How would the energy cost of maintaining this geometry compare to classical rocket propulsion?

I can see the tension in your question: you're asking about the energy cost of maintaining a *geometry* (presumably a spacecraft formation like the tetrahedral configuration mentioned), but the archive doesn't directly compare that cost to classical rockets.

Here's what we can extract:

The formation-maintenance problem is real, but understudied in these preprints. The tetrahedral spacecraft configuration [AG-2024.04-039] is designed to measure gravitational fields with extreme precision by holding four spacecraft in a precise geometric arrangement on nearby elliptical orbits. Maintaining such a formation over months or years would require small thruster burns to compensate for orbital perturbations — but the papers treat this as a solved problem via "drag-compensated spacecraft by atom interferometer measurements" [AG-2024.04-039], without quantifying the propellant cost.

For deep-space missions, propulsion dominates the energy budget anyway. The Solar Gravitational Lens mission study [AG-2026.02-094] compares chemical rockets, solar sails, and nuclear electric propulsion to reach 650 AU in 20 years. The conclusion is blunt: reaching 650 AU requires ~155 km/s exhaust velocity at minimum. A nuclear electric system with 70% efficiency and a 20-ton spacecraft can do it in 27–33 years, but chemical rockets simply cannot compete for such distances. Formation-keeping would be a minor energy sink by comparison — the real cost is *getting there*.

The direct answer you're seeking isn't in this archive. None of these papers quantifies the energy or propellant needed to maintain a tetrahedral or other geometric formation versus a single monolithic spacecraft on the same trajectory.