[HN Gopher] Caltech to launch space solar power technology demo ... ___________________________________________________________________ Caltech to launch space solar power technology demo into orbit Author : WalterBright Score : 98 points Date : 2023-01-05 17:49 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.caltech.edu) (TXT) w3m dump (www.caltech.edu) | cratermoon wrote: | See also https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/03/space-based-solar- | power/ | c-smile wrote: | Problem is not in harvesting the energy but in delivering it. | | The only reasonable option is to beam highly energetic beam back | to Earth. Do we want us to be browned by l/masers from the orbit? | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _only reasonable option is to beam highly energetic beam back | to Earth_ | | This is how we _should_ do it. But we can't. Fortunately, the | sat-to-sat laser folks are working on that kit. In the | meantime, these proposals tend to focus on microwaves. | | In any case, to the degree this one day has an economic case | around Earth, it's in powering low-orbit satellites. Not | punching through the atmosphere. That said, I don't have any | obvious near-term high-power use cases for a LEO constellation. | c-smile wrote: | > to focus on microwaves | | Ah, it will be masers then ... and so together with masks we | will wear saucepans ... | | We do not need additional energy to be delivered to the Earth | from outside, we are warming it already. | | Instead we need to harvest energy that is heating up Earth | surface already. | throwaway4aday wrote: | Why have I been seeing this egregiously wrong idea | everywhere lately? Delivering power in the form of | microwaves to the Earth is not going to cause any warming. | Even if we were to purposefully beam it straight into the | ocean and heat the water we just aren't capable of | delivering enough wattage to make a serious difference. The | reason global warming is a concern is because of the | greenhouse effect of CO2 trapping the _Suns_ heat which is | an energy input that we can 't even come close to | approximating. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _do not need additional energy to be delivered to the | Earth from outside, we are warming it already_ | | Waste heat isn't our problem. | | > _we need to harvest energy that is heating up Earth | surface already_ | | If we're being artistic that's what an in-orbit solar | panel, which at least part of the time blocks photons from | reaching the Earth, does. | WalterBright wrote: | In January 2023, the Caltech Space Solar Power Project (SSPP) is | poised to launch into orbit a prototype, dubbed the Space Solar | Power Demonstrator (SSPD), which will test several key components | of an ambitious plan to harvest solar power in space and beam the | energy back to Earth. | wrycoder wrote: | It launched successfully. | | I'll point out that a space-based solar array with a microwave | power downlink was on the front cover of IEEE Spectrum around | 1971. The article ran the numbers and pointed out the technical | challenges. | | So, this idea is not new, but it hasn't gained enough support | over the last fifty years to get a project off the ground. | xxr wrote: | I first learned about the idea from SimCity 2000[0]. Not | saying it was the impetus here, but I wonder what amount of | the continuing interest in orbital power is due to SC2k. (I | suspect my experience is not unique here on HN, but I wonder | about the "general" public.) | | [0]https://simcity.fandom.com/wiki/Microwave_Power_Plant | LarryMullins wrote: | Seems plausible, for millennials at least. SimCity 2000 was | one of those games that seemed to be in every public school | computer lab in the late 90s and early 00s. Tons of people | played it, more than just the usual audience for | management/business sims. | DennisP wrote: | Modern designs are a lot different than those monolithic '70s | designs. Now it's a bunch of mass-produced small parts self- | assembled in orbit, with a phased-array transmitter. | Manufacturing's way cheaper that way, once you start scaling | a bit. (See NASA's SPS-ALPHA project or the book _The Case | for Space Solar Power_.) | | The other big change is the prospect of $50/kg to LEO with | Starship. Falcon Heavy's advertised price is already down to | $600/kg. | pclmulqdq wrote: | I wasn't a huge believer in this project when I was at Caltech, | but I'm glad they stuck to it and are getting something off the | ground. It's an interesting tradeoff of RF losses vs losses to | solar power non-ideality. The theory looks great, but I do wonder | if the theory can be met in practice. | WalterBright wrote: | If it works in Earth orbit, it will also work in lunar orbit | where it can solve the most expensive barrier to a moon base - | power. | | So, although it may be too expensive for Earth power, it can be | very practical for moon power. | aerophilic wrote: | Love this concept... one