Solar Power Satellites

[Rhyshaelkan]

So I was doing some figuring.

With the world consumption of electricity in 2007 at a whopping 17.13 trillion kW h/yr(from the CIA World factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2042.html?countryCode=xx&rankAnchorRow=#xx)).

Divide that in half for, political/economic stubbornness, undeveloped infrastructure, what-have-you.

Not taking into account the 85% transmission efficiency. We are left with a possible market, which will only rise, of 8.565 Trillion kW h/yr demand.

If you could sell SPSs at 4B USD per giga-watt you are looking at a possible market of.

10 gW SPS = 87600 gW h/yr

World demand 8565000 gW h/yr

World demand of 98 10 gW SPS @ 40B USD each = 3.92 trillion USD industry + a small maintenance fee per year for replacing worn-out(solar radiation damage) or damaged(micro-meteorites) sections.

If industry in space, either from asteroidal or lunar materials, were to reach a decent level. SPS farms could be a decent investment. Launching said structures from Earth would be the wrong way to go about it.

Naturally this is very glossed over. I just put it here to talk about possibilities.

[joertexas]

So I was doing some figuring.

With the world consumption of electricity in 2007 at a whopping 17.13 trillion kW h/yr(from the CIA World factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2042.html?countryCode=xx&rankAnchorRow=#xx)).

Divide that in half for, political/economic stubbornness, undeveloped infrastructure, what-have-you.

Not taking into account the 85% transmission efficiency. We are left with a possible market, which will only rise, of 8.565 Trillion kW h/yr demand.

If you could sell SPSs at 4B USD per giga-watt you are looking at a possible market of.

10 gW SPS = 87600 gW h/yr

World demand 8565000 gW h/yr

World demand of 98 10 gW SPS @ 40B USD each = 3.92 trillion USD industry + a small maintenance fee per year for replacing worn-out(solar radiation damage) or damaged(micro-meteorites) sections.

If industry in space, either from asteroidal or lunar materials, were to reach a decent level. SPS farms could be a decent investment. Launching said structures from Earth would be the wrong way to go about it.

Naturally this is very glossed over. I just put it here to talk about possibilities.

Yep. Whomever invests in this industry will end up richer than the top three on the Forbes list combined...

JR

[Phenix]

In the short term, from the two distincts energy markets (Earth and Space), would the Space market be more profitable than Earth market or in the contrary would the Earth market be more profitable than the Space market ?

[joertexas]

In the short term, from the two distincts energy markets (Earth and Space), would the Space market be more profitable than Earth market or in the contrary would the Earth market be more profitable than the Space market ?

I think the space market will eventually catch up as the relevant groundside installations are built in more and more market areas.

JR

[Rhyshaelkan]

A nice vid on SBSP.

AHVWM_WEUZE

And another

4TYhYrnKd5Y




I will see if I can change the BBcode so you can adjust the vid settings to have a larger window.

[moonus111]

SPS is the most relevant issue when it comes to space today, yet the most under-marketed idea. It can provide enough energy to go around. It is very sad that it is not a mainstream issue today, because it has the potential to solve many of the major problems that are debated hotly today.

The way to mitigate high launch costs is to use lunar manufactured solar panels. This will establish a lunar economy. The trade could likely be fertilizer for solar panels, given that energy/material is abundant on the moon. However, the moon lacks life, fixed nitrogen, hydrogen, and carbon. So it's the classical economic scenario...

SPS is gaining a foothold, all of my efforts are going to be about promoting awareness of the idea.

side note:
The classical method of fixing the economy has been giant engineering projects that everyone can benefit from (e.g. Hoover Dam). Imagine if the next president gets this idea in his head... and implements an immediate plan to make SPS a reality. The moon and other NEO's are just within grasp then...

[Rhyshaelkan]

Personally I would rather a private group like PERMANENT be the ones to usher in the future. Instead of governments.

I would be happy to see it regardless.

