Conceptual illustration depicting the design features of a Korean Space Solar Power Satellite (K-SSPS) Credits: Joon-Min Choi, Su-Jin Choi, Sang-Hwa Yi via Creative Commons License CC by 4.0
Researchers from the Korea Aerospace Research Institute (KARI) and the Korea Electrotechnology Research Institute (KERI) describe a concept for a Korean Space Solar Power Satellite in a new publication called the Journal of Space Solar Power and Wireless Transmission. Dubbed K-SSPS, its components would be launched with reusable rockets, robotically assembled and tested in LEO, then boosted to geostationary orbit (GEO) using solar electric thrusters powered by its own solar cell array.
The baseline conceptual design for K-SSPS provides 2GW of delivered power to the ground collected by a 4km diameter rectenna located in the Demilitarized Zone. There is sufficient space in this region for 60 rectennas of this size for a total collected power of 120 GW. In terms of electricity generation, such a system would provide a terawatt-hour of electricity per year which exceeds South Korea’s electricity consumption in 2021.
This study also addresses disposal of the system after its useful life estimated to be about three decades, Since such massive systems spanning an area measuring several square kilometers would present a rather large cross section increasing the risk of collision with other decommissioned satellites in the usual graveyard orbit located 235 km above GEO, the authors propose a novel but controversial approach: controlled crash landing the spent satellite in a safe zone on the far side of the Moon. This would enable future colonies on the Moon to harvest these valuable Earth-sourced materials from the impact zone, recycling them into useful commodities to help sustain lunar operations. Care would have to be taken to ensure that the structure is guided to a designated area far from established infrastructure, most of which (if not all) would be located on the near side facing Earth. Not considered in the study was recycling and/or repurposing the K-SSPS materials in space using material processing technology like Cislunar Industries’ Modular Space Foundry (previously Microspace Foundry).
South Korea’s space agency, the Korea Aerospace Research Institute (KARI), has set a goal of a test system deployment in LEO by 2040, with a full scale system in GEO by 2050. Since this effort will take considerable development time and significant financial investment, KARI plans a small-scale two-satellite pilot system demonstration in LEO within the next decade to validate the wireless power transmission technology and the deployment mechanisms. The pilot system, which was described in a paper presented at the 73rd International Astronautical Congress in September 2022, will be placed in a sun synchronous orbit and features a solar panel equipped antenna array beaming power to a receiver satellite 100m away, in a sun synchronous orbit.
Diagram depicting the operational concepts planned over the mission life of the KARI pilot space solar power demonstration. Credits: Joon-Min Choi, Su-Jin Choi, Sang-Hwa Yi via Creative Commons License CC by 4.0
KARI and KIRI have described their case studies on a space solar power program as a renewable energy option for Korea to help address global efforts to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This paper summarizes their concept design for a 2GW space solar satellite highlighting gaps in the economic and technological knowledge needed for success, proposed a responsible and sustainable disposal method, and outlined an achievable architecture for a near term pilot demonstration within a decade. Korea joins other global development efforts that SSP has been following with their own unique approach to space-based solar power (SBSP).
However, doubters have been surfacing recently highlighting the significant engineering and economic challenges that need to be addressed for SBSP to be competitive with ground-based renewable energy sources and backup storage systems, the technology of which are rapidly developing and improving. One skeptic, former European Space Agency engineer Henri Barde, published an article in IEEE Spectrum arguing that among other things, designers will have a significant challenge shaping and aiming the microwave beam of a kilometer-scale phased array antennae. In his opinion, this and other engineering obstacles will not be solved until fusion energy will be commercially available. In a rebuttal on LinkedIn, CEO of SBSP startup Virtus Solis John Bucknell responded that his company has proprietary software that can simulate greater than 2km transmission apertures and that SBSP is in the engineering phase while fusion is still in R&D, the complexity of which makes capital and operating costs a big unknown for commercialization.
NASA has yet again kicked the can down the road, claiming in their most recent study that expected greenhouse gas emissions and the cost of space hardware for current design options will be on a par with existing renewable electricity technologies and therefore recommends further study to close several technology gaps for SBSP to make economic sense. The next few years will be critical for engineering testing, not only for Korea’s pilot satellite, but Virtus Solis‘s in-space plans and Northrup Grumman’s end-to-end test in 2025 of their Space Solar Power Incremental Demonstrations and Research prototype system. Once in-space prototype testing demonstrates sufficient feasibility to retire technical risks, venture capital investors may feel comfortable funding subsequent operational phases toward profitable commercialization.
Conceptual illustration showing the first iteration of the proposed design of a GE⊕ Lunar Power Station beaming power to facilities on the Moon. Credit: Astrostrom
In response to ESA’s Open Space Innovation Platform Campaign on Clean Energy – New Ideas for Solar Power from Space, the Swiss company Astrostrom laid out a comprehensive plan last June for a solar power satellite built using resources from the Moon. Called the Greater Earth Lunar Power Station (GE⊕-LPS, using the Greek astronomical symbol for Earth, ⊕ ), the ambitious initiative would construct a solar power satellite located at the Earth-Moon L1 Lagrange point to beam power via microwaves to a lunar base. Greater Earth and the GE⊕ designation are terms coined by the leader of the study, Arthur Woods, and are “…based on Earth’s true cosmic dimensions as defined by the laws of physics and celestial mechanics.” From his website of the same name, Woods provides this description of the GE⊕ region: “Earth’s gravitational influence extends 1.5 million kilometers in all directions from its center where it meets the gravitational influence of the Sun. This larger sphere, has a diameter of 3 million kilometers which encompasses the Moon, has 13 million times the volume of the physical Earth and through it, passes some more than 55,000 times the amount of solar energy which is available on the surface of the planet.”
GE⊕-LPS would demonstrate feasibility for several key technologies needed for a cislunar economy and is envisioned to provide a hub of operations in the Greater Earth environment. Eventually, the system could be scaled up to provide clean energy for the Earth as humanity transitions away from fossil fuel consumption later this century.
One emerging technology proposed to aid in construction of the system is a lunar space elevator (LSE) which could efficiently transport materials sourced on the lunar surface to L1. SSP explored this concept in a paper by Charles Radley, a contributor to the Astrostrom report, in a previous post showing that a LSE will be feasible for the Moon in the next few decades (an Earth space elevator won’t be technologically possible in the near future).
Another intriguing aspect of the station is that it would provide artificial gravity in a tourist destination habitat shielded by water and lunar regolith. This facility could be a prototype for future free space settlements in cislunar environs and beyond.
Fabrication of the GE⊕-LPS would depend heavily on automated operations on the Moon such as robotic road construction, mining and manufacturing using in situ resources. Technology readiness levels in these areas are maturing both in terrestrial mining operations, which could be utilized in space, as well as fabrication of solar cells using lunar regolith demonstrated recently by Blue Origin. That company’s Blue Alchemist’s process for autonomously fabricating photovoltaic cells from lunar soil was considered by Astrostrom in the report as a potential source for components of the GE⊕-LPS, if further research can close the business case.
Most of the engineering challenges needed to realize the GE⊕-LPS require no major technological breakthroughs when compared to, for example (given in the report), those needed to commercialize fusion energy. These include further development in the technologies of the lunar space elevator, in situ lunar solar cell manufacturing, lunar material process engineering, thin-film fabrication, lunar propellent production, and a European heavy lift reusable launch system. The latter assumes the system would be solely commissioned by the EU, the target market for the study. Of course, cooperation with the U.S. could leverage SpaceX or Blue Origin reusable launchers expected to mature later this decade. With respect to fusion energy development, technological advances and venture funding have been accelerating over the last few years. Helion, a startup in Everett, Washington is claiming that it will have grid-ready fusion power by 2028 and already has Microsoft lined up as a customer.
