SOS - The Space Option Star:
Addressing the Energy Dilemma

 

Arthur R Woods (artist, researcher)
Ars Astronautica, 8259 Kaltenbach, Switzerland.
Email: arthur.woods (at)arsastronautica.com

Marco C Bernasconi (engineer, researcher,)
MCB Consultants, 8953 Dietikon, Switzerland
Email: mcb(at)ieee.org

Keywords: Astronautical Art, Space Option, Energy Dilemma, Space-Based Solar Power, Wireless Power Transmission

Note: The article has been accepted for publication in "Leonardo - The Journal of the International Society for the Arts, Sciences and Technology" . Download here:

Abstract

Humanity is facing an imminent Energy Dilemma in that the limited proven reserves of fossil fuels could reach exhaustion levels at mid-century and none of the current alternative terrestrial energy options – nuclear – wind - ground solar (PV) – can be sufficiently scaled to achieve the goal of divesting from fossil fuels by the year 2050 as is being called for by the United Nations, many governments and numerous organizations to address the Climate Emergency. Energy from space is the only near term technically feasible and scalable alternative currently available to humanity to divest from fossil fuels while meeting its future energy needs but is seldom mentioned as a potential solution. The Space Option Star (SOS) is being proposed as an orbital artwork to alert the world population to the imminent Energy Dilemma and to the Space Energy Option as well as being an in situ demonstration of space-to-space wireless power transmission (WPT).

The Energy Dilemma

A commonly used source for global energy data is the BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2019 which lists World Primary Energy Consumption by region and country and by energy source: oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear energy, hydroelectricity and renewables. [1] For 2018, it indicates that the World Total Primary Energy consumption at 13,864.9 million tonnes of oil equivalent (MTOE). Of that amount 11,743.6 MTOE came from oil, gas and coal, 611.3 MTOE from nuclear energy, 948.8 MTOE from hydroelectricity, and 561.3 MTOE from renewables (wind, terrestrial solar and other non-hydro renewables). Converted into SI units (International System of Units), 13,865 MTOE corresponds to approximately 18.4 terawatts (TW), of which 15.6 TW (85%) comes from fossil fuels, 1.26 TW (7%) from hydroelectricity, 811 gigawatt (GW) (4%) from nuclear power, and 745 GW (4%) from renewables, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Fig.1. Global Primary Energy Consumption in Terawatts

Replacing Fossil Fuels with Terrestrial Energy Alternatives

Looking first at nuclear power as an alternative, most nuclear power plants in operation have a power capacity around 1 GW. [2] Thus, to replace current fossil fuel usage with nuclear power (assuming a 90% availability for the plants) would require the deployment of up to 17,530 new 1-GW nuclear reactors. On the average then, for the next 30 years, 572 new power plants would have to go on line each year – in other words, adding 1½ new 1-GW reactors each day. In 2018, world-wide nuclear power systems accounted for only 811 GW (4% of the total energy use) and, currently, building one nuclear power plant takes about 10 years. Furthermore, some estimates conclude that the uranium reserves may supply the currently-operating reactors only for some 90 years more. [3] Accordingly, a nuclear solution to divest from fossil fuels seems highly unlikely.

Wind and solar photovoltaic (PV) generators have significantly lower availability: the inherent intermittency and storage aspects make it necessary to deploy multiples of their equivalent rated (peak) power levels to equal the output, e.g., of nuclear power systems. For wind, the generating capacity needs to be some 3.35 times higher [4] and for PV, 6-7 times higher. Thus, to replace 2018 fossil fuel use with wind and solar, no less than 65 TW (depending on the assumed wind/PV mix) of power generating capacity from these two renewable sources would need to be installed. Again, this translates into 2 TW of electrical generating capacity from wind and solar to be installed every year from now until the year 2050 – i.e., 5 GW per day – and this, too, would have to start immediately.

Published data shows that the world's installed wind power capacity reached 597 GW in 2018. [5] Installed world terrestrial solar PV capacity was 401 GW in 2017 [6] and is predicted to reach 530 GW by 2024. [7] Thus, nuclear, wind, ground solar and other non-hydro renewables combined, contributed about 1.6 TW of current level of world energy consumption or approximately 8%.

