Value chain · CLM-1443
In plain terms
The 2021 study for the UK government says the leading designs need no new materials, but that building them at a sensible cost needs two things that are not yet mature: robots that assemble large structures in orbit, and cheap reusable rockets. It says both are developing fast, that the whole system is at an early stage with considerable engineering risk, and that a programme of design and technology demonstration could address that risk.
The claim as recorded
Frazer-Nash's 2021 executive summary states: "The leading SPS concepts do not require any substantial advance in materials' technology or performance. However to build them economically will require two principal capabilities which are today immature but rapidly developing: robotic in-orbit assembly, and a low cost reusable space transportation infrastructure." On the same page it states that "The current Space Based Solar Power system maturity is low, and given the scale and ambition of this system, there is considerable engineering risk which can be addressed and mitigated by a programme of design and technology demonstration", and that "Our study has shown that it is technically feasible to develop a substantial Space Based Solar Power capability for the UK, and to complete this well before 2050."
Evidence behind this: T4, the executive summary of a consultancy study commissioned by the UK government (BEIS); the study team's own judgement, citing its Phase 1 report.
Scope and limits
The study team's judgement, not a measurement: the page gives no readiness level, date or evidence for "immature but rapidly developing", and does not define "economically". It is a commissioned study, and its feasibility finding is its own (its Phase 1 report is held as SRC-024).
What it assumes
No assumptions are recorded against this claim.
Where it comes from
PDF p.19 / printed 19, section 3 "Is it feasible?", 3.1 "Engineering feasibility", text layer, the three sentences as quoted. The page's footnote 2 cites "Frazer-Nash Consultancy Phase 1 Report ref 004456-51057R" for "Our study". The same page: "Whilst our cost modelling has focussed on CASSIOPeiA, we conclude that both these designs are technically and economically viable."
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-1443
CLM-1443, Energy Aperture, as of 2021-09.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-023
- CLM-0002The summary report says the beam is strongest at the middle of the receiving site, at about 240 watts per square metre, and argues that...CLM-0003The report gives the receiving site as an ellipse roughly 7 km by 13 km, and states a beam strength of 245 watts per square metre.CLM-0005A second figure of 29 watts per square metre appears in the same report, but it measures electricity produced per unit of land, not beam...CLM-0006None of the five main studies mentions the international radio-frequency exposure limits, or any safety standard, or a restricted area...CLM-1436A UK study says that one space solar power system would typically deliver about 2 gigawatts to the grid, and it compares this with the...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...CLM-1442A 2021 study for the UK government shows one design, CASSIOPeiA, as about 1.7 km across and 2,000 tonnes, sending 2 gigawatts to the grid...CLM-1444The 2021 study for the UK government concluded that space-based solar power is technically feasible, affordable at a competitive cost per...More on the source page.