[moonus111]

agreed, but I'll take what scraps I can get.

[joertexas]

http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/2004-NASA-ReinventingTheSolarPowerSatellite.pdf

Good article..

JR

[Sam Fraser]

And this just in:

Study: Mass adoption of E[lectric] V[ehicle]s in China will lead to tremendously higher [greenhouse gas] emissions

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/05/30/study-mass-adoption-of-evs-in-china-will-lead-to-tremendously-h/

Not if the extra power comes from SPS. (No one say "Or nuclear". You're NOT helping! :mad: :p)

[JohnHunt]

> Personally I would rather a private group like PERMANENT be the ones to usher in the future. Instead of governments.

The reality is that we need government money in the near-term to realize our goals. SpaceX is a classic example. About half of the money they have spent so far has been from NASA. Would SpaceX have been willing to invest as much of their own money if the initial "NASA market" hadn't existed. And if NASA goes with SpaceX for commercial crew then, after SpaceX will be so established and will have developed new, strictly commercial markets (e.g. transporting to a Bigelow hotel) that government funding would no long be needed.

What's needed now is for NASA to drop Constellation, but instead, replace it with a program to incentivize private companies to commercially develop lunar resources. The benefits would be at least twofold:
1) NASA gets infrastructure for future non-profitable missions such as humans-to-Mars.
2) US companies develop and own the cis-lunar market

By NASA getting us over the initial economic hump, we all get to a win-win situation.

[Sam Fraser]

The idea of PERMANENT isn't to further US interests in space. It's foreseen as private, international and non-governmental. Undoubtedly, the US government through NASA is the only major player right now. However, they should be considered more like an anchor tenant in a new office development: others will soon come. Who knows, Taiwan might want its own orbital research lab or a Saudi prince might want his own space yacht. "USA! USA!" will be a turn off to anyone who's not American.

[joertexas]

The idea of PERMANENT isn't to further US interests in space. It's foreseen as private, international and non-governmental. Undoubtedly, the US government through NASA is the only major player right now. However, they should be considered more like an anchor tenant in a new office development: others will soon come. Who knows, Taiwan might want its own orbital research lab or a Saudi prince might want his own space yacht. "USA! USA!" will be a turn off to anyone who's not American.

You may have to keep reminding us Americans that there are several billion people who aren't Americans out there :D

Speaking of Taiwan, I see that SpaceX has won a contract to launch a Taiwanese satellite.

JR

[joertexas]

> Personally I would rather a private group like PERMANENT be the ones to usher in the future. Instead of governments.

The reality is that we need government money in the near-term to realize our goals. SpaceX is a classic example. About half of the money they have spent so far has been from NASA. Would SpaceX have been willing to invest as much of their own money if the initial "NASA market" hadn't existed. And if NASA goes with SpaceX for commercial crew then, after SpaceX will be so established and will have developed new, strictly commercial markets (e.g. transporting to a Bigelow hotel) that government funding would no long be needed.

What's needed now is for NASA to drop Constellation, but instead, replace it with a program to incentivize private companies to commercially develop lunar resources. The benefits would be at least twofold:
1) NASA gets infrastructure for future non-profitable missions such as humans-to-Mars.
2) US companies develop and own the cis-lunar market

By NASA getting us over the initial economic hump, we all get to a win-win situation.

At this point, I think this is precisely the situation that exists. NASA is finally getting the Shuttle program wrapped up, and now SpaceX, and others, can move forward with developing man rated launchers.

JR

[JohnHunt]

At this point, I think this is precisely the situation that exists. NASA is finally getting the Shuttle program wrapped up, and now SpaceX, and others, can move forward with developing man rated launchers.

Well, yes and no. All that we have right now for sure is commercial cargo to LEO. I believe that humans to LEO has not yet been approved although Bush had that as an option. At present, this is as far as it goes for NASA funding of commercial companies. Now, Obama's cancellation of Ares I makes it look like he's going to approve SpaceX, et al to build escape towers and man-rate their launchers. In his speech he didn't explicitly say that companies will send people to LEO but it would be hard to interpret it any other way.

