Value chain · CLM-0389
In plain terms
The question was how much of the apparent twenty-times disagreement between major space solar power cost studies was real, and how much was just different currencies, price-years, investment-return assumptions and satellite lifespans. The answer is that almost none of it was bookkeeping. Once everything is put on the same footing, NASA's figures, as rebuilt here, are still 19 to 37 times the UK government-commissioned study's, and less far apart from the European study's, and the single biggest reason is that they assume very different prices for getting a kilogram of hardware into orbit. This is a genuine, unresolved disagreement about a real-world cost, not an artefact of how the numbers were reported.
The claim as recorded
Restating the core institutional FOAK SBSP LCOE estimates (Frazer-Nash BEIS 2021, Frazer-Nash ESA 2022, NASA OTPS 2024) onto an identical 2024 GBP, 20-year-asset-life, 3%-or-10%-real-discount-rate basis does not resolve the roughly-factor-of-twenty spread recorded, without any restatement, in an earlier record (CLM-0360, since superseded by CLM-0390); the restated gap between the cheapest of these, Frazer-Nash BEIS, and NASA's two designs as rebuilt here is 19-37x depending on which NASA design and which discount rate is used (CALC-064), essentially unchanged from or larger than the pre-restatement figure; the ratio against the Frazer-Nash ESA estimate is smaller and is not 19-37x. Currency and basis year contribute only a few percent (CLM-0376); FOAK/NOAK contributes ~15-25% (CLM-0381) and does not apply to this FOAK-only comparison; discount rate is a large mechanical lever (~4-5x) but is assigned in the direction that widens, not narrows, the gap (CLM-0380). The largest identified real driver is the assumed launch cost per kilogram to GEO, where NASA's near-term assumption is several times higher than either Frazer-Nash study's, despite Frazer-Nash's much harsher discount rate (CLM-0382); the remainder is genuine, currently unquantifiable architecture and scope difference (CLM-0386).
Scope and limits
This is a synthesis claim; every individual restated figure and every individual decomposition component it rests on carries its own, separately stated limits (CLM-0370-0388). The residual cannot currently be split further between "Frazer-Nash's launch-cost assumption" and "genuine CASSIOPeiA-vs-RD1/RD2 architecture difference" without obtaining Frazer-Nash's full underlying cost model.
What it assumes
See CLM-0370-0388 for every individual assumption feeding this synthesis.
Where it comes from
This is the project's own working, shown in full:
restate-lcoe.py full printed trace (Sections 2-7); write-up Sections 3-6 in full.
Basis: GBP2024, 20-year asset life, 3% and 10% real discount rate
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-004 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0389
CLM-0389, Energy Aperture, as of 2026-09.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Cited in articles