Half a quadrillion bucks per gigawatt (was Ben Bova's SPS cost claim

> That works out to ~1,000 kg/kW.
> conversion efficiency is only 5.9%.

No one will disagree with you that the ISS is a horrible design in every one
of its thousands of NASA mandated grotesque details.

> If we assume a launch cost of
> $1,000/kg to GEO, such a solar power system scaled linearly would
> cost $1 million/kW = $1 billion/MW = $1 trillion/GW, just to launch.

But no one will take you seriously when you start claiming that the ISS is
some kind of irrifutable proof that we cannot do better.

> By the way:

> > That assumes that everything is launched from earth at
> > a reasonable estimated (and industry supported) RLV cost
> > of $500/kg, and NASA's baseline 10,000tons per GW
> > estimate from two decades ago.
>
> My above ~1,000 kg/kW figure for the ISS power system converts to ~1
> billion kg/GW, or ~1 million tons/GW. It seems that, in practice,
> things aren't working out quite as well as they did on decades ago
> paper.

If you are incapable or unwilling to understand the difference between the
kind of solar array used by the ISS, and the kind used by an SPS, then the
modorator needs to remove you from this list for trolling.

> If you are referring to launching rocks from the moon, why not
> compare that to the cost of [big dumb boosters]?

Because luna electrical launch delivering simple baulk material will
undercut BDBs in a long term project.
Because RLVs will very probably undercut BDB in launching complex earth
equipment.