Laying the Foundation for Space Solar Power (Compass series)

95 Pages·2001·1.27 MB·English

by  National Research Council

Laying the Foundation for
Space Solar Power
An Assessment of NASA’s
Space Solar Power Investment Strategy
Committee for the Assessment of NASA’s Space
Solar Power Investment Strategy
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C.
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National
Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the
National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible
for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This study was supported by Contract No. NASW-99037, Task Order 105, between the National Academy of
Sciences and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or
recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view
of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project.
International Standard Book Number: 0-309-07597-1
Available in limited supply from: Additional copies are available from:
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board National Academy Press
HA 292 Box 285
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. 2101 Constitution Ave., N.W.
Washington, DC 20418 Washington, DC 20055
[phone] [phone]
[phone] (in the Washington
metropolitan area)
http://www.nas.edu
Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine
National Research Council
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars
engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to
their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the
Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters.
Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy
of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in
the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the
federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at
meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engi-
neers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services
of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of
the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congres-
sional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of
medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the
broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advis-
ing the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the
Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National
Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineer-
ing communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr.
Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research
Council.
COMMITTEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF NASA’S SPACE SOLAR POWER INVESTMENT STRATEGY
RICHARD J. SCHWARTZ, Chair, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
MARY L. BOWDEN, University of Maryland, College Park
HUBERT P. DAVIS, Consultant, Canyon Lake, Texas
RICHARD L. KLINE, United Satellite Launch Services, Great Falls, Virginia
MOLLY K. MACAULEY, Resources for the Future, Inc., Washington, D.C.
LEE D. PETERSON, University of Colorado, Boulder
KITT C. REINHARDT, Air Force Research Laboratory, Albuquerque, New Mexico
R. RHOADS STEPHENSON, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (retired), La Canada, California
Liaison from the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
DAVA J. NEWMAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
Staff
KAREN E. HARWELL, Study Director, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
LEE SNAPP, NASA Administrator’s Fellowship Program—NRC Visiting Fellow,
Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
GEORGE M. LEVIN, Director, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
MARVIN WEEKS, Senior Project Assistant, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
(May 2000 through March 2001)
MARY LOU AQUILO, Senior Project Assistant, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
(March through June 2001)
ANNA FARRAR, Administrative Associate, Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board
iv
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ENGINEERING BOARD
WILLIAM W. HOOVER, Chair, U.S. Air Force (retired), Williamsburg, Virginia
A. DWIGHT ABBOTT, Aerospace Corporation (retired), Los Angeles, California
RUZENA K. BAJSCY, NAE, IOM, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
WILLIAM F. BALLHAUS, JR., NAE, Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles,
California
JAMES A. BLACKWELL, Lockheed Martin Corporation (retired), Marietta, Georgia
ANTHONY J. BRODERICK, aviation safety consultant, Catlett, Virginia
DONALD L. CROMER, U.S. Air Force (retired), Lompoc, California
ROBERT A. DAVIS, The Boeing Company (retired), Seattle, Washington
JOSEPH FULLER, JR., Futron Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland
RICHARD GOLASZEWSKI, GRA Inc., Jenkintown, Pennsylvania
JAMES M. GUYETTE, Rolls-Royce North America, Reston, Virginia
FREDERICK H. HAUCK, AXA Space, Bethesda, Maryland
JOHN L. JUNKINS, NAE, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas
JOHN K. LAUBER, Airbus Industrie of North America, Washington, D.C.