Astrostrom estimates that an initial investment of around €10 billion / year over a decade for a total of €100 billion ($110 billion US) would be required to fund the program. They suggest the finances be managed by a consortium of European countries called the Greater Earth Energy Organization (GEEO) to supply power initially to that continent, but eventually expanding globally. Although the budget dwarfs the European Space Agency’s annual expenditures ( €6.5 billion ), the cost does not seem unreasonable when compared to the U.S. allocation of $369 billion in incentives for energy and climate-related programs in the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act. The GE⊕-LPS should eventually provide a return on investment through increasing profits from a cislunar economy, peaceful international cooperation and benefits from clean energy security.
The GE⊕-LPS adds to a growing list of space-based solar power concepts being studied by several nations to provide clean, reliable baseload energy alternatives for an expanding economy that most experts agree needs to eventually migrate away from dependence on fossil fuels to reduce carbon emissions. Competition will produce the most cost effective system which, coupled with an array of other carbon-free energy sources including nuclear fission and fusion, can provide “always on” power during a gradual, carefully planned transition away from fossil fuels. The GE⊕-LPS is particularly attractive as it would leverage resources from the Moon and develop lunar manufacturing infrastructure while serving a potential tourist market that could pave the way for space settlement.
Artist depiction of the interior of a cylindrical space colony during an eclipse of the sun. Credits: Don Davis / NASA Ames Research Center
This question has come up a lot lately in the press, usually in the context of how public funds should be spent in space. On the affirmative side, the answer has been addressed well by many space advocates over the years. Elon Musk wants to make the human race a multi-planetary species in case of a catastrophe on Earth and to expand consciousness out into the cosmos starting with Mars. Jeff Besos wants to move industrial activity off world and eventually fulfill Gerard K. O’Neill’s vision of trillions of people living in free space colonies. When asked the question last year by American Enterprize Institute’s James Pethokoukis, Robert Zubrin said: “In order to have a bigger future. In order to have an open future. In order to open the possibility to create new branches of human civilization that will add their creative talents to the human story. ” He thinks Intellectual Property will be the main export of a Mars colony and he’s already kickstarting that process with the Mars Technology Institute. And of course, The National Space Society (NSS) provides clear rationale in the introduction to their Roadmap to Space Settlement.
In an effort to gain deeper insights and clarify the vision of space settlement, SSP reached out to several space advocates, academicians and entrepreneurs to gather as many viewpoints as possible. They were asked if they agreed with the viewpoints above or if they had a different take. Regardless of if we are asking for public support for government efforts through space agencies, if the efforts will be funded by private individuals or through a combination of public/private partnerships, why should humanity settle space? Here are their answers:
Doug Plata MD MPH, President & Founder of the Space Development Network, makes the case that there is no need to convince the public of the value of space:
“Many space advocates argue that the general public needs to be convinced of the value of space if we are ever going to see space development occur. So, these advocates come up with a wide variety of arguments including: the necessity of securing large amounts of public funding, the value of satellites in our everyday lives, the potential for a huge “space economy”, inspiring the next generation, and even for the survival of the human species.
“But is convincing the general public actually necessary? Put another way, will off-Earth settlement be impossible unless polls show a large percentage of the public supports space settlement?
“Secondly, it is not the general public who will be deciding whether they will settle on the Moon and Mars. Specifically, the uninterested, the cynical, nor the leftist opponent will need to be convinced over their objections. The ones who will decide will be countries choosing to send their hero astronauts to represent their own people and also private citizens who have saved up enough money. If countries have national pride (practically all) and if there are any “early adopters” with enough savings to pay for their ticket and stay, then it will be those who will decide to go. From Elon’s first BFR presentation (Guadalajara), this has been his business case and I find it to be sufficient. We don’t have to imagine some sort of unobtanium to trade with Earth to figure out where the funding will come from.
“For starters, much of the recent progress in space has not been the result of a groundswell of support from the public. Both Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos started their path to radically reducing the cost of launch independent of any groundswell of support for space by the public. And it is significant to note that they obtained their considerable wealth thanks to their Internet companies that had little, if anything, to do with space. It is their vast wealth that now gives them the ability to develop the reusable rockets which will make space development and settlement affordable and, as a result, inevitable. Even if NASA’s budget is cut to zero, Bezos will still have 20 X the wealth of NASA’s annual human spaceflight budget with Musk’s wealth at 30 X. And both are making progress with their heavy lift vehicles in a significantly more cost-effective manner than NASA.
“In conclusion, the cynic cannot be convinced, and it is probably a waste of time to try. But for those who have their own reasons for wanting to go, so long as the price has been brought down low enough…it is they who will inherit the stars. To each his own.”
Image of the Space Development Network’s full-scale mockup of an inflatable permanent habitat for the Moon or Mars at ISDC 2023. The concept is intended to demonstrate how a 100 tonne SpaceX Starship payload could be delivered and deployed to create a habitat with a 1 acre footprint. Credits: Doug Plata / Space Development Network
Dr. Daniel Tompkins, an agricultural scientist and founder of GrowMars weighs in:
“To address the term settlement from a biological view, for me it means to settle on a process or methodology to sustain and expand water/food/housing. There is settling the land to provide these things (where and how to get clean water, grow/harvest food, get building material). there is settling on practices that are reproducible with multi generational intent. Building schools, planning for expanding population. Different than an oil platform or remote research center which aren’t considered sea steading or settling Antarctica for the multigenerational intent reason.
“To answer directly on various views, mixed on positions:
“Musk- agree Mars is “easy” and most scaleable [sic]. Disagree that sustainable cites or a million people is a magically successful benchmark. Showing ability to support expanding population regardless of scale is important. How do you go from the resources to support 2 people, to 4 people.
“Zubrin- practical and pragmatic about challenges for human missions to Mars and how they can potentially accelerate the science and search for life beyond Earth. Agree IP is best export to support Mars economy lb for lb., particularly genetic engineering and synthetic biomanufacturing. Also agree on term resource creation vs term ISRU.
“Bezos- Moon is more difficult then Mars to “settle” lacking useful carbon and nitrogen than Mars, but opens a bigger range of options for where we can, the trillion people in the solar system model. The thermodynamics of habitats and greenhouses in these places isn’t well established or realized and there are misconceptions to this point of Mars being too cold.
“NSS- disagree with undertone of unlimited power needed to solve for space and earth to bring post scarcity. Unlimited biology vs unlimited power argument.
“O’Neill mostly addressed in above views, specifically cylinders are inspiring, but the process to make them not shown to make people think reproducible. Also, micrometer impacts.
“My short response to the space community and wider is that regardless of where in space (orbit, lunar, Mars etc.), space settlement is about learning to thrive independent of Earth’s natural resources in extreme environments. Whether we go to space or not, we are going to have to solve the same problem sets, i.e. clean air, water, food, materials on Earth in 50-100 years, if not sooner. It means you don’t have to fight with [your] neighbor or chop down the rainforest for more resources, you can do resource creation anywhere on Earth and meet basic needs.
“Space settlement level hardware should not be an eventually, it can be smaller than traditional mission payloads and de-risk certain mission architectures. Which is less mass/volume. Food for 3 years, greenhouses, or a machine to make greenhouses? Some of all three would be good, especially in certain scenarios.
