Space-based solar power

Space-based solar power (SBSP) is the concept of collecting solar power in space for use on Earth. It has been in research since the early 1970s.

SBSP would differ from current solar collection methods in that the means used to collect energy would reside on an orbiting satellite instead of on Earth's surface. Some projected benefits of such a system are:

SBSP also introduces several new hurdles, primarily the problem of transmitting energy from orbit to Earth's surface for use. Since wires extending from Earth's surface to an orbiting satellite are neither practical nor feasible with current technology, SBSP designs generally include the use of some manner of wireless power transmission. The collecting satellite would convert solar energy into electrical energy on-board, powering a microwave transmitter or laser emitter, and focus its beam toward a collector (rectenna) on the Earth's surface. Radiation and micrometeoroid damage could also become concerns for SBSP.

Contents

History

The SBSP concept, originally known as Satellite Solar Power System (SSPS), was first described in November 1968.[2] In 1973 Peter Glaser was granted U.S. patent number 3,781,647 for his method of transmitting power over long distances (e.g., from an SPS to Earth's surface) using microwaves from a very large antenna (up to one square kilometer) on the satellite to a much larger one, now known as a rectenna, on the ground.[3]

Glaser then was a vice president at Arthur D. Little, Inc. NASA signed a contract with ADL to lead four other companies in a broader study in 1974. They found that, while the concept had several major problems—chiefly the expense of putting the required materials in orbit and the lack of experience on projects of this scale in space, it showed enough promise to merit further investigation and research.[4]

Between 1978 and 1981, the Congress authorized the Department of Energy and NASA to jointly investigate the concept. They organized the Satellite Power System Concept Development and Evaluation Program.[5][6] The study remains the most extensive performed to date (budget 50 millions $).[7] Several reports were published investigating the engineering feasibility of such an engineering project. They include:

The project was not continued with the change in administrations after the 1980 US Federal elections.

The Office of Technology Assessment[25] concluded

Too little is currently known about the technical, economic, and environmental aspects of SPS to make a sound decision whether to proceed with its development and deployment. In addition, without further research an SPS demonstration or systems-engineering verification program would be a high-risk venture.

In 1997 NASA conducted its "Fresh Look" study to examine the modern state of SBSP feasibility.[26] In assessing "What has changed" since the DOE study, NASA asserted that:

US National Space Policy now calls for NASA to make significant investments in technology (not a particular vehicle) to drive the costs of ETO [Earth to Orbit] transportation down dramatically. This is, of course, an absolute requirement of space solar power.

Conversely, Dr. Pete Worden claimed that space-based solar is about five orders of magnitude more expensive than solar power from the Arizona desert, with a major cost being the transportation of materials to orbit. Dr. Worden referred to possible solutions as speculative, and that would not be available for decades at the earliest.[27]

SERT

In 1999, NASA's Space Solar Power Exploratory Research and Technology program (SERT) (budget 22 millions $)[7] was initiated for the following purposes:

SERT went about developing a solar power satellite (SPS) concept for a future gigawatt space power system, to provide electrical power by converting the Sun’s energy and beaming it to Earth's surface, and provided a conceptual development path that would utilize current technologies. SERT proposed an inflatable photovoltaic gossamer structure with concentrator lenses or solar heat engines to convert sunlight into electricity. The program looked both at systems in sun-synchronous orbit and geosynchronous orbit.

Some of SERT's conclusions:

Advantages

The SBSP concept is attractive because space has several major advantages over the Earth's surface for the collection of solar power.

Disadvantages

The SBSP concept also has a number of problems.

Design

Space-based solar power essentially consists of three elements:

The space-based portion will not need to support itself against gravity (other than relatively weak tidal stresses). It needs no protection from terrestrial wind or weather, but will have to cope with space hazards such as micrometeors and solar flares.

Two basic methods of conversion have been studied: photovoltaic (PV) and solar dynamic (SD). Photovoltaic conversion uses semiconductor cells to directly convert photons into electrical power. Solar dynamic uses mirrors to concentrate light on a boiler. The use of solar dynamic could reduce mass par watt. Most analyses of SBSP have focused on photovoltaic conversion (commonly known as “solar cells”).

Wireless power transmission was proposed early on as a means to transfer energy from collection to the Earth's surface, using either microwave or laser radiation at a variety of frequencies.

