Value chain · CLM-0942
In plain terms
Three documents held here give three different sizes for the same satellite's transmitting antenna. The patent says 1 to 1.5 km across and explains why. A 2026 paper says about 2 km by 2 km, citing someone else. A 2024 law review says 2 km across. The last two use the same number for different shapes, and a 2 km circle collects a fifth less than a 2 km square.
The claim as recorded
Three held documents give three different size figures for the same concept, and the patent's own is the smallest. The patent, PDF p.19, verbatim: "From GSO (36,000km), typically the array may have an X,Y,Z dimension of 1km to 1.5km across - taking account of the fundamental diffraction limit and setting an ideal/safe 230W/m^2 ground peak intensity." SRC-001 p.2 gives "the antenna aperture is designed to be approximately 2 km x 2 km", attributed to its own reference [3] rather than stated first-hand. SRC-014 p.17 gives "a diameter of 2 km". So the 2 km figure is not the patent's, and the patent states 1 to 1.5 km with a stated basis. The two later figures also differ from each other in SHAPE, a 2 km square against a 2 km diameter circle, which is 4.00 km2 against 3.14 km2 - 21.5 per cent less collecting area for the same stated number.
Evidence behind this: T3 by the weakest-source convention, from the patent. A patent is the primary statement of what its own inventor claimed for the design, which is the right authority for this question and a poor authority for what a built system would do.
Scope and limits
THREE FIGURES ARE NOT NECESSARILY A CONTRADICTION AND THIS RECORD DOES NOT CALL THEM ONE. A patent describes a family of embodiments and says "typically"; a design paper may describe a later or larger variant; and eight years separate the patent from SRC-001. What is established is that the 2 km figure cannot be attributed to the patent, and that a reader meeting "2 km" in a secondary document has no way to know which shape or which basis is meant. The shape difference is not settled either: neither later document states whether its 2 km is an edge or a diameter beyond the words quoted, and the 21.5 per cent area difference is arithmetic on those words rather than a measured discrepancy. SRC-001 attributes its figure to its reference [3] and is therefore not a first-hand statement, so two of the three figures trace to documents not examined here. A FIFTH CAVEAT, ADDED 2026-09-15, WHICH THE FIRST VERSION OF THIS RECORD OWED ITSELF: THE THREE FIGURES MAY NOT BE THE SAME QUANTITY. The patent gives "an X,Y,Z dimension of 1km to 1.5km across" - a three-axis extent of a helical array, which is the geometry this concept is built on - while SRC-001's "2 km x 2 km" and SRC-014's "a diameter of 2 km" are planar aperture language. The 21.5 per cent area comparison above therefore rests on treating a bounding extent in three axes as an aperture edge, and nothing here establishes that it is one. The claim's wording was changed from "transmit-aperture figures" to "size figures" for the same reason. This record's whole point is that a reader meeting "2 km" cannot tell which basis is meant, and the same doubt reaches its own comparison - the kind of caveat a record is least likely to write about itself.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
All three read from the held files. SRC-088 PDF p.19 as quoted, in a paragraph that also gives "34m across" for a 20 km stratospheric array and "~34 metres for a 74 metre rectenna (beam spot) diameter" at 20-plus km, so the document states aperture dimensions in several places and is not silent on size. SRC-001 PDF p.2, verbatim: "the antenna aperture is designed to be approximately 2 km x 2 km, while the rectenna farm on Earth is projected to cover an area of 6.7 km x 13 km [3]" - the multiplication sign is rendered here as "x". SRC-014 PDF p.17, verbatim: "which has a diameter of 2 km".
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-016 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-0942
CLM-0942, Energy Aperture, as of 2026.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-001
- CLM-0511The first real, built, and measured version of CASSIOPeiA's beam-steering hardware converts electricity to radio power at 42%, against...CLM-0512The small prototype achieved a beam strength close to what a real system would use, but only over an area the size of a small table, using...CLM-0516Public money funded a real piece of hardware that was built and tested, not just another report -- a rare outcome in this field -- even...CLM-0903The shared clock tells every sensor to take its reading at the same moment. How precise that clock must be depends on how fast the thing...CLM-0916The built prototype gives every single antenna its own steering circuit rather than sharing one between a group. The steering signal...CLM-1441Documents give the size of the CASSIOPeiA satellite design as anything from 1 to 2 km across. For a full-size version delivering 2...
- Also from SRC-014
- CLM-0937A 2024 law review article quotes a 2011 assessment's figure for how much solar power satellites would warm the Earth. The assessment said...CLM-0944A 2024 legal article about the law of space solar power talks about radio spectrum exactly once, in half a sentence, and gives no source...CLM-0945The article asks whether the orbital slot a solar power satellite sits in counts as a "space resource" under the Outer Space Treaty. If it...
- Also from SRC-088
- CLM-0896The patent describes measuring the incoming steering signal at scattered sensors, not at every antenna, and working out the values in...CLM-0897The satellite aims its beam by listening for a low-power signal sent up from the receiving station, measuring the shape of that arriving...CLM-0899The patent never says the steering signal is protected in any way. There is a difference between scrambling that signal so nobody can read...CLM-0900The satellite can point its beam far further than there is Earth to point at, so moving power from one receiving station to another is not...CLM-0903The shared clock tells every sensor to take its reading at the same moment. How precise that clock must be depends on how fast the thing...CLM-0905Sharing a clock is not the same as being told what to do. The clock and the carrier tell the antennas nothing about where to send the power...CLM-0913When the satellite corrects its own bending by listening to the ground signal, what is left over is not how far the antennas moved. It is...CLM-1176Each transmitting element on the satellite is a small cluster of three short rod antennas standing a quarter of a wavelength apart, all...More on the source page.