Much of this Phase 1 and possibly Phase 2 work should be conducted within the framework of existing ESA efforts in order to minimise costs. The ESTEC In-Orbit Technology Development Programme would seem an appropriate place for at least the initial phase of a Powersat Demonstrator Programme. In addition, participants in a Powersat programme should be encouraged to adopt innovative management approaches than can lead to a cost- reducing practises. Ideally, both a laser and micro wave advanced demonstrator should be constructed in Phase 2. However, this is likely to be precluded by funding restrictions. International cooperation with the US, Japan and the CIS would seem to be an appropriate method to share resources and avoid duplication. The future users of Powersats, and later SPS systems, will inevitably include customers from outside Europe. Therefore, it would seem reasonable to initiate contacts and initiate preliminary discussions with other nations as soon as practical in order to sound out interest in cooperative activities. During the course of this study for example, Eurospace found considerable US interest in cooperating on the ASAP demonstrator. The former Soviet efforts in space-based power systems is considered very extensive. However, much of this information could be lost if the present trends in the CIS continue. Liberating this information would not be expensive and could be of considerable value to future Powersat and SPS activities. Finally, the future prospects of Powersats are totally dependent on the development of an in-orbit infrastructure including permanently manned space stations. Given the potential for Powersats to simplify the expansion of a space station’s power while minimising the increase in support needs, as defined in PART I of this study, it is considered worthwhile to incorporate the Powersat option within the on-going EMSI studies, including the SYSTEMSI work.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==