"ESA Reignites Space-based Solar Power Research" shar.es/aWEETb via @spacecom - But does ESA considers a comprehensive study to assess the global impact of the large scale launch activity required to support the deployment of large solar power facilities in orbit? 1/
I attended most of the ESA workshop on solar Power Satellites mentioned in the article, and the question of the carbon/climate/energy footprint of launch was not a headline topic and was not addressed. For a "net zero" approach this seemed very incomplete to me. 2/
For instance, a baseline (very optimistic) design for a 2GW power unit in orbit would require the deployment of >2000 tons in GEO. That's about 300 Ariane5 launches just for the deployment, probably exceeding a few million tons of CO2? 3/ fnc.co.uk/discover-fraze…
But there is the lurking idea that launch activity has a significant life cycle impact and an important CO2 footprint (as found here: interesting that this presentation does not give the actual figures of CO2 impact of Ariane5) 4/ indico.esa.int/event/181/cont…
I think that any comprehensive study of solar power satellites projects (for "net zero") shall assess the complete energy input-output equation, and consider an LCA-based environmental impact assessment, inclusive of the launch activity (that probably has the highest impact). 5/
Today Solar Power Satellites concepts usually consider launch requirements from the sole perspective of cost/price. And they are currently revived by the perspective of 'low cost' launch (because at >5k$/kg in LEO they all fall short economically). 6/
Furthermore, to achieve viability, the proposed projects assume very high energetic efficiency for space PV systems (>2kW/kg) and rely on undemonstrated high power density solutions such as thin film. Today we are very far from that: the space solar panels are at <0,2kW/kg. 7/
Not only are the solutions still technically immature, but these projects have yet to demonstrate their viability in a 3-dimensional framework: energetic, economic and environmental. Then a full life cycle analysis would be required, in the same 3-dimensional framework. 8/
I think that as a a pre-requisite for any SPS study framework, we'd need a full assessment of the energetic, carbon and environmental impact of launch activity, with a reference data set for various propellants, architectures and mission scenarios. 9/ @ESAcleanspace
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Hello Space Twitter. As 2021 s coming to a close, I am looking back at my tweet history, and thought it would be interesting to share the most significant threads I published in 2021. I have gathered them by themes in this thread of threads. 1/
After seeing so many "artistic" space market forecasts lying around, and considering that this art form seems not so difficult, I decided to try my hand at it with a forecast on constellations markets. Here is my step by step tutorial applied to real data. 1/
But first the key findings. If ALL constellations announced today eventually secure the funding to deploy in full, the total (additional) satellite demand would be between 40 and 60 B$/year, and the launch demand would be 8B$/year. There would be >16000 sats launched per year. 2/
In other words if ALL the announced constellations eventually happen the total launch market value would double in the next decade, and the value of the satellite market would increase by 50-70%. But is this a credible prediction? 3/
For instance when looking at global spacecraft production volume (left), and global mass launched in space by launcher manufacturing region (right), the European space sector is probably in 4th or 5th place. 2/
When considering the volume of institutional demand, again, Europe is in 4th or 5th position. Notice how the governments of China and the USA promote a volume of activity in their domestic industry which is almost one order of magnitude higher than in Europe. 3/
I was sifting through @VirginOrbit investor deck (because I am a masochist obviously) and I came across the 25B$ market projection for "Small-Satellite launch" by 2030. The reference source is "Prophesy Market Insights". So I looked it up on Google. 1/ virginorbit.com/wp-content/upl…
When I first saw the reference in the SEC filing for the merger I thought it was a typo. But when I see it spelt the same way in the investor deck I don't know what to think. Because the term "prophesy market insights" only yields 3 results on Google. 2/ google.com/search?q=%22pr…
So let's assume that it is indeed a typo (if so, it is repeated twice, in two similarly important documents), and let's correct it to "Prophecy Market Insights". This name actually yields a positive result. 3/ prophecymarketinsights.com
@VirginOrbit#SPAC filings reveal the most insane market assessment ever. IDK who these 'Prophesy' guys are, but in 2019 the total launch market was 8B$ in value. The launch market for satellites <500kg (up to 'Mini') was <1B$/year in the past 5 years. 1/ sec.gov/Archives/edgar…
I don't know if anybody will be held accountable for such a blatant overestimate of the small satellite launch market value, but luring investors in believing this business is 8B$/year is incredibly dishonest IMHO, particularly in light of the usual mantra of 'reduced costs'. 2/
If that market value was correct, the average price of launching 42t of mini satellites (<500kg) in 2019 would have been close to 200k$/kg. A preposterous value: we know that small launch is expensive, but not THAT expensive! 3/
What's the cost of a #OneWeb satellite? A thread.
Yesterday at a round table, one of my co-panelists, Chris McLaughlin of @OneWeb reacted to my talk on constellation economics with a statement: "a OneWeb satellite cost 1,2M$". Now, what do the financial statements say?
1/
In order to double check the statement I have pulled down @OneWeb's financial statements and have looked at the value of property (as from March 2021). oneweb.net/assets/news/me… 2/
The "space component under construction" is worth 1046M$. We also learn that the satellites already in orbit are considered under construction and will not be depreciated 'until sufficient coverage has been created to offer a commercial service'. 3/