consideration as candidate concepts, and consequently were not provided full quantitative assessments. A final report on the Phase I efforts2 was prepared by the SSP study team and fully documents the work described above and the results leading up to Phase IL 1.4. Study Approach The groundrules established for this study, restricted the investigation to consider only Earth- orbiting/Earth manufactured SSP systems, in order to minimize the need for excessive a priori infrastructure investments. With respect to concepts and architectures several other guidelines were also implemented in this study. The study considered both U.S. and global markets. It examined architectures involving a few large spacecraft in high Earth orbit (e.g., GEO), as well as those with a larger number of smaller systems in lower orbits (e.g., sun-synchronous orbits). Power transmission to single and multiple sites was considered, as were various power levels. The analyses included the cost of power transmission to a standard intermediate distribution level in the power grid for various markets. As indicated in the Phase I discussion above, the study did not restrict the use of power relay satellites or other long-distance power transmission for the SSP architectures. With respect to the economic aspects of the investigation, element costs were estimated consistently across the study, uncertainties identified, and relationships between concepts, technologies, costs and uncertainties determined. Broad economic analyses were conducted, focused on market goals, (e.g., maximum tolerable prices) and system choices. The study did not seek new market analyses, but rehed on existing data. While study Phase I was very preparatory and qualitative in nature, the major efforts during Phase II were extremely quantitative and focused on model development, concept and data refinement, technical and economic performance evaluation, and concept assessment. In addition, several special topics of importance were addressed through the preparation of “white papers” by expert consultants. The Phase II activities included: • refinement and expansion of the system concepts/architectures selected in Phase I to a level of definition and understanding that enabled them to be quantitatively evaluated in terms of their technical and economic viability as well as their associated risks. • a competitive market analysis to understand the true cost of energy sources competing with SSP, through examination of the implied or real cost of mitigating “hidden” external factors (e.g., pollution, environmental contamination or damage, resource depletion, health inpacts, etc.) that are often not factored into the delivered price of energy. • further development of the Microsoft Excel-based model begun in Phase I, to provide the capabilities needed to characterize SSP concepts and architectures at a subsystem level of detail to simulate the performance and economics associated with their development, manufacture, deployment and operation; and to also provide an enhanced module for the Space Segment element of the SSP architecture that enabled the model to address and evaluate the various trade space options in terms of their performance and cost implications. 2 M. L. Stancati, H. Feingold, S. V. Deal, M. K. Jacobs, J. Lauderdale (SAIC) and C. B. Christensen, D. Comstock, G. E. Maryniak (Futron) “Space Solar Power: A Fresh Look Feasibility Study - Phase 1,” Report No. SAIC-96/1038, under Contract NAS3-26565,NASA Lewis Research Center, December 1995.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==