Some have said, for instance, that this plan gives up our leadership in space by failing to produce plans within NASA to reach low Earth orbit, instead of relying on companies and other countries. But we will actually reach space faster and more often under this new plan, in ways that will help us improve our technological capacity and lower our costs, which are both essential for the long-term sustainability of space flight. In fact, through our plan, we'll be sending many more astronauts to space over the next decade.

What we also have (from Obama) is the vision to send humans to an asteroid and a martian moon. However, these are "bootprint and flag" exercises with apparently no attempt to leverage this for commercial value. It is unclear if his phrase "investing in groundbreaking research" means anything with lasting commercial value.

What's explicitly missing, but very critical, is for NASA funding to facilitate the commercial development of the cis-lunar market -- specifically the exploitation of lunar ice and its transport to LEO. I'd give it a less than 50-50 chance that he'll go in this direction especially when his view of the Moon is that "we've already been there". This statement is bereft of an understanding of the commercial value of the Moon.

I believe that it is at this point that we can make a critical difference. Obama's proposed changes have created a lot of opposition from any number of quarters. Yes, his few argue with his underlying rationale that the entire Constellation program is behind budget and schedule and that commercial companies can do better. But instead of it being an argument over "Constellation - yes or no" rather, we need to help people start thinking like this, "OK. So Constellation itself was unsustainable and yes, it is looking like SpaceX, et al will be able to do it faster and cheaper. So...why not keep the goals of Constellation (i.e. the VSE) but use commercial companies to achieve the goals while adding to the VSE to include that the path needs to open up commercial markets along the way."

But, transporting lunar water ice to LEO would accomplish several things:
- facilitate any further NASA objective beyond LEO,
- ensure that US companies are in the lead when it comes to the emerging cis-lunar market,
- open up remarkable possibilities in LEO, MEO, and GEO such as fuel depots, space hotels, very large GEO communications satellites and Solar Power Satellites.
- open up the Moon itself for mining, tourism, and colonization.
- It is also the quickest way to ensure that humanity has a sustainable colony off the Earth's surface.

[moonus111]

I don't mean to be an ass, but we've only got 2 more years with this guy. I doubt any of these policies are worth arguing over. Cast our metal to be flexible, this continuous bending is losing footing for our cause(s). It's fairly obvious the guy has zero understanding, but he has a message. Let the guy turn the ship, but as the analogy goes someone else may come along to turn it back. Wherever it goes we must have a consistent message rather than to bend to the political wind. He has a good concept, of opening space to the private sector, but 2 years is no time frame to fret about. Make plans today based on this market, and we'll fail.

[Sam Fraser]

I doubt Barack Obama has any "vision" about space. Like most presidents, he relies mostly on advisors for new policy. Even JFK was reportedly indifferent about space personally, despite his grand speeches and the Apollo program. And there's always a need for a new president to put his mark on NASA. The poor agency must get sick of being jerked around every 4 years! It's just a relief Obama had some advisors open to commercialising LEO. NASA's budget could've been gutted to narrow the historic budget deficit. Instead, this new policy will cause a paradigm shift in the way at least some of the public think about space. It won't be so far out anymore to suggest private missions to the moon and NEOs if private companies are already moving cargo and people to and from LEO.

[Sam Fraser]

Some recent analysis and numbers on SPS economics assuming sub-$5000/kg launch costs:

http://crowlspace.com/?p=882

BTW, anyone know who this John Hunt character is? Sounds like our kind of guy. ;-)

[joertexas]

Some recent analysis and numbers on SPS economics assuming sub-$5000/kg launch costs:

http://crowlspace.com/?p=882

BTW, anyone know who this John Hunt character is? Sounds like our kind of guy. ;-)

I'm glad he's on our team - or we're on his - or something like that ;)

JR

[Doug]

How much does a Natural Gas or Coal power plant cost to produce 10GW of power, you need to figure in the cost of the coal an natural gas too. And how long does it take to build?

