Value chain · CLM-0194
In plain terms
This 2010 paper predicts that if enough solar power satellites were built to justify mass-producing reusable rockets, launch could eventually cost around USD 400-450 per kilogram, against over USD 10,000 per kilogram at the time of writing, and this would add only about 2 US cents per kilowatt-hour to the price of the electricity produced.
The claim as recorded
Chapman (2010) forecasts that a fully reusable two-stage launch vehicle (RLV), once flying at the very high cadence his 800 GWe global sunsat build-out scenario (first launch 2015, target 2050) would require, could reach a levelised launch price as low as USD 403-450/kg (2010-vintage USD, a forecast NOAK-type unit price, not an observed cost), compared with a then-current 2010 launch cost to low Earth orbit (LEO) of over USD 10,000/kg, and calculates that a USD 450/kg launch price would add USD 2,430/kWe to sunsat overnight capital cost, contributing 2.28 US cents/kWh to the levelised cost of electricity when amortised over a 25-year system life at a 6% discount rate with a 95% capacity factor (8,328 operating hours/year).
Evidence behind this: T5 (as assigned to SRC-032 in register/sources.md)
Scope and limits
Does not establish that any reusable launch vehicle has achieved, or will achieve, USD 403-450/kg; this is Chapman's own 2010 cost-model output (built on NASA's Spacecraft/Vehicle Level Costing Model cost-estimating relationships), not an observed, quoted, or contracted price. The low forecast price is conditional on the SBSP program's own demand creating the launch cadence that drives the learning-curve cost reduction, so it is a self-referential (circular) forecast and cannot be used as an independent, cadence-agnostic launch-cost benchmark. The paper does not state its dollar basis year explicitly. This is a 2010-era assumption; it predates the 2020s reusable-launch record (e.g. Falcon 9 booster reuse at scale, early Starship flights) by roughly 15 years and must not be read as a current or near-term cost estimate without independent 2020s verification, which is outside this source set.
What it assumes
Requires the SBSP program itself to generate the very high launch cadence needed to reach the 90% learning-curve unit-cost reduction (see CLM-0195 for the scale of that cadence: a peak throughput of "more than 160,000 metric tons per year", implying roughly 5,300-5,360 dedicated launches/year). Requires a fully reusable two-stage LV to actually be developed, with its development cost funded and accounted separately from the quoted per-kg price. Requires sustained financing through a multi-decade negative-cashflow period: the source states a maximum deficit of USD 60 billion in year 12 of the schedule, with cumulative cashflow not turning positive until year 22, before an end-state profit of USD 180 billion by 2050 at a constant USD 450/kg price.
Where it comes from
Abstract (article p.1, PDF p.2): "reduce these costs to a level where they contribute less than 2.5 cents/kWh". PDF p.3: "The principal reason that launch to LEO is currently so expensive (>$10,000/kg) is that launches are infrequent". PDF p.3: "a fairly modest sunsat deployment program is assumed, with the first launch taking place in 2015, leading to an installed sunsat capacity of 800 GWe in 2050. This goal will represent somewhere between 6% and 9% of the total global capacity". Table 1 (PDF p.4): specific mass 5.4 kg/kWe. PDF p.6-7: "The cost of subsequent production runs follows a 90% learning curve - i.e., the unit cost of a given system decreases by 10% every time the number produced doubles." PDF p.7: "Range costs were estimated as a flat $200 million/year, regardless of launch activity. Annual loaded labor costs were taken as $225,000 per person." PDF p.7: "The minimum figure is $403/kg, which would not reach breakeven until the end of the deployment scenario in 2050... a launch price of $450/kg would add $2,430/kWe to the overnight cost of the system. If this cost is amortized over a sunsat life of 25 years at a discount rate of 6%, and if the system operates 95% of the time (i.e., for 8,328 hours per year), the launch would contribute 2.28 cents/kWh." PDF p.8: "The costs shown here include construction of the LVs but not their development." Verification: PDF pages 3, 5, 7 and 8 were each rendered as a PNG at 4x zoom (fitz.Matrix(4,4)) and visually inspected; every dollar figure, percentage and cent figure quoted above (>$10,000/kg, 6% and 9%, 90% learning curve, 10% per doubling, $200 million/year, $225,000/person, $403/kg, $2,430/kWe, 25 years, 6% discount rate, 95%, 8,328 hours, 2.28 cents/kWh, $60 billion deficit, $180 billion profit, $600/kg) matched the raw text extraction exactly; no dropped minus signs or percent signs were found in this document.
Basis: USD, basis year not stated explicitly in the source. Treated as circa-2010 (publication year) dollars, since the paper's own "currently" reference price (>$10,000/kg) is contemporaneous with the 2010 publication date and no inflation adjustment is mentioned. $/kg for launch price. $/kWe for capital cost add-on. US cents/kWh for the levelised electricity cost contribution. Costs include launch vehicle (LV) construction and operations; they explicitly EXCLUDE LV development cost (stated in source).
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-003 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0194
CLM-0194, Energy Aperture, as of 2010.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.