- Email: [email protected]
Are current and future space technologies favourable to SSPS projects?
Space Policy 16 (2000) 107}109
Viewpoint
Are current and future space technologies favourable to SSPS projects? Marcel Toussaint Eurospace, 16 rue Hamelin, F-75116, Paris, France
Abstract This viewpoint looks at the positive and negative prospects for the establishment of Space Solar Power Stations (SSPSs) from the standpoint of the way in which space technology has evolved since the concept was "rst proposed. While there are pressing arguments for alternatives to today's energy sources, and technological advances have made construction and maintenance of SSPSs potentially easier and less expensive, it is argued that the general trend towards miniaturization in space, plus the probable di$culty of obtaining frequency allocations for SSPSs, militate against their realization. Further, the increasing militarization of space provides additional competition and could mean that SSPSs will never be launched for fear of becoming an enemy target. Nevertheless, SSPSs could have a future supplying electricity within the space environment itself. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The concept of the Space Solar Power Station (SSPS) was introduced in 1968. It became the object of in-depth studies in the 1970s, in particular at NASA, but was not implemented. In the following years, the topic continued to be discussed, often with passion, in all industrialized countries. But no practical realization came. At the end of the 1990s a renewal of interest was observed. NASA published its Fresh Look study. The question may therefore be posed again: is there a future for the production of electricity in space for terrestrial needs?
2. The pros Engineers are optimists. Their view of SSPS can be summarized as follows. The SSPS concept has not been implemented yet for reasons of economic opportunity. The oil shortage feared at the end of the 1960s and beginning of the 1970s has been postponed by the discovery of new reserves. But humanity is bound to use more and more energy * in particular, because of the industrialization of China, India and other countries and, as a consequence, it is bound to see, one day that cannot be far away, the end of its fossil fuel resources. Moreover, the use of fossil fuels has detrimental e!ects on the environment that are less and less acceptable. An alternative
solution is therefore necessary. The SPS concept thus has every chance of being applied. And, add the optimistic engineers, if you look at it, the fact that the deployment of SSPS has been delayed is probably a good thing. Since 1968 many technological developments have taken place that make the construction and maintenance of orbital space power stations potentially much easier and less costly. The modern variants of the Peter Glaser concept that are proposed by US, Russian, Japanese, European and other engineers have a potential that will surely one day attract investors. It is true that, from a number of viewpoints, the chances of SSPS are better than they have been in the past. One reason is, indeed, the growing concern of the population for the environment. Pollution from tankers is becoming a real societal problem and one that is less and less accepted. Concern about global warming and the fragility of the ozone layer is shared by more and more people. Since Chernobyl, the recent accident in Japan and the protests of residents of regions where authorities are contemplating stockpiling radioactive waste, nuclear power has been considered with growing antipathy. It is also true that the world demand for energy is growing at a tremendous pace. Of course, one should be careful before concluding that this will increase the chances of seeing SSPSs placed in orbit, because the biggest growth in new energy demand comes from developing countries * i.e. not from those countries which are directly interested in the construction of SSPSs.
0265-9646/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 6 5 - 9 6 4 6 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 1 1 - 4
108
M. Toussaint / Space Policy 16 (2000) 107}109
However, the process of liberalization can probably overcome this di$culty. Utilities and their associated manufacturing industry, whose activities used to be con"ned within their national borders and often had governmental status, are not progressing rapidly towards total privatization and internationalization. This factor, it must be admitted, is of great importance. Consider, for example, the case of France or Germany. In such populated and well-equipped countries it is di$cult to justify a space power station for national needs. In addition, the problem is not the need for energy but the weakness of the rate of increase in electricity consumption, which was 6.1% in the period 1980}87, subsequently stabilized at 3.1% and has even diminished to around 1% in recent years. The trends are comparable in other European countries. (This is the result in particular of the relatively low birth rate: in the industrialized countries, industrial and state consumption of electricity represents only a little more than one-third of the total, residential and commercial users representing nearly two-thirds of the electricity market.) Now that the European utilities are either privatized or on the verge of being privatized, their natural tendency is to join forces with similar organizations in other countries to address a large market. It may be hoped that, one of these days, they will "nd an advantage in joining forces with the utilities in developing countries to embark on the construction of an SSPS or network of SSPSs, an endeavour for which they might obtain the blessing of the UN and the environmentalists. In sum, then, it is true that a certain amount of optimism over the future of SSPSs is justi"ed. The question that it addressed in the title of this viewpoint is, however, the following. Is space technology evolving in a direction that really makes the prospects for SSPSs brighter or not? If, by SSPSs, one means stations designed to collect solar energy in space and convert it into electricity for use on Earth, it is to be feared that the answer is negative.
