The problem is, that person is deeply underinformed. For instance:
"you don't lose that much power through the atmosphere"
Assuming you can point the orbiting panels at the sun and remain direct, you lose 80% of your power through the atmosphere (from angle and day/night). On the ground you lose 25% even if your panel is directly below the sun pointed exactly at it, which is never the case in many latitudes.
And of course it's not trivial to radiate heat. But it's also a fairly simple mechanical problem. You pump the heat to spread it out, and radiate it. You've already got the surface area shaded by the panels (which is more than enough, because the panels don't absorb 100% of solar radiation).
Sure, you need a lot of them. Starship V3 is probably about to get us past 100 tons of payload capacity - even if they blow up a few first.
The key people miss is that you don't have to spend money on ongoing cooling once the thing is in space. This isn't going to save money now, but the cost lines are going to cross.
> Assuming you can point the orbiting panels at the sun and remain direct, you lose 80% of your power through the atmosphere (from angle and day/night). On the ground you lose 25% even if your panel is directly below the sun pointed exactly at it, which is never the case in many latitudes.
When people say "you don't lose that much power on the ground", it's in the context of cost.
So a solar panel is 5x more efficient in space. You solve that in the ground by buying 5x more solar panels.
Solar panels cost -- rounding up -- $10/kg.
Lifting things into space costs -- rounding down -- $1000/kg.
For the same amount of money, you can put 100X solar panels into a ground based array as a space based array. You don't lose that much power on the ground. You aren't overcoming that difference because solar panels are more efficient in space.
It's frustrating to talk to someone about this and get "they need to address these points" (which frankly, they have addressed) and then get "this will happen of course" when I point out that it will in fact happen. It feels like moving the goalposts to avoid saying "thanks for informing me of something new."
It's frustrating to try to have a discussion when any source contrary to the desired position is met with "this person is underinformed"; it's why I don't really bother with any "provide me sources or I won't believe you" on the internet. People don't believe you anyway, so why bother?
"you don't lose that much power through the atmosphere"
Assuming you can point the orbiting panels at the sun and remain direct, you lose 80% of your power through the atmosphere (from angle and day/night). On the ground you lose 25% even if your panel is directly below the sun pointed exactly at it, which is never the case in many latitudes.
And of course it's not trivial to radiate heat. But it's also a fairly simple mechanical problem. You pump the heat to spread it out, and radiate it. You've already got the surface area shaded by the panels (which is more than enough, because the panels don't absorb 100% of solar radiation).
Sure, you need a lot of them. Starship V3 is probably about to get us past 100 tons of payload capacity - even if they blow up a few first.
The key people miss is that you don't have to spend money on ongoing cooling once the thing is in space. This isn't going to save money now, but the cost lines are going to cross.