SPACE SOLAR POWER REVIEW Volume 5, Number 1, 1985 PERGAMON PRESS New York / Oxford / Toronto I Paris/ Frankfurt / Sydney
SPACE SOLAR POWER REVIEW Published under the auspices of the SUNSAT Energy Council Eclitor-in-Chief Dr. John W. Freeman Space Solar Power Research Program Rice University, P.O. Box 1892 Houston, TX 77251, USA Associate Editors Dr. Eleanor A. Blakely Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Colonel Gerald P. Carr Bovay Engineers, Inc. Dr. M. Claverie Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique Dr. David Criswell California Space Institute Mr. Leonard David PRC Energy Analysis Company Mr. Hubert P. Davis Eagle Engineering Professor Alex J. Dessler Rice University Mr. Gerald W. Driggers L-5 Society Mr. Arthur M. Dula Attorney; Houston, Texas Professor Arthur A. Few Rice University Mr. I.V. Franklin British Aerospace, Dynamics Group Dr. Owen K. Garriott National Aeronautics and Space Administration Professor Norman E. Gary University of California, Davis Dr. Peter E. Glaser Arthur D. Little Inc. Professor Chad Gordon Rice University Dean William E. Gordon Rice University Dr. Arthur Kantrowitz Dartmouth College Mr. Richard L. Kline Grumman Aerosoace Corooration Dr. Harold Liemohn Boeing Aerospace Company Dr. James W. Moyer Southern California Edison Company Professor Gerard K. O'Neill Princeton University Dr. Eckehard F. Schmidt AEG—Telefunken Dr. Klaus Schroeder Rockwell International Professor George L. Siscoe University of California, Los Angeles Professor Harlan J. Smith University of Texas Mr. Gordon R. Woodcock Boeing Aerospace Company Dr. John Zinn Los Alamos Scientific Laboratories Editorial Assistant: Jean S. McHenry Editorial Office: John W. Freeman, Editor-in-Chief, Space Solar Power Research Program, Rice University P O Box 1892, Houston, TX 77251, USA.
0191-9067/85 $3.00 + .00 Copyright ® 1985 SUNSAT Energy Council LETTER TO THE EDITOR Space Solar Power Systems: Building a Mass Constituency But for the diplomatic tenacity of Christopher Columbus, the discovery of the New World might have been delayed half a century. Nonetheless, the artisans of that period were constructing ships capable of the Atlantic crossing, and the very existence of such vessels made the voyage an inevitability. Future generations may likewise view the development of Solar Power Satellites (SPS) as an historic inevitability, but will they condemn us for moving too slowly? A ten or twenty year delay in discovering the Western Hemisphere would have made scant difference to the Europeans of the sluggish 15th century, but today our species is undergoing explosive growth, and procrastinating the development of a potentially bountiful energy resource would be negligent. We have our modem versions of the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria — so what is standing in the way? In a word: politics. Although space development is highly popular in an abstract sense, elected budget-makers respond only to mass constituencies, and the general public has not felt any true sense of urgency about exploring the realm above our atmosphere since the days of sputnik. Would the American Congress act more swiftly in appropriating money for SPS if the Gallup Poll showed that 76% of the electorate strongly favored development of a prototype? In the present climate of ignorance, what is the likelihood that such an opinion survey will ever be conducted? The objective of this letter, therefore, is to propose a strategy for creating a mass political awareness of — and constituency for — SPS. The method that should be used is the petition. THE PETITION Despite the arduous logistical problems that would have to be overcome, the use of a mass petition drive to promote SPS would have several advantages: First, signature gathering would have a profound educational impact, bringing pro-SPS activists into direct, one-on-one contact with individual members of the public and simultaneously offering the citizenry an opportunity to register their approval. Second, it would be a long-term effort, not susceptible to the attention span cycles that plague movements which rely on letter writing, rallies or electoral contests to demonstrate a base of support. The gathering of a mass “proxy” would continue for several years (until the signature total reached the multimillion level) and the accumulated product could then be presented en masse to the governments of the participant nations. It would become an issue.
