Space Based Solar Power – Alternative Energy Solution

December 31st, 2009 | by ADMIN |

FACT: There aren’t enough resources on this planet to sustain continued human growth and increasing quality of life.

FACT: If we want to avoid catastrophic war, suffering, and global shortages of energy, we need to start looking to space seriously for solutions.

Space Based Solar Power is the first step.

Music – “Pulse” by Yoko Kanno

Duration : 0:4:29

Technorati Tags: alternative, Barack, Constellation, Crisis, Disaster, East, Economics, energy, Fission, Green, Iraq, John, Launch, McCain, Meltdown, Middle, National, Nuclear, Obama, Oil, Power, Program, resources, science, Security, Shuttle, Solar, Space, Sustainable, Technology, War, Wind

  1. 25 Responses to “Space Based Solar Power – Alternative Energy Solution”

  2. By QEV8C on Dec 31, 2009 | Reply

    All the recources …
    All the recources that we need to build all of the solar power cells. That is going to take years of research, then years of political discussion, then years of building them( and what kind of energy do we need to build them?). By the time it is finished it is past 2100. this way takes to long. But the Idea is ok. It just doesn’t work with the world we know now

  3. By Darkwizzrobe on Dec 31, 2009 | Reply

    Unless this guy is …
    Unless this guy is promoting Microwave tech which is Science Fiction.

  4. By Darkwizzrobe on Dec 31, 2009 | Reply

    So is this like …
    So is this like Microwave Power that I heard of or are we using some sorta of long electric arc to get that power down to earth.

  5. By Darkwizzrobe on Dec 31, 2009 | Reply

    No a space elevator …
    No a space elevator is a elevator in the sky.

  6. By Darkwizzrobe on Dec 31, 2009 | Reply

    Well that’s because …
    Well that’s because the technology is still in the R&D phase.

  7. By hukt0nf0nikz on Dec 31, 2009 | Reply

    man you’re a …
    man you’re a retard

  8. By RaynorX on Dec 31, 2009 | Reply

    space solar power, …
    space solar power, if that’s not clean energy then I don’t know what is

  9. By ORVX on Dec 31, 2009 | Reply

    lol, I don’t have …
    lol, I don’t have any video’s.

  10. By bagtaggar on Dec 31, 2009 | Reply

    I just watched some …
    I just watched some of your videos…

    All I have to say is – conspiracy theories are intellectual sophistication for the ignorant.

    And you have a wealth of that.

  11. By ORVX on Dec 31, 2009 | Reply

    Im all for finding …
    Im all for finding better way’s to extract energy, but when I see like I saw in your video I realize I have to look elswhere, I know propaganda when I see. Please stop your hurting the cuase, stop your lies.

  12. By inuyashaghydj on Dec 31, 2009 | Reply

    srry to be a total …
    srry to be a total blonde and ask this but…… whats the song called…???…ive already made my opinionated comment 1yr ago….

  13. By TalksWithDirt on Dec 31, 2009 | Reply

    Well I wish that …
    Well I wish that were true. We still pay $5000/lb to LEO . Let’s say Musk cuts that in half to $2500/lb. If SSP requires $100/lb to LEO and we get a new Musk every 20 years we need 4 more halvings to get LEO costs down to the $100/lb mark. At 20 years per halving, that’s 80 years. Given ‘progress’ since Apollo which was 40 years ago, 80 years does not sound outrageous at this rate. What you want is an enterprise whos job it is to develop cheap ISP 300 and cheap ISP 400 rocket engines.

  14. By bagtaggar on Dec 31, 2009 | Reply

    Disagree, I think …
    Disagree, I think we are more forward looking at this point in history than we have ever been in decades, indeed centuries past. People in the 1800s weren’t concerned about climate predictions spanning 100 years, science fiction wasn’t part of their daily digest.

    That said, technology is improving exponentially. And cheap access to space is literally around the corner, thanks to the COTS program, and Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

  15. By TalksWithDirt on Dec 31, 2009 | Reply

    Well it’s either …
    Well it’s either this or fusion. Both have some missing parts. None of our fusions reactors are net energy producers except the ones that last phempto seconds. But for space solar power all you need is cheap access to space. One day one of those will be developed. But with the broken institutions of the West, the more likely outcome will be us using the same power in 2100 that we used in the 1920’s. We are not a forward looking society anymore.

