Elon Musk and Mars

Snidely wrote:
Rick Jones wrote on 7/18/2013 :
IIRC, the family friends have mentioned that the "free" charging
is only if you buy the top-end Model S model. If you buy the
lesser model, it is a $2000 addon. I think the US average
residential price for a kWh is something like 11 cents (that is
from memory and probably wrong), but for the sake of easy math
lets call that $0.10/kWh so that is 20,000 kWh. What I don't know
is how many kWhs it takes to charge the lesser Model S. I think
the battery itself is rated at 60 kWh.

But the charging stations aren't being built at people's homes,
they're being built at waypoints for people taking trips.

Agreed. I was starting down a path of trying to figure-out if the two
grand for the charging station access was a loss-leader or not, but
didn't finish it since I don't know how many kWh it takes to get 60kWh
into the battery pack.

And the charging is supposed to be fast, although you might as well
stretch your legs while you're doing it, unlike the battery swap.

Isn't there some sort of fine print on the battery swap - like you
have to swap back later or something or get charged for a replacement
battery?

rick jones
--
oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flag
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On 7/18/2013 6:22 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
And the charging is supposed to be fast, although you might as well
stretch your legs while you're doing it, unlike the battery swap.
Isn't there some sort of fine print on the battery swap - like you
have to swap back later or something or get charged for a replacement
battery?

The battery swap isn't actually available yet. The concept was publicly
demonstrated just a few weeks ago, just to prove that a quick swap is
possible. I don't think that any promises were made about any swap
stations actually being built, or what it will cost to use them.

Indeed, it seems to me that a completely different ownership model will
have to be invented to handle the battery swapping. Otherwise Tesla
would ultimately get stuck with all the worn out batteries. Perhaps they
will sell you the car, but lease the battery?

"Rick Jones" wrote in message ...

Snidely wrote:
Rick Jones wrote on 7/18/2013 :
IIRC, the family friends have mentioned that the "free" charging
is only if you buy the top-end Model S model. If you buy the
lesser model, it is a $2000 addon. I think the US average
residential price for a kWh is something like 11 cents (that is
from memory and probably wrong), but for the sake of easy math
lets call that $0.10/kWh so that is 20,000 kWh. What I don't know
is how many kWhs it takes to charge the lesser Model S. I think
the battery itself is rated at 60 kWh.

But the charging stations aren't being built at people's homes,
they're being built at waypoints for people taking trips.

Agreed. I was starting down a path of trying to figure-out if the two
grand for the charging station access was a loss-leader or not, but
didn't finish it since I don't know how many kWh it takes to get 60kWh
into the battery pack.

The $2K surcharge isn't for access per se. It's the cost for the extra
hardware to charge that fast.

Basically you can charge at
110V 12A (1.4 kWh)
240V 40A 10kWh

With the twin chargers in the car (this is what's required to use the
Supercharger) you can get about 20kW/hour.

This is at about 30kW/hour.

So you're paying for more hardware to charge faster. Then conveniently get
the Supercharger access for free.



And the charging is supposed to be fast, although you might as well
stretch your legs while you're doing it, unlike the battery swap.

Isn't there some sort of fine print on the battery swap - like you
have to swap back later or something or get charged for a replacement
battery?
prett

My understanding is they'll charge you the "difference" in price for a new
battery unless you get yours back.

rick jones

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

In article mn.93727dd7be99d0c4.127094@snitoo,
says...

Rick Jones wrote on 7/18/2013 :

IIRC, the family friends have mentioned that the "free" charging is
only if you buy the top-end Model S model. If you buy the lesser
model, it is a $2000 addon. I think the US average residential price
for a kWh is something like 11 cents (that is from memory and probably
wrong), but for the sake of easy math lets call that $0.10/kWh so that
is 20,000 kWh. What I don't know is how many kWhs it takes to charge
the lesser Model S. I think the battery itself is rated at 60 kWh.

But the charging stations aren't being built at people's homes, they're
being built at waypoints for people taking trips. And the charging is
supposed to be fast, although you might as well stretch your legs while
you're doing it, unlike the battery swap.

People who buy Tesla's already get a charging station for their home as
part of the purchase.

http://www.teslamotors.com/charging

If you click on the above link, you'll see a picture of the charger on
the wall of the garage.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...

On 7/18/2013 6:22 PM, Rick Jones wrote:
And the charging is supposed to be fast, although you might as well
stretch your legs while you're doing it, unlike the battery swap.
Isn't there some sort of fine print on the battery swap - like you
have to swap back later or something or get charged for a replacement
battery?

The battery swap isn't actually available yet. The concept was publicly
demonstrated just a few weeks ago, just to prove that a quick swap is
possible. I don't think that any promises were made about any swap
stations actually being built, or what it will cost to use them.

