[lowem]

IMHO, they should just skip their own strenuous objections that it should not / could not be weaponized. After all, nuclear bombs came before nuclear power plants. Oil ignited flaming arrows long before spark plugs. We're a war-like race. Always have been.

Come on. Weaponize these suckers. Millions of us sci-fi fans are waiting for these things to come online. Somebody start a pool going to see which country or location gets honored with the first strike

[bobcousins]

I have worked in the space sector a few times.

The elephant in the room problem with SBSP is launch costs. No one knows how to get them low enough. All the studies simply assume "one day launch costs will be cheap enough".

Putting industrial amounts of hardware in space is fundamentally different to comm sats, because you can miniaturize information, but you can't miniaturize manufacturing or power generation. It has to be the size it is.

The Pentagon proposal (and all other others) is economically unworkable, but the Pentagon works on military logic.

The key point about the Pentagon is that they need to power forward military bases, in order to continue imperial dominance of the globe. So the fact ground solar is far better is no good to them - they need power where the military is, not back home in Nevada. They call this ability "priceless". ie. PO is a threat to military dominance.

The Pentagon plan to reduce launch costs is taken from the economists fantasy land - by creating demand for hundreds if not thousands of launchers, they say supply will appear. True, there will be some economics of scale but it's still not mass production, each launcher is still a highly complex hand crafted machine. To give some perspective the A380 retail around $300 million. As launch costs need to reduce by 100 times from $20,000/kg t about $200/kg, we would need launch costs < $5 million.

It is not hard to find "space scientists" enthusiastically backing such schemes. With the commsat market pretty mature, and the only other viable business model space tourism, they are desperate to find something to keep the industry alive, and jobs intact.

The technical advantages of SBSP pale into complete insignificance assuming you actually want to make a profit. If you want to power the military, and are willing to pay "priceless", that is a different game.

I dreamt of space once too, but the numbers don't work, and probably never will.

BTW it would make a lousy weapon, as the beam is too dispersed. But obviously some people will not trust the USA on that...

[JohnDenver]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bobcousins', 'I') have worked in the space sector a few times.

The elephant in the room problem with SBSP is launch costs. No one knows how to get them low enough. All the studies simply assume "one day launch costs will be cheap enough".

Putting industrial amounts of hardware in space is fundamentally different to comm sats, because you can miniaturize information, but you can't miniaturize manufacturing or power generation. It has to be the size it is.

[Temperedoil]

Nice idea, but there are various factors against space-based solar power becoming anything more than a couple of experimental satellites - if it even gets as far as that.

One problem lies in the falling supply and increasing cost of resources, of materials and energy, used in manufacturing and launching the solar arrays and satellites, the ground level collectors, and the rockets used to launch the satellites into orbit. In addition to oil and gas, and all the products we get from them, supplies of helium (used to pressurise liquid-hydrogen fuel tanks on rockets) on Earth are expected to last another thirty years or less.

It will, after all, take time to develop the technology to the point where it is considered ready to use in a real-world environment.

Another is the likelihood of concerns being raised by the Russians and Chinese over what might be seen to have the potential to be - or to be used as - space-based weapons. Russia is increasingly powerful thanks to oil and gas reserves, China due to a growing economy and desires for equivalent political power.

Another problem is that the increasing inability of oil supplies to meet demand is likely to lead to governments and others taking greater care in determining what is and what is not considered an essential use of precious energy resources (especially if people and business leaders start complaining). Anything to do with space travel, exploration, or technology, is likely to be given a lower priority than food production and keeping the economy rolling along. Particularly if non-space-based proposals are presented as being more oil- and gas-efficient.

There are many interesting proposals for how we might solve the energy side of the oil problem, but they all require oil in order to work - to begin with at least. Even if we do solve the energy contribution, how do we solve the chemical resource contribution?

[zoidberg]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Temperedoil', '
')There are many interesting proposals for how we might solve the energy side of the oil problem, but they all require oil in order to work - to begin with at least. Even if we do solve the energy contribution, how do we solve the chemical resource contribution?

[Graeme]

TPTB have not given up on this idea of SBSP. Here's the latest news:

The chicken and the egg: RLVs and space-based solar power

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP) study released by the National Security Space Office on October 10th continues to have repercussions. Discussions have begun potential international partners and inside the US government on a possible set of demonstration projects both on Earth and in space.

The report [link provided] does point out, in one of its most important findings, that “The SBSP Study Group universally acknowledged that a necessary pre-requisite for the technical and economic viability of SBSP was inexpensive and reliable access to orbit. However, participants were strongly divided on whether to recommend immediate, all-out attack on this problem or not.” We are back to the old question: is the technology ready or nearly ready to allow for the development of a successful reusable launch vehicle (RLV)? For the last three or four years the answer from NASA and from the US military has been “No”.

They are waiting for a breakthrough similar to the one that shifted most aircraft propulsion from piston engines to jet turbine ones.

Appendix D of the SBSP study provides an interesting look at where the NSSO’s experts think the Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) now stand. In order to have routine access to low Earth orbit (LEO) to achieve this goal the study examines a three-phased approach.

