Value chain · CLM-1020
In plain terms
By 1981 the programme was confident the beam could be pointed and formed, and named the network that carries the timing reference across the transmitter as the part it was least sure of, with the choice between cable, fibre and a broadcast reference still open.
The claim as recorded
The programme's 1981 phase control conclusions: pointing is not critical at 10 degrees rms phase error given mechanical alignment, less than 3 per cent is lost from the main beam and pointing error is under 250 m at 99 per cent probability; phase control down to the power-module level is economically justified; for the retrodirective concept "Doppler effects are not a problem" while "biases in the distribution system present a potentially serious calibration problem", and dephasing "occurs in milliseconds and diffuses the power beam to 0.003" mW/cm2; and ten issues remain open, among them "cable versus fiber optics versus distributed signal" and phase error buildup in the distribution system.
Evidence behind this: T3-programme office conclusions "as a result of the analytical, simulation, and test activities conducted to date".
Scope and limits
CONCLUSIONS FROM ANALYSIS, SIMULATION AND THE RP-1076 BREADBOARDS, NOT FROM AN ARRAY; the 250 m and 3 per cent are stated, not derived on the page.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
PDF p.47 from the render: conclusions 1 to 5 as stated. PDF p.48, raw: "Doppler effects are not a problem"; normalised: "Biases in the distribution system present a potentially serious calibration problem"; "Dephasing occurs in milliseconds and diffuses the power beam to 0.003". PDF p.49 from the render: issues 1 to 10, including "cable versus fiber optics versus distributed signal" (present in the text layer squashed) and phase error buildup in the distribution system.
Basis: degrees rms of phase error; per cent beam loss; m of pointing error; open issues
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-013 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-1020
CLM-1020, 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-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-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-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...