Indeed, it seems to me that a completely different ownership model will
have to be invented to handle the battery swapping. Otherwise Tesla
would ultimately get stuck with all the worn out batteries. Perhaps they
will sell you the car, but lease the battery?

They've already said that if you swap a battery during a trip, you'd
need to pick up *your* battery (they'll charge it for you) on the return
leg of your trip. And, if you don't want to do that, you'd have to have
*your* battery shipped to you and swapped back into your car.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On 7/19/2013 9:05 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
They've already said that if you swap a battery during a trip, you'd
need to pick up*your* battery (they'll charge it for you) on the return
leg of your trip. And, if you don't want to do that, you'd have to have
*your* battery shipped to you and swapped back into your car.

OK. Thanks.

I still predict that battery leasing with battery swap stations will be
the best way forward. One advantage of that is that it should make the
basic price of an electric vehicle comparable to, or cheaper than, a
gasoline vehicle because the vehicle would be sold less the battery.
The other side of the equation is that it will put the REAL amortized
cost of the battery right in the owner's face on a monthly basis. It
might be breathtaking!

On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 5:55:52 PM UTC-4, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...on-mars-spacex

Not much new here, but still interesting.

I like his final lines too.

I like his explanation of his philosophy that guides his pursuits:

Elon Musk's mission to Mars.

He was influenced, he says, by Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, a science fiction saga in which a galactic empire falls and ushers in a dark age. "It's sort of a futuristic version of Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Let's say you were at the peak of the Roman empire, what would you do, what action could you take, to minimise decline?"
It takes me a moment to realise it's not a rhetorical question. Um, poison the barbarians' water supply, I joke. Musk smiles and shakes his head. The answer is in technology. "The lessons of history would suggest that civilisations move in cycles. You can track that back quite far – the Babylonians, the Sumerians, followed by the Egyptians, the Romans, China. We're obviously in a very upward cycle right now and hopefully that remains the case. But it may not. There could be some series of events that cause that technology level to decline. Given that this is the first time in 4.5bn years where it's been possible for humanity to extend life beyond Earth, it seems like we'd be wise to act while the window was open and not count on the fact it will be open a long time."

Rory Carroll
The Guardian, Wednesday 17 July 2013 12.00 EDT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...on-mars-spacex


Bob Clark

IMHO they (Tesla) should just charge a fee for a battery swap and keep
the old battery. The fee charged for a swap could be higher for older
batteries that are nearer end-of-life. In fact, it'd make sense to swap
the batteries long before you get to end-of-life if you expect to hold
onto the car beyond the normal battery life.

For the consumer, battery swaps could be treated like oil changes,
something you should do every x miles, but of course are not required
to. But then if you don't and something breaks, welllll... goodbye
wallet....

If consumers are paying to do the swaps then Tesla can afford to cycle
batteries. When there are enough in circulation...

But if you're willing to wait for a recharge, that can be for less or free.

What to charge for a battery swap? Well, hopefully something less than
what I'm paying for a fill-up at the pump today which is around $40.

Say $20? Would that be enough to allow Tesla to not care about putting
you back with your original battery? I suppose THAT depends on the
number of Tesla customers? ...

Dave

On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 5:55:52 PM UTC-4, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...on-mars-spacex



Not much new here, but still interesting.



I like his final lines too.

The Falcon Heavy from SpaceX can put 53,000 kg into LEO and 21,200 kg into GTO. It can also put 18,000 kg on a trajectory to Mars every 2.15 years. This is enough to put 44 people on Mars one way with sufficient supplies to survive, providing Mark Roth's suspended animation techniques can be adapted to space travel, and Ex Rad can be used to reduce radiation damage.

Building on the work of Paul Webb and his Space Activity Suit, we use MEMS technology to create a long-duration activity suit and dispense with crew cabins. We also create very light weight highly parallel life support systems, and mechanical systems to support feeding and elimination in such a long duration suit.

Since we have a controlled atmosphere in space, and since Mark Roth's suspended animation approach involves breathing a mixture of gases that reduce metabolism and restore metabolism efficiently, suspended animation is incorporated into the life support setup.

The spacesuit is also equipped with its own parachute and thermal protection system, along with a Google Glass type heads up display system for control. 12,000 kg carries 44 people in their suits with sufficient supplies to keep them alive for 132 days. Half a day in space on departure. Half a day in space on arrival at Mars. Eleven days after planet fall, before development of water supply. Then, sufficient food, without water or air, for another 120 days, whilst the farm is brought up to speed.