Finally, a petition would bind together disparate ideological factions with a concise statement of mutual goals. As a focal point of public attention, it could serve as the preamble to a book-length declaration, spelling out the idealistic vision of the pro-space movement. THE TEXT Drafting the resolution would be the single most important step in the petition drive because the few words chosen would be scrutinized by the media, the public, and the volunteers who would be asked to undertake the demanding task of gathering the signatures. (1) We, the undersigned citizens of the United States of America, being concerned about the continuing energy crisis, do hereby petition our Congress to make the development of a prototype Space Solar Power System a national priority. This hypothetical text, while stating the proposition as simply as possible, has the drawback of relying too heavily on a single technology, putting “too many eggs in one basket” by focusing debate on SPS instead of on the wider issue of space industrialization. The slightest tidbit of ambiguous or negative scientific evidence about the ecological aspect of SPS would then become fodder for the mass media. A broader approach would seem well advised: (2) We, the undersigned citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany, being concerned about the future of humanity in a finite world, do hereby petition our Bundestag to make the development of prototype space industries an international priority. Although less vulnerable to frivolous attack, might not such a bland wording fail because of apathy? Communicating a genuine sense of urgency, combined with a fervent explanation of the reasons for supporting SPS, would be more persuasive: (3) We, the undersigned citizens of Japan, being concerned about the environmental and economic consequences of continued reliance on coal, oil, and nuclear power, do hereby petition our Diet to make the development of a prototype Space Solar Power System an international priority. Or, (4) We, the undersigned citizens of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, being concerned that the arms race will bankrupt or destroy world civilization, do hereby petition our Supreme Soviet to propose an international treaty to divert spending on weaponry into a multinational program for the development of prototype space industries. Which version would be most likely to excite global interest? THE “EXTERNAL ISSUES” QUESTION At present, the pro-space movement is severely split between those who favor the development of orbital defense systems and those who would ban weapons from
space entirely. As hypothetical text #4 illustrates, any reference to the arms race in the petition could exacerbate this schism among the petition's most likely supporters. Furthermore, the inclusion of overtly anti-military sentiment runs the risk of engendering governmental opposition. Might not the Kremlin regard text #4 as “anti-Soviet”? Insert “U.S.A.” and “Congress” into the appropriate slots and ask whether certain factions in the United States might not brand it “anti-American”? The great temptation, in framing the text, would be to skirt controversy by avoiding linkage with emotional, external issues like fission power, acid rain, and nuclear war. But are these issues truly “external”? If not proffered as a constructive alternative to the arms race and/or a substitute for ecologically-damaging energy sources, how can SPS be advocated? The project may someday be hailed as the “TVA of the 21st Century,” but until a prototype is built and there is sufficient evidence to justify going forward with the technology purely as an investment, more esoteric arguments must be advanced — or at least implied. THE SOVIET UNION Governments take petitions very seriously. In 1905, a priest led a nonviolent group of workers to petition Nicholas II, and the Czar's troops fired mercilessly into the crowd. “Bloody Sunday,” as it came to be known, marked the beginning of the end of the monarchy. In modern Russia, Article 49 of the 1977 Constitution of the U.S.S.R. purports to guarantee all citizens the right to “. . . submit proposals to state bodies.” Nothing in the Soviet Bill of Rights, however, “guarantees” the right to make those proposals collec tively. Would the Communists, aware of the implications of text #4, regard the naked act of petitioning as “anti-Soviet”? If pro-space activists were to post a thousand copies of text #5 to scientists, intellectuals, and dissident leaders in the U.S.S.R., would the K.G.B. allow it to pass through the mails? Would the western news media, alerted to the putative “right” guaranteed under Article 49, follow the Soviet response with amusement? (5) We, the undersigned citizens of_______________, in the interest of world peace, do hereby petition our government to make the development of prototype civilian space industries an international priority. In deciding whether to participate in a multinational SPS program, the Soviets would be wise to consider the consequences of not doing so. If the democratic nations join together to build a full-scale prototype, the Kremlin leadership will not be able to ignore the military implications of gigawatts of electrical power suspended over their heads. Nor can they disregard the possibility that SPS may become the “oil weapon” of the next century. The lure of massive foreign aid, in the form of low-cost electrical power, could trigger a dramatic, pro-western realignment of the Third World nations. And the moribund Soviet economy would be severely strained by a trillion-dollar SPS race against the combined resources of the United States, Japan, and Western Europe. Strategically, the SPS “spigot” may prove to be far more important than the Strait of Hormuz, and unlike the Middle Eastern oil supplies, the sunlight is not going to run out. From a western perspective, it would make sense to invite the Soviets to participate on a contractual basis — earning hard currency by lifting SPS payloads into
