3 ms·

Finally, somebody decided to make solar collectors in space. Been waiting for it since it was discussed in Isaac Arthur. I bet spaceX might do something simila

Finally, somebody decided to make solar collectors in space. Been waiting for it since it was discussed in Isaac Arthur. I bet spaceX might do something similar in the future. When they are not as encumbered with star link and the BFR.

AstralStorm 8y ago
1) It is not much more efficient due to transmission losses. (Compared to high voltage DC.) 2) The costs, on top of super expensive solar panels, make this totally pointless economically. Solar panels are hard enough to maintain on Earth. 3) It's a multi gigawatt level microwave gun in space. Want to blast some lightning onto someone? Sure, now you can. Or fry it.
- ReptileMan 8y ago
  Well... I mean china is pretty capable of breaking the kneecaps right now of whomever they want in their territory. I doubt they will use it as ion cannon.
- Shivetya 8y ago
  The costs just to put the materials up there makes me wonder the long term viability of just trying to source it from the moon. By the time you are willing to spend the billions required it cannot be much more of step and provides other uses. still I have to agree, how do you even maintain something like this. it would probably lead to a full time presence in space unless robotics become just that good. I just don't see the ROI except may be for national pride.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    I'd guess you maintain it by replacing the satellites. We're pretty good at maintaining satellites by replacement.
- JoeAltmaier 8y ago
  Economics changes all the time. The launch costs are supposed to come down. The cost of getting land for the cells and transmission lines goes up all the time, which makes orbit actually more attractive. The weight/cost/efficiency of panels gets better all the time. And the efficiency! 10X the solar flux outside the atmosphere! And in the right orbit, 2X again because of course night quits being an issue. So a potential 20X better utility per square.
- entity345 8y ago
  > Solar panels are hard enough to maintain on Earth. Isn't the main issue that they get dirty, though?
  - mooreds 8y ago
    I think they just degrade the same way they do on Earth. This PDF from 2003 talks about a 0.5% yearly degradation, which, if I recall correctly, is similar to ground based pv. https://www.google.com/url?q=https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030068268.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwj9nISuycXgAhUH44MKHYYAAk4QFjABegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw00teHST4Dc7O6YkeLc8Koj https://www.google.com/url?q=https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n...
- gotocake 8y ago
  3.5) The giant MASER in space is also a sitting duck target, so it’s shit as a weapon, and disrupting a nation’s power supply is as easy as “shooting” back.

AstralStorm 8y ago

1) It is not much more efficient due to transmission losses. (Compared to high voltage DC.) 2) The costs, on top of super expensive solar panels, make this totally pointless economically. Solar panels are hard enough to maintain on Earth. 3) It's a multi gigawatt level microwave gun in space. Want to blast some lightning onto someone? Sure, now you can. Or fry it.

ReptileMan 8y ago
Well... I mean china is pretty capable of breaking the kneecaps right now of whomever they want in their territory. I doubt they will use it as ion cannon.
Shivetya 8y ago
The costs just to put the materials up there makes me wonder the long term viability of just trying to source it from the moon. By the time you are willing to spend the billions required it cannot be much more of step and provides other uses. still I have to agree, how do you even maintain something like this. it would probably lead to a full time presence in space unless robotics become just that good. I just don't see the ROI except may be for national pride.
- adrianN 8y ago
  I'd guess you maintain it by replacing the satellites. We're pretty good at maintaining satellites by replacement.
JoeAltmaier 8y ago
Economics changes all the time. The launch costs are supposed to come down. The cost of getting land for the cells and transmission lines goes up all the time, which makes orbit actually more attractive. The weight/cost/efficiency of panels gets better all the time. And the efficiency! 10X the solar flux outside the atmosphere! And in the right orbit, 2X again because of course night quits being an issue. So a potential 20X better utility per square.
entity345 8y ago
> Solar panels are hard enough to maintain on Earth. Isn't the main issue that they get dirty, though?
- mooreds 8y ago
  I think they just degrade the same way they do on Earth. This PDF from 2003 talks about a 0.5% yearly degradation, which, if I recall correctly, is similar to ground based pv. https://www.google.com/url?q=https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030068268.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwj9nISuycXgAhUH44MKHYYAAk4QFjABegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw00teHST4Dc7O6YkeLc8Koj https://www.google.com/url?q=https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/n...
gotocake 8y ago
3.5) The giant MASER in space is also a sitting duck target, so it’s shit as a weapon, and disrupting a nation’s power supply is as easy as “shooting” back.