AHC: Space-based Solar Power is online!

[Richter10]

Your challenge - if you accept - is that in 2012 there is at last one major industrial-level space-based solar power satellite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Solar_Power) connected to the world's electric grid.

You can use any PODs between 1900 and 1975 to make it so (Minor Dieselpunk Tech development is allowed). No ASB allowed.

Bonus if at 2012 there is more than one sattelite

Maximum bonus if Space Solar Power is a major contributor to the world's power grid at 2012.

Go! :-)

[Michel Van]

A light weight SPS in size of Manhattan would produce 4 giga watt power
and has mass of 90000 metric tons or 198000000 lb.

you need to launch 60 Monster rockets with 1500 tons payload or 3.3 million Lb over time of 6 years
means every 36 day one launch in low orbit, assembly the parts into module in LEO
move the Modules with Ion engine to GEO and put them together into a SPS.

and Yes they studies rocket in that size and also reusable version too !

[MattII]

The problem here is that the whole premise is bordering on ASB. Now assuming that that figure of 90,000 tonnes is correct, that's about 750 Saturn V launches, or about 50 times as many launches as occured in the whole Apollo program, or slightly less if you count in the Saturn I/IB launches.

[AndyC]

OOC: Here goes. Starting point is that the economics of it do not make sense even right now, so there has to be a different reason.

IC:
It is May 1970.

Walter Cronkite is speaking: "... and today we have learned the Soviet's secret space programme. They have announced - in their own words - that 'as has been apparent, we have not been engaging in a silly "race" with the American people. We are, of course, very relieved that they have successfully retrieved their astronauts from the accident of their foolish mission, but the Soviet Union has been engaged on a programme to bring great benefit to all mankind. To replace all of our energy fears and problems with safe power beamed from space. We will be announcing in the near future the first of the construction missions to low earth orbit'.

Well, ladies and gentlemen - a startling announcement from behind the Iron Curtain. We await developments".

In Moscow, Sergei Korolyov is presenting to the Soviet leadership.

Wincing from the pain in his side, Korolyov spoke up. "Comrade Secretary - the N-1 rocket has finally solved all of its problems. The improved control system has eradicated the issues with the first two attempts and the last two went flawlessly"

A voice from the table spoke up "But too late to beat the Americans to the Moon. If you had put a cosmonaut on that third launch ..."

"I am sorry, Comrade, but after two major explosions, we could not take the risk. The launch escape system would not have been powerful enough to escape the explosion if a problem had developed again. But I can assure you that we can throw a forty-tonne payload into a Molniya orbit"

"And how big a solar power satellite will that make?"

"We are aiming for a ten-launch mission for the first large satellite, which will give a 50 megawatt output ..."

Korolyov was interrupted by a shout from the table: "That's barely a twentieth of the RBMK nuclear reactor design! What's the point?"

Korolyov brushed the sweat from his brow and ignored the stabbing pain in his side - he really needed to get that seen to before it killed him. He'd nearly gone for surgery four years ago but hadn't been able to take the time off of the job. Maybe if he'd had to go it would have been better - he'd be fully recovered by now, surely.

"Comrade", he said patiently, "This is a prototype. An essay in the craft, if you will. Future satellites will be more efficient and future launchers more powerful. In ten years we will be looking at satellites giving 200 or even 500 megawatts. And the environmental groups in the West are getting more and more powerful - the propaganda value of this will be far in excess of a landing on the Moon. We can portray the Americans as motivated by foolish pride whilst we are stepping into the future for all mankind"

The meeting ended successfully for Korolyev and the go-ahead was given. The Molniya orbit was less useful than a geostrationary orbit but far easier to get into from the launch facilities at Baikonur. The SPS would only be giving useful power output for about half of the day, but that would be enough for his purposes. With the programme authorised, he had ensured his "little birds" would have a mission for the foreseeable future - construction and maintenance of the satellites would require men in orbit. And eventually, if designs to mine materials from the Moon and construct the SPS there for launch into geostationary orbit could be made practical, the system would actually make economic sense - rather than just for propaganda.

He rubbed his side again - he had to book surgery. He resolved to do so that very week.


............................

Sergei Korolyev died on the operating table two years before the first SPS in Molniya orbit transmitted its 35 megawatt output to the ground station in the Ukraine. The second generation followed and by 1986, a mammoth 250MW SPS was sending microwave power to the site at Chernobyl. The famous "aiming misalignment" occurred in April of that year, effectively cooking thousands of men, women and children in the nearby city, after which the Russians ensured all ground stations were situated well away from populated areas. By 2012, despite the reduced pace of the Russian space programme, six 250MW SPS's continued in Molniya orbit.