orbit with their heavy launch vehicles. Might not the tens of billions of yen, marks, pounds, and francs contributed to a multi-national space program serve as an arms negotiation “sweetener,” an incentive for the Kremlin leadership to divert their military/aerospace capacity to more profitable ventures than the SS-20? The prospect of hundreds of large Russian missies lifting off — with international cargo instead of nuclear warheads — would have mass public appeal on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Consider the alternative arms control proposals on the table today. Any truly successful nuclear freeze would necessarily risk the atrophy of vital defense industries, while a treaty to divert arms spending into a full-scale SPS program would actually enhance military/aerospace production capabilities — should either side be foolish enough to fling down the gauntlet again. Perhaps it would be overly optimistic to predict that the heads of state — sitting as the board of directors of an international SPS program — would be able to resolve global differences over brandy and cigars. Perhaps fears about verification and technology pilfering will never allow such a treaty to be concluded. But a multilateral diversion of military spending into a program which would pay dividends to the next hundred generations would nonetheless be a “giant step for mankind,” worth taking a few risks to achieve. THE “PROTOTYPE” PETITION It is not coincidental that all five of the hypothetical texts discussed above contain the word “prototype.” The inclusion of that term narrows the proposition, advocating a mere experiment, not a headlong commitment to full-scale development. By thus delimiting the proposal, the text would address concerns about the poorly understood environmental impact of SPS — without cluttering the language with caveats. At the same time, “prototype petition" would be short enough to fit into a headline and cryptic enough to elicit the query: “ prototype what!” Just getting the public to ask that question would be a major educational accomplishment. The best minds in the world should be recruited to write an answer, enumerating the grand possibilities of space industrialization. At the top of the list — the most important “prototype” — should be SPS. Joseph D. Schleimer 5512 North 45th Street Tacoma, Washington 98407, USA
0191-9067/85 $3.00 + .00 Copyright ® 1985 SUNS AT Energy Council CIS-LUNAR INDUSTRIALIZATION AND HIGHER HUMAN OPTIONS* DAVID R. CRISWELL California Space Institute UCSD Mail Code A 021 La Jolla, California 92093, USA Abstract — Cis-lunar industries offer the second portal for mankind's entry into space. Lunar supported materials industries can spread to low Earth orbit (LEO) and then outward from the Earth-Moon system. Rockets from Earth are the first portal. Operating alone, rockets are uplift limited, constrain space construction and impose major costs and time penalties. Very small initial cis-lunar industries could output more useful mass to space annually than do all Earth-supported space flights. Complex components and critical lunar- deficient elements supplied from Earth would greatly leverage both industrial growth in space and the efficient use of space transportation systems. Known lunar resources can provide radiation/impact/thermal shielding, life-support and propulsion chemicals, refined engineering materials (oxygen, silicon, aluminum, titanium, calcium, magnesium, minor elements and many oxide and alloyed compounds). Other lunar resources, possibly even polar ices, will be found via exploration from orbit and on the surface. Solar power facilities in space made primarily from lunar materials can have energy payback times of tens of days. New low cost bulk industrial processes with minimal equipment can be expected. Doubling times of a few months are reasonable for many systems. Very fast industrial growth is possible. Permanently inhabited, growing facilities can rapidly extend burgeoning terrestrial technologies, skills, and commercial links into space. Humans in space will need and receive a wider and more progressive range of productive facilities, goods, and services than provided previously in space. They will direct from space more appropriate new developments and activities than can be accomplished by Earth-bound decision makers. They will be more deeply and consistently attentive to the growing permanent presence of mankind off Earth. Several new extensions of human presence into space are described. New Net Wealth must be created in space from solar energy and common resources for permanent human growth off Earth. All major space programs should start developing now the tools for creation of new wealth. The full range of terrestrial technical skills, not just those in aerospace, should be considered. We should circumvent the restrictions of the exponential rocket equation. We should send outward maximum smarts and minimum mass to build cooperative but reasonably autonomous human facilities in cis-lunar space. Cis-lunar industries can build the portals for human expansion into the solar system and beyond. A twopronged program for starting growing cis-lunar industrialization is presented. 1. EARTH INDUSTRY Any discussion of space industrialization should note the fact that mankind has industrialized Earth. Man lives primarily in a human-made context. There are lessons to be remembered and used as humanity extends itself off Earth permanently. *Portions of this paper were presented at the conference, “Charting a Course for Spaceship Earth,” Session 9, Earth Orbit and Cis-Lunar Operations, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Baltimore, MD, 25-27 May 1982. Research was sponsored in part by the California Space Institute of the University of California, San Diego.
Figure 1 compactly presents the four major interrelated components of human industry (1). Humanity has progressively acquired skill over thousands of years for living on Earth, in its biosphere, and organizing it. The quantity of that skill, historically, has been no more than somewhat positively proportional to the number of humans alive. Limited “learning,” bad organization, and circumstances could and usually have limited rewards for full applications of those skills at any one time. Skill storage, application, and growth are now extending to “intelligent” matter, computers and their kin, invented by man. This “intelligent” or “smart” mass helps us grow on Earth but will help us grow explosively into space. Our slowly won skills have gradually let us use progressively greater quantities of energy (our own foods, foods for our animals, burning of wood, then coal, then oil, then nuclei, then . . .?) taken from Earth. Except for relatively small flows of renewable power (wood, hydroelectric, wind, . . .) our energy use has depleted Earth resources. Depletion is accelerating. This energy has been used to sustain and transport us and to build. Figure 2 presents one very narrow vantage of how explosively our increasing abilities to manipulate matter have grown. Line A approximately indicates the tons of matter manipulated worldwide each year which is extracted from non-r.enewable resources (termed “Demandite”; (2)). Note that the vertical scale (tons per year) is logarithmic. This rapid growth of about 6%/yr began with the increasingly intense use of energy in the industrial revolution 400 years ago. Demandite usage is approximated by: dM/dt (tons/yr) = 4.4 exp (O.OblHyears A.D.)—1600)) (I) Table 1 gives the elemental composition of the various fractions of Demandite and their per capita production rates. In 1968, U.S. citizens consumed about 17 tons per year of Demandite. Coal and oil provided most of the energy to gather and process the Demandite. Substitution of materials will broaden the Demandite composition Fig. 1. Components of human industry.
Fig. 2. Growth of use of non-recoverable resources; on Earth, left; in space, right.