issue however if I remember | correctly is that it is pretty costly (fuel wise) to keep | anything in lunar orbit. The issue is that the moon is very | "lumpy" causing you to have to constantly correct your orbit. | However maybe this is a non-issue if you are in a high enough | orbit... but then you are trading how much power you can get | to the surface. | gpm wrote: | There are a few "frozen orbits" that are stable: | https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at- | nasa/2006/3... | moffkalast wrote: | Yeah and the LRO has been in one of them for 13 years | now. It does restrict you quite a bit though. | | For Luna it doesn't make as much sense as it would for | say Mars, since there's no atmosphere to reduce | efficiency and no shortage of ground real estate. You can | save a bit of propellant to not bring the panel assembly | down, but you'll need fuel for orbital stationkeeping | instead anyway. | colineartheta wrote: | If I recall, the current plans for the Artemis base is a | small nuclear reactor. | dghughes wrote: | Wouldn't solar panels on the moon be easier? No atmosphere | and on always being blasted with sunshine. | elil17 wrote: | In addition to what others have said, it takes more | fuel/energy to land a payload on the moon than it does to | orbit one. | josh11b wrote: | There is no place on the moon that isn't in shadow 14 days | at a time. | https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2022/07/03/powering- | the-l... | TaylorAlexander wrote: | Maybe use solar panels to split lunar ice water in to | hydrogen and oxygen, then use that to run fuel cells in | the dark periods. | LarryMullins wrote: | 14 days of lunar night would get quite cold. Maybe you | could use the bases' water tanks as thermal batteries. | Nomentatus wrote: | Tall lunar pole towers: https://futurism.com/the- | byte/harvard-super-tall-towers-powe... | | Maybe better: nuke the moon and reduce a few key crater | rims, then use much shorter towers. Could be that a | series of regular bombs might be more effective and less | likely to "alarm the horses (general public.)" | amelius wrote: | Near the poles? | Fordec wrote: | Only works if your bases are at the poles. Which for some | missions works, but it's a limitation if your project | needs to be anywhere else. | Nomentatus wrote: | https://futurism.com/the-byte/harvard-super-tall-towers- | powe... | | There's a famous-in-the-area ex-NASA blogger with good | (not perfect) articles on the topic, but I can't Google | and find him 'cause authoritative institutions now seems | to trump and drown out mere experts on Google. | | Others here cite him: | https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/08/17/blog- | series-co... | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Wouldn 't solar panels on the moon be easier?_ | | Dust. | nakedrobot2 wrote: | there is no wind on the moon. | LarryMullins wrote: | There's still a bit of dust falling on the moon, kicked | up by meteorite impacts and perhaps electrostatic | effects. Probably not enough dust to cause issues though. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _there is no wind on the moon_ | | There is near a Moon base, which is presumably where | you'd need power. | ben_w wrote: | "Near" is a relative term; 10 km is a rounding error for | resistive losses even in a mediocre cable at | unspectacular voltages, even 1000 km isn't much loss for | an HVDC cable, and it's economically reasonable to loop | the moon with a 600O conductor if SpaceX's Starship price | estimate works out. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | I was going to rebut with distance and maintenance, but | it's a hell of a lot easier to go 10km over than 10km up. | (I think?) | | > _it 's economically reasonable to loop the moon with a | 600O conductor_ | | Could you generate nontrivial power from the Moon's | motion through the Earth's magnetic field? | ben_w wrote: | > Could you generate nontrivial power from the Moon's | motion through the Earth's magnetic field? | | Not sure, but my gut feeling says no: the Moon is a very | long way from the Earth relative to the Earth's size, | therefore the magnetic field is likely to be fairly | uniform around the Moon and so that can't extract much | work. | | That said, one fun idea I've had is to just assume that | the Dark Energy expansion of the universe is pushing the | Moon away very slowly; 73 (km/s)/Mpc * distance to the | moon [?] 