SPACE.com Columnist Leonard David

Is it time to put a dimmer switch on the push for space solar power?

tiny satellites, one out of frame on the bottom left, one on the right with giant twin solar panels, beam blue dotted lines down to a shadowed earth. The sun shines smaller in the top left distance.
The SOLARIS initiative is preparing Europe to make future decisions regarding the prospect of space-based solar power. (Image credit: ESA/A. Treuer)

The thought of beaming power to an energy-hungry Earth from space has long been studied. It was first proposed over 80 years ago in science fiction. 

"It was quiet in the officer's room of Solar Station #5 - except for the soft purring of the mighty Beam Director somewhere far below," wrote renowned author Isaac Asimov in his April 1941 story "Reason" appearing in the magazine "Astounding Science Fiction."

Asimov had his characters tending a solar energy collection station in space that routed energy rays to receivers on Earth, as well as Mars. Fast forward to the 21st century, and investigations here on Earth and now in space seemingly bolster the concept. Still, space solar power beaming is viewed by some as a truly far out and off-the-beam technology, an economically dubious concept that does make for good science fiction. Space.com reached out to several technologists to ask what's new, what's old and what's still missing in terms of transmitting power to Earth from space. 

Related: Scientists beam solar power to Earth from space for 1st time ever

Trio of technologies 

Caltech's Space Solar Power Project (SSPP) is seen by some as a glimmer of hope for the technology.

Over a year has passed since SSPP demonstrator technology was launched into the test bin of Earth orbit. Once in orbit, the SSPD-1 spacecraft tried out a trio of technological innovations crafted to help swing the space solar power needle closer to full reality. They were:

  • DOLCE: A Deployable on-Orbit ultraLight Composite Experiment to showcase a novel packaging scheme and deployment. 
  • ALBA: 32 different types of photovoltaic (PV) cells to appraise how they withstand the harsh space environment. 
  • MAPLE: A Microwave Array for Power-transfer Low-orbit Experiment based on custom integrated circuits with precise timing control to focus power selectively on two different receivers to demonstrate wireless power transmission at distance in space. 

Isaac Asimov in his April 1941 story "Reason" foresaw energy-beaming power stations in space.  (Image credit: Rey Isip, courtesy Luminist Archives/READITFREE.ORG project)

Take it to the limit 

"Many things worked, and the things that worked well we pushed them until they stopped working," said Ali Hajimiri, co-director of the Caltech Space-Based Solar Power Project. 

Hajimiri has been focused on integrated circuits and their applications in various disciplines, such as biotechnology, communications and sensing, that span a wide range of frequencies from high-speed and radio frequency to low-frequency high-precision circuits.

Yes, Hajimiri pointed out, there were hitches over the nine month long SSPD-1 mission. "We had a literal snag in deployment, but the team worked it out. Even in the wireless energy transfer, we had all sorts of situations. Then we really stressed the system towards mission end — to the point where we tried to actively cause damage." 

Rooftop realization

Ali Hajimiri, co-director of the Caltech Space-Based Solar Power Project.  (Image credit: Caltech/Francesca Forquet)

On May 22, 2023, the payoff from SSPD-1 literally hit the roof atop Caltech's Gordon and Betty Moore Laboratory of Engineering. For just 90 seconds, the spacecraft's MAPLE hardware beamed down energy to Earth that was harvested in space. 

Hajimiri is quick to explain that the level of energy received at roof-level was ultra-small. It was mostly about detection, he said, but the real buzz is to consider the modest amount of energy received as one small step for space solar power.

SSPD-1 is going to be decommissioned soon and left to take a destructive plunge into Earth's atmosphere.

The project's attention is now turning to solving issues like scaling up, enabling autonomous deployment, and developing more lightweight structures. 

Unknown unknowns

"There's a lot of 'unknown unknowns' that still need to be figured out," said Hajimiri. At this phase of the work the team is looking at manufacturing processes for fabric-like, low cost arrays. Also, timing synchronization is quite challenging especially on a flexible, floppy structure wafting about in space. 

"We've developed new ways of thinking about this problem," Hajimiri added, "ways that an array can itself determine its own shape and make corrections for that through its electronics."

Even with SSPD-1's 'goodbye and so-long' status, a slew of invaluable milestones were met, Hajimiri said. "The biggest challenge is raising awareness and to make the case clear that what we did is real."

Scalable solution

Space-based photovoltaic/space solar power concept, SPS-ALPHA, as envisioned by John Mankins for the NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) program.  (Image credit: Mark Elwood/ SpaceWorks Enterprises)

There is no clean, firm, dispatchable energy technology other than Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP) is the view of Troy, Michigan-based Virtus Solis Technologies Inc. 

John Bucknell is the CEO and founder of the group. "Those of us that have compared all the viable energy technologies know that a scalable solution needs to be low complexity, low mineral intensity, mass manufacturable and able to deliver firm, safe, low-cost e-power like fossil fuels have for the last 200 years," he said. 

Bucknell and colleagues are blueprinting an SBSP system that fills all those criteria   — a constellation of 16 arrays in space that each pump out 20 gigawatts of power. Collectively, 320 gigawatts can be delivered to anywhere on the planet, he said, a system scalable to become much larger.

"With 50 percent year-over-year growth in capacity, SBSP could get to 100 terawatts of generation in 30 years and satisfy the needs of a 10 billion population planet," said Bucknell.

Disconnect

"There is still the disconnect between academic studies and aerospace prime manufacturing cost studies and what private industry can achieve," Bucknell believes. "As a result, our forecast of $200 million to complete the research and development and get a functioning pilot plant in orbit seems unbelievable." 

For Bucknell's money, and investors too, it is the energy industry that needs to hear and understand these options, he suggested, rather than the space industry. 

"SBSP still sounds like science fiction because they don't know that the underlying technologies have all matured and just needed commercial space launch to make it happen. Virtus Solis was the first to incorporate around this opportunity," said Bucknell, "designed from the ground up to a cost target to address the global energy market."

Investors want to see there is no risk towards revenue, Bucknell observed. "An orbital demonstration means you have a real product, so the remaining risk around on-orbit assembly and power transmission has been demonstrated and then the product can scale."

Standing room only

A leader in advocating harnessing solar energy from space is John Mankins of Artemis Innovation Management Solutions in Santa Maria, California. 

Mankins took part in an April International Conference on Solar Energy from Space hosted by the European Space Agency (ESA) and the UK Space Agency at the Royal Aeronautical Society in London. 

"It was standing room only," Mankins recalls. "Almost none of the 200 people were the regular players, and that was a huge change," be it researchers from China working on space-based power plant technology to Europe's SOLARIS initiative. There's ongoing work in the UK, as well as progressive looks into power beaming in Japan and other countries, he said.

Reusable readiness

Mankins said the foundations for power beaming have been laid over and over again by experiments on the ground. "To me, power beaming as a function was demonstrated decades ago," he said, "and now the real issue is how to do really big systems."

For any kind of mega project in space, "the most visible hurdle to space solar power appears to be ready to fall," advised Mankins, and that is low-cost, reusable launchers. 

Reusable rocketry has been spearheaded by SpaceX and its Falcon-class boosters and now the huge Starship flight program. Similarly, Blue Origin's New Glenn launcher is nearing its first flight. Other nations are also pursuing reusable readiness in the booster business, such as ESA and China.

Power up

Nevertheless, there's work to be done in the coming years. 

Pointing to the future, Mankins said that systems-level demonstrations can tackle issues like finding the right design, or determining how well the technologies can scale and at what price. It's also vital for spacecraft engineers to look into what's rapidly taking place in robotics down here on Earth and apply it to in-space construction. 

Moreover, power beaming from space needs to go beyond Caltech's nano-watts per square centimeter experiment to micro-watts per square centimeter, Mankins advised. 

