Value chain · CLM-0130
In plain terms
The quiet-condition absorption figures from four sources do not disagree. One of them states an upper bound and the others sit inside it.
The claim as recorded
There is no conflict between the 2004 ESA review's quiet-condition figure and the 2026 full-path model's, because the review states a BOUND of over 99.7 per cent remaining, which is a loss of at most 0.3 per cent, and the model's own normalised loss of 9.0e-5 at 2.45 GHz satisfies that bound comfortably, as do CALC-013's 9.2e-6 and the 2e-5 in the 1982 Japanese report.
Evidence behind this: RE-GRADED T3 to T5 on 2026-09-11, under the weakest-source rule: SRC-105 is an unrefereed arXiv preprint, T5. Deliberately left for a second look on 2026-09-11 and re-graded here rather than in the first pass, because this record's locator had been repaired the day before - it had cited a figure derived from Table 3 as though the table printed it, and now cites the table's own Normalized loss. The tier question had to be judged against the repaired record rather than the one the evidence pass examined, and the answer is the same either way: the weakest source is a preprint. The claim's conclusion is unaffected, as its limits records - every figure in play sits far inside the bound.
Scope and limits
Applies to QUIET conditions only. The disturbed-condition figures remain unresolved and are recorded separately in CLM-0117. CORRECTED 2026-09-10: THE LOCATOR ASSERTED A NUMBER THE SOURCE DOES NOT PRINT, AND IT DISPLACED THE SOURCE'S OWN. The record read "SRC-105 Table 3 page 21 gives 2.94e-5". The string "2.94" occurs ZERO times in that document - checked across all 27 pages, 64,404 characters. What Table 3 prints at 2.45 GHz is a Normalized loss of 9.0e-5 and a total heating of 29.416 kW, and 2.94e-5 is 29.416 kW divided by the 1 GW input the paper assumes: arithmetic performed here, presented as the paper's figure, standing in place of the paper's own equivalent quantity, which is three times larger. That direction matters - the substituted value was the more favourable one. The conclusion is unaffected and the bound still holds: 9.0e-5 and the 5.8 GHz figure of 3.3e-4 are both far inside a 0.3 per cent ceiling, as are CALC-013's 9.2e-6 and SRC-141's 2e-5. So this was never a wrong finding, only a wrong provenance - which is the kind that survives every check that does not open the source. A derived figure may be stated, but not as something a table gives. The claim also carried the same figure in the first person and now names CALC-013, under the wording convention ruled 2026-09-10: no field that publishes speaks in the first person, and a derived figure may be stated but not as something a table gives. SRC-104's "99.7%" was re-read at the render 2026-09-20 (PDF p.7) and is the printed figure, not "99.97%", so the 0.3 per cent is the review's own bound and not a dropped digit (ON-027 sweep).
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
This is the project's own working, shown in full:
page 7: "over 99.7% of SPS microwave power remains after traversing the entire ionosphere and atmosphere". That is a bound. SRC-105 Table 3 page 21 prints a "Normalized loss" of 9.0e-5 at 2.45 GHz and 3.3e-4 at 5.8 GHz, alongside total heating of 29.416 kW and 5.113 kW. CALC-013 gives 9.2e-6. SRC-141 gives 2e-5. All satisfy the bound.
Basis: fractional power loss at about 2.45 GHz, quiet ionosphere
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-009 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0130
CLM-0130, 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-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.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-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-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.