Value chain · CLM-0109
In plain terms
In 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.
The claim as recorded
Ionospheric absorption of a space solar power beam is negligible in quiet conditions but is not negligible during severe space weather, the quiet-condition estimates of about 9.2e-6 from CALC-013 and about 2.9e-5 from a 2026 full-path model both being consistent with the 2004 ESA review's bound of over 99.7 per cent remaining, while that same review's modelled figure for the October 2003 coronal mass ejection is a loss of just under 20 per cent, four orders of magnitude above the quiet case.
Scope and limits
The disturbed figure rests on a single extreme profile from a single event in one source. No distribution of loss against geomagnetic activity index exists in anything reviewed, so the duty cycle of the disturbed case is unquantified. CALC-013's own quiet estimate remains a crude three-layer slab.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
This is the project's own working, shown in full:
The three quiet-condition figures do not conflict. SRC-104 states a bound, "over 99.7% remains", which is a loss of at most 0.3 per cent; CALC-013's 0.00092 per cent and SRC-105's 0.0029 per cent both satisfy that bound comfortably. The apparent hundred-fold disagreement between them is a bound compared against point estimates, not a contradiction. The real variation is between conditions, not between sources.
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-009 not published in this release
- Contradicts
- CLM-0100 not published in this release
- Supersedes
- CLM-0100 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0109
CLM-0109, Energy Aperture, as of 2026-09.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-104
- CLM-0042The 230 watts per square metre figure applies to one frequency and one design lineage. Japanese designs at a higher frequency allow up to...CLM-0057There is a formula for the instability threshold. It depends on electron density cubed, electron temperature to the fourth power, and...CLM-0059The two fields were largely the same people from the 1970s, and papers linking them were still appearing after 1991.CLM-0075When ESA revisited the question in 2004 it used the 1978 theory and did not cite the 1979-81 Platteville tests or NASA's 1981 revision of...CLM-0079The 1978 paper modelled both a ground facility and a satellite case, and its 500 watts per square metre figure is a power flux for a given...CLM-0083The formula is the right type but nobody has said how far it can be pushed, and at space solar power frequencies the wave is about 200...CLM-0108A 2004 ESA review found that during the October 2003 solar storm, just under 20 per cent of a space solar power beam would have been...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.More on the source page.
- Also from SRC-105
- CLM-0058 (low confidence)A 2026 modelling paper finds that a reference space solar power beam stays well below the instability thresholds at both candidate...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.