With current world population of 7.7 billion expected to increase by 25% to 9.7 billion between now and 2050, at current energy consumption levels a very minimum of 23 TW (+25%) of power will be necessary to sustain civilization. However, based on the current average energy consumption increase of 1.5% per year, [8] more likely humanity will require more than 30 TW of continuous power by mid-century. In his assessment of the U.S. energy needs in the year 2100, Michael Snead has reached a similar conclusion concerning the lack of scalability of terrestrial energy alternatives in his book Astroelectricity (2019) and on his Spacefaring Institute YouTube channel. [9]  

In addition to the many environmental and geopolitical issues associated with the continued use of fossil carbon fuels, the limited nature of these resources needs consideration. For instance, the “BP: World Reserves of Fossil Fuel” report shows that the remaining proven extractable reserves of fossil fuels are critically finite. Figure 2 shows, at current rates of consumption, humanity will exhaust said reserves of crude oil by the year 2066, natural gas by 2068 and coal by 2169. [10] Furthermore, energy return on investment (EROI) is also a critical issue for future production of fossil fuels as it becomes more difficult to obtain and thus less economical to produce. This aspect also significantly adds to the urgency of finding a viable alternative energy solution and underscores the imminent Energy Dilemma that humanity is facing and the choices that need to be made.

 

Fig.2. Estimated years of extraction remaining for fossil fuels

The Space Option

The Space Option concept was first introduced in 1993 and subsequently developed by the authors to provide a rationale for space activities in order to address public criticism about their program to develop large scale orbital artworks. [11] [12] It is an evolutionary plan to meet the basic and anticipated needs of humanity with the addition of utilizing near Earth resources -­ not only for the in-situ support of science or exploration – but rather to apply these resources and/or their products for use on Earth at a conspicuous level. Most immediately, the harnessing of inexhaustible amounts of clean energy from space would replace humanity’s dependence on the continued use of fossil fuels while insuring humanity's future energy needs. As energy is essential to modern civilization, having a plentiful source of clean energy would also provide the basic means for restoring the environment, sustaining the world economy, reducing poverty and stimulating progress in the developing countries while preserving the living standards of the developed nations.

In current discussions about transiting from fossil fuels to some other alternative energy source, energy from space, a technologically feasible idea that was introduced as the Solar Power Satellite (SPS) by Peter Glaser in 1968 [13] and patented in 1973, is rarely considered or even discussed as a possible alternative to terrestrial energy sources. The standard objection has been the initial cost to implement such a space power system. When considered in the context of the increasing demand for CO₂-neutral energy and the value of the global energy market by the year 2050, this criticism should have lesser relevance as terrestrial energy alternatives prove to be insufficient, impractical or undesirable and the magnitude of Energy Dilemma becomes apparent.

The Space Energy Option

Since Peter Glaser’s description of the basic SPS system, several technical studies assessed the feasibility of supplying Earth with solar power from space. To date, the most extensive study remains the “Satellite Power System Concept Development and Evaluation Program,” conducted from 1977 to 1981 by the (US) Department of Energy (DoE) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), with a $19.7 million budget. [14] Ralph Nansen, who was with the Boeing Aerospace Company at the time, participated in this study. In his book: Sun Power: The Global Solution for the Coming Energy Crises (1995), he writes that the study had come to a conclusion that Space Solar Power relying on large reusable rockets and automated assembly systems in orbit was technically feasible and, had the project gone forward, an investment of $2 trillion would have saved the United States $22 trillion by 2050 which would have adverted the energy crises it is now facing forty years later. [15]

More recently, a study by the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) – completed in 2011 [16] and subsequently published in the book The Case For Space Solar Power (2014) by the IAA study’s lead author John Mankins, describes a system architecture called SPS-ALPHA consisting of mass produced modular components assembled in orbit by robots - a concept that has both economic and maintenance advantages. [17] Eventually, technologies such as the Archinaut One will enable in-space manufacturing of components. [18]