"But in 2-3 years a thousand times more power. There's going to be an incredible amount of progress," Mankins foresees, "then the cows are out of the barn." 

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Leonard David
Space Insider Columnist

Leonard David is an award-winning space journalist who has been reporting on space activities for more than 50 years. Currently writing as Space.com's Space Insider Columnist among his other projects, Leonard has authored numerous books on space exploration, Mars missions and more, with his latest being "Moon Rush: The New Space Race" published in 2019 by National Geographic. He also wrote "Mars: Our Future on the Red Planet" released in 2016 by National Geographic. Leonard  has served as a correspondent for SpaceNews, Scientific American and Aerospace America for the AIAA. He has received many awards, including the first Ordway Award for Sustained Excellence in Spaceflight History in 2015 at the AAS Wernher von Braun Memorial Symposium. You can find out Leonard's latest project at his website and on Twitter.

  • Unclear Engineer
    This article seems to be missing the parameters of security, safety, reliability and cost effectiveness.

    It a military conflict, orbiting solar collectors would be easy to disrupt. On the other hand, distributed rooftop solar collectors and colocated batteries would be extremely hard for an adversary to disrupt.

    And, beaming terawatts of power to Earth's surface from space would either require a lot of receiving area or involve high intensity beams of microwaves. What are the effects of the proposed beams on humans and other organisms? (Spain already has a solar furnace type project that fries birds with reflected, focused sunlight.)

    What is the cost of putting solar collectors in space and beaming and distributing it on Earth, compared to distributed solar collectors on Earth with local batteries?

    What is the effect on astronomy from these collectors and transmitters, both to visible light and microwave observations? What is the intensity of "leakage" of various EMFs?
    Reply
  • Cisventure Astronot
    You can find a TWIS (This Week In Space) episode on this topic here.
    Reply
  • Cisventure Astronot
    Unclear Engineer said:
    This article seems to be missing the parameters of security, safety, reliability and cost effectiveness.

    It a military conflict, orbiting solar collectors would be easy to disrupt. On the other hand, distributed rooftop solar collectors and colocated batteries would be extremely hard for an adversary to disrupt.

    And, beaming terawatts of power to Earth's surface from space would either require a lot of receiving area or involve high intensity beams of microwaves. What are the effects of the proposed beams on humans and other organisms? (Spain already has a solar furnace type project that fries birds with reflected, focused sunlight.)

    What is the cost of putting solar collectors in space and beaming and distributing it on Earth, compared to distributed solar collectors on Earth with local batteries?

    What is the effect on astronomy from these collectors and transmitters, both to visible light and microwave observations? What is the intensity of "leakage" of various EMFs?

    You beat me to it, so I'll just back you up with some sources. Russia has recently:

    Attacked power plants (I haven't followed the Russo-Ukrainian War vary closely, this is just the first search result.)
    Developed anti-satellite weaponsSaid they might target private satellites in wartimeImagine how much more dangerous it might be when space is open to more countries.
    Reply
  • John Bucknell
    I wonder if humanity has some innate polarization trait sometimes. For the last six years I have been tirelessly promoting a benign technology - like promoting oat milk I imagine: beneficial to everyone, no downsides, desirable.

    Yet there is a constant stream of opposition, even hate mail. This is especially true in America, when NASA published a study saying it is environmentally negative (untrue, quite the opposite) and even my old boss Elon saying it is the dumbest idea ever (based upon end-to-end efficiency, rather than cost).

    Polarization serves a purpose. It helps focus the mind on issues and what’s at stake. With space based solar power, there is a lot at stake. It’s a key component in a strategy to open up space and solve big problems on earth with poverty, climate, and energy.

    No other space application can do as much for humanity, paying for a huge fleet of launch vehicles and dramatically driving down the cost of access to space if nothing else. Space solar is the chance to solve energy for ever for everyone.

