You seemed to have missed my sentence between the two that you quoted:
This is, of course, a lower bound (assuming perfect launch mechanism, no kinetic energy of orbit, etc. etc.), but it seems unreasonable to assume that launching solar panels has no benefit given this tiny lower bound.
My point was that even if the launch is only 0.1% efficient at moving solar cells into space, you’re looking at more than recouping the cost of the launch in the putting the solar panel up. If you think the launch is much less than 0.1% efficient, I’d be interested in hearing why you think that. They might actually be that inefficient, but I would be hesitant to assume such without having a reason to do so.
Now that lsparrish has posted a link to a better discussion of the subject, my post is more or less obsolete.
But the comparison isn’t “solar in space” vs. “chemical in space”, it’s “solar in space” vs. “anything on earth”.
I agree and was not trying to say that this plan was practical—I do not believe it is. I was just pointing out that something you stated as true doesn’t appear to be so from a very quick look at the numbers.
You seemed to have missed my sentence between the two that you quoted:
My point was that even if the launch is only 0.1% efficient at moving solar cells into space, you’re looking at more than recouping the cost of the launch in the putting the solar panel up. If you think the launch is much less than 0.1% efficient, I’d be interested in hearing why you think that. They might actually be that inefficient, but I would be hesitant to assume such without having a reason to do so.
Now that lsparrish has posted a link to a better discussion of the subject, my post is more or less obsolete.
I agree and was not trying to say that this plan was practical—I do not believe it is. I was just pointing out that something you stated as true doesn’t appear to be so from a very quick look at the numbers.