Value chain · CLM-1018
In plain terms
Three years of study left the efficiency chain exactly where 1978 put it, and Boeing's own version says out loud the solar constant the 1978 figure only implied.
The claim as recorded
The programme office's 1981 efficiency chain (Figure III-12) is box for box the 1978 Reference System's Figure 5, every factor and gigawatt figure unchanged at 6.97 and 7.06 per cent overall; and Boeing's Phase II blanket sizing states the solar input outright as 1,353 W/m2, which the 1978 figure only implied, running 0.173 cell efficiency, 0.9453 blanket factors, 0.954 thermal degradation, 0.919 orientation loss, 0.9675 aphelion intensity, 0.97 non-annealable radiation degradation and 0.983 regulation, auxiliary power and annealing to an end-of-life blanket output of 179 W/m2, 49.6 km2 of solar cells and 8,876 MW at the array.
Evidence behind this: T3-programme office summary and contractor reference system description, the same relationship stated three times.
Scope and limits
Boeing's decomposition differs from SRC-085's (four blanket factors in place of one) and agrees in product; the text layer of p.43 renders "1,353" as "l,lj)", so the figure is a render reading. Nothing in TM-58236 flags any change from 1978; the comparison is this record's.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
PDF p.73, Figure III-12 from the render, compared box by box with SRC-085 Figure 5 (CLM-0974): identical factors and gigawatts, with the 0.88 and 0.89 labels swapped between the rectenna collection and conversion boxes and the product unchanged. SRC-495 PDF p.43 from the render: "SOLAR INPUT: 1,353 W/m2; Solar-Cell Conversion Efficiency (0.173) 234.1; Blanket Factors (0.9453) 221.3; Thermal Degradation (0.954) 211.1; Orientation Loss (0.919) 194.0; Aphelion Intensity (0.9675) 187.7; Nonannealable Radiation Degradation (0.97) 182.1; Regulation, Auxiliary Power, and Annealing (0.983) 179; EOL BLANKET OUTPUT: 179 W/m2; TOTAL SOLAR-CELL AREA: 49.6 km2; SOLAR ARRAY OUTPUT: 8,876 MW". Recomputed: 1,353 x 0.173 = 234.1, and each step reproduces the printed intermediate to 0.1 W/m2; 179 x 49.6e6 = 8,878 MW against the printed 8,876. Boeing's 49.6 km2 for 8.876 GW is 5.59 km2 per GW at the array.
Basis: W/m2 through a blanket chain; km2; MW at the array
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-002 not published in this releaseQST-018 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-1018
CLM-1018, Energy Aperture, as of 1981.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-085
- CLM-0013The paper that modern UK studies rely on for the beam figure calls anything below 1 kilowatt per square metre safe, with 230 watts per...CLM-0020The original 1978 design set the beam at 230 watts per square metre in the middle of the receiving site, about one twenty-third of that at...CLM-0023In the 1978 reference design, two limits set the size of the transmitter and the receiving site: how much heat the transmitter can shed...CLM-0039The 1978 report set the figure to protect radio and navigation systems from a disturbed ionosphere, called the number theoretical and...CLM-0045The apparent conflict between 12 and 23 was not an error. The underlying study gave a range, and the figure adopted sits near the top of it.CLM-0101The 1978 contract required the researchers to report fixes if ionospheric disturbance pushed the pilot-beam phase error past 2 to 3...CLM-0137In four major space solar power studies from 1978 to 2007, none put a number on how much of the beam's energy would be lost if the beam...CLM-0138The original 1978 government design for beaming power down from space adds up all the expected energy losses to get 63% overall efficiency...More on the source page.
- Also from SRC-495
- CLM-0996The beams the reference satellite would be built from are specified down to the wall thickness, and two contractors give the stiffness...CLM-1019The programme gave three reasons for choosing the klystron; the company that designed the satellite said the choice was more or less...CLM-1021Boeing ran the timing reference down glass fibre in four stages, measured each fibre's delay by sending the signal back, and used a second...
- 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-1017By 1981 the programme itself said the ionospheric limit it had designed to was probably too cautious, and worked out what relaxing it to...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...