OPEN LETTER TO ARPA-E on Space Solar Power

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Marty Hoffert
To: Arunava Majumdar ; Arun Majumdar
Cc: Steve Chu ; David.Danielson; eric; john_holdren
Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 3:45:55 AM
Subject: Presentation at ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit

Dear Prof. Majumdar:

I write to propose a high-level briefing, perhaps at the ARPA-E Energy Innovation Pre-Conference Workshop on March 1 at the Gaylord Convention Center in DC, on space-based solar power (SBSP); and, as a possible specific example, a near-term ARPA-E funded project to test it by laser beaming of solar energy collected in orbit from the International Space Station to collectors on Earth (see attached).

Longer term, but soon, a laser SBSP demonstrator in geostationary orbit could be deployed. If successful, there are many plausible business plans for commercialization, at least as much as for terrestrial solar, with which space-based solar would logically can co-evolve.  Even now, a California company, Solaren, has signed a proprietary agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric to deliver 200 megawatts of electricity from space to their grid by 2016. And whereas, for technical reasons relating to large space components needed for "first power," we don't think their microwave beaming approach is the way to go initially, the technology needs to be taken seriously.

Despite a strong endorsement by the recent Pentagon NSSO Report (see below), and major investments by Japan's space agency and Mitsubishi electric, the US has no agency-funded SBSP programs.  This is bad. Would we have ever gotten the Internet from private sector investments and venture capital only? Twenty years with DARPA and ten more with NSF funding were needed for the Internet, which changed, and continues to change the world, took off. Only logical that ARPA-E, whose charter is to make "transformative" energy systems real, should fund SBSP. It doesn't yet, nor does any other US agency. Most funders are inherently risk-averse. But ARPA presents a unique opportunity to explore a revolutionary energy technology that could run civilization on a global scale with minimum environmental impact. (We realize that this and other assertions on the state-of-the-art, on costs and on weapons implications, must be defended. That's what we want. But it needs doing at a sufficiently high organizational level that ARPA-E decision-makers and advisors, mainly yourself, but also Steve Chu, John Holdren, Jim Woolsey and senior ARPA-E program managers can engage the real issues.

We're fighting to be heard. Pretty accomplished guys (no false modesty here), my son and business partner Eric and I did get a chance to pitch SBSP to Dave Danielson last September at the L'Enfant Plaza ARPA-E offices.  Having received the official ARPA-E "discouragement letter" for our laser SBSP Concept paper along with 98% of fellow proposers -- I know, there wasn't enough money -- I was pleasantly surprised to be contacted by Dave, who informed me that our rejection should be seen perhaps more as a postponement of consideration.  There is not a lot of technological literacy about space solar power -- not surprising in light of the funding dessert we're in.  You have to pay the rent.  Lucky I'm an emeritus professor of physics and Eric has an active software business. It has been a long labor of love to nurture and develop these ideas.  But we, along with competent colleagues whom we have come to know well, can do this job. It might be a good idea to kick off this project for ARPA-E, if it happens, with a technical conference for the major players.  Initially skeptic, by the end of our presentation to Dave Danielson,  he told us that our case was compelling.  Please ask him about this. He has notes on our meeting, and has encouraged us to cite his conclusions. The next step, he said, was to convince you.

I suspect that you are not the only one to convince. I have heard from a colleague that during a recent talk at an IIT in India, Steve Chu was questioned about whether the US was willing to participate in joint research with India on solar power satellites, which the president of India had found exciting as a possible energy source.  His response, I am told, was that so far, Marty Hoffert had not convinced him SBSP costs would not be prohibitive. We have in fact developed a careful cost analysis showing current costs of terrestrial and space-based solar power for base load are comparable, and that both may be expected to drop along standard "learning by doing" curves to someday compete with coal for electricity -- Google's famous SE < C.  NREL's solar energy roadmap is based on these projections, and we have similar ones for launch costs to geostationary orbit. The Chu story may be apocryphal, but technical arguments and perceptions have to be engaged or we'll never get anywhere. We have to talk to you guys.

