backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 80 comment(s) - last by IraeNicole.. on Oct 28 at 2:23 PM
Projuct hopes to send enough solar power from space to a ground station to illuminate one lightbulb

Solar power is great in that it can generate virtually free power from the energy of the sun. The catch is that existing solar power equipment isn’t particularly effective at capturing and turning the suns energy into electricity.

The concept of an orbiting satellite gathering power from space and beaming it down to the ground to power devices on Earth may sound like science fiction, but that is exactly what the One Lightbulb project hopes to accomplish.

The project will start in December when the Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies at the U.S. Air Force Academy will start the construction of two satellites for the task. Two satellites are being built at the same time with one being called Light and the other Heavy. The reason for two satellites is to ensure that success of the project occurs in the face of adversity. Two satellites help ensure the project doesn’t die if financial or legal troubles plague one satellite.

LiveScience Blog reports that each satellite would weigh 400 pounds or less and the planned for launch date is in 2010. If the Light mission were launched laser energy would be received from the ground to light up a one-tenth watt LED lightbulb.

The Heavy project is much more ambitious and would involve actually launching a satellite into orbit to collect solar power from outside the atmosphere and beam it back to a ground received station via laser. The power created would be used to power the same small LED light.

Colonel M.V. Smith, leader of the project effort said, "We are trying to prevent resource wars by developing yet another source of safe, clean energy that can be shared widely across the planet."


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Space Station
By Kary on 10/22/2008 2:20:01 PM , Rating: 3
Why are they building satellites to test this when there is a space station in orbit?

Is this experiment concentrating on being able to reliably aim a laser from space? If this is the case wouldn't this research also be useful for laser targeting earth objects from space?

The whole thing just sounds odd to me...possibly more military purposed than civilian




RE: Space Station
By omnicronx on 10/22/2008 2:26:33 PM , Rating: 2
The ISS has a very low orbit, the reason being is so that it is somewhat protected from radiation within the earths atmosphere. My guess is that to yield the best result, the satellite must be in mid to high orbit in order as a lower amount of energy will be absorbed by the earths atmosphere.


RE: Space Station
By lennylim on 10/22/2008 3:31:19 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have any reference for that? I thought the ISS is in a low orbit because it is easier to get astronauts and supplies to the station. There is a special shielded room for the astronauts to stay in during solar flares. Atmosphere is thin enough to not offer any protection (otherwise it'll crash in no time). I don't know how far out the magnetic field extends, maybe that offers some protection. But definitely not the atmosphere.


RE: Space Station
By omnicronx on 10/22/2008 4:02:09 PM , Rating: 2
Space Debris, limitations of the Shuttle spacecraft and radiation are all reasons that the ISS is in low orbit.

No American Mission other than the Apollos and early Mercury missions have ever left low earth orbit (around 200-2000km from earth). While these satellites will still probably be in LEO, it will be much higher than the ISS which orbits at around 350km above the surface. Also no special room is going to shield nearly enough radiation that occurs while passing through the Van Allen Belts (the effects of which are noticeable at distances of 1000km from earth, well within what would be considered low orbit).


RE: Space Station
By Clauzii on 10/23/2008 7:15:25 AM , Rating: 2
It actually surprises me that the ISS it @ 350 km. since the Van Allen belt starts at around 200 km. But the radiation is probably still low enough, since ISS don't need a shield of ~1mm. lead.

Now the whole world is turning to LED lighting, it's good to know they'll experiment with bulbs :-/


RE: Space Station
By Clauzii on 10/23/2008 7:20:05 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, never mind the bulb, they ARE using a LED..

But why just 1/10th of a Watt? I know it's proof of concept, but I'd consider at least the kilo Watt range more 'fun', so to say.


RE: Space Station
By Kary on 10/22/2008 3:42:46 PM , Rating: 2
..They are lighting 1 LED, does the solar yield really matter?

