Energy Aperture

Value chain · CLM-0468

In plain terms

In this model, free launch alone, with every other input unchanged, still leaves the electricity cost at about 0.10 dollars per kWh or more, because building and replacing the hardware itself costs too much.

The claim as recorded

No single lever tested in this model -- including launch cost driven to 0 USD/launch, a physical impossibility tested only to establish a floor -- brings RD1's LCOE below roughly 0.10-0.17 USD/kWh across a grid of hardware lifetime (10-30 yr) and module learning rate (0.65-0.75); a manufacturing-cost floor remains in every case.

Scope and limits

This is a floor under the stated baseline efficiency/capacity-factor/discount-rate assumptions; CORRECTED 2026-09-06 BY RUNNING THE MODEL RATHER THAN READING ITS OUTPUT. With free launch AND the whole companion package applied together (a different, combined case from the single-lever floor in the claim), Section 8 gives a floor of 0.0410 to 0.0641 USD/kWh across the full twelve-cell grid, with SEVEN of the twelve cells BELOW 0.05. The previous text here said 0.051 to 0.064, "ABOVE 0.05 and never below it", and that was wrong. The cause is a reporting artefact in the script, not an arithmetic error: section_breakeven() prints a floor ONLY for cells where the break-even search FAILS, so the five printed values are the five worst cells and the seven cheaper ones print a break-even launch cost instead. Reading the printed output therefore samples the failures and calls it the range. Re-derived here by importing the module and evaluating lcoe_only(clone_params(companion_package(life, lr), starship_cost=0.0)) over all twelve cells; the five printed values reproduce exactly as 0.0509 to 0.0641, which is how the artefact was confirmed rather than inferred. This correction runs in SBSP's FAVOUR, unlike most found in this register.

What it assumes

All other RD1 baseline parameters (efficiency, capacity factor, discount rate) held fixed while finding this floor.

Where it comes from

SRC-012 Space Based Solar Power., 2024

This is the project's own working, shown in full:

CALC-057 Break-even search, and the floor that survives free launch
Trace, Section 8: zero-launch-cost floor values, 0.0969 to 0.1722 $/kWh across the tested grid.

Basis: FY2022 USD, nominal; discount rate 3%; RD1

Related records
Answers question
QST-004 not published in this release
Supersedes
CLM-0411 not published in this release

Cite this

energyaperture.com/c/clm-0468

CLM-0468, 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.