power subsystem components, is relatively small when amortised over the satellite's lifetime. Based on the earlier example, this averages at around 250.000 AU per year. As a result, the average cost saving to the user is less than 1 MAL’ per year, and more realistically it is probably nearer 0.5 MAU. If satellite operators were suddenly given the opportunity to save 280 kg in launch costs, most would probably choose to load more propellant into the satellite to increase its lifetime and revenue-generating capacity. Under these circumstances, the total launch cost savings of 420 MAU might be considered as very optimistic. A final problem is that while there are many comsats, each only needs a relatively modest amount of power. Over the next 10-20 years, this power is unlikely to increase dramatically for a number of reasons, including, for example, the production of higher efficiency travelling wave tubes (TWTs), solid state power amplifiers (SSPAs) and other payload and bus subsystem components. Also, the larger the power requirements, the larger the spacecraft will have to be to effectively radiate the waste heat Limits imposed by current launchers for dedicated satellites of up to 3 to 4 tonnes will ensure that the average power demands will not grow significantly. Neither will the total demand for comsats grow very much, because there is only a limited number of orbital positions in GEO for comsats. In summary, it seems clear that communications satellites would not present a suitable initial niche market for the first Powersat system, as the economic arguments simply do not support it. The same conclusion is equally applicable to all other one-shot, non-recoverable spacecraft such as scientific satellites, Earth observation platforms and weather satellites. This situation may change in the future if large telecommunications platforms are built that require "hundreds of kilowatts of power." However, no such plans exist presently.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==