Value chain · CLM-0058
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
A 2026 modelling paper finds that a reference space solar power beam stays well below the instability thresholds at both candidate frequencies.
The claim as recorded
A July 2026 preprint modelling full-path nonlinear microwave propagation through ionospheric plasma for a reference space solar power system computes both 2.45 GHz and 5.8 GHz self-consistently and concludes the beam remains far below self-focusing and cavitation thresholds at both frequencies, without recomputing the threshold itself.
Scope and limits
Tier T5. A preprint whose peer-review status is unconfirmed, and it has not been read here beyond its reported conclusion. It does not recompute the threshold, so it tests the beam against inherited threshold values rather than establishing them. Confidence LOW.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
Reported conclusion of SRC-105. A separate full-wave simulation dated July 2026 gives deposited power of 29.4 kW at 2.45 GHz against 5.11 kW at 5.8 GHz, a ratio of 5.75 against the inverse-square ideal of 5.60.
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-009 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0058
CLM-0058, Energy Aperture, as of 2026-07-14.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-105
- CLM-0109In normal conditions the ionosphere takes essentially none of the beam. In a severe solar storm it could take a little under a fifth of it.CLM-0130The quiet-condition absorption figures from four sources do not disagree. One of them states an upper bound and the others sit inside it.CLM-0440 (low confidence)A 2026 computer model of a gigawatt-class space solar power beam finds it would barely disturb the density of the upper atmosphere's...CLM-0461The ionosphere absorbs about one part in a hundred thousand of the beam. It is not a meaningful loss.