A New Era in Space

In the lead-up to the launch of the last space shuttle, "Atlantis", I've been seeing a number of articles on the general theme of an era ending. This week's Economist went so far as to suggest it marks the "End of the Space Age." I sincerely hope they are wrong, and not just because I have followed the US space program avidly since before the first moon landing, but also because of my primary focus on energy. Most of the resources of the solar system, including most of its energy resources, lie outside the earth's atmosphere. To choose a relevant example, space solar power (SSP) might not contribute significantly for decades, but it still looks like an important option for ensuring that energy limits don't constrain our long-term prosperity after the ages of oil and coal wind down.

One presentation that I still recall vividly from the many meetings involved in the economic review of NASA's "Fresh Look" approach to SSP in the 1990s, and from my time on NASA's oversight committee for SSP, dealt with the crucial role of a low-cost, high-frequency launch system in putting the components of solar power satellites into orbit affordably. Even then, it was clear that the current shuttle was not that system. It was equally clear that the traditional alternative of disposable rockets couldn't come close to the $ per pound-on-orbit threshold required. He was proposing a second- or third-generation system using unmanned reusable cargo vehicles that would land like airplanes. This was before the recent advances in drone aircraft.

I wonder what that scientist would recommend today. Perhaps he would build on some of the private spacecraft designs currently under development, such as those of SpaceX, Orbital Sciences and XCOR. However, assembling a solar power system over dozens or hundreds of launches involves very different requirements than taking tourists into space or sending astronauts back to the moon or on to Mars. In any case, without reliable access to space--traveling as passengers on Russian vehicles using a 50-year-old design doesn't count--the benefits of space will be limited to capabilities like the communications and remote sensing of today's satellites. Those are impressive enough and have transformed our world and our view of it, but they can't supply us with the concentrated energy to power cities or industries.

During the space shuttle program's 30-year history, shuttle crews accomplished extraordinary feats at tremendous risk, and sadly some of them paid with their lives. It's interesting to contemplate, as a noted space commentator did this week in Technology Review, whether the right shuttle design was chosen in the early 1970s, though mainly from the perspective of what it might tell us about what our next steps in space should be. I'm as intrigued as anyone by the prospect of resuming manned exploration beyond earth orbit, but it's hard to square the cost of that with the deep cuts that must be made elsewhere to set our financial house in order. A serious examination of the techniques and hardware necessary to deliver space resources for use on earth--now that it wouldn't have to fit an existing shuttle's capabilities--could provide a suitably pragmatic focus for NASA in the current environment.

I have a hunch that a goal of obtaining non-polluting energy from space would go a lot farther towards galvanizing the necessary public support for NASA than the next planetary mission--which incidentally might be easier to construct with the capabilities that a more nuts-and-bolts effort might create. Either way, while it's nice to look back at past achievements, I'd much rather be looking ahead to the accomplishments of the next era in space.

Observing the Sun

The topic of space exploration has gotten much media attention lately, mainly focused on the uncertain fate of future US manned space efforts in light of the cancellation of NASA's Constellation program in the administration's new budget. After the current flight of the shuttle "Endeavor" and the four remaining shuttle missions this year, the fleet will be retired and transporting astronauts to and from the International Space Station will depend on Russia, or on unproven spacecraft from commercial start-ups like SpaceX and Blue Origin. Yet without diminishing the importance of these concerns for our long-term access to space, yesterday's delayed launch of the Solar Dynamics Observatory satellite deserved more attention than it got. The SDO mission is part of NASA's "Living with a Star" program, which is aimed at expanding our knowledge about how the sun affects life on earth, with implications for energy and our understanding of the environment, including climate change.