Seems like the focusing of a laser for long periods is the real goal here as I'm thinking they already have plenty of data on how solar cells operate in space. You could still be correct since they would want to test from an orbital position similar to where they would place the final product of this research....and at some point they may want to shoot at the space station.... or ballistic missiles in the upper atmosphere


RE: Space Station
By omnicronx on 10/22/2008 4:02:56 PM , Rating: 2
Ya I realized this after, it probably makes no difference when talking about powering a .5 watt LED.


RE: Space Station
By JediJeb on 10/22/2008 4:38:25 PM , Rating: 2
You couldn't use the ISS for this since the ISS isn't stationary over the ground target. This satellite has to be stationary over the ground receiving station so that means it has to have a much higher orbit than the ISS does.


RE: Space Station
By omnicronx on 10/22/2008 4:51:25 PM , Rating: 1
I assume you are talking about Elliptical vs Geosynchronous orbit, where geosynchronous (ex: communication sattelites) are always positioned over the same location, vs Elliptical where the object has a closest and furthest point from the earth i.e an oval shaped orbit. (ex: ISS, Shuttle)

Makes sense...


RE: Space Station
By lightfoot on 10/23/2008 12:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
Actually he's talking about orbital periods, not orbital shapes. All orbits are Elliptical. A Geosynchronous Orbit has an orbital period of roughly 24 hours, is a special type of ellipse called a circle, and is on the same plane as the Earth’s equator.

The ISS in LEO has an orbital period of roughly 90 minutes and for obvious reasons it cannot be considered "stationary" over any point on the earth's surface, regardless of orbital shape or inclination.


By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 10/22/2008 1:16:05 PM , Rating: 3
Use a massive solar array as the elevator's counterweight and use the cable as a conduit for the power generated.




RE: This needs to be combined with the space elevator
By danrien on 10/22/2008 2:40:21 PM , Rating: 2
decent idea actually, especially due to the excellent conductivity properties that carbon nanotubes possess. however, you kind of have to wonder how lightning and electrically charged clouds would deal with this.


By Clauzii on 10/23/2008 7:22:42 AM , Rating: 2
Extra power :D


By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 10/23/2008 10:15:49 AM , Rating: 3
Finding a way to capture the electricity from a lightning strike would be the holy grail of renewable energy, imo.

With a solar array or not, the designers of the space elevator will have to deal with weather effects on the cable, lightning strikes among them. Maybe a huge bank of ultracapacitors could be used to capture the surges induced by lightning?

I just hope I live long enough to see something like this being built.


By Suntan on 10/28/2008 12:58:22 PM , Rating: 2
A guy tried that back in Kansas about 40 years ago (catch a lightening bolt)... They found parts of his experement in three different counties.

-Suntan


By IraeNicole on 10/28/2008 2:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
Solar and wind are criticized for being ineffective when it is night or not sunny for the former and not windy for the latter. I would think lightning much less effective because thunder storms are relatively short and are not available most of the time. Especially places like up here in the Northwest where thunderstorms are a once a year even it seems.

Unless we made our own lightning. Still would be pretty cool regardless.


By noxipoo on 10/23/2008 11:55:00 AM , Rating: 2
there are already guys working on the NASA prize money on that same idea. Solar power space elevators.


I just invented the ultimate solution.
By Motoman on 10/22/2008 4:37:24 PM , Rating: 5
Screw beaming energy down to the surface to power lightbulbs. Put massive mirror arrays in orbit so that you can reflect sunlight around the world 24x7x365. Continual sunlight, everywhere in the world. No more lightbulbs ever (might need to put in a few more skylights though).

Bonus: no more vampires.

Bonus #2 - make the mirrors big enough to block out enough sunlight to combat global warming

Bonus #3 - you could use them to asplode the heads of particularly irritating people. Like heads of state. Not naming any names though.

Bonus #5 - writing your name in the snow? "USA!" etched into the actual landscape of <insert favorite axis-of-evil country here>.

Bonus #6 - weapon of massive singular destruction...point all arrays at the same building/bunker/wacky shack in the mountains - poof!

