According to NASA the space shuttle was ~$450 million per launch, or $16,364 per kg to LEO. The Delta 4 Heavy is $12,156 per kg. For some launches it's even higher- the Air Force paid $15,109 per kg for four launches.
The Falcon 9 is $62 million, or $2,719 per kg to LEO. The Falcon Heavy is $2,351 per kg when expendable or $1,411 when reused.
The BFR is supposed to have 2.5x the payload for 8% of the cost: $46 per kilogram. Even fully expendable it's $2,233 per kg. That's INSANE. It's space elevator money:
> For a space elevator, the cost varies according to the design. Bradley C. Edwards received funding from NIAC from 2001 to 2003 to write a paper, describing a space elevator design. In it he stated that: "The first space elevator would reduce lift costs immediately to $100 per pound" ($220/kg).[1]
If the BFR actually becomes reality it turns a journey to orbit into an airplane ride. A $10,000 airplane ride that will shake your fillings loose, but make no mistake: that completely changes everything about space. It makes putting satellites in orbit around Jupiter as hard as visiting the north pole. Fucking TV hosts will be able to go for a quick jaunt around the moon.
If the BFR happens, we'll have a mars base just because it would be so cheap it's a no-brainer. Building a new ISS would be about as hard as building a new Sealab.
And though Musk isn't a fan, this could even make solar power satellites economical. The monolithic designs from the 1970s would be absurdly expensive, but modern designs like SPS-Alpha get economies of scale by using lots of small identical parts that self-assemble in orbit. According to the book The Case for Space Solar Power, a 2GW satellite would deliver electricity at 15 cents/kWh at pre-SpaceX launch costs. I plugged BFR's $50/kg into its cost breakdown and got 4 cents/kWh, which is pretty good for zero-carbon baseload. Ground solar is cheaper by itself, but probably not after including storage.
The basic idea is geosynchronous orbit, microwave power transmission with a phased array device that requires a reference signal from the target location, and a wire mesh collector several miles wide. Over 24 hours, a solar panel in geosynch collects 5.4 times as much light as one on Earth. At the time the book was written, the power transmission had been tested over a couple dozen miles, and was 40% efficient.
Longer-term, if we collect fuel from the moon to go from LEO to GEO, we could make it even cheaper.
It’s likely to be really hard to make it efficient to transmit the power, because either it will be microwaves or it will be lasers; lasers can be blocked by clouds, microwaves need an huge antenna at each end (the numbers I’ve seen say that the one on the ground has to be big enough that people will ask why you’re not just using building a PV solar array on the ground instead of the antenna). If the antenna isn’t big enough, transmission losses from beamed power is proportional to distance squared, whereas resistance loss in wires is only proportional to distance (P = I²R, R = distance * some_design_specific_number Ω/m).
And that’s without the geopolitical implications of anyone worrying if the enormous directed microwave/laser source could be weaponised. Just saying “trust us” isn’t going to be good enough.
Why people don't have to trust us: because the technology isn't physically capable of maintaining even that low energy density at the target, without the reference signal from the ground.
Why put the PV in space instead of on the ground: because there's 5.4X as much energy available and it's 24/7.
There's real engineering behind this design, detailed in the book and the SPS-Alpha final report to NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/716070main_Mankins_2011_PhI_SPS_Alp...
I'm not aware of any real engineering studies for things like transmitting power via LEO satellite relays from the Sahara. Personally I don't find it plausible, but if you can provide such a study I'm willing to change my mind.
From what I see that’s a design choice not a fundamental aspect of reality, but even if it isn’t: what stops a hostile actor creating their own guide signal, either to direct the power towards an vulnerable location, or to directed away from the receiver, causing wide-scale power outages in the process?
> I'm not aware of any real engineering studies for things like transmitting power via LEO satellite relays from the Sahara. Personally I don't find it plausible, but if you can provide such a study I'm willing to change my mind.
This is because beamed power in general is a bad idea compared to simple wires, however the Sahara is a lot closer than Geostationary orbit and therefore any technology that works for Geostationary orbit will also work for the Sahara, and at guaranteed lower cost regardless of the technology.
Changing the beam target would require a repointing of the satellite in addition to the new guide signal. If you somehow do that militarily, it's still a pretty weak weapon; it'd slightly increase people's body temperature and they'd have to evacuate unless the guide transmitter could be found quickly. It probably wouldn't be hard since it's sending a signal that can be detected 36,000 miles away.
I'd like to see a real engineering cost estimate of transmitting power from one side of the planet to the other, by wires or any other method. I really doubt it can be done for four cents/kWh. And it would certainly introduce a possibility for hostiles to cause wide-scale power outages.
I can believe either-or, not both. If a guide signal is important, antenna orientation isn’t; if orientation is important, guide signals are not.
