SSP (Space Solar Power) Analysis

SSP (Space Solar Power) Analysis

Original "whitepaper":

http://www.scribd.com/doc/8736849/Space-Solar-Power-SSP-A-Solution-for-Energy...

My Analysis, Transcript:

The key economic factor in any space venture is weight. At $30,000-$15,000 / Pound. There is just no way that SSP can ever compete with low-tech terrestrial based solar power, which is constantly advancing in efficiency and decreasing in price. As long as spacecraft continue to use engines based on conventional physics the cost of sending a payload into space will remain relatively the same. Ironically, the propulsion problem is also an energy problem, so if we were capable to making an engine that can produce so much energy cheaply, it would be far more economical to use that technology to generate power here on earth, rather than send cargo into space.

The biggest weakness in SSP architecture is the necessity of shielding. i.e. protection against micro meteors and other space debris; Solar power = surface area = shielding = density = weight = cost. Similarly high tech = high cost. While the true value of solar is that it is inherently low-tech and therefore low-cost.

The whitepaper fails to produce any truly speculative advantages, the kind that you would expect, given the extremely speculative nature of the concept:

One thing I've mentioned before in other articles, extremely low temperatures allow for use of superconductors, but only from the point of the solar array to the earth's upper atmosphere; so the value there is mostly negated. Not that they even bothered to mention this as a possibility.

As for incentives, they use the preposterous circular argument that the best justification for SSP is to achieve cheap and reliable access to space! The rest of the proposed advantages are far more absurd. However none of that matters because the annual global terrestrial solar fall is 800 TW (terawatts). With our current total consumption being only 15 TW, a factor of 53, it's quite clear that space based solar power is nothing more than another lame ploy by the aerospace industry to appear relevant in a post-space-age world.

What exactly makes space so special? Aside from earth orbiting satellites I challenge anyone to name a single ubiquitous resource or product that is the direct result of our, or anyone else's space program. Furthermore I'd even be satisfied with a short list of future benefits, assuming that we continued sending people and equipment into space for the next 100 years.

Although it's quite popular to refer to any time period post 1957 as the "space age", aside from lots of pretty pictures, we have yet to see any concrete benefits from our astronomically expensive exploration attempts. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against real space exploration. What I am against is our preemptive, stone-age version. It doesn't take a genius to see that rocket propelled spacecraft are far too primitive and impractical for reliable intergalactic travel, even within our own solar system.

This is money that would be far better spent on physics research. Realistically, there should be a moratorium on space exploration until two key technologies have been realized. 1) Faster-than-light locomotion. And 2) Maintenance-free shielding that can withstand the extreme conditions of space.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• SSP
• analysis
• space
• solar
• power
• whitepaper
• ChangeDotGov
• human
• psychosis
• obscene
• waste
• of
• resources
• illogical
• unethical

[ProgRok]

Stick to your job at Dairy Queen.

[neotoy]

@ProgRok Since you don't have an argument, I'll assume you're an idiot.

[thannsz]

Your an Idiot.

[neotoy]

Don't you mean "You're and idiot." lulz.

[SailorBarsoom]

You challenge us to find anything beneficial from space programs, but then you qualify it with exclusion of satellites. This is sort of like saying, "I challenge anybody to show that diamonds are worth anything, aside from their use in jewelry and industry," or "Aside from its use in construction and manufacturing, is steel actually good for anything."

Anything can be made to seem worthless, if you exclude its usefulness.

[neotoy]

I disagree. There is a huge -monumental even- difference between local and long distance space programs. For example the difference in cost between a mission to Mars and a satellite launch is several magnitudes. I hope that clarifies my remarks.

[xTheFutureisOursx]

dude, what happened to half your face?

[zero13o]

though there are challenges regarding SBSP such as payload delivery systems and current technology costs it does not mean it is not a worth wild invest for private companies and governments. we have the technology to build but not to delivery a large scale SBSP system although some future tech like space elevators could make large scale SBSP possible but for now it will take private companies to make the innovative step to make small scale SBSP

[moonus111]

This is the first video I've seen where someone brings up the valid points. SPS has a weak point of it not being economically feasible due to launch costs. Generally space advocates are separated by some issues, one of these issues is over the terms Exploration and Colonization. So far the E crowd has won all, at NASA it is practically a sin to say the "C" word. To make SPS feasible materials from the moon must be utilized to make it more economically viable. Otherwise this guy is right.

[n8style]

nice view of your neck there lol;o)

[nonsquid]

Space sex alone could advance space travel. Sex is responsible for the advancement of other technologies like the Gutenberg press, VCR, and internet video. Some coming space advancements (I hope) are some metal foundry / fabrication in space. I could make gas free welds in space and spherical metal "bubbles" could be created in zero gravity, both macro and micro. Macro symmetrically formed titanium bubbles and micro formed aluminum foam voids in radial geometries.