It's hard to think of anything we take more for granted than the Sun, yet as the material on the SDO mission website explains, we don't fully understand the variability and internal mechanics of our planet's primary source of light and heat--and thus directly or indirectly of all the energy we use except for that derived from nuclear and geothermal power. Variations in the amount of solar energy the earth receives as a result of the eccentricity of our orbit around it have long been understood to influence long-term climate patterns, including ice ages, while the impact of fluctuations due to variability in the sun's actual output remains more controversial. Climate skeptics have suggested that much of the warming of the last several decades, along with the recent temperature plateau, could be related to the approximately 11-year sunspot cycle. Meanwhile NASA scientists have assessed the impact of solar variability on climate to be significantly less than that from the accumulation of atmospheric greenhouse gases. SDO should improve our understanding of solar variability and its consequences here on earth. (I should mention that observed recent short-term variability of a few Watts per square meter isn't sufficient to have a noticeable effect on the power output of solar panels.)

The more immediate energy concern that SDO should help to clarify is the risk that currently-unpredictable solar activity, including strong solar flares and resulting geomagnetic storms, poses to power grids--smart and otherwise--and communications equipment on earth and in orbit. At the extreme, a solar flare of the magnitude of the Carrington Event of 1859 could disrupt critical energy infrastructure in much the same manner as an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) from a high-altitude nuclear explosion. As dependent as we all are on increasingly complex and inter-connected electrical and electronic systems, anything that improves the ability of scientists to forecast a sudden spike in solar radiation could be worth its weight in gold.

NASA's capacity to conduct missions with immediate benefits on earth, such as SDO and the forthcoming Glory mission to measure key aspects of the earth's energy balance, is crucial, but then so is building on the legacy of four decades of manned spaceflight. I have distinctly mixed feelings about the altered priorities in NASA's new budget, though I'm pleased that funding for space as a whole was preserved. The possibility that this shift will spur a vibrant private space industry that could significantly reduce the cost of reaching earth orbit is exciting, because among other things that could make large-scale space solar power practical and affordable. At the same time I worry that we shouldn't cede America's preeminent position in human space exploration at a time when other nations are setting ambitious goals in this arena.

Unlimited Power?

This weekend I spoke on a panel at the International Space Development Conference in Washington, D.C. The subject of the panel was the business case for Space Solar Power, and while that might sound like a contradiction in terms to most people, it certainly wasn't for the aerospace professionals and space enthusiasts who comprised most of the audience. As alluring as I find this idea, myself, it wasn't easy staying on point that, aside from its many remaining technical challenges, this concept faces tough competition from other energy technologies with similar attributes and lower start-up hurdles. But although the "business case" for "SSP" is still not mature, capturing solar power from space deserves a place in our national R&D agenda, as an important long-term option for producing clean energy.

Since my prior involvement with it in the late 1990s, the context for the development of SSP has changed radically. Energy prices have risen to levels that were virtually unimaginable in 2000, and concerns about climate change have evolved from a scientific investigation and environmental cause célèbre to a major policy issue. Less obviously but more dramatically, a transforming military engaged in two wars sees the potential of SSP to provide a better alternative for battlefield power than delivering generator fuel to forward bases by helicopter--a reality described vividly to the audience by Colonel Paul Damphousse of the National Space Security Office, who recently returned from a second tour in Iraq piloting Marine CH-53 transport helos.

But if the need for SSP seems greater today than it did a decade ago, the obstacles to making it a reality are no less daunting. The nation's Space Shuttle fleet has suffered another loss and is on the verge of retirement, and its planned replacement is years from deployment. The private-sector space ventures that were well-represented at ISDC hold significant promise, but they already have attractive markets for telecom satellites and "space tourism." Advances in photovoltaic conversion efficiency have reduced the size requirement for a solar power satellite, but the same technology makes ground-based solar more competitive. Perhaps the biggest challenge would come from the public's perception of the risks of beaming power from space to the earth in the form of microwaves. Would this be regarded as a benign cousin of ubiquitous radio transmissions, or morph NIMBY into Not In My Sky?