Hence our request to do a high level briefing on space-based solar power. The upcoming ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit, March 1-3, may or may not be the place for it.  I do see from the draft agenda that the Pre-Conference Workshop on Monday has morning and afternoon  breakout sessions on grid scale energy storage, power electronics, solar PV and solar thermal, all of which are component technologies of a space solar power system.  Perhaps you can find a slot for the briefing we propose, or alternately, we could make it another time or place. In any case I've made reservations to stay at the Gaylord Convention Center Feb. 28-March 2 (yesterday was the last day for the conventional rate). And I did indicate to your assistant Norman Kaufmann, my and Eric's desire to participate productively in the meeting in whatever way is useful, not only in giving this talk, but as panel members, etc.  Registration fees are another story as we have no present source of funds other than our pockets for this. We have, so far, not heard back. But I hope, you or Norman will find time from your busy schedule to get back to me soon.

Best regards,

Marty Hoffert
Professor Emeritus of Physics   
Andre and Bella Meyer Hall of Physics
4 Washington Place    
New York University
New York, NY 10003-6621    
                        
NYU Phone:  212-998-3747   
NYU Fax:     212-995-4016
Home Phone: 516-466-9418
Home Fax:    516-487-0734
Cellphone:     516-972-4779
Email:        marty.hoffert@nyu.edu 
Web page:  http://www.physics.nyu.edu/people/hoffert.martin.html

DOWNLOADABLE REFERENCES

TRANSFORMATIVE ENERGY TECHNOLOGY IN GENERAL

• Science paper first-authored by yours truly & co-authored by 17 energy/climate experts on advanced energy tech to address global climate change including letters to the editor &  responses thereto (1 Nov. 2002):

http://homepage.mac.com/marty.hoffert/filechute/Hoffert_etal_Science+Lett.pdf

• Report in Andy Revkin's  New York Times dotEarth blog  (3 Dec. 2007) on a letter to Congress by yours truly co-signed by 36 energy/climate experts -- including three, who, like Steve Chu, are Nobel laureates -- supporting ramping-up investment to $30 billion per year to "develop, demonstrate, and stimulate the commercialization of a range of technologies and approaches that can provide affordable carbon-neutral energy, and to use that energy more wisely." This is similar to my Congressional testimony supporting transformative energy R & D at funding levels that can make a difference for carbon dioxide emission phaseout by midcentury -- a scale sufficient also to stimulate US job-creation near-term. The scaled-down version passed by Congress funds ARPA-E at $400 million for a limited time through the Stimulus Bill. It could only support 2% of round one Concept paper proposals received by ARPA-E -- a scale biased for various reasons against truly transformative carbon-neutral energy systems like space-base solar power.  Many economists now call for much larger energy tech investments for both environmental and economy stimulus reasons, as we did in '07:

http://homepage.mac.com/marty.hoffert/filechute/Hoffert_etal_EnergyLetter.pdf

• My Video Interview on "CleanSkies" on ARPA-E proposal reviews & funding (8 Nov. 2009):

http://www.cleanskies.com/videos/some-question-doe-grant-process

• Science Magazine News article on ARPA-E funding citing my comments (22 August 2009):

http://homepage.mac.com/marty.hoffert/filechute/Mervis-Science-ARPA-E_stum.pdf

• My TV interview on PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on the release of the IPCC "Mitigation Report" making the case for innovative energy research to address climate change (10 Oct 2007):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdTb5xzUXJM

SPACE-BASED SOLAR POWER (SBSP)

• My recent talk as a PowerPoint File on "Solar Electricity from Orbit" presented at New Jersey Institute of Technology colloquium, Newark, NJ (4 Nov, 2009):

http://homepage.mac.com/marty.hoffert/filechute/Hoffert-NJIT.ppt

• Eric & my ARPA-E Concept Paper, "Laser PV Tests for Space Based Solar Power" submitted from our startup, Versatility Energy Systems, South Orange, NJ (2 June 2009):

http://homepage.mac.com/marty.hoffert/filechute/Hofferts_arpa-e_Concept_Pa.pdf

• On inter-generational collaboration on solar power from space (27 June 2008):

http://homepage.mac.com/marty.hoffert/filechute/Hofferts%20-%20The%20Son%20Also%20Ri.pdf