“With sustainable independent settlement as a benchmark, practices and processes need to be inherently reproducible and serviceable. Similar and inspired methods could be used on Earth with limited resources in extreme environments to bootstrap resource creation to meet basic needs.”
Conceptual illustration of a habitat on Mars constructed from self-replicating greenhouses. Credits: GrowMars / Daniel Tompkins
Dr. Tiffany Vora, VP of Innovation Partnerships at Explore Mars and Vice Chair of Digital Biology and Medicine at Singularity University, had the following take:
“In my mind, there are three big arguments in favor of humans moving off-planet for extended, if not permanent, habitation.
“First, we more or less have the technologies that we need in order to do so, as well as a burgeoning space economy. I view crewed space habitation and settlement as further spurs to technological and economic development that will drive deeper understanding of the world around us while creating jobs and, hopefully, prosperity beyond a privileged few. That technology development has the added benefit of improving life on Earth, for example by contributing to solutions to the UN SDGs—on the way to setting the stage for sustainable human habitation off Earth.
“Second, as a biologist, I simply cannot believe that we are alone in the universe. I can’t even bring myself to believe that we’re alone in the Solar System! I view exploration and long-term settlement as key components of finding life off Earth, learning how it works, and learning from how it works. Serving as stewards of non-Terran life would be a momentous responsibility for humanity; although we have a dismal record of that here at home, I believe that life anywhere in the universe is a precious thing that would be worth a deep sense of obligation on the part of humans. Alternatively, failing to locate life elsewhere in the Solar System could provide strong messaging about the fundamental science of life—and hammer home the precarity and beauty of life on Earth.
“Third, I still believe in the capacity of space to inspire people, across generations and boundaries and even ideologies. The goal of settling space isn’t only about setting boots on exotic landscapes: it’s about staring at unbelievably complicated and dangerous challenges and saying, “Let’s do this—and here’s how I’m going to help.” I grew up in Florida, standing in my backyard watching shuttle launches. I have never lost the feeling that I had as a kid, witnessing that. I want every child on Earth to feel that sense of inspiration, of desperate excitement about the future—as well as a compelling urge to be part of it. Sure, I’d love for that to inspire STEMM careers, but there are so many other ways to contribute!
“Obviously, every word that I’ve written here comes with its own caveats. But just as I believe in these words, I also believe in our ability to make choices that open up an abundance of possible futures to bring prosperity and peace, not just to as many people around the world as possible, but to our own planet. The key is choices, and those choices have to be made starting today.”
“The new century will see a renaissance of space exploration as exciting and as challenging as the space race in the 1960s. And this rebirth will happen under the banner of freedom and private property, the very principles for which the United States fought the Cold War.”
Zimmerman continues:
“In a larger more philosophical perspective, we settle space because that’s what humans must do. It is the noblest thing we can do. To quote myself again, this time from my 2003 history, Leaving Earth:
‘Our hopes and dreams are a definition of our lives. If we choose shallow and petty dreams, easy to accomplish but accomplishing little, we make ourselves small. But if we dream big, we make ourselves great, taking actions that raise us up from mere animals.’ “
“Earthrise” image taken by astronaut Bill Anders from Apollo 8 on Christmas Eve 1968. Note that this is the original orientation of the image. As pointed out by Zimmerman, it was rotated 90o by the press for dramatic effect. Credits: William Anders/NASA
Entrepreneur and inventor Ryan Reynolds had a refreshingly unique perspective:
“So, why should humanity settle space (remotely and in-person)?:
To be confronted with a new set of challenging environments.
Feel the struggle to understand and adapt to them.
Benefit from the effort through shared insights and tangible gains for all.
To observe ourselves outside of the cradle, and know better what we are.
To gain a broader view of our kinship with all that exists.
To be surprised and appalled at our behavior out there.
To ensure that the story does not end here.
To extend biology’s reach.”
Dr. Peter Hague, an astrophysicist in the UK who blogs on Planetocracy had this to say:
“The solar system can and will, eventually, support civilisation on a more larger scale than exists on Earth. There is 2 billion times as much energy available from the Sun in the wider solar system as falls on the Earth alone, and huge reserves of raw materials. The composition of this civilisation will be determined by which nations make investments now – they will get to populate the new society, set the rules and inspire the culture. So it’s in the interests of nations to have a stake in the future, or be irrelevant in a few centuries.”
Haym Benaroya, Distinguished Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Rutgers University and author of Building Habitats on the Moon provided these views:
“I often have to defend the efforts and resources that have been used, and will continue to be allocated, for the space program, and especially the manned space program. While one can rightly say that the funds expended is miniscule as compared to other things that governments and people spend vast sums on, this argument rings hollow. I prefer to point to space, its exploration and its settlement, as an open-ended human adventure and imperative that provides young generations a positive vision of their future, one that gives hope to them and their decedents. Simultaneously, it offers the likely significant technical developments that would not occur otherwise. These technologies will impact how humans will live. Their health will improve, their lives will be longer, more fulfilled, and with the potential for great achievements. There is also the hope that with greater abundance for all on Earth, which a potentially vast space economy can provide, the tolerance for wars will decline. This last idea is a bit utopian given the history of the human race, but it is not a fantasy. It is a potential. Space can increase that potential in a major way.”
Dr. David Livingston, creator/host of The Space Show and one of today’s foremost authorities on the New Space economy, had this thought-provoking vision:
“Space settlement is a visionary long-term project. In addition, I’m confident that be the inevitable outcome pushed by a global humanity wanting to go to space for off-Earth experiences, living off-Earth and eventually creating off-Earth communities. I see it as a natural outgrowth of innovation, advancements in all walks of life and in our desire to see and check out what lies just around the corner. Over time this will happen within the private commercial section of our economy with government mostly working to provide enabling rules of the road to mitigate some risks and uncertainty through establishing order and reasonable protocols. To breathe life into this vision so that it becomes reality, collectively we need to anchor our vision in science, engineering, medical development, behavioral science and most likely many more foundational components so that what we build and stands the test of time on solid footing. Having a dream and a vision for space settlement is one thing but to work on it, to enable it, to develop it, to make it come about implies we are a free people able to pursue dreams, to turn them into reality and to create amazing outcomes that were not even in existence yesterday. But its not enough to just have a good dream or vision for the future. We need to be able to make it happen which to me implies having a solid foundation not Bay Mud, plus realistic, plausible outcome expectations that are only possible when we can explore, build, and develop as we see fit. When we can take risks. Being free to push forward to what lies beyond Earth is as essential as all the other ingredients that will go into making space settlement happen because without that freedom, we will have our dreams but without the ability to make them real.
“I’m fully aware that the settlement discussions like to focus on operational timelines, rockets, engineering, medical, food, and all sorts of challenges. While all of this is critical to developing space settlement, these discussions must not sidetrack us into a world of hypotheticals and perspectives suggesting this or that technology is best given our present state of settlement R&D. Since I firmly believe that the private sector should make settlement happen, more so than the government, I would like to see viable commercial projects and startups designed to enable and support the goal of settlement. Government too has an important role in establishing space settlement. Rules of the road and policies are needed to provide order, structure, and safety. One of our primary relationships with government must be oversight so that we enable not curtail settlement development.
