29 votes

Book recommendation: Delta-V and Critical Mass

It's hard to find hopeful sci-fi these days. The zeitgeist is that things are bad and they will keep getting worse. That's a problem, because before you can build a better future, you must first imagine one. This is the first book I've found in a long time that does a credible job of that.

This post is about a pair of novels by Daniel Suarez. The first one is Delta-V, the physics term for a change in velocity; the second one is called Critical Mass. Together they're a heavily-researched look at asteroid mining, offworld economics, and space-based solar power.

The series takes place in the mid 2030s. By this point, the symptoms of climate change are becoming serious, creating what people call "the Long Emergency": famines, storms, and waves of climate refugees. There is real concern that the global economy will collapse under the strain. To avert financial apocalypse, an expedition is launched to mine the asteroid Ryugu; the first book covers the miners' training, their long journey through space, and the hazards of mining an asteroid in deep space. In the second book, they use those mined materials to build a space station in lunar orbit, to set up a railgun for launching materials from the moon's surface into its orbit, and to begin building the first space-based solar power satellites.

I was surprised to learn that space-based solar power is a real thing that the US, China, and several other countries and companies are actively pursuing. Basically, you have a bunch of solar panels in orbit, which beam power down to receiving antennas ("rectennas") on Earth. You lose a lot of efficiency converting the electricity to microwaves and back, but solar panels on orbit have access to ~7-10x more energy than those on the ground, since there's no atmosphere in the way and it's always solar noon. In exchange for a large initial investment, space-based solar power offers always-on, 100% renewable energy that can be switched from New York to California at a moment's notice.

That initial investment is a doozy, though. SpaceX is working on lowering launch costs, but launching material from Earth's surface into orbit is going to be very expensive for a very long time. So these books look at what might be possible if we could avoid those costs. What if we could create mining and manufacturing operations in space? What if we could use those to generate clean power in heretofore undreamt-of amounts?

I’m going to excerpt a conversation from the second book:

[At dinner,] chemist Sofia Boutros described the unfolding water crisis in the Nile watershed back on Earth—and the resulting regional conflict. This elicited from around the table a litany of other climate-change-related calamities back home, from wildfires, to floods, to famines, to extinctions.

The Russian observer, Colonel Voloshin, usually content to just listen, chimed in by saying, "Nations which have contributed least to carbon emissions suffering worst effects." He looked first to Lawler and then Colonel Fei. "Perhaps the biggest polluters should pay reparations."

Dr. Ohana looked down the table toward him. "It's my understanding that Russia has actually benefitted from warmer climate."

Yak replied instead. "Not overall. Soil in Siberia is poor. Wildfires and loss of permafrost also disruptive."

Lawler added. "You guys sell plenty of fossil fuels, too, Colonel."

The electrical engineer, Hoshiko Sato, said, "Complete decarbonization is the only way to solve climate change."

Most of the group groaned in response.

She looked around the table. "That might sound unrealistic, but there's no other choice if we want to save civilization."

Chindarkar said, "We've been saying the same thing for fifty years, Hoshiko. It's barely moved the needle."

"We’ve brought carbon emissions down considerably since 2020."

Boutros said, "You mean we slowed their growth."

Ohana said, "We should be planting more trees."

Monica Balter countered, "Trees require water and arable land. Climate change is causing deserts to spread, pitting food versus trees. Plus, whatever carbon a tree captures gets released when it dies—which could happen all at once in a wildfire."

Chindarkar looked down the table at her. "Nathan Joyce claimed we could use solar satellites to power direct carbon capture. Could that really be done at the scale necessary to reduce global CO2 levels?"

Colonel Voloshin let out a laugh. "That's not even in the realm of possibility. It wouldn't even make a dent."

Monica Balter said, "I respectfully disagree, Colonel." She looked to Boutros. "And Sofia, I understand we must do everything possible down on Earth to reduce carbon emissions: solar panels, wind turbines, geothermal—all of it. But that won't remove what's already in the atmosphere."

Voloshin shook his head. "We must adapt."

Lawler couldn't resist. "Easy for Russia to say."

Balter spoke to Voloshin. "Back in 1850, atmospheric carbon was at two hundred eighty parts per million. Now it's at four hundred fifty-seven parts per million. We put over a trillion tons of CO2 into Earth's atmosphere over that time. Humans caused the problem, and humans can solve it."

The colonel was unfazed. "Yes. All of humanity worked hard to cause this, and it still required almost two centuries to accomplish. It is naïve to think a few machines will correct it."

"Half of that excess carbon was emitted in the last forty years, and direct air carbon capture powered by solar satellites can actually work at a global scale. I can show you the numbers, if you like."