9.5e-10 m/s, which is pretty close to the actual | current Moon-Earth recession speed. | | Plugging that into the formula for far-field | gravitational potential energy given the mass of Earth | and the Moon, that's about 170 GW at the present time. | | (But don't go trying to crowd-fund a Dark Energy field | reactor on my say-so: At my [rather limited] level of | understanding, it looks like physicists haven't yet | reached any sort of consensus as to whether or not Dark | Energy might work like that). | JumpCrisscross wrote: | I'll shoot you the DEFCoin white paper. | WJW wrote: | My gut feeling says that it is not impossible but you | would probably need many loops around the moon to | generate a sufficient coil, making the whole thing cost | prohibitive. You could probably dot some solar farms | around the equator of the moon and loop them all up with | a big cable for a fraction of the price. | LarryMullins wrote: | Laying ten thousand kilometers of cable to loop around | the moon sounds like a huge undertaking, even if you've | got a rocket that can bring the cable there. | | What would the cable layer look like? A huge robotic | rover? Could you get all 10,000 km onto one spool, or | deliver new spools to it? | dirkc wrote: | Two reasons I can think of | | 1. A moon day is 28 earth days, thus 14 days of darkness | | 2. Ice are in permanently shaded areas near the poles of | the moon, it might be easier to setup satellites to beam | down power rather than setting up in 2 locations | sveme wrote: | Why not use classical PV on the moon? Too much dust? | dahfizz wrote: | Moon nights last 14 days. Not an option with current | battery tech. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | Does anyone have a recent list of power-constrained activities on | satellites in LEO? That is, something you'd like to be able to do | but can't because putting albatrosses of panels on low-orbiting | birds makes them go down fast? | LarryMullins wrote: | The classic example is RORSAT, Radar Ocean Reconnaissance. The | Soviet Union built a bunch with nuclear reactors because they | needed a lot of power but were also to be in LEO so large solar | panels would limit their lifespan. | | But I don't think powering a satellite from the ground makes | much sense; you'd need ground stations around the world. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _RORSAT, Radar Ocean Reconnaissance_ | | Radar was the only thing that came to my mind, too. (Didn't | know about the project, though. Thanks!) | | Problem is earth observation, as a market, sucks. With low- | latency optical imaging en route, I'm not sure what premium | radar would command. | | > _don 't think powering a satellite from the ground makes | much sense_ | | Microwave power transmission through atmosphere is terrible, | and we're nowhere close with laser. The idea would be large | arrays in a high orbit beaming to lower-orbit birds. That's | the only proximate case where space-based solar power makes | sense: space to space. The only place where having the panels | where you need power doesn't make sense is in the atmosphere. | I just can't think of anything you'd want to do there that | requires that much power. | LarryMullins wrote: | > _Problem is earth observation, as a market, sucks. With | low-latency optical imaging en route, I 'm not sure what | premium radar would command._ | | One advantage of radar is that sometimes you can see | through things that aren't transparent to visible light. I | don't know if it's true, but I've heard that modern SAR | sats can see through petroleum storage tanks and some | warehouse roofs, so they can collect data which may be | valuable to traders. These modern sort of radar satellites | are apparently fine with solar power, but maybe they'd be | even better with more power. | tee_0 wrote: | I walked the campus at cal tech a few days ago. It feels like a | real college. Other colleges could be mistaken for luxury resorts | or spas. They feel like a gimmick. But at cal everything looks | normal. It looks like a place where people actually come to work | and learn. It has a monastic quality in comparison. A place where | people are truly preoccupied with the truth. It's the first | university I've been to that felt like that. Besides maybe | Stanford. | laidoffamazon wrote: | My state school was like that. It's just buildings. Most | schools are like that! | IshKebab wrote: | Ah I was wondering how something like this could go ahead when | it's pretty obviously a terrible idea to engineers. | | > SSPP got its start in 2011 after philanthropist Donald Bren, | chairman of Irvine Company and a lifetime member of the Caltech | Board of Trustees, learned about the potential for space-based | solar energy manufacturing in an article in the magazine Popular | Science. Intrigued by the potential for space solar power, Bren | approached Caltech's then-president Jean-Lou Chameau to discuss | the creation of a space-based solar power research project. In | 2013, Bren and his wife, Brigitte Bren, a Caltech trustee, agreed | to make the donation to fund the project. The first of the | donations to Caltech (which will eventually exceed $100 million | in support for the project and endowed professorships) was made | that year through the Donald Bren Foundation, and the research | began. | | "Ok nobody tell him it's a bad idea and we get like 50 PhDs and 5 | professors!" | p1esk wrote: | You forgot to explain why this is "pretty obviously a terrible | idea". | thisisbrians wrote: | Some ideas about what makes it challenging: | | - A satellite will have to transmit power through the entire | atmosphere from space, which will have substantial losses | even in perfect conditions | | - A satellite constellation in orbit would need many ground | stations to transmit power to from space | | - Weather will get in the way of transmission to the ground, | just like it does with ordinary solar | | - The cost of getting a PV array into orbit is very expensive | relative to the amount of power it can generate and transmit | p1esk wrote: | None of these seem like obvious show stoppers. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _satellite will have to transmit power through the entire | atmosphere from space, which will have substantial losses | even in perfect conditions_ | | Balancing this is at least a half an order of magnitude | difference in collection efficiency. | | > _Weather will get in the way of transmission to the | ground, just like it does with ordinary solar_ | | True. But there are extraterrestrial atmospheres where | water vapor and ozone aren't a problem. (I've only seen | this proposed with microwave.) | | > _cost of getting a PV array into orbit is very expensive | relative to the amount of power it can generate and | transmit_ | | This is the killer. That said, this is a long-term research | endeavour. If we contemplate such an array around the Moon | or on Mars, or in a world with in-space resource extraction | and manufacturing, the economics shift. | wrycoder wrote: | _> cost of getting a PV array into orbit is very | expensive_ | | Musk will find a way. Another stepping stone to Mars. | SyzygistSix wrote: | He's talked about the idea, how much the two aspects - | solar power and space - are things that excite him, and | how it just is not a viable idea. | DennisP wrote: | He made one comment, a decade ago, well before he started | talking about $35/kg to orbit with Starship. | | In response to his famous question "what's the conversion | rate," the answer is about 50%, according to the book | _The Case for Space Solar Power_. That 's not bad | considering a panel in geostationary collects five times | as much energy in 24 hours as a panel on Earth. | ben_w wrote: | It would be great on Mars. Mars has planet-wide dust | storms. | | But for Earth, even if it was free to put the PV in Earth | orbit, the ground stations need to have an incredibly low | total cost to make sense. | | I can't remember how low exactly. | DennisP wrote: | The ground stations are basically just antenna wire. For | a large plant they would contribute just 0.7 cents/kWh to | the total cost, according to the book _The Case for Space | Solar Power_. | feoren wrote: | > half an order of magnitude | | Completely off-topic, but would "half an order of | magnitude" be sqrt(10)? I've just never heard someone | refer to a factor of ~3 as "half an order of magnitude". | roelschroeven wrote: | Sqrt(10) is approximately 3.162278, that's close enough | to 3. | [deleted] | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _just never heard someone refer to a factor of ~3 as | "half an order of magnitude"_ | | Last time I looked, the estimates ranged from 270% to | 50x. Seeing the latter, my brain went into astronomer | mode and then I guess just ran with it. | LarryMullins wrote: | > _If we contemplate such an array around the Moon or on | Mars, or in a world with in-space resource extraction and | manufacturing, the economics shift._ | | The economics of anything on Mars or the Moon amounts to | _' try to convince a government to throw tons of money at | you.'_ A technology which only makes sense in that | economic context is very limited. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _technology which only makes sense in that economic | context is very limited_ | | If this were a start-up I'd be roundly criticising it. | It's not. It's a research project. And each of its sub- | projects--testing new PVs in space, a novel deployment | mechanism, power transmission--has clear value outside a | space-based solar context. | | As a focussing mechanism, SBSP is neat because each | problem needing to be solved to make it economically | viable is immediately valuable on the ground. (Save for | power transmission. That's still niche.) | LarryMullins wrote: | > _Save for power transmission_ | | Isn't that the entire point? Putting solar panels in | space has been done regularly the 1950s. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | I meant that I don't see a near-term use terrestrial use | case for better microwave power transmission. | LarryMullins wrote: | Maybe you could use microwave power transmission (from | the ground) to power atmospheric pseudo-satellites, but | practical applications seem dubious. | ben_w wrote: | Drones. Electric aircraft in general, recharging | continuously in-flight. | | Might be ill-advised for a whole mass of reasons that I, | as a software engineer, know naught of; but it would be a | use case. | IshKebab wrote: | Even ignoring the power transmission challenges, putting | stuff in orbit is _really really expensive_. Surely you knew | that? | DennisP wrote: | For now. But if SpaceX succeeds in getting launch costs | below $50/kg with Starship, space solar starts looking a | lot more attractive. | | Advertised price on Falcon Heavy is already just $600/kg to | LEO. A big part of that is the throwaway upper stage, which | Starship eliminates. | cratermoon wrote: | https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/03/space-based-solar-power/ | josh11b wrote: | https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2019/08/20/space-based- | so... | [deleted] | ablatt89 wrote: | Pretty funny how often when one brings up engineering | challenges to solar, the challenges are ignored or handwaved. | There's not even a back of the envelope calculation to prove | the solution is scalable, maintainable, or cost effective the | solution, it's all just feel good, "cool" factor, "saving the | world" factor that's used to argue for investigation. | alex_duf wrote: | You mean solar in space specifically right? | | Because solar back on earth makes a lot of sense, whereas | solar back in space to beam down on earth make no sense. | ablatt89 wrote: | Solar on earth makes sense in some contexts, but there's | questions of how it's not scalable, clean up methods, local | climate effects, is intermittent and causes the power grid | instability. These are fair questions that should be looked | at and solar on earth is not some solution to the problem | of gas without tradeoffs, but these questions and concerns | are usually ignored. | | https://www.nrel.gov/news/features/2020/renewables-rescue- | st... | | These concerns are not really brought up by the media. | IshKebab wrote: | I don't think they're _ignored_ exactly. They 're just | not really significant problems compared to the | greenhouse emissions of gas or coal power. | | It's like how virtual keyboards on smartphones are not as | good as a full physical keyboard (arguably) but nobody | really talks about it anymore because the disadvantages | of physical keyboards are so overwhelming that it doesn't | matter. | ablatt89 wrote: | I don't think that comparison is fair at all. You're | comparing concerns of a technology and how it scales, to | how no one talks about physical keyboards and smart | phones? That's not even remotely the same and is pretty | dishonest to make that comparison. | | The problems of solar as a scalable renewable are very | fair to talk about, considering that Africa and India | NEED energy to grow their societies. The only solutions | that scale are oil or nuclear. The idea you can just hand | wave any concerns about renewables doesn't seem very | rationale if you genuinely care about the problem. | SyzygistSix wrote: | >Because solar back on earth makes a lot of sense | | Where are you replying from? | jmyeet wrote: | I encourage you to watch The Future of Solar Power [1]. | | I am firmly of the belief that solar power is humanity's future | of energy production. | | Yes, beaming power to Earth is viable and could be economical. | This pretty much solves the problem in variable power generation. | I've seen estimates that a space-based power collector could | generate about 6-8x what that same collector could on Earth (due | to atmosphere, weather and day/night) so even with some power | loss from beaming power to Earth, it's viable. | | But there's an even better fguture for this. | | The first is as the power source for space habitats. You | literally just put them on the outside hull. These are incredibly | efficient in creating living area per unit mass and ultimately | would become a Dyson Swarm. I consider this inevitable. | | The second is you can do better than beaming power with orbital | rings [2]. In short, you put a loop of conducting cables in | orbit, run a current through them and float things on top with | the magnetic field. The beauty of this is those things elevated | on the ring are fixed to points on Earth. This means you don't | need to speed up to Mach 30 to reach orbital speeds. | | If you have an orbital ring, you can run cables down from space | directly to the ground. | | [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-TISSvR0L4 | | [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMbI6sk-62E | notum wrote: | Cloud cover doesn't affect microwaves? | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _Cloud cover doesn 't affect microwaves?