Microwave power transmission

William C. Brown demonstrated in 1964, during Walter Cronkite's CBS News program, a microwave-powered model helicopter that received all the power it needed for flight from a microwave beam. Between 1969 and 1975, Bill Brown was technical director of a JPL Raytheon program that beamed 30 kW of power over a distance of 1-mile (1.6 km) at 84% efficiency.[33]

Microwave power transmission of tens of kilowatts has been well proven by existing tests at Goldstone in California (1975) [33][34][35] and Grand Bassin on Reunion Island (1997).[36]

More recently, microwave power transmission has been demonstrated, in conjunction with solar energy capture, between a mountain top in Maui and the main island of Hawaii (92 miles away), by a team under John C. Mankins.[37][38] Technological challenges in terms of array layout, single radiation element design, and overall efficiency, as well as the associated theoretical limits are presently a subject of research, as it is demonstrated by the upcoming Special Session on "Analysis of Electromagnetic Wireless Systems for Solar Power Transmission" to be held in the 2010 IEEE Symposium on Antennas and Propagation.[39]

Laser power beaming

Laser power beaming was envisioned by some at NASA as a stepping stone to further industrialization of space. In the 1980s, researchers at NASA worked on the potential use of lasers for space-to-space power beaming, focusing primarily on the development of a solar-powered laser. In 1989 it was suggested that power could also be usefully beamed by laser from Earth to space. In 1991 the SELENE project (SpacE Laser ENErgy) had begun, which included the study of laser power beaming for supplying power to a lunar base. The SELENE program was a two-year research effort, but the cost of taking the concept to operational status was too high, and the official project ended in 1993 before reaching a space-based demonstration.[40]

In 1988 the use of an Earth-based laser to power an electric thruster for space propulsion was proposed by Grant Logan, with technical details worked out in 1989. He proposed using diamond solar cells operating at 600 degrees to convert ultraviolet laser light, a technology that has yet to be demonstrated even in the laboratory.

Orbital location

The main advantage of locating a space power station in geostationary orbit is that the antenna geometry stays constant, and so keeping the antennas lined up is simpler. Another advantage is that nearly continuous power transmission is immediately available as soon as the first space power station is placed in orbit; other space-based power stations have much longer start-up times before they are producing nearly continuous power.

A collection of LEO (Low Earth Orbit) space power stations has been proposed as a precursor to GEO (Geostationary Orbit) space-based solar power.[41]

Earth-based receiver

The Earth-based rectenna would likely consist of many short dipole antennas connected via diodes. Microwaves broadcasts from the satellite would be received in the dipoles with about 85% efficiency.[42] With a conventional microwave antenna, the reception efficiency is better, but its cost and complexity is also considerably greater. Rectennas would likely be multiple kilometers across.

In space applications

A laser SBSP could also power a base or vehicules on the surface of the moon or mars, saving on mass costs to land the power source. A spacecraft or another satellite could also be powered by the same means.[43]

Dealing with launch costs

One problem for the SBSP concept is the cost of space launches and the amount of material that would need to be launched.

Reusable launch systems are predicted to provide lower launch costs to low Earth orbit (LEO).[44][45]

Much of the material launched need not be delivered to its eventual orbit immediately, which raises the possibility that high efficiency (but slower) engines could move SPS material from LEO to GEO at an acceptable cost. Examples include ion thrusters or nuclear propulsion.

Power beaming from geostationary orbit by microwaves carries the difficulty that the required 'optical aperture' sizes are very large. For example, the 1978 NASA SPS study required a 1-km diameter transmitting antenna, and a 10 km diameter receiving rectenna, for a microwave beam at 2.45 GHz. These sizes can be somewhat decreased by using shorter wavelengths, although they have increased atmospheric absorption and even potential beam blockage by rain or water droplets. Because of the thinned array curse, it is not possible to make a narrower beam by combining the beams of several smaller satellites. The large size of the transmitting and receiving antennas means that the minimum practical power level for an SPS will necessarily be high; small SPS systems will be possible, but uneconomic.