“Space Settlement is fraught with challenges, with naysayers and those that think they know best for others. I have every confidence that we will in time be overcome these obstacles. By showing and doing, not by talking and promising. I’m in less of a hurry to see the first settlement than I am in seeing us get started with essential precursors such as long-term commercial project financing as an example. Space settlement will likely evolve because of a step-by- step methodical approach to information and fact gathering, problem solving, testing, development, and more testing. Risk taking will play a very large role in our ability to move forward. As for risk taking, it can only be taken by those with the freedom to do so. As we advance step by step, innovation and forward thinking by those on the front lines will play an increasingly valuable role in turning our vision into reality.
“Space settlement is and should be a global endeavor with unlimited motivating and inspiring reasons driving thousands if not millions of us to our goal. As we move forward, we are sure to uncover and use many of the tightly held secrets of our universe. For sure it will be a very exciting and rewarding adventure as we figure out how to live, work, and play off-Earth, all the while making sure the process and our off-Earth communities are sustainable and independent on an ongoing basis. This will happen if we remain focused and avoid distraction. Having patience will help us stay the course and to develop and maintain our needed drive into the future. A future that to me lies ahead of us with as much certainty as does our daily sunrise and sunset.”
Tom Marotta, CEO of The Spaceport Company and Brett Jones, Strategic Marketer and Frontier Tech investor cowrote this inspiring response:
“Reimagining the Stars: A Multiplanetary Mindset for a Flourishing Future The challenges humanity faces today are vast. From the instability of our global systems to the dwindling resources and fading hopes, there’s an undeniable sense of stagnation. Yet, within this atmosphere of despondency lies a beacon of hope, a path toward rejuvenation: the cosmos. Imagine a world where resources are not just abundant, but practically infinite. Where our collective potential is not limited by the boundaries of our blue planet, but instead, expanded by the boundless wonders of space. Such a vision is not mere science fiction; it is a future within our grasp.
“Space: An Oasis of Resources and Possibilities Outer space is not just about twinkling stars and distant planets. It’s a treasure trove waiting to be explored. The vast quantities of materials and energy floating in the cosmic expanse can fuel economies, revitalize our planet, and secure prosperous futures for generations. And it’s not just about physical resources. The challenges of space exploration will drive advancements in healthcare, technological innovation, and even the social fabric of society.
“New Frontiers, New Beginnings Space offers a fresh canvas, an opportunity to redefine human existence. For those yearning for change, be it a new environment, companionship, or the thrill of exploration, the cosmos holds endless possibilities. It’s not just about survival; it’s about thriving in ways we have yet to envision.
“Redefining NASA’s Mission: From Pride to Purpose NASA has always been a symbol of American pride. Its achievements, from landing on the moon to exploring the distant reaches of our solar system, are testament to human ingenuity. Yet, its true potential lies not just in exploration, but in transformation.
“For NASA to truly leave an indelible mark on every individual, it needs to shift its vision. Instead of focusing solely on exploration and scientific endeavors, the emphasis should be on providing direct benefits for every citizen. This involves prioritizing space settlements, harnessing energy from space, and leveraging cosmic resources.
“An Invitation to the Stars As we stand on the cusp of a new era, we must choose the trajectory of our future. By adopting a multiplanetary mindset, we’re not just securing a better life for ourselves but ensuring the continued growth and prosperity of all humankind for millennia to come. The universe beckons, offering hope and possibilities. It’s up to us to answer the call.”
Conceptual illustration of a mobile offshore launch platform as part of a robust launch industry infrastructure servicing thousands of launches in the near future to support space development. Credits: The Spaceport Company
“The question of ‘why’ humanity should settle space has been debated ever since it became technologically possible in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. And the question has renewed relevance here in 2023 with the launch of a new space race — both public and private. A frequent objection is: “Why should we spend precious resources on space development when we have pressing problems to solve down here on Earth?”
“However, to address that concern I think it’s vital to re-frame the question as not just ‘why’ we should settle space, but why we must urgently settle space. And the answer is compelling: we must settle space in order to deliver economic opportunity and clean energy to all the people of Earth, particularly if we are to have a reasonable chance of resolving the existential threat of climate change. One may question how expanding human society and industry into space accomplishes that, but the answer is straightforward…
“Yes, developed nations have made progress in reducing their carbon emissions in an effort to address climate change. And yes, more consumers are buying electric cars. However, social media and mainstream news reports tend to suggest climate change will soon be under control if we just continue installing solar & wind farms, and keep buying electric cars. However, the truth is that human civilization as a whole is not reducing carbon emissions. In fact, for all our efforts over the past 30 years all we’ve done is slow the growth of emissions. For example, global carbon emissions increased yet again (0.9%) in 2022 and that increase was above the 6% increase from the year before (source: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration). Pointedly, carbon emissions have increased almost every year since the dawn of the industrial age in 1850 (a notable exception being 2020, during the height of the pandemic).
“The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere today was last experienced 4.3 million years ago, during the mid-Pliocene epoch when sea levels were 75 feet higher than today, and average temperatures were 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than pre-industrial times. Even if we reduced annual global carbon emissions to zero tomorrow, average global temperatures would still continue to rise each year for a century or more because of the trillion tons of CO2 that we’ve already released into our atmosphere since 1850. That CO2 will take a century or more to be sequestered by the natural carbon cycle, which means there will be a surplus of heat absorbed by the planet each and every year no matter how many solar panels, wind turbines, and hydro power stations we install.
“No, in order to truly address climate change, we’re going to need to remove CO2 from Earth’s atmosphere, reducing concentrations from the present 418ppm down to at least 350ppm, a level more suitable to global civilization. But coming up with the terawatts of clean energy required to remove all that CO2 is going to be nearly impossible here on Earth, especially as economic and political turmoil continues to spread in response to climactic chaos.
“Adding to the challenge of resolving climate change is the fact that over 2 billion people currently live in poverty and billions more experience meager living standards. They are eagerly trying to improve their circumstances through economic development and increased energy usage. India, China, nations of Africa, and elsewhere want to improve the lives of their citizens just as developed nations of the West did over the past 150 years. They need energy to do so, and new coal and gas-fired power plants are coming online in the developing even as they continue to roll out solar and wind.
“How can we possibly increase the energy and resources available to the people of Earth without further polluting our already ailing home world — especially in time to stave off the worst effects of climate change, which will itself cause more conflict, uncontrolled migration and food shortages, reducing cooperation on global issues? Earth is a finite system, and the solution to climate change and continued economic development worldwide lies in going beyond Earth’s atmosphere to obtain the energy and resources we need.
“One answer is to expand carbon-intensive industry and energy generation into cislunar space. By using in-situ resource utilization in deep space (as opposed to launching all our working mass from Earth), we can start to rapidly build out an offworld industrial infrastructure & economy, using resources harvested from our Moon and near-Earth asteroids. By refining these materials in space, we can build enormous solar power satellites, place them in geosynchronous orbit, and beam at first gigawatts and later terawatts of clean solar power to rectennas on the Earth’s surface 24-hours a day, rain or shine anywhere in the hemisphere beneath them. The technology to accomplish this has existed since the mid-1970’s. And Earth’s geosynchronous orbit, safely populated with solar power satellites could return well over 300 terawatts of continuous clean energy — and for reference we currently consume a bit over 20 terawatts of energy worldwide. Plus, the economic growth made possible by expanding industry and energy generation into cislunar space will be critical for all the people of Earth. This could include industries only possible in the microgravity and/or near-perfect vacuum of space, from ultra-clear ZBLAN fiber optics, exotic alloys, pharmaceutical discovery, astronomy — the list goes on.
“So ‘why’ should we settle space? I contend that’s the wrong question. The right question is ‘why should we urgently‘ settle space? And the answer is to avoid an existential catastrophe and instead make possible a promising and dynamic future for countless generations to come.”
