In this week’s issue of The Space Review, I write about a recent step forward in space solar power research, the successful long-rest test of microwave power transmission in Hawaii that was featured on the Discovery Channel last week. Most of the press conference last Friday that announced this “breakthrough” focused on the actual accomplishment and its importance to the future development of space-based solar power.
At the end, though, a “special guest” spoke for a few minutes: Paul Rancatore. If the name sounds familiar, it’s because he ran on a very strongly pro-space platform for Congress in Florida’s 15th district, advocating space solar power, among other things, and winning the endorsement of Buzz Aldrin. However, he lost the Democratic primary in August. Currently, he’s spending time in Washington meeting with members of Congress and their staffs trying to promote space solar power. In his words, he’s trying to “educate members about what space-based solar power can do for our country, create that dialogue, and possible create a ‘space-based solar caucus’ within Congress for them to fully understand the ramifications for our country and the world and start get members involved.”
After the press conference he said that he’s met with Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA), who chairs the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, among others, looking for someone willing to champion space solar power in Congress. He expects to make more progress in January, when a new Congress convenes.
Rancatore added he’s also focused on other space issues, including the Shuttle-Constellation gap, something he said he’s working with Aldrin on. He said they’re looking at three options: a “Shuttle-C” design (which he didn’t elaborate upon), an EELV/capsule approach, and vastly increased funding for COTS. On the last option, he said that COTS should be funded at $2.5 billion, about five times its current level.
.
“Space Solar Power hoax/illusion DEBUNKED” article:
.
http://
www.
ghostna
sa.com/posts
/038sspdebunk
ed.html
and… the FASTEST ROUTE to a “Shuttle-C” (for ISS re-supply/assembly/maintenance/cargo-return, for a “faster ESAS plan” and for “everything you want to do in Space in the 2010-2016-LATER space access GAP”!) actually IS (and ALWAYS will be!)) MY (three years old!) idea of a “CREWLESS Space Shuttle”
http://
ww
w.gaetano
marano
.it/spaceShuttle/
spaceshuttle.ht
ml
MY (three years old!) idea of a “CREWLESS Space Shuttleâ€
I have an idea to improve energy independence: 95% efficient solar panels that cost 1/100th of the price of panels today. I’ll leave it to the engineers and program managers to deal with the specifics.
@typo
a crewless shuttle is feasible, while, “your” solar panels aren’t
I’ll save him some time- I still have the shuttle c study/plan we wrote for NASA in the 90s at KPMG…
95% efficient solar panels that cost 1/100th of the price of panels today.
May I suggest you peruse some of the papers on the LANL archive before making statements about things that you apparently know little about?
http://arxiv.org/archive/cond-mat
three options: a “Shuttle-C†design (which he didn’t elaborate upon), an EELV/capsule approach, and vastly increased funding for COTS. On the last option, he said that COTS should be funded at $2.5 billion, about five times its current level.
That’s a good start. It’s too bad it took them so long to figure that simple truth out, though. On a more practical note, the original Shuttle C designs are very old. A ‘Shuttle E’ would be a much more effective approach IMHO.
“a crewless shuttle is feasible, ”
It has been debunk that is not feasible. It is possible but it is not quick nor cheap, hence it is not feasible.
Tom Elifritz, Engineering Led
Can you figure out that it was a joke on gm.
95% efficient solar panels that cost 1/100th of the price of panels today.
May I suggest you peruse some of the papers on the LANL archive before making statements about things that you apparently know little about?
I apologize, I completely misunderstood your intent
Given the intrinsic spectral dispersion of sunlight, we’re probably looking at something more like 40 percent in the near term, although great reductions in costs will be necessary for space solar power, beyond what you suggest.
There are amazing things afoot in the condensed matter world, and it is definitely the condensed matter world that will provide these solutions.
Engineering physics, on the other hand, probably will only result in a ten fold reduction in launch costs in the near term, possibly 100 times later.
What I am trying to accomplish is to promote the very clear connection which exists between scientific activities in the condensed matter physics field, which produces technological breakthroughs yearly and decadally, and scientific breakthroughs almost nightly now, and rocket science, which proceeds at a much slower pace, but would benefit from these advances.
When one project stalls, I move onto others. But I’m still moving forward on the ‘broad front’, as the goal is still the same – human health and welfare.
Rocket science and condensed matter physics will still remain high on my list of disciplines which can provide the breakthroughs we need for this.
@Engineering Lead
unfortunately, there are peoples
that talk about new ideas, peoples
that work about real projects and
peoples that lose their time just to
produce “jokes†and post them
everywhere on the web under
several nicknames
.
in the first update of my “Space Solar Powerâ€
article, I explain HOW EASY would be (also
for a small, small, small ENEMY) to send
back to the Stone Age, a
“space solar powered countryâ€â€¦
The putative space solar power prototype program will only exist to promote, empower and drive the scientific and technology development effort, and the rocket technology effort required to execute it, and will produce commercial devices which can be used on the ground, Geronimo.
“They ain’t gettin the TV”.
Although in my case, the TV is a pair of 9 Volt stereoscopic 3D LCD goggles, which admittedly, I found in the trash. It is easily run on a small solar panel, and I don’t watch much TV anymore, except for the occasional science documentary. Then I really don’t mind firing up the big screen.
Cancel Constellation, and we can have it all, three different launch vehicle architectures, commercial orbital space transporation systems, and an SSP.
Continuing on the present path means certain failure.
Already it’s happening.
the cost of Solar Cells for Solar Energy utilization has been decreasing over the past years. pretty soon, solar energy would be a more viable alternative than fossil fuels,-