  16. By OakIslandBandit on Dec 31, 2009 | Reply

    The technology for …
    The technology for a “leo tether” is just not there yet,even building from top down,a space elebator would have to be able to withstand roughly 60-100 gigapascals(gpa) of tension.Steel snaps at about 2 gpa,even carbon nanotubes aren’t there yet.Pure nanotubes
    fibers in labs are only 15mm long,1 atom misaligned would knock it’s strenght down by 30%.NASA has prize $,figure it out,win the $10 mil,all else is just talk,take me on a cruise when you win the prize

  17. By ahmloc on Dec 31, 2009 | Reply

    You know what, I …
    You know what, I aint no rocket science but, we dont use nuclear energy because its dangerous right, How come we dont just gather nuclear energy from the moon generator or something like that. You know what i mean that way it wont be so distructive if something happends to go wrong right?

  18. By lucasleivia on Dec 31, 2009 | Reply

    if done right we …
    if done right we need to spend hundreds of billions. new ways of getting huge amounts of mass into geo like a rotating leo tether and new ways of shunting mass across vast distances in space like mass drivers. using in situ resources from moon/asteroids and using the unique space environment to manufacture the main bulk of the sps in orbiting space stations. it would require a massive infastructure. but the electricity market is worth trillions and spin offs alone would be immense.

  19. By lucasleivia on Dec 31, 2009 | Reply

    the resources …
    the resources needed to construct a vast space infastructure are only expensive if you do it using todays inefficient timid approach to space. a new type of rocket (nothing revolutionary) just a bigger version of the many others mass produced is needed, we can make use of most of the mass in the shuttles by simply using the fuel tanks instead of jettisoning them wastefully. a space station could be built using these tanks… you can even fit them out before they are filled with fuel

  20. By lucasleivia on Dec 31, 2009 | Reply

    there are solutions …
    there are solutions for all the problems you have mentioned… you just need ambition and imagination, two things totally missing in national space programmes today. there is no way we can transmit electricity intercontinental through wires, already only 10-20% of electricity generated reches point of consumption long range transmision would increase this inefficiency by a factor of 10. the only credible alternative is to reduce our electricity consumption which will cost far more than sps

  21. By tsipise on Dec 31, 2009 | Reply

    What the do …
    What the do you know about it all (to use your own words) ? There are no cheap heavy weight launchers, A launch of 1kg costs about 20000€ today. There is no industry in space, and no resources for mining closer than the moon. And I DO know about solar technology, the solar cells are positioned in series so if you break one you lose the production of a whole chain of cells.
    There’s a lot of space in deserts, like Northern Africa, use that space first for solar.

  22. By lucasleivia on Dec 31, 2009 | Reply

    yeah sure, fusion …
    yeah sure, fusion the biggest up in modern science. do you know how many billions of dollars have been poured into that bottomless pit already? and what have we got to show for it? a handful of working reactors that take up more energy than they give out. the idea of generating power is that power stations must contribute to the national grid – not suck it dry

  23. By lucasleivia on Dec 31, 2009 | Reply

    i think you should …
    i think you should be the one to pilot them into the suns orbit since its your idea.

  24. By lucasleivia on Dec 31, 2009 | Reply

    you dont have to …
    you dont have to protect the panels from micro metiorites, why the would you bother when at most they will only reduce the output by a fraction of a percent? do you know what a solar panel is?

    a cheap heavy lift launch vehicle would need to be used to get the stuff up there because the space elevator is pie in the sky. it would be cheaper and more profitable in the long run to launch a smaller space mining mission to gather bennificate and cast the struts from resources in situ

  25. By lucasleivia on Dec 31, 2009 | Reply

    thats the best part …
    thats the best part power beaming technology, its been around for ages and was actually originally developed as an alternative to the national grid. thats how old and safe this technology is. you build an antenna on the sattelite and a rectenna on the ground. its a concentrated beam of energy yet its not radioactive, nor does it damage living things… a bird or a plane could fly through it and not be affected at all.

  26. By Nature2Energydotcom on Dec 31, 2009 | Reply

    Very Interesting!
    Very Interesting!

Post a Comment