Sounds fishy to me. If it isn't going to be powerful enough to hurt a human standing in the beam, then its scarcely stronger than sunlight. With lower energy of microwave energy cf visible light, where is the energy required to do anything useful? They'd be better off directly reflecting sunlight onto an existing array of solar panels steering the beam to avoid cloud cover.

If you're going to cite SpaceX you may as well express your integrity further by citing Theranos and Worldcom.

There's no such thing as a "suction force". You have positive pressure in the pool, and no counteracting pressure in the tube, resulting in air pressure+gravity forcing fluid into the tube. When that fluid is forced around the turn, it transfers angular momentum to the sprinkler. In this case, it seems that internal details of the hub are dominating the action of the nozzles, and it appears that small design changes in the hub could reverse the direction.

“WE”?!?!!? I’m going to be long dead before 2175! Let this be the next generation’s problem. 😂

I don't think this will work. First, I don't really get the "there is no moving part we collect light from any orientation". This looks kinda ineffective, or at leas reliant on some sort of propulsion or reaction wheel. Honnestly I kinda have hard time believing it, but let's suppose it is okay. Then you have the little assembly animation. Moving in space is really not like moving on earth. I have hard time believing that anyone looking at a project like this would use little robots over some kind of arms. And calling arms complicated is... I mean, I don't know, maybe that's because I'm a programmer, but I think that "docking" that ammount of solar modules without any overshoot is far way harder than just having some kind of arm with little fixed attachment points and predefined moves to get from one point to another safely with the next module to put. I also though it was some kind of concentrated solar, or some really thin flexible solar pannels that would be deployed after launch, but it looks like real pannels. I don't know. I really like the whole idea and the whole project but I also really have hard time believing that this one project is the one that will achieve it. And you know, I was kinda a believer about space X and rocket reusability even before they did it. I always though it was kinda stupid to ditch the whole thing instead of just ejecting it a bit before to have enough fuel to land. I'd suggest anyone that have interest in that kind of field (space tech) to put a eye and try kerbal space program. You'll get a good glimpse on how any orbital manoeuver are hard, especially docking. (Yes, I know how to dock into ksp, and I can basically dock any two vessels in like, 2 to 5 minutes chrono, but that's with training, and understanding of the mechanics... and fuel).

This technology is so cool. I do love science and physics. And in the distant future it might be something. But since, it hasn't been dealt with for about 50 years and will take 50 more years to work, if at all, there are so many questions to be answered. Producing solar panels is also very environmentally dirty(look it up) whether they are sent to space or not. In addition, Starship is not presently viable and won't be for years, if ever. In addition, Nuclear, for example, is not new. It has almost a century of use and assessment. France and Germany(before Germany went woke) showed the benefits of nuclear. France today, gets 75% of its power with nuclear, but no one talks about it because there have been no major problems. Modern nuclear is as safe as most, and safer than many other types of energy production. And Nuclear is here now! Nuclear has essentially had "bad press". Don't be part of that cabal. Humans burn coal, natural gas, wood and other substances for energy today because they are cheap and efficient. So getting governments out of the way and building nuclear power plants as cheaply, safely and efficiently as possible, would solve any power requirements we may have now or in the future. And importantly, without one molecule of carbon dioxide produced during use. And overall it is cheap and efficient. So spend the time and money to make nuclear as clean and efficient as possible. Then we'll have plenty of green power for today and the future. Then we'll have the time and energy to spend on futurist technologies. These "Space Power" technologies are cool, but we live in the real world of NOW!

Space solar is good, but I don't think we should be microwaving the Earth from orbit. Since we'll be using the additional power to run computers anyway, just have the computers up in the shade behind the solar panel, and you don't have to deal with all those beaming losses and you won't microwave birds.

By the time this wonderful not green idea comes to fruition - the two largest generations to ever exist, will be dead... leaving less than 5 billion people world population. We needed this last 15yrs. Reactive not proactive ideas end up expensive. (just my 2 cents)

A "technology for reaching net zero emissions" which requires 68 rocket launches to hopefully power a small town...

As someone working in the phased array industry, I think I'd safely bet on this never happening.

What is the name of the Asimov book?

Technically, it’s being used for nuclear weapons research.

At least the aircraft avoid zone would police itself.

😒 I suggest forcing poor people to pay to subsidize Electric plastic & corrupt GREEN billionaires 😒

Losing the internet is not bad for us we lost our wifi/internet for 8 months and were still ok

My only real concern for this is the "construction phase" that will be the real issue if, or when, this technology comes to fruition--past the planning and investment phase.

Can we not beam extra energy down to earth and just...collect sunlight ON the planet??!?!?! Like please god we don't have fuck w the planet anymore lets just quit it

IF this is done on any scale it will dwarf the effects of greenhouse gasses in its effect on climate.

this guys is just simply reading in front of his camera.