What are the maintenance costs for a 20 year life cycle? Solar power vs Earth based power? How big of a footprint is needed for a power station and the solar power receiver area per plant?

Like the Hoover dam this will costs so much that the government needs to be involved in the financing and building. Have the power companies pay back the government cost plus 20% for footing the bill by allowing 25% of the money made per year to be paid back to the government, after that the profits are the power company's.
:rolleyes:

[JohnHunt]

> BTW, anyone know who this John Hunt character is? Sounds like our kind of guy. ;-)

Umm...I've now got 96 posts on this bulletin board, so I've been hiding in plain sight for quite some time now! ;)

[Sam Fraser]

Pssssst. John? I was joking. Hence the winkie. ;-) At least Joe got it . :)

[JohnHunt]

Ahhh.... Silly me! :o

[joertexas]

Ahhh.... Silly me! :o

Oooh, you mean I got something before someone else? Gee, I feel so... brilliant now :D

JR

[joertexas]

How much does a Natural Gas or Coal power plant cost to produce 10GW of power, you need to figure in the cost of the coal an natural gas too. And how long does it take to build?

What are the maintenance costs for a 20 year life cycle? Solar power vs Earth based power? How big of a footprint is needed for a power station and the solar power receiver area per plant?

Like the Hoover dam this will costs so much that the government needs to be involved in the financing and building. Have the power companies pay back the government cost plus 20% for footing the bill by allowing 25% of the money made per year to be paid back to the government, after that the profits are the power company's.
:rolleyes:

I don't know any of the answers to the above questions,but it'd sure help if you could research it and find out.

I'm tied up with the design process for a lunar lander and its associated equipment, but maybe someone else here is willing to help here.

Anyone?

JR

[JohnHunt]

Here is a NewSpace 2010 debate (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTdJw30Pg4Q&feature=channel) about the economic viability of space-based solar power. I tend to lean with the skeptics.

[Sam Fraser]

Uneconomic compared to what? (http://www.forumlog.com/nanobiotechnologyspace/showthread.php?t=397) And here's another US$250 billion wasted every year (http://globalfoodforthought.typepad.com/global-food-for-thought/2010/07/oecd-countries-raised-farm-subsidies-in-2009.html).

[Rhyshaelkan]

Nuclear could have made electricity too cheap to meter. But after Three Mile Island. They did not build any more reactors. They shot themselves in the foot over that.

The main detractor for most SBSP plans is the fact that they are launching everything from Earth. They leave out building from Luna.

And it is true, there is no industry on Luna today. However getting off Earth is the goal for many space groups. And elsewhere on this forum we have underlined the reason for going to Luna first as opposed to Mars or asteroids.

The great thing about SBSP in my book. To make SBSP happen, we will get lunar industry as a byproduct. Including human habitation.

Space can be done cheaper. But even if it cannot be done cheaper, we still want to get out there.

I wont get into the economy. There are deeper issues there that will never be rectified.

[Sam Fraser]

Quite right, Rhy. And much/most of the cost of lunar-derived SBSP is creating the initial space transportation and lunar infrastructure. Apart from massive direct and indirect subsidies already cited, energy projects on Earth are "economic" because the ports, railroads/roads and power grid are already there to use. And SBSP is part of a bigger picture.

So, John, if you tend to be sceptical about SBSP, what do you see as the economic enabler to a spacefaring civilisation and space economy that isn't reliant on massive government subsidies and programs like NASA or a pointless manned Mars mission? I can't see lunar fuel or asteroid mining providing a relatively large "near-term" (within 10 years) ROI that SBSP could deliver.

[moonus111]

The great thing about SBSP in my book. To make SBSP happen, we will get lunar industry as a byproduct. Including human habitation.