The N-1 and its successor, the Energiya, never did deposit an SPS into geostationary orbit - the costs of sending manned flights that far routinely were too great. The maintenance costs were rising remorselessly and finally the Russians had decided in 2008 to minimise and then abandon the support flights. When these systems failed, the SPS experiment would end - for now, at least.

[Michel Van]

Originally Posted by MattII

The problem here is that the whole premise is bordering on ASB. Now assuming that that figure of 90,000 tonnes is correct, that's about 750 Saturn V launches, or about 50 times as many launches as occured in the whole Apollo program, or slightly less if you count in the Saturn I/IB launches.

yes the 90000 tons are the LIGHT weight

Original design from 1970s:
Solar thermal system, size 7x7 km, radiator 2x2 km weight 150000 metric tons ( favored Design)
Solar cell system, size 10.5x10.5 km, weight 180000 metric tons
Both of them have output 12.6 GW and need 1300 tons of supply (RCS fuel, spare parts) a year.
RCS are ion-engine to keep orbit and turn SPS ones every 24 hours, Also it brings the part of SPS from LEO into GEO
i think that for 2 GWatt SPS can be build with minimum of 50000 tons.

on AndyC 50~250 megawatt SPS Prototypes
250 MW: size 1.5x1.5 km and weight 3571 tons.
50 MW: size 0.6 x 0.6 km and weight 750 tons.
last one need roughly 10xN1 launches in Low earth orbit, that's not a Molniya orbit
Equipped with Ion-engine as RCS could push slowly 50 MW SPS from LEO into GEO. will take a year or two.

Saturn V was never consider to launch SPS parts in orbit, those were proposed for that:

Boeing proposed the AMLLV

payload on this version 1596 tons in low orbit

next to that ware Boeing reusable "big Onion" with 228 tons in low orbit
it's real name was "Low cost Heavy Lift Vehicle Concept"

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by Michel Van

on AndyC 50~250 megawatt SPS Prototypes
250 MW: size 1.5x1.5 km and weight 3571 tons.
50 MW: size 0.6 x 0.6 km and weight 750 tons.
last one need roughly 10xN1 launches in Low earth orbit, that's not a Molniya orbit
Equipped with Ion-engine as RCS could push slowly 50 MW SPS from LEO into GEO. will take a year or two.

Yeah, I suggested a Molniya orbit as far easier to get into from Baikonur than GEO. And still pretty useful, especially at Russian latitudes.
Wiki had 90tonnes to LEO and 23.5 tonnes to GTO, so I wet-fingered about 40 tonnes to Molniya. And Korolyoev's testimony was deliberately overegged. In the narrative I had a 35MW prototype in the end, so about 500 tonnes? Call it 13 N-1 launches as it "turned out" in the ATL and it's doable.
The 250MW ones are more of a stretch, I'll grant you. But 6-7 launches per year over 14 years would give 90-odd launches (which a dictatorial power might be able to sustain) and give 3600 tonnes.

Then we have Energiya coming on line, and the Vulkan variant being pushed as necessary. Could maybe see 80 tonnes per launch into Molniya?

[Michel Van]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Yeah, I suggested a Molniya orbit as far easier to get into from Baikonur than GEO. And still pretty useful, especially at Russian latitudes.
Wiki had 90tonnes to LEO and 23.5 tonnes to GTO, so I wet-fingered about 40 tonnes to Molniya. And Korolyoev's testimony was deliberately overegged. In the narrative I had a 35MW prototype in the end, so about 500 tonnes? Call it 13 N-1 launches as it "turned out" in the ATL and it's doable.
The 250MW ones are more of a stretch, I'll grant you. But 6-7 launches per year over 14 years would give 90-odd launches (which a dictatorial power might be able to sustain) and give 3600 tonnes.

Then we have Energiya coming on line, and the Vulkan variant being pushed as necessary. Could maybe see 80 tonnes per launch into Molniya?

it could work.

[SunilTanna]

Originally Posted by MattII

The problem here is that the whole premise is bordering on ASB. Now assuming that that figure of 90,000 tonnes is correct, that's about 750 Saturn V launches, or about 50 times as many launches as occured in the whole Apollo program, or slightly less if you count in the Saturn I/IB launches.

You don't need to bring all the materials up from Earth when there's a ready made raw materials dump only 1/4 million miles way.

[ANTIcarrot]

In the early 1970s, NASA is summoned to Nixon's office and are forced to present their plans for replacing the Saturn V with a cheaper reusable rocket. They tell him it can be done properly with massive long term savings, but will cost $10B right now - or alternatively they can do a crummy job which will cost much less now, but be an absolute hanger queen until it gets replaced - whenever that it. (This is pretty much how it actually went OTL by the way.)

They then reluctantly admit that there is a third option, which is both cheap to build and to operate, but it won't be as effective as either of the first two options. With their fingers crossed behind their backs they pretend great dissapointment as cash-strapped Nixon picks option C.

