Like HowStuffWorks on Facebook!

Can we harness energy from outer space?

One Small Step for Man, One Giant Leap for Solar Power
A solar satellite like this would receive eight times more sun than one on Earth.
A solar satellite like this would receive eight times more sun than one on Earth.

Despite the fact that solar power is at our fingertips, there are benefits to outsourcing it beyond the stratosphere. Aside from the more obvious reason of avoiding the large land-use footprint presented by collections of solar panels, there's the fact that the sun actually does shine brighter on the other side of the fence. In this case, eight times brighter [source: Hanley].

Without the obstacles like rain, clouds and nighttime, solar arrays based in space would receive more concentrated solar rays than they would on Earth. The panels also wouldn't be subject to the seasonal fluctuations that are unavoidable on Earth.

Space solar power, or SSP, would basically work the same way that regular solar power works. The only difference is that the solar panels would either be attached to orbiting satellites or stationed on the moon (in which case it would be called lunar solar power, or LSP). The electricity created would be converted into microwaves and beamed down to Earth. Rectifying antennas, or rectennas, on the ground would collect the microwaves and convert them back into electricity.

If the concept seems like a stretch, consider that communications satellites already do something very similar when they transmit your cell phone conversations. Some people have even suggested that the solar panels could piggyback on communications satellites. In fact, one of the reasons space-based solar power has gotten so much attention is that all of the necessary equipment and technology is already developed and understood. The transmission of microwaves is old hat, and solar cells, or photovoltaics, are almost three times more efficient than they used to be [source: Philips].

Some initial proposals in the 1970s envisioned gigantic 3-by-6-mile (5-by-10-kilometer) solar panel arrays transmitting microwaves to rectifying antennas of a similar size. These geostationary satellites, 22,300 miles (36,000 kilometers) high would stay in the same place in relation to the Earth at all times. While just one of these satellites would produce enormous amounts of energy -- twice the energy output of the Hoover Dam -- launching such a big project proved to be economically impossible [source: Hanley].

Recent proposals to have smaller satellites circle the Earth continuously would be more manageable and still produce considerable energy output. A satellite less than 1,000 feet (300 meters) across orbiting 300 miles (540 kilometers) above Earth could potentially power 1,000 homes [source: Hanley]

Even the Pentagon is on board, having released a study detailing applications in powering military operations. Japan, Russia, Europe and the island nation of Palau are also looking into it. Some experts estimate a test project could be done by 2012 and that significant amounts of power could come from space before the beginning of the next century [source: Hanley].

The major obstacle right now, as with any new technology, is cost. Launching, setting up and maintaining a solar farm on the moon would require vast amounts of manpower and money. As it is now, launching an object into space costs 1,000 times more than transporting that object across the country on a plane -- even though they use the same amount of energy [source: Hoffert].

If NASA succeeds in finding a new generation of reusable launch vehicles, though, costs could go down. Not to mention the fact that a solar satellite could pay back the energy used to send it into orbit in less than five days [source: Hoffert].

Many people agree that as we start to exhaust the Earth's natural resources, looking to the heavens for an answer may not be such a bad investment. If you're one of those people, try out some of the links on the next page.