Value chain · CLM-0531
In plain terms
Neither the UK nor the US figure for what it costs to get a kilogram of hardware into the power station's real orbit is based on an actual, completed transaction. Both are assumptions about future launches, and NASA says it makes no claim that its assumed launch price is reliable. For the same rocket and the same starting price per launch, the two figures differ mainly in how hardware is assumed to get from low orbit to its final orbit, and that is what changes the number of launches needed.
The claim as recorded
Neither NASA's nor Frazer-Nash's launch-cost assumption is an observed, transacted price for GEO-delivered mass; both are assumptions about launchers for future operations. NASA assumes that Starship, which it describes as "currently in testing", will be commercially available at USD 100M per launch, and it makes "no claim as to the reliability of this assumption"; Frazer-Nash prices Starship and a SABRE spaceplane "to explore the likely range of cost figures for the future space launch market". In their Starship cases the two studies start from the same USD 100M per launch, to which NASA applies a 15 per cent block-buy discount, but they assume different routes to GEO: NASA assumes each payload Starship is refuelled in LEO by 12 tanker launches and flies on to GEO (13 launches per 100 t), while Frazer-Nash assumes chemical tugs raise payloads to an assembly orbit at around 5,900 km and the assembled satellite raises itself to its final orbit by on-board electric propulsion (2 launches per 61.3 t to GEO). The difference in launch count follows from that difference in transfer architecture. Frazer-Nash's second case, a reusable spaceplane, assumes a different cost per flight.
Evidence behind this: T4, the weaker of its sources: NASA's study is T3 (SRC-012); the Frazer-Nash input-data annex is a consultancy study, T4 (SRC-019).
Scope and limits
Synthesis claim. NASA's USD 100M is the price before its 15 per cent block-buy discount. Frazer-Nash's page does not say whether either launcher had flown. The same-price comparison holds for the two Starship cases only; Frazer-Nash's spaceplane case assumes GBP 7.5M per flight with 15 tonnes to LEO.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
NASA, CLM-0528 and SRC-012 PDF p.27 (printed p.10): Starship, "which is currently in testing, will be commercially available at $100M per launch. We make no claim as to the reliability of this assumption given the early stages of Starship development"; "We include a 15% block buy discount"; "We assume one payload-laden Starship in LEO requires refueling by 12 separate Starship propellant tankers to reach GEO". The same inputs are tabled at PDF p.65 (printed p.48). Frazer-Nash, CLM-0716 and SRC-019 PDF p.11, in paraphrase: the study takes two launch systems to explore the likely range of future launch costs. Chemical tugs raise each payload from low Earth orbit to a medium Earth orbit of around 5,900 km, just above the inner Van Allen belt, where the satellite is assembled; the assembled satellite then climbs to its final orbit on its own electric propulsion, powered by its own solar arrays. Each payload launch needs one more launch to carry tug propellant to low Earth orbit. Using this tug scheme, the study estimates that 2 launches can deliver 61.3 tonnes to GEO. Assuming USD 100M a launch, comparable with the current cost of a SpaceX Falcon Heavy, the study gives USD 3,260 per kg. The spaceplane case is GBP 7.5M per flight with 15 tonnes to LEO (CLM-0716).
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-003 not published in this releaseQST-004 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0531
CLM-0531, 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.
- Also from SRC-019
- CLM-0172The study uses a high assumed rate of return (20%) to work out the headline cost-per-unit-of-electricity figure, but uses a much lower...CLM-0176The launch-cost range that drives most of this study's cost uncertainty is not based on any launch that has actually happened - for...CLM-0177The cost model assumes the satellite gets cheaper to build the more of them are made, using a range that runs from the faster cost-learning...CLM-0522The UK study used a 20% return requirement, based on what institutional investors are expected to want. The US study used 3%, on a one-line...CLM-0539A UK consultancy, working for the European Space Agency and using the same design as its reference point, actually published a full weight...CLM-0714The 2021 UK study by Frazer-Nash Consultancy proposed that the satellite fly itself to its final orbit, using its own solar panels to run...CLM-0715The 2021 UK study assumed one extra fuel launch for every payload launch; NASA's 2024 study assumed twelve. The reason, which neither study...CLM-1430Put in 2024 money, a reliable British grid built on wind, sun and stored hydrogen would cost about 61 to 107 pounds per megawatt-hour in...More on the source page.
- Cited in articles