There are a number of technological approaches to building the optimal SPS, which, in addition to the aforementioned DoE/NASA study, are discussed in detail in these five books:

• Frank P. Davidson, L.J. Giacoletto, & Robert Salked, Eds. (1978) Macro-Engineering and the Infrastructure of Tomorrow. AAAS Selected Symposium 23, Westview Press, Boulder (CO), 131-137
• P Glaser, F Davidson, & K Csigi, (1998) Solar Power Satellites, Wiley
• Ralph Nansen, (1995, 2012)  Sun Power: The Global Solution for the Coming Energy Crisis, Ocean Press 1995,  Nansen Partners 2012
• John Mankins,  (2014) The Case for Space Solar Power, Virginia Edition Publishing LLC
• Michael Snead, (2019)  Astroelectricity,  Spacefaring Institute LLC

In the mid-1980s, David Criswell introduced a significant variation of the SPS concept called the Lunar Solar Power (LSP) System. Instead of building the photovoltaic system in Earth orbit using materials transported from Earth, he proposed a potentially more efficient approach by using an existing orbiting platform – the Moon – for the location of the solar collectors and to use lunar materials for their construction. [19]

Lunar helium-3 is another space energy option once nuclear fusion has been demonstrated at a commercial level. Although rare on Earth, helium-3 is seen as an ideal isotope for nuclear fusion reactors as it produces no radioactive byproducts. Thanks to the Moon’s negligible magnetic field, it is estimated that up to 1,100,000 metric tonnes of helium-3 have been deposited in the lunar regolith. The most comprehensive book about mining lunar helium-3 is “Return to the Moon” by Apollo 17 astronaut and geologist Harrison Schmitt.  [20]

For comparison with terrestrial energy alternatives, one may build on the 5-GW power level used e.g. in the DoE/NASA reference study. The power generated by the orbital plant must cover the losses in the transmission chain: (i) in the conversion from DC electrical to microwave power, (ii) in relation with the beam’s space and absorption losses, and (iii) with the microwave capture and conversion to AC power at the ground “rectenna” (rectifying antenna). One also has to account for the time the station passes through the Earth’s shadow (<1% for a geostationary orbit). For 1 TW of continuous power, then, some 202 solar power satellites would be necessary.  Scaling this to meet humanity’s energy needs, about 3,030 of such power plants would be necessary to deliver 15 TW, which is approximately what is needed to replace fossil fuels today. Twice this number would be required to provide 30 TW of continuous clean solar power in the year 2050.

The Space Option Star

The discussion above provides the societal context for the development of the Space Option Star (SOS) as an art intervention in orbit.  SOS is commonly used as the international Morse code distress signal (· · · – – – · · ·). In popular usage, SOS became associated with such phrases as “save our ship”, “save our souls” and “send out succour” but officially it does not stand for anything specific. In addition to SOS being an acronym for the Space Option Star project, we are using this project to send the message “save our spaceship” with “spaceship” being modern civilization. As all art is fundamentally political and, as the SOS project powerfully conveys a truthful and important message, it should impact the policy discourse related to energy. As an artwork, the Space Option Star will have a more flexible envelope for development than a pure engineering project and will directly involve the public in a variety of ways.

In the mid-1980’s and early1990’s the authors introduced and developed several large scale orbital sculpture concepts. [21] The publicity surrounding our projects and to that of Peter Beck’s Humanity Star launched on January 21, 2018 [22] and to Trevor Paglen’s Orbital Reflector launched on December 3, 2018 [23] exemplifies the novel and controversial aspects of deploying a visible orbital artwork, which indicates that even during the developmental stage, substantial public attention can be focused on the message of such a project.

As such, the SOS has a dual purpose: first, as communication, its mission is to alert and inform the world population about the Energy Dilemma and to call attention to the Space Energy Option and, second, its technical mission represents an early in-situ demonstration of SBSP which should help to justify its development cost.

In 2003, the European Space Agency (ESA) contracted the authors to re-examine the technology for large expandable structures in light of any new technological developments for the purpose of celebrating the 2016 Winter Olympics. [24] Our study included the examination in some technical detail of a large icosahedron to be built utilizing the chemically rigidized expandable structures (CRES) technology that had been under development in the United States and in Europe for over thirty years, although not yet used for a space structure of this dimension. [25] [26] In 2008, the idea of incorporating space solar power elements and other interactive technologies was introduced.

