>that it's not that much of an issue anymore.

It actually still is a big issue though. And solar panels getting cheaper favors decentralised installation on the ground, if anything.

Unless you want to sent a literal death ray in to orbit you still need about as much space on the ground for the receiving array as you would with regular solar installations - only with all the added downsides of doing things "in space":

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/03/space-based-solar-power/

>A space-based solar power system might sound very cool and futuristic, and it may seem at first blush an obvious answer to intermittency, but this comes at a big cost. Among the possibly unanticipated challenges:

>* The gain over the a good location on the ground is only a factor of 3 (2.4× in summer, 4.2× in winter at 35° latitude).

• It’s almost as hard to get energy back to the ground as it is to get the equipment into space in the first place.
• The microwave link faces problems with transmission through the atmosphere, and also flirts with roasting ducks on the wing.
• Diffraction of the downlink beam, together with energy density limits, means that very large areas of the ground still need to be dedicated to energy collection.

>Traditional solar photovoltaics in good locations can accomplish much the same for much reduced cost, and with only a few times more land than the microwave link approach would demand. The installations will be serviceable and will last longer. Batteries seem an easier way to cover storage shortcomings than launching stuff to space. I did not even address solar thermal schemes in this post, which competes well with photovoltaics and can very naturally build in storage capability.

>I am left puzzled as to why we would want to take a harder, more expensive road to solar power. I think it is just not intuitive to most how difficult and expensive space is. And perhaps they think it’s very futuristic and cool to push our power generation out to space: it fits the preferred narrative about where we’re going. I don’t know—I’m just guessing.

>Astronomers frequently face this issue: should we build a telescope/observatory on the ground, or launch something into space? The prevailing wisdom is that if the science can be accomplished on the ground, then by golly you’d best do it that way. You’ll have the result sooner, at less expense, and with a greater chance of success.

I am not certain this would even have realistic use cases for military applications, outside of actual space-based weapon systems (the afromentioned death ray).

The math simply doesn't add up, even if you assume unrealistic optimal conditions. Looking at the involved companies it's quite clear that these are bascially hand-outs to the industry.

>It'll take time for the tech to become viable of course, but as costs for getting material into space continue to become cheaper and cheaper over time, I see no reason that this couldn't become real one day.

Plenty of reasons, basic physics for one. Nor will launch costs continue to drop to a level to make this viable, at least not with chemical rocket technology alone (and no, "spin launch" isn't what I am referring to).

>It's very cool and has such a sci-fi vibe to it.

Which the only reason this crops up again every few decades. This is not about "the tech becoming viable". Unless you want to sent a literal death ray into orbit the math simply doesn't add up (on the other, the math does add up for the involved companies as far as money is concerned).

The Chinese deliberately don't disclose where their rockets will fall. Which is shitty because of a whole host of repercussions such as forcing the cancelling of flights and causing anxiety among people, but that's the basis for Western narratives that Chinese spacecraft have uncontrolled descents. Fragments have fallen in population centers but European and American spacecraft have also had errant fragments falling close to population centers. China should absolutely communicate with NASA and other space agencies about their intentions, but I imagine they don't because they rightly or wrongly believe someone will try to beat them to the site of the wreckage if they know ahead of time where it will be.

Unless you legitimately believe China is going to allow its rockets to fall into American territory and allow Americans to just scoop them up. Space technology is a matter of national security, and no country is going to allow another country to have easy access to its technology if they can help it.