Value chain · CLM-1017
In plain terms
By 1981 the programme itself said the ionospheric limit it had designed to was probably too cautious, and worked out what relaxing it to more than double would be worth: nearly twice the power from a slightly larger antenna, at a third of the cost penalty.
The claim as recorded
The programme office's 1981 consolidated system definition kept 23 mW/cm2 as its guideline, states twice that "there is evidence that 23 mW/cm2 may be conservative (ref. 8)", and costs a 54 mW/cm2 limit: at 23 mW/cm2 a 1.36 km antenna delivers 2.76 GW to the grid with a 7.6 km rectenna at 50 per cent higher electricity cost than the reference (70.6 mills/kWh); at 54 mW/cm2 a 1.53 km antenna delivers 5.05 GW with a 6.8 km rectenna at 17 per cent higher (55 mills/kWh).
Evidence behind this: T3-programme office summary; a stated doubt with its reference number, and a sizing exercise.
Scope and limits
"REF. 8" IS CITED, NOT SHOWN, AND IS NOT IDENTIFIED IN THIS RECORD (the reference list is letterspaced and unread); the 54 mW/cm2 case is a sizing exercise, not a revised limit, and the guideline remained 23. The two costed cases are smaller antennas than the reference, so neither is the reference system at a higher limit.
What it assumes
The reference system's 5 GW, 1 km antenna and its 1979-dollar costs.
Where it comes from
PDF p.13, normalised: "There is recent evidence that 23 mW/cm2 may be conservative (ref. 8)". PDF p.42, raw: "may be conservative"; the full sentence at the normalised level: "There is evidence that 23 mW/cm2 may be conservative (ref. 8); if so, the maximum power per link could be increased and/or the antenna size could be reduced." PDF p.44, from the render, columns "23 mW/cm2 limit" and "54 mW/cm2 limit": antenna diameter 1.36 and 1.53 km; rectenna dc grid power 2.76 and 5.05 GW; rectenna diameter 7.6 and 6.8 km; relative rectenna area 56 and 46 per cent; electricity cost increase 50 and 17 per cent; electricity cost 70.6 and 55 mills/kWh, 1.96 and 1.53 cents/MJ; "Note that the rectenna areas and electricity costs are in comparison to those for the reference SPS system."
Basis: mW/cm2 at the ionosphere; km of antenna; GW at the grid; per cent electricity cost
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-001 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-1017
CLM-1017, Energy Aperture, as of 1981.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-554
- CLM-0911If the steering signal from the ground stops, the 1978 design's beam does not carry on pointing somewhere. It falls apart, and the power on...CLM-1018Three years of study left the efficiency chain exactly where 1978 put it, and Boeing's own version says out loud the solar constant the...CLM-1019The programme gave three reasons for choosing the klystron; the company that designed the satellite said the choice was more or less...CLM-1020By 1981 the programme was confident the beam could be pointed and formed, and named the network that carries the timing reference across...CLM-1022A loss you can make up by adding solar panels costs about 56 million dollars per percentage point; a loss at the ionospheric ceiling costs...CLM-1087When the programme wrote down why it used 2.45 GHz, its reasons were consistent: each time it named the industrial band and how the beam...CLM-1091The people running the programme said 2.45 GHz was sensible and also said, in the same breath, that nobody international had agreed to it...CLM-1478Almost everything that can go wrong with this design makes the beam fall apart and become harmless, which is the right way to fail. Two...