Option C turns out to be an Saturn V INT-19 varient, with the Minuteman rockets replaced with J-2s, meaning a total of 9 on the first stage, with the intention of making it, and eventuall the second stage, fully reusable. With the S-II and S-IVB production lines still intact, making the required changes is relatively simple. Three testbed S-IIIs are flying within two years, and though one prangs itself in a very terminal fashion, another racks up three hours of flight time over a 14 month test programme.

Production S-IIIs, now affectionately reffered to as 'express elevators' are throwing regular S-IVB/Apollo combinations early enough to place a fourth and fifth crew in Skylab. The introduction of the J-2S engine series solves the last few niggling start up and pogoing problems the J-2 had, and afterwards fly with a near perfect record. Meanwhile NASA is integrating Apollo and the S-IVB into a single fully reusable vehicle (a cruder SASSTO with lower performance due to the S-III booster) using their experience with the S-III to do so.

The complete 'Jupiter' rocket is finally ready to fly with crew on September 1979. It's cargo is three astronauts and ten tons of fuel to retire the much beloved (and by now rather smelly) Skylab into a safe parking orbit. Ten minutes after launch spectators and newscasters watch the familiar landing of the S-III, and then three days later they also see the 'Columbia' land in the same tail first manner.

By 1985 two stage fully reusable VTOL rockets are a fully proven technology, as is orbital fuel transfer that the Jupiter was specifically designed to take advantage off. Turnaround times and costs are now down to one week and $3M, though these are dwarfed by the expenses of the Kennedy Space Centre itself. NASA's fleet of ten Jupiter space shuttles have collectively flown three hundred times and launched almost 500 tons of payload into orbit over the same time. Skylab B (a 'wet' station) is still not without teething problems, but NASA is still confident they will be able to recreate Apollo 8 within the next few years at 1% of the origonal cost.

The USAF still refuses to say what it does with its two Jupiters it operates out of Area 51, and is still blocking investigation into how much its private launch facility costs - though the budget indicates it's clearly much less than Kennedy. With Congress again looking to trim the budget, a big stink over the next generation of reusable launch vehicles is about to kick off. But the one thing they all agree on is that anyone who still believes space travel has to be expensive is in the same catigory who believes the earth is flat, and man will never fly or land on the moon.

EG: In other words if NASA had stuck to it's origonal plan, and not screwed around with wings, cross range, and USAF cargo requirements, they could have gotten the bloody job done, and proven low cost space access to everyone too unwilling to do (or believe) the maths that says it can be done!

Beyond that SSPS is simply one possibility. From 1985 to 2012 is almost thirty years, which is probably enough time. With a reliable platform that enables them to get extensive experience in actual space - many of NASA's self created problems (and self enforced ignorance) disappear.

[MattII]

Originally Posted by SunilTanna

You don't need to bring all the materials up from Earth when there's a ready made raw materials dump only 1/4 million miles way.

Except that that's even more costly, because now you're basically transshipping the thing into orbit via the moon.

Also, to do any good this thing has to be in GEO, LEO just won't cut it.

[TxCoatl1970]

Do ya think we could've set up an int'l consortium a la Intelsat to sell the power and justify more SPSS installations?

[Asnys]

I like AndyC's version, because I think that's the only way this is happening.

It's hard to put a figure on the actual cost of ground-based solar PV - it depends pretty heavily on assumptions and methodology - but one figure I've seen is net cost of about $19,600 per kWe, not counting batteries. Compare that to $6,000 per kWe for the Olkiluoto nuclear reactor in Finland, even after it's gone way overbudget, or even less for coal and gas. Those are just the first numbers I had on hand, so I can't vouch for their veracity - like I said, it depends pretty heavily on methodologies and assumptions - but it will do for a back-of-the-envelope guess.

The wikipedia article says you get about 144% as much insolation in orbit without atmosphere in the way, times two for no day-night cycle; assuming the cost of building a solar PV installation in orbit is exactly the same in space, that works out to $6,800 per kWe, still pricier than nuclear and fossil. And that's without touching launch costs, or building the rectenna and transmitter.

So, unless you can come up with a reason to use the juice in space, I don't think this works except as a vanity project.

[Richter10]

Originally Posted by Asnys

The wikipedia article says you get about 144% as much insolation in orbit without atmosphere in the way, times two for no day-night cycle; assuming the cost of building a solar PV installation in orbit is exactly the same in space, that works out to $6,800 per kWe, still pricier than nuclear and fossil. And that's without touching launch costs, or building the rectenna and transmitter.

So, unless you can come up with a reason to use the juice in space, I don't think this works except as a vanity project.

Part of the AHC is exactly this: what kind of post-1900 world would want - and need - the development of space-based solar power?

