CALC-067
Launch cost per kilogram to GEO, the largest real driver in the corpus
What this is
This is the project's own arithmetic, published in full so it can be checked rather than taken on trust. It is not a source. Every input it uses is cited to a record, and the conclusion it reaches only carries as far as those inputs do.
Feeds CLM-0382. Answers QST-004. Basis: mixed currencies converted to USD-equivalent for comparison only; vintages as stated; NOT part of the formal restatement pipeline.
Script. restate-lcoe.py SECTION 7, sub-heading (d), emitted at line 732. CLM-0382's
`src` says Section 4(d); its `support` says Section 7(d), which is right.
Why it was needed. After discount rate was eliminated as an explanation (CALC-065) and FOAK/NOAK was shown too small (CALC-066), the residual needed a candidate. This is it, and its direction is as counter-intuitive as CALC-065's.
Inputs.
| Quantity | Value | Source | Stated or assumed |
|---|---|---|---|
| NASA OTPS assumed cost to GEO | approximately 11,050 USD/kg | derived at CALC-053 from $100M/launch, 15 per cent block discount, 12:1 refuel | STATED (derived from three STATED inputs) |
| Frazer-Nash BEIS assumed range | GBP358-2,410/kg, 2018 | SRC-021 | STATED |
| Frazer-Nash ESA assumed range | EUR454-3,301/kg, median tested EUR1,877/kg, 2022 | SRC-078 | STATED |
| Caltech middle / asymptotic tiers | approximately 128 and 55 USD/kg | SRC-006 (Mizrahi et al. 2025, Joule) | STATED by the source as projections from a 2020 SpaceX planning document, never observed |
| FX used to put the GBP and EUR ranges on a USD-equivalent footing | approximately 1.335 USD/GBP (2018); 2022 rates per CALC-060 | - | ASSUMED / illustrative. The claim states this explicitly: these conversions are "for comparison purposes only, not part of the formal restatement pipeline in Sections 1-3" |
Working, transcribed.
NASA OTPS approximately 11,050 USD/kg to GEO
Frazer-Nash BEIS 2018 GBP 358 - 2,410 /kg ~= USD 478 - 3,217 /kg
Frazer-Nash ESA 2022 EUR 454 - 3,301 /kg ~= USD 478 - 3,478 /kg
median tested EUR 1,877 /kg ~= USD 1,978 /kg
Caltech middle tier approximately 128 USD/kg [projected, never observed]
Caltech asymptotic approximately 55 USD/kg [projected, never observed]
Spread across the corpus: roughly two to three orders of magnitude.Result: NASA's assumption is HIGHER than either Frazer-Nash study's, by roughly 3x to 23x against their ranges.
Conclusion, and it is the counter-intuitive one. NASA is the pessimistic party on launch price, despite using the gentlest discount rate. Two levers that would each be expected to make NASA look cheaper - a 3 per cent rate and a mature-launcher assumption - and NASA is the most expensive study anyway. The central economic disagreement in this field is not about spacecraft, manufacturing or physics; it is about what launch will cost. Ranked first of six drivers.
Where this fails, and this is a comparison of ASSUMPTIONS. Not one kilogram has been
delivered to GEO at any of these prices, at SBSP-relevant scale or cadence, by anyone. The FX
used to line the three currencies up is illustrative and sits outside the audited pipeline. And
the claim's limits field states the finding is not further resolvable from the evidence this
project holds, which is the honest stopping point rather than a hedge.
One destination-basis caution, inherited from the previous pass and repeated because this record is where it would do damage. The previous pass recorded a live unit defect in CLM-0600: a comparison of NASA's $850/kg to LEO against a $7,462/kg to GEO figure, which is invalid as written. Every figure in this record is on a to-GEO basis - NASA's 11,050, not its 850 - and the record must not be cited alongside a to-LEO figure without the destination stated on both. The 13x multiplier between the two destinations is derived at CALC-053.
Cite this
energyaperture.com/calc/calc-067
CALC-067. The working above, not a source document.