Finally, here are the reasons for space settlement articulated as goals in 1976 by Gerard K. O’Neill from his blueprint for migration off Earth, The High Frontier:
Ending hunger and poverty for all human beings
Finding high-quality living space for a world population which will double withing forty years, and triple with another thirty, even if optimistic estimates of low-growth rate are realized
Achieving population control without war, famine, dictatorship, or coercion
Increasing individual freedom and the range of options available to every human being
Cutaway view revealing interior of a toroidal space settlement. Credits: Rick Guidice / NASA Ames Research Center
Artist impression of an asteroid smelting operation. Credits: Bryan Versteeg / spacehabs.com
When humanity migrates out into the solar system we’ll need a variety of elements on the periodic table to build settlements and the infrastructure needed to support them such as solar power satellites. But before that future becomes a reality, there may be a near term market on Earth for precious metals sourced in space as transportation costs come down. There is also the added benefit of moving the mining industry off planet to preserve the environment. Could the asteroid belt provide these materials? Kevin Cannon, assistant professor at the Space Resources Program at the Colorado School of Mines describes the prospects for mining precious metals and building materials for space infrastructure asteroids in a recent paper in Planetary and Space Science. Coauthors on the paper Matt Gialich and Jose Acain, are CEO and CTO, respectively, at the asteroid mining company AstroForge which just came out of stealth mode last year.
The asteroids have accessible mining volume that exceeds that available on the Moon or Mars. This is because only the thin outer crust of these bodies is reachable by excavation, whereas the asteroids are small enough to be totally consumed resulting in higher accessible mining volume.
To-scale accessible mining volume of terrestrial bodies, calculated as the total volume for the asteroids (main belt mass of 2.39 x 1023 kg, mean bulk density of 2000 kg/m3), and as the volume for an outer shell 1.2 km in thickness for the Moon, Mercury, and Mars, equivalent to the deepest open pit mine on Earth. Note the combined volume of the near-Earth asteroids (~5 x 1012 m3) is too small to be visible at this scale. Figure 1 in paper. Credits K.M. Cannon et al.
The authors take a fresh look at available data from meteorite fragments of asteroids. Their analysis found that for Platinum Group Metals (PGMs), the accessible concentrations are higher in asteroids than ores here on Earth making them potentially profitable to transport back for use in commodity markets.
“Asteroids are a promising source of metals in space, and this promise will mostly be unlocked in the main belt where the Accessible Mining Volume of bodies greatly exceeds that of the terrestrial planets and moons”
PGMs are indispensable in a wide range of industrial, medical, and electronic applications. Some examples of end-use applications include catalysts for the petroleum and auto industries (palladium and platinum), in pacemakers and other medical implants (iridium and platinum), as a stain for fingerprints and DNA (osmium), in the production of nitric acid (rhodium), and in chemicals, such as cleaning liquids, adhesives, and paints (ruthenium).
It has been pointed out by some analysts that flooding markets here on Earth with abundant supplies of PGMs from space will cause prices to plummet, but the advantage of reducing carbon emissions and environmental damage associated with mining activities may make it worth it. The authors also point out that there are probably various uses where PGMs offer advantages in material properties over other metals but are not being used because they are currently too expensive.
Asteroids are rich in other materials such as silicon and aluminum which would be economically more useful for in-space applications. As the authors point out, some companies are already planning for use of metals and manufacturing in space such as Redwire Corporation with their On-Orbit Servicing, Assembly and Manufacturing (OSAM) and Archinaut One, which will attempt to build structural beams in LEO. Another example mentioned in the paper has been covered by SSP: the DARPA NOM4D program with aspirations to develop technologies for manufacturing megawatt-class solar arrays and radio frequency antennas using space materials. Finally, another potential market for aluminum sourced in space is fuel for Neumann Thrusters (although spent upper stage orbital debris may provide nearer term supplies). And of course, silicon will be needed to fabricate photovoltaic cell arrays for space-based solar power.
AstroForge will test their asteroid mining technology on two missions this year. Brokkr-1, a 6U CubeSat just launched on the SpaceX Transporter 7 mission last April, will validate the company’s refinery technology for extracting metals by vaporizing simulated asteroid materials and separating out the constituent components. Brokkr-2 will launch a second spacecraft on a rideshare mission chartered by Intuitive Machines attempting their second Moon landing later this year. Brokkr-2 will hitch a ride and then fly on to a target asteroid located over 35 million km from Earth. The journey is expected to take about 11 months and will fly by the body and continue testing for two years to simulate a roundtrip mission.
Conceptual illustration of ESA’s SOLARIS space based solar power system. Credits: ESA
This year there were a lot of announcements and commentary regarding government support for studies that may lead to actual development activities for space solar power. These events, as well as some efforts by private companies, have been prompted by global initiatives to reduce carbon emissions toward net zero by midcentury in the hope of mitigating climate change.
Last January Japan codified into law an aggressive timetable to launch an end-to-end space solar power demonstration flight in LEO by 2025. From an English translation of Japan’s Basic Space Law provided by the National Space Society, the exact text reads “Each ministry will work together to promote the realization of space solar power generation. Concerning microwave-type space solar power generation technology, the aim will be to demonstrate by 2025 energy transmission from low Earth orbit to the ground.” If implemented on time, this would be the first such technical demonstration to be performed from space. Also, the fact that the initiative is codified into Japan’s laws means they are serious.
At a Royal Aeronautical Society conference last April in London called Toward a Space Enabled Net-Zero Earth, chairman of the Space Energy Initiative Martin Soltau outlined a 12-year timeline that would provide gigawatts of power from space for the UK by 2035. The Initiative, which is a collection of over 50 British technology organizations, has selected a space solar power satellite design called CASSIOPeiA after a cost benefit analysis performed by Frazer-Nash Consultancy initially covered by SSP. Incidentally, links to the final report by Frazer-Nash Consultancy completed in September 2021 and to the CASSIOPeiA system are available on the SSP Space Solar Power page.
At the International Space Development Conference in Washington D.C. last May, Nickolai Joseph of the NASA Office of Technology Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) announced an effort by the space agency to reexamine space based solar power. The purpose of the study is to assess the degree to which NASA should support its development. Joseph said the report was to be completed by the end of September but as this post goes to press, it had not been released. Head of the OTPS, Bhavya Lal, tweeted last month that the report was in final review but this Tweet has been deleted without explanation. We are still waiting.
Three items on space solar power came up in September. First, John Bucknell returned to The Space Show to give an update on Virtus Solis, his space-based power system that SSP covered previously in an interview. With the novel approach of a Molynia sun-synchronous orbit, Bucknell claims that Virtus Solis will provide baseload capacity at far lower cost. In addition, the choice of orbits allow sharing orbital assets globally enabling solutions for multiple countries and regions. Bucknell hopes to have a working prototype to test in space within the next few years.
Schematic illustration of a three-array Virtus Solis constellation in Molniya orbits serving Earth’s Northern Hemisphere and a two-array constellation serving the Southern Hemisphere of Luna. Credits: Virtus Solis
Later in the month, the American Foreign Policy Council published a position paper on space based solar power in the organization’s publication Space Policy Review. From the introduction, author Cody Retherford writes that space solar power “…satellites are a critical future technology that have the potential to provide energy security, drive sustainable economic growth, support advanced military and space exploration capabilities, and help fight ongoing climate change.”
