6. PRINCIPAL CONCLUSIONS Due to the high cost and limited opportunities to access and return from space, there currently isn’t a single operational space programme that would benefit significantly from a Powersat. The present type of communications, science and other autonomous satellites are not appropriate customers for a Powersat due to the fact that any savings are a fraction of the cost to build a Powersat This is because only a small number of satellites are launched each year and their power subsystems are modest in size, providing a few kilowatts of power. More fundamentally, the vast majority of such satellites require just one launch - they cannot be supported. Hence, in a notional Powersat scenario, the cost savings of not having to launch a full-sized power subsystem are very small when amortised over the satellites life-time. As a result, there is a modest initial price to pay. but the recurring costs for maintaining an integral power subsystem are very small. Therefore, Powersats have the potential to be cost- effective only for those applications where very significant recurring costs can be saved. The eventual launch of Freedom - the West's first attempt at constructing a supportable space facility - might provide a suitable niche market for a relatively simple power-augmenting Powersat. Two possible options for such a first generation Powersat have been discussed for reference. These are dubbed the Microwave and Laser Solutions and will be referred to periodically in PART II of this report. The Microwave Solution is considered very realistic as it would require essentially existing technology. The Laser Solution is much more advanced (and expensive), and its feasibility hinges totally on a yet to be proven laser and energy reconversion technology. However, the laser solution has a number of benefits. In particular, it can supply multiple users as well as provide experience in high pow'er space-to-ground power beaming experiments.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==