Bonus #7 - weapon of massive general destruction...put a disco ball in the middle of a city, aim all arrays at the disco ball. Play "Another One Bites the Dust" for period-correct fun.




By Clauzii on 10/23/2008 7:29:39 AM , Rating: 2
ROFL :) (Esp. #7!)


Another objective of a space elevator?
By dice1111 on 10/22/2008 1:54:58 PM , Rating: 2
Instead of using laser beams, why not concentrate our effort on a space elevator can can transfer power down to earth by more "conventonal" means. I use the term very loosly. There is nothing conventional about a space elevator.

BUT actual power wire down to earth makes more sence and would allow a much greater amount of energy to be transfered. Does not even need to have an elevator on board.

I just really want more investment in space elevator technology, and this might be an useage to pioneer that investment.

yes, no?




By SuckRaven on 10/22/2008 2:51:40 PM , Rating: 3
Title still says "projuct" =|

quote:
Projuct hopes to send enough solar power from space to a ground station to illuminate one lightbulb


How long does a friggin' spell check take?

That's all...


Potential weapon
By lennylim on 10/22/2008 3:25:51 PM , Rating: 2
Any system capable of beaming significant power to Earth surface from space is a very deadly weapon. Obviously the one lightbulb prototype is not going to level cities (except maybe as a high tech version of boy with magnifying glass on ant hill) but a megawatt and stronger version, wow, death rays from space.

And you thought windmills killing birds was bad ;-)




RE: Potential weapon
By SnakeBlitzken on 10/23/2008 5:05:52 PM , Rating: 3
I guess a long row of migrating geese could cause a brown out?


What is a "Projuct"?
By mkrech on 10/22/2008 3:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Projuct hopes to send enough solar power from space to a ground station to illuminate one lightbulb


Uh, hmm. Is a "projuct" a project that makes a product?




RE: What is a "Projuct"?
By Clauzii on 10/23/2008 7:34:27 AM , Rating: 3
No, 'projuct' is the product of a spacebeam burning away the top of the 'o'. It was last seen flying over the DT-office building a few hours ago :D


Numbers ?
By nah on 10/22/2008 3:41:59 PM , Rating: 2
The average satellite costs USD 390 million to build,insure, and launch--with that kind of money one could install (@ USD 5/W)--around 78000 KW of installed capacity producing , depending on insolation, anywhere between 62400000 Kw-hrs (insolation of 800 Kwhrs/yr) to 171600000 Kw-hrs (2200 Kw-hrs insolation/year)-- for 25-30 yrs--the question is, can a satellite get remotely close to this ?




RE: Numbers ?
By roastmules on 10/23/2008 5:45:31 PM , Rating: 2
That's not really the point from the perspective of DARPA/Air Force/DoD...
It costs $100+ per gallon of Diesel to get it to a forward base of operations in a combat zone. Building a power plant while on the move is not possible. But, it may be possible to have power beamed in from space.
This would actually save some money if it pans out.
There was another post a while back about this.
http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/solar.htm
Read and understand.


Why do this?
By Schrag4 on 10/22/2008 4:33:56 PM , Rating: 2
I have to assume that the reason for this vastly expensive technology (vs other forms of producing power) is for environmental reasons.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, word for word: I thought the whole argument about AGW was that carbon was trapping energy from the sun from escaping Earth's atmosphere. Now you want to capture energy from the sun that was going to bypass Earth entirely and send it our way? I don't think carbon can hold a candle to this idea (pun intended) when it comes to 'artificially' warming our climate.

Now, if this is intended to be cheaper than any other way to generate power, then nevermind. Although it would still be nice to see some numbers...




RE: Why do this?
By roastmules on 10/23/2008 5:46:01 PM , Rating: 2
That's not really the point from the perspective of DARPA/Air Force/DoD...
It costs $100+ per gallon of Diesel to get it to a forward base of operations in a combat zone. Building a power plant while on the move is not possible. But, it may be possible to have power beamed in from space.
This would actually save some money if it pans out.
There was another post a while back about this.
http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/solar.htm
Read and understand.