Overview of Space-based Solar Power from Figure 1 in American Foreign Policy Council report. Credits: AFPC and U.S. Department of Energy.
Also in September, the European Space Agency proposed a preparatory program called SOLARIS to inform a future decision by Europe on space-based solar power. The proposal was submitted for consideration in November at the ESA Council at Ministerial Level held in Paris.
The goal of SOLARIS, conceptualized in the illustration at the top of this post, would be to lay the groundwork for a possible decision in 2025 to move forward on a full development program to realize the technical, political and programmatic viability of a space solar power system for terrestrial needs.
Upon the conclusion of the ESA Council at Ministerial Level meeting SOLARIS was approved as a program. The Council confirmed full subscription to the General Support Technology Programme, Element-1, which requested funding for SOLARIS development. The activities performed under Element 1 support maturing technologies, building components, creating engineering tools and developing test beds for ESA missions, from engineering prototype up to qualification. Still to be determined: how much funding will be allocated by each member of the EU.
Then in October an article published in Science asks the question “Has a new dawn arrived for space-based solar power?” The authors bring to light what many advocates have already realized: that better technology and falling launch costs have revived interest in the technology. Also in October, MIT Technology Review issued a report “Power Beaming Comes of Age”. Based on interviews with researchers, physicists, and senior executives of power beaming companies, the report evaluated the economic and environmental impact of wireless power transmission to flush out the challenges of making the technology reliable, effective and secure.
China announced in November that it plans to test space solar power technologies outside its Tiangong space station. Using the robotic arms attached to the station, they plan to evaluate on-orbit assembly techniques for a space-based solar power test facility which will eventually then orbit independently to verify solar energy collection and wireless power transmission. The China Academy of Space Technology has already articulated plans for development of their own space solar power system culminating in a 2 Gigawatt facility in geostationary orbit by 2050.
To cap off the year, aerospace engineer and founder of The Spacefaring Institute Mike Snead published a four-part series on evaluation of green energy alternatives including space solar power which he calls Astroelectricity. In the first part, he covers the history of humanity’s energy use and the dawn of fossil fuel use over the last century pointing out the fragility of the current system with respect to energy security. A gradual transition to fossil fuel free alternatives is needed to provide enough time for technology development and conversion over to green energy sources while not creating shocks to an economy based mostly on coal, oil and gas.
Next, nuclear power is addressed (and dismissed) as a green alternative with the next generation of smaller modular fission nuclear reactors currently under development. Due to waste heat challenges and nuclear weapons proliferation issues plus problems with scaling up enough of these power plants as base load supply to supplement intermittent wind and solar, this alternative is rejected as a viable green alternative. No mention is made of some the numerous fusion energy development activities in process or the promise of thorium molten salt reactors, so some readers may take issue with Snead’s position on this point.
In the third installment, if it is assumed that nuclear power is not a viable option, Snead examines to what extent wind and terrestrial based solar power has to be scaled up to replace fossil fuels in the latter part of this century given population growth and resulting energy needs. Not surprisingly, given the intermittent nature of wind and solar he finds these sources lacking, and they “… are not practicable options for America to go green.” Enter space solar power to fill the void.
In the last article in his series, Snead provides guidance for establishing a national energy security strategy for an orderly transition to green energy. He concludes that, “With America’s terrestrial options for going green not providing practicable solutions, the time for America to develop space solar power-generated astroelectricity has arrived. America now needs to pursue space solar power-generated astroelectricity to ensure that our children and grandchildren enjoy an orderly, prosperous transition to green energy.”
Finally, we close out the year with this: Northrop Grumman announced plans for an end to end space to ground demo flight in 2025 of their Space Solar Power Incremental Demonstrations and Research (SSPIDR) project funded by the Air Force Research Laboratory. SSP reported on the SSPIDR system previously. This development sets up a race between Japan, Virtus Solis (both mentioned above) and the U.S. government to be the first to beam power from space to the ground by the middle of this decade.
Conceptual illustration of a planetary sunshade blocking a fraction of sunlight from reaching Earth at the L1 Lagrange point. Credits: Planetary Sunshade Foundation
The Planetary Sunshade Foundation (PSF) would answer “Yes!” to both questions. In a paper presented at the AIAA ASCEND conference in 2020 on the group’s website, the authors* lay out a well researched case on feasibility. The technology needed to build such a megastructure, envisioned to be located at the Earth-Sun L1 Lagrange point, will depend heavily on resource extraction on the Moon and Near Earth Asteroids as well as in-space manufacturing, both of which are anticipated to be mature industries by mid-century.
Building such a megastructure will be a huge undertaking and would require significant funding as well as international cooperation among world governments. PSF and many other groups (including President Joe Biden) take the position that global warming is an existential threat and therefore mitigating its effects are worth the costs. The foundation says on their website that “We have only ten years to dramatically decrease the use of fossil fuels, or be forced to respond to catastrophic global warming.” Other credentialed climate scientists interpret the same data differently disagreeing that if we don’t act now the impact will be catastrophic. They believe that a more gradual transition based on innovation and adaption would make more economic sense.
Dr. Steven Koonin, who served as Undersecretary for Science in the U.S. Department of Energy under President Obama, in his book “Unsettled” uses data from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to show that the impact on the U.S. economy near the end of this century due to the worst scenario of predicted global temperature rise would be minimal. Therefore, in his view the warnings of an “existential threat” are not supported by the data.
Bjorn Lomborg takes the position that rather than making an abrupt change to our economy of reducing carbon emissions to zero by mid century, which is projected to impose significant economic costs and lower standards of living, we need to ramp up our investments in green energy innovation. This would include research and development in renewable energy technology such as solar and wind power, improving battery efficiency, nuclear power and other options to more gradually migrate away from fossil fuels.
The idea of placing a sunshade at L1 to cool the planet is not new, as evidenced by a few examples listed as references in the PSF paper. One of the references published back in 2006 by Roger Angel, Professor of Astronomy and Optical Sciences at the University of Arizona, examines the “Feasibility of cooling the Earth with a cloud of small spacecraft near the inner Lagrange point (L1)”. Angel realized that embarking on such an ambitious endeavor should only be initiated to avert serious climate change “…found to be imminent or in progress.” He concludes that “The same massive level of technology innovation and financial investment needed for the sunshade could, if also applied to renewable energy, surely yield better and permanent solutions.”
Such major undertakings among world governments are by nature political, but if agreement is eventually reached by stakeholders on the urgency to build a planetary sunshade, the option will be available to humanity in the near future should it become necessary. The planetary sunshade is technically possible with future technology advances and has the potential for other benefits. For example, if the structure is made from thin-film photovoltaics, it would be possible to collect enough solar energy to provide hundreds of terawatts of power which is many times the current needs of Earth (currently 17TW). PSF believes the sunshade megastructure “…could generate civilization-transforming energy supplies.” The authors even suggest that a toroidal colony like the one conceived in the NASA 1975 Space Settlement Design Study could be constructed nearby to house workers supporting the manufacture of the sunshade and be “…combined to create banded toroidal settlements as well, scaling linearly, depending upon the population needs of the settlement.”
___________________
* The authors ( A. Jehle, E. Scott, and R. Centers) of the paper “A Planetary Sunshade Built from Space Resources” as of last year were graduate students in the Center for Space Resources at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden, Colorado. Centers and Scott are Director and Systems Engineer, respectively on the PSF Team.