To give an idea of the scale of the problem, assuming a solar panel mass of 20 kg per kilowatt (without considering the mass of the supporting structure, antenna, or any significant mass reduction of any focusing mirrors) a 4 GW power station would weigh about 80,000 metric tons, all of which would, in current circumstances, be launched from the Earth. Very lightweight designs could likely achieve 1 kg/kW,[46] meaning 4,000 metric tons for the solar panels for the same 4 GW capacity station. This would be the equivalent of between 40 and 150 heavy-lift launch vehicle (HLLV) launches to send the material to low earth orbit, where it would likely be converted into subassembly solar arrays, which then could use high-efficiency ion-engine style rockets to (slowly) reach GEO (Geostationary orbit). With an estimated serial launch cost for shuttle-based HLLVs of $500 million to $800 million, and launch costs for alternative HLLVs at $78 million, total launch costs would range between $11 billion (low cost HLLV, low weight panels) and $320 billion ('expensive' HLLV, heavier panels). For comparison, the direct cost of a new coal [1] or nuclear power plant ranges from $3 billion to $6 billion dollars per GW (not including the full cost to the environment from CO2 emissions or storage of spent nuclear fuel, respectively); another example is the Apollo missions to the Moon cost a grand total of $24 billion (1970's dollars), taking inflation into account, would cost $140 billion today, more expensive than the construction of the International Space Station.

Non-conventional launch methods

Main article: Non-rocket spacelaunch

SBSP costs might be reduced if a means of putting the materials into orbit were developed that did not rely on rockets. Some possible technologies include ground launch systems such as mass drivers or Lofstrom loops, which would launch using electrical power, or the geosynchronous orbit space elevator. However, these require technology that is yet to be developed. John Hunter of Quicklaunch is working on commercialising the 'Hydrogen Gun', a new form of mass driver which proposes to deliver unmanned payloads to orbit for around 5% of regular launch costs (i.e. $500/lb or US$1,000/kg) and perform 5 launches per day.[47]

Building from space

From lunar materials launched in orbit

Gerard O'Neill, noting the problem of high launch costs in the early 1970s, proposed building the SPS's in orbit with materials from the Moon.[48] Launch costs from the Moon are potentially much lower than from Earth, due to the lower gravity. This 1970s proposal assumed the then-advertised future launch costing of NASA's space shuttle. This approach would require substantial up front capital investment to establish mass drivers on the Moon.[49]

Nevertheless, on 30 April 1979, the Final Report ("Lunar Resources Utilization for Space Construction") by General Dynamics' Convair Division, under NASA contract NAS9-15560, concluded that use of lunar resources would be cheaper than Earth-based materials for a system of as few as thirty Solar Power Satellites of 10GW capacity each.[50]

In 1980, when it became obvious NASA's launch cost estimates for the space shuttle were grossly optimistic, O'Neill et al. published another route to manufacturing using lunar materials with much lower startup costs.[51] This 1980s SPS concept relied less on human presence in space and more on partially self-replicating systems on the lunar surface under remote control of workers stationed on Earth. The high Net energy gain of this proposal derives from the Moon's much shallower gravitational well.

Having a relatively cheap per pound source of raw materials from space would lessen the concern for low mass designs and result in a different sort of SPS being built. The low cost per pound of lunar materials in O'Neill's vision would be supported by using lunar material to manufacture more facilities in orbit than just solar power satellites.

Advanced techniques for launching from the Moon may reduce the cost of building a solar power satellite from lunar materials. Some proposed techniques include the lunar mass driver and the lunar space elevator, first described by Jerome Pearson.[52] It would require establishing silicon mining and solar cell manufacturing facilities on the Moon.

On the Moon

David Criswell suggests the Moon is the optimum location for solar power stations, and promotes lunar solar power.[53][54] The main advantage he envisions is construction largely from locally available lunar materials, using in-situ resource utilization, with a teleoperated mobile factory, a crane to assemble the microwave reflectors, and rovers to assemble solar cells, which would significantly reduce launch costs compared to SBSP designs. Power relay satellites orbiting around earth and the Moon reflecting the microwave beam are also part of the project.[55] Another design combined the rovers with the factory and directly paves the Moon with a thin film of solar cells.[56] The Shimizu Corporation proposed using combination of lasers and microwave for the lunar ring concept, along with power relay satellites.[57][58]

From an asteroid

Asteroid mining has also been seriously considered. A NASA design study[59] evaluated a 10,000 ton mining vehicle (to be assembled in orbit) that would return a 500,000 ton asteroid fragment to geostationary orbit. Only about 3,000 tons of the mining ship would be traditional aerospace-grade payload. The rest would be reaction mass for the mass-driver engine, which could be arranged to be the spent rocket stages used to launch the payload. Assuming that 100% of the returned asteroid was useful, and that the asteroid miner itself couldn't be reused, that represents nearly a 95% reduction in launch costs. However, the true merits of such a method would depend on a thorough mineral survey of the candidate asteroids; thus far, we have only estimates of their composition.[60]

Gallery

Counter arguments

Safety

The use of microwave transmission of power has been the most controversial issue in considering any SPS design.

