Value chain · CLM-0666
In plain terms
NASA also modelled a third option: a rocket that flies itself all the way to the final orbit without refuelling, at the cost of carrying so much of its own fuel that it can only deliver about a fifth of its normal cargo. This cuts cost a lot but barely cuts emissions, because so many more rockets have to be built.
The claim as recorded
NASA OTPS's report models a third, intermediate chemical transfer architecture alongside its 12-refuel baseline and its electric-propulsion sensitivity: direct chemical insertion to GEO, in which Starship carries its own transfer propellant all the way, cutting its LEO payload capacity from 100 t to 21 t, reducing total lifecycle cost by at least 42% (RD1) and 47% (RD2), but reducing GHG emissions by only 8-9% because of the much larger number of Starships that must then be manufactured.
Scope and limits
A chemical, not electric, alternative - included here for table completeness, not because it bears on the electric-propulsion question directly.
What it assumes
Removing "reusability" alongside the direct-GEO change is stated by the report as part of the same modification; no disaggregation of how much of the cost change is attributable to each sub-change is recorded in the register.
Where it comes from
"Sensitivity Analysis 2 - Launch Direct to GEO... Starships take payloads directly to GEO, removing refuel launches and reusability, and reducing payload capacity to 21 MT... Result: While costs are reduced by at least 42% and 47% for RD1 and RD2, respectively, due to the reduced number of launches, GHG emissions decrease just 8% and 9%, respectively, due to the increased number of Starships manufactured."
Basis: metric tons payload capacity; percentage cost/GHG change, FY2022 basis
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-040 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0666
CLM-0666, Energy Aperture, as of 2024-01.
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.