In the sections that don't overlap you basically have three items, more efficient visible light lasers (more than 50% socket to light, to be exact), lightweight space structures, orders of magnitude lower launch costs.
I was going to point out how your list is arbitrary (visible light lasers? try masers; and I take it launch costs were a hidden factor in that 'equation,' right?) and not even consistent with your blog post (should be larger, I'll put that to getting carried away by
Now throw darts at the wall. See how often you hit that section.
See the problem?
And yes, I do see the problem. To put it bluntly, you have no idea what you're talking about. Must be an interesting universe that you're living in, where research is driven by a dart-sampling-on-a-2D-surface process - and it's good that you picked a 2D surface, otherwise in higher dimensionality spaces you'd have had an awfully low research rate, which would make explaining the ability to post things on
And so, I apologize for wasting the time of any people who were interested in a meaningful discussion (a circle which apparently does not include the OP, maybe from lack of an adequate dart supply). And to the OP, I wish good luck in promoting his 'equation' and arguing that, as meaningless as it is, a factor of 2 or so of improvements - not even an order of magnitude - has not and cannot ever be overcome by technological progress. After all, focused research is a myth and it's only a matter of darts until, say, Intel's materials research will yield something entirely unrelated, like a cure for daltonism.