A Video Tour of SpaceX Facility by Musk himself

On 4/06/2012 12:44 PM, jonathan wrote:


You are a liar and a troll. **** off

NASA isn't going to the Moon or Mars.


no but musk can and no doubt will

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On 03/06/2012 23:11, jonathan wrote:
{snip}

When he claims he can put a man on Mars in
ten years, it's almost believable after watching
this video.

It took Musk 10 years to get a remote controlled capsule to the
International Space Station.

Starting from scratch with a *very* limited budget (by NASA standards).


Right, but the point I've been trying to make with Space
Solar Power is that once it's been demonstrated that
....big money can be made...then suddenly a nearly
bottomless pit of commercial financing shows up, as if
out of thin air.

It can be the same for Musk.

Money is not an obstacle at all, the ...scale of potential
profit will dictate the scale of available investors.
Once he's established a solid commercial reputation
he'll be in a position to think really big.

And in my opinion, the next big step up in scale
would be the $6 trillion dollar a year energy market.
Think like an entrepreneur, not a rocket scientist.

1) What does space have that can be offered for sale?
2) How can that commodity be accessed with his
business?
3) And what is the potential for market growth and
global need?
4) How close is the needed technology?
5) And more importantly, how much can it
......CHANGE THE WORLD?

When you combine all those factors, Space Solar
Power fits each and every one astonishingly well.
No other ideas out there even comes close
to one of those considerations....not one!

Fusion? Helium 3? Mining the moon or asteroids?
Nuclear rockets to Mars?
Please!

SSP fits them...all


Remember, he's not just a billionaire, but a young
billionaire that's chasing a dream. And there's no
better time to chase the big dream than
....'right here right now'.

singin~

"Come on it's everything"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMV-fenGP1g


Jonathan


s

In article ,
says...

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On 03/06/2012 23:11, jonathan wrote:
{snip}

When he claims he can put a man on Mars in
ten years, it's almost believable after watching
this video.

It took Musk 10 years to get a remote controlled capsule to the
International Space Station.

Starting from scratch with a *very* limited budget (by NASA standards).


Right, but the point I've been trying to make with Space
Solar Power is that once it's been demonstrated that
...big money can be made...then suddenly a nearly
bottomless pit of commercial financing shows up, as if
out of thin air.

Except in the case for space based power, the numbers just don't seem to
work. If space based power does come to fruition, I'm guessing the
military will do it first, but not because it's cheaper. They'll do it
because it provides some unique capability that other forms of power
generation just don't have.

One potential application would be powering an electric UAV. It could
run on batteries at night and be recharged during the day via beamed
power. This would give a UAV "unlimited" endurance without the need for
in air refueling.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

Except in the case for space based power, the numbers just don't seem to
work. If space based power does come to fruition, I'm guessing the
military will do it first, but not because it's cheaper. They'll do it
because it provides some unique capability that other forms of power
generation just don't have.


Actually the few military applications I've seen are because it WOULD be
cheaper. But then again, when you need an armed convey to truck your diesel
into parts of Afghanistan, fuel gets expensive.

That said, Fred is right. SSPS is no where near being cheap enough for
civilian use. And even military use would be constrained to unique
situations and locations.


One potential application would be powering an electric UAV. It could
run on batteries at night and be recharged during the day via beamed
power. This would give a UAV "unlimited" endurance without the need for
in air refueling.

Jeff

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

"Greg (Strider) Moore" writes:

That said, Fred is right. SSPS is no where near being cheap enough for
civilian use. And even military use would be constrained to unique
situations and locations.

I'm still not convinced, mainly because ground based solar power isn't
cheap enough either, and this is because it only ever generates power at
daylight and clear skies. SSPS could have nearly continious coverage
(and with spreading satellites over the sky truly continious coverage)
which may still be quite expensive, but then also truly useful. There'd
be no need for energy storage then, you could have power streaming from
the sky day and night. Figure this in and costs look very different all
of a sudden.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

"Jochem Huhmann" wrote in message
...
"Greg (Strider) Moore" writes:

That said, Fred is right. SSPS is no where near being cheap enough for
civilian use. And even military use would be constrained to unique
situations and locations.

I'm still not convinced, mainly because ground based solar power isn't
cheap enough either, and this is because it only ever generates power at
daylight and clear skies. SSPS could have nearly continious coverage
(and with spreading satellites over the sky truly continious coverage)
which may still be quite expensive, but then also truly useful. There'd
be no need for energy storage then, you could have power streaming from
the sky day and night. Figure this in and costs look very different all
of a sudden.

(long-winded rant alert)

What they seem to always ignore is ...all the customers....where
terrestrial solar and conventional power plants aren't practical
or ...available. Which would be oh...back of envelope estimate...
HALF the planet.

