context of the program affects a hypothetical “well-planned”, technically and economically driven development. Back to basics. If the energy question was at the origin of the invention of the solar power satellite concept, and if the largest past funding for studies (NASA/DOE study) began and ended exactly when the energy crisis of the 70's did, can governments' decided support for large-scale space power be expected before a future energy crisis begins to show its first clear symptoms? It is difficult to make forecasts in this matter, and there is not much that can be done about it anyway. Wise as it is to act in advance before a problem comes, past experience shows that political thinking is tied (at least largely in democratic regimes) to not-too-distant time horizons. But there is some constructive thinking to do about energy problems: how to enforce the so-called “real cost of energy”, an environmentally beneficial step that would help solar energy to be competitive in the energy market. Solar power advocacy is then aligned with the environmental concerns in favor of a renewable, clean energy source that also avoids further global warming . Additionally, an encouraging idea is found in the literature: space solar power could be used as foreign aid, while the space infrastructure gets built in the process [Leonard, 199lb]. It must be stressed that addressing the energy problem is the side of the Space Solar Power Program capable of getting the general public interested, as it does not rely on space “justification”. (Compare with the claim that the major proportion of the so-called economic “spin-offs” of space projects are other space-related activities [Cohendet,1992]). Frequency allocation and geostationary slot allocation issues show how fundamental technical system drivers (frequency of power transmission, choice of orbit) are greatly affected by nontechnical considerations, mainly the de facto situation in past allocations. Interference problems also add technical constraints. The importance of this issue cannot be underestimated, as has been widely recognized by space solar power proponents. A constructive view calls for early action in the appropriate forums and that the necessary lead times involved be investigated. Liability issues appear in various areas (among them frequency interference, health hazards, space debris generation, effect on other aircraft) and are a major driver influencing various technical tradeoffs at all system and subsystem levels. A matter which is not sufficiently explored in the literature, to our knowledge, is file cost of insurance for EVA activities. It is clear that the large construction times needed will call for EVA time in an unprecedented scale, and an increased possibility of accidents. A realistic estimate of risks after more space construction experience is available, and an investigation on how to cope with them will in the near future be called for. The bottom line is that a new perspective from governments regarding space activities is needed, shifting from one of invested national pride to an industrial perception of space and thus avoiding the paralyzing effects of extreme risk aversion. Construction and Transportation in space are major cost drivers. There is uncertainty about the possibility of bringing them down, and technology challenges ahead. Many large-scale Space Solar Power Program development scenarios call for space infrastructure to be already in place, so the program is here again dependent on the fate of other efforts of size and scope comparable to its own, which clearly encompasses major non-technical issues. Use of Non-Terrestrial Materials (NTM) has been frequently regarded as the better chance for economically sensible large-scale space solar power. This introduces uncertainty and a significant dependence in the Space Solar Power Program, as it makes it rely on the progress of Moon exploration (in other words, the whole infrastructure needed is not expected to be sustained by the program bill). Some authors readily recognize this fact and suggest that all space solar power supporters should be equally Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) supporters, and developers of a joint space technology [Poher,1991]. The point is again that in its fullest scope, SEI is an endeavor potentially as considerable as the Space Solar Power Program. In turn, the progress of SEI/NTM usage depends on some technologies still to be developed and on societal and political issues underlying its funding needs (e.g. existing and future Moon treaties could restrict the use of large amounts of lunar material). Also, experience shows that funding and schedule for a space project is very sensitive to other space projects' incidents or failures. Thus, Space Solar Power Program evolution and future will ultimately be linked to worldwide, very general trends in space development. For historic reasons, key players and decision-makers in the space community normally hold a cost philosophy which does not favor space economies of scale. A change in the aerospace culture is needed, shifting from extreme risk aversion and the unwillingness to invest up front significant amounts to a low-cost life-cycle, “industrial” and entrepreneurial perspective [Simon, 1992].
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==