Lunar industries first byproduct is SBPS, then transportation infrastructure, then a list that goes on for days....

Luna will be the Detroit of the future!

[JohnHunt]

> Uneconomic compared to what?

It must always be compared to the least expensive form of electricity generation at the time. The cheapest form of electricity will change over time. For quite some time it will probably be coal vs natural gas vs nuclear (meaning fission). I'm not counting hydroelectric since the quantity is largely static (I believe). Then, there'll probably be a period when it will either be wind versus fusion vs engineered biofuels vs terrestrial solar as photovoltaics come down. Eventually it could be SBSP. But I wouldn't be surprised if SBSP didn't become the cheapest form of electricity until late in this century. By that point lunar industry will be scaled enough to dramatically reduce launch costs even below whatever CATS is worked out from Earth. I agree that the fastest way to make SBSP the cheapest form of electricity would be to first develop industry on the Moon.

> what do you see as the economic enabler to a spacefaring civilisation and space economy that isn't reliant on massive government subsidies and programs like NASA

Let me use SpaceX as an illustration. Is their development of the Falcon 9 economically viable? Without NASA's investment maybe not. But NASA can be considered to be a customer and so that "market" is there even though it is not a free market. But with NASA's investment SpaceX was able to secure the largest space contract ever offered which means that it didn't take much NASA investment in order to make SpaceX economically viable.

Likewise, when it comes to the commercial development of Luna, I believe that the initial "market" will likewise be NASA's purchase of lunar-derived rocket fuel from water ice. Given that we've had NASA as a multi-billion dollar customer for 50 years, I imagine that it will continue to be a steady customer for lunar ice-derived ice fuel for a very long time.

But, once the cis-lunar transportation infrastructure was established for the NASA "market" then it will be fairly cheap to provide rocket fuel to LEO for true markets. I would imagine that a space tug to take very large satellites from LEO to GEO would be a sizable market.

With routine experience landing lunar landers on the Moon, and with cheaper access to LEO, and with LEO-based hotels, I would imagine that a Moon hotel would logically follow.

With routine mining of water ice on the Moon and bringing it back to LEO, then I would imagine that mining of metals on the Moon and bringing them back to LEO would be very doable. At that point you've got the potential for large LEO and GEO satellites, large LEO hotels, and the potential for delivery of the bulkier parts of interplanetary rockets. Transport to LEO would then involve only people and small, high-tech parts.

Now, specifically you ask about short-term RoI. In the video, the skeptics are very skeptical about the ability for SBSP to achieve short-term RoI. They say that 30 years RoI would be unlikely. For the Moon, the immediate short-term RoI would be (I am guessing) lunar rock collectibles. It is worth about $1,000 per gm or $1,000,000 per kg. You could pull off about a dozen such missions before you saturate the market. But by then you would have earned enough profit to fund 50+ missions. With that many missions one ought to be able to extract and return increasingly large amounts of lunar-derived water for rocket fuel.

Now admittedly, there are plenty of details to work out so I say the above only tentatively. But I think that Spudis and others have probably a similar path in mind and it is not so crazy.

> Lunar industries first byproduct is SBPS, then transportation infrastructure

I'm confused, In order to produce SBPS from lunar materials you have to have a transportation infrastructure. Transportation comes first.

[Sam Fraser]

First of all, John, it's good to have someone advance sceptical arguments or at least play Devil's advocate.

My hit-and-run answer before I go to bed is other "cheap" fossil fuel energy sources are clearly not that cheap if you factor in over half a trillion dollars of direct and indirect subsidies a year. Negative externalities like pollution have to be included as well. For example, coal is dirt cheap (pun intended) but one analysis compares it to two Chernobyls a week (http://nextbigfuture.com/2006/10/coal-chernobyl-twice-week-and-coal-9.html). We have to discuss the total cost, not the market price, of terrestrial energy sources when comparing to SBSP.