    You can forgive the author of this Space dot com article for making an over the top headline to get reads - you would think it was negative even if it is not.

    What do you think?

    (By the way, Breyers makes amazing non-dairy oat milk ice cream)
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    There are lots of people with "good ideas" that will "transform humanity", which have not turned out to be as great as the propaganda that has urged their adoption. So, what you are seeing is a natural skepticism, based on experience, not a natural "polarization", or what I would more informatively call it, "a trait for nay-saying".

    That said, trying to sell us on oat milk to replace cow's milk as an analogy for an obviously great idea that should show how right you are about space solar power too, seems to indicate that you are on the fringe. Or, at least not good at "reading the room".

    Address the issues that I raised in a previous post, and I will listen and maybe learn something. But telling me that I am inferior to you because I am "polarized" is an indication that you don't really have the answers to the issues that I raised. If you are really superior, you should be able to be more persuasive to folks with the technical backgrounds that provide them with the ability to understand what you are trying to sell.
    Reply
  • Rickycardo
    I'm fine with it as long as it's not visible from Earth and doesn't block any of the night sky. I'd rather humans go extinct than lose the sky.
    Reply
  • Brad
    Wow, lots of Kool Aid drinking here. Let's put this discussion in perspective. When it comes to technologies like this, you often see the same language being deployed by those hawking their solutions, as John Bucknell so eloquently demonstrated. "energy technologies know that a scalable solution needs to be low complexity, low mineral intensity, mass manufacturable and able to deliver firm, safe, low-cost e-power like fossil fuels have for the last 200 years,"

    So what's the cost to do everything in that sentence? That's the real mystery isn't it? Would it even be worth doing or are there better alternatives?

    For some perspective it cost Airbus over $25 Billion dollars (that's $1 Billion dollars more than NASA's current annual budget) to develop the A380. Keep in mind that jet powered, intercontinental travel, by air had been established for over 40 years at the time. It wasn't like they had to reinvent the wheel they just had to scale it up.

    What I really heard here is that we should immediately scale up to space based, planet wide power delivery systems, hoisted into orbit on our space elevators, that are powered by our fusion reactors.
    Reply
  • billslugg
    We need to assess gyrotron thermal drilling before moving to space based power. If thermal drilling pans out, we would have a nearly infinite amount of energy available to any spot on Earth at very low cost. Every existing power plant could be converted within a few months. Proponents are estimating a 6 week drilling effort at a cost of $3M to convert a plant. This could be off by several powers of ten and still be attractive. It has never been done so it's entirely theoretical at this point.
    Reply
  • Brad
    billslugg said:
    We need to assess gyrotron thermal drilling before moving to space based power. If thermal drilling pans out, we would have a nearly infinite amount of energy available to any spot on Earth at very low cost. Every existing power plant could be converted within a few months. Proponents are estimating a 6 week drilling effort at a cost of $3M to convert a plant. This could be off by several powers of ten and still be attractive. It has never been done so it's entirely theoretical at this point.
    Again, it's the same language:

    Although just beginning to test the waters, if ultimately successful at scale, Quaise’s gyrotron based drilling systems could provide a renewable energy solution which would eventually be able to provide 100% of the world’s energy demand.
    Reply
  • Classical Motion
    If you believe that global warming is going to harm the planet, then adding radiant energy to our present incident radiant level is a supremely DIM idea. It totally ignores science and energy inventories. It would take much more mining than fossil fuel ever could. It takes much more ore and processing for an EV than many ICE vehicles. A huge increase in mining.

    A total waste of endeavor.

    All the free clean energy for thousands of generations is just below your feet.

    Hot water drilling is the future for agreeable and low cost energy And turn any desert green. Keep any river flowing.

    Water control is climate control. Bore holes with faucets solves a lot of problems and is a great solution. 24/7. Quiet and clean.

    Drill now for the shallows while we improve the tech. Many sites now would be cost effective.
    Reply