To me, transmitting power to the ground constitutes 99.9% of the overall scheme; we already know that a solar panel exposed to the sun, whether on earth or in space, WILL produce electrical power.

The big current showstopper is still economics. There are a very few who say the business case for SSP closes (works) now. This is not true, since it is based on paper rockets that do not exist. The government has not helped very much with this, with its failed X-33 and National Aerospace Plane programs. Only private industry can realistically do it, since the government has no strong motive to reduce operating costs.

What the government should NOT do is to fund a “demonstrator” that would try to transmit actual power. The media would then jump in and point out that each watt-hour cost millions of dollars, showing that SSP is a boondoggle. The government should fund critical engineering studies that are needed to prove that the SSP concepts would work, and that do NOT involve transmitting any power to the ground as a public demo.

SBSP has great potential but is a very significant systems engineering challenge regardless of the venue of application.

Enough said for now.

I would suggest that it DEPENDS on which business case you are trying to close as to the case closing or not. Different cases for different folks.

Many miles to go yet.

Kevin,

Gen. Worden won the debate for two reasons.

1) Worden was the MUCH better debater. Worden was more knowledgeable, more skilled and more prepared for this debate than Barnhard. Mr. Barnhard was in way over his head, and did not seem to know it. It was if he was a kid playing in a man’s game and against somebody at the top of his game.

To illustrate the mismatch, note that in Barnhard’s post above he wrote an equation in an attempt to persuade us. This is not effective communication. Kevin, you have a PhD from Caltech, but I doubt that you use equations to try persuade general audiences on your argument. Nuff said on this point.

2) Dr. Worden attacked the basic arguments of those who are WAY-overselling SBSP … specifically, those who say “the business case closes”. In other words, Worden picked an easy debate to win.

Why was the debate issue so tilted to Worden?

Because the business case does NOT close at this time. The NSSO study report clearly reports it does not close.

More relevantly ….

Even though the NSSO study report acknowledges that the business case does not close, it still recommends that we invest in SBSP.

We can support long-term research and development program in SBSP. It is the job of the federal government to pursue societal goods like SBSP.

Yes, Dr. Worden was absolutely right to take away the kool-aid of the SBSP fanatics.

But SBSP is still a credible policy option. There are credible and reasonable approaches to SBSP.

– SBSP Supporter

What law of physics would need to be broken? Everything I’ve ever read says that SBSP may be impractical for engineering and/or cost reasons, but I’ve never heard any fundamental reasons why it couldn’t work.

Value = {Summation of Returns} -{Summation of Risks}

Both Dr. Worden and I have agreed to review the material brought forward in our presentations in detail. After that is accomplished, the material from the debate will be annotated as appropriate with the supporting analysis and corresponding references and will be made available in one or more forums.

The debate was part of the Advanced Technology Working Group (ATWG) fall workshop program held at Moffett Field this week. http://www.atwg.org/

Do you know of any transcript, video etc available to the “unwashed rabble” out here or is it simply “insiders” only at this point ?