All You Need
By deedub44 on 10/22/2008 6:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
Is a large spinning mirror and tracking system, and you could vaporize a human target from space.




RE: All You Need
By Farfignewton on 10/22/2008 10:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
We've got plans for you little ray gun this summer.


Sim City
By ecbsykes on 10/22/2008 1:29:11 PM , Rating: 3
Microwave power plant. =D




Kinda begs the question...
By irbyz on 10/22/2008 11:41:57 PM , Rating: 3
How many USAFA scientists does it take to change a satellite?




What about the Black Silicon?
By cete on 10/23/2008 3:45:52 AM , Rating: 3
Black silicon is made by striking normal silicon with flashes of high intensity laser. After that, it gets a bunch of interesting properties, the most important being the ability to absorb much higher amounts of light and even heat(infrared radiation) and convert it to electricity.

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/12.09/sili...

It's almost ten years since the discovery...

Anyway, the DOD and USAF are not interested in getting such technology for the civilians, they need to make a weapon out of everything they spend money on.

Considering the applications the technology could have in energy, telecommunications, medicine and who knows what else, I wonder how come such brilliant people could not find financial support to start production up till now. What are the priorities in this world?




Nuclear power is totally free also
By phxfreddy on 10/22/2008 8:34:38 PM , Rating: 2
Nuclear is free. It only costs to build the reactor and mine the uranium.

Solar is free. It only costs to build the panels and mine the silicon.

See what I mean? Totally free.




OLPC
By DKWinsor on 10/22/2008 9:33:28 PM , Rating: 2
It's a tenth of a watt, so,
OLPC: One Lightbulb Per Centiwatt.

...Don't let anyone tell you my math is wrong, I learned math on an XO
Besides, if anyone says I'm wrong, I have one word for them.
Projuct




impractical
By chromal on 10/23/2008 4:06:01 PM , Rating: 2
This seems like a terribly expensive way to light a single LED, but I guess this is a 'pure research' sort of baby step. Still, when you factor in launch costs and orbit-to-ground power transmission losses, this technology seems impractical at best today in 2008.




Everyone is missing the point
By roastmules on 10/23/2008 5:50:54 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously!
By marsbound2024 on 10/23/2008 9:59:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Projuct hopes to send...


*bang head against wall*




Enviromental issues...
By PKmjolnir on 10/23/2008 2:00:31 AM , Rating: 1
This will first be hailed as a huge breaktrough in green energy when it's made possible.

Then we face a gigantic shitstorm as this is a clear contributor of global warming as you are increasing the solar influx to earth. Of course, the same could be said for nuclear reactions that are not naturally present.




WHAT?!?
By amanojaku on 10/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: WHAT?!?
By Hieyeck on 10/22/2008 12:55:16 PM , Rating: 3
A VAST amount of solar energy is reflected and diffused by the atmosphere. While I can't recall specific numbers off the top of my head, the biggest advantage to space-based solar installations is that it's NOT affected by atmospheric conditions - aka weather.


RE: WHAT?!?
By AmazighQ on 10/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: WHAT?!?
By Bateluer on 10/22/2008 1:08:42 PM , Rating: 3
Satellites won't block out the sun. Don't be idiotic.


RE: WHAT?!?
By Zaranthos on 10/22/2008 2:51:54 PM , Rating: 3
Can't we try? Shoot enough space junk up there and we can combat global warming. ;-)


RE: WHAT?!?
By MozeeToby on 10/22/2008 2:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
Currently, even with 6 billion people, you would need to cover much less than 1% of the earth's surface to power the planet. Since these satelites are in geosync orbit, the effective surface area is much, much higher and there are less losses associated with the atmosphere, especially if the transfer system were to use microwaves as oposed to an optical laser.

