Value chain · CLM-0841
In plain terms
This 2022 study was written by two European firms under contract to the European Space Agency, and it cites none of the earlier life-cycle carbon studies of space solar power from Strathclyde or Japan, so on the evidence of its citations it is a separate line of work, not another voice from those research groups.
The claim as recorded
SRC-207 was produced by Roland Berger GmbH with OHB System AG under European Space Agency contract 4000137398/22/NL/GLC and approved on 11 August 2022 by Manfred Hader, Senior Partner of Roland Berger per the document's own approval block, and a search of its body text, its eight footnotes and its 27 source lines found no citation of the Strathclyde or Wilson process-based life-cycle work, of Asakura or Hayami, or of NASA's Office of Technology, Policy and Strategy, its only architecture citation being a Figure 26 footnote attributing development costs to "The Case for Space Solar Power (2nd Edition), John C. Mankins, 2022".
Scope and limits
The independence finding is one-directional and bounded: it shows this document does not cite that lineage. It does NOT show the reverse, and it does not establish that the two lines of work reached comparable conclusions, since CLM-0840 records that this document produces no comparable quantity. NASA OTPS 2024 postdates this 2022 document, so its absence is temporal rather than a judgement. Naming the approver is drawn from the document's own printed approval block and from nowhere else. The text layer holds 29 "Source:" lines on 27 pages, none citing the named work, and figures held only as images carry their own, on p.42 ("Source: OHB System AG, Roland Berger") and p.68 (the European Commission and Roland Berger), neither citing it either. Besides the Figure 26 footnote, p.14 and p.41 rest the cost model on the study's own TN 03, and the p.73 launch derivation is that of TN 03 (SRC-206 p.23), which cites an IAC 2021 SPS-ALPHA paper for the station mass. The four companion notes (SRC-204, SRC-205, SRC-206, SRC-208), searched in their text layers, cite none of the named work either; TN 01 and TN 02 cite the CASSIOPeiA concept itself, not a life-cycle study of it.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
Approval block as printed. Figure 26 footnote p.42, image-only: "Development costs calculated based on The Case for Space Solar Power (2nd Edition), John C. Mankins, 2022". Absence established by full-text extraction searched case-insensitively for Strathclyde, Wilson, CASSIOPeiA, Asakura, Hayami, Sasaki, OTPS and Mankins, returning zero text hits; the document contains no bibliography section.
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-008 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0841
CLM-0841, Energy Aperture, as of 2022.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-207
- 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...CLM-0839A 2022 European consultancy study for ESA calculated that launching one space solar power satellite of the SPS-Alpha type would release...CLM-0840This 2022 ESA-commissioned study gave a total tonnage of greenhouse gas for launching a satellite but never converted it into emissions per...