He scoffed. "Even billionaire Jack Macy says that solar power satellites are idiotic—that very little energy beamed from space reaches the terrestrial power grid due to transmission and conversion losses."

Balter nodded. "The number is 9 percent."

The crew around the table murmured.

He spread his hands. "I rest my case."

"But 9 percent of what? Jack Macy neglects to mention that a solar panel up in orbit is seven times more productive than one on the Earth's surface. The fact that he runs a rooftop solar company might have something to do with that.

Boutros asked, "A sevenfold difference just from being in space?"

Balter turned to her. "The best you can hope for on the Earth's equator at high noon is 1,000 watts of energy per square meter—and that's without factoring in nighttime, cloudy days, seasons, latitude. But a power sat in geosynchronous orbit would almost always be in 1,368 watts of sunlight per square meter. So you get a whole lot more energy from a solar panel in space even after transmission inefficiencies are factored in. Plus, a power sat won't be affected by unfolding chaos planetside."

Voloshin shrugged. "What if it is cloudy above your rectenna? You would not be able to beam down energy."

"Not true. We use microwaves in the 2.45-gigahertz range. The atmosphere is largely invisible at that frequency. We can beam the energy down regardless of weather—and directly to where it's needed. No need for long distance power lines."

"But to what purpose? It could not be done on a scale sufficient to impact Earth."

"Again, I could show you the numbers."

Chindarkar said, "I'd like to see them, Monica. Please."

Balter put down her fork and after searching through virtual UIs for a moment, put up a shared augmented-reality screen that appeared to float over the end of the table on the station's common layer. It displayed an array of numbers and labels. "Sorry for the spreadsheet."

Colonel Fei said, "We are quite interested in seeing it, Ms. Balter."

She looked to the faces around the table. "There are four reasons I got involved in space-based solar power... " She pealed them off on her fingers. "...electrification, desalination, food generation, and decarbonization. First: electricity. We all know the environmental, economic, and political havoc back on Earth from climate change. Blackouts make that chaos worse, but a 2-gigawatt solar power satellite in geosynchronous orbit could instantly transmit large amounts of energy anywhere it's needed in the hemisphere below it. Even several locations at once. All that's needed is a rectenna on the ground, and those are cheap and easy to construct."

Chindarkar nodded. "We saw one on Ascension Island."

Jin added, "J.T. and I are building sections of the lunar rectenna. It is fairly simple."

"Right. For example, space-based energy could be beamed to coastal desalination plants in regions suffering long-term drought-providing fresh water. It can also be used to remove CO2 directly from seawater, through what's known as single step carbon sequestration and storage, converting the CO2 into solid limestone and magnesite—essentially seashells. This would enable the oceans themselves to absorb more atmospheric CO2. Or we could power direct air capture plants that pull CO2 straight out of the atmosphere."

Voloshin interjected. "Again, a few satellites will not impact Earth's atmospheric concentrations, and where would you sequester all this CO2?"

"Just a few satellites wouldn't impact climate, no—but there's definitely a use for the CO2—in creating food. Droughts in equatorial zones are causing famine, but hydrogenotrophic bacteria can be used to make protein from electricity, hydrogen, and CO2. The hydrogen can be electrolyzed from seawater and CO2 from the air. All that's needed is clean energy." She glanced to Chindarkar. "NASA first experimented with this in the 1960s as a means for making food here in deep space."

"Really? Even back then."

"The bioreactor for it is like a small-batch brewery. You feed in what natural plants get from soil: phosphorus, sulfur, calcium, iron, potassium—all of which, incidentally, can be extracted from lunar regolith. But I digress..."

Colonel Fei's eyebrows raised. "That is indeed interesting."

"The bioreactor runs for a while, then the liquid is drained and the solids dried to a powder that contains 65 percent protein, 20 to 25 percent carbohydrates, and 5 percent fatty acids. This can be made into a natural food similar to soy or algae. So with energy, CO2, and seawater, we could provide life-saving nutrition just about anywhere on the planet via solar power satellites."

Voloshin was unimpressed. "Yet it would still not resolve climate change."

"At scale it could. Do the math ... " Balter brought up her spreadsheet. "We're emitting 40 billion tons of CO2 per year, 9 billion tons of which can't be sequestered by the natural carbon cycle and which results in an annual increase of roughly two parts per million atmospheric CO2—even after decades of conservation efforts."