So you can expect maybe covering .001% of the sky to power every home on the planet. The only real problem is getting the satelites up there and maintaining them. And I'm all for any business venture that seeks to make travel to and from space routine.


RE: WHAT?!?
By Hieyeck on 10/22/2008 3:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
Never agreed it was a GOOD idea. Just that it's an idea and it's FEASIBLE.


RE: WHAT?!?
By judasmachine on 10/22/2008 5:25:07 PM , Rating: 3
I can think of worse things on which to spend our money. I do prefer covering a wide swath of Nevada desert in solar cells, and the Texas Panhandle in windmills, but if they can find a way to make the space energy more efficient then more power to them.


RE: WHAT?!?
By amanojaku on 10/22/2008 1:12:18 PM , Rating: 1
I understand the diminishing affect of the atmosphere on the received light. The thing is you can get more power from terrestrial solar cells than the lights satellites are going to provide. The batteries I mentioned are required to store excess solar energy for the dark periods. Now, if these satellites can send more than 1/10th a watt of power (say, enough to power a small town or city) that would be useful. I just don't see how this test is a simulation of something useful in the real world, particularly when factoring in the cost. It's not like a satellite or launch costs $100.


RE: WHAT?!?
By foolsgambit11 on 10/22/2008 4:13:04 PM , Rating: 5
Crawl. Walk. Run.

Sputnik. Mouse. Dog. Monkey. Human. Moon.

Oars. Sails. Steam engine. Diesel engine. Nuclear engine.

Abacus. Pen and paper. ENIAC.... TI-82.

Grunts. Words. Smoke signals. Telegraph. Telephone. Cell phone. iPhone.

Okay, those aren't great examples, since each step is useful in some way for most of them. But the principle applies.

You have to start somewhere.


RE: WHAT?!?
By lagomorpha on 10/22/2008 5:21:49 PM , Rating: 5
"Grunts. Words. Smoke signals. Telegraph. Telephone. Cell phone. iPhone."

Reminds me of that picture of evolution of man where man ends up hunched over at the end.


RE: WHAT?!?
By amanojaku on 10/22/2008 6:46:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Reminds me of that picture of evolution of man where man ends up hunched over at the end.


That's because he doesn't want you to see him crying over his 500 page AT&T bill. Or maybe his back is broken from all that weight.


RE: WHAT?!?
By roastmules on 10/23/2008 5:48:26 PM , Rating: 2
"Grunts. Words. Smoke signals. Telegraph. Telephone. Cell phone. iPhone."

maybe more like...

"Grunts. Words. Smoke signals. Telegraph. Telephone. Cell phone. iPhone. txt msgs. #$%*@. Grunts."


RE: WHAT?!?
By MrTeal on 10/22/2008 1:14:19 PM , Rating: 1
The solar constant outside the atmosphere is about 1366 W/m2. Inside the atmosphere it's generally accepted to be around 1000. That's definitely less, but not enough to make up for the inefficiencies of the system.


RE: WHAT?!?
By Keeir on 10/22/2008 1:32:30 PM , Rating: 2
mmmm... assuming a Constant of 1366 W/m2, a correctly positioned satelittle should be capable of harvesting 32.78 kWh/m2/day in space (year round average). The best types of areas on this planet are typically 8-10 kWh/m2/day (year round average). Oh thats tilted and tracking installations.

Assuming the same efficieny (I was under the impression several types of panels are -more- efficient in space conditions than on the ground), a Solar installallation in space can harvest 3-4 times the best on earth.


RE: WHAT?!?
By MozeeToby on 10/22/2008 2:39:21 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I was under the impression several types of panels are -more- efficient in space conditions than on the ground
I believe this has more to do with cost/benifit analysis than it does with physics. Compared to the cost of getting them into space, even the most expensive solar panels are cheap.

I really think space solar is only economically feasible if we have a better way to get cargo into space such as a space elevator or a launch loop. Until it is foreseeable to put a solar satellite into orbit using only power generated by other solar satellites, I won't really believe this is going anywhere.