The space segment of the SOS project would perform an early demonstration of the basic technological elements of SBSP. Electricity generated by the icosahedron's solar arrays would flow to co-located microwave transmitters to beam power toward a companion spacecraft, which will then use it to transmit video and other interactive communications from orbit to public locations around the world such as art and science museums and schools.

Fig.3. Space Option Star in situ space solar power demonstration

Initial Technical Considerations

The suggested configuration of the SOS project elements builds upon a variety of studies (of similar aim) and technological concepts. For instance, the “power satellite” requires a (relatively) large size to collect sufficient solar power and to support a representative high-gain transmitter, as will be the case for operational items. On the other hand, in order to reduce costs, simplified designs are preferred. Here, the icosahedron geometry approximates an omnidirectional object, with the Sun illuminating similar surface areas at any given time, thus removing the need for an (active) attitude control system. Similarly, array antennas can track the receiver's position electronically, eliminating dedicated steering mechanisms.

The choice of this geometry is further supported by various factors, beginning with its classical simplicity: As one of the five Platonic solids, it is composed of 20 triangular facets, with 30 sides and 12 vertices. Vertices and sides are realized as nodes and tubular struts that form a skeleton supporting the membrane-like facets. As the satellite tumbles, the flat triangle's surfaces will reflect sunlight causing it to appear in the night sky as a blinking star. This way, the SOS would be visible to much of the world’s population during its limited orbital lifetime.

The above-mentioned study looked at the size, the mass, and the visibility of such an icosahedron with a 100 meter extension. It was determined that such a “star” would reach a magnitude of about -4.4 (which would correspond to Venus at its brightest), with orbits that allow a lifetime of approximately 30 days. Indeed, an 85-m sphere ought to reach -4.4 in magnitude at a slant range from a 760-km orbit; an equivalent icosahedron's lifetime estimate comes to some 24 days.

An icosahedron equivalent to an 85-m sphere ought to reach a magnitude of -4. at a slant range from a 760-km orbit, with an orbital lifetime estimated at some 24 days. As the object's orbit decays, it will become more brilliant, as suggested in Figure 4.

Fig.4. Orbital characteristics of the Space Option Star

For reference to an actual object that is easily visible to the naked eye, one could compare the SOS to the International Space Station (ISS): 52 m long, 27.4 m high and 73 m wide. Due to its irregular shape and position relative to the horizon the observed magnitude of the ISS varies considerably. The SOS would be much larger and much brighter and, as with all orbital artworks, objections from astronomers are to be expected.

Conclusion

Humanity is facing an imminent Energy Dilemma which, in addition to the Climate Emergency, deserves the focus of world attention. As energy is the key element, the solutions to solving both of these issues are interrelated and interconnected.  Addressing the Climate Emergency will require massive amounts of clean energy production to adapt and survive a severe warming or cooling situation. Addressing the Energy Dilemma will require massive amounts of clean energy production for restoring the environment and meeting the energy needs of a growing population. Our calculations indicate that none of the alternative terrestrial energy options – nuclear, wind and ground solar (PV) – can be sufficiently scaled to achieve the goal of divesting from fossil fuels and achieve net-zero CO₂ levels by the year 2050 as is being called for by the United Nations, many governments and numerous organizations. The Space Energy Option represents the only near term technically feasible alternative to addressing these two critical energy related issues. As a visible and interactive orbital art intervention, the Space Option Star (SOS) incorporates and demonstrates a disruptive energy technology which should impact public discussion concerning humanity’s future energy options.

