http://tinyurl.com/3bjoxk

Tom Harris
ED – ICSC

We also advocate for the business sector to develop and operate SBSP systems, not government(s). We much prefer the satellites to be ‘owned’ by international stock holders and investors. Plus we’d like to see each satellite broadcast power into several nations. This way an attack on an SBSP satellite will be an attack on all owners and customers and their nations. This will serve as a deterrent against attacks, backed up by military force to suppress the threat to SBSP satellites.

Another thing for you to think about: With SBSP satellites on orbit nations such as Iran and North Korea will not need nuclear power plants for their energy. Certainly safe, clean electrical power can be broadcast to them at a market price below all the R&D that goes into building their first-ever nuclear reactors.

Here’s a comment which is always controversial; space is already weaponized. There already exists in space and on the Earth the types of systems that we use every day for routine civil, commerical, and military space operations that can also be used as weapons to negate satellites. Everything for ramming one satellite into another or merely jamming satellite signals is already in place…it merely depends on how you use the systems we currently have. We’ve already witnessed a number of episodes of hostile satellite jamming and bandwidth piracy around the globe. Fortunately, most space faring states are highly motivated to use space peacefully. But if war between space faring nations breaks out here on Earth I believe it is highly likely that those nations will negate each other’s satellites–the alternative to negating uninhabited satellites may be the killing of more people on Earth. This places advocates of “space sanctuary” in a strange moral dilemma. Unfortunately, achieving orbit does not place activities in space beyond the realm of human affairs. It is really a matter of politics as usual, no matter where your assets lie; air, land, sea, or space. Preventing battles in space depends on preventing wars on Earth.

So, with this in mind, the way to protect space-based solar power satellites is to ensure that the outcome from attacking one of them is an unacceptable expansion of the war (militarily and/or legally) against the attacker. In other words, the consequence outweighs the benefit. Plus, if SBSP is part of a proper mix of safe, clean energy sources in use, the target value of such satellites drops.

What do you think? I’m anxious to hear your thoughts.

Coyote

My concern with Pop’s argument is where he says that we would have to protect these space resources. Arguably, we already take military action to protect our energy supplies in the middle east. It seems clear that the military would want to protect the system that would supply almost all of our energy in the future – SPS. This would require space weaponization, which could be extremely bad.

Responses? It seems like a relatively compelling argument.

I’ve found a few sources who claim that SPS would be hard to attack, particularly in GEO,but it would still be possible for a developed space agency like China.
Also, I found one source who stated that low launch costs would avoid militarization altogether because then it would be cheap enough for us to just repair it or send up another satellite. I can’t really imagine seeing launch costs go quite that low, though, and the US doesn’t seem likely to pass up an opportunity for space weaponization

This information was posted on Citizens for Space Based Solar Power in January and debate research seems to be generating quite a bit of traffic, as far as I can tell. A few days ago, Hsdebater posted a comment, citing a paper by Virgiliu Pop titled Security Implications of Non-Terrestrial Resource Exploitation which raises excellent points about the concern for potential weaponization of space power satellites and conversely, about their relative vulnerability to attack.

I posted a reply, suggesting the Space Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security – Phase 0 Architecture Feasibility Study and this Space Solar Power website as excellent resources to use in seeking answers to this major challenge area to the development of space-based solar power.

It is very encouraging to learn that many of our high school age citizens are taking an active interest in a clean energy future for the planet, and that they are including space-based solar power in their discussions and debates. This is certainly a positive step in making space-based solar power part of the national conversation.

Many chemicals either reflect or adsorb heat. Carbon dioxide in very small quantities reacts to external heat in a very large way. While it is true enough that CO2 is an essential part of the life cycle of both flora and fauna, an excess of the gas does not result in an increase of flora since flora also requires oxygen, the same oxygen which is tied up in the excess CO2 whose production rate co-incides with the Industrial Revolution, in which our present society so wholeheartedly participates.

The petition against Kyoto is strictly political, not scientific, in nature, and wrong-headed.
There is little enough time left to get Space Solar Power initiated before climate change and global warming with the attendant human upheaval make it moot. Anything that limits the production of CO2 (burning fossil fuels or biofuels) in the meanwhile is a good thing. Let us hope that Solar Power (essentially electricity) rescues us, and soon.