The myth of the cosmic solar power station

I present to the public some thoughts about the space solar power station (CSE).
The theory can be read on Wikipedia and more here .

Where we will place the CSE? Most likely at the GSO. In other orbits, it is necessary either to set up receivers all over the planet, or to carry a bunch of batteries with you.

Let's not fantasize yet, but let's deal with the available opportunities.

The Angara carrier rocket from the Plesetsk cosmodrome will carry 3-4 tons to the GSO. What can you put in them? Very approximately 100 squares of solar panels. With a constant focus on the sun and an efficiency of 20 percent, you can squeeze 300 watts per square. Suppose they will degrade by 5% per year (I hope nobody will be surprised that solar panels in space deteriorate due to radiation, micrometeorites, etc.).
Let's count: (100 * 300 * 24 * 365 * 20) / 2 = 2 628 000 000 Wh.
To realize the whole scale of the problem, let these megawatts reach the Earth without loss. Power inspires, but what if we do not fly anywhere. In the presence of 300 tons of kerosene. Kerosene is almost gasoline. Makes another assumption and take the usual gas generator (200 kW for 50 liters per hour).
200,000 * 300,000 / 50 = 1,200,000,000 Wh
What turns out: we merge gasoline from a rocket and we already receive half of power.
Another half racke takes liquid oxygen. I wanted to calculate the cooling and liquefaction through the heat capacity, but then I just got the price on the Internet of 8200 rubles per ton of liquid oxygen. Since the cost of almost one electricity will get (kilowatt let it be 2 rubles):
300 * 8200 * 1000/2 = 1 230 000 000 Wh
Oops, the second half. Already efficiency 0%. This we have not considered a rocket.
')

But we will invent a kind of payer of payloads into orbit

That is, somehow let the panels know the kinetic energy in the form of 10 km / s:
3000 * 10000 2/2 = 150000000000 J = 41 700 000 Wh
It seems to be an efficiency of 5000%, but there are some problems:
- it is unlikely that the object will be thrown high enough, therefore, part of the mass and energy must be spent on overcoming the atmosphere;
- all that has been thrown from the earth according to the laws of ballistics will return to the earth, that is, another part of the mass will go to the rise of perigee.
Let the ton went to thermal protection. Calculate the change of the orbit:
ΔV = root ((3,986 ּ 10 14/42000000) (1 + 2 * 6000000 / (6000000 + 42000000))) = 3441 m / s
The best engines give an impulse of 4500. We take the Tsiolkovsky formula:
M _final = 2000 / exp (4500/3500) = 572 kg
And let's take electric propulsion engines, the momentum is 10 times more and we have panels. Yes, but with the available power of the panels, the thrust will be millinewtons, and the transition will take years. And we have just a couple of hours before landing.
The result: minus the engine, tanks, overloads - well, if we get the same amount.

And let's raise the panels on the elevator

The idea is generally good. If you simply lift the load to a height, then we consider the change in potential energy:
3000 * 9.81 * 36000000/3600 = 294 300 000 Wh
How to report them to the load? Electricity transmission options:
- By the lift itself. It is not difficult to imagine the loss and mass of the conductor with a length of 36,000 km. Himself would build a lift.
- Laser - minus a significant part of the mass to transform.
- To deliver a certain number of panels in the traditional way and then lift the rest on a string for free. Megawatts of power need 3 km ² panels. At the same time, it will take two weeks to lift the load. Those. the same megawatt we will raise in a year.

Other difficulties

Freely operating with kilometers of panels and the efficiency of receiving solar energy in space, rare authors tell us how they are going to orient the panels to the sun. GSO is stationary only relative to the Earth. Accordingly, we need mechanisms, fuel.
Still need converters, custodians, receivers on Earth. Are there many consumers at the equator? High-voltage lines through half the bulb. If this is all multiplied by not 100% probability of completing the task, one wonders who is able to do it?

Findings:

- With existing technologies, building a space solar power station is unprofitable.
- Even if you lift everything on the space elevator, by the time construction is completed, the question will arise how to dispose of failing panels.
- You can fit an asteroid to Earth and make panels of it. Something tells me that by the time we can, it will no longer be necessary to transfer energy to Earth.

However, there is no smoke without fire. And under the apparent peaceful intentions may be hiding completely different.
For example, building a combat space station is much simpler and much more efficient:
- the orbit can and should be chosen lower;
- 100% hit in the receiver is optional;
- A very short time from pressing the start button to hitting the target;
- lack of pollution of the area.

These are the conclusions. Perhaps calculations contain errors. Traditionally, I suggest readers correct them.