TABLE 1 DEMANDITE AND ENERGY SUMMARY TABLE 2 PER CAPITA ENERGY USE PER YEAR (U.S. — 19681 and enable new materials to serve in new roles (e.g., glass fibers in optical communications can replace copper wires). Demandite does not include the vast quantities of water and air which flow through the biosphere under the combined influence of evaporation from the oceans and worldwide photosynthesis which are driven by solar energy. Nor does it include the soils recurrently used by agriculture. It does not include foods, trees and similar forms driven by solar energy through the cycles of the biosphere. Table 2 breaks down the per capita energy usage. Note that most of the energy (4,5) is used downstream of Demandite production in such activities as manufacturing, transport, construction, and domestic life. We are all aware that considerable energy is required to extract metals from the Earth (note line 5 in Table 1). Metals
and other chemicals are being extracted from increasingly lower grade reserves (3-6). Increasing the power available for metals production by a factor of two (line E, Table 2) would permit adequate metals extraction from essentially unlimited low grade resources (2). This would increase present U.S. power usage by only 20% or so. Non-fuel Demandite usage is approaching the largest rate of natural materials introduction — formation of ocean crust at rift boundaries (6). Industrial scrap is a major, but economically volatile fraction of global economic resources (7). However, the 11-13 kw lifestyle is only comfortable if the carbon (line 1 in Table 1) is readily available and can be used (8). Citizens of advanced countries now require approximately 10 tons/year of carbon (total coal equivalent) for direct energy and for supplying the other 55% of Demandite. The small pile of coal in Fig. 3 depicts this annual usage on a human scale (9). It approximates the appearance of the ten tons of coal which would be used annually in obtaining Demandite from low grade sources. However, note (line F, Table 2) that greater efficiency in the non- Demandite activities can probably offset the expenditures for using low grade resources. How far an urban world could reduce its per capita energy use is not clear (10-13). Perhaps a factor of two decreases are possible. However, it would require massive changes in most industrial and human activities. Inordinately large investments would be required in research and development and implementation to produce the more energy efficient industrial world. Outlays by automobile companies provide an example. Much of the chemical sector is efficient when the trade-offs of energy versus capital costs are considered (14). On the other hand, advanced agriculture is energy intensive. Man puts somewhat more energy into crops than the crops return to him as food. Human and institutional resources are finite even on a worldwide basis. Therefore, it is prudent to seek new, less demanding, sources of energy and materials even while pursuing new conservation and efficiency options (15). 2. EARTH'S BIOSPHERE, INDUSTRY AND HUMANS The first really significant restraint on human burning of carbon may come from the biosphere of Earth. Notice in Fig. 2 that by early in the 21st century mankind will be processing as much mass each year as does the biosphere of Earth. Table 3 places this use of biosphere recycled (renewable?) resources on a worldwide per capita basis assuming a 6 E + 9 (E X = 10 to the X power) population in the early 21st century. Biosphere magnitudes no longer seem as large. From line 3 in Table 3 we see that per capita recycling of carbon through the biosphere could be about the same as the coal burned to support an individual in an advanced country. Market forces in the world economy can make it very difficult to change the use of a basic commodity like carbon in even a few decades (16). Considering the influence of 6 E+9 people worldwide trying to achieve a better physical existence, it seems likely the usage of coal will increase. It is difficult to see how mankind can avoid becoming a significant if not the major component in the world carbon cycle early in the next century. Perhaps the only alternative would be to develop a source of sufficiently inexpensive power (low unit costs) that people would generally find it extremely attractive to use and industries would have to adopt it to remain competitive. Of course, the new power source would have to be brought on line quickly within the economic constraints of the competitive world. Table 3 (columns B and C; 17) reveal that human beings (6 E+9 people) will be a significant fraction of the biosphere. People will breathe and eat approximately 1.5%
Fig. 3. Per capita carbon use; energy equivalent from space.
TABLE 3 THE PER CAPITA BIOSPHERE FOR 6E9 PEOPLE of the recycled oxygen and 0.7% of the carbon, oxygen and hydrogen photosynthesized by vegetation. There are many other users on Earth of the C-O-H. Organisms of the food chains on which human beings depend consume much of the C-O-H. Before long humans will compose 0.02% (4 E + 8 tons) of all living matter in the biosphere. Cellulose, predominantly tropical trees, composed most of the biospheric mass, therefore humans are a dominant fraction of the non-cellulose mass. Spaceship Earth is a concept that should be considered accurate and relevant to efforts of the various space programs of the world. Evaporation of ocean water (4.3 E + 13 tons/year; 10% falls on land) is the largest matter cycle of the biosphere. However, at most only 2,500 tons/person-year (4% of maximum possible) will eventually be available from precipitation. U.S. usage rates are shown in Table 3 (5,B). Ancient ground waters are being mined much faster than they can be naturally replaced. Antarctic ice accumulates at faster rates than human water utilization. Iceberg gathering and towing has been studied (18). Management of large fractions of the waters of the Earth for human purposes would be a monumental, endless challenge. Perhaps local artificial recycling, as must be done in a space facility (column C), will be a less disruptive path for mankind to follow. Energy will be required. Not only is mankind making for all of us an artificial or “man-made” world, but mankind is systematically using the highest available grades of matter (liquid fuels, economic trace elements, etc.) to do so. This is not a problem if energy is readily accessible. However, the carbon energy resources are being used up at a rate at least one million times faster than they were originally produced by nature. Even the enormous world carbon reserves can be depleted by an aggressive and energy hungry world. A 6 E+9 people world using 10 tons of coal per year per person could deplete coal in less than 150 years, or less than half of the time since the world struggled into the industrial age (19-21). This brings us to a central problem and challenge of both Earth and space industry. We use our skills, energy, and matter to