The earth has a LOT of empty land. America is like 60% empty land.

I know it's 'geek speak', but you never mention the calculated LCOE (levelized cost of energy) of this hypothetical 2 GW system. I'm sure Space Solar has a calculation. That's why they chose 2 GW - it's probably only at this scale that LCOE over 25 years theoretically competes with nuclear. Also the 'falling costs of solar' DO NOT automatically translate into 'falling costs of solar panels made for space', which are much more complex devices. I'm more of a fan of massive deployment of land based solar and all forms of electrical energy storage. This stuff might be cool for delivering energy to isolated places where traditional renewables or grids are just not feasible.

Realistic NASA aerospace engineers have expressed serious skepticism of this to me. Cost? These projections aren’t honest. Robustness? Microwave beam safety? Real problems here. Indeed the skepticism borders on scoffing! Soooooo……

As someone with a physics background I see some potential red flags that weren't really addressed in the video. The idea is to take sunlight that would not otherwise fall incident on the surface of the earth, and redirect that energy so that it does (albeit captured and re-transmitted as RF). Are there not concerns that we're ADDING energy to a largely closed system in an era where climate change is the number one concern? What about the surface directly below the beam? Are the microwaves not heating the water molecules that happen to find themselves in the path of the beam? This will be exacerbated by placing the collection antenna on the ocean, but even on land, the water in the atmosphere will be heated by the beam. Even if the heating is small, its heat that wouldn't have ever been part of the sun-earth system before, and will have a net heating effect. Am I missing something? This just seems like a HORRIBLE idea for combating climate change, existing only to drum up investment cash and line people's pockets.

The problem of space solar is you are adding extra energy to our environment, this when you use the energy it will add to climate change.

My worry is that it is so big, which means a lot of area for space debris to hit it

Make no mistake, this is a weapon.

This is going to go horrendously, in the long term. Because that's where planning stops nowadays, just before the future.

.....id gladly have a nuclear reactor in my back yard in exchange for free power.

Nope, not buying it, given that solar and wind are *already* the cheapest forms of electricity, what’s the point? It’s depressing how many smart people in the renewables sector so often stop themselves to a red herring and disappear into the sunset.

68 starship launches to build it will use up more energy than this solar plant will produce in it's life. So dumb.

Can these effectively service electric Airplanes?

“Commence primary ignition…”

Kryon, a Channeled Entity, recently said "Winter is Coming." But before that fully happens, there WILL be a slight warming trend, then the Cold will come. Kryon also said this recent Methane Pollution and warming/cooling of the Atmosphere is NOT 'Our Fault', but part of a natural climate/weather cycle, though we may have hastened it a bit.

We need a lot more information about the cost, feasibility, environmental impact, weather resilience, and maintenance issues of these 60 sq km receiver arrays out at sea. Details notably absent. Elephant in the room, methinks.

Isaac Asimov wrote a short story how they built this and put a receiver on the ground and environmentalists blew it up.

Solar panels are not recyclable and toxic.

This can be interesting for powering moon colonies

Why not have the skins of your ships be double hulled with a water layer sandwiched between? Then have the outer plates be magnetized. And in the interior have one of those funny sodium spinning machines like the one on veritasiums channel, to generate the outermost layer.

"We don't really have any solution to power demands doubling" yeah. We do. It's called nuclear power.

Really no need for this. Can all be done on Earth with solar and wind turbines for less money and much quicker. Not sure how space panels are suddenly 40% efficient when current best is around 23%. And where the heck does solar become only 1% efficient, what does that even mean?

This solves the intermittency issue 🤔🤔

Why is rocket fuel cheaper but gasoline more expensive, and how can I make my car run on rocket fuel?

I like the idea of PWM phased beaming between locations on earth to balance power between locations based on need. It might work well with terrestrial solar intermittency to match local demand and reduce the need for fosil fuel peaker plants. Receiving PWM beamed power might create a need for very short term power storage to smooth out the average power recieved over a second or two. I suspect capacitors would ideally fill this role with their high power capacity and long maintenence free life span.

What? Ain't 2.4Ghz known for being absorbed by water and short range? IE the same frequency as used by Fkking wifi?!?!

How is a particle a counterpart to a particle on the other side of the universe? You start off with foolish premise you arrive at a foolish conclusion.

Star Trek.

Every world government: “how can we weaponise this giant beam of concentrated heat?”

Death Beam

Yeah this will happen but probably 2040 as opposed to 2030. Since fusion generators are easier to build; let’s focus on that. We CAN build them; we just need to figure out the fusion part

Large scale renewable energy projects ate great, but they make billionaires more billions. Solar panels on every home, business and covered parking rooftop however empower everyone as their own power generation owners. There's no comparison