Also with a post-1900 POD we can have alternate launch systems - maybe O'Neill Mass Drivers to launch the SSPS?

[Asnys]

Originally Posted by Richter10

Part of the AHC is exactly this: what kind of post-1900 world would want - and need - the development of space-based solar power?

Also with a post-1900 POD we can have alternate launch systems - maybe O'Neill Mass Drivers to launch the SSPS?

My point is that, even if you can frigging teleport the solar panels, unless you also radically hasten the development of PV technology, at best it will cost the same as more mundane solutions. Launch costs are only part of the issue here.

[Agemennon]

By comparison, nuclear power plants in the United States can cost up to around $150 billion dollars, which is up to around $3000/kilowatt produced. By this estimate its that these facilities produce 50 Gigawatts each, which I know which isn't accurate :P Other sources state that these nuclear facilities produce around 1.1 GW on average, which seems more accurate, although I know Canadian CANDU reactors can peak around 2.3GW.

In any case, using the above estimate of 150 billion dollars for around 1 Gigawatt, and Michael Van's estimate of a piece the size of Manhattan.

4 GW of power could be worth $600 billion dollars.

There are 3.3 million pounds we need to put into space, plus extra support infrastructure. Even just accounting for that:

The highest numbers I can find is around $20, 000/pound. Assuming that there is an obnoxious amount of 0.7 million pounds of "waste payload" (empty space, construction personnel/materials), for a total of 4 million, comes out to only $80 billion dollars.

The average cost of a solar cell is around $4.30/watt. At 4 Gigawatts, this comes out to around 16 billion.

So now the question is, why the heck do we not have solar sattelites right now if they're that affordable. Probably because its not, and theres other concerns, and space is underfunded.

Edit: Also did an estimate based on going power rates. The platform would have a revenue of $3.5 billion/yr assuming 100% efficiency.

[Asnys]

Originally Posted by Agemennon

By comparison, nuclear power plants in the United States can cost up to around $150 billion dollars, which is up to around $3000/kilowatt produced. By this estimate its that these facilities produce 50 Gigawatts each, which I know which isn't accurate :P Other sources state that these nuclear facilities produce around 1.1 GW on average, which seems more accurate, although I know Canadian CANDU reactors can peak around 2.3GW.

I've never heard of a reactor costing $150 billion... That's at least an order of magnitude too high. The worst estimate I can recall ever hearing was $20 billion, which I believe was for a complex of two or three reactors.

Originally Posted by Agemennon

In any case, using the above estimate of 150 billion dollars for around 1 Gigawatt, and Michael Van's estimate of a piece the size of Manhattan.

4 GW of power could be worth $600 billion dollars.

There are 3.3 million pounds we need to put into space, plus extra support infrastructure. Even just accounting for that:

The highest numbers I can find is around $20, 000/pound. Assuming that there is an obnoxious amount of 0.7 million pounds of "waste payload" (empty space, construction personnel/materials), for a total of 4 million, comes out to only $80 billion dollars.

Using Michael Van's numbers, we need to lift 49.5 million pounds per GWe. So, about a trillion dollars at $20,000 per pound.

Originally Posted by Agemennon

The average cost of a solar cell is around $4.30/watt. At 4 Gigawatts, this comes out to around 16 billion.

Are you sure that isn't nameplate power cost instead of net power cost?

[NothingNow]

Originally Posted by Asnys

I've never heard of a reactor costing $150 billion... That's at least a factor of ten too high. The worst estimate I can recall ever hearing was $20 billion, which I believe was for a complex of two or three reactors.

Yeah, I doubt if all the civillian reactors in the US are worth $150 billion together.

Shit, the overnight cost for the two AP1000s going in at Turkey Point is $6.8–$9.9 billion, so you're talking an individual reactor being between 3 and 5 billion.

[MattII]

Originally Posted by Asnys

Using Michael Van's numbers, we need to lift 49.5 million pounds per GWe. So, about a trillion dollars at $20,000 per pound.

That's about four times as costly as a Saturn V, if that's to LEO.

[Agemennon]

Originally Posted by NothingNow

Yeah, I doubt if all the civillian reactors in the US are worth $150 billion together.

Shit, the overnight cost for the two AP1000s going in at Turkey Point is $6.8–$9.9 billion, so you're talking an individual reactor being between 3 and 5 billion.

I misinterpreted a couple numbers.

To be fair though, the costs are larger than that because of things like nuclear waste handling, but yes, my estimates are a bit off.

I got the cost for launch down packed though, y'know, just times 60.

So $4.8 trillion dollars based on my estimate :P

[Asnys]

Originally Posted by MattII

That's about four times as costly as a Saturn V, if that's to LEO.

I was using Agemennon's number. Edit: His number for launch costs.