Value chain · CLM-0660
In plain terms
The 2019 CASSIOPeiA paper does not discuss electric propulsion for getting the satellite to its orbit. It only prices delivery using ordinary rocket-fuel-based transfer methods.
The claim as recorded
CASSIOPeiA's 2019 concept paper does not consider electric propulsion or a dedicated orbital-transfer vehicle for delivering the satellite (its one mention of ion thrusters, printed p.178, is a small CASSIOPeiA powering free-flying robots); it prices delivery to GEO using only chemical means, an unmodified commercial launch vehicle's own GTO insertion plus "equal mass for circularisation propellant" (Falcon 9/Heavy) or a chemical circularisation burn after an extra chemical refuelling launch (BFR/BFS, the pre-Starship name).
Scope and limits
A silence finding, not a rejection finding: the 2019 paper does not consider and reject electric propulsion; it never raises the question, and its sections cover the concept's design, orbits and specific power, not how it reaches orbit. It does not name how circularisation is done; that it is chemical is inferred from the propellant masses the paper allows (equal mass for the Falcon case; 75 T to GTO becoming 40 T at GSO for BFS), not stated. Later held work on CASSIOPeiA-derived designs has looked at the question: Frazer-Nash's 2022 study for ESA assumed the modules reach their final orbit on a chemical-rocket transfer vehicle (SRC-078, PDF p.25), and a 2025 study by Frazer-Nash Consultancy, Space Solar Engineering and Imperial College found solar electric propulsion from low Earth orbit the cheapest option for its small-scale design but set it aside as not technically feasible, because the long transfer would spend too much time in the inner Van Allen belt (SRC-076, PDF p.18).
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
PDF p.2 (doc p.171) prices the 1979 NASA Reference System's two variants, of 51,000 and 34,000 tonnes, at "today's launch price to geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO) at $11,300 per kilogram" on a Falcon 9 or Falcon Heavy, with the same mass again in propellant to circularise: "this would entail a per-gigawatt cost of $230 B or $154 B respectively". For BFR/BFS, with one extra launch to refuel the second stage, "it is considered capable for placing 75 T onto GTO, which is 40 T at GSO following circularisation", about $5,000 per kilogram; that is the route the paper then applies to CASSIOPeiA, putting its launch cost at $5 B per gigawatt (PDF p.3, doc p.172).
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-002 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0660
CLM-0660, Energy Aperture, as of 2019.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-026
- CLM-0004The author of the 2019 CASSIOPeiA paper states the beam's strongest point is about 230 watts per square metre, and says that figure was...CLM-0006None of the five main studies mentions the international radio-frequency exposure limits, or any safety standard, or a restricted area...CLM-0013The paper that modern UK studies rely on for the beam figure calls anything below 1 kilowatt per square metre safe, with 230 watts per...CLM-0336Different design studies over four decades have each simply assumed a different working lifetime for a solar power satellite, from about 15...CLM-0339A 2019 paper said solar power satellites are often assumed to need visits in orbit for repairs and refuelling, but that no system yet...CLM-0441A normal geostationary satellite needs a small, regular fuel-based nudge every year to stay in place. One 2019 design proposes cutting most...CLM-0504None of the main CASSIOPeiA-related documents in the register mentions any named safety or exposure standard, or describes any restricted...CLM-1175The design would control its orientation without fuel. Small mirror panels near its front carry a coating whose reflection can be changed...More on the source page.