Whatever the practical considerations today, it was tremendously stimulating to be with a group of people who were looking ahead with optimism to a time when SSP and other space technologies would make a larger contribution to life on earth. I was particularly intrigued by an idea from a start-up called Heliosat Corporation to use SSP to develop America's abundant shale oil resources. This plan has apparently captured the interest of the Greater Houston Partnership, and of some of its oil and gas membership. Whatever the technical and economic merits of this application, the model of using relatively small amounts of power from space to leverage a larger ground-based energy source, or to supply a unique market, looks like the right focus for the immediately-foreseeable future. Whether the first demonstration project is beaming power to a Marine Expeditionary Unit in the field or to a remote oil project, no one will invest the kind of money necessary for SSP to make a serious dent in our global energy needs without first seeing the concept turned into tangible reality.

Power from Space

Earlier this week a new alliance was announced to promote the exploitation of solar power from space. The Space Solar Alliance for Future Energy (SSAFE,) formed by space advocacy and research organizations, is basing its initial efforts on a just-released study by the National Space Security Office . Collecting solar power in space, where it is available 24/7 and is not attenuated by atmosphere or clouds, remains one of my favorite long-term energy solutions, on a par with nuclear fusion. It has a major advantage over fusion, however. While both offer inexhaustible sources of energy, space solar power (SSP) requires no scientific breakthroughs. Despite that, its engineering and cost challenges make it unlikely that SSP could contribute significantly to terrestrial energy much before 2020.

If you're not familiar with the concepts for capturing solar power from orbit and beaming it to earth--ideas that have been refined significantly since they were first conceived in the 1960s and '70s--I encourage you to download SSAFE's feasibility study. It provides a good overview of the technology and many of the financial, logistical, diplomatic and other factors that must be addressed. Having been personally involved in the late-1990s NASA studies referenced in the document, I must say that I don't find the update to be quite as novel as the report suggests, when compared with the concepts and constraints that we examined 10 years ago. But as it points out, the energy and security context for considering this option have changed tremendously, and that may be enough to alter the ultimate conclusions about whether to proceed with such a large-scale space endeavor.

When I served on the economic evaluation team reviewing the 1990s NASA effort, two obstacles to the commerciality of SSP loomed large. In that period, ground-based power costs were low and falling--and most of the experts and economists we consulted expected that trend to continue. The high cost of power from space appeared difficult to justify outside of a few niche applications. Compounding that challenge, the construction of a fleet of power satellites capable of producing hundreds or thousands of Megawatts of electricity each would require a launch capability far beyond that of the quartet of Space Shuttles--which ultimately proved barely adequate for the current Space Station--or of a second-generation shuttle. But SSP was the only application large enough to justify building such a capability, short of a major effort to colonize or industrialize earth-orbital space. Chicken and egg.

As NASA foresaw in the late '90s, advances in technology have made it possible to contemplate an SSP design that requires fewer, smaller payloads and relies almost entirely on robotic assembly. That will reduce the number of launches and virtually eliminate the need for a parallel ramp-up in manned space activities, thus improving the economics. It's not clear from my perusal of the report whether this new configuration could be placed in orbit by existing commercial launch capacity. Even if it could, the process would be lengthy and very expensive.

And although I'm intrigued by some of the novel applications for power from space described in the report, including chemical synthesis of carbon-neutral hydrocarbons, most encounter another hurdle we identified a decade ago. While there are certainly lots of cool things that you could do with power from space, there are very few applications that actually require it. I routinely receive comments from readers of this blog who are equally keen on hydrocarbon synthesis based on nuclear power, which would almost certainly be more economical that the SSP-driven version.

Finally, although our perspective on national security and its energy security dimensions has expanded since 9/11, the potential linkage of SSP to military applications raises the prospect of international opposition to a project that could probably only proceed as an international initiative. I appreciate the benefits of having an "anchor customer" that puts a high premium on the ability to deliver power to any point on the planet. The advantages for the military would also be significant, given the expense and risk it incurs delivering energy to the "battlespace." However, the basic architecture of SSP will inevitably raise concerns about its inherent military potential, whether that potential is real or merely perceived. This is an issue that would have to be navigated very cautiously, particularly since other nations with anti-satellite capabilities might regard an SSP beaming power to a war zone as a legitimate military target.