References and Notes

1. BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2019 https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2019-full-report.pdf   Accessed 10.3.2020
2. Nuclear Power, William Martin, Encyclopedia Britannica,https://www.britannica.com/technology/nuclear-power#ref1177714   Accessed 10.3.2020
3. Supply of Uranium, World Nuclear Association, August 2019  
   https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx  Accessed 10.3.2020
4. Land Needs for Wind, Solar Dwarf Nuclear Plant’s Footprint, Nuclear Energy Institute https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants Accessed 10.3.2020
5. Wind Power Capacity Worldwide Reaches 597 GW, 50.1 GW added in 2018, WWEA https://wwindea.org/blog/2019/02/25/wind-power-capacity-worldwide-reaches-600-gw-539-gw-added-in-2018/   Accessed 10.3.2020
6. Growth of Photovoltaics, Wikipedia,
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Growth_of_photovoltaics#Worldwide  Accessed 10.3.2020

7. Renewables 2019, Distributed Solar PV, IEA
   https://www.iea.org/reports/renewables-2019/distributed-solar-pv   Accessed 10.3.2020
8. See BP, [1]
9. Michael Snead, (2019) Astroelectricity, Spacefaring Institute LLC & YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/spacefaringinstitute/playlists
10. 10. BP: World Reserves of Fossil Fuels, 2018 Knoema Data Published:  30 July 2018 https://knoema.com/infographics/smsfgud/bp-world-reserves-of-fossil-fuels
    Accessed 10.3.2020
11. Marco C. Bernasconi & Arthur R. Woods, 1993, Implementing the Space Option: Elaboration & Dissemination of a New Rationale for Space: Part I: The Rationale, Part 2: The Space Option. Paper IAA.8.1-93-764 a & b presented at the 44th International Astronautical Congress
12. Arthur R. Woods & Marco C. Bernasconi, 1991, The Orbiting Unification Ring-Space Peace Sculptures: Progress Report on Global Art In Space, Paper IAA-90-652 presented to the 41st IAF Congress, Dresden, Germany. October 6-12. Published in LEONARDO 24, [5] pp. 601-606
13. Peter E. Glaser, Power from the Sun: Its Future, Science, 22 November 1968
14. Satellite Power System Concept Development and Evaluation Program, NSS Archive
    https://space.nss.org/satellite-power-system-concept-development-and-evaluation-program/ Accessed 10.4.2020
15. Ralph Nansen, (1995/2012) Sun Power: The Global Solution for the Coming Energy Crisis, Amazon Kindle location 391, Ocean Press 1995, Nansen Partners 2012 (e-book)
16. International Academy of Astronautics, Space Solar Power, The First International Assessment of Space Solar Power: Opportunities, Issues and Potential Pathways Forward, https://iaaweb.org/iaa/Studies/sg311_finalreport_solarpower.pdf   Accessed 10.3.2020
17. John Mankins, The Case for Space Solar Power, Virginia Edition Publishing; First Edition, January, 2014, Amazon Kindle Locations 422 and 879
18. Project Archinaut, MadeInSpace, http://www.projectarchinaut.com/
19. David R, Criswell, Solar Power via the Moon, The Industrial Physicist, April/May 2002, American Institute of Physics
20. Harrison H. Schmitt, Return to the Moon, Copernicus Books, Praxis Publishing Ltd. 2006
21. See: Arthur R. Woods & Marco C. Bernasconi, [12]
22. Rocket Lab defends Humanity Star launch, Otago Daily Times, 27 January 2018
    https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/rocket-lab-defends-humanity-star-launch
    Accessed 10.3.2020
23. Trevor Paglen, Orbital Reflector, Nevada Museum of Art 
    https://www.orbitalreflector.com Accessed 10.3.2020
24. ESA Contract No.16188/02/NL/MV, The OURS Foundation
25. Marco C. Bernasconi & Arthur R. Woods, 2009 , Lights in the Sky: Membrane Structures for Art in Space, International Conference on Textile Composites and Inflatable Structures, Structural Membranes 2009, E. Oñate, and B. Kröplin, (Eds) © CIMNE, Barcelona, Spain https://thespaceoption.com/publications/Lights_in_the_sky_PPH-09-078-1.pdf
    Accessed 10.3.2020
26. M.C. Bernasconi Consultants, Chemically Rigidized Expandable Structures, https://spaceoptionstar.space/chemically_rigidized_expandable_structures_mcbc.php   Accessed 10.3.2020