Value chain · CLM-0702
In plain terms
Electric trips from a low orbit to a high one took four to seven months on real flights and in most models held here, and NASA's four-month figure is at the fast end of that. One European study expects at least 20 months for its modules, because the time depends on how much thrust each tonne gets.
The claim as recorded
All-electric LEO or GTO to GEO transfer durations in the flown and modelled cases listed below span roughly 4 to 7 months, and NASA OTPS's "about 4 months" sits inside that span rather than below it; one held SBSP study models a much longer transfer, 620 days as an ideal figure for 50 t modules on Falcon Heavy (SRC-206), so the span is not universal and depends on the thrust-to-mass ratio assumed. Measured: Boeing 702SP family "in the order of 6 months"; Eutelsat 172B about 4 months. Modelled: Lozinski et al. about 200 days; JPL 1980 at 2 x 10^6 kg gives 160 to 213 days depending on thruster.
Evidence behind this: T3 (SRC-190, SRC-012); T4/T5 (comsat mission reporting)
Scope and limits
The Eutelsat 172B figure comes from mission reporting, not from a primary technical post-flight paper, and none is held. Spacecraft masses differ by three orders of magnitude across these cases, so the span is not a like-for-like comparison - see CLM-0701 on why specific power, not mass, is the controlling variable.
What it assumes
that "transfer duration" means the powered orbit-raising phase in each case.
Where it comes from
Figure 2, image-read: 205, 213 and 160 days for three thruster options at 2 x 10^6 kg. SRC-012 PDF p.91: "about 4 months". eoPortal, Boeing 702SP: "in the order of 6 months". Eutelsat 172B: about 4 months, all-electric, reported in the corroboration pass. SRC-206 PDF p.22: "the ideal transfer time to GEO will be 620 days. In reality it will take longer"; PDF p.20: EP "elongates the transport time to target orbit from LEO to GEO to years (depending on the thrust-to-mass-ratio installed)".
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-040 not published in this release
- Contradicts
- CLM-0674 not published in this release
- Supersedes
- CLM-0674 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0702
CLM-0702, 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-190
- CLM-0700A 1980 JPL paper already worked out how to move a two-thousand-tonne payload from low orbit to high orbit using electric thrusters. It...CLM-0701The 1980 study assumes each kilogram being moved has 75 watts of electrical power pushing it. One real electric satellite manages between...
- Also from SRC-206
- CLM-0710The second European study, which had never been obtained here, is now in the archive. It puts the cost of a two-gigawatt first system at...