She tapped a few screens and a virtual image of an industrial structure covered in fan housings appeared. "A direct air capture facility like this one could pull a million tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere each year at a cost of one hundred dollars a ton. All of the components are off-the-shelf and have existed for decades. Nothing fancy. But it needs 1.5 megawatts of constant clean energy to power it—and that's where solar power satellites come in."

Voloshin said, "But who would pay? Governments? Do not count on this."

Chindarkar asked, "Monica, seriously: How many carbon capture plants would it take to make a difference in the atmosphere of the entire Earth?"

Jin added, "And how many solar power satellites to power them?"

Balter brought her spreadsheet back up. "Merely to cancel out Earth's excess annual emissions—9 billion tons of CO2—we'd need nine thousand 1-megaton DAC plants worldwide, each requiring 150 to 300 acres."

The group groaned.

Tighe said, "That's a lot of hardware and a lot of real estate, Monica."

"It doesn't have to be on land. Just 2.7 million acres total—smaller than Connecticut. And that would be spread across the entire globe. More importantly, doing that stops the advance of climate change. If we reduce emissions, then it would actually help reverse climate change."

Chindarkar studied the numbers. "Powered by how many solar satellites?"

Balter highlighted the number. "It would take 1.6 terawatts of electricity—or 818 2-gigawatt SPS-Alphas. Each about 7,400 tons. But again: that halts the advance of climate change."

The group groaned again.

"Eight hundred eighteen satellites?" Jin shook his head. "That would take decades to build."

"Not with automation and sufficient materials here on orbit. You've seen the SPS-Alpha I'm building—it's made of simple, modular components."

"Yours is one-fortieth the size of these 7,400-ton monsters."

"But it's the same design. We just need the resources up here in space, and we could scale it rapidly with automation."

Voloshin picked up his fork. "As I said: it is a technological fantasy."

Chindarkar ignored him. "Monica, what would it require to not just halt climate change—but reverse it?"

Balter clicked through to another screen. "To return Earth to a safe level—say, three hundred fifty parts per million CO2-you'd need to pull three-quarters of a trillion tons out of the atmosphere." She made a few changes to her model. "So with forty thousand DAC plants, powered by thirty-six hundred 2-gigawatt satellites in geosynchronous orbit, you could accomplish that in eighteen years."

Fei asked, "At what cost?"

"Roughly seventy-two trillion dollars."

Again groans and an impressed whistle.

Voloshin shook his head. "I told you."

Balter added, "That's four trillion a year, over eighteen years. Spread across the entire population of Earth."

This was met with a different reaction.

Jin said, "That is actually less than I thought."

"And bear in mind the fossil fuel industry has been supported by half a trillion dollars in direct government subsidies worldwide every year for ages. Whereas this four trillion is for just a limited time and would permanently solve climate change, and we'd see significant climate benefits within a decade as CO2 levels came down. And once it was accomplished, all that clean energy could be put toward other productive uses, either on Earth or in space."

She studied the faces around her. "But to accomplish it, we'd need tens of millions of tons of mass in orbit. Launching all that mass up from Earth would never work because all those rockets would damage the atmosphere, too. However, with your lunar mass-driver—and the ones that follow it—we could make this work. This is why I'm here."

Those around the table pondered this. For the moment, even Voloshin was silent.

Boutros asked, "Is it not risky to tinker with the Earth's atmosphere?"

"That's what we're doing now, Sofia. This would just reverse what we've done and return Earth to the conditions we evolved in."

Chindarkar pointed to the virtual spreadsheet. "Does that seventy-two trillion dollars include the cost of the solar power satellites?"

"Yes. And doing nothing will cost us far more. Best estimates are that by the year 2100, continued climate change will reduce global GDP by 20 percent—which is about two thousand trillion dollars. Not to mention the cost of possibly losing civilization.

"But if, as your CEO Mr. Rochat says, we intend to prove the SPS concept at scale here in lunar orbit, well... then you will make this commercially feasible. In other words, you can make this future happen. Everyone else has talked it to death. The bean counters and decision makers back on Earth clearly won't do it, no matter how critical it is. And this needs to be started as soon as possible—before the situation on Earth gets truly untenable."

This book is not afraid to think big. That's what sci-fi is for, right? And it's extensively researched; there's a bibliography at the end of each book that I've used to start my own research journeys.

I like these books because they're ambitious. They never downplay the scale of the problems we face, but they maintain that these problems are solvable, and they expose me to new ideas I'd never heard of. I found them in my local library. Thanks for reading this wall of text!

14 comments

  1. redbearsam
    Link
    Oooh, I really liked his first books - which were very the opposite of positive in their messaging. Or at least the first was (Daemon). I shall heed this recommendation yo, cheers.

