be required and when? What orbits will be used for assembly and transfer?
  • On orbit assembly: Robotic? Man-robot mix? What orbits will be used for assembly? Assemble low and transfer high? Finally assembly at geo?
  • Orbital transfer: Self-propelled or independent space tugs?
  • Operations: By whom? From where? Telemetry and station keeping? Ground network?
  • Liquification: How? Where? What types of liquids? Distribution?
  • Business case: How does the commercial sector get involved? What will stimulate investment along the critical path?
  • etc
• Findings and Recommendations:
  • Pending (okay, the caballeros know what the findings and recommendations are…but we have to keep you in suspense until we release the interim report, right? Here’s a hint…if you read every word on this website you will know most of what will appear in the report!)

ME: I believe we should seek broad international partnerships for three reasons. First, to reassure the world that that space-based solar power is not a pathway to weaponize space. Second, to garner early support in the international community for additions and changes to space law, customs, and codes of conduct that will be required to make space-based solar power a reality. Finally, broad international partners will help industry find broad international customers to buy our energy product.

Space Cynic: He cautioned that international partnerships add time and cost to everything. With a business case as fragile as space-based solar power, delays and disipating profits among several principle parties will make the business case even harder. In addition, he emphasized the need to create the most profitable business case to get space-based solar power off the ground. Finally, he asserted American industry and infrastructure must have first dibs in order to win domestic political support.

Others have told me that internationalization is a cause, not a business model.

We should keep in mind that government-to-government partnerships have a rocky history. The way America went about the International Space Station hurt a lot of feelings in the international community, but at least it is getting the job done. Europe’s Galileo efforts have been consensus focused and they are still struggling to field the system despite having spent a small fortune (we wish them well, all the same).

International business-to-business partnerships seem to work much better, and well within the business case. The example that comes most immediately to mind is Boeing’s work with numerous European and Asian firms for major subsystems for the Boeing 777 and 787 aircraft. It is not unreasonable to call those “internationally manufactured aircraft.”

So it seems, government should seek international partners to help make the permissive legal regime, while business should seek international partners (as will inevitably be necessary) to build the systems and “get ‘er done.”

Your comments?

The Russian News and Information Agency released a story by Yuri Zaitsev (click the link above to read). Therein he nicely summarizes the need for space solar power and the evolution of photovoltaic cells that collect and convert solar power into electricity. What is most interesting is that he asserts that by using pure quartzites (citing, “The largest deposits of very pure quartzites are found in Russia, which had vast reserves of them”) that:

Recently the Joint Institute for Nuclear Research in Dubna, near Moscow, developed a photo cell with an efficiency of almost 50%. Scientists describe their product as a “star battery.” It is an example of how nanotechnology can improve the workings of well-known processes.

Keep in mind that every improvement in efficiency along the collection-delivery pathway improves the business case.

This begs two questions:
1. What are the technical implications of ~50% efficient cells?
2. Does this signal cooperation or competition with the Russians?

I was a little concerned that Zaitsev was a Kool-Aide drinker who would raise the hackles of our space cynics–who do us a great service by keeping us realistic and focused on the business case–but he ended with this:

To deliver parts to working orbits, assemble them there and later perform maintenance on the plants, assembly, aerospace and inter-orbit transports systems will have to be developed, which is just as challenging as building the plants themselves. But whatever way you look at them, solar plants in space are a better and less costly option for energy problems on the Earth than flying to the Moon to fetch helium-3 for fusion reactors.

I surmise that he sees the goal quite clearly (and optimistically), but he realizes that there are numerous infrastructure challenges that must be resolved first.

If I had a Space-Based Solar Power teeshirt, I’d send him one.

Your thoughts?

“Col. Smith told us why the military is interested in SSP and this is something you need to hear Col. Smith explain. But as you will see, this is a national imperative. Listeners asked many questions about economics, time tables, antennas, frequencies, and more. Questions were asked about space tourism as a possible facilitator as well as ITAR issues.”

You can hear the show by clicking here:  http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/747-BWB-2007-08-01.mp3

 Feel free to comment or ask questions!

