Value chain · CLM-0131
In plain terms
Even the most extreme kind of sudden, lightning-caused heating of the upper atmosphere considered in this 2004 study would only block about 3% of a space solar power beam, at most.
The claim as recorded
Robinson et al. (2004), citing Inan et al. (1991), estimate that even under the most extreme lightning-induced D-region heating conditions (collision frequency raised by a factor of about 400 in a roughly 10 km layer via electron heating to over 30,000 K), no more than about 3% of an SPS beam's power would be lost.
Evidence behind this: T2, following the citer, as the tiering convention has it for a nested citation. [Nested citation, recorded 2026-09-06 so it is queryable. This claim states what the CITER says about a work that has NOT been read, and its tier stays at the citer's because the tiers are source CATEGORIES, not a quality scale: one step below T2 lands on T3, which asserts a government or agency report with a published method, and that would be a FALSE statement about the document. A downgrade for nesting would put a wrong description in the tier field to express a doubt that belongs in limits. The tier answers how good the evidence is that the citer says this - first-hand, from a PDF we hold - and limits answers how good the relayed physical claim is.]
Scope and limits
This is a modelled estimate of an already-extreme, short-duration, localised mechanism (lightning), not a general statement about ionospheric absorption; should not be read across to storm-driven or solar-driven absorption events.
What it assumes
Inan et al.'s (1991) collision-frequency and electron-temperature figures for lightning-heated D-region plasma are representative; the 3 per cent is Robinson et al.'s own calculation from those inputs ("Calculations similar to those for the CME case above lead to estimates of enhanced absorption levels during lightning discharges", VER-904), not a figure relayed from Inan et al.
Where it comes from
Robinson et al. (2004), PDF p.8 (printed p.4): "even under the most extreme conditions associated with lightning, it is estimated that no more than about 3% of the power is lost."
Basis: fractional power loss, ~10 km D-region layer, collision frequency raised ~400x
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-001 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0131
CLM-0131, Energy Aperture, as of 2004.
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.