Talk:Space-based solar power/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Article Cleanup

Hi everyone, having the history/timeline section up front (in my opinion) is really distracting from the readability of this article. I am moving it to the back of the article. This could be a really great article if it was cleaned up and made more readible. TANSTAAFL (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

space solar power in fiction

wath do you think about moving this part in another page ? half of it talks about catastrophes or weapons, it makes sps looks bad--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's enough for a page alone. I also don't think moving as a way to sanitize is a good idea. I do think this section is mostly trivia; except, perhaps, "Die Another Day", none of these have had a huge cultural impact & IMO should be removed. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

mankins view in 2011

mankins report march 2011 at iaa 273 pages http://iaaweb.org/iaa/Scientific%20Activity/Study%20Groups/SG%20Commission%203/sg311/sg311finalreport.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaucouplusneutre (talk • contribs) 12:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

let's make this page more graphical with video links

--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

images

created wikimedia commons can we add the mass driver picture on the o neill section ?, and robonaut for the teleoperated part (project m)? integrate some pictures like shimizu dream page could help too (see lunar ring) wath do you think ? mit have some image with deployment / maintenance bots too also ikaros pictures ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaucouplusneutre (talk • contribs) 10:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

sbsp template

key people, organisation, key technology, and the like could be a good thing,--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC) a new category that we use to tag other related pages too — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaucouplusneutre (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

baseload/peak - sbsp and fusion

hi everyones, a paragraph on baseload/peak power potential, plus why it can be considered a green/renewable enery,comparaison with other sources of power, plus sbsp vs fusion ( its seems iter will produce nuclear waste ) and why sbsp is interesting because it does not need physics breaktrougth ?--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Article on space transport for power satellites

If anyone wants to mine this,http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7898 be my guest. The Oil Drum is one of the few blogs that has responsible editing and can be quoted on wikipedia.

Keith Henson (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

move criswell to the building from asteroid /moon  ?

new detailled building from space section building from asteroid, building on or with the help of the moon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaucouplusneutre (talk • contribs) 10:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

orbital location

leo/meo/geo/lagrangian point (landis proposal and maybee others) to give another perspective — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaucouplusneutre (talk • contribs) 10:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC) --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

comparaison table

Location	Launch Technique	year of publication	estimated cost	TRL	Header text
LEO	rocket	1968	?	?	Example
Example	Example	Example	Example	Example	Example

how about a comparaison table ?, we can add other tables for every subject that need comparaison, it will help make it clear wath challenges this concept is facing,on a separate page as a sub project

--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Predicting the future

I've reverted some recent changes to the intro that seem to introduce a degree of finality to the SBSP concept that isn't really warranted yet.

We can say that the plan to make certain things possible, and achieve certain benefits, do sound very feasible, but in the end this really hasn't been extensively tested, so we can't say for sure how it "will" end up working. SBSP is still just a theory, no matter how likely it might seem, and will stay that way by definition until it's been thoroughly proven in practice. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:40, 6 Jul 2011 (UTC)

yes, i just wanted to find the right word to describe his benefits.--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'm just being vigilante in curbing the temptation to say how great this WILL be, when we don't really know yet. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:40, 6 Jul 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your objectives, but "could" in this context leaves the impression these things aren't demonstrably true. The issue is, no SPS has been built, not that, frex, collection is highter or SPS is unaffected by weather. I'd rather say something like, "If built, it would..." TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• We can't say "if it's built we would have these benefits", because we really don't know that for sure. If it's built, or as we approach building it, we could find out that we were wrong about one or several of these projected benefits actually resulting from SBSP. The fact that all these benefits WOULD result from SBSP is not demonstrable, so the sentence introducing the benefits of SBSP should be worded as "could", IMO.
• Individual demonstrable aspects ARE already worded appropriately so in their list items, eg. collection in space "is" higher, and weather "would" not be an issue.

We're hoping all these demonstrable properties will result from SBSP, but we don't know that they all will yet. I hope this is clearer. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:08, 7 Jul 2011 (UTC)

You're introducing doubt where there isn't any. Saying "it could have these benefits" effectively says the fact of, frex, greater insolation isn't a fact. All the enumerated items are demonstrably true, in fact have been demonstrated true in other contexts. The only place they aren't proven is together, in an SPS. I get your aim, & IMO saying the combined benefits aren't proven is covered by "if built". Or do you mean to say the individual factors are, in fact, still in doubt? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the benefits haven't been demonstrated in an actual SBSP scenario is cause to avoid any definitive language. When speaking of a technology that doesn't exist yet, a respectable publication takes pains in keeping the language relatively humble. Just because it seems like all these benefits would come from SBSP doesn't mean they will, no matter how much it seems that they will. As a far-out example I could say perhaps NASA will discover down the line that certain live vegetation could play some role on an SPS, and controlling its growth would become a factor -- so plant encroachment actually wouldn't be entirely avoided by SBSP, making that listed benefit wrong in the end. Again it's a far-out example but either way we shouldn't be making definitive predictions about how it will work if built, or what benefits it will have if built. As much as it seems we do know, we don't know enough to write that "if it's built, it will have these benefits". That's arrogant language for a respectable information source describing a technology that doesn't exist yet. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:28, 7 Jul 2011 (UTC)