3. The cons A "rst general remark is that technology rarely develops in the directions predicted by educated observers. Nuclear fusion and, to a certain extent, "ssion have been disappointments, for example. Forty years ago it was anticipated that such types of energy generators would be miniaturized to dimensions adapted to the needs (and the budget) of single small enterprises or families. This did not occur. In space, the opposite happened. The grandiose schemes anticipated a few decades ago regarding the occupation and industrialization of space have not materialized. The new launch systems expected to be capable of delivering massive cargoes to space at very low cost are still to be developed. Ariane 5, for example, now one
of the biggest and least expensive launchers in the world, is only capable (or rather will be in 2005) of delivering 11 tons to geostationary transfer orbit, at a cost that remains higher than $2000 per kilo. In fact, the true innovation came from a quite unexpected direction * the silicon revolution. The major thrust of technological evolution in space is the result of the advent of solid-state electronics and its consequences: computers, miniaturization of control, transmission and sensor systems. To begin with this revolution had a considerable impact on the energy "eld. Miniaturization and improved control were of tremendous help in implementation energy saving policies that contributed to reducing the growth of demand for energy. But it was in the space "eld that the impact of this revolution created the greatest shock. The result is that the accent is now less and less on big systems and more and more on small and intelligent systems. And, whenever reasonable, on cheap systems. The consequences of this are clear. Space is increasingly densely occupied. The number of organizations capable of developing or acquiring satellites has grown to incredible proportions. The geostationary orbit * the preferred location of communications satellites * is crowded. Two constellations of (relatively) large satellites have been placed in low-Earth orbit (LEO) and others are under preparation for launching to LEO or highly eccentric orbits (HEO). One constellation of (relatively) small communications satellites is functioning in LEO. Several others are underway. Orbital positions are the subject of severe disputes. Spectrum allocation is becoming a nightmare. The International Telecommunication Union, in charge of such allocation, is facing extreme di$culties. Several countries have decided to add to the disorder by auctioning orbital positions and corresponding frequencies. It is expected that the World Trade Organization will soon have to intervene and impose international rules. In the "eld of Earth observation the situation is also becoming more complex. The number of organizations preparing for launch of small but very e!ective Earth observation or meteorological satellites is signi"cant. Such satellites also require orbital allocations and communication channels. There are also more and more scienti"c satellites. There are so many satellites in fact that the problem of the pollution of the space environment by debris will soon be acute. Here too it is not likely to be possible to rely on voluntary measures for long; strict rules will have to be established to limit the dangers of collision on orbit. Finally, small Earth orbiting satellites clearly dominate the space scene (even a six-ton GEO satellite is small compared with an SSPS). The sole exceptions are the International Space Station, Mir and the planetary missions.