Fig. 4. Relation of space program and lunar research to materials and manufacturing segments (links to be closed). make things and do things. The things we make are the “Cumulative Controlled Connectivities,” or C + C + C in Fig. 1. Some of these stay around for many years, such as the pyramids, dams, or vast roads. Others are less permanent like cars, helium in space probes (lost from Earth), or bureaucracies (hopefully). Others are hard to classify, such as microcomputers, or are extremely short-lived (ie., mesons in accelerators). The two top balloons in Fig. 4 remind us that Demandite gathering (“Materials Industries”) and C+C+C construction and operation (“Manufacturing”) are very large activities. In the United States, “Materials” scaled to over 400 B$ (B = E+9) in 1972 while “Manufacturing” exceeded 700 B$. In 1982 the inflated cash flows are more than twice as large. The human efficiency of these activities dictates how large a fraction of the population can devote itself to other activities (services — secondary, tertiary and quaternary; (22)). In some countries this fraction is 0.1 or less, whereas in the United States it is 0.8 or slightly higher. Smooth, non-turbulent economic growth using advanced technologies permits this service fraction to steadily increase. Considering the short lives of humans, possibly even the race, the interesting question is this: Have the C + C+C's and skills we've developed, primarily by producing and training more people, given us more than the value of Earth resources we've depleted? More directly — can we use our present and projected skills, C+C+C, and depleted resources of energy and “high grade” mass (or gifts or
TABLE 4 LUNAR DUST AND ROCKS (EARTHWARD LOW LATITUDES) nature) to preserve human life on Earth? Can we even promote more vigorous healthy growth on Earth? is net growth possible on Earth? What is net growth? This author does not know the answers. Even more troubling, he has seen few such discussions in the literatures of physics, engineering, philosophy or even economics (23a). Many papers focus on the more complex and limited question: What is the carrying capacity of Earth (24,25)? However, one unexpected direction for establishing the truth does seem clear. 3. THE MOON AND NET GROWTH OR NEW WEALTH The moon is a dead world. We can use it to attempt to demonstrate new net growth. We now know in detail about a fraction of its resources and these resources match to a remarkable extent the non-fuel component of “Demandite” of our engineering experience. We can substitute solar derived power in space for energy from ancient carbon (26). Most, if not all, the components for power from space can be made from lunar materials (23b). Table 4 summarizes the obvious materials resources of low-latitude Earthwardfacing regions of the maria (dark) and highland (bright) lunar surface to a depth of several meters. These major, common resources of oxygen, silicon, aluminum, iron, titanium, calcium and magnesium can be supplemented through beneficiation with the other minor/trace elements shown in Table 4. The bulk soil and its oxides are immensely useful in protecting us from radiation (23a,28b), smoothing temperature extremes, in making glasses and ceramics, and are readily available for those pur-
TABLE 5 USEFUL LUNAR PRODUCTS poses (23,27a). Table 5 summarizes some of the products we already recognize as being producible from lunar soils and the elements and oxides which can be derived from them. However, the refined engineering materials, their oxides, and alloys must be won from the common lunar soils using solar power and the minimum assisting mass (preferably zero for open ended growth) from Earth (28-32). This is not easy but does seem possible. Use of sunlight to create “gifts of nature” from common resources of the moon and Earth-approaching asteroids makes reasonable the possibility of very large scale growth off Earth. For illustration, mankind has produced approximately 7 E+11 tons of Demandite in the last 380 years. This corresponds to the mass in one 8 km diameter asteroid or the material tossed out from four or five 4 km (radius) craters on the moon. There are thousands of kilometer size lunar craters and asteroids. A 4 km (radius) crater would be invisible to the naked eye from Earth. Conversely, our use of some terrestrial minerals already exceeds the known rate at which they are created by natural terrestrial processes such as hydrotheraml leaching and deposition in rift zones (4,6). The raw and beneficiated lunar minerals and glass contain approximately 90% of the elements which make up U.S. Demandite if the fuel carbon is excluded (line 1 in Table 1) (28, 31, 32). If carbon could be eliminated as a primary energy source then worldwide annual production of Demandite could actually be moderated as shown by curve C in Fig. 2. The two limits assume average per capita consumption rates of Demandite of 5 and 10 tons for a 6 B+9 people world. The lower limit is approximately the present day extraction rate of Demandite. It is sensible to realize that terrestrial and space/lunar industries face a common problem — eliminating the use of fuel carbon. Research and development directed to producing cheaper space power systems will be useful on Earth and vice versa. Given the possibilities of deriving known building and life sustaining elements (Tables 1 and 3) from the dead moon and learning how to dependably recycle the water, air (or equivalents) in space as is done on Earth, then our C + C + C's will truly represent net gain.
