No. The best thing you can do with a lot of mass in LEO is construct solar power stations that beam energy down to Earth in the form of microwaves. This is what the second book, Critical Mass, gets into. Receivers on Earth wouldn't provide as much power as solar, but would be much easier to construct and work 24/7, no matter the weather. This would be highly useful for reducing climate change and increasing climate resilience.
NASA did a feasibility study of this even accounting for future technology improvements/cost reductions and it doesn't seem to come close to earthbound alternatives, especially nuclear fission.
Nuclear fission is more stable, less maintenance, less risky, less upfront and ongoing environmental damage, less vulnerable to all sorts of risks, and produces way way more energy.
> We find the SBSP designs are more expensive than terrestrial alternatives and may have lifecycle costs per unit of electricity that are 12-80 times higher
I was talking about having mass in orbit from mined asteroids (or the moon), like the grandparent comment. This survey is based entirely on launched SBSP:
> This study assessed lifecycle cost and emissions based on the following scenario: SBSP systems are developed on the ground in the 2030s and launched to low-Earth orbit (LEO), and then transferred to and assembled in geostationary orbit (GEO) in the 2040s.
Furthermore, one main benefit of SBSP over nuclear is that the receivers don't need to be connected to the grid; each household or piece of infrastructure can have one. This would help manage situations like the power outage in Spain earlier this year or the situation at the start of KSR's Ministry for the Future where a deadly heatwave in India is made 10x worse by coinciding power outages.
I see -- so we're going to build an end-to-end solar panel/reflector factory in space, from initial mined materials through to operational energy production and transmission. Color me skeptical.
> This would help manage situations like...
Aren't these situations trivially solvable with batteries if there were political will to be prepared for them?
Since nuclear fission is enbarrassingly uncompetitive on Earth, where is this "especially" coming from? The comment seems to be impeaching the credibility of the study, if it concluded nuclear on Earth would be the top contender non-fossil energy source.
> study isn't credible based on misreading of a comment about the study
No, nuclear isn't the best in $/TWh, though it is quite close. The reason it's so uncompetitive has to do with the gigantic payback period and the fact that renewables (increasingly) eat into its demand intermittently which lengthens the payback period even further.
But if you include environmental impact, nuclear is absolutely amazing. Which, if you'll recall, was a dimension named as important by the GP: "[space based solar generation] would be highly useful for reducing climate change and increasing climate resilience"
It seems you have plenty of time to form your opinions about what's scientifically and economically sound based on sci-fi novels, but not enough to read the executive summary of a NASA study that actually investigated the proposal at hand.
Indeed. It's a certainty that Mars is far far less hospitable than Earth even in the worst of the climate change outcomes. I suppose the most useful thing about colonizing Mars would be for species survival - e.g. the Giant-Asteroid-Strikes-the-Earth-but-luckily-not-Mars scenario.
In any case, a nearby planet or its orbit would seem to be the most logical place to start for any supervillain species seeking to colonize its galaxy. :-)
I haven't done the math but I suspect if we really cared about that risk, it'd be orders of magnitude easier to build far better asteroid detection and deflection systems. The reason we haven't is because in reality we don't care much about that risk relative to the costs of addressing it (even with the cheapest possible solutions, which are not "colonize another planet").
> The reason we haven't is because in reality we don't care much about that risk relative to the costs of addressing it (even with the cheapest possible solutions, which are not "colonize another planet").
You’re making a big jump to conclusions there. Globally we (EU and US) do care about this risk and in fact are spending hundreds of millions per year.
Or at least we were spending that amount. There’s some idiots cutting that budget in NASA AFAIK.
No, you're misunderstanding my point. I'm aware money is being spent on this.
Let's say being multiplanetary gives you 99% risk mitigation of asteroid decimation.
My point is that we could pursue that level of risk mitigation via detection and deflection methods by pouring more money into it.
It is obviously far cheaper to achieve 99% risk mitigation by dumping money into detection and deflection than it is to colonize another planet to the point of self-sufficiency.
A couple trillion dollars might get us to a basic self-sustaining colony on Mars, but you could defend earth, and all of its immense natural and man-made assets, to a similar degree for orders of magnitude less money. We already choose not to do this because we don't care to achieve that level of risk mitigation even at the lower price point.