At the Earth's surface, a suggested microwave beam would have a maximum intensity at its center, of 23 mW/cm2 (less than 1/4 the solar irradiation constant), and an intensity of less than 1 mW/cm2 outside of the rectenna fenceline (the receiver's perimeter).[61] These compare with current United States Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) workplace exposure limits for microwaves, which are 10 mW/cm2,[62] - the limit itself being expressed in voluntary terms and ruled unenforceable for Federal OSHA enforcement purposes. A beam of this intensity is therefore at its center, of a similar magnitude to current safe workplace levels, even for long term or indefinite exposure. Outside the receiver, it is far less than the OSHA long-term levels[63] Over 95% of the beam energy will fall on the rectenna. The remaining microwave energy will be absorbed and dispersed well within standards currently imposed upon microwave emissions around the world.[64] It is important for system efficiency that as much of the microwave radiation as possible be focused on the rectenna. Outside of the rectenna, microwave intensities rapidly decrease, so nearby towns or other human activity should be completely unaffected.[65]

Exposure to the beam is able to be minimized in other ways. On the ground, physical access is controllable (e.g., via fencing), and typical aircraft flying through the beam provide passengers with a protective metal shell (i.e., a Faraday Cage), which will intercept the microwaves. Other aircraft (balloons, ultralight, etc.) can avoid exposure by observing airflight control spaces, as is currently done for military and other controlled airspace.

The microwave beam intensity at ground level in the center of the beam would be designed and physically built into the system; simply, the transmitter would be too far away and too small to be able to increase the intensity to unsafe levels, even in principle.

In addition, a design constraint is that the microwave beam must not be so intense as to injure wildlife, particularly birds. Experiments with deliberate microwave irradiation at reasonable levels have failed to show negative effects even over multiple generations.[66]

Some have suggested locating rectennas offshore,[67][68] but this presents serious problems, including corrosion, mechanical stresses, and biological contamination.

A commonly proposed approach to ensuring fail-safe beam targeting is to use a retrodirective phased array antenna/rectenna. A "pilot" microwave beam emitted from the center of the rectenna on the ground establishes a phase front at the transmitting antenna. There, circuits in each of the antenna's subarrays compare the pilot beam's phase front with an internal clock phase to control the phase of the outgoing signal. This forces the transmitted beam to be centered precisely on the rectenna and to have a high degree of phase uniformity; if the pilot beam is lost for any reason (if the transmitting antenna is turned away from the rectenna, for example) the phase control value fails and the microwave power beam is automatically defocused.[65] Such a system would be physically incapable of focusing its power beam anywhere that did not have a pilot beam transmitter.

The long-term effects of beaming power through the ionosphere in the form of microwaves has yet to be studied, but nothing has been suggested which might lead to any significant effect.

Atmospheric damage due to launches

When hot rocket exhaust reacts with atmospheric nitrogen, it can form nitrogen compounds. These nitrogen compounds are problematic when they form in the stratosphere, as they can damage the ozone layer. However, the environmental effect of rocket launches is negligible compared to higher volume polluters, such as airplanes and automobiles.