Phase one proposes a strategy that will “Develop new, fully-reusable two-stage, rocket-powered space access systems (aerospaceplanes) for passengers and cargo transport.” The mission is to “Transport passengers and cargo with ‘aircraft-like’ safety and operability.” The report claims that for such systems the TRL is 6–9 for a vehicle with a gross weight of 1400 tonnes with the capability of delivering a bit more than 11 tonnes of payload to LEO.


SBSP is one of the most promising medium- and long-term concepts out there. The need for a large-scale, clean new source of electricity is evident.

Private sector RLV programs are already underway and there is a strong possibility that they may reach orbit before any government-supported one does.

Any dramatic change in the cost of access to orbit will have huge effects on the world’s military and economic balance of power. The US cannot afford not to be the nation where that breakthrough is made.

[Graeme]

The final frontier for solar energy

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')cientists are assessing the possibility of embarking on a space engineering project that would eclipse the effort to construct the International Space Station.

Researchers from Europe, Japan and the US are considering the viability of building giant solar panels in a low earth orbit that would supply cheap, inexhaustible energy to industry and homes.


It would require an armada of rockets carrying tonnes of material into space on a regular basis, says Lieutenant Colonel Paul Damphousse of the Pentagon's National Security Space Office.

"That's going to require repeated sorties; not one sortie every other week or every other month," he explains.

"We're talking hundreds of sorties every week and every month."

A recent study by the Pentagon concluded that a solar array in space was close to being technologically feasible, and robotics should soon make the building of large structures in space safer and quicker.

Leopold Summerer of the European Space Agency believes the generation of solar power from space may be only 20 years away.

Robert Lainway from EADS Astrium, the Anglo-French space company, says private sector involvement could help reduce costs but governments would have to take the first steps.

"Sometime in the future it will be reality," he predicts.

[TheDude]

Dunno if anyone's brought up the subject of debris in orbityet.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')housands of nuts, bolts, gloves and other debris from space missions form an orbiting garbage dump around Earth, presenting a hazard to spacecraft. Some of the bits and pieces scream along at 17,500 mph.

When these objects fall back into Earth's atmosphere, which they inevitably do, they behave just like any other meteor, lighting up the sky.

A 1999 study estimated there are some 4 million pounds of space junk in low-Earth orbit, just one part of a celestial sea of roughly 110,000 objects larger than 1 centimeter -- each big enough to damage a satellite or space-based telescope.

[Graeme]

Generating Power in Space

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'J')AXA researchers are planning on putting a prototype of the system in geosynchronous orbit approximately 36,000 km above the equator. A laser beam will be used to transfer the energy collected by the space-based solar panels to an intermediary or terrestrial power station, where its energy will be used to generate electricity or hydrogen. The Japanese scientists are using solar plates made from chromium, a ceramic material that absorbs the sunlight, and neodymium, which converts it into laser light. These solar panels demonstrated a 42% solar-to-laser energy conversion efficiency – an impressive figure that outperforms previous technology by a factor of four.

Since this innovative system will be situated in space, it will be able to collect sunlight 24 hours a day, circumventing problems affecting ground-based solar energy systems, such as cloudy skies and darkness. The Sun’s energy is eight times greater outside Earth’s atmosphere. Therefore, it is estimated that a single satellite-mounted solar panel site will have a power output equivalent to a 1 GW nuclear power plant.

While scientists continue to further explore the idea, some suggest that these power plants be put in low Earth orbit first, and only then be launched into a higher geosynchronous orbit or to an orbit around the Moon. The Japanese researchers, who introduced their technology at a meeting of the Japan Society of Applied Physics this year, are hoping to place the first space-based power systems in orbit by the year 2030.

[Graeme]

'Drilling Up' Into Space for Energy

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')nlike other ideas, however, one this year had an influential backer, the Pentagon, which is investigating whether space-based solar power — beaming energy down from satellites — will provide "affordable, clean, safe, reliable, sustainable and expandable energy for mankind."

Tommy Remengesau Jr. is interested, too. "We'd like to look at it," said the president of the tiny western Pacific nation of Palau.

The Defense Department this October quietly issued a 75-page study conducted for its National Security Space Office concluding that space power — collection of energy by vast arrays of solar panels aboard mammoth satellites — offers a potential energy source for global U.S. military operations.

It could be done with today's technology, experts say. But the prohibitive cost of lifting thousands of tons of equipment into space makes it uneconomical.

That's where Palau, a scattering of islands and 20,000 islanders, comes in.

In September, American entrepreneur Kevin Reed proposed at the 58th International Astronautical Congress in Hyderabad, India, that Palau's uninhabited Helen Island would be an ideal spot for a small demonstration project, a 260-foot-diameter "rectifying antenna," or rectenna, to take in 1 megawatt of power transmitted earthward by a satellite orbiting 300 miles above Earth.

That's enough electricity to power 1,000 homes, but on that empty island the project would "be intended to show its safety for everywhere else," Reed said in a telephone interview from California.