• Google Tech Talk video of my overview lecture, "Electricity from Orbit: The Case for R & D," including a comparison of spot sizes on Earth for space mirrors, microwave and laser beams in geostationary orbit and the advantages of starting near-term with lasers, presented at NASA/Ames & Google, Mountain View, CA (5 Dec. 2007):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9YD9-_WTjk

• Pentagon National Security Space Office (NSSO) report supporting space-based solar power for strategic energy security, and the need for institutional research support by a US government agency to underwrite the risk of development (10 Oct. 2007):

http://homepage.mac.com/marty.hoffert/filechute/NSSO-sbsp.pdf

• Space.com online article on Solaren proprietary plans for near-term electricity from orbiting ultralight SBSP employing microwave beaming to address California's 2020 goal of 33% carbon-neutral electricity by 2020 citing my initial response to the idea (2 Dec, 2009):

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/091202-space-power-beaming.html

• NPR News audio clip on Solaren concept for selling carbon-neutral electricity from space to PG & E by 2016, including new info on their distributed component concept from CEO Gary Spirnak (17 Dec., 2009):

http://homepage.mac.com/marty.hoffert/filechute/Solaren-NPR-12_17-09.2.m4a

50% Favor Cutting Back on Space Exploration

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/january_2010/50_favor_cutting_back_on_space_exploration

Fifty percent (50%) of Americans now say the United States should cut back on space exploration given the current state of the economy, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Just 31% disagree with cutting the space program, and 19% more are not sure.

The new findings mark a six-point increase in support - from 44% last July - for cutting back on space exploration.

Still, Americans are almost evenly divided when asked if the space program should be funded by the government or by the private sector. Thirty-five percent (35%) believe the government should pay for space research, while 38% think private interests should pick up the tab. Twenty-six percent (26%) aren’t sure which is best.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

Sixty-four percent (64%) of adults have at least a somewhat favorable view of NASA, including 18% with a very favorable opinion of the government’s chief space agency. Just 20% have a somewhat or very unfavorable opinion of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, which celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2008.

But that marks a sizable drop in support for NASA from a survey last May. At that time, 81% had a favorable view of NASA, including 24% with a very favorable opinion.

The May findings, however, were a 23-point rebound for the space agency fromJuly 2007 when just 58% had a favorable opinion. But, at that time, NASA was suffering some bad publicity, including reports about drunken astronauts.

In the budget President Obama proposes in early February, NASA is hoping for $22 billion for the coming fiscal year, up $3 billion over the current year. This funding, according to news reports, will keep the agency on track for projects including landing on one of Mars’ moons in the next 15 years and further exploring the Earth’s moon.

Women and Americans ages 18 to 29 are more strongly in support of cutting back on space exploration than are men and older adults. Democrats are more likely to agree than are Republicans and adults not affiliated with either party.

Women also feel more strongly that the space program should be funded by the private sector. But unaffiliated adults and those in both political parties are narrowly divided over whether the space program is a government or private business responsibility.

Investors are evenly divided on the question, while non-investors lean slightly more toward private sector financing.

Only 27% of Americans believe the current goals of the space program should include sending someone to Mars. Fifty percent (50%) oppose such a mission, with 24% undecided. The findings on this question are unchanged from last July.

The feelings are virtually identical about sending someone to the moon. Twenty-six percent (26%) like the idea, but twice as money (52%) are opposed to sending someone to the moon as one of the current goals of the space program.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

That article brings to mind the famous Matula poll cited in the NSSO Report:

Note that the public is 3x as excited about Space Solar Power than Mars or the Moon, and 2x more excited about Planetary Defense than Mars or the Moon.  Of course, the Moon is important for Space Solar Power, but the Moon's importance MUST be seen in the context of Space INDUSTRIALIZATION and DEVELOPMENT, NOT in terms of Space Exploration.  The poll rightly shows the public is smarter than the policymakers.  They recognize that exploration is not the right game for the 21st century, and want more emphasis on development.  They see the possibilities of commercial space, and want to see NASA play an enabling not inhibiting role.  Which means NASA can't continue to be a National Socialist Space-lines, but rather the anchor customer supporting the industry, and conducting pre-competitive research.