GEORGE K. MUELLNER, The Boeing Company, Seal Beach, California
DAVA J. NEWMAN, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
JAMES G. O’CONNOR, NAE, Pratt & Whitney (retired), Coventry, Connecticut
MALCOLM R. O’NEILL, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Bethesda, Maryland
CYNTHIA SAMUELSON, Logistics Management Institute, McLean, Virginia
WINSTON E. SCOTT, Florida State University, Tallahassee
KATHRYN C. THORNTON, University of Virginia, Charlottesville
ROBERT E. WHITEHEAD, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(retired), Henrico, North Carolina
DIANNE S. WILEY, The Boeing Company, Los Alamitos, California
THOMAS L. WILLIAMS, Northrop Grumman, El Segundo, California
Staff
GEORGE LEVIN, Director
v
Preface
In 1968, Peter Glaser advanced the proposition that the U.S. Congress became interested in SSP and in FY
solar energy could be collected by Earth-orbiting satel- 1999 appropriated funds for NASA to conduct the SSP
lites and then beamed by means of microwaves to Exploratory Research and Technology (SERT) pro-
power stations on Earth’s surface. The energy collected gram. The SERT program and its follow-on, the SSP
would be converted to electricity and introduced into Research and Technology (SSP R&T) program, con-
commercial power grids for use by customers. Both stitute the effort assessed in this report.2
the Department of Energy and the National Aeronau- In March 2000, NASA’s Office of Space Flight
tics and Space Administration (NASA) examined the asked the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board of
concept in the late 1970s and early 1980s; however, the the National Research Council to perform an indepen-
program was canceled. In 1995, NASA decided to take dent assessment of the space solar power program’s
a fresh look at the feasibility, technologies, costs, mar- technology investment strategy to determine its techni-
kets, and international public attitudes regarding space cal soundness and its contribution to the roadmap that
solar power (SSP). This Fresh Look study1 found that NASA has developed for this program.3 The program’s
much had changed. Key technologies needed for the investment strategy was to be evaluated in the context
construction, deployment, and maintenance of SSP sat-
ellites, such as composite materials, modular fabrica-
tion, and robotics for construction and repair, had all
shown significant advances. During this period, public 2The SERT program was established in FY 1999 and continued through
concerns about environmental degradation grew. The FY 2000 by U.S. congressional appropriation. An additional appropriation
was also funded for SSP Research and Technology (SSP R&T) for FY
committee also noted that such environmental concerns
2001. Decisions on internal NASA budget allocations for FY 2002 were
are, if anything, even more intense today than in the pending during the preparation and review of this report. As a result of
days of the Fresh Look study. As a result of this study, recent agencywide realignments, future SSP programs may be included
within other NASA initiatives. Throughout this report the term “SERT
program” or “SERT effort” refers to both the 2-year Space Solar Power
Exploratory Research and Technology (SERT) program during FY 1999
and 2000 and the follow-on effort in FY 2001, referred to as the SSP Re-
search and Technology (SSP R&T) program. The terms “SSP program”
1Feingold, Harvey, Michael Stancati, Alan Freidlander, Mark Jacobs, and “SSP effort” refer to any planned future program in SSP technology
Doug Comstock, Carissa Christensen, Gregg Maryniak, Scott Rix, and John development and are used in recommendations to NASA.
Mankins. 1997. Space Solar Power: A Fresh Look at the Feasibility of 3This assessment evaluates the SERT program and the follow-on SSP
Generating Solar Power in Space for Use on Earth. Report No. SAIC-97/ R&T efforts through December 15, 2000. Program changes after that date
1005. Chicago, Ill.: Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). are not included.
vii
viii PREFACE
of its likely effectiveness in meeting the program’s alistic, taking into account the level of funding made
technical and economic objectives. The scope of this available to the program. The committee believes that
study did not include assessments of the desirability of this approach is one useful technique for assigning
space-generated terrestrial electrical power or assess- technology investment priorities and determining the
ment of the ability of NASA’s space launch develop- relative payoff from technology investments. The com-
ment efforts to provide the capability needed to deploy mittee discovered during its meetings, however, that
a space solar power system. many of the modeling inputs were suspect and that
The Committee for the Assessment of NASA’s more refinement and better validation were necessary
Space Solar Power Investment Strategy of the National before additional decisions were made regarding tech-
Research Council has completed an approximately 12- nology investment balance. Consequently, the commit-
month study evaluating the technology investment tee agreed that it would be inappropriate to evaluate the
strategy of NASA for SSP. A copy of the statement of actual magnitude of funding in each technical area.
task for this study is included in Appendix A. In con- Comments on the relative amounts for various tech-
ducting its review, the committee was not asked to as- nologies are included.