The other 6,000 kg are all the tools and supplies needed to create a self sufficient farm on Mars. This comes down in a separate capsule while the crew parachutes in separately. Including chickens, goats, rabbits and feed for same (also in suspended animation until awakened by the landing team), self-replicating machinery, solar power supplies, chemical processing.

The parasails that are designed to land each settler on Mars is reused after landing to create a pressurized container for the settlers their crops and animals.

Water is broken down into hydrogen and oxygen and used to produce electrical power and heat. Oxygen is breathed. Hydrogen is used to absorb CO2 producing CH4 and water again. CH4 is reduced to CH2 (acetylene) and polymerized to create a variety of plastics. These plastics are modified to form conductive and semiconductive plastics which are used in a 3D printer to create a large variety of items, including air tight film, solar power units and 3D printers! Water from Mars' subsurface, and CO2 from the air, are used to make whatever is required by the village of 44.

Enough CO2 is processed to build housing and farming area sufficient for another person every two days. Reproduction rates for 22 couples all of whom are of child bearing age, is rather high. Living standards start out at subsistence levels but due to the operation of self-replicating machine systems, and the availability of land and resources, living standards rise ten fold every year to a peak of about $1 million per year equivalent. This limit is constrained by available capital early-on, but as the system grows more capable, the time and attention of each individual adult become the limiting factor. Children reduce productivity per person, but create more value as they mature. They will be trained in the highly technical skills required to survive and prosper on Mars. They will also be trained by a very capable community of talented individuals free of the constraints of existing terrestrial systems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeEWPbTad_Q

This is the greatest contribution of the Mars colonists to the future of humanity.

Year Adults Child Total GMProduct GMP/person

0 44 0 44 $ 44,000 $ 1,000.00
1 44 22 66 $ 440,000 $ 6,666.67
2 44 44 88 $ 4,400,000 $ 50,000.00
3 44 66 110 $44,000,000 $400,000.00
4 44 88 132 $44,000,000 $333,333.33
5 44 110 154 $44,000,000 $285,714.29

6 44 132 176 $44,000,000 $250,000.00
7 44 154 198 $44,000,000 $222,222.22
8 44 176 220 $44,000,000 $200,000.00
9 44 176 220 $44,000,000 $200,000.00
10 44 176 220 $44,000,000 $200,000.00

11 44 176 220 $44,000,000 $200,000.00
12 44 176 220 $44,000,000 $200,000.00
13 44 176 220 $44,000,000 $200,000.00
14 44 176 220 $44,000,000 $200,000.00
15 44 176 220 $44,000,000 $200,000.00

16 44 176 220 $44,000,000 $200,000.00
17 44 176 220 $44,000,000 $200,000.00
18 66 165 231 $66,000,000 $285,714.29
19 110 154 264 $110,000,000 $416,666.67
20 176 154 330 $176,000,000 $533,333.33

21 264 176 440 $264,000,000 $600,000.00
22 374 231 605 $374,000,000 $618,181.82
23 506 330 836 $506,000,000 $605,263.16
24 660 484 1144 $660,000,000 $576,923.08
25 836 704 1540 $836,000,000 $542,857.14

On Friday, August 2, 2013 10:33:06 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wednesday, July 17, 2013 5:55:52 PM UTC-4, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...on-mars-spacex







Not much new here, but still interesting.







I like his final lines too.



The Falcon Heavy from SpaceX can put 53,000 kg into LEO and 21,200 kg into GTO. It can also put 18,000 kg on a trajectory to Mars every 2.15 years. This is enough to put 44 people on Mars one way with sufficient supplies to survive, providing Mark Roth's suspended animation techniques can be adapted to space travel, and Ex Rad can be used to reduce radiation damage.



Building on the work of Paul Webb and his Space Activity Suit, we use MEMS technology to create a long-duration activity suit and dispense with crew cabins. We also create very light weight highly parallel life support systems, and mechanical systems to support feeding and elimination in such a long duration suit.



Since we have a controlled atmosphere in space, and since Mark Roth's suspended animation approach involves breathing a mixture of gases that reduce metabolism and restore metabolism efficiently, suspended animation is incorporated into the life support setup.



The spacesuit is also equipped with its own parachute and thermal protection system, along with a Google Glass type heads up display system for control. 12,000 kg carries 44 people in their suits with sufficient supplies to keep them alive for 132 days. Half a day in space on departure. Half a day in space on arrival at Mars. Eleven days after planet fall, before development of water supply. Then, sufficient food, without water or air, for another 120 days, whilst the farm is brought up to speed.



The other 6,000 kg are all the tools and supplies needed to create a self sufficient farm on Mars. This comes down in a separate capsule while the crew parachutes in separately. Including chickens, goats, rabbits and feed for same (also in suspended animation until awakened by the landing team), self-replicating machinery, solar power supplies, chemical processing.



The parasails that are designed to land each settler on Mars is reused after landing to create a pressurized container for the settlers their crops and animals.



Water is broken down into hydrogen and oxygen and used to produce electrical power and heat. Oxygen is breathed. Hydrogen is used to absorb CO2 producing CH4 and water again. CH4 is reduced to CH2 (acetylene) and polymerized to create a variety of plastics. These plastics are modified to form conductive and semiconductive plastics which are used in a 3D printer to create a large variety of items, including air tight film, solar power units and 3D printers! Water from Mars' subsurface, and CO2 from the air, are used to make whatever is required by the village of 44.



Enough CO2 is processed to build housing and farming area sufficient for another person every two days. Reproduction rates for 22 couples all of whom are of child bearing age, is rather high. Living standards start out at subsistence levels but due to the operation of self-replicating machine systems, and the availability of land and resources, living standards rise ten fold every year to a peak of about $1 million per year equivalent. This limit is constrained by available capital early-on, but as the system grows more capable, the time and attention of each individual adult become the limiting factor. Children reduce productivity per person, but create more value as they mature. They will be trained in the highly technical skills required to survive and prosper on Mars. They will also be trained by a very capable community of talented individuals free of the constraints of existing terrestrial systems.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeEWPbTad_Q



This is the greatest contribution of the Mars colonists to the future of humanity.



Year Adults Child Total GMProduct GMP/person



0 44 0 44 $ 44,000 $ 1,000.00

1 44 22 66 $ 440,000 $ 6,666.67

2 44 44 88 $ 4,400,000 $ 50,000.00

3 44 66 110 $44,000,000 $400,000.00

4 44 88 132 $44,000,000 $333,333.33

5 44 110 154 $44,000,000 $285,714.29



6 44 132 176 $44,000,000 $250,000.00

7 44 154 198 $44,000,000 $222,222.22

8 44 176 220 $44,000,000 $200,000.00

9 44 176 220 $44,000,000 $200,000.00

10 44 176 220 $44,000,000 $200,000.00



11 44 176 220 $44,000,000 $200,000.00

12 44 176 220 $44,000,000 $200,000.00

13 44 176 220 $44,000,000 $200,000.00

14 44 176 220 $44,000,000 $200,000.00

15 44 176 220 $44,000,000 $200,000.00



16 44 176 220 $44,000,000 $200,000.00

17 44 176 220 $44,000,000 $200,000.00

18 66 165 231 $66,000,000 $285,714.29

19 110 154 264 $110,000,000 $416,666.67

20 176 154 330 $176,000,000 $533,333.33



21 264 176 440 $264,000,000 $600,000.00

22 374 231 605 $374,000,000 $618,181.82

23 506 330 836 $506,000,000 $605,263.16

24 660 484 1144 $660,000,000 $576,923.08

25 836 704 1540 $836,000,000 $542,857.14

Arranging the launch of ten Falcon Heavies every 2.15 years puts 440 persons on Mars every 2.15 years, and 25 years thereafter, this grows to 15,400 people. In this way 150,000 people can come to be living on Mars well before 2040 AD - assuming first flight in 2019 AD.

The same technology can operate on Earth to transform life here. Solar panels and other equipment that takes sunlight, rain water and CO2 on Earth and produces electricity, synthetic fuels, and plastics - is capable of self-reproduction, with human assistance.

* * *

150 sq meters of aeroponic grow area is required to meet the needs of an adult. An additional 50 sq meters of solar collector produces water and energy required. An additional 30 sq meters of housing is needed for each person. A total of 230 square meters. An airtight, water tight plastic film only 200 microns thick, covering 180 square meters, with a sparse array of collectors occupying 28% of the total area, provides 3.74 kg of hydrogen made from 33.88 liters of captures rain water each day. A fuel cell takes hydrogen and oxygen and produces 2.5 kW of electricity. The 1.95 kg of spare hydrogen produced each day creates 3.90 kg of CH4 which is used to produce 3..15 kg of plastics recycling another 0.75 kg of hydrogen by absorbing 10.73 kg of CO2 from the atmosphere each day. The plastics take a wide variety of forms and are used to make everything used in the household. Since a household consists of a structured bag that is inflated when exposed to sunlight to create a wide range of work and living spaces within, and since only 93 kg of plastics are consumed to create this bag, sized for each person (which may be joined in a variety of ways depending on living conditions) enough plastic is produced from air rain water and sunlight (on Earth) to reproduce another house every month. Of course that house may also reproduce in this time frame as well, so the number of houses may multiply very rapidly. A total of 353 liters of rain water run off is collected from the roof each day when averaged over the year. Water is purified and stored for use in the aeroponic area as well as by animals and the owner.