Conceptual illustration of a Virtus Solis satellite array beaming power to central California (not to scale). Credits: Virtus Solis Technologies. NOTE: all images in this post are credited to Virtus Solis Technologies
Ever since I was in high school space solar power has been the holy grail of space advocates. I even wrote a report on the topic based on Peter Glaser’s vision in my high school physics class before Gerard K. O’Neill popularized the concept in The High Frontier leveraging it as the economic engine behind orbiting space settlements. But the technology was far from mature back then, and O’Neill knew back in 1976 the other main reason why after all these years space solar power has not been realized:
“If satellite solar power is an alternative as attractive as this discussion indicates, the question is, why is it not being supported and pushed in vigorous way? The answer can be summarized in one phrase: lift costs.” – Gerard K. O’Neill, The High Frontier
John Bucknell, CEO and Founder of Virtus Solis, the company behind the first design to cost space solar power system (SSPS), believes that recent technological advances, not the least of which are plummeting launch costs, will change all that. He claims that his approach will be able to undercut fossil fuel power plants on price. He recently appeared on The Space Show (TSS) with Dr. David Livingston discussing his new venture. SSP reached out to him for an exclusive interview and a deep dive on his approach, the market for space solar power and its impact on space development.
SSP: Technological advancements of all the elements of a space solar power system have gradually matured over the last few decades such that size, mass and costs have been reduced to the point where there are now experiments in space to demonstrate feasibility. For example, SSP has been following the first test of the Naval Research Laboratory’s Photovoltaic Radio-frequency Antenna Module (PRAM) aboard the Air Force’s X37 Orbital test vehicle. Caltech’s Space-based Solar Power Project (SSPP) has been working on a tile configuration that combines the photovoltaic (PV) solar power collection, conversion to radio frequency power, and transmission through antennas in a compact module. According to your write-up in Next Big Future on a talk given to the Power Satellite Economics Group by the SSPP project manager Dr. Rich Madonna, they plan a flight demonstration of the tile configuration this December. The Air Force Research Laboratory’s Space Solar Power Incremental Demonstrations and Research (SSPIDR) project also plans a flight demonstration later this year with an as yet unannounced configuration. Which configuration of this critical element (PRAM or tile) do you think is the most cost effective and can you say if your system will be using one of these two configurations or some other alternative?
Bucknell: There is a lot of merit to the tile configuration as it shares much of it’s manufacturing process with existing printed circuit board (PCB) construction techniques. The PRAM itself is a version of the tile, but as it was Dr. Paul Jaffe’s doctoral dissertation prototype (from 2013) it did not use PCB techniques and should not be considered an intended SSPS architecture. Details of Caltech’s latest design aren’t released, but it appears they intend to deploy a flexible membrane version of the tile to allow automated deployment. Similar story with SSPIDR. As space solar power is a manufacturing play as much as anything, you would choose known large scale manufacturing techniques as your basis for scaling if you intend earth-based manufacturing – which we do. So yes, we are planning a version of the tile configuration.
SSP: You’ve said that the TRL levels of most of the elements of an SSPS are fairly mature but that the wireless power transmission of a full up phased array antenna from space to Earth is at TRL 5-6. The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) plans a prototype flight as the next phase of the SSPIDR project with demonstration of wireless power transmission from LEO to Earth in 2023. What is your timeline for launching a demo and will it beat the Air Force?
Bucknell: Our timescales are similar for a demonstrator, but I suspect the objectives of a military-focused solution would be different than ours. We would plan a LEO technology demonstrator meeting most of the performance metrics required for a MEO commercial deployment.
SSP: Your solution is composed of mass produced, factory-built components including satellites that will be launched repeatedly as needed to build out orbital arrays. Will multiple satellites be launched in one payload or will each module be launched on its own? What is the mass upper limit of each payload and how many launches are needed for the entire system?
Bucknell: We intend a modular solution, such that very few variants are required for all missions. A good performance metric for a SSP satellite would be W/kg – and we believe we can approach 500 W/kg for our satellites (Caltech has demonstrated over 1000 W/kg for their solution). With known launchers and their payloads a 100MW system would take three launches of a Starship, with less capable launchers requiring many more. Since launch cost is inversely related to payload mass, we expect Starship to be the least expensive option although having a competitive launch landscape will help that aspect of the economics with forthcoming launchers from Relativity Space, Astra and Rocket Lab being possibilities.
SSP: The way you have described the Virtus Solis system, it sounds like once your elements are in orbit, additional steps are needed to coordinate them into a functional collector/phased array. Presumably, this requires some sort of on-orbit assembly or automated in-space maneuvering of the modules into the final configuration. I know you are in stealth mode at this point, but can you reveal any details about how the system all comes together?
Bucknell: An on-orbit robotic assembly step is necessary, although the robotic sophistication required is intentionally very low.
SSP: Your system is composed of a constellation of collection/transmitter units placed in multiple elliptical Molniya sun-synchronous orbits with perigee 800-km, apogee 35,000-km and high inclination (e.g. > 60 degrees). I understand this allows the PV collectors to always face the sun while the microwave array can transmit to the target area without the need for physical steering, which simplifies the design of the spacecraft. Upon launch, will the elements be placed in this orbit right away or will they be “assembled” in LEO and then moved to the destination orbit. Do the individual elements or each system assembly as a whole have on-board propulsion?
Bucknell: The concept of operations is array assembly in final orbit, mostly to avoid debris raising from lower orbits.
Schematic illustration of a three-array Virtus Solis constellation in Molniya orbits serving Earth’s Northern Hemisphere and a two-array constellation serving the Southern Hemisphere of Luna
SSP: The primary objective of the AFRL SSPIDR project is delivery of power to forward deployed expeditionary forces on Earth which would assure energy supply with reduced risk and lower logistical costs. It sounds like your system would not work for this application given the need for 2-km diameter rectenna. Could this potential market be a point of entry for your system if it were scaled down or reconfigured in some way?
Bucknell: Wireless Power Transmission (WPT) at orbital to surface distances suffer from diffraction limits, which is true for optics of all kinds. It is not physically possible to place all the power on a small receiver, and therefore the military will likely accept that constraint. As a commercial enterprise, we could not afford to not collect the expensively-acquired and transmitted energy to the ground station. There are also health and safety considerations for higher intensity WPT systems – ours cannot exceed the intensity of sunlight for example, and therefore is not weaponizable.
SSP: You said on TSS that your strategy would, at least initially, bypass utilities in favor of independent power producers. What criteria is required to qualify your system for adoption by these organizations? You mentioned you have already started discussions with one such group. Can you provide any further details about how they would incorporate an SSPS into their existing assets?
Bucknell: One of the key features of space solar power is on-demand dispatchability. Grid-tied space solar power generation has the benefit of being able to bid into existing grids when generation is needed and task the asset to other sites when demand is low. This all assumes that penetration will be gradual, but some potential customers might desire baseload capacity in which case there is not as much need for dispatchability. Each customer’s optimal generation profile is likely to be unique so it is preferable to attempt to match that with a flexible system.
Conceptual illustration of a 1GW Virtus Solis rectenna array next to Topaz Solar Farm of 550MW capacity in San Luis Obispo County, California
SSP: Other companies have alternative SSPS designs planned for this market. For example, SPS – ALPHA by Solar Space Technologies in Australia and CASSIOPeiA by International Electric Company in theUK. How does Virtus Solis differentiate itself from the competition?
Bucknell: From a product perspective, we are able to provide baseload capacity at far lower cost. Also, we intentionally selected orbits to not only reduce costs but to induce sharing of the orbital assets across the globe such that this is not a solution just for one country or region.