Timeline

In fiction

See also

Renewable energy portal
Sustainable development portal
Energy portal

References

  1. ^ a b Collection at Earth's poles can take place for 24 hours per day, but not consistently, and only for 6 months of the year.
  2. ^ Glaser, Peter E. (22 November 1968). "Power from the Sun: Its Future" (PDF). Science Magazine 162 (3856): 857–861. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/162/3856/857.pdf. 
  3. ^ a b Glaser, Peter E. (December 25, 1973). "Method And Apparatus For Converting Solar Radiation To Electrical Power". United States Patent 3,781,647. http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=3,781,647.PN.&OS=PN/3,781,647&RS=PN/3,781,647. 
  4. ^ Glaser, P. E., Maynard, O. E., Mackovciak, J., and Ralph, E. L, Arthur D. Little, Inc., "Feasibility study of a satellite solar power station", NASA CR-2357, NTIS N74-17784, February 1974
  5. ^ Satellite Power System Concept Development and Evaluation Program July 1977 - August 1980. DOE/ET-0034, February 1978. 62 pages
  6. ^ Satellite Power System Concept Development and Evaluation Program Reference System Report. DOE/ER-0023, October 1978. 322
  7. ^ a b c d Statement of John C. Mankins U.S. House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics Committee on Science, Sep 7, 2000
  8. ^ Satellite Power System (SPS) Resource Requirements (Critical Materials, Energy, and Land). HCP/R-4024-02, October 1978.
  9. ^ Satellite Power System (SPS) Financial/Management Scenarios. Prepared by J. Peter Vajk. HCP/R-4024-03, October 1978. 69 pages
  10. ^ Satellite Power System (SPS) Financial/Management Scenarios. Prepared by Herbert E. Kierolff. HCP/R-4024-13, October 1978. 66 pages.
  11. ^ Satellite Power System (SPS) Public Acceptance. HCP/R-4024-04, October 1978. 85 pages.
  12. ^ Satellite Power System (SPS) State and Local Regulations as Applied to Satellite Power System Microwave Receiving Antenna Facilities. HCP/R-4024-05, October 1978. 92 pages.
  13. ^ Satellite Power System (SPS) Student Participation. HCP/R-4024-06, October 1978. 97 pages.
  14. ^ Potential of Laser for SPS Power Transmission. HCP/R-4024-07, October 1978. 112 pages.
  15. ^ Satellite Power System (SPS) International Agreements. Prepared by Carl Q. Christol. HCP-R-4024-08, October 1978. 283 pages.
  16. ^ Satellite Power System (SPS) International Agreements. Prepared by Stephen Grove. HCP/R-4024-12, October 1978. 86 pages.
  17. ^ Satellite Power System (SPS) Centralization/Decentralization. HCP/R-4024-09, October 1978. 67 pages.
  18. ^ Satellite Power System (SPS) Mapping of Exclusion Areas For Rectenna Sites. HCP-R-4024-10, October 1978. 117 pages.
  19. ^ Economic and Demographic Issues Related to Deployment of the Satellite Power System (SPS). ANL/EES-TM-23, October 1978. 71 pages.
  20. ^ Some Questions and Answers About the Satellite Power System (SPS). DOE/ER-0049/1, January 1980. 47 pages.
  21. ^ Satellite Power Systems (SPS) Laser Studies: Meteorological Effects on Laser Beam Propagation and Direct Solar Pumped Lasers for the SPS. NASA Contractor Report 3347, November 1980. 143 pages.
  22. ^ Satellite Power System (SPS) Public Outreach Experiment. DOE/ER-10041-T11, December 1980. 67 pages.
  23. ^ http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/1981NASASPS-PowerTransmissionAndReception.pdf "Satellite Power System Concept Development and Evaluation Program: Power Transmission and Reception Technical Summary and Assessment" NASA Reference Publication 1076, July 1981. 281 pages.
  24. ^ Satellite Power System Concept Development and Evaluation Program: Space Transportation. NASA Technical Memorandum 58238, November 1981. 260 pages.
  25. ^ Solar Power Satellites. Office of Technology Assessment, August 1981. 297 pages.
  26. ^ A Fresh Look at Space Solar Power: New Architectures, Concepts, and Technologies. John C. Mankins. International Astronautical Federation IAF-97-R.2.03. 12 pages.
  27. ^ Dr. Pete Worden on thespaceshow.com in the edition of the 23rd of March, 2009
  28. ^ Space Solar Power Satellite Technology Development at the Glenn Research Center—An Overview James E. Dudenhoefer and Patrick J. George, NASA Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio
  29. ^ Solar Power Satellites. Washington, D.C.: Congress of the U.S., Office of Technology Assessment. August 1981. p. 66. LCCN 81600129. 
  30. ^ In space, panels suffer rapid erosion due to high energy particles,"Solar Panel Degradation" whereas on Earth, commercial panels degrade at a rate around 0.25% a year."Testing a Thirty-Year-Old Photovoltaic Module"
  31. ^ "Some of the most environmentally dangerous activities in space include [...] large structures such as those considered in the late-1970s for building solar power stations in Earth orbit."The Kessler Syndrome (As Discussed by Donald J. Kessler)". Retrieved 2010-05-26.
  32. ^ Hiroshi Matsumoto, "Space Solar Power Satellite/Station and the Politics", EMC’09/Kyoto, 2009
  33. ^ a b Brown., W. C. (September 1984). "The History of Power Transmission by Radio Waves". IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 32 (Volume: 32, Issue: 9 On page(s): 1230- 1242 + ISSN: 0018-9480): 1230. Bibcode 1984ITMTT..32.1230B. doi:10.1109/TMTT.1984.1132833. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1132833. 
  34. ^ NASA Video, date/author unknown
  35. ^ Wireless Power Transmission for Solar Power Satellite (SPS) (Second Draft by N. Shinohara), Space Solar Power Workshop, Georgia Institute of Technology
  36. ^ POINT-TO-POINT WIRELESS POWER TRANSPORTATION IN REUNION ISLAND 48th International Astronautical Congress, Turin, Italy, 6–10 October 1997 - IAF-97-R.4.08 J. D. Lan Sun Luk, A. Celeste, P. Romanacce, L. Chane Kuang Sang, J. C. Gatina - University of La Réunion - Faculty of Science and Technology.
  37. ^ POINT-TO-POINT WIRELESS POWER TRANSPORTATION IN HAWAII.
  38. ^ Researchers Beam ‘Space’ Solar Power in Hawaii by Loretta Hidalgo, September 12, 2008
  39. ^ 2010 IEEE Symposium on Antennas and Propagation - Special Session List
  40. ^ Glenn Involvement with Laser Power Beaming-- Overview NASA Glenn Research Center
  41. ^ Komerath, N.M; Boechler, N. (October 2006). The Space Power Grid. Valencia, Spain: 57th International Astronautical Federation Congress. IAC-C3.4.06. 
  42. ^ Figure 3.8.2.2-6. Orbital Options for Solar Power Satellite
  43. ^ "Second Beamed Space-Power Workshop". Nasa. 1989. pp. near page 290. http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/1989-SecondBeamedSpacePowerWorkshop.pdf. 
  44. ^ Dr. Lee Valentine in conversation on The Space Show aired on the 6th of October 2010 said there is a potential for a hundred times cost reduction in the cost of Earth to orbit transportation by using reusable vehicles. The Space Show
  45. ^ http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/downloads/ssp_skylon_ver2.pdf
  46. ^ "Case For Space Based Solar Power Development". August 2003. http://www.you.com.au/news/2005.htm. Retrieved 2006-03-14. 
  47. ^ Quicklaunch website
  48. ^ O'Neill, Gerard K., "The High Frontier, Human Colonies in Space", ISBN 0-688-03133-1, P.57
  49. ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgrdAUFFMrA
  50. ^ General Dynamics Convair Division (1979) (PDF). Lunar Resources Utilization for Space Construction. GDC-ASP79-001. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19830077470_1983077470.pdf. 
  51. ^ O'Neill, Gerard K.; Driggers, G.; and O'Leary, B.: New Routes to Manufacturing in Space. Astronautics and Aeronautics, vol. 18, October 1980, pp. 46-51.Several scenarios for the buildup of industry in space are described. One scenario involves a manufacturing facility, manned by a crew of three, entirely on the lunar surface. Another scenario involves a fully automated manufacturing facility, remotely supervised from the earth, with provision for occasional visits by repair crews. A third case involves a manned facility on the Moon for operating a mass-driver launcher to transport lunar materials to a collection point in space and for replicating mass-drivers.
  52. ^ Pearson, Jerome; Eugene Levin, John Oldson and Harry Wykes (2005). Lunar Space Elevators for Cislunar Space Development Phase I Final Technical Report (PDF).
  53. ^ Institute for Space Systems Operations (ISSO)
  54. ^ Criswell - Publications and Abstracts
  55. ^ http://www.moonbase-italia.org/PAPERS/D1S2-MB%20Assessment/D2S2-06EnergySupport/D2S2-06EnergySupport.Criswell.pdf
  56. ^ http://www.cam.uh.edu/SpaRC/ISRU%202p%20v1%20022007.pdf
