Value chain · CLM-0259
In plain terms
Building the cost model completely independently still leads to the same overall conclusion NASA reached: today's space-based solar power concepts cost far more than the electricity NASA projects for 2050 from five renewable sources on the ground and from nuclear (about 2 to 5 cents a kilowatt hour), and no single fix closes that gap on its own.
The claim as recorded
An independent order-of-magnitude model confirms NASA OTPS's top-line conclusion that baseline SBSP LCOE (0.62 USD/kWh RD1, 1.0-1.6 USD/kWh RD2 depending on the capacity-factor treatment in CLM-0247) is one to two orders of magnitude above 2050 terrestrial renewable projections (0.02-0.05 USD/kWh), and that reaching competitiveness requires several correlated, simultaneous improvements in launch cost, propulsion architecture, manufacturing learning and solar cell efficiency together, not any single lever alone.
Scope and limits
This is the headline conclusion of an order-of-magnitude check, not a technology-readiness or investment recommendation; it says nothing about timeline, and nothing about designs not assessed by either the source report or this model (e.g. lower-orbit SBSP architectures, explicitly excluded by the source report's own stated scope, p.6). NASA's 0.02 to 0.05 USD/kWh comparator covers five renewable technologies plus nuclear fission, all six filed under "terrestrial renewable electricity production technologies" (PDF p.8, printed vii); nuclear is not renewable, and NASA says it includes nuclear "even though it is not usually grouped with renewables" (PDF p.22, printed 5). NASA's Table 22 (PDF p.78, printed 61) gives the five renewables NASA plots in Figure 2 from 17.43 USD/MWh (land wind) to 49.06 (concentrating solar power with storage), about 0.02 to 0.05 USD/kWh on their own, and nuclear at 54.31, the dearest of the six; all six round into the same 0.02 to 0.05.
What it assumes
Aggregates all prior claims in this set (CLM-0240 to CLM-0258); inherits their individual limits.
Where it comes from
This is the project's own working, shown in full:
Trace, Sections 6-8: baseline LCOE 0.623/1.015-1.597 $/kWh vs terrestrial 0.02-0.05 $/kWh (12-32x to 20-80x, depending on design and capacity-factor treatment); Section 8 break-even table requires a multi-change companion package, matching the report's own 5-change "Competitive" scenario.
Basis: FY2022 USD, nominal; discount rate 3% baseline, 0-10% range tested
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-042 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0259
CLM-0259, Energy Aperture, as of 2026-09.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-012
- CLM-0006None of the five main studies mentions the international radio-frequency exposure limits, or any safety standard, or a restricted area...CLM-0123NASA's own 2024 study puts space solar power at 12 to 80 times the cost it expects in 2050 from power stations on the ground, a set it...CLM-0124NASA also found that if several things improve at once, rather than just one, space solar power does become cost competitive.CLM-0125On carbon, NASA found space solar power within the range of five renewable ways of making power on the ground (wind, solar, solar thermal...CLM-0144A NASA study found that launching everything into space is by far the biggest cost of a space solar power system, and that most of those...CLM-0192The full list of assumptions behind the headline result of NASA's 2024 study, that space solar power would cost far more than ground...CLM-0193To get to a competitive cost, NASA's own 2024 analysis needs launch costs to halve, solar cells to get much more efficient, satellites to...CLM-0240A from-scratch cost model of the "Innovative Heliostat Swarm" design gets almost the same electricity cost as NASA's own study: about 62...More on the source page.