SSP: How big is the likely commercial market for your product/services going to be by the time you are ready to start commercial operations? Can you share some of your assumptions and how they are derived?
Bucknell: Recent data indicates that electrical generation infrastructure worldwide is about $1.5T annually. If you add fossil fuel prospecting, it is $3.5T. Total worldwide generation market size is about $8T. All of this is derived from BP’s “Statistical Review of World Energy – June 2018” and the report from the International Energy Agency “World Energy Investment 2018”
SSP: For your company to start operations, what total funding will be required, and will it come from a combination of government and private sources, or will you be securing funding only from private investors?
Bucknell: As a startup, especially in hardware, funding comes from where you can get it. To date no governmental funding opportunities have matched our technology, but that might change. Our early raise has been from angel investors and venture capital firms. Over the course of the research and development efforts, we expect demand for capital will be below $100M over the next several years but accurately forecasting the future is challenging. We would note this level of required investment is far below our competition.
SSP: For hiring your management team, since this business is not mature, what analogous industries would you be looking at to recruit top talent?
Bucknell: Everything in our systems exist today elsewhere. The wireless data industry (5G for example) has the tools and experience for developing radio frequency antennas and associated broadcast hardware. The automotive industry has extensive experience with manufacturing electronics at low cost in high volumes, including power and control electronics. Controls software engineering is a large field in aerospace and automotive, but in a large distributed system like ours the controls software will extend far beyond guidance, navigation and control (GNC).
SSP: O’Neill envisioned the production of SSPSs as the market driver for space settlements, in addition to replication of more space colonies. This approach seems to have gathered less steam over the years as economics, technological improvements, and safety concerns have taken people out of the equation to build SSPSs in space. In a recent article in the German online publication 1E9 Magazine you talked about SSPSs being useful for settlements on the Moon and Mars. What role do you see them playing in free space settlements and could they still help realize O’Neill’s vision?
Bucknell: We stand at a cross-roads for in-space infrastructure. For the first time access to space costs look to be low enough to make viable commercial reasons to deploy large amounts of infrastructure into cislunar space and beyond. To date the infrastructure beyond earth observation and telecom has been deployed to mostly satisfy nation-state needs for science unable to be performed anywhere else as well as exploration missions (also a form of science). However, there has to be a strong pull/demand to spur the construction of access to space hardware (heavy lift rockets) that consequently lowers the cost further through economies of scale. As I described in my Space Show interview there are only a few commercial in-space businesses that are viable with today’s launch costs. We have had telecom for a long time, followed closely by military and then commercial earth observation. Now we have a large constellation of “internet of space”. Even with those applications, there is not a large pull to scale reusable launch vehicle production – as reusability is counter-productive for economies of scale. A large, self-supporting in-space infrastructure would be needed to bootstrap launch production sufficiently to self-fulfil low cost access to space – Space Solar Power is that infrastructure. Space tourism, asteroid mining and others do not have scale nor potential lofted mass to scale the launch market adequately. In that way, O’Neill’s vision is right – and the follow-on markets can leverage the largely paid-for launch infrastructure to make themselves viable. Space solar power will be the enabler for humanity to live and work off-Earth, and Virtus Solis is leading the way.
A new YouTube channel has just been launched called Space Matters. Hosted by Rhonda Stevenson, President/CEO of the Tau Zero Foundation, the show is a weekly digest covering a wide array of current space activities, challenges and accomplishments which aims to show how our success in space will improve life on Earth. This could become an influential forum for discussion among industry leaders on how to steer humanities course toward becoming a spacefaring civilization. The first episode, a panel discussion with pillars of the space industry, aired on March 20th and featured Jeff Greason of Tau Zero and Electric Sky, Justin Kugler of Redwire Space, Grant Anderson of Paragon Space Development Corporation, Andy Aldrin of the ISU Center for Space Entrepreneurship, at FIT and Rod Pyle, editor of Ad Astra and author of Space 2.0. The group had a lively discussion on each of their contributions to space development as well as current trends in the New Space economy. Subscribe to get an update every week on why Space Matters.
Artist depiction of an O’Neill cylinder from the novel K3+. Credits: Katie Lane (Full distribution rights reserved by Erasmo Acosta)
Erasmo Acosta thinks we might be headed in the wrong direction, that we may be suffering from planetary chauvinism and the better way may be to colonize space with O’Neill cylinders. He makes his case in a post on the Predict section of Medium. SSP has long been a strong proponent of free space O’Neill-type settlements, the advantages of which are numerous, not the least of which is 1G artificial gravity to prevent detrimental human health issues that may arise for occupants of colonies with lower gravity on the Moon or Mars. Such space settlements would house millions of people in perfect 70 degree controlled weather without the threat of natural disasters.
Jeff Bezos has advocated for this philosophy with the aim of moving heavy industry off world and preserving Earth’s environment for “residential zoning”. Recent developments seem to indicate he may be spending more of his time focusing on the realization of that vision.
Acosta, a retired software engineer, feels so strongly that O’Neill cylinders will be the preferred mode of space settlement he wrote a novel called K3+ which depicts a future in the next century where humans will be living in thousands of O’Neill cylinders in a “post-scarcity” civilization of virtually unlimited resources. Acosta envisions Mercury as a source of raw materials:
“The planet’s proximity to the sun, its low gravity, and metal-rich concentration make it the ideal source of raw materials for constructing thousands of O’Neill cylinders.”
In a previous post on Predict, he explains how to kickstart a program for harnessing space resources to fabricate these colonies.
After many years of construction, multiple rings of rotating habitats would eventually encircle the sun harnessing a vast amount of the energy output of our star approaching the configuration of a Dyson sphere.
Artist depiction of multiple rings of rotating habitats around the sun. Credits: Katie Lane (Full distribution rights reserved by Erasmo Acosta)
Finally, as a tribute to the father of free space colonies and an inspiration for a generation of space settlement advocates, I’d like to close out this post with a link to the just released trailer for the much anticipated documentary: The High Frontier, The Untold Story of Gerard K. O’Neill.
Left – Image of the Photovoltaic Radio-frequency Antenna Module (PRAM). Credits: of U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. Right: X-37B orbital test vehicle. Credits: Boeing
The first on-orbit demonstration of wireless power transmission, technology that could eventually support elements of a space solar power satellite has just been completed and published in the IEEE Journal of Microwaves. This experiment, the first flight test of a solar-to-RF Photovoltaic Radio-frequency Antenna Module (PRAM) lovingly referred to as a “sandwich module”, was performed on the U.S Airforce’s X-37 Orbital Test Vehicle, the launch of which SSP covered last May. Preliminary results have duplicated in space the expected power transmission that was tested on the ground pre-flight. Although testing is just getting started, the results show proof of concept of this prototype PRAM paving the way for the next phase of the Space Solar Power Incremental Demonstrations and Research (SSPIDR) project planned by Air Force Research Laboratory. The primary objective of SSPIDR is delivery of power to forward deployed expeditionary forces on Earth which would assure energy supply with reduced risk and lower logistical costs. The technology could eventually be used for commercial energy production.
Modular solar-to-RF panels based on the PRAM concept will enable very large radio frequency power beaming apertures to be assembled from a single panel design leading to scalability, lower mass and reduced costs.
Depiction of the PRAM functional mechanism for solar power satellites. Credits: Christopher T. Rodenbeck et al. / IEEE Journal of Microwaves
The next step in Phase 1 of the the SSPIDR project will be the world’s first space-to-ground power beaming demonstration of a solar to-RF modular panel currently planned for 2023.