M. Toussaint / Space Policy 16 (2000) 107}109
Now let us consider the SSPS projects. NASA's Fresh Look study and similar reports have certainly shown that modern technologies would permit a lowering of the economic optimum of the power produced per station * and consequently the size, mass and cost of such a station * from 5 GW received at the Earth's surface to a few hundred kW. But, if this simpli"es the life of the investor, it introduces an additional complication from the point of view of orbital and frequency allocations, inasmuch as the number of SSPSs needed for an operational system would increase and require more orbital slots and frequency allocations. Indeed, in this respect the situation is already pretty alarming for SSPS projects. International discussions on orbit and spectrum allocation regularly culminate in the World Administrative Conferences (WRC), where all parties present their requests and arguments and where decisions are made on the basis of votes. Such conferences are sometimes compared with the game of &musical chairs'. There is always (at least) one chair missing and at each run, the weakest player is expelled from the game. It is not enough to say that the defenders of SSSPs are considerably weaker that the delegations advocating communications projects promising large revenues in the short term. The truth is that the SSPS idea is so far in the future that no one has ever dared present it to a WRC audience. In consequence, there is no spectrum allocation nor any orbital position allocated to SSPSs. And it is to be feared that, when an otherwise realistic is presented to the authorities in charge of orbit and spectrum allocation, the reaction will be: &Too late! All the resources have already been used by other commercial programmes'. At a minimum, allocations will be o!ered at a price. A high price. Thus, the direction in which space technology has developed has not been favourable to the SSPS concept. Another aspect of this technological and societal evolution is also likely to have negative consequences for the future of SSPS. It is the development of military space. Since 10 June 1999, when a US Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) rocket achieved a target missile intercept outside the Earth's atmosphere, the idea that space could remain a sanctuary in which military operations would be forbidden has proven an illusion. The large number of communications, reconnaissance, early warning, electronic spying and navigation satellites deployed by the military had already shown not only that space constitutes a theatre that the military cannot ignore, but that domination in space now represents an essential factor of military operations on Earth. Since June 1999 it has been clear that the world's dominant powers are preparing for true military operations in space. Not only are anti-missile systems brazenly tested, the application of force from space by such means as lasers, neutral beams and electromagnetic darts is being openly discussed. Progress in electronics and miniaturization, as well as in basic physics, has made it possible to
109
deploy weapons systems of extraordinary e$ciency; several countries are known to be preparing such systems. How should an SSPS programme be viewed in this context? First, it must be regarded as a competitor to the military, as well as to the commercial operators of applications satellites, for the use of scarce space resources. Second, it is a programme that aims to place in orbit a number of very large and vulnerable pieces of equipment, equipment that might very well become subject to threats * the greater the economic importance of the SSPS, the greater the possibilities for blackmail * by hostile powers equipped with space weapons, as many will be in the near future. Third, and perhaps more radically, one may wonder whether SSPS programmes should not be viewed as a pleasant utopia or, rather, as the souvenir of times when such utopias were possible: times when the hypocrisy behind the slogan of world-wide economic development was less obvious, when world citizenship was considered a serious notion, when space activities were considered a little like the Olympic Games in ancient Greece * an opportunity to participate in a sporting spirit in a competition where nature is the sole adversary, forgetting the cruelty and meanness of the wars that are sadly unavoidable on this Earth. These times are unfortunately over. The end of the Cold War has not made humanistic endeavours of the SSPS type more feasible than before. On the contrary, greed and political ambition are now the main factors driving the space e!ort. It is di$cult to see how a programme necessitating wide international cooperation, such as SSPS, can "nd its place in such a context.
4. Conclusions Nevertheless, the reader should not conclude that there is not future for the technologies investigated in the framework of the SSPS programme. It is the opinion of many, including this author, that the techniques of electricity at a distance, by microwave beams or laser, have on the contrary an extraordinarily bright future. Such techniques are, more than probably, the best adapted to power space stations (the electricity being produced at a distance by a specialized space platform), reusable space transfer vehicles for transporting equipment from one orbit to another, or installations situated on other planets on whose surface, for environmental reasons, it is felt preferable not to install a power plant. At the moment such applications might seem modest and remote compared with the dreams of the promoters of the use of space-generated electricity on Earth. But one can reasonably hope that the activities of humans in space will develop and generate a need for power stations in space, while it is increasingly tempting to believe that the opportunity to establish a network of SSPSs for terrestrial needs has passed and has few chances of returning.