Reed said he expects his U.S.-Swiss-German consortium to begin manufacturing the necessary ultralight solar panels within two years, and to attract financial support from manufacturers wanting to show how their technology — launch vehicles, satellites, transmission technology — could make such a system work. He estimates project costs at $800 million and completion as early as 2012.

[Graeme]

If we build it, will they come?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')otential space commerce markets quite often fall into the chicken-and-egg conundrum. For orbital space tourism to grow beyond the current novelty market for the superrich, the cost of launching into orbit has to come way down. For businesses to invest billions in reusable high-use launchers there has to be a proven market.

The National Security Space Launch Report details the potential market for space launch through 2020. It projects a steady decline in the market through this time period. There are a number of reasons for this.

The report points out that no major technical breakthrough would be required to build a working satellite that can beam power to Earth. The question is whether it can be done practically and affordably.

The first step is to find out if SBSP could be a cost-effective solution to our energy problems. Then it may be time for a decision on developing a fully reusable launch system that can handle the scale of transport needs at a price point that will be required

It’s time for our political leadership to grab hold of a vision to lead us into the future. There is hope that technology can help lift us out of what seems like an endless stream of problems. Developing space-based solar power and a lower cost reusable launch system could spawn a whole series of technological innovations and entirely new industries. The SPBS report points out that eventually it may be more cost effective to build solar power satellites from lunar materials requiring an infrastructure throughout cislunar space. It may be prudent to wait for the results of a project to test the feasibility of solar power satellites before committing to developing a fully reusable launch system. But when one is eventually built, I believe it will open up other markets, including tourism as well as others we have yet to imagine. I believe that if we build it, they will come. I also believe that space-based solar power is worth looking into to see if it could be one answer—of possibly several—to our energy and trade deficit problems.

[Graeme]

Japan's space agency planning space-based solar power arrays

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e've seen some pretty out there solar installations, but JAXA, the Japanese space agency, is about to get really far out with its latest project: a space-based solar array that beams power back to Earth. The agency is set to begin testing on the microwave power transmission system on February 20th, with an attempt to beam enough power over the 2.4GHz band to power a household heater at 50 meters (164 feet). That's certainly not the sort of large-scale sci-fi power system we were hoping for, but fret not -- if the tests are successful, JAXA's plan is to eventually launch a constellation of solar satellites, each beaming power to a 1.8-mile wide receiving station that'll produce 1 gigawatt of electricity and power 500,000 homes.

[Schadenfreude]

Weaponizing the Pentagon's Cyborg Insects: A Futuristic Nightmare That Just Might Come True

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nick Turse', 'B')iological weapons delivered by cyborg insects. It sounds like a nightmare scenario straight out of the wilder realms of science fiction, but it could be a reality, if a current Pentagon project comes to fruition.

Right now, researchers are already growing insects with electronics inside them. They're creating cyborg moths and flying beetles that can be remotely controlled. One day, the U.S. military may field squadrons of winged insect/machine hybrids with on-board audio, video or chemical sensors. These cyborg insects could conduct surveillance and reconnaissance missions on distant battlefields, in far-off caves, or maybe even in cities closer to home, and transmit detailed data back to their handlers at U.S. military bases.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Schadenfreude', '
')MonteQuest would always refuse to consider that human beings might deliberately engineer a die-off in a controlled way. He was too attached to the notion of Gaia's Revenge. But it has always seemed to me that selectively killing, say, 50% of Earth's human population in a short period of time is probably much easier a technical challenge than innovating new sources of energy for the still-burgeoning population to use.

[pedalling_faster]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', 'A')ny attempt to organize controlled die-off would result in fast escalation to wholesale nuclear induced die-off.

For that reason you will either not see controlled die-off or as an alternative you will see some sort of attempt of nuclear first strike with fingers crossed and hope for the best.

That is not to say that cyborg insects are of no use.
These would be brilliant for intelligence gathering on the battlefield.
As an alternative some biting cyborg insects could be GM modified to produce lethal poisons and then used on battlefield as direct weapon.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pedalling_faster', 'w')e're already seeing a controlled die-off. in Iraq, for example, using nuclear devices, for real (hundreds of tons of depleted uranium).

[gnm]

Why would they have to engineer incredibly complicated cyborg insects when they could just starve everyone to death... If you assume there is a "they" plotting all this killing then thats the easiest solution...

-G

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gnm', 'W')hy would they have to engineer incredibly complicated cyborg insects when they could just starve everyone to death... If you assume there is a "they" plotting all this killing then thats the easiest solution...

-G

[Specop_007]

Well heres an interesting thought Schadenfreude.

If what you say is true, you can rest assured you will be targeted for elimination. You know too much. You pose a danger to those in power because of your knowledge of their actions and plans.

You are going to be killed by that which you seek to stop.

Sleep well. Dont let the bed bugs bite.....

[Kaj]

All kinds of weird technologies are taking off. Check out these videos too:

Controlling machines with the mind:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=hQWBfCg91CU

Robotic Exoskeletons for soldiers:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JLS9V_-StM4&feature=related

We are living in the future.