You won't get the solar cells in space for 100 times more square meters per dollar than on earth! You need those as well as the rectenna, so I think your three orders of magnitude are a bit optimistic. Also the higher efficiency of the rectenna only improves the area and cost of the ground part. The overall efficiency is going to be worse as the energy still passes through PV cells.
Chris
I agree with that, wind mills in water cost twice as much, solar in space is silly, one fast pebble, ruins your day.
George H.
It does on the ground, too. OTOH, there aren't all that many hail storms in space.
{about orbital power using a microwave beam-down scheme]
Because the space-based generators were working off a heat engine, with reflected sunlight, there's no expense in photovoltaics to be considered. The only part that doesn't scale up nicely, is the heat radiator.
Big mirror, small boiler, turbines... the working fluid was going to be argon, as I recall. Lots of different proposals, certainly it's more feasible than (for instance) a manned Mars base.
The transmitters can use tubes. Vacuum is free in space!
;)
The shock wave from objects in low Earth orbit produces a lot of ions, though, which might eat cathodes and so on.
Joerg wouldn't have to worry about a fan failure taking out the final tubes in his California Kilowatt!
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required