[moonus111]

If we get established facilities on the moon, and nasa is the only market, I'm not a space advocate anymore. That message of explore, and nothing else is to much for me to handle. It's why we're not up there now, they keep blowing the money on exploration and economic considerations are shot.

[JohnHunt]

If we get established facilities on the moon, and nasa is the only market, I'm not a space advocate anymore

This isn't what I said at all. If that were the case then I would agree with you. But in my previous post on this thread I used the illustration of SpaceX and how NASA supported a company which is already demonstrating economically sustainable space development in the form of its various contracts with various countries and companies including the huge Iridium deal.

So, the question is, if NASA helps commercial companies develop the capacity to bring lunar-derived water for fuel to LEO then will that fuel find a commercial market which will sustain operations?

Clearly, there is a commercial market for fuel in LEO as commercial GEO sats need fuel to get from LEO to GEO. The big question is, if commercial companies get to the point of bringing water fuel to LEO, will that fuel be more or less expensive than fuel brought up from the Earth's surface. If the answer is that it would be more expensive then the only possible customer for that fuel would be NASA and maybe not even them. But if it is less expensive (especially if it is a lot less expensive) then this changes everything.

I'm guessing that lunar water to LEO would be the major mid-term lunar resource. If the transportation system were to be set up for lunar water to LEO, then I would imagine that the ability to extract and transport lunar metals to LEO wouldn't cost all that much more. At that point SBPSs, huge orbital hotels, and large fueled craft to Mars would be within reach.

I think that it all begins with figuring out the least expensive way to bring lunar water ice back to LEO.

[JohnHunt]

I don't want to be too skeptical about solar power but just consider the first line in Wikipedia's article on solar power in the United States

Solar power in the United States accounted for less than 0.1% of the county's electricity generation in 2006

And I presume that much of even that only exists due to subsidies. So if it is so unprofitable on Earth, I am going to be hesitant about how economically feasible it will be in space. It think that it has got a lot of maturing to do.

Now, I certainly understand that SBSP is 24/7 unlike terresterial-based. So that would double the value. You could beam it to markets at peak load times. I think that this could increase the value by about 3-fold. There are no clouds in space so that would increase efficiency say an additional 30%. Power can be beamed to rural places like Africa and deployed military facilities. But, compared to connected urban consumers, I am imagining that this would only increase the value 20% at most.

So SBSP might be about 7 times more cost effective than terresterial-based. But at $500/kg for transportation costs (http://www.quarkweb.com/nqc/lib/gencoll/leocheap_ch9.htm), it could be far more expensive to set up and maintain than terresterial-based solar plants. I think that it ultimately comes down to launch costs and/or lunar-derived resources.

Now Sam mentions the other costs besides the straight market costs and certainly these should be part of the consideration. The actual extra-market costs is what matters, IMO, rather than the perceived or promoted extra-market costs.

By this I mean that we can be concerned about global warming for example. But as with the failure of Copenhagen demonstrates, the fear needs to be based upon reality rather than predictions of disaster. Why was China not willing to do much at Copenhagen. It is because they believed that presently, they get more benefit from their coal than harm from their coal. But, if global-warming typhoons were causing hundreds of billions of dollars of damage in China each year such that their economy was declining by 10% rather than growing by 10% then they would care about global warming enough to make major changes.

But straight-market calculations are, IMO, much easier to calculate and predict. If a way can be figured as to how SBSP can be made to cost less per kW without subsidies then that is a compelling argument for SBSP because it's cheaper and there are no downsides so we would predict that the market would go for it and it would take over a large percentage of the electricity used.

[moonus111]

I'll expound upon what I meant. I was trying to simplify the whole debate on colonization vs exploration into once sentence. NASA so far has set the topic in a wholly lopsided debate. Money goes for exploration, that returns small economic benefits to humanity. Mention the C word to any NASA personnel and your likely to get a frown.