Viewpoint
Are current and future space technologies favourable to SSPS projects? Marcel Toussaint Eurospace, 16 rue Hamelin, F-75116, Paris, France
Abstract This viewpoint looks at the positive and negative prospects for the establishment of Space Solar Power Stations (SSPSs) from the standpoint of the way in which space technology has evolved since the concept was "rst proposed. While there are pressing arguments for alternatives to today's energy sources, and technological advances have made construction and maintenance of SSPSs potentially easier and less expensive, it is argued that the general trend towards miniaturization in space, plus the probable di$culty of obtaining frequency allocations for SSPSs, militate against their realization. Further, the increasing militarization of space provides additional competition and could mean that SSPSs will never be launched for fear of becoming an enemy target. Nevertheless, SSPSs could have a future supplying electricity within the space environment itself. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction The concept of the Space Solar Power Station (SSPS) was introduced in 1968. It became the object of in-depth studies in the 1970s, in particular at NASA, but was not implemented. In the following years, the topic continued to be discussed, often with passion, in all industrialized countries. But no practical realization came. At the end of the 1990s a renewal of interest was observed. NASA published its Fresh Look study. The question may therefore be posed again: is there a future for the production of electricity in space for terrestrial needs?
2. The pros Engineers are optimists. Their view of SSPS can be summarized as follows. The SSPS concept has not been implemented yet for reasons of economic opportunity. The oil shortage feared at the end of the 1960s and beginning of the 1970s has been postponed by the discovery of new reserves. But humanity is bound to use more and more energy * in particular, because of the industrialization of China, India and other countries and, as a consequence, it is bound to see, one day that cannot be far away, the end of its fossil fuel resources. Moreover, the use of fossil fuels has detrimental e!ects on the environment that are less and less acceptable. An alternative
solution is therefore necessary. The SPS concept thus has every chance of being applied. And, add the optimistic engineers, if you look at it, the fact that the deployment of SSPS has been delayed is probably a good thing. Since 1968 many technological developments have taken place that make the construction and maintenance of orbital space power stations potentially much easier and less costly. The modern variants of the Peter Glaser concept that are proposed by US, Russian, Japanese, European and other engineers have a potential that will surely one day attract investors. It is true that, from a number of viewpoints, the chances of SSPS are better than they have been in the past. One reason is, indeed, the growing concern of the population for the environment. Pollution from tankers is becoming a real societal problem and one that is less and less accepted. Concern about global warming and the fragility of the ozone layer is shared by more and more people. Since Chernobyl, the recent accident in Japan and the protests of residents of regions where authorities are contemplating stockpiling radioactive waste, nuclear power has been considered with growing antipathy. It is also true that the world demand for energy is growing at a tremendous pace. Of course, one should be careful before concluding that this will increase the chances of seeing SSPSs placed in orbit, because the biggest growth in new energy demand comes from developing countries * i.e. not from those countries which are directly interested in the construction of SSPSs.
0265-9646/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 6 5 - 9 6 4 6 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 1 1 - 4
108
M. Toussaint / Space Policy 16 (2000) 107}109
However, the process of liberalization can probably overcome this di$culty. Utilities and their associated manufacturing industry, whose activities used to be con"ned within their national borders and often had governmental status, are not progressing rapidly towards total privatization and internationalization. This factor, it must be admitted, is of great importance. Consider, for example, the case of France or Germany. In such populated and well-equipped countries it is di$cult to justify a space power station for national needs. In addition, the problem is not the need for energy but the weakness of the rate of increase in electricity consumption, which was 6.1% in the period 1980}87, subsequently stabilized at 3.1% and has even diminished to around 1% in recent years. The trends are comparable in other European countries. (This is the result in particular of the relatively low birth rate: in the industrialized countries, industrial and state consumption of electricity represents only a little more than one-third of the total, residential and commercial users representing nearly two-thirds of the electricity market.) Now that the European utilities are either privatized or on the verge of being privatized, their natural tendency is to join forces with similar organizations in other countries to address a large market. It may be hoped that, one of these days, they will "nd an advantage in joining forces with the utilities in developing countries to embark on the construction of an SSPS or network of SSPSs, an endeavour for which they might obtain the blessing of the UN and the environmentalists. In sum, then, it is true that a certain amount of optimism over the future of SSPSs is justi"ed. The question that it addressed in the title of this viewpoint is, however, the following. Is space technology evolving in a direction that really makes the prospects for SSPSs brighter or not? If, by SSPSs, one means stations designed to collect solar energy in space and convert it into electricity for use on Earth, it is to be feared that the answer is negative.