  57. ^ http://lunarscience.arc.nasa.gov/articles/the-luna-ring-concept
  58. ^ http://ssi.org/ssi-conference-abstracts/space-manufacturing-8/
  59. ^ Space Resources, NASA SP-509, Vol 1.
  60. ^ http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/spaceres/IV-2.html
  61. ^ Hanley., G.M.. .. "Satellite Concept Power Systems (SPS) Definition Study" (PDF). NASA CR 3317, Sept 1980. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19800022396_1980022396.pdf. 
  62. ^ Radiofrequency and Microwave Radiation Standards interpretation of General Industry (29 CFR 1910) 1910 Subpart G, Occupational Health and Environmental Control 1910.97, Non-ionizing radiation.
  63. ^ 2081 A Hopeful View of the Human Future, by Gerard K. O'Neill, ISBN 0-671-24257-1, P. 182-183
  64. ^ IEEE, 01149129.pdf
  65. ^ a b IEEE Article No: 602864, Automatic Beam Steered Antenna Receiver — Microwave
  66. ^ Environmental Effects - the SPS Microwave Beam
  67. ^ "Solar power satellite offshore rectenna study", Final Report Rice Univ., Houston, TX., 11/1980, Abstract: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ruht.reptT.....
  68. ^ Freeman, et al., J. W.; .. "Offshore rectenna feasbility". In NASA, Washington the Final Proc. of the Solar Power Satellite Program Rev. p 348-351 (SEE N82-22676 13-44). Bibcode 1980spsp.nasa..348F. 
  69. ^ http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/solarsat.html
  70. ^ Beam it Down, Scotty! Mar, 2001 from Science@NASA
  71. ^ Report: Japan Developing Satellite That Would Beam Back Solar Power
  72. ^ Presentation of relevant technical background with diagrams: http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/conceptual_study_of_a_solar_power_satellite_sps_2000.shtml
  73. ^ http://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/nrg/op/SPS/History.htm
  74. ^ National Security Space Office Interim Assessment Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study, October 10, 2007
  75. ^ Terrestrial Energy Generation Based on Space Solar Power: A Feasible Concept or Fantasy? Date: May 14–16, 2007; Location: MIT, Cambridge MA
  76. ^ Sweet, Cassandra (April 13, 2009,). "UPDATE: PG&E Looks To Outer Space For Solar Power (broken link)". The Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090413-710658.html. Retrieved 2009-04-14. 
  77. ^ Marshall, Jonathan (April 13, 2009). "Space Solar Power: The Next Frontier?". Next 100. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). http://www.next100.com/2009/04/space-solar-power-the-next-fro.php. Retrieved 2009-04-14. 
  78. ^ "Utility to buy orbit-generated electricity from Solaren in 2016, at no risk". MSNBC. April 13, 2009. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30198977/. Retrieved 2009-04-15. 
  79. ^ http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aJ529lsdk9HI
  80. ^ http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/09/japan-space-based-solar-power-satellite-21-billions.php
  81. ^ http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/20/0149254
  82. ^ Japan to Beam Solar Power from Space on Lasers, Fox News, November 9, 2009, http://green.foxnews.com/2009/11/09/japan-to-beam-solar-power-from-space-on-lasers/ 
  83. ^ European space company wants solar power plant in space, PhysOrg.com, January 21, 2010, http://www.physorg.com/news183278937.html 
  84. ^ EADS Astrium develops space power concept, BBC, January 19, 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8467472.stm 
  85. ^ STRATFOR's founder and CEO discusses the push for space-based energy infrastructure (Video), STRATFOR, January 22, 2010, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXRJA7BZmP0 
  86. ^ Energy from space - made by Astrium, EADS Astrium, November 25, 2010, http://www.astrium.eads.net/node.php?articleid=6096 
  87. ^ Special Session list, IEEE International Symposium on Antennas and Propagation, April 20, 2010, http://www.apsursi2010.org/?m=page&id=47 

External links

Videos

Space-based solar power
Technologies involved
Concepts
Photovoltaic system
Solar cells
System components
System concepts
Applications
Appliances
Land transport
Air transport
Water transport
Solar vehicle racing
Generation systems
By country
PV companies
Category ·  Commons