NASA, NSS, and Secure World Foundation Post Air Force Report on Interagency Asteroid Scenario

http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/neo/niaa2008.html
http://www.nss.org/resources/library/planetarydefense/2008-NaturalImpactAfterActionReport.pdf
http://planetarydefense.blogspot.com/2009/04/dod-tabletop-exercise-on-planetary.html
Secure World provides a useful summary:
From: http://www.secureworldfoundation.org/blog/2009/04/natural-impact-event-interagency.html
Natural Impact Event Interagency Planning Exercise
The U.S. Air Force Future Concepts and Transformation Division hosted a Natural Impact Event Interagency Planning Exercise on December 4, 2008, in Alexandria, Virginia. Twenty Seven Subject Matter Experts from across US Government, including the Departments of Defense, Energy, State, Homeland Security; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Security Council (NSC) participated in a single day tabletop exercise to explore “whole of government” response to an impending asteroid strike. Peter Anthony Garretson (Council of Foreign Relations) and Lindley N. Johnson (Planetary Science Division, HQ NASA) also wrote a paper summarizing the findings.The specific scenario involved a mythical asteroid, “2008 Innoculatus.” It was a binary asteroid consisting of a 270-meter rocky rubble pile projected to strike the Gulf of Guinea and a 50-meter metallic companion asteroid projected to strike in the National Capital Region (NCR). The scenario was selected to maximize exposure to the diversity of threat (variation in size, composition, land/water strike), stress both national and international notification, and provide useful pre-planning should an actual effort need to be mounted against the asteroid Apophis when it has a small probability to pass through a gravitational keyhole in 2029 and perhaps return to strike the Earth seven years later in 2036. Players were broken into two teams. The first team focused on disaster response and was told the asteroid was discovered 72 hours from impact. The second team focused on deflection/mitigation was told the asteroid had been discovered seven years from impact, and to design a “strawman” deflection plan using existing capabilities. Major findings include:
- The NEO impact scenario is not captured in existing plans
- The NEO impact scenario should be elevated to higher level exercises with more senior players
- Proper planning and response to a NEO emergency requires delineation of organizational responsibilities including lead agency and notification standards,
- Players were not able to achieve consensus on which agency should lead the NEO deflection/mitigation effort
- There is a deficit in software tools to support senior decision-making and strategic communication for disaster response and mitigation for a NEO scenario
- There are significant effects a NEO impact would generate that are not adequately captured in existing models
- The public may be aware of an impending NEO impact before senior decision-makers
- Lead time for evacuation requires decisions be made before best information is available
- Public safety and tranquility require that the federal government be able to rapidly establish a single authoritative voice and tools to present critical information
- The preferred approach for short-notice NEO deflection was stand-off nuclear

Change in the Air? Will we see action on Space Solar Power?

Post the NSSO report, there has been quiet but sustained advocacy on the part of SSAFE (an alliance of pro-space groups), and a deluge of articles (and even a Discovery Channel Special), as can be seen on the NSS Library's two sites that religiously track new articles:
http://www.nss.org/news/releases/pc20071010.html#newsreports and
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/index.htm#links
And that activity & publicity seems to have borne fruit:
- The Naval Research Lab (NRL) recently followed up with its own extensive report:

http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/2008-NRLSBSP-PossibleDefenseApplicationsAndOpportunities.pdf

- The US Chamber's Space Enterprise Council has endorsed further study:
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/2008-SECSpaceBasedSolarPowerWhitePaper.pdf
- The Baker Institute / Abbey Lane provided recommendations to the Obama Transition team that specifically recommended investing long-term in Space Solar Power
http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/SPACE-pub-ObamaTransitionAbbeyLaneMuratore-012009.pdf
- The Obama transition team also posted a white paper on the subject as one of the first 10 ideas it put out for comment on Change.gov (at least three individuals who were on the space transition team, and one on the energy transition team, are thought to be sympathetic toward the concept)
http://change.gov/page/-/open%20government/yourseatatthetable/20081123_ssp.pdf
- The Department of Commerce's Office of Space Commercialization now has its own website devoted to Space Solar Power:
http://www.space.commerce.gov/power/
So, will a new administration, looking to find its own way in Space, Green Energy, international cooperation find Space-Based Solar Power to be a match made in heaven?