Value chain · CLM-0683
In plain terms
If NASA's own numbers for switching to electric propulsion are applied to the existing side-by-side comparison of the big institutional cost studies, the gap between the cheapest and most expensive study shrinks from about twenty-to-thirty-five times down to about seven-to-ten times. That is a large improvement, but the studies still do not agree.
The claim as recorded
Substituting NASA OTPS's own stated electric-propulsion total-cost-reduction fractions (62% RD1, 69% RD2) into the restated FOAK institutional comparison at CLM-0379 ( Frazer-Nash BEIS 28.1, Frazer-Nash ESA 32.4-63.0, NASA RD1 564.0, NASA RD2 921.7, all GBP/MWh) gives NASA RD1 approximately 214.3 GBP/MWh (or 187.3 GBP/MWh using the 66.8% reduction computed at CLM-0254) and NASA RD2 approximately 285.7 GBP/MWh; re-running the same max/min ratio gives approximately 7.6x (or 6.7x) against RD1 and approximately 10.2x against RD2 - down from the previously established 19.0-20.1x and 32.8-36.5x, but not closed.
Scope and limits
Does not net off the radiation-degradation power loss quantified in CLM-0676 (see CLM-0684). The remaining 7-10x gap, once launch cost/transfer architecture is roughly equalised this way, still sits inside the "genuine, unquantified architecture and scope difference" category CLM-0386 already identified; this document has not attempted to resolve that remainder. If Frazer-Nash's own figures were given an equivalent electric-propulsion sensitivity, they would fall too, which would widen the ratio again; by how much is not known here.
What it assumes
This is an asymmetric, one-sided recalculation: it changes only NASA's assumption and holds Frazer-Nash's chemical-transfer-based figures fixed. Frazer-Nash's own CASSIOPeiA cost studies (SRC-019, SRC-021, SRC-078) also assume chemical transfer and have never had an electric-propulsion sensitivity applied to them in the register.
Where it comes from
This is the project's own working, shown in full:
CLM-0379: Frazer-Nash BEIS FOAK 28.1, Frazer-Nash ESA FOAK 32.4/63.0, NASA RD1 564.0, NASA RD2 921.7 (GBP/MWh, 3% real, 2024). CLM-0254: 66.8% reduction for RD1. SRC-012, PDF p.91: "62% total cost savings for the Innovative Heliostat Swarm and a 69% total cost savings for the Mature Planar Array." Own arithmetic: 564.0 x 0.38 = 214.3; 921.7 x 0.31 = 285.7; 285.7/28.1 = 10.2; 214.3/28.1 = 7.6.
Basis: GBP2024/MWh, 20-year asset life, 3% real discount rate (matching CLM-0379's own basis)
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-004 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0683
CLM-0683, 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.