The cosmologist might argue with the notion that mankind can achieve net gain using non-terrestrial resources. However, the economist should consider the concept plausible. The sun is a star. The moon and the chemically more diverse asteroids and comets very likely represent common detritis of stellar birthing. When we build fresh with sunlight and moon dust we grow on the common stuff of the universe. Debate of the uniqueness of Earth and the special “place” of humanity fundamentally changes (33-36). Childhood's End (A.C. Clark) can be by our own doing. 4. COSTS AND BUILDING SKILLS Rockets have served well as the first portal to space. They have not only conveyed machines and a few willing people away from Earth. The goals to which farsighted leaders directed them beguiled many terrestrials into new collective associations (new group skills) with peaceful prowess that was before only dimly perceived. Rockets, up to now, have been instruments of the service segment of our advanced economies. An economy can have a “service” sector when it has a physical surplus (energy, matter, C + C + C in Fig. 1). Figure 5 aids in understanding how well we've done to date. This is a histogram of billions of dollars (B$ per year) of value added to matter (going to C+C + C) in the U.S. economy (1972) by 230 of the 469 then- recognized industrial segments (Standard Industrial Categories—SICs). Each vertical bar sums the total value added by the fraction of those 230 SICs which output goods with the same average intrinsic value (ie., $/kg). High $/kg goods (e.g., integrated circuit chips) are made less visible in this representation because they are averaged against lower-value components in the same SIC (e.g., cabinets for computers). However, the contribution of the “chips” to their SIC is not lost (27b). Notice that most goods cost less than 6$ per kg in 1972. Of course inflation is forcing these prices per kilogram to the right. That is not necessarily progress. Life is relatively easy for us just because these goods are not dear. Notice that raw materials and energy costs were insignificant fractions of the values of these products in 1972. We know from the perspective of 1982 (37) that rising energy costs (produced by skillful foreign control of a high-grade manipulatable resource) can be a significant cost factor throughout an economy. Rising energy costs, both for the energy and for the winning of Demandite, of which carbon fuels are a component, can force prices upward just as inexorably as government fiscal policies. It is easy to imagine “turbulent flow” being the main characteristic of a world economy beginning to approach major natural limits. Industrial expansion into space may be necessary to smooth, predictable economic growth for prosperous humans. We should also note that in controlling inflation government fiscal policy (39) does not automatically guarantee better material standards of living (leftward shift of goods prices in Fig. 5). Competition for increasing access to the limited “gifts of nature” by the increasing number of progressively more competent peoples can also shift the price histogram (Fig. 5) rightwards. Perhaps world competition for limited world and human resources is part of the new phenomenon of permanent inflation (37). Research budgets are certainly increasing (38). Interestingly, the ratio (1 +j)/(l + i) where i = inflation rate and j = interest rate is rather steady for significant industrial sectors over twenty to thirty year periods (40). This ratio is relevant to calculations of present net value. The major effective terrestrial recourses to increasing energy costs are to divert skills (which have their own major expenses) into making more energy efficient
Fig. 5. Histogram of the U.S. goods (excludes petroleum, agriculture). C + C + C (primarily cars, houses and industries in the industrial nations) and new energy sources. It is amusing to remember that even paper money is a form of C + C + C. Since its mass and energy values are small compared to the annual Demandite production, its major pressures are on skills (37). In Fig. 5 the lower cross-hatched boxes correspond to SICs (e.g., metals production and manipulation, aircraft jewelry, electronics, etc.) which might be made primarily from lunar derived materials and possibly manufactured to advantage in space using solar power. The clear boxes correspond to the remaining nonagricultural and non-petroleum SICs. They are less likely to contain major products or processes adaptable to space and non-terrestrial materials but should be considered. One can be certain that these SICs contain industries employing many thousands of skillful people who can be directed toward winning resources from the moon and building with the new engineering materials (Fig. 4). Intellectual cross-links between the large materials/manufacturing groups and the lunar/aerospace communities could be developed quickly. NASA is adept at creating new, very competent technical communities throughout American society. The Apollo program and the far smaller lunar science research community are examples. Such “connections building” programs must be very outward directed and have special emphasis on involving new independent people and groups. Several approaches are possible. The hard problem is in creating the context wherein smaller groups (smaller than national governments or government consortia) can “handle” projects which grow off Earth.
Fig. 6. Histogram of the present space goods economy and gap sizes. It is surprising to realize that even at today's (not 1972's) energy prices (say 0.05 $ per kW), the minimum energy expense to escape Earth is slightly less than 1 $ per kilogram or about 50 $ per person. We know from everyday experience the airline and air freight companies have a large business transporting people and specialized goods long distances for the order of 5 $ per kg. The small fraction of goods with values greater than 5 $ per kg can support this business (approximately 3 to 4 B$ in 1972). The total value of high value goods is much larger now. Think of the price of new military aircraft, houses, gold or microcomputer chips. Figure 6 is simply an expansion of Fig. 5. Notice that $ per kg run from 0 to 2,000 rather than 0 to 18 as in Fig. 5. Now the 410 B$ value of the 230 SICs (for 1972) are compressed into a thin line at the left side. Follow the numbers in the balloons. The 1972 economy is #1. NASA's space shuttle is currently the state of the art for carrying matter to low Earth orbit (LEO). In effect it gives value added, or expense added, to the matter it uplifts. This value added in about 1,000 $/kg or #2 in Fig. 6. Note how far removed #2 is from the 1972 Economy (#1). For all practical purposes, only devices directly involved with the service economy (communication, weather, military, surveillance and scientific satellites) are valued highly enough by society and the economy to be worthy of production and launch. Even though 1,000 $/kg is much lower than for earlier rocket transport it is still sufficiently high that considerable expense is justified to make sure major payloads to space will be reliable and appropriate. This is especially true if the payloads are sent out of direct reach of the space shuttle. Installed payload and launch/operations costs of 0.1 B$ per mission occur. A program with 50 shuttle launches a year would have a cash flow of 5 B$ a year (order of magnitude) as indicated by #3. Notice that this is an almost trivial fraction of the materials economy of 1972 and even less in a late-1980s economy. Actual energy expenditures to reach space are an almost trivial cost fraction (#4) at 5
