Talk:Space-based solar power

Wolfkepper's hasty reversion

Way to toally not understand the edits and blow away everything because of two minor issues. Quoth WK:

no, not sunsynchronous- geosynchronous orbits are the primary location typically proposed, ssp >> sbsp on google

I agree, there has been less discussion of sunsynchonous than geosynchronous, but sunsynchronous = solar synchronous has several important advantages: 1 The satellite flies about half way to GEO altitude, so the transmitting antenna is smaller and/or the beam can be narrower, making slightly smaller scale practical, thus lower initial cost. 2 Two sun synchronous satellites can supply most of the countries of Earth, every peak demand period, when the wholesale price of electricity is highest. This because the satellites orbit approximately over the sunshine terminator 3 The antenna aiming is slightly less critical. 4 station keeping for the satellite is much less critical. 5 The rectennas can be smaller, and/or less energy falls outside the rectennas. 6 Rectennas optimised for sunsynchronous can serve other types of SSP reasonably well. 7 I think the brief shading of the solar panels near the equinox is illiminated, but the moon still causes a solar eclipse rarely and briefly, so the beam is available more than 99% of the time. The 96% in the article should be 99% unless it is allowing for repair shutdowns. 8 We don't have to compete with communications satellites for a geosynchronous slot. The disadvantages: The expensive rectennas are only used a few hours per day, until there are other types of SSP. 2 A very large sunsychronous SSP will briefly increase the path loss of an average of one geosynchronous communications satellite each time it passes the Equator in it's semi-polar orbit. I suggest a separate article for solar synchronous = sunsynchronous, but do not merge Solar Power Satellite and Space Solar Power as both are well written. Ccpoodle (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? My version said "advantageous orbits (for example, sunsynchronous)". What, pray tell, is "inaccurate" about that? It simply provided a clearer more concise introduction, but all of the other flavors remain in the body. Also note that the edited text in no way said anything about which variant was most often discussed.
Frequency counts on google are not meaningful evidence here, and that particular point becomes even more meaningless had the synonyms been left in.

Please revisit the original edits with a more open mind. ---Belg4mit

Possible Merges

I would favor reconcilliation of all three pages, keep them separate, but move content from one to the other to make each of them more focussed and to remove redundancy and duplication: Charles (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed heirarchy:

Space power

Space nuclear power

Space solar power

Solar panels on spacecraft

Solar power satellite

Note: Articles do not need to be organized into a hierarchical structure. Delphi234 (talk) 18:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge "Solar power satellite" with "Space solar power"

This entry is largely redundant of Solar power satellite and the two ought undergo some synchronization or merger. --Belg4mit 17:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Need then more clarity about what the lines of division should be, if two distinct articles are actually warranted.

I would propose that one should concentrate on the "classical SSP" concept of photovoltaic power stations in GSO, and its close relatives, and the comparative economics, environmental impacts, and technical feasibility of alternative variations and implementations. (It is my opinion right now that the Pearson lunar space elevator concept, with Si mined and refined, and PV cells fabricated on the Moon (or at L1), completed cells or Si then lifted to Earth-Moon L1, and moved to GSO with ion drives, may be the leading candidate, but this needs to be documented and connected to external references, of which there there are currently few so far as I know. The advantage of course is that there seem dubious prospects for finding useful rocket propellant on the Moon, and obtaining it from Earth would be extremely expensive, so it avoids that major problem of lunar resource usage.) I think concentrating on the classical concept and its nearest relatives and descendants should be enough to fill a good article of reasonable length, maybe too much.

I am not sure what the other article should contain, or if it just has odd fragments that really should be attached to other articles on space exploration and utilization. An exhaustive discussion of unlikely or niche possibilities for the sake of completeness seems unattractive to me as part of the first focussed, "classical SSP" one, so that might be a place for the second article. Yet the decision about what goes where is implicitly POV, so we would have to reach consensus on that.

I have made a few changes in the main text today, but guess I will refrain from more until the above issues are discussed (or not) at more length and sorted out. Wwheaton (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about the proposed merger. We can create one article as they both refer to the same thing.

A better header for the article would be "Space Power". We can discuss both these topics under that heading.--ZainAliK 19:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Space Power and Space Solar Power are not the same thing. They need different pages. Space Solar Power is a subset of Space Power. Space Power can cover other non-solar power sources, e.g. nuclear, chemical fuel cells etc. Charles (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Solar Power Satellites are a SUBSET of Space Solar Power. They should not be merged, but they should be linked. The "Space Solar Power" page covers both the use of solar power in space as well as beaming to Earth. The solar power satellite is purely for beaming to Earth and does not cover use in space. The SPS page is already very large, and merging them would make it even larger, which would be very cumbersome. But somebody should reconcile the two pages to makes sure there is not too much redundancy or duplication. Would be better to remove the description of SPS from the parent Space Solar Power page and move it to the Solar Power Satellite page Charles (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merging. SPS is actually about beaming power to earth and not using it in space at all. So that article is not a space solar power article at all, it is an earth solar power article. Delphi234 (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article, SSP, on the other hand needs to have most of its material moved to SPS, as that is what most of the article is about. Delphi234 (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge "Solar panels on spacecraft" with "Space solar power"

Doubtful -- My first thought is that this might be a mistake, as spacecraft power is a large and important discipline, and probably it deserves a place of its own, including both solar and non-solar (eg, batteries, Brayton cycle, nuclear, & solar) sources. Similarly I think "SSPs for on-Earth power application" has so many complex issues that are unique to it, that it does not really fit too well as a branch of space technology or spacecraft power, even though space is importantly involved and obviously there would be many cross-links. Some of these at first seem to make a logical hierarchy, set & subset,..., but there maybe other logical axes that will make it awkward to force everything into a logically clean system. Maybe we ought to think of what the big self-contained chunks are, and then try more to make the logic as tidy as possible with that in mind, but no tidier? Sounds hard, like a lot of concentrated work for a few dedicated heroes (& heroines). Wwheaton (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment

Such a merger might initially make sense, but it is also conseivable that power will eventually be generated from the moon, asteroids, or other planets... would this be refered to as space solar power, or put name of respective body here solar power? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.210.90.81 (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very likely I think. We do not call Earth solar power "space solar power", though logically of course it is, since the Earth is in space.