Over the many designs and project, the only problem seems the cost, maybee there is a sense making the comparaison to fusion and other forms of energy, that existed on the sps old page ans seems to have vanished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaucouplusneutre (talk • contribs) 13:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"The fact that the benefits haven't been demonstrated" I'd agree with most of that. My trouble is, as said, is that the chosen wording suggests the individual factors are untrue or in doubt, & they're not. What is, & remains, in doubt is the combination. That an SPS might someday have gardens doesn't make the greater insolation in orbit untrue now. What about "Expected (projected?) benefits are"? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"Projected" seems like an improvement. Feel free to tweak my implementation. Equazcion ^(talk) 13:30, 8 Jul 2011 (UTC)

I think that's got it. Thx. Good doing business with you. :D TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

from a diverted asteroid (catching)

integrate asteroid deflecting section ? see Asteroid_deflection_strategies detection and composition of asteroids techniques (telescope, or others ?)--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

...only if there's a source connecting that to space-based solar power. Equazcion ^(talk) 10:36, 11 Jul 2011 (UTC)

of course--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

check this out (and its old) http://nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceres/IV-2.html

1 asteroid mining (we have that one) 2 asteroid catching with a mass driver i think this call for a new wiki page with updated info : asteroid catching or asteroid capturing distinct from the mining because of the order of things , asteroid catching then mining as complement of mining then retrieval.--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 08:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This is wrong...

"Cumulative panel damage could be lessened in space, such as that suffered due to weather, corrosion, and erosion"

In fact, erosion in space is so dramatic that panels are rated for only 12 years, and have to be replaced all the time - as is the case on Hubble for instance. On the Earth, panels produced in the 1970s are still in commercial operation and there is some debate about the actual lifetime of panels, which may be a century. Unless someone has a ref for this claim, I'm going to remove it as being clearly counterfactual. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Cite a reference or mark a need for a reference ... ? 99.181.136.35 (talk) 04:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

2% degradation a year compared to 0.27% for earth-bound panels. Trivially citable, widely known in the industry. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

reference about o neill

hello, i have googled this one with no success, does someone knows where to read this article in full ? i have tried nasa and aiaa ^ 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaucouplusneutre (talk • contribs) 11:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

some costs estimates

80' design : 10by 5 by .5 km, 5 gw on the ground (10 in space because 50% loss of the mw beam), evaluated at 250 billions in 96

solar disk  : 6 km diameter, 5 gw on the ground, mw beam , evaluated at 50 billions $.

solar tower  : 15 km long, 250 mw on the ground,mw beam, evaluated at 15 billions $ (same price as iter) numbers from mankins sert conclusions

canceled demos

iss laser demo mission (on kibo - jem), status ? , no costs , http://registration.istdayton.com/Briefings/In-Space%20Laser%20Power%20Beaming%20Concept(HBCU%20forum).pdf

selene eval costs ? (canceled) , no costs

mars laser sps demo(european project ?) canceled, no costs, have forget the ref

latest demo estimate (one from the sd hlv presentation, detail the mission and the payload, but not the costs estimates) http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/07/sd-hlv-early-sps-demonstration-risk-assessment/

another one that give estimates and some detail on the payload at 1,3 billions http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/future-in-space-operations-assessing.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaucouplusneutre (talk • contribs) 07:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

nice diagram on mw and laser from nasa

toward the end of the document: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/webaccess/CommSpaceTrans/SpaceCommTransSec38/CommSpacTransSec38.html Figure 3.8.2.2-27. Comparison of Laser and Microwave Power Transmission for Space Station Power

also maybee referencing the lasermotive distance record in history or eleswhere http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/status_reports/power_beam.html http://lasermotive.com/files/20091112_LaserMotive_PressRelease.pdf— Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaucouplusneutre (talk • contribs) 19:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Resource from The Futurist May-June 2011 issue.

Resource from World Future Society's The Futurist May-June 2011 Vol. 45, No. 3

• Solar Power from the Moon by Patrick Tucker pp34-38
• Why we need the moon for solar power on Earth by David R. Criswell page 37 box
• Finding Eden on the Moon by Joseph E. Pelton pp39 - 42.

141.218.36.44 (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have internet links? 99.181.151.50 (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

This David Criswell? If so, he is in this article. 99.181.144.107 (talk) 02:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: split article

For the length of this article, there seems to be relatively little information/explanation to be easily picked up by the uninitiated. It's also by it's nature a large topic that rightfully deserves several pieces to be treated properly. I suggest that it might be best to split some of the larger chunks out (and expand upon them) into articles like Satellite solar power and Lunar solar power or similar, but those entries are already available as redirects to this article. The introductions of which could be transcluded into this overview article. --Belg4mit (talk) 22:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

missing elements

hi, power relay satelites, sun sails reflectors, power beming demo sats for moon and mars exploration bases and rovers (as a way to reduce mass sent to these bodies and for exploration purposes), iss demo efforts, laser propulsion for space tugs and space launches (thanks to keith henson suggestion) and many other aspects are described here http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/1989-SecondBeamedSpacePowerWorkshop.pdf i will try to incorporate this aspects into the article (with pictures too but they are bad quality and not in color, but maybee better than nothing) .Also i think we need a image of a rectenna on earth in color.Schemas of powersats designs could also bee nice (fresh look study have some).--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 09:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

sert launch price in 2000

Earth-to-Orbit (ETO) Transportation. SERT results suggest that recurring launch costs in the range of $100-$200 per kilogram of payload to low-Earth orbit are needed if SPS are to be economically viable.It was the position in 2000, does someone knows if there is a updated number somewhere ? numbers form http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/2000-testimony-JohnMankins.htm --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Autonomous solar-powered lunar photovoltaic cell production rover.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Autonomous solar-powered lunar photovoltaic cell production rover.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 22 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)