Value chain · CLM-1264
In plain terms
The plan had three steps. First, check whether space solar makes sense against ground solar, what the law allows, and whether it could power Mars missions. Second, compare system designs and pick up to three. Third, study two or three small demonstration missions in enough detail for ESA to decide whether to go ahead.
The claim as recorded
ESA's 2003 SPS programme plan sets three phases: phase I, general viability, comparing space and terrestrial solar power and covering legal aspects and power for space exploration; phase II, a system architecture trade-off to pick one to three concepts and a technology roadmap; and phase III, technology focus and two to three feasibility studies for near-term demonstrator missions. Phase I was to use existing designs (the NASA Fresh Look study, the ESA/DLR SE&U study and Japanese work) as references: "No new space based systems shall be developed during phase I" (p.9). It poses six tasks (p.9-11, paraphrase): base load, peak load, combined terrestrial and space systems, energy return times, legal aspects, and SPS for space exploration. The legal task covers international and space law, environmental law, "treaties on disarmament" and ITU frequency allocation (p.11). Phase II builds on phase I's findings and focuses on European capabilities, hydrogen-based energy systems and roadmaps (p.12-13, paraphrase). Phase III includes possible ISS-based demonstrators and studies detailed enough to feed an ESA CDF phase-A study (p.14, paraphrase).
Evidence behind this: The agency's own programme plan: the planned content of each phase; not evidence that any phase ran.
Scope and limits
PLANNED CONTENT ONLY. No held record says which phases or studies were contracted or completed. The plan has internal inconsistencies. Phase III is to produce two to three feasibility studies (p.13, p.15) yet is "most likely" one study (p.14, paraphrase). ESSPERANS is called "Annex B" on p.11 but appears as Annexe A.2 (p.2, p.20). The plan names no demonstrator mission, power level or launch date, so it gives QST-027 no first-power date.
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
p.9 (section 2.1.1): phase I takes existing NASA, ESA/DLR SE&U and Japanese (ISAS, NASDA) designs as reference, with no new space systems developed. p.9-10: tasks 1 to 4 (base load, peak load, combination, energy return times). p.10-11: task 5, legal aspects, including "treaties on disarmament" and ITU frequency allocation. p.11: task 6, SPS for exploration. p.11-12 (section 2.1.2): tasks 1-4 in one study, ideally led by an "independent" entity heading a consortium of terrestrial and space groups; legal study by a research centre; task 6 as a separate study (paraphrase). p.12-13 (section 2.2): phase II scope. p.13-14 (section 2.3): phase III scope, the ISS and the CDF phase-A follow-on. p.15 (section 3.1): the studies listed under each phase (all paraphrase except the quoted spans).
Basis: planned phase content and study structure as stated in July 2003
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-027 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-1264
CLM-1264, Energy Aperture, as of 2003-07-08.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-638
- CLM-1263In 2003 ESA planned a two-year set of paper studies to help its member countries decide whether space solar power was worth pursuing. The...CLM-1265ESA planned to finish the whole set of studies in under two years, roughly 2003 to 2005, with the three steps taking about six, six and...CLM-1266ESA set up a small expert advisory group and its in-house futures team to steer the studies. It also linked the work to a wider European...CLM-1267ESA also wanted to know whether beaming solar power from a satellite could power Mars and Moon bases or distant probes, because Europe had...CLM-1268In 2003 ESA's own rough internal sums suggested space solar and comparable ground solar would cost about the same, to within a factor of...