3. The cons A "rst general remark is that technology rarely develops in the directions predicted by educated observers. Nuclear fusion and, to a certain extent, "ssion have been disappointments, for example. Forty years ago it was anticipated that such types of energy generators would be miniaturized to dimensions adapted to the needs (and the budget) of single small enterprises or families. This did not occur. In space, the opposite happened. The grandiose schemes anticipated a few decades ago regarding the occupation and industrialization of space have not materialized. The new launch systems expected to be capable of delivering massive cargoes to space at very low cost are still to be developed. Ariane 5, for example, now one
of the biggest and least expensive launchers in the world, is only capable (or rather will be in 2005) of delivering 11 tons to geostationary transfer orbit, at a cost that remains higher than $2000 per kilo. In fact, the true innovation came from a quite unexpected direction * the silicon revolution. The major thrust of technological evolution in space is the result of the advent of solid-state electronics and its consequences: computers, miniaturization of control, transmission and sensor systems. To begin with this revolution had a considerable impact on the energy "eld. Miniaturization and improved control were of tremendous help in implementation energy saving policies that contributed to reducing the growth of demand for energy. But it was in the space "eld that the impact of this revolution created the greatest shock. The result is that the accent is now less and less on big systems and more and more on small and intelligent systems. And, whenever reasonable, on cheap systems. The consequences of this are clear. Space is increasingly densely occupied. The number of organizations capable of developing or acquiring satellites has grown to incredible proportions. The geostationary orbit * the preferred location of communications satellites * is crowded. Two constellations of (relatively) large satellites have been placed in low-Earth orbit (LEO) and others are under preparation for launching to LEO or highly eccentric orbits (HEO). One constellation of (relatively) small communications satellites is functioning in LEO. Several others are underway. Orbital positions are the subject of severe disputes. Spectrum allocation is becoming a nightmare. The International Telecommunication Union, in charge of such allocation, is facing extreme di$culties. Several countries have decided to add to the disorder by auctioning orbital positions and corresponding frequencies. It is expected that the World Trade Organization will soon have to intervene and impose international rules. In the "eld of Earth observation the situation is also becoming more complex. The number of organizations preparing for launch of small but very e!ective Earth observation or meteorological satellites is signi"cant. Such satellites also require orbital allocations and communication channels. There are also more and more scienti"c satellites. There are so many satellites in fact that the problem of the pollution of the space environment by debris will soon be acute. Here too it is not likely to be possible to rely on voluntary measures for long; strict rules will have to be established to limit the dangers of collision on orbit. Finally, small Earth orbiting satellites clearly dominate the space scene (even a six-ton GEO satellite is small compared with an SSPS). The sole exceptions are the International Space Station, Mir and the planetary missions.
