I'm rabidly pro-space development to the point of mental illness. I would happily support PowerSats if I thought they had a prayer of being economical. The same holds true for mining aluminum, oxygen and He-3 on the Moon (all of that is obvious economic nonsense). Advocating space development concepts that have no economic validity does nothing for the cause of getting human beings into space. All it does is de-focus space advocacy away from more important issues, e.g. Cheap Access to Space and Mars colonization. I remember when PowerSats were first promoted. The concept was almost instantly swatted down by a Department of Energy study (the concept was dead-on-arrival). The space advocacy community didn't pay attention and continued to flail that dead horse for another 5 years. Their efforts were totally wasted and could have been spent lobbying Congress for a second generation space shuttle or a more aggressive Mars exploration program. The fact that we (the space advocacy community) did not adequately promote a second generation space shuttle thus allowing the original Space Shuttle to become a political liability is a real sorry commentary.

After Saudi crude oil gets expensive, the list of alternative energy schemes that become economically viable is almost endless. For economic viability, PowerSats are way down there near the bottom of the list along side ocean thermal gradients and Australian oil shale. The United States has 500 cubic miles of high quality anthracite coal in the state of Montana. Queensland, Australia has 30 billion tons of identified black coal. It would be unwise to burn that coal because it would ruin the land and produce carbon dioxide emission. However there are carbon dioxide containment technologies that might become economical if the price of Saudi crude got high enough.

Don't waste your effort on PowerSats.

Gary