/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15986364
>>15986373
>assuming $1000/kg launch costs
BOO HISS GAY

Even in the 70s people knew fully reusable superheavy lift was a prerequisite for SBSP.

Space based solar turns out to be competitive given modern tech. O'Neill-chads win again.

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4665/1

We will build the space based solar power farms, and the spinhabs to house the builders, and then eventually realize that it's easier to use the power on orbit and radiate it away than to beam more concentrated sunlight on to a world we're trying to cool.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/06/for-the-first-time-in-decades-congress-seems-interested-space-based-solar-power/

https://constructionphysics.substack.com/p/how-did-solar-power-get-cheap-part

>>15357234
Beamed solar only makes sense with big bastard satellites precisely because of that problem. Starship is the only vehicle that can allow orbital construction of properly sized SPS constellations, actually exceeding the proposed flight rate, payload, and cost estimates from Star Raker. Given how ground solar works perfectly well at low latitudes these days, you'd want to place the satellites in a Tundra Orbit to optimize delivering power to cold, dark parts of North America (or Eurasia).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tundra_orbit