Value chain · CLM-1472
In plain terms
The designer of the UK's CASSIOPeiA satellite says it has no moving parts and is built from many small identical pieces, so when pieces fail it loses power gradually rather than stopping. It is meant to run for 20 years or more with no planned repairs. A 2020 UK government study repeats this and treats the satellite's upkeep as a slow loss of power rather than a repair bill.
The claim as recorded
CASSIOPeiA's designer states that the design's lack of mechanical wearing parts and its sub-wavelength modularity let it be designed for graceful degradation over an assumed operating life of 20 or more years without planned maintenance. Frazer-Nash's 2020 feasibility report for the UK government restates this: the distributed design removes single points of failure, the designer envisages a maintenance-free satellite with an allowance for graceful degradation, and its summary table enters CASSIOPeiA's operating and maintenance cost as "Graceful degradation (i.e. loss of power but no maintenance cost)", where the two other designs it compares carry about GBP 243m and GBP 246m a year for 2 GW.
Evidence behind this: T4, graded at the weakest cited source (SRC-024). T2 (SRC-026, journal paper by the design's originator, so a design intent stated by its advocate); T4 (SRC-024, consultancy study restating the designer's intent).
Scope and limits
A design intent, not a demonstrated result: no CASSIOPeiA satellite has flown, and neither source gives a degradation rate. Both statements trace to the designer: SRC-024 reports what "the designer envisages". "Graceful degradation" means output falls as parts fail. It does not mean output is kept: the Frazer-Nash table records it as a loss of power. Neither source covers the ground segment. CLM-0336 quotes the same SRC-026 sentence for design life.
What it assumes
Design life 20 years or more (SRC-026).
Where it comes from
PDF p.8 (journal p.177), section 4.1, read at a zoom 4 crop: "CASSIOPeiA's lack of mechanical wearing parts and sub-wavelength modularity allows the system to be designed for graceful degradation over its operational lifetime (assumed 20 + years) without planned maintenance". The paragraph before it opens: "It is often assumed that a SPS will require regular servicing to replace worn components and refresh station-keeping propellent." SRC-024 PDF p.16, section 3.2 (heading on PDF p.15), read at a zoom 3 crop: "It also allows for graceful degradation by removing single points of failure. The designer envisages that the satellite would be maintenance free, with an allowance for graceful degradation over the lifespan." SRC-024 PDF p.19, Table 2: operating and maintenance costs, scaled linearly to 2 GW, annual: CASSIOPeiA "Graceful degradation (i.e. loss of power but no maintenance cost)"; SPS-ALPHA "3% of CAPEX = £243m/yr"; MR-SPS "£7.38 billion over 30 years = £246m/yr".
Related records
- Answers question
- QST-021 not published in this release
Cite this
energyaperture.com/c/clm-1472
CLM-1472, Energy Aperture, as of 2019; 2020.
Connected records
Other published records linked to this one. A list, not a judgement.
- Also from SRC-024
- CLM-0001The UK government's own feasibility study describes a system beaming microwaves at about 230 watts per square metre onto the ground.CLM-0006None of the five main studies mentions the international radio-frequency exposure limits, or any safety standard, or a restricted area...CLM-0007The UK study's own experts expect the beam to interfere with electronics in its path, and think it unlikely to have much effect outside the...CLM-0235A 2020 UK study rated the UK behind other countries in many technologies for a solar power satellite. For three key ones, large mirrors...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-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-1452By our rough arithmetic, the beam of the UK's full-size reference design would carry about a million times more power than the...More on the source page.
- Also from SRC-026
- CLM-0004The author of the 2019 CASSIOPeiA paper states the beam's strongest point is about 230 watts per square metre, and says that figure was...CLM-0006None of the five main studies mentions the international radio-frequency exposure limits, or any safety standard, or a restricted area...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-0336Different design studies over four decades have each simply assumed a different working lifetime for a solar power satellite, from about 15...CLM-0339A 2019 paper said solar power satellites are often assumed to need visits in orbit for repairs and refuelling, but that no system yet...CLM-0441A normal geostationary satellite needs a small, regular fuel-based nudge every year to stay in place. One 2019 design proposes cutting most...CLM-0504None of the main CASSIOPeiA-related documents in the register mentions any named safety or exposure standard, or describes any restricted...CLM-0660The 2019 CASSIOPeiA paper does not discuss electric propulsion for getting the satellite to its orbit. It only prices delivery using...More on the source page.
- Cited in articles