[deleted] t1_ixijpjk wrote
Reply to comment by TheRealCBlazer in China says it will use the Tiangong Space Station to test the transmission of space-based solar power to Earth. by lughnasadh
[deleted]
TheRealCBlazer t1_ixinkng wrote
But with the ability to beam power anywhere in the solar system, you don't need to launch from Earth. Everything can be mined, refined, manufactured, and deployed in zero-g or micro-g.
The Earth-based outlay would not be in the form of close solar orbit panels. It would be self-replicating machinery deployed to the asteroid belt. Possibly even deployed from Earth's moon (which admittedly still traces back to initial launches from Earth). But the vast bulk of the grid would not be launched from Earth.
[deleted] t1_ixip9ck wrote
[deleted]
TheRealCBlazer t1_ixiqc2m wrote
The idea is to mitigate global warming by moving as much resource collection, refining, manufacturing, and energy production into space, asap. This is not hyper future tech. I speak on this personally, because it was mine and my professor's area of focus in electromagnetics and electrodynamics in 1997. Of course, it takes time, money, and will to implement, which the Chinese are now doing. These first steps are not the final product, but they are necessary to get there, and I'm glad someone is finally doing it. You're right about the fact that we've waited far too long already.
jhev1 t1_ixiso6d wrote
>The idea is to mitigate global warming
By the time this tech is a reality the earth will be well past the point of no return, which is projected anywhere from 10 to 75 years
TheRealCBlazer t1_ixixywa wrote
Long-term solutions can coexist with short-term remedies.
snoo135337842 t1_ixjgvtn wrote
Ah, so we need a space elevator first!
TheRealCBlazer t1_ixjlvmc wrote
Hell yeah, let's do it.
isleepinahammock t1_ixizels wrote
Also, consider that rockets themselves emit lots of CO2 as they launch. Sure, you can use a hydrogen/oxygen rocket, but then you need a source for hydrogen. And if you don't want greenhouse emissions, that means you need a huge plant cracking water into H2 and O2. In other words, you effectively need to build a huge energy storage facility. You could just attach a fuel cell to your rocket H2/O2 plant and skip the rocket launch entirely. It is possible to create green rocket launches, but the equipment needed is essentially already a massive base load solar/wind plant.
ItsAConspiracy t1_ixjg980 wrote
A Falcon Heavy costs $90M for up to 141,000 lbs to LEO, for a total cost of $638/lb. And the Heavy isn't fully reusable, so the main cost is the upper stage that gets thrown away. If Starship or something similar works out, the price will drop to about $30/lb. At that price, space solar starts to make sense.
I plugged that number into the cost estimates from the book The Case for Space Solar Power, which has detailed numbers based on NASA's SPS-ALPHA project, and it came out to 4 cents/kWh including everything (manufacturing, ground station, etc), which is pretty great for clean power on demand without needing storage.
Starship is fueled by methane which can be made pretty easily from water and CO2. With a clean energy source, the whole project could be carbon neutral.
PowerfulMilk2794 t1_ixjhbi1 wrote
If Starship can bring that cost down to 10 per lb the economics start to look feasible. Big if, but this is Futurology after all.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments