Making astronomical observations plblic access and the algorithms used open source can fuel all kinds of research at the corporation, university, and amateur levels. That alone is a laudable effort. Too much science today is pay walled and locked up behind restricted access.

I suppose but of you tack that on the ass end of the drake equation its not very promising.

A better method is likely to build better telescopes, perhaps large space arrays, and do transit analysis of many many worlds. You could, in theory with better tech and observation time, pick up on all kinds of signs of life both non sentient and sentient. These signals would be carried by electromagnetic waves, just not all in the radio spectrum. It's not as sexy as ET phoning home but far more practical in many people's eyes and is actually a main focus of research for many reasons extending beyond detecting life as you can still do analysis from earth.

Moreover why broadcast omnidirectionally instead of a tight beam in the desired direction? We already do this it makes zero sense to do otherwise. So on top of the long lanundry list of other things that all must line up we must have that physical line of sight too - like finding that needle in a haystack black hole that points a jet directly at earth.

I guess if you don't mind waiting a long time and use the atmosphere it wouldn't take a large amount of thrust. But watch the video. It shows the vehicle rotate 180 and the main engine fire.

Moreover where does the energy come from to deorbit? They have microwave arrays built around the flight paths everywhere on the globe? I'm guessing that any orbit high enough to launch a satelite in a stable orbit has a low enough drag to take forever to bring the craft down.

Maybe they can use a laser based correction large phased array to correct for the atmosphere? Because I'm going to assume at large distances with moisture etc this will be necessary.

I dont think elon has anything to worry about yet in terms of competition yet though the design seems to not really be that much cheaper than conventional ones. Cheaper yes but not an order of magnitude cheaper. At the very least you would have an impressive weapon for defense with minor alterations.
It's a nice PR touch to show its powered by renewables and to say they want to move away from chemical power when in all likelihood they will launch it on coal power.

Ok so it seems the biggest complaint is they don't take possible future policy changes into account. That's partally understandable and it's good to see them say that every prediction is likely wrong in some way. At least solar and wind seem to be quicker to implement than gas and coal - sadly nuclear is the slowest to implement. I'd expect any prediction to be off every year as that what predictions are. I'm not sure it's unreasonable to expect cronyism with fossil fuels and expect minimal action on renewables. I'm for renewables I just don't have billions to make my opinion matter.

Ok I read the links but there is no evidence in them the EIA is ignoring them. Nor is there evidence to support we are moving to this extremely low use of coal in almost no time considering these installations would need to be built now to be put in service by 2020. I'm all for renewables but I'm realistic as to the cost and timeframe. I don't expect us to magically move to 25% coal in the us for power generation even by 2040. Did you have any evidence of that claim? I'm actually interested not trying to be adversarial.

You may have to replace items in a conventional car you would not in an electric, brakes, brake components such as master cylinders or brake system flushes, timing belts, spark plugs, starter motor, etc. these are numerous small repairs that can add up do significant amounts yes. But unless the engine is abused, such as not changing the oil, 99.7% of modern engines will last 10 years no problem. I'm trying to point out that the cost of gas in an efficient car balances the battery cost which is approximately true. And that the cost of the small repairs balances the increased reliability of electrics which is also approximately true.

That's only partially true. The average lifespan of a car is around 10-15 years and changes to the grid also take around that long. Buying a coal powered car now and believing it's solar powered is like driving a conventional diesel and believing it's powered by biofuel.

Did you read the article? It's 5500 with a 1000 credit you may or may not be able to get. Further that's the battery not the cost of replacement. That pushes it to 7k+ easy. And i do believe i said 7-8k which is realistic. No the cost of ownership may be slightly less - or not depending on the resale value of a vehicle that needs a multi thousand dollar repair to work. It's Definately not as low as the media would like you to believe. Please though I don't mind reading sources if you would like to source some more.

I hate to burst your bubble but the coal hungry parts of the USA do not drive world markets nor world technology trends. If you live in a specific region of California, or California for example - or better yet Norway then electrics may make sense now. For the overwhelming majority of America they do not and will not for what will likely be at least a decade. Where i live in the upper Midwest without purchasing solar im no better off with a tesla than an efficient diesel for co2 per mile and that's not an uncommon story. Moreover the cost of the technology will come down because it is used in many other areas besides automotive

You save money untill the end of the 8-10 year battery life and someone has to foot the 8 thousand dollars (with a projected real cost of around 17 thousand just sold below cost so as not to ruin the entire viability of the pricing model). It pretty much zeros out the difference between a leaf and an economy gas car for mileage cost. You could argue maintance is cheaper but then again the leaf costs a ton more than efficient economy cars. In the future the costs will be lower, no doubt, but right now, dollar for dollar, the best savings for limited money and the enviornment is still the much cheaper efficient gas and diesels. Too bad no one wants either the electrics or efficent cars.

Good luck getting people behind nuclear when France and Germany, leaders in nuclear, are pulling out over public opinion. Facts and evidence never convinced a significant fraction of the populace of anything they didn't want to hear already.

As for your rosy outlook the EIA has a 100% completely different story saying we are going to stay the course and keep using fossil fuels : http://instituteforenergyresea...

Do you have a source for this we aren't using any coal in the next four years argument when something like 70% of our nation depends on it for power?