M. Toussaint / Space Policy 16 (2000) 107}109
Now let us consider the SSPS projects. NASA's Fresh Look study and similar reports have certainly shown that modern technologies would permit a lowering of the economic optimum of the power produced per station * and consequently the size, mass and cost of such a station * from 5 GW received at the Earth's surface to a few hundred kW. But, if this simpli"es the life of the investor, it introduces an additional complication from the point of view of orbital and frequency allocations, inasmuch as the number of SSPSs needed for an operational system would increase and require more orbital slots and frequency allocations. Indeed, in this respect the situation is already pretty alarming for SSPS projects. International discussions on orbit and spectrum allocation regularly culminate in the World Administrative Conferences (WRC), where all parties present their requests and arguments and where decisions are made on the basis of votes. Such conferences are sometimes compared with the game of &musical chairs'. There is always (at least) one chair missing and at each run, the weakest player is expelled from the game. It is not enough to say that the defenders of SSSPs are considerably weaker that the delegations advocating communications projects promising large revenues in the short term. The truth is that the SSPS idea is so far in the future that no one has ever dared present it to a WRC audience. In consequence, there is no spectrum allocation nor any orbital position allocated to SSPSs. And it is to be feared that, when an otherwise realistic is presented to the authorities in charge of orbit and spectrum allocation, the reaction will be: &Too late! All the resources have already been used by other commercial programmes'. At a minimum, allocations will be o!ered at a price. A high price. Thus, the direction in which space technology has developed has not been favourable to the SSPS concept. Another aspect of this technological and societal evolution is also likely to have negative consequences for the future of SSPS. It is the development of military space. Since 10 June 1999, when a US Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) rocket achieved a target missile intercept outside the Earth's atmosphere, the idea that space could remain a sanctuary in which military operations would be forbidden has proven an illusion. The large number of communications, reconnaissance, early warning, electronic spying and navigation satellites deployed by the military had already shown not only that space constitutes a theatre that the military cannot ignore, but that domination in space now represents an essential factor of military operations on Earth. Since June 1999 it has been clear that the world's dominant powers are preparing for true military operations in space. Not only are anti-missile systems brazenly tested, the application of force from space by such means as lasers, neutral beams and electromagnetic darts is being openly discussed. Progress in electronics and miniaturization, as well as in basic physics, has made it possible to
109
deploy weapons systems of extraordinary e$ciency; several countries are known to be preparing such systems. How should an SSPS programme be viewed in this context? First, it must be regarded as a competitor to the military, as well as to the commercial operators of applications satellites, for the use of scarce space resources. Second, it is a programme that aims to place in orbit a number of very large and vulnerable pieces of equipment, equipment that might very well become subject to threats * the greater the economic importance of the SSPS, the greater the possibilities for blackmail * by hostile powers equipped with space weapons, as many will be in the near future. Third, and perhaps more radically, one may wonder whether SSPS programmes should not be viewed as a pleasant utopia or, rather, as the souvenir of times when such utopias were possible: times when the hypocrisy behind the slogan of world-wide economic development was less obvious, when world citizenship was considered a serious notion, when space activities were considered a little like the Olympic Games in ancient Greece * an opportunity to participate in a sporting spirit in a competition where nature is the sole adversary, forgetting the cruelty and meanness of the wars that are sadly unavoidable on this Earth. These times are unfortunately over. The end of the Cold War has not made humanistic endeavours of the SSPS type more feasible than before. On the contrary, greed and political ambition are now the main factors driving the space e!ort. It is di$cult to see how a programme necessitating wide international cooperation, such as SSPS, can "nd its place in such a context.
4. Conclusions Nevertheless, the reader should not conclude that there is not future for the technologies investigated in the framework of the SSPS programme. It is the opinion of many, including this author, that the techniques of electricity at a distance, by microwave beams or laser, have on the contrary an extraordinarily bright future. Such techniques are, more than probably, the best adapted to power space stations (the electricity being produced at a distance by a specialized space platform), reusable space transfer vehicles for transporting equipment from one orbit to another, or installations situated on other planets on whose surface, for environmental reasons, it is felt preferable not to install a power plant. At the moment such applications might seem modest and remote compared with the dreams of the promoters of the use of space-generated electricity on Earth. But one can reasonably hope that the activities of humans in space will develop and generate a need for power stations in space, while it is increasingly tempting to believe that the opportunity to establish a network of SSPSs for terrestrial needs has passed and has few chances of returning.