> I'd like to see a real engineering cost estimate of transmitting power from one side of the planet to the other, by wires or any other method. I really doubt it can be done for four cents/kWh. And it would certainly introduce a possibility for hostiles to cause wide-scale power outages.
Do I have to? Geostationary is 36,000 km, pole-to-pole is 20,000 km over the surface. All I am claiming here is that any tech you use would also be able to solve my alternative more easily.
The advantage of transmitting power from space instead of the other side of the planet is that there's a straight line with no planet in the way. To go around the planet you need relay stations or wires. Plus there's the 5.4X more energy collected by each square meter of panel. So yes, some supporting evidence would be nice. Maybe even take a quick look at the NASA report I provided, too.
Which is why I said 20,000 km not 12,000 km. Even if the circuit approximates the Earth as a square and goes up 6,000 km, turns 90 degrees at one relay, goes 12,000 km, makes another 90 turn at a second relay, and then 6,000 km down, that’s still a shorter path (though I’d expect the important distance in that instance to be 12,000 km not 24,000 km because it’s related to the inverse square law between any two antennas not over the whole distance).
> Maybe even take a quick look at the NASA report I provided, too.
I did. Now that I no longer at work I have time for a more detailed (though still brief) look at the contents rather than just skim read.
• That research was an attempt to turn a TRL-1/2 into a TRL-3.
• It is suggesting that — with further work — it could deliver electricity rate of 9 cents per kilowatt hour, whereas the Lazard 2017 price estimate for utility-scale ground mounted PV electricity was about half that (4.3-5.3) and the record (unless it’s been beaten since) is 2.4 cents/kWh.
• What I have read about the Retro Directive Phased Array is that it is it an assistant for good actors, not that it is a safety mechanism. By analogy, it seems that saying it makes this system “safe” is like claiming the passive aerodynamic stability of a 747 will prevent it crashing into a building — not the claim made by the inventor.
RDPA looks to me like a nice improvement to a traditional phased array antenna. Phased arrays can be re-aimed dynamically without physical rotation — which is, I think, why it’s being used in this design.
• The link itself suggests using its own wireless power transmission tech as a substitute for wires (page 50)
• Their own estimate for an initial full-scale (1 GW) is “far term (20-30 years)” (page 65) whereas their “mid- to far-term” market opportunities are the $0.5-$3.0 per kWh range (page 51)
$0.5/kWh is worse than combining batteries (~$0.18/kWh) with 5.4 times as much ground-based PV.
• The construction costs for the 2 GW plant “With aggressive tech advances“ are estimated at $16 per Watt (page 83), compared to current ground mounted costs of $0.103-$0.278 per Watt according to PV EnergyTrend on October 31 last year.
• Check out that risk-impact matrix for the 2 GW “mature” design on page 95
• The ground receiver is estimated to cost $10/m^2 on page 79; Unfortunately page 70 says “Determination of the actual power received will require additional, more detailed analysis“, which makes me wonder what the claimed costs per kilowatt hour even refer to. (Transmission? But there are estimates of beamed power efficiency…)
I’ve not seen estimates for the size of the ground station in that document, I’m going to have to handwave this one and say that the ground station is a 10 km diameter circle (because that’s the value that I’ve seen in other analyses of space-based solar power), which gives 2 GW / (π (5000m^2)) ≈ 25 W/m^2, which is both a bit higher than I’d be comfortable with and simultaneously so low that at $10/m^2 = 2.5 W/$ = $0.4/W, even the ground station alone is significantly more expensive than PV ($0.13/W).
Meanwhile, the comparable cost from solar is the total required for dispatchable power 24/7, not just the cost of PV alone.
(I used to work in a lab there next to some of the equipment and one day I asked my good friend about it - he had been there for decades.)
Firstly, you have 24/365 production, always at peak power. All things equal, you need a lot less capacity for equivalent power generation.
Then, I am fairly certain that the amount of power that can be collected depends a lot on antenna size, just like standard wireless transmission: the antenna needs to be "tuned". And a few hundred meters of steel cable would likely absorb a lot more energy than an 80 L water bag.
And finally (but related), microwaves are likely a lot less dangerous than UV: it isn't ionizing, because individual photons cary a lot less energy. That also means that they penetrate more "cooking" (increasing temperature) more deeply the objects in its path. Instead of getting your skin burnt from the energy, you feel slightly warmed up (and would likely be able to dissipate the small extra heat in the atmosphere). A sizeable portion of this energy would likely end up in the ground, if no antenna is present to collect it.
This technology is interesting, as it offers a lot of new possibilities: it's easy to relocate, for instance. We might also be able to split the beam to power multiple places simultaneously, reducing grid losses (and load balancing at the satellite).
If a non-engineer is in charge of a space company, they'll look at the popular science articles and assume that single launch is the only way to do things. They'll also assume that we just need to get the material science right to be able to do space elevators. They'll assume that the only way to get into space is to get bigger and bigger space budgets. That will increase shareholder profits after all.