_ | | It does. (Ozone and water absorb microwaves. This is how your | microwave oven works.) | Nomentatus wrote: | Microwaves are highly tuned to the particular frequency that | causes water molecules to resonate. But this is just one | microwave frequency. You don't have to use that one. | | https://www.gi.alaska.edu/news/using-microwaves-see- | through-... | notum wrote: | To expand on my semi-sarcasm with a proper question: so | there's a microwave frequency that is completely unaffected | by atmospherics? In which water, ozone, the rest of the gas | mixure and particulates are mostly transparent? | | What frequency spectrum is that? And for bonus points: can | this project fry commercial planes? | Nomentatus wrote: | First sentence: not what was said. But note that | microwave towers have been in use for mission-critical | long-range all-weather point-to-point communication on | earth for many, many decades. My late father helped | design some of them. | | What would the minimum power loss be for thick | cloud/hurricane? Dunno. | zaroth wrote: | Those microwave towers are transmitting some number of | milliwatts of power though, with super high gain | antennas. | | Not kilowatts. | notum wrote: | As synonymous comms and power delivery may look, they are | a different ball game. | | This also seems to be the last nail in the coffin for | terrestrial radio astronomy, now that you mention it. | ben_w wrote: | > Microwaves are highly tuned to the particular frequency | that causes water molecules to resonate. | | That's an urban legend. If it was true, they'd be great | rather than "meh" at melting ice, and (I appreciate most | don't do this anyway) we wouldn't be able use domestic | ovens for glass-working or melting alumina to make | synthetic sapphires and rubies. | | * https://youtu.be/XojnG2IFfTo | | * https://youtu.be/xwEQZw3KPWg | | * https://youtu.be/ybcdRQmQcHQ | Nomentatus wrote: | Good points, but careful of the logic; yes there's a lot | of energy being produced and plenty of harmonics etc. | None of which says that every material heats equally | well, with no passthrough, or that microwave ovens with | different frequencies wouldn't be more efficient for | other specific materials. | | If a material is dense enough (metal being the prime | example) it'll block. I've nowhere argued that you could | send microwave power through solid walls - whether brick | or sapphire economically. | JumpCrisscross wrote: | > _this is just one microwave frequency. You don 't have to | use that one_ | | The atmosphere is almost transparent to long-wavelength | microwave [1]. The tradeoff is in power density. | | [1] https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/RemoteSensin | g/rem... | nickpinkston wrote: | I was more hoping for the arcology building from SimCity, not the | space solar plant, but pretty cool. | cmdialog wrote: | When is someone going to launch something to clean up all the | tech demos and space junk? | waihtis wrote: | when a big publicity incident caused by space junk happens | throwaway4aday wrote: | It's in LEO, the atmosphere will bring it down. | pythonguython wrote: | Yep. Part of launching is making a deorbit plan (if | possible). That satellite will come down, and they already | know when that will happen. | Grim-444 wrote: | I'm pretty sure there's already FCC rules requiring deorbit of | satellites within a certain number of years of their mission | completion. | | [Edit] https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-new-5-year-rule- | deor... | simonebrunozzi wrote: | I'm super ignorant on physics and whatnot; but wouldn't it make | more sense to use airships covered with solar panels at 5k-6k | meter altitude? Thin solar is now a thing, and I'm quite sure | that there would be a viable way to engineer an airship in such a | way. One could even use graphene aerogel instead of helium or | hydrogen as the lighter-than-air filler. | | Is this a really dumb idea? Any of you with a more relevant | background could tell me where this could be so wrong? | LarryMullins wrote: | > _5k-6k meter altitude_ | | That's not high enough to put you above bad weather (airliners | fly higher, and they divert around storms.) Bad weather is bad | news for airships and historically destroyed about as many as | hydrogen fires. You'd need to bring your airships down into | hangers when the weather got bad. | | Also, wouldn't the graphene aerogel be filled with air and be | heavier than air? Aerogel doesn't just float away. Unless you | mean for these to be vacuum airships, but those seem very far | fetched. | dahfizz wrote: | Is graphene aerogel lighter than air? I thought it _was_ mostly | air, which is why its so light. | DennisP wrote: | Biggest advantage of solar in geostationary is that you get | power 24/7, so you don't need a lot of storage. You're not in | shadow at all except for a little bit around the equinoxes. | Total uptime is 99.5%. | idiotsecant wrote: | Seems like some of the bad parts of terrestrial solar (fighting | atmospheric conditions, wind loading, etc) without the good | parts of orbital solar (once you're in orbit, staying there is | relatively easy and you have very little in the way of | mechanical stresses for your solar array, so you can make it | really huge). I might not be thinking about it hard enough. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-01-05 23:00 UTC)