Value chain · CLM-0153
In plain terms
A 1980 US government environmental assessment argues, without a formal calculation or test, that an aeroplane's metal body would shield passengers from most of a space solar power beam's intensity if the aircraft flew through it.
The claim as recorded
DOE/ER-10035-2 (1980) argues (an engineering assessment, not a measurement) that humans in an aircraft crossing an SPS beam would be exposed to power densities "generally much lower than 23 mW/cm2 [230 W/m2]" because of RF shielding by the aircraft's metal fuselage, and that even where RF enters through windows, cabin interior levels would not exceed the level just outside because the cabin "will constitute an extremely lossy (low Q) multimode resonant cavity."
Scope and limits
An ASSERTED engineering argument, not a measured or independently modelled result; not a regulatory instrument - no FAA/ICAO/EASA/CAA rule addressing an airspace exclusion zone or altitude restriction for an SPS beam corridor was found.
What it assumes
Standard aircraft fuselage construction (metal skin) provides the assumed shielding; the argument does not address newer composite-fuselage aircraft, which may shield RF differently, since this document predates widespread composite airliner construction.
Where it comes from
DOE/ER-10035-2 (1980), p.10 (text partially OCR-degraded but key content verified): shielding argument as summarised above; no formal calculation, test, or measurement is presented.
Basis: power density, mW/cm2 (W/m2); no averaging basis stated
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-001 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0153
CLM-0153, Energy Aperture, as of 1980.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-086
- CLM-0020The original 1978 design set the beam at 230 watts per square metre in the middle of the receiving site, about one twenty-third of that at...CLM-0024The American standard of the day allowed 100 watts per square metre averaged over six minutes. The US had no separate limit for the public...CLM-0036The 1980 American assessment said people living or working near the receiving site, outside its exclusion boundary, would generally be...CLM-1005The 1980 assessment explains where the 10 milliwatt limit came from: a heating threshold of 100 divided by a safety factor of ten. It also...CLM-1006In 1980, by the US assessment's figures, the Soviet limit for the general public was two thousand times lower than the American 10...CLM-1007The 1980 assessment worked out that a full American deployment would raise the microwave background everywhere in the country to about...CLM-1008The 1980 documents give the beam's strength at the satellite, on failure, and above and below the receiving panels. The summary and the...CLM-1009The 1980 programme tested bees because of pollination. Early results showed no effect at the beam's strength, and one preliminary report...More on the source page.