There are some wide open trade spaces that need to be examined and experimented with much more closely.  Here are some examples:

Energy collection:  What method is best; photovoltaic or solar dynamic collection?  Within each method, there are various designs, for example, using the photovoltaic method, which technique of collection is best; large flat arrays or sun towers with concentrator mirrors?

Power beaming:  What method should be used to broadcast to the ground; microwave or laser?  Each has pros and cons.  Microwave is certainly safer, but lasers require a relatively small receiver by comparison.  Microwave might be best for permanently supplying a city with power, but laser might be better for broadcasting to a location that needs a rapid set-up time…such as part of a disaster relief effort.

What are the other major trade spaces???  

The details follow:

WASHINGTON ROUNDTABLE ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC POLICY

Energy from Space:

Examining the Potential of Space
to Provide Energy for Earth

Where & When

The Capitol Hill Club
300 First Street SE
Washington, D.C.

August 8, 2007
Noon – 2:00 p.m.

Lunch Provided Reservations Required

Please RSVP by calling
(202) 296-9655 or email info@marshall.org.

 As the nation considers calls for energy independence, might answer
lie in the heavens? Capturing solar energy in space and transmitting
it to Earth presents intriguing possibilities for those concerned
about energy supplies, environmental policy, national security and the
continued development of space commerce. But, is it possible to cost-
effectively harness power from space?

Dr. Martin Hoffert of New York University and John C. Mankins of
Managed Energy Technologies LLC will review the current state of the
technologies and outline steps needed to determine the feasibility of
utilizing space to provide energy on Earth.

About the Speakers

Dr. Martin Hoffert – Professor Emeritus of Physics and former Chair of
the Department of Applied Science at New York University, Dr. Hoffert
is a leading authority on advanced energy technologies. Prof. Hoffert
has published broadly in fluid mechanics, plasma physics, atmospheric
science, oceanography, planetary atmospheres, environmental science,
solar and wind energy conversion and space solar power.

John C. Mankins – During a 25-year career at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory and NASA Headquarters, John Mankins was the lead for NASA’s
1995-2001 Space Solar Power research, as well as serving as the
manager of the Exploration Systems Research and Technology Program.
Since leaving the space agency, he has become a successful technology
management consultant, and continues to pursue advanced renewable
energy technology as co-founder and Chief Operating Officer of Managed
Energy Technologies LLC, and President of the Space Power Association.

George C. Marshall Institute
The George C. Marshall Institute, a non-profit research group founded
in 1984, is dedicated to fostering and preserving the integrity of
science in the policy process.  The Institute conducts technical
assessments of scientific developments with a major impact on public
policy and communicates the results of its analyses to the press,
Congress and the public (www.marshall.org).

The George C. Marshall Institute
1625 K St. NW Suite, 1050
Washington, DC 20006

www.marshall.org
202.296.9655

On Wednesday, 18 July, I will be in the Doubletree Hotel lounge from around 5:30 to 6:30pm.

Please stop by and say hello and be ready to talk about space-based solar power!  (We’ll turn it into a 5,000 hits party!)

Cheers!

Coyote

The article implies that India has identified the need for cheap, reliable, frequently reusable spacelift as the principle technical challenge that must be overcome.  The article states:

“Mr Saraswath [India's Defence Research and Development Organisation’s (DRDO) chief controller for research and development] said Reusable Launch Vehicles are needed to make [space-based solar power] cost effective.”

Solving the spacelift problem has been identified almost universally in all studies as the principle impediment to all activities in space—this also seems to be the case regarding space-based solar power—now with some independent confirmation from India.

But what is really interesting in Stanley Theodore’s article is the same expression of concern to pursue space-based solar power to  “meet ever growing energy requriements” while recognizing that ”the era of conventional fuels is ending.” 

This same sentiment was expressed directly by the President of India, Dr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, on 20 April 2007, before a forum arranged by Boston Univeristy when he stated:  (Read the press release from asia.spaceref.com)

“[C]ivilization will run out of fossil fuels in this Century. However, Solar energy is clean and inexhaustible. However solar flux on earth is available for just 6-8 hours every day whereas incident radiation on space solar power station would be 24 hrs every day. What better vision can there be for the future of space exploration, than participating in a global mission for perennial supply of renewable energy from space, he asked.”