to 10 $/kg. Advanced shuttles and unmanned boosters are publicly proposed to bring STS costs down an order of magnitude (100-300 $/kg) after 3 to 10 B$ development costs by the 1990s (41-45). These systems would provide several thousand tons per year of transport capacity to LEO but require cash flows the order of 10 B$ per year to sustain them. However, note that there is little perceived industrial economic activity in this region. Such new activity will be a major extension of peak #1 and require the creation of major new or expanded activities in #1 (30). Innovative approaches which exist for fully-reusable shuttle-like systems could decrease $/kg to orbit by more than a factor of 10 by the late 1980s. Development and operations costs can be expected to be compatible with private financial capabilities. Considerable optimism exists for vastly increased numbers of satellites involved in service activities (skill sections) of the economy. Such off-Earth activities will certainly continue because satellites offer the best way to transfer/gather information over great distances (46,47). Large service related systems in geosynchronous orbit will eventually require routine manned support, possibly permanent manned facilities. Less change in velocity is required to achieve high orbit around the moon from LEO than to enter geosynchronous orbit (GEO). Thus, any manned or unmanned program for LEO-GEO traffic should carefully weigh the benefits of access to lunar resources. Attention has been given to the building of dramatic heavy lift launch vehicles (HLLV), usually proposed as one- or two-stage devices, which could carry 100 to 500 tons to LEO in one mission (30). Development costs of 10 B$ or more and times the order of a decade are anticipated. Freight costs of 20 to 100 $/kg for haulage to LEO of 100,000 to 1,000,000 tons each year are targeted as justifying HLLV development. Cash flows of 10 to 20 B$/year are implied. It will require vigorous product/market development to extend region #1 into the HLLV region of #6. When aircraft-like freight rates and scheduling come into existence tourism and other human-directed, discretionary (novelty) needs will then self-justify creation of major supporting industries off Earth. Perhaps, a world economy of several 10,000 B$/year would have major terrestrial extensions into realm #6 (22). 5. PLANETARY SCALE POWER SYSTEMS Construction of large space solar power stations (SPS) was the first serious driver for HLLVs (26,48). SPS would have high intrinsic value (200 $/kg). Each SPS unit would have a large direct sales value (approximately 20 B$). The revenues from power sales would increase as the number of operating units and their integral operating times increase. Assembly of 200 $/kg SPS units at the rate of 10 to 20 GW of new power each year from components made on Earth would justify HLLVs or similar systems with 20 to 100 $/kg value-added transport capabilities (#7 in Fig. 6). The SPS units would introduce a totally new flow of non-depleting energy (Fig. 1) to Earth. Individual satellites were scaled, in study, to deliver 5-10 GW each of electric power (GW = E 9 watts). The U.S. consumes approximately 1,800 GW of thermal power with about 600 GW being made available as electricity. The world presently consumes about 5,000 GW (total thermal). Government sponsored studies (49,50) have challenged the approach as beyond even the organizational talents of the NASA/ aerospace community. Major questions were raised concerning financial uncertainty, time to first significant demonstration, growth potentials, power costs,
Fig. 7. Per capita scales of solar panel area in space and materials volumes on groun environmental/intrusion factors and other aspects. It is a path that is currently perceived to require very large and premeditated (years in advance) strides to successfully accomplish. Unfortunately, while government-sponsored analyses tended to emphasize the truly major challenges of SPSs deployed from Earth, they did not clearly state the attractions of obtaining solar power via facilities off Earth. One attempt at condensing 30 M$ of SPS studies into a single image is shown in Fig. 7. Remember the small 10 ton pile of coal in Fig. 3? The solar panel section and associated transmission electronics (mass about 100 kg) shown to human scale in Fig. 7 could capture sufficient solar energy continuously off Earth to match the effective power flow from burning 10 tons of coal a year. This assumes reasonable 1980s technologies for energy conversion and transmission (5% overall space-to-ground-power conversion). This is likely an overestimate because in general electric power can be used 3 times more effectively than can power from burning of carbon (51). It is general practice to assume a power plant will have an operating life time the order of 30 years. The middle size pile of coal (300 tons, Fig. 3) depicts the carbon equivalent energy which could be delivered by the solar panel section in Fig. 7 over 30 years. Ultimately. 50-70% overall conversion seems possible (52,53; thermophotovoltaics). Thus, the collection area in space (Fig. 7) could eventually provide the power equivalent of