If economic sustainability is defined as getting government contracts to develop resources that ultimately further exploration, rather than anything that returns assets to the worlds economy, then there's no real point in getting humanity into space. It will not solve problems in a meaningful way, and people will advocate that the whole business be shut down. It's the reason NASA gets so little funding, they don't return assets to the people. Imagine if Lewis & Clarke spent 50 years traipsing around in the wilderness asking for money. Imagine if Spain sent ships to the new world to "observe".

I think you're right, a transportation infrastructure is necessary. Simply to build a facility and maintain it requires such an infrastructure. IMO I'm not a fan of the "water on the moon" thing, I just don't think it will happen... that's an opinion though, not a fact.

When it comes to SBSP, there is a reason that it has been through cycles of popularity. It has waxed and waned with the worlds concerns about energy. Today the worlds concerns for energy are waxing at an incredibly higher rate than before. It's not a question of if it is financially viable to do, it's a question of making it financially viable. The moon simply has the means to help, so it's a stepping stone. Since there's practically infinite green energy up there, lets grab a big several terawatt chunk of it! Space advocates have been waiting for decades for this opportunity.

As a side note, the Chinese are concerned about going to the moon for the very reason that it has massive energy reserves.

damn it's hot out right now.

[Sam Fraser]

http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/SSP03-350.jpg

International Space Solar Power Symposium, May 2011 - Video Presentations:

http://www.nss.org/resources/library/videos/2011SSPsymposium.html

[Sam Fraser]

n5lBD9trmI8&

http://www.nss.org/resources/library/videos/SSPcovey.html

Stephen D. Covey argue[s] for a purely commercial venture to capture the asteroid 99942 Apophis, mine it for metals, silicon and oxygen, build Solar Power Satellites (SPS) and sell the power to utility companies on Earth. An initial capital base of $30 Billion would be required. But by the end of the sixth or seventh year of operation the enterprise would be at break even, and eventually generate $20 Billion per year in revenue.

At the end of eight years, 15 Solar Power Satellites would be in operation generating $20 Billion per year in revenue. And only 10% of the asteroid would have been processed. A total of 150 SPSs could be manufactured before another asteroid was needed.

The end result of this initial eight-year plan would be:

1. A fully shielded (3 meters of slag from the mining operation) habitat for 8,000 people.

2. Space based factory capable of producing 8 SPSs per year.

3. Space infrastructure created by commercial space companies to support the operations.

4. 3-4% of Earth’s electrical needs supplied by Space based Solar Power

At the end of production, with 150 Satellites in operation, more than a third of Earth’s electrical needs would be supplied by Space Based Solar Power.

See also:

Technologies for Asteroid Capture into Earth Orbit

http://www.nss.org/settlement/asteroids/capture.html

Stephen Covey's blog:

http://ramblingsonthefutureofhumanity.blogspot.com

[Rhyshaelkan]

Continued from the WISE asteroid thread.

A constellation of powersats could also serve as protection from inbound asteroids and comets. With each powersat built to supply 10 gigawatts, those with line of site to the inbound missile could pour their power into the target. Stony asteroids might shatter, comets would have large chunks vaporised, metal asteroids might be melted.

[sgeos]

Stephen D. Covey argue[s] for a purely commercial venture to capture the asteroid 99942 Apophis, mine it for metals, silicon and oxygen, build Solar Power Satellites (SPS) and sell the power to utility companies on Earth.
Very interesting presentation. His work seems well thought out to me. The ROI feels like it is about right, given the risk involved. That is not to say I expect $30 billion to be immediately forthcoming.

[JohnHunt]

Yes, a very good presentation. I appreciate you bringing it to our attention.

Well, I am being swayed here. I previously was thinking about the costs and RoI based upon having to launch everything from Earth's deep gravity well. My first impression is that building SPSs from a captured asteroid could be a fair bit cheaper than having to launch everything from Earth.