To what degree does this signal a policy alignment between India and the goals of this study?  To what degree does this suggest a partnership with India is ready for the making?

Lt Col Pete “Lips” Garretson

John “Dr Evil” Mankins

The study got underway on 20 April 2007 at the direction of the Director of the National Security Space Office, Major General Jim Armor, who designated his Chief of Future Concepts (Dream Works), Lt Col M.V. “Coyote” Smith, the director of the study.

The stimulus for this study was a briefing given to General Armor in March by Lt Col Mike “Green Hornet” Hornitschek (now a full colonel), who was the original ring leader of the “Space-Based Solar Power Cabal.” The Caballeros is a small group of Air Force officers and civilian scientists and engineers who have other jobs, but are true believers in space-based solar power (or the benefits that can be derived if we can make it work) and have advanced the concept inside the Washington Beltway in their spare time. Lt Col Pete “Lips” Garretson, John “The Evil Dr” Mankins, and Lt Col M.V. “Coyote” Smith (now a full colonel) are at the core of the Caballeros. The Green Hornet and Lips were designated co-leaders of the National Security Space Office Phase 0 interim assessment study. There are over one-hundred and seventy volunteers serving as members of the study. They have widely diverse backgrounds but all have a passion for space, energy, the environment, commerce, education, security, public policy, or any combination thereof.

The National Security Space Office study is laid out like this:

Our Vision

Security in the form of clean energy independence for America, its Allies, and the World

Our Mission

Determine the political, scientific, technical, logisitical, and commercial feasibility of space-based solar power collection and distribution in the 21st Century as a contributing source of clean energy to national power grids and smaller niche applications. Discuss significant capabilities, limitations, and alternatives. Identify challenges that must be overcome, and suggest a research and development investment plan that incrementally retires risk on the path to fielding an operational system. The final report shall not exceed thirty pages and is due to the Director of the National Security Space Office no later than 15 September 2007.*

* Mr Joe Rouge, the Deputy Director of the National Security Space Office (becoming the Director on 30 September upon General Armor’s retirement), directed on 6 September that no final report will be issued. Instead an interim report will be issued, tentatively on the 10th of October at a National Press Club event sponsored by the National Space Society. The study will continue and will focus more intently on certain areas.

Assumptions

1. Future security is in jeopardy due to escalating energy competition among states, environmental damage caused by consumption of carbon-based fuels, and reliance on a small handful of potentially unstable oil supplying states.

2. Space Solar Power must be moved to the commercial sector at the earliest possible time during the research and development phase–government merely wants to be an energy customer.

3. Space Solar Power is not practical today, but will be practical in the future. (Part of our job is to identify the deltas and lay out a plan to close the gap)

Such is the framework of the study.

The question is often asked, “why is the Department of Defense leading this and not the Department of Energy or NASA?”

Simply put, the Department of Energy and NASA studied space-based solar power several years ago and determined that it was too hard to do at that time and they left it at that. Neither of their efforts produced a road map that explains how to make incremental investments in technologies to advance the art of spacefaring and solar energy production in ways that increase the viability of space-based solar power. Today both organizations are are busy doing other things, but several of their members are actively participating in this study in their spare time.

General Armor decided that it is time to give space-based solar power another look, through the eyes of the National Security Space Office. The National Security Space Office is famous for building cross-agency and international partnerships to design innovative new space architectures. This effort will be true to this tradition.

Make no mistake about it, the Department of Defense is NOT interested in being an energy producer or exporter–that’s not what the Department of Defense does. It is interested in clean energy independence as a way of removing what many consider the single greatest impetus for major conflict in the future–energy competition. This study will be looking for ways to make space solar power a viable commercial enterprise for fair free-market competition. The Department of Defense is content being an energy customer.

Last month, a man at a bar introduced himself as “Coyote,” and told me he was working on the Pentagon’s plans to build a string of satellites that beamed solar rays down to Earth.

Potentially unlimited solar power from space would seem to be something everyone could support, but that is not necessarily the case.

Pentagon Considering Study on Space-Based Solar Power
– Space News 11 April 2007

The Pentagon’s National Security Space Office (NSSO) may begin a study in the near future on the possibility of using satellites to collect solar energy for use on Earth, according to Defense Department officials.