burning about 100 tons of coal each year. The large pile of coal in Fig. 3 is scaled to 3000 tons which corresponds to a 30 year energy output delivered to Earth by an advanced section of solar panel. Alternatively, with fully developed SPS technology two small panel sections like “D” (Fig. 7) could supply approximately 10 kw of power. Space power systems can supply more than sufficient power to mine the common rocks of Earth for the non-carbon component of Demandite. Demandite would likely be redefined as carbon is used far more extensively in production of high value plastics and composites rather than burned. Power from space could build rather than deplete Earth resources. For example, iron scrap is a higher grade resource than taconite (7). A flourishing tree or even sawdust are generally higher grade resources than wood ash. Power from space can produce the scrap iron from taconite and displace the trees as power sources with no readily identifiable depletion of Earth resources. SPS ground-mass per person need consist of no more than 2000 kg of concrete and steel supports (about the mass of a car and much simpler) and 2 kg of antennas and associated electronic/electric equipment. SPS systems are presently conceived to receive approximately 2 GW of power per square kilometer of receiver area. The line under the small pile of coal in Fig. 2 depicts the length of the side of the per capita area for receiving 10 kW of useful power (5 m2). Laser energy reception equipment could be far more compact. There are other options. Creation of a new type of basic power system to supply world scale levels of power would be an extremely massive undertaking. We have seen that on a per capita basis SPS appears to be an efficient use of mass. Table 6 compares several operating and construction features of power systems proposed to supply major fractions of the world's energy needs in the 21st century. Reviews are available of major power flows and energy reserves of Earth and their relations to projected rates of power usage (20, 21, 51, 54). Table 6 concentrates on the larger scale systems denoted in column A appropriate to a world population of 6 E+9 people using 10 kW each. Column B indicates the mass transport for both fuel and tailings or Earth-area affected by collection or processing (solar energy). Column C contains estimates of the mass of the facility(ies) per unit of produced power (tons/GW). This number should be as low as possible assuming complexity of construction does not increase quickly as tons/GW decreases. Column D gives the total facilities mass estimated to input power to the appropriate distribution systems. The facilities production rate (tons/year) is simply the total in column D divided by 30 years. This corresponds to the installation and maintenance rate of the power system for a steady state world consumption of 60,000 GW. We aim at the power level that could create a materially rich world population. Why aim for less? We note the preferable power system should require: the least facility (capital) mass if it can be provided at a reasonable cost; the minimal annual mass disturbance (mining, burning, burial, recycling, etc.); the least use of Earth surface area; and should preferably contribute to control over and nurturing of the biosphere rather than intense husbandry activities. The reader is encouraged to examine Table 6 in light of these suggested power source characteristics. Several points are worth noting. Both the coal (1) and biomass (2) systems would involve carbon manipulation on the scale of the biosphere carbon cycle (55,56). Coal use would perturb the biosphere carbon cycle over a 200-year period (16). We do not currently know the implications of introducing such large quantities of fossil carbon as CO2. We are affecting a major component of the atmosphere of the Earth, not a trace component.
TABLE 6 PHYSICAL SCALES OF 60,000 GW POWER SYSTEMS
Nuclear energy will require use of breeder reactors to provide adequate fuel (19, 57, 58). Natural sources are inadequate. Fissile fuel breeding requires time in addition to the construction time of the breeder reactors. Hundreds of years of integral breeding time would be required to grow the fissile fuels for a 60,000 GW world. The demonstrated doubling time is approximately 40 years. There are not sufficient drainage sites for hydroelectric power to make a significant contribution to a 60,000 GW world. Wind systems are under development but provide variable power. Costs are not clearly established (54,59). Terrestrial solar installations (row 3) will be subjected to the severe environmental conditions at the surface of the Earth and would have to be distributed worldwide to average out demand changes, variable day/night cycle, local weather patterns, and the seasonal changes. Large reflectors might be employed in orbit about the Earth to reflect low intensity sunlight to cities (60) or high intensity beams to ground-based solar farms (46). Optimal use of terrestrial units will likely require long distance power transmission between hemispheres. Microwave beams constantly switching from one production region, via orbital reflectors/retransmitters, to receiving grids near major consumer regions will probably be used. If so the beams would be likely to travel from Earth to installations in geosynchronous orbit and back to Earth, a distance approximately 20% of the distance to the moon (57,61). Ground based units will require maintenance due to weather, catastrophies, and human acts and will certainly be subjected to the effects of worldwide climate change. Ocean thermal energy systems (OTEC) actually ‘‘mine” the cold waters of the deep ocean to cool working fluids vaporized by solar heated surface waters (21, 62, 63). Little attention has been directed to the long-term effects of a massive mixing of the cold abyssal waters at the rates necessary for a 60,000 GW world. The capital mass numbers in row 4 are based on a prototype OTEC system (62). These should be revised for the large-scale systems which would actually be used. Use of icebergs as a cooling source might be less disruptive and could also provide fresh water (18). “Mining” of geothermal heat is being pursued. The total reserve of heat energy is immense. Access to useful geothermal energy increases as geothermal wells tap deeper rock formations. The rock formations must be such that they can be cracked by hydraulic techniques and the cracks remain open. It is not clear what fraction of the world can obtain local geothermal power with present drilling techniques. Research is underway (65). Costs are approximately equally divided between drilling and heat extraction equipment. Electricity generation requires equipment on the scale of combustion-driven turbines or larger. Geothermal sources are generally not as hot as combustion flames. Total costs are not yet established but may be competitive with hydrocarbon systems (65). Construction of all these systems will be an activity of the general terrestrial economy. Demandite will be processed through the manufacturing sectors (histogram in Fig. 5) to produce the systems. If the unit costs ($/kg) are significantly higher than$5/kg, then fundamental broadening of the cost distribution of the terrestrial economy could occur because of the scales of construction, maintenance, and fueling (where relevant) of these massive systems. Solar fuels (#6) refer to production of hydrogen or similar combustible compounds by sunlight acting through a catalytic agent or possibly a biological intermedia for dissociation of water (61). The capital estimates do not include equipment to collect hydrogen gas or to contain the agent over a large area, but rather assume hydrogen is simply available out of a pipeline. These estimates could easily rise to terrestrial solar power levels (#3).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==