RE: WHAT?!?
By Samus on 10/22/2008 3:11:39 PM , Rating: 2
That's assuming things a perfect. In space, solar energy can be collected 24/7/365 with no interuptions. And, its 50% more efficient.


RE: WHAT?!?
By Pegano on 10/22/2008 3:20:15 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry to burst your bubble, but if these things are geosynchronous, no way will they generate 24/7/365. The Earth still spins


RE: WHAT?!?
By ice456789 on 10/22/2008 3:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
But you're assuming that the transfer of that energy from space to the earth is also 100% efficient. Without knowing much about this program, I can guess that it's not even close. Maybe someone who is a little more educated on the topic can fill me in.

Also, am I mistaken to assume that these satellites will be relatively close to Earth from a distant point of view? If that's the case, wouldn't the Earth cast a shadow on the satellite for at least a few hours a day unless the satellite is constantly adjusting its orbit (and thus presumably making it unable to transmit to the ground site whenever it moves to get out of our shadow)?


RE: WHAT?!?
By mindless1 on 10/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: WHAT?!?
By 3DoubleD on 10/22/2008 1:20:41 PM , Rating: 2
Solar cell efficiencies are much greater in space than on the ground for a few reasons. First, the atmosphere attenuates the incident radiation from the sun (the atmosphere isn't perfectly transparent to visible, IR, and UV wavelengths). This results in decreased power/area. Certain wavelengths are more strongly attenuated than others, which decreases (or increases) the efficiency of different solar cells depending on their bandgap. To see the difference between the solar spectrum on earth vs space see this link http://rredc.nrel.gov/solar/spectra/am1.5/ . Note that the black line is the extra terrestrial irradiance and the red is what you would typically find on the ground.

Another factor is alignment. It is relatively easy to keep the sun's radiation incident to the solar panels of a satellite, just set the orbit and the rotation of the satellite such that it always points the solar cells at the sun. On earth, costly and failure prone solar trackers are needed, which are often avoided (look up that solar tube article DailyTech posted a few weeks ago).

Another factor could be that you might be able to achieve 24h power generation in space depending on your orbit. (or at least longer days of 100% illumination for geosynchronous orbit)

All that said, the cost of deploying solar farms to space and transmitting the energy to the ground would be hard pressed to break even on the efficiency gained from being in space. Since power transmission would likely lead to losses exceeding 50%, this does not seem very practical. The costs associated with launching satellites to space would have to go way down and the efficiencies of wireless power transmission over 100-1000s of km would have to drastically increase.

This project is rather interesting though and compliments the space elevator projects very well, just don't think it will be practical any time soon.


RE: WHAT?!?
By mmntech on 10/22/2008 1:28:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, we can get plenty of sun through our atmosphere but it's not a practical method of gathering solar energy. Collecting solar energy from satellites or bases on the moon is initially more expensive but actually solves the biggest fault of solar power: reliability. Solar panels here on Earth have a limited operational range. They work just fine in sunny Los Angeles, California 365 days a year but the same can't be said for Anchorage, Alaska, especially in winter. Solar power also doesn't work at night. With satellite or moon based solar collection systems, they can operate continuously regardless of geographical or weather conditions here on Earth. They can even deliver solar power at night provided you angle the microwave beam or use orbital reflectors. The sun also puts out electromagnetic energy in wavelenghts that don't penetrate the atmosphere. Using orbital systems would allow us to tap into this energy source as well. It actually works out to be vary viable.

When did SimCity 2000 predict we'd have this system? They seem to be pretty close.


RE: WHAT?!?
By Clauzii on 10/23/2008 7:31:48 AM , Rating: 2
SimCity 2000 was released by Maxis in 1993.


RE: WHAT?!?
By crimson117 on 10/22/2008 3:09:19 PM , Rating: 2
This focuses the sunlight into a laser which then hits a ground-based solar panel. Focusing it from space means you get to focus it before it gets scattered through our atmosphere.