    Oooh, I really liked his first books - which were very the opposite of positive in their messaging. Or at least the first was (Daemon). I shall heed this recommendation yo, cheers.

    6 votes
  2. [2]
    DavesWorld
    Link
    I've always loved, absolutely loved, how Yoda put it. A lot of "impossible problems" are solvable. It just comes down to will. Does the entity tackling the issue (usually a nation state for Big...

    I've always loved, absolutely loved, how Yoda put it.

    "Always with you it cannot be done."

    A lot of "impossible problems" are solvable. It just comes down to will. Does the entity tackling the issue (usually a nation state for Big Things, like generational projects) have the will to actually face up squarely to the issue and deal with it.

    Good engineering usually involves being willing to accept the required scale of the solution. The Netherlands dammed themselves up against the fucking ocean. Two different trans-continental canals have been dug on this planet; the Suez more than 160 years ago, the Panama nearly 120.

    You proposed trying to build the Suez or Panama Canal today, with modern earthmoving technology, and people would be so quick to tell you it's impossible they'd give themselves concussions. Yet now that they exist, both are national resources of immense value to their countries.

    Building in space is no different, and requires the same admission of scale. A space station (or an orbital smelter, a spacedock slip, anything you want) simply requires X number of launches to bring up Y amount of materials along with Z number of orbital workers to put it all together.

    Power satellites, space stations, moon base, orbital elevator, asteroid capture, asteroid mining, orbital smelting, orbital manufacturing ... it's all coming. If not that exact thing, something similar. Something that'll accomplish the same tasks. The only question is does it happen this century, or next?

    Probably next. After it's so obvious it'll happen that seventeen different nations and a hundred and forty-five companies get in on the action, each pushing their own agendas. The only reason it doesn't happen now is "it's impossible."

    Always with you it cannot be done.

    Falcon rockets, and soon probably Starship, are opening new space frontiers. Something that was impossible is now routine. Others are (finally) seriously investing in non-bespoke launch technology, into recovery of launchers, and into how to scale them with modern technology. Whereas, a decade ago, I was reading mainstream news that openly mocked the concept of ever landing a rocket. Landing a rocket? Impossible.

    Always with you it cannot be done.

    Just because Yoda had some guy's hand up his ass all the time didn't make him wrong.

    6 votes
    1. skybrian
      Link Parent
      I don't know, maybe read Akin's Laws of Spaceship Design? Having the right people is important, but life is not a movie and there's more to it than will.

      I don't know, maybe read Akin's Laws of Spaceship Design? Having the right people is important, but life is not a movie and there's more to it than will.

      5 votes
  3. [4]
    saturnV
    Link
    An interesting way of seeing how reasonable the scale of SBSP would be is to compare it to what SpaceX have already done: Starlink. They plan on launching ~40k satellites, and have already...

    An interesting way of seeing how reasonable the scale of SBSP would be is to compare it to what SpaceX have already done: Starlink. They plan on launching ~40k satellites, and have already launched >5k. The V2 sats have ~60kW of power from solar arrays, so a full constellation would have 2.4GW of power (obviously they are in LEO so power would be intermittent, so maybe something closer to 1.5GW), but that is still several % of a country's power consumption. UK power consumption is about 30GW of which 1.4GW was solar. So within the next decade, SpaceX may have more solar in orbit than the UK has on land. Obviously ignores transmission losses, but if you are using the power on-orbit, that doesn't matter.

    2 votes
    1. [3]
      skybrian
      Link Parent
      I wonder how much CO2 is emitted putting that many satellites in orbit? How much fuel is that?

      I wonder how much CO2 is emitted putting that many satellites in orbit? How much fuel is that?

      1 vote
      1. [2]
        saturnV
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        from wikipedia we get 129 launches, of which each flight emits 425 metric tons of CO2 and 152 tons of water vapour (from everyday astronaut). that's ~55,000 tons total so far over primarily 3...

        from wikipedia we get 129 launches, of which each flight emits 425 metric tons of CO2 and 152 tons of water vapour (from everyday astronaut). that's ~55,000 tons total so far over primarily 3 years, which is the same as about 16 celebrities private jet flights in one year, or the combined flights of taylor swift and floyd mayweather's jets if you average out the emissions over 3 years. It is about the same amount as Sao Tome & Principe emitted in 2016. The average carbon footprint of an american is 16 tons, so it is about the same as 3400 americans, or .001% of all individual CO2 emissions. It is (to an order of magnitude) the same as major museums like the british museum. Wren claim they can offset 55,000 tons for $1.3M.