sess, and it did not comment on, the ultimate economic As a result of low overall program funds during the
viability of producing terrestrial solar power from past 3 years, the program has been forced to make much
space. The committee sees the wisdom of investing smaller investments than desired for research in vari-
some of this nation’s resources in a number of potential ous technical areas. Due to this mismatch between the
approaches for dealing with future energy needs. This actual funding and program plan, the committee be-
is particularly true when the committee considers the lieved it was critical to evaluate the organizational
potential payoffs from this investment to other NASA, foundations, modeling methodologies, and program
government, and commercial programs. This report management style on which the future SSP investment
provides an assessment of NASA’s management of its strategy will be based (despite levels of funding avail-
SSP investments and provides recommendations on able to the program). These issues led the committee to
how its technical investment process can be improved. perform a two-part assessment of the program, provid-
The committee recognized that NASA deliberately ing (1) an evaluation of the total program investment
excluded “lowering the cost of access to space” (i.e., strategy, management, and organization and (2) an
development of new Earth-to-low-Earth-orbit launch evaluation of each individual SSP-related technology
vehicles) in its roadmap for SSP technology develop- area. The structure of the following report is based on
ment. The committee understands and accepts NASA’s these two factors.
rationale for this decision. NASA has a major program The committee was not asked to evaluate technol-
devoted to lowering the cost of access to space. Given ogy development in SSP-related areas in the United
the relatively small amount of funding earmarked by States or worldwide or to evaluate any other NASA or
Congress for space solar power technology develop- non-NASA programs in technology development,
ment, little could be accomplished (and much would be whether related to SSP or not. As a result, no other
lost) by using these program resources to help lower technology program structure was assessed or men-
the cost of access to space. tioned in the report. However, knowledge of the state
This study was sponsored by NASA and conducted of the art in various technical areas is necessary to ef-
by a committee appointed by the National Research fectively evaluate any research and technology effort.
Council (see Appendix B). The statement of task di- Various options for generating power from space have
rected the committee to (1) evaluate NASA’s SSP ef- been suggested (and researched) during the past 30
forts and (2) provide an assessment of its particular years, including the Lunar Solar Satellite Concept pro-
investment strategy for a potential program in SSP posed by David Criswell, among others. The commit-
technology research and development. In order to ef- tee did not consider such competing concepts for solar
fectively prioritize and balance investments across sev- power from space but concentrated solely on the NASA
eral technology areas, rigorous modeling and system SERT program. To this extent, the committee has fo-
analysis studies are usually performed. NASA began cused on the program at NASA and its relationship with
this process during the SERT effort. Preliminary tech- industry and other efforts in SSP-related technology.
nology and programmatic investments were presented This report has been reviewed in draft form by indi-
to the committee based on this modeling and seem re- viduals chosen for their diverse perspectives and tech-
PREFACE ix
nical expertise, in accordance with procedures ap- Although the reviewers listed above have provided
proved by the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) many constructive comments and suggestions, they
Report Review Committee. The purpose of this inde- were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recom-
pendent review is to provide candid and critical com- mendations, nor did they see the final draft of the re-
ments that will assist the institution in making its pub- port before its release. The review of this report was
lished report as sound as possible and to ensure that the overseen by Gerald L. Kulcinski, University of Wis-
report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evi- consin, appointed by the NRC’s Report Review Com-
dence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The mittee, who was responsible for making certain that an
review comments and draft manuscript remain confi- independent examination of this report was carried out
dential to protect the integrity of the deliberative pro- in accordance with institutional procedures and that all
cess. We wish to thank the following individuals for review comments were carefully considered. Respon-
their review of this report: sibility for the final content of this report rests entirely
with the authoring committee and the institution.
Minoru S. Araki, Lockheed Martin Corporation, The committee also thanks those who took the time
retired, to participate in committee meetings and provide back-
Richard Green, International Power and Environ- ground materials (see Appendix E). The committee is
mental Company, especially indebted to Karen Harwell, study director,
Joel Greenberg, Princeton Synergetics, Inc., for her unflagging support of the committee and her
Nasser Karam, Spectralab, Inc., help every step of the way. Lee Snapp, a NASA
Thomas J. Kelly, Grumman Corporation, retired, Administrator’s Fellowship Program visiting fellow,
Leeka I. Kheifets, Electric Power Research Institute contributed to the introduction and international sec-
(EPRI), tions of the report, and George Levin, director, Aero-
Mark S. Lake, Composite Technology Develop- nautics and Space Engineering Board, was particularly
ment, Inc., helpful in interpreting and clarifying the committee’s
F. Robert Naka, CERA, Inc., and charge.
Stephen M. Rock, Stanford University.
Richard J. Schwartz, Chair
Committee for the Assessment of NASA’s
Space Solar Power Investment Strategy