Value chain · CLM-0033
Low confidence
The evidence behind this statement is thin, indirect or second-hand. Read it as a lead to check, not as a settled finding.
In plain terms
Apart from a 1981 NASA review that found no evidence for the number and suggested a higher one, nobody was found to have revisited it, and a 2014 proposal for experiments on beam effects in the atmosphere does not appear to have gone ahead.
The claim as recorded
Apart from NASA RP-1076 in 1981, which reported that tests at Arecibo and Platteville showed no evidence to support 23 mW/cm2 as an upper limit and suggested that 55 to 60 mW/cm2 might be reasonable, no later re-derivation, experimental test, raising or lowering of the 23 mW/cm2 figure was found; and a 2014 paper by Leitgab and Cowley proposing to extend the HAARP facility to collect data on power-beam interactions with the atmosphere, at energy densities of several tens to hundreds of W/m2, was not carried out as far as the survey established.
Evidence behind this: T5, the weakest of its sources: the 2014 HAARP proposal is a preprint, not peer reviewed (SRC-106, T5); the 1981 NASA reference publication is T3 (SRC-107). The rest is a literature search.
Scope and limits
A negative finding from one survey. Shinohara's specific position and whether ITU-R SM.2392 or the IAA studies address the threshold directly were NOT established and are carried forward. CORROBORATED AND EXTENDED 2026-09-06 by SCN-004. An NTRS search for the 2014 HAARP proposal returned ZERO records, which supports "not executed as far as the survey established" and ADDS that it is not deposited in NASA STI either. Same narrower-mode caveat: no OpenAlex, no WebSearch. The 2014 paper does not state the 23 mW/cm2 or 230 W/m2 figure; its first author's affiliation is Lockheed Martin working with NASA JSC, the second author is at Dublin City University, and it states "Lockheed Martin Corporation does not endorse the presented content in any form" (PDF p6), so it is not an institutional NASA or Lockheed Martin proposal. Later papers compute thresholds for a different mechanism at assumed conditions (SRC-104 PDF p12, printed p8: 33 W/m2 at 2.48 GHz and 422 W/m2 at 5.8 GHz for thermal self-focusing); these are not treated here as revisions of the 23 mW/cm2 figure. CLM-0105 (2008; 32 and 425 W/m2) is treated the same way.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
Searched-and-not-found across the URSI white paper, IAA studies, Shinohara's work, IEEE Journal of Microwaves, the journal Space Solar Power and Wireless Transmission, and ITU-R wireless power transmission material. Recorded as NOT-FOUND with the venues named.
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-009 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0033
CLM-0033, Energy Aperture, as of 2026-09.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-107
- CLM-0060In 1981 a NASA review panel said the 230 watts per square metre figure rested on an obsolete theory with no experimental support, and made...CLM-0061The experiments were done. They found heating two or three times stronger than normal, not the tenfold effect predicted, no irregularities...CLM-0062By 1981 the theory was being revised to a steeper frequency dependence, which would raise the permitted power density.CLM-0063NASA suggested in 1981 that 550 to 600 watts per square metre might be reasonable, roughly two and a half times the figure still in use...CLM-0101The 1978 contract required the researchers to report fixes if ionospheric disturbance pushed the pilot-beam phase error past 2 to 3...CLM-0160A 1978-81 NASA design study calculated that simply pointing the satellite's structure accurately enough, without any electronic correction...CLM-0420NASA's 1981 report says the experiments found nothing supporting the 23 milliwatt limit, that the measured heating was two or three times...CLM-0901Each antenna must hold its position along the line to the receiver within about three millimetres for a tenth of a decibel. The whole 1970s...More on the source page.