Value chain · CLM-0013
In plain terms
The paper that modern UK studies rely on for the beam figure calls anything below 1 kilowatt per square metre safe, with 230 watts per square metre as the typical value, and cites nothing at all to support the word safe.
The claim as recorded
Cash's 2019 CASSIOPeiA paper states a safe peak beam intensity of less than 1 kW/m2 with 230 W/m2 given as typical, attaches no citation to that statement, and cites no exposure standard or safety authority anywhere: a full-text search of all nine pages returns zero occurrences of ICNIRP, IEEE, exposure and hazard, and none of its 17 references is a standard. The paper does cite the Reference System Report DOE/ER-0023 as its reference [6], used in the body at printed p171 for its description of the NASA reference design (the paper says 1979; the report is dated October 1978, published January 1979, SRC-085 PDF p.3), but not for the safety statement.
Evidence behind this: T3, the weaker of its two sources: T2 for Cash's 2019 paper (SRC-026), which carries the finding, and T3 for the 1978 reference system report (SRC-085), cited for its own date.
Scope and limits
An absence of citation for one word. It does not establish that the figure is unsafe, only that this paper is not the place the safety case is made. In the source the word safe attaches to the bound of less than 1 kW/m2, not to 230 W/m2, which the paper gives as typical and elsewhere as an optimum economic value; this claim may not be used to assert that the paper calls 230 W/m2 safe. The absence is scoped to this one nine-page paper and its 17-item reference list, both searched in full; it says nothing about the wider corpus.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
PDF p7, printed p176, verbatim: "Given the necessary size of the rectenna, a safe peak beam intensity of < 1 kW/m2 (230 W/m2 typical) allows multi-gigawatt delivery". No citation marker attaches to it. Reference [6] at PDF p9, printed p178, reads "NASA, 1979, Satellite Power System, Reference System Report DOE/ER-0023" and is cited in the body at PDF p2, printed p171. Full-text counts over all nine pages: ICNIRP 0, IEEE 0, exposure 0, hazard 0. Note the source sets the division as Unicode fraction slash U+2044, so a literal search for kW/m2 misses it.
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-001 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0013
CLM-0013, Energy Aperture, as of 2019.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-026
- CLM-0004The author of the 2019 CASSIOPeiA paper states the beam's strongest point is about 230 watts per square metre, and says that figure was...CLM-0006None of the five main studies mentions the international radio-frequency exposure limits, or any safety standard, or a restricted area...CLM-0336Different design studies over four decades have each simply assumed a different working lifetime for a solar power satellite, from about 15...CLM-0339A 2019 paper said solar power satellites are often assumed to need visits in orbit for repairs and refuelling, but that no system yet...CLM-0441A normal geostationary satellite needs a small, regular fuel-based nudge every year to stay in place. One 2019 design proposes cutting most...CLM-0504None of the main CASSIOPeiA-related documents in the register mentions any named safety or exposure standard, or describes any restricted...CLM-0660The 2019 CASSIOPeiA paper does not discuss electric propulsion for getting the satellite to its orbit. It only prices delivery using...CLM-1175The design would control its orientation without fuel. Small mirror panels near its front carry a coating whose reflection can be changed...More on the source page.
- Also from SRC-085
- CLM-0020The original 1978 design set the beam at 230 watts per square metre in the middle of the receiving site, about one twenty-third of that at...CLM-0023In the 1978 reference design, two limits set the size of the transmitter and the receiving site: how much heat the transmitter can shed...CLM-0039The 1978 report set the figure to protect radio and navigation systems from a disturbed ionosphere, called the number theoretical and...CLM-0045The apparent conflict between 12 and 23 was not an error. The underlying study gave a range, and the figure adopted sits near the top of it.CLM-0101The 1978 contract required the researchers to report fixes if ionospheric disturbance pushed the pilot-beam phase error past 2 to 3...CLM-0137In four major space solar power studies from 1978 to 2007, none put a number on how much of the beam's energy would be lost if the beam...CLM-0138The original 1978 government design for beaming power down from space adds up all the expected energy losses to get 63% overall efficiency...CLM-0182When two different research teams assessed the exact same 1978 space solar power design, the older accounting method (which spreads...More on the source page.