It's like trying to fill a water bucket from your garden irrigation system. Putting the satellite in space is like getting water straight from the hose instead of trying to get water shooting out of your sprinkler.

Note; this is different than Microwave power beaming reference in many sci-fi novels, including one of my favorites books, "Firestar" by Michael Flynn. Microwave power actually turns the light into energy in space and then sends that energy via microwave radiaiton. Laser power just focuses the light.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wireless_power_transm...


RE: WHAT?!?
By s12033722 on 10/22/2008 7:12:08 PM , Rating: 2
Light is already energy. Both microwave and laser transmission involve re-transmitting the captured solar energy at a different wavelength.


Yield?
By paydirt on 10/22/08, Rating: -1
RE: Yield?
By Spivonious on 10/22/2008 1:15:21 PM , Rating: 3
You missed the point. This is more of a "can we beam electricity from space to Earth?"

Reminds me of the microwave power plant in SimCity 2000.


RE: Yield?
By Maximilian on 10/22/2008 1:30:53 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly what i thought of! Simcity 2000 lol.


RE: Yield?
By cornelius785 on 10/22/2008 2:54:17 PM , Rating: 3
And does anyone remember what happens when the beam isn't aligned?


RE: Yield?
By MozeeToby on 10/22/2008 2:57:58 PM , Rating: 2
The full scale designes have the system using microwaves to beam power down to a station that is more than a square kilometer in area. Basically, the power is spread out of such a large area that it would probably be safe to walk directly underneath it.


RE: Yield?
By ice456789 on 10/22/2008 3:29:57 PM , Rating: 5
You first.


RE: Yield?
By ViroMan on 10/23/2008 12:21:06 AM , Rating: 2
Im sure, if this works, there is going to be a lot of dead birds and bugs in the receiver area.


RE: Yield?
By Spivonious on 10/22/2008 4:44:39 PM , Rating: 2
Is something burning? ;)


RE: Yield?
By CloudFire on 10/23/2008 9:04:07 AM , Rating: 2
seems to me this is the 1st step in humanity's effort to create something like a miniature first proto-type of the Dyson sphere. (google it if you don't know what that is)


RE: Yield?
By cornelius785 on 10/22/2008 3:03:58 PM , Rating: 2
I agree there a better ways to spend the moeny would result in a better output to cost ratio. I'm for nuclear power which we know works, what to do, and what not to do. Or even better, try to make the much talked about fusion power a reality sooner. I'm not convinced this could ever efficiently work.


RE: Yield?
By wvh on 10/22/2008 11:26:51 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. I think the loss of energy through conversion would be even worse than in a solar panel. Power/energy conversion is rarely an efficient process.


RE: Yield?
By Gestahl on 10/22/2008 3:14:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Dumb dumb dumb. Maybe in the future, it would be a good idea to try this, but it is just a waste now.


This won't have a future unless they test out the technology (limited as it is right now) that we do have. These tests as small scale and ridiculous as they sound are just the stepping stones.


RE: Yield?
By paydirt on 10/23/2008 9:11:20 AM , Rating: 2
It's not the right time to do this. Just think of the headline when people are losing their jobs and homes. "U.S. pays $xxx hundred million to light single light bulb from outer space." Very VERY bad PR. I think they should wait 5 years and then maybe try it.

I was like you, reading WIRED in 1999 thinking the future would look totally different in the next 10 years, but here we are 10 years later... We need an editor with these projects, especially if they use federal dollars... Let's tackle stuff that is more immediate.


RE: Yield?
By roastmules on 10/23/2008 5:50:13 PM , Rating: 1
That's not really the point from the perspective of DARPA/Air Force/DoD...
It costs $100+ per gallon of Diesel to get it to a forward base of operations in a combat zone. Building a power plant while on the move is not possible. But, it may be possible to have power beamed in from space.
This would actually save some money if it pans out.
There was another post a while back about this.
http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/solar.htm
Read and understand.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments







botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki