Technical January 31, 2025
Phase 0 BOM: Three AI Perspectives
Side-by-side comparison of Phase 0 Bill of Materials from Gemini 3 Pro, GPT-5.2, and Claude Opus 4.5.
ET
Engineering Team
Project Dyson
Phase 0 BOM: Three AI Perspectives
Our multi-LLM consensus approach has yielded fascinating insights into how different AI models approach the Bill of Materials for space resource processing.
Total Cost Estimates
| Model | Point Estimate | Confidence Range |
|---|---|---|
| Gemini 3 Pro | $7.2B | ±35% |
| GPT-5.2 | $6.1B | ±30% |
| Claude Opus 4.5 | $13.75B | ±25% |
Why Such Variation?
The cost differences stem from different assumptions about:
Scope Definition
- What constitutes "Phase 0 complete"?
- How much redundancy is needed?
- What level of autonomy is required?
Technology Readiness
- Models made different assumptions about TRL advancement by project start
- Varying estimates for FOAK (First-of-a-Kind) development costs
Risk Allocation
- Different approaches to contingency budgeting
- Varying insurance and reserve requirements
Areas of Agreement
All three models agreed that major cost drivers include:
- High-power solar arrays (250-400 kW class)
- SEP tug development with autonomous operations
- Processing platform development (FOAK industrial spacecraft)
- Dust mitigation systems (critical path item)
Synthesis
Our consensus estimate targets the middle range (~$9B) with explicit carve-outs for:
- Technology demonstration missions
- Risk reduction activities
- Schedule margin
See the full consensus document on each phase page.
Tags:
phase-0BOMcomparisonAI