Value chain · CLM-0528
In plain terms
NASA's assumptions imply a high cost per kilogram delivered to the power station's actual orbit, mainly because NASA assumes every launch carrying hardware needs twelve extra fuel-only launches to refuel it for the climb from low orbit.
The claim as recorded
NASA OTPS's near-term launch assumptions imply about 11,050 USD/kg delivered to GEO, a figure NASA does not itself publish: USD 100M per Starship launch less a 15% block-buy discount, 100,000 kg per payload-carrying Starship, and 12 refuelling launches per payload Starship from LEO to GEO, giving 13 launch-equivalents per 100,000 kg (our arithmetic: 100M x 0.85 x 13 / 100,000 kg = 11,050). NASA attributes the 12 refuelling launches to public information on SpaceX's lunar landing system, reduced on the assumption that reaching GEO needs fewer refuelling launches than reaching cislunar space.
Scope and limits
A single multiplier for one specific propulsion architecture; does not model an alternative orbital-transfer approach. The 11,050 USD/kg is our derivation from NASA's stated inputs; NASA publishes no per-kg-to-GEO figure for it to match.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
This is the project's own working, shown in full:
Reproduced from CLM-0245. Inputs at SRC-012 PDF p65 (printed p48): Starship payload capacity to LEO 100,000 kg, launch cost USD 100,000,000, block-buy discounted rate 0.85, refuel launches required per Starship LEO to GEO 12. Provenance of the 12 at PDF p27 (printed p10), footnote 14: "This estimate was derived using publicly available information about the initial human landing system for lunar exploration to be developed by SpaceX and modifying that based on the assumption that reaching GEO orbit would not require as many refueling launches as would reaching cislunar space." The per-kg prices NASA does publish are to LEO, for example "$100M or $1000/kg (with 15% block buy discount, $85M or 850/kg)" (PDF p38, printed p21).
Basis: USD, FY2022, per kg delivered to GEO
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-040 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0528
CLM-0528, Energy Aperture, as of 2024.
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.
- Cited in articles