        4 votes
        1. skybrian
          Link Parent
          Another comparison: An A320 can carry around 25k liters of fuel. Multiply by .8 to get kilograms and multiply by 3 to get carbon emissions. (Because two thirds of the weight comes from oxygen.)...

          Another comparison: An A320 can carry around 25k liters of fuel. Multiply by .8 to get kilograms and multiply by 3 to get carbon emissions. (Because two thirds of the weight comes from oxygen.) That’s about 60 metric tons. So each rocket launch is at least 7 (long) airline flights? Maybe more like 10 since airliners always have some reserve?

          2 votes
  4. [3]
    saturnV
    Link
    Some good twitter threads about space-based solar: https://nitter.cz/DrPhiltill/status/1560657509215395846 https://nitter.cz/DrPhiltill/status/1583106346538311680 some other links:...

    Some good twitter threads about space-based solar:
    https://nitter.cz/DrPhiltill/status/1560657509215395846
    https://nitter.cz/DrPhiltill/status/1583106346538311680
    some other links:
    https://spaceenergyinitiative.org.uk/
    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61517f12d3bf7f71919a7f8f/space-based-solar-power-derisking-pathway-to-net-zero.pdf
    https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Engineering_Technology/SOLARIS/Cost_vs._benefits_studies
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBlOb2z26Do
    (tl;dr SBSP is not competing against terrestrial solar, it's aimed at being a base-load power supply, so should be compared to nuclear, or solar + storage costs. SBSP is strategically important as it prevents dependence on foreign oil, and also ground-based solar is worse in Europe than US due to being further north, so relative advantage is greater)
    Also has some uses for e.g. the military or after natural disasters, when the ability to beam in power before long-term infrastructure is set up would be very useful.

    2 votes
    1. patience_limited
      Link Parent
      I've seen numbers that suggest space-based solar costs may be closing with the capital costs of nuclear power generation. If launch costs keep falling, then the next biggest technical concern is...

      I've seen numbers that suggest space-based solar costs may be closing with the capital costs of nuclear power generation. If launch costs keep falling, then the next biggest technical concern is satellite durability, and that's currently under investigation.

      1 vote
    2. DawnPaladin
      Link Parent
      Those are some great links! Thank you!

      Those are some great links! Thank you!

  5. [4]
    saturnV
    Link
    I really liked Delta-V, especially the diagrams at the back of the book. I heard the sequel had some weird cryptocurrency things thought, so didn't get it. If you liked that, you might also like...

    I really liked Delta-V, especially the diagrams at the back of the book. I heard the sequel had some weird cryptocurrency things thought, so didn't get it. If you liked that, you might also like some of Kim Stanley Robinson's work, ministry for the future and new york 2140, which while pessimistic on the outcomes climate change, showcase some beautiful solutions and human ingenuity in trying to maintain survival

    1 vote
    1. [2]
      carsonc
      Link Parent
      I found KSR's Mars trilogy to be eerily prescient as well. Although the trilogy written in the 1990's, the narrative picks up in the early 2020's with characters who are middle aged, which may...

      I found KSR's Mars trilogy to be eerily prescient as well. Although the trilogy written in the 1990's, the narrative picks up in the early 2020's with characters who are middle aged, which may line up with the ages of some readers here on Tildes. More generally though, the environmental crises that he writes about don't seem so far from the mark, like the possibility of an ice shelf collapse resulting in accelerated sea level rise, like this.

      3 votes
      1. sparkle
        Link Parent
        The Mars trilogy is so fantastic. I especially loved how the first book was very hard sci-fi while subsequent ones were still hard, but approaching fantasy (the marathons across Mars, unpowered...

        The Mars trilogy is so fantastic. I especially loved how the first book was very hard sci-fi while subsequent ones were still hard, but approaching fantasy (the marathons across Mars, unpowered flight on Pluto, etc). The science is plausible but just hard to imagine it being possible until you see it. And also just what today we would consider batshit insane being "normal" like the Mercury train that outruns the sun.

        That being said, sounds like OP's suggestions are some great reads this year for me. I enjoyed the Expanse books but they weren't the most optimistic. I just finished Three Body Problem a few months ago and they also kinda hit that transition from hard to fantasy sci-fi that I really enjoyed, not to mention it's very very bleak lol.

        And regardless of how people feel about new Star Trek, I'm just happy that there's new Star Trek. I know it's fantasy sci-fi, but it gives me hope that despite how bad shit gets, maybe we'll get to Star Trek subutopia one day

        2 votes
    2. DawnPaladin
      Link Parent
      Reserving those at my library. Thank you for the recommendation!

      Reserving those at my library. Thank you for the recommendation!

      1 vote