He doesn't address some issues which I wish he had. There's the concern about bringing an asteroid into Earth orbit. You couldn't get countries to agree to it since, in theory, something might go wrong and accidently be diverted to strike some point on Earth. I have always felt that the concern was not justified but that there is probably a tehnical way to ensure that the asteroid is brought to Earth orbit without it's trajectory ever crossing Earth's surface and perhaps setting it up so that the thrust applied to the asteroid would automatically shut off of there was loss of contact from Earth. So the only way to make it hit Earth would be to intentionally do so. Also, companies might be at a lower political scruitiny than if the asteroid were being diverted by say the United States.

I am concerned about having astronauts in the equation initially. I don't know that it is necessary. I understand and agree that having astronauts available to assemble the tug in LEO would be a good and useful thing. Since we already routinely put people in LEO already then I am fine with this. But I'm not so sure about sending people outside of the magnetosphere to set up the tug at the asteroid. I think that the tug should be sufficiently assembled in LEO that it wouldn't need any additional assembly at Apophesis. Then, at Aphophesis, I think hat connecting to it and starting the engines should be able to be done remotely or automatically. As for mining it I agree that having people there would be helpful and establishsing a working colony with an O'Neill type of cyllinder would be a good hing to do in it's own right. I could imagine the miners first starting their work by living in aregolith-covered Bigelow inflatable attached to the asteroid until a rotating habitat could be constructed.

I think that the big hurdle here is the combination of the up-front investment and risk of delays due to greater technical difficulties than recognized now and unexpected delays (e.g. an accident with the loss of life). It may be that a corporation could make a ridiculous amount of RoI but why not invest the same amount in a terrestrial safe bet even though the RoI would be less?

However, once Apophesis is brought into Earth orbit. It would represent a tremendous asset which would have permanent future value. It's not like it's going anywhere. So a good financial analysis could look at the cost of an unmanned diversion to Earth orbit mission compared to the market value once it was brought. It is possible that the business case would close on that alone.

So, my current thinking about his idea is that I think it has real potential. It would be nice to get an expert second opinion on it.

[sgeos]

He doesn't address some issues which I wish he had.
The whole presentation struck me as more of a "this would be cool" than a "this is what we want to do and here is how we are going to get it done." I think a lot more needs to be addressed before anyone will take it seriously.

There's the concern about bringing an asteroid into Earth orbit. You couldn't get countries to agree to it since, in theory, something might go wrong and accidently be diverted to strike some point on Earth.
A suspect a lot lobbying, heavy handed politics and international cooperation would be required to pull this off. Only the big players matter.

It may be that a corporation could make a ridiculous amount of RoI but why not invest the same amount in a terrestrial safe bet even though the RoI would be less?
You get high risk investors in all shapes and sizes. The only thing that matters is that there is enough high risk capital available to financially green light the project.

However, once Apophesis is brought into Earth orbit. It would represent a tremendous asset which would have permanent future value. It's not like it's going anywhere.
Disagree. The goal is to deplete Apophesis and turn it into something more useful. Like any natural resource, one you use it up, the atoms still exist but the resource is gone.

I suspect depletion rights to portions of the asteroid could be sold to make quick cash. On a certain level it makes sense to have one company capture the asteroid, a bunch more companies chop it up into bits, and even more companies turn those bits into useful components. You are still looking at billions of investment dollars, but they do not have to all be in one place and they straddle risk categories.

[Sam Fraser]

Space Solar Power: The First International Assessment of Space Solar Power: Opportunities, Issues and Potential Pathways Forward. John C. Mankins, Editor. International Academy of Astronautics. November, 2011, 272 pages (50Mb PDF) (http://iaaweb.org/iaa/Studies/sg311_finalreport_solarpower.pdf)

Video of press conference, reaction to report, related background material courtesy of the National Space Society:

http://www.nss.org/news/releases/PressConference-IAA-SSP.html