Comments on: The Space Elevator and Solar Power Satellites (SPS) http://www.spaceelevatorblog.com/?p=622 For scalable, inexpensive access to space... Thu, 09 Sep 2010 23:35:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: EuroSpaceward Conference - and the future of Space Elevator Development - The Space Elevator Blog http://www.spaceelevatorblog.com/?p=622#comment-341335 EuroSpaceward Conference - and the future of Space Elevator Development - The Space Elevator Blog Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:30:45 +0000 http://www.spaceelevatorblog.com/?p=622#comment-341335 [...] In addition, I’m going to take another look at Space Solar Power (though I’m very dubious that this can work on a commercial scale) and finally see if there is any possibility that a Space [...] […] In addition, I’m going to take another look at Space Solar Power (though I’m very dubious that this can work on a commercial scale) and finally see if there is any possibility that a Space […]

]]> By: Hiro Hara http://www.spaceelevatorblog.com/?p=622#comment-332747 Hiro Hara Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:27:37 +0000 http://www.spaceelevatorblog.com/?p=622#comment-332747 Your calculation should be changed! The new concepts (I have two variations) will dramatically reduce the weight of SPS. Probably in the order of magnitude or two. When you published this in 2006, 2007, it was correct. We were more inclined to put SPS up in the sky from moon manufacturing plant. But the situation has been changing. Two possibilities. 1. Thin Film Technology High performance thin film solar arrays has been reducing the cost of ground solar. Roll-up of these modules can be stretched in the space miles long for solar collection. The cost of solar films has come down and will continue to come down. On the ground, installation takes more cost than modules. Remember, SPS is inherently more efficient than ground, about ten times, because of its independence to the angle of the sun, weather, time of the day. The strength of sun. 2. Foil type thin film mirrors and high efficiency central cells. Light weight thin film parabolic concentrator is the key. In space, there is no need for structural support. Only thing is that each rather large modules has to be able to avoid inter-celestial debris. Or it may be such that the thin film replacement and repair is going to be much simpler than repairing the structural body. It is becoming doable. Your calculation should be changed! The new concepts (I have two variations) will dramatically reduce the weight of SPS. Probably in the order of magnitude or two. When you published this in 2006, 2007, it was correct. We were more inclined to put SPS up in the sky from moon manufacturing plant. But the situation has been changing. Two possibilities.

1. Thin Film Technology
High performance thin film solar arrays has been reducing the cost of ground solar. Roll-up of these modules can be stretched in the space miles long for solar collection. The cost of solar films has come down and will continue to come down. On the ground, installation takes more cost than modules. Remember, SPS is inherently more efficient than ground, about ten times, because of its independence to the angle of the sun, weather, time of the day. The strength of sun.

2. Foil type thin film mirrors and high efficiency central cells.
Light weight thin film parabolic concentrator is the key.

In space, there is no need for structural support. Only thing is that each rather large modules has to be able to avoid inter-celestial debris. Or it may be such that the thin film replacement and repair is going to be much simpler than repairing the structural body.

It is becoming doable.

]]> By: Solar Power Morgane http://www.spaceelevatorblog.com/?p=622#comment-306931 Solar Power Morgane Fri, 11 Sep 2009 04:39:09 +0000 http://www.spaceelevatorblog.com/?p=622#comment-306931 Solar power is a great way to reduce your environmental impact and save money on your electricity bill Solar power is a great way to reduce your environmental impact and save money on your electricity bill

]]> By: Royce http://www.spaceelevatorblog.com/?p=622#comment-291479 Royce Thu, 06 Aug 2009 13:27:56 +0000 http://www.spaceelevatorblog.com/?p=622#comment-291479 I aggree with Jasper. The solution is solar thermal not solar photovoltaic. Solar thermal requires much less mass to orbit. Solar thermal satellites placed in LEO could be 75% smaller = 75% less mass to take up due to transmission distance reduction verse GEO concepts. They could also be serviced in orbit as needed. Royce I aggree with Jasper. The solution is solar thermal not solar photovoltaic. Solar thermal requires much less mass to orbit. Solar thermal satellites placed in LEO could be 75% smaller = 75% less mass to take up due to transmission distance reduction verse GEO concepts. They could also be serviced in orbit as needed.

