Value chain · CLM-1450
Low confidence
The evidence behind this statement is thin, indirect or second-hand. Read it as a lead to check, not as a settled finding.
In plain terms
SpaceX's price sheet lists a Falcon 9 launch at 74 million dollars, and 22,000 kilograms as the most it can carry to low orbit if the rocket is not recovered. Using those listed figures with the US study's own way of counting the extra launches needed to reach the power station's orbit gives a cost per kilogram about four times what the US study's own assumptions give, and the UK study's lowest input would need launches about ninety times cheaper than that listed figure. Both studies turn to electric propulsion for part of the climb, NASA only in the case where it finds a competitive cost, and this has not been shown at power-station scale.
The claim as recorded
SpaceX's price sheet (no printed date; its standard payment plan runs through 2026; as held on 2026-09-06) lists a Falcon 9 launch at USD 74 million and gives 22,000 kg to LEO as the maximum on a fully expendable vehicle; dividing the one by the other gives about USD 3,364/kg to LEO (our arithmetic, CLM-0534), a pairing the sheet itself does not make. Multiplying that figure by the 13 launch-equivalents per payload that NASA's chemical-refuelling assumptions imply (CLM-0528) gives about USD 43,700/kg to GEO, nearly four times the USD 11,050/kg to GEO that NASA's assumptions imply. Working back from the low bound of Frazer-Nash's spacelift cost input (GBP 358/kg, CLM-0716) at 1.30 to 1.40 USD/GBP and the same multiplier gives a LEO-equivalent cost of about USD 36 to 39/kg, some 87 to 94 times below the per-kg figure from the price sheet. NASA's report finds SBSP cost-competitive under a combination of five revised assumptions: USD 500/kg launch, electric-propulsion transfer from LEO to GEO, 15-year hardware lifetimes, cheaper servicer and debris-removal vehicles, and manufacturing learning curves of 85 per cent and below; Frazer-Nash also assumes electric propulsion, powered by the satellite's own arrays, for the final orbit raise after a chemical tug to MEO.
Evidence behind this: T6, the weakest of its sources: SpaceX's own price sheet is T6 (SRC-408); NASA's study is T3 (SRC-012); the Frazer-Nash input-data annex is a consultancy study, T4 (SRC-019). The cost figures are our arithmetic on the listed figures.
Scope and limits
A vendor price sheet is evidence of the price SpaceX lists, not of what a buyer pays, so this claim may not be used to state what launch to LEO or GEO costs; it states only what follows from the listed figures under the assumptions above. The sheet prints its USD 74 M price with up to 5.5 t to standard GTO, which is about USD 13,500/kg to GTO by our division (GTO is not GEO), and gives the 22,000 kg to LEO as the expendable maximum without saying that the standard price buys an expendable vehicle, so the USD 3,364/kg joins two figures the sheet does not join. The sheet has no printed date and its payment plan runs through 2026; the per-kg figure it feeds (CLM-0534) is due for review in 2027-01, before this record. An order-of-magnitude synthesis, not a rebuilt bottom-up model. The electric-transfer route is assumed by both studies and is not demonstrated at gigawatt-class satellite mass.
What it assumes
The 13-launch-equivalent multiplier, which NASA's inputs give for refuelling a payload Starship from LEO to GEO, is applied to a per-kg-to-LEO figure for Falcon 9; NASA does not do this. Frazer-Nash's spacelift cost input is treated as a cost per kg delivered to GEO. The 1.30 to 1.40 USD/GBP range is ours; Frazer-Nash states no conversion.
Where it comes from
p.1, paraphrased: in the Falcon 9 price row, a standard payment plan through 2026 at USD 74 M, with up to 5.5 t to standard GTO; in the destination table, 22,000 kg to LEO, 8,300 kg to GTO and 4,020 kg to Mars, with a footnote that performance is the maximum on a fully expendable vehicle. 74,000,000 / 22,000 = 3,363.6, about 3,364 USD/kg (our arithmetic, as in CLM-0534). CLM-0528: 13 launch-equivalents per 100,000 kg payload Starship and about 11,050 USD/kg to GEO, derived from NASA's inputs at SRC-012 PDF p.65; NASA does not publish the per-kg figure. 3,364 x 13 = 43,732; 43,732 / 11,050 = 3.96 (our arithmetic). SRC-019 PDF p.5, paraphrased: the model's spacelift cost per unit mass is log-uniform from GBP 358 to 2,410 per kg (CLM-0716); 358 x 1.30 to 1.40 = 465 to 501 USD/kg, divided by 13 = 35.8 to 38.6 USD/kg; 3,364 / 38.6 = 87 and 3,364 / 35.8 = 94 (our arithmetic and our exchange-rate range). SRC-019 PDF p.11, paraphrased: chemical tugs raise each payload to an assembly orbit of about 5,900 km, and the assembled satellite then raises itself to its final orbit by on-board electric propulsion powered by its own arrays (as CLM-0531). SRC-012 PDF p.10, read at the render: the five combined assumptions as listed in the claim.
Basis: USD, nominal, mixed vintages, order-of-magnitude comparison; GBP to USD at 1.30 to 1.40 (our range)
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-040 not published in this release
- Supersedes
- CLM-0536 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-1450
CLM-1450, Energy Aperture, as of 2026-09.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-012
- CLM-0006None of the five main studies mentions the international radio-frequency exposure limits, or any safety standard, or a restricted area...CLM-0123NASA's own 2024 study puts space solar power at 12 to 80 times the cost it expects in 2050 from power stations on the ground, a set it...CLM-0124NASA also found that if several things improve at once, rather than just one, space solar power does become cost competitive.CLM-0125On carbon, NASA found space solar power within the range of five renewable ways of making power on the ground (wind, solar, solar thermal...CLM-0144A NASA study found that launching everything into space is by far the biggest cost of a space solar power system, and that most of those...CLM-0192The full list of assumptions behind the headline result of NASA's 2024 study, that space solar power would cost far more than ground...CLM-0193To get to a competitive cost, NASA's own 2024 analysis needs launch costs to halve, solar cells to get much more efficient, satellites to...CLM-0240A from-scratch cost model of the "Innovative Heliostat Swarm" design gets almost the same electricity cost as NASA's own study: about 62...More on the source page.
- Also from SRC-019
- CLM-0172The study uses a high assumed rate of return (20%) to work out the headline cost-per-unit-of-electricity figure, but uses a much lower...CLM-0176The launch-cost range that drives most of this study's cost uncertainty is not based on any launch that has actually happened - for...CLM-0177The cost model assumes the satellite gets cheaper to build the more of them are made, using a range that runs from the faster cost-learning...CLM-0522The UK study used a 20% return requirement, based on what institutional investors are expected to want. The US study used 3%, on a one-line...CLM-0531Neither the UK nor the US figure for what it costs to get a kilogram of hardware into the power station's real orbit is based on an actual...CLM-0539A UK consultancy, working for the European Space Agency and using the same design as its reference point, actually published a full weight...CLM-0714The 2021 UK study by Frazer-Nash Consultancy proposed that the satellite fly itself to its final orbit, using its own solar panels to run...CLM-0715The 2021 UK study assumed one extra fuel launch for every payload launch; NASA's 2024 study assumed twelve. The reason, which neither study...More on the source page.
- Also from SRC-408
- CLM-0534SpaceX's published Falcon 9 price is lower per launch than the 100 million dollars both the US and UK studies assumed, but higher per...