No one, NO ONE is trying to say SSP can immediately, on
day one, be able to compete head-to-head in or near a modern city
against conventional sources. But that's the straw man the
nay-sayers always use. And I haven't even mentioned disaster
areas, troops in the field or power plugs in orbit for much larger
satellites.

Just start with all the customers too rural to be on any
modern electrical grid, for instance. How many potential
customers would that be? The number would be in
the billions. The notion that price isn't so important
when there's NO competition is utterly beyond them.

They can't seem to grasp the simple notion the big benefit is
it's ability to travel where conventional sources can't.
And the utter ease and extremely cheap cost of building a
receiving rectenna once the satellites are running, any potential
customer merely has to build a flippin' chicken-wire fence,
spread it out on the ground and plug it in....figuratively speaking.
Not build a $5 billion dollar plant, hundreds of miles of
railroads, pipelines and on and on and on.

Granted, the third world would benefit first and most
but that's the whole point. Places like India might not
have a third of all their crops spoil, once that they could
get refrigeration out in the middle on nowhere
.....just for instance.

If you wish to imagine the potential customers for SSP
just imagine the old days when only DC power was
available. Where every other block would need their
own power plant.

And along comes AC power.

How many customers would there suddenly be???
The whole world, that's all. Hearing these guys naysay
is like listening to people saying ....

"Oh that stupid Tesla fellow and his AC power...too expensive
...too complicated ...it'll never compete with the endless supply
of cheap and easy whale-oil. The ocean is full of 'em.

Just like the commercials running today...Clean Coal!
The oxymoron of the century.

SSP is the next step in availability. And could transform
our future to a similar extent AC did.

But maybe the old guard is right (sarcasm alert) we're far
better off with a useless space station we had to give to
the Russians. And building a factory on the Moon to
mine gravel is a great idea. Same as building a gold-plated
fleet of nuclear powered rockets to send a few men
to...orbit (NOT LAND) on Mars. And who needs
a new clean energy source? Climate change, what's that?

You want to know about Mars?

Here's a link where you can look at just about
every single rock bigger than 3 feet across!
You can take a virtual walk anywhere on Mars
you little heart desires ..right now.

http://www.uahirise.org/

Who needs to send men to the Moon or Mars
to find out what's there? But I guess they desperately
want to Plant-the-Flag somewhere again before someone
plants them. The can't even understand the taxpayers aren't
about to fund such safaris, not for a Cape Canaveral minute.

Whew! That felt good.

Thanks for reading.


s







Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take
away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

jonathan wrote:

"Jochem Huhmann" wrote in message
...

"Greg (Strider) Moore" writes:


That said, Fred is right. SSPS is no where near being cheap enough for
civilian use. And even military use would be constrained to unique
situations and locations.

I'm still not convinced, mainly because ground based solar power isn't
cheap enough either, and this is because it only ever generates power at
daylight and clear skies. SSPS could have nearly continious coverage
(and with spreading satellites over the sky truly continious coverage)
which may still be quite expensive, but then also truly useful. There'd
be no need for energy storage then, you could have power streaming from
the sky day and night. Figure this in and costs look very different all
of a sudden.


(long-winded rant alert)

What they seem to always ignore is ...all the customers....where
terrestrial solar and conventional power plants aren't practical
or ...available. Which would be oh...back of envelope estimate...
HALF the planet.

No one, NO ONE is trying to say SSP can immediately, on
day one, be able to compete head-to-head in or near a modern city
against conventional sources. But that's the straw man the
nay-sayers always use. And I haven't even mentioned disaster
areas, troops in the field or power plugs in orbit for much larger
satellites.

Just start with all the customers too rural to be on any
modern electrical grid, for instance. How many potential
customers would that be? The number would be in
the billions. The notion that price isn't so important
when there's NO competition is utterly beyond them.

They can't seem to grasp the simple notion the big benefit is
it's ability to travel where conventional sources can't.
And the utter ease and extremely cheap cost of building a
receiving rectenna once the satellites are running, any potential
customer merely has to build a flippin' chicken-wire fence,
spread it out on the ground and plug it in....figuratively speaking.
Not build a $5 billion dollar plant, hundreds of miles of
railroads, pipelines and on and on and on.

Granted, the third world would benefit first and most
but that's the whole point. Places like India might not
have a third of all their crops spoil, once that they could
get refrigeration out in the middle on nowhere
....just for instance.

If you wish to imagine the potential customers for SSP
just imagine the old days when only DC power was
available. Where every other block would need their
own power plant.

And along comes AC power.

How many customers would there suddenly be???
The whole world, that's all. Hearing these guys naysay
is like listening to people saying ....

"Oh that stupid Tesla fellow and his AC power...too expensive
..too complicated ...it'll never compete with the endless supply
of cheap and easy whale-oil. The ocean is full of 'em.

Just like the commercials running today...Clean Coal!
The oxymoron of the century.

SSP is the next step in availability. And could transform
our future to a similar extent AC did.

But maybe the old guard is right (sarcasm alert) we're far
better off with a useless space station we had to give to
the Russians. And building a factory on the Moon to
mine gravel is a great idea. Same as building a gold-plated
fleet of nuclear powered rockets to send a few men
to...orbit (NOT LAND) on Mars. And who needs
a new clean energy source? Climate change, what's that?

You want to know about Mars?

Here's a link where you can look at just about
every single rock bigger than 3 feet across!
You can take a virtual walk anywhere on Mars
you little heart desires ..right now.

http://www.uahirise.org/

Who needs to send men to the Moon or Mars
to find out what's there? But I guess they desperately
want to Plant-the-Flag somewhere again before someone
plants them. The can't even understand the taxpayers aren't
about to fund such safaris, not for a Cape Canaveral minute.

Whew! That felt good.

Thanks for reading.

Nicely said. But I doubt Fwed will understand it.
;-)

On Jun 4, 11:36*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
"jonathan" wrote:

What they seem to always ignore is ...all the customers....where
terrestrial solar and conventional power plants aren't practical
or ...available. Which would be oh...back of envelope estimate...
HALF the planet.

And practically none of those people can afford to pay $3000/month for
electricity. *If they could, they'd have electricity already.



No one, NO ONE is trying to say SSP can immediately, on
day one, be able to compete head-to-head in or near a modern city
against conventional sources. But that's the straw man the
nay-sayers always use. And I haven't even mentioned disaster
areas, troops in the field or power plugs in orbit for much larger
satellites.

Just start with all the customers too rural to be on any
modern electrical grid, for instance. How many potential
customers would that be? The number would be in
the billions. *The notion that price isn't so important
when there's NO competition is utterly beyond them.

The notion that the customers HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PAY appears to be
totally beyond you.



They can't seem to grasp the simple notion the big benefit is
it's ability to travel where conventional sources can't.
And the utter ease and extremely cheap cost of building a
receiving rectenna once the satellites are running, any potential
customer merely has to build a flippin' chicken-wire fence,
spread it out on the ground and plug it in....figuratively speaking.
Not build a $5 billion dollar plant, hundreds of miles of
railroads, pipelines and on and on and on.

Yes, if you get the SSPS for free and it costs nothing to operate
(both false assumptions), perhaps people can then afford the power
from the thing. *However, if you have to actually recover your
investment, people can't afford to buy the electricity. *Otherwise
THEY WOULD ALREADY HAVE BUILT ELECTRICAL PLANTS.



Granted, the third world would benefit first and most
but that's the whole point. Places like India might not
have a third of all their crops spoil, once that they could
get refrigeration out in the middle on nowhere
....just for instance.

And who's going to pay for this, just for instance?



If you wish to imagine the potential customers for SSP
just imagine the old days when only DC power was
available. Where every other block would need their
own power plant.

And along comes AC power.

And if electrical power had gone up 30x in price when AC came about,
it would have been stillborn.



How many customers would there suddenly be???
The whole world, that's all. Hearing these guys naysay
is like listening to people saying *....

WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR IT, YOU IGNORANT DIP****?



"Oh that stupid Tesla fellow and his AC power...too expensive
..too complicated ...it'll never compete with the endless supply
of cheap and easy whale-oil. The ocean is full of 'em.

Just like the commercials running today...Clean Coal!
The oxymoron of the century.

SSP is the next step in availability. And could transform
our future to a similar extent AC did.

Yes, but in the other direction. *90% of the First World population
would have to give up electricity entirely at the prices an SSPS has
to charge to recover its investment.

snip idiocy

What is your current electric bill, Jonathan. *Now multiply that
number by THIRTY. *CAN YOU STILL PAY IT? *Answer the question.
\


so just for discussion

the crippled fukashima power plant suffers aanother earthquake ......
the spent core cooling pool collapses..... and the entire norther
hemisphere gets bathed in radiation in hazardous amounts.........

or its decided global change / warming is true after a series of
mega storms this summer blanket our planet bring havoc and
destruction....

whats the costs of not building space solar power???

In article ,
says...


Granted, the third world would benefit first and most
but that's the whole point. Places like India might not
have a third of all their crops spoil, once that they could
get refrigeration out in the middle on nowhere
....just for instance.

Their problem isn't pest control or transport, it's pest control...


"Oh that stupid Tesla fellow and his AC power...too expensive
..too complicated ...it'll never compete with the endless supply
of cheap and easy whale-oil. The ocean is full of 'em.


Edison was the advocate of AC power, Tesla liked DC...

--
William Black

When you hear the words 'Our people are our greatest asset' then it's
time to leave.