When you have an actual engineer running the company, they can question all those assumptions. They can take everything apart and put it back together again in different ways and question the assumptions of the "thought leaders" in the space.
In a way, this outside "thought leadership" by research institutes has hindered science by leading researchers given grants to carefully conserve and develop their pet solution to a problem that they are an authority on. If their idea falls out of favor, then they will lose their grant money. It's the extreme version of the innovator's dilemma. An entrepreneurial engineer just wants to get the job done. If they can't deliver a great product, they'll lose their revenue stream. If they can leapfrog the competition by capitalizing on their innovator's dilemma, then they'll move to true greatness.
SpaceX is standing on the shoulders of giants.
But then Musk took over and once again a brilliant, innovative engineer was in charge, and so we are back to making real progress in space travel.
By the way, I am not talking about the space probe designers. They have been brilliant, and have produce an astounding series of scientific advances. But the rocket industry has stagnated.
Sure there are lots of brilliant engineers in the years after but these guys were not making top level decisions.
You can see that in all industries. MBA guys have kicked out engineers as leaders. I have seen the same while working in software engineering. Business thinking dominate over engineer thinking. You end up with these really short sighted decisions and there is an inflated fear of trying anything new.
Look at the SLS disaster: stuck on coupling together a whole bunch of old tech to the point that it creates its own complexity.
It's going to hand them the biggest bonanza they have ever seen. All that launch capacity Starship brings online will have to be used to launch stuff, and these guys are going to be building the stuff. They're not just rocket manufacturers, but have huge satellite manufacturing arms. If I had the money, I'd be investing in space technology stocks like crazy right now.
> Musk stated (I think he just did some mental napkin math at one point) that if they meet their goals, the world's launch capacity will be expanded by two orders of magnitude. How often does any new development in any field bring about two orders of extra capacity? How does this incredible capacity change how you use this thing?
With napkin math is't easy. Adding one zero here, one zero there, and you can easily show that you're increasing world's capacity by two orders of magnitude. Elon is known for big over-simplification in his vision statements.
> A launch would cost fuel + support operations + amortized cost of rocket. The last two will tend towards zero as they can be increasingly automated and will be a small fixed cost.
That's just day-dreaming, that support will tend towards zero. Even if it's design for rapid reuse, and they deliver on it, support is a almost always biggest cost of running any complicated machinery.
How will so many more launches impact the space junk problem?
From what I understand, there's already a catastrophe waiting to happen if some space junk collides with a satellite and causes a chain reaction of more space junk destroying more satellites, etc... until there's an impenetrable debris field around the earth.
Will having that many more launches and the potential accidents therefrom significantly increase the odds of such a catastrophe?
Musk stated (I think he just did some mental napkin math at one point) that if they meet their goals, the world's launch capacity will be expanded by two orders of magnitude. How often does any new development in any field bring about two orders of extra capacity? How does this incredible capacity change how you use this thing?
First consider prices. A launch would cost fuel + support operations + amortized cost of rocket. The last two will tend towards zero as they can be increasingly automated and will be a small fixed cost. IIRC, fuel costs roughly $60-100 per kilo to LEO, a 100kg person with 100kg of supplies and life-support equipment can reasonably expect to get to LEO for $20000 in fuel costs. Ok, so you need to "rent" the rocket (you want to stay there at least a few days), pay operations, SpaceX margin, R&D etc. Even then, imagine weekend LEO launches for $50,000 in the late 2020s. That's astounding. Given millenials' propensity for "experiences", they're going to have hoards of people buying this.
But what about risk? They've been trying to launch Crew Dragon for many years and still haven't. Well, with expandable rockets, you have to establish a safety record, it takes multiple flights, it's extremely expensive, you need a new rocket for each one. With fully reusable rockets, you can literally establish a safety record for an individual rocket within a matter of weeks, not years. Even launching once every three days (ie, far from their daily targets), it would take only a year to do more launches than Falcon or Arienne 5 have made in decades. Also, people are far more willing to take risks than organizations like NASA. Consider a thought experiment: SpaceX does 100 launches of Starship and establishes a safety record of 99% (1 blew up). They then start selling tickets, will people still buy, fully signing away any liability? Yes, you'll still have hoards of people lining up for a chance.
Finally, this is going to change science as well. Today, sending a 1 ton rover to the surface of Mars is a Really Big Deal. Hence, probes are made very carefully, very expensively and very very slowly. Not just design and build (it takes a decade), but operations as well (Curiosity traveled only 20km in the last 8 years). Everything is essentially super-low bandwidth. But once you know you can get a cheap ride to Mars (of anywhere else) any time, you don't have to go to such extremes. You can easily send more rovers, more radio relays, they can travel further, experiment more, take more risks and if you lose one, it's just not a big deal anymore!