Value chain · CLM-0698
In plain terms
The Chinese cost table states a transport price of 1,000 dollars per kilogram in its column heading, but its own numbers only work out at about 482 dollars per kilogram. Every row shows the same mismatch, so it is not a rounding error. Either way the figure is far below NASA's assumed 11,050 dollars per kilogram - between 11 and 23 times below, depending which of the two you use.
The claim as recorded
CAST's cost table gives two different transport rates that do not reconcile with each other. The Transportation column header prints a rate of USD 1,000/kg, while the column's own total of USD 4,417 M over the paper's stated 9,160 t total mass implies an effective USD 482/kg. Every subsystem row reproduces the same ratio independently (solar 472, PTM 441, MPT 476 USD/kg), so the gap is systematic, not a rounding artefact. Applied to the full mass, the printed rate would give 9,160 M USD against the 4,417 M printed. Against NASA OTPS's assumed 11,050 USD/kg to GEO, NASA is 22.9x the effective rate or 11.1x the printed one. Transportation is 25.6 per cent of CAST's life-cycle cost against launch at 71-77 per cent for NASA.
Scope and limits
Which rate CAST intends cannot be determined from the pages read, and the register does not pick one. Plausible readings not distinguishable from the pages read: the printed 1,000 USD/kg may be a present-day reference rate while the model assumes a lower future one; the transported mass may differ from final on-orbit mass; or the parenthetical may be a misplaced unit annotation. The basis year is unstated, so both ratios mix an unknown-year USD with NASA's FY2022. These are comparisons of ASSUMPTIONS, not of demonstrated prices - no one has delivered a kilogram to GEO at either rate.
What it assumes
that Table II's "transportation" line covers Earth-to-GEO delivery of the 9,160 t space segment and nothing else.
Where it comes from
This is the project's own working, shown in full:
Table II header verbatim at 9x zoom: "Transportation ($1000/kg)", under a table titled "Cost Analysis Result of the Space Segment (Million U.S. Dollars)". Column values 850, 600, 2000, 770, 40, 105, 52, total 4417. Per-subsystem check against Table IV's image-confirmed masses: 850 M / 1,800 t = 472 USD/kg; 600 M / 1,360 t = 441; 2,000 M / 4,200 t = 476. Total 4,417 M / 9,160 t = 482. 9,160 t at the printed 1,000 USD/kg would be 9,160 M USD. NASA figures from CLM-0245 and CLM-0144; Frazer-Nash range from CLM-0382.
Basis: USD, YEAR NOT STATED
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-003 not published in this release
- Supersedes
- CLM-0691 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0698
CLM-0698, Energy Aperture, as of 2026-09-03.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-169
- CLM-0141A Chinese government-linked design study calculated that, outside the main beam of its proposed satellite, stray sidelobe power on the...CLM-0142A major Chinese government-linked design paper on a specific space solar power concept does not mention the upper atmosphere at all, and...CLM-0501A 2024 Chinese satellite design concept plans to beam down microwaves twice as strong as CASSIOPeiA's own typical figure, and its designers...CLM-0687The Chinese design says how it gets to orbit. Rockets carry the parts to a low orbit. A reusable space tug then moves each part up to the...CLM-0688The Chinese design shields the satellite parts from radiation during the climb to high orbit, using the tug itself as the shield. It also...CLM-0689The Chinese team published its own cost figures for a one-gigawatt system: about 17.3 billion US dollars over 30 years, which they put at...CLM-0692The Chinese design's own summary table adds up: the parts weigh what the total says they weigh. Its claimed 12.3 per cent efficiency is...CLM-0697The Chinese 6.6 cent figure ignores the cost of money. Once you charge interest on the capital, the same numbers give about 10 cents at a...More on the source page.