Royce

]]> By: Miscellaneous updates - 2 - The Space Elevator Blog http://www.spaceelevatorblog.com/?p=622#comment-284892 Miscellaneous updates - 2 - The Space Elevator Blog Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:17:41 +0000 http://www.spaceelevatorblog.com/?p=622#comment-284892 [...] but alas, the writer didn’t supply his opinion of what this number should be.  I’ve written before about my skepticism about the practicality of SBSP and gave my numbers [...] […] but alas, the writer didn’t supply his opinion of what this number should be.  I’ve written before about my skepticism about the practicality of SBSP and gave my numbers […]

]]> By: “Space elevators needed for space solar power?” - The Space Elevator Blog http://www.spaceelevatorblog.com/?p=622#comment-225883 “Space elevators needed for space solar power?” - The Space Elevator Blog Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:36:27 +0000 http://www.spaceelevatorblog.com/?p=622#comment-225883 [...] readers know that I’m personally skeptical of Space Solar Power (SSP) ever being more than a niche-application provider of [...] […] readers know that I’m personally skeptical of Space Solar Power (SSP) ever being more than a niche-application provider of […]

]]> By: 2008SEC - Day 2 - Eating crow? - The Space Elevator Blog http://www.spaceelevatorblog.com/?p=622#comment-146875 2008SEC - Day 2 - Eating crow? - The Space Elevator Blog Sun, 20 Jul 2008 04:57:26 +0000 http://www.spaceelevatorblog.com/?p=622#comment-146875 [...] (SPS).  I’ve had some ‘really smart people’ look over the calculations I put on my blog last year, and I think they’ve found a significant mistake.  I’ve got some more [...] […] (SPS).  I’ve had some ‘really smart people’ look over the calculations I put on my blog last year, and I think they’ve found a significant mistake.  I’ve got some more […]

]]> By: Ted Semon http://www.spaceelevatorblog.com/?p=622#comment-135773 Ted Semon Tue, 24 Jun 2008 03:53:37 +0000 http://www.spaceelevatorblog.com/?p=622#comment-135773 CNC - you are correct, I'm only considering stuff lifted from earth. I don't think anything else is going to be feasible for a long time... CNC - you are correct, I’m only considering stuff lifted from earth. I don’t think anything else is going to be feasible for a long time…

]]> By: Catfish N. Cod http://www.spaceelevatorblog.com/?p=622#comment-134529 Catfish N. Cod Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:58:20 +0000 http://www.spaceelevatorblog.com/?p=622#comment-134529 Your numbers fail to account for the possibility of building the SPS's, or components thereof, in places other than the Earth. Earth has the deepest energy well of any non-gaseous body in the Solar System -- significantly deeper than any other body except Venus. Any economically competent space system should be designed to lift as little as possible from the homeworld. However, your analysis highlights the onworld:offworld mass ratios that would have to be achieved to make SPS a significant portion of Earth's generating capacity... and they are impressive! Your numbers fail to account for the possibility of building the SPS’s, or components thereof, in places other than the Earth. Earth has the deepest energy well of any non-gaseous body in the Solar System — significantly deeper than any other body except Venus. Any economically competent space system should be designed to lift as little as possible from the homeworld.

However, your analysis highlights the onworld:offworld mass ratios that would have to be achieved to make SPS a significant portion of Earth’s generating capacity… and they are impressive!

]]> By: ISDC2008 Wrap-up - The Space Elevator Blog http://www.spaceelevatorblog.com/?p=622#comment-127220 ISDC2008 Wrap-up - The Space Elevator Blog Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:13:22 +0000 http://www.spaceelevatorblog.com/?p=622#comment-127220 [...] thing I was disappointed in was the heavy emphasis on SPS (Solar Power Satellites).  As I’ve written before, I think that anyone who believes that SPS will EVER generate a significant portion of [...] […] thing I was disappointed in was the heavy emphasis on SPS (Solar Power Satellites).  As I’ve written before, I think that anyone who believes that SPS will EVER generate a significant portion of […]

]]>