I will follow SSAFE's progress with great interest. Space solar power has enormous potential to provide useful increments of zero-emissions energy as either a reliable baseload or as a sequentially-shifting peak supply across the globe. SSP will also benefit from the steady improvements in photovoltaic technology that are making ground-based solar more competitive. It's not a short-term solution, however, and its development still faces many technical, political and permitting challenges. SSP is a valuable future option, and we'd be wise to invest to increase the value of that option and make it easier to exercise, should we ultimately choose to do so.

The China Dilemma

Between working on my taxes, I've been thinking about one of the issues raised at Wednesday's presentation on MIT's future coal study, involving China's participation in the international effort to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. John Deutch expressed skepticism that China would tackle its emissions any time soon, because of its focus on economic growth. He also linked this to the slower pace of action in the US, relative to other OECD member countries. It occurs to me that before we can determine the best means of getting China to deal with its contribution to global warming, we need to clarify and prioritize our own concerns about this country of 1.3 billion.

Start with the facts about China's emissions and their future trend. In 1980 China emitted only 30% as much CO2 and other GHGs as the US did. By 2000, that fraction had increased to one-half, while US emissions grew by almost a quarter. Despite its new focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy, China is on a path to reach emissions parity with the US sometime between 2009 and 2020. Although their cumulative emissions won't catch up with ours for many years, China will soon be responsible for more current GHG emissions than any other country.

Some see this as a justification for delaying US action on climate change, for reasons of fairness or economic competition. If China and the US were the only countries exposed to the consequences of these emissions, that might be a more understandable response, even though the same logic clearly didn't hold back the EU in their response to global warming. They knew that neither China nor the US were similarly committed. Still, having a neighbor whose dry, unmowed yard increases the fire hazard for the whole neighborhood doesn't let you off the hook for watering and cutting your own grass.

But that doesn't justify the position of some of the keenest partisans of prompt and aggressive action on climate change, who seem overly willing to give China a free pass on its emissions, for many of the same reasons that China and its supporters articulate, including:

• China's per-capita emissions are still much lower than those of the US or EU.
• Western countries created the problem, by burning fossil fuels for a century before China began to modernize.
• A sizable portion of China's emissions are attributable to products exported to developed countries, which have essentially "offshored" their emissions, along with the jobs and factories that go with them.

For good or ill, though, we all live on the same planet, and climate change is global in scale and effect. Whatever the merits of the above arguments, they don't outweigh the common imperative of helping China to avoid replicating our own mistakes on an even larger scale. If we assume that more aggressive US action on climate change is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for inducing China to commit to cap and subsequently reduce its GHG emissions, what are our options?

As Dr. Deutch noted on Wednesday, incentives seem to hold the key. But whether those take the form of transfers of technology or simply cash payments, this is going to be a very tough pill to swallow, in light of China's growing economic and geopolitical power. Here's the fastest-growing large economy in the world, with which the US already has an enormous trade deficit, and we're supposed to pay them not to emit? Even worse, China is starting to challenge us in sectors where we have enjoyed total dominance, at least since the end of the Cold War. January's anti-satellite test, which has created a serious, long-term hazard to manned and unmanned space operations, reminds us that China is a potential military adversary. And in congressional testimony yesterday, NASA's chief suggested that the Chinese space program could put a man on the moon before our planned return there in 2019. Why should we help China with emissions technology, when they may be diverting their own technology efforts into a new space race, or even an arms race in space?

In order to answer these questions, we must first decide whether climate change is such a serious problem that it transcends our concerns about helping an emerging rival that may end up supplanting us as the world's largest economy and greatest power. Although we've made great strides in the last few years in recognizing the dangers of global warming, I haven't seen that kind of explicit prioritization, yet. There are many areas in which we could assist China in finding a lower-emissions path, including cooperation on some of the same technologies we are developing for ourselves in biofuels, renewable energy, and advanced vehicles, along with the carbon sequestration that was the subject of yesterday's posting. Until we decide which is the bigger problem--climate change or a Chinese superpower--these efforts are likely to fall short of what's necessary. Meanwhile, every passing day increases the scale of the problem, as China builds more cars and power plants.