[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://www.solardaily.com/reports/Sp...uture_999.html
The gist: Using space-based solar power generators orbiting the earth. In contrast to power from terrestrial solar power stations, space solar power would flow continuously to a power grid independent of the season, weather or location (and it's clean and green). Sunlight is eight times less intense on the earth's surface than in its geostationary orbit. So why not collect it in space and beam its energy to Earth via microwave power beam, which can penetrate the atmosphere more efficiently?
Long pole in the tent seems to be who's willing to pay for development (no surprise). Current launch costs also make deployment cost prohibitive.
[/ QUOTE ]
When it is economically correct to do so, things like this will happen. Until then, it would be a waste of resources.
[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the potential costs remain high, discouraging entrepreneurs and the government from investing in it. The major expense -- transporting equipment and materials into orbit aboard a space shuttle -- is $20,000 per kilogram of payload, or the carrying capacity of a space vehicle.
Proponents of space solar power believe the project would become viable economically if the payload cost could be reduced to below $200 per kilogram,
[/ QUOTE ]
I can't imagine why there isn't more investment, a mere 99% reduction in costs makes this economically feasible.
[/ QUOTE ]
The space shuttle is the most expensive spacelift today. The price of spacelift would come down in a major hurry if it's technologies and launches weren't so government subsidized. Why invest in a cheaper launch means yourself when you can pay a little to hop on a government rocket?