I think solar power for use on a particular planet or moon, say "X", derived from on the surface of X, should be called "X solar power".
Power for use on spacecraft is a whole separate subject, a branch of astronautical engineering, and "spacecraft solar power" is a subfield of that.
Finally, solar power generated in space, but for use on a planet or moon, is yet a third broad category, with some considerable overlap with the preceding, but several essential differences (eg, need to beam or otherwise move power from space to the surface; big difference in scale, kilowatts vs gigawatts; likely some human presence in space for construction and maintenance, etc). I would call only this "satellite solar power".

The differences among these are so significant that I think they need separate articles, no doubt with some cross-referencing to avoid needless redundancy. Wwheaton (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur w/ Wwheaton for the reaons given. ww (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading diagram?

The second image in this article suggests that something like 1/4 or less of sunlight reaches the Earth's surface through a very thick atmosphere. In fact, the atmosphere is extremely thin (2% of radius) and lets the vast majority of solar energy through to the surface. Including about 30% albedo, including clouds, I believe the overall amount of energy reaching the surface is on the order of 50% or more. The Insolation article states that space insolation is 1366 watts per square meter, falling to 1000 on the surface on a clear day. I think this image needs to go. Maury (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite that, it must be understood in any case that, in regards to solar power being over 99% effective in open, empty space must necessarily be better than any lower percentage on land. Still, land-set sources of solar energy are yet unreachable to developing countries, the most needy, which may also be understood as unstable economies, impotent prosperities, politically swerving governments that set a very poor grade on the security report card looking down the road to possible terrorism. These are still incapable of producing their own technology or even their own solar energy collectors sufficient enough to feel free from fossils, in an unexpensive manner. But they could also reach some sort of energetic independence. A look into the future of such an idea will prove quite unacceptable, and also a very good idea to keep that diagram the way it is... It's not a scientific issue.

Looking into the politics involved, it should be said that energy is definetely a highly political issue, not a resources matter. Whoever controls energy, controls what everyone else can possibly do and how far he can go in any direction or intention and can also limit the operativity of anyone hooked to the source. Now, looking at it from a scenario of temporarily and intelligently "giving away free energy from space sources", it is extremely improbable that loosing control over the politically unstable regions of the world by allowing them to produce their own "freedomizing" energy sources (not "liberating" because their is no way their enslavement can be demonstrated although it certainly is a true matter) will ever be possible at all. The core of present history would have to change overnight, maybe if Europe were drowned under tons of water and America knelt before a foreign enemy powerful enough to bring her to a total halt. Completely improbable... Therefore, luring the unstable into free solar energy sources and later levered into obedience seems much more feasible. Fossil fuels will certainly be over any minute now and whatever is left will be used for very specific and probably completely different matters, never to recover its current values nor importance. Gasoline and other fuels will be used only for whatever energy sources need explosion systems only. New, unthought of applications of severely expensive types will last only for a a liitle less than a century and then remembered only in history books. For the price of solar power, all new sources of oil will surprise the world dramatically, but by then, those who control oil will show up again controlling the energy panorama. The solar power distributors will be quite the same players but with a different type of energy. I may be ready to assume that fossil fuels will be exclusively laid aside for war purposes, not more.

So, the diagram, notwithstanding the fact that it may be wrong, even unintentionally, is politically correct to keep as it is if the power players are to scientifically exercise control over unstable left- or right-tending democracies and non democratic impositions. The sole idea of bringing down amounts of energy from the skies, or readjusting or reducing energy supplies at will and even blacking out energy from certain points in the planet can give us an idea of how useful the diagram is from a non-scientifical point of view, shunning the use of expensive solar sources in a non-fossil-fuel world in comparison to hardly-any-value sources from above. Let us welcome science divided by politics fairly equal to power, as the true source of the democratic distribution of energy in a pain-ridden planet that can easily be controlled by the brightest, hired by the powerful. Something the brightest have been doing since Einstein's days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.87.244.173 (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transmission

One could transport energy from a land to other one without using wires (i.e. using a beam). --Mac (talk) 06:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GSO/GEO

GSO is not, IMO, the proper TLA here. LEO = Low Earth Orbit. GEO = Geosynchronous Earth Orbit, and is by far the mainstream term in general use. --Grndrush (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article in es:

I have the pleasure to announce that the article Energía solar espacial of the Wikipedia in Spanish has qualified as featured article. Originally based on the article in English, we expanded the contents, added more detail and, most importantly, worked hard to achieve a good balance between the different points of view, so as to ensure neutrality. Special credit should be given to user Poco a poco for his work on this article. --Hispalois (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's today's featured article of the day at the Spanish Wikipedia--and it's definitely a nice article. It would be a good article to translate back into English, if anyone has the ability. 138.78.98.196 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]