“Two words worth committing to memory: “yeah, whatever.”
Nobody’s paying you to mind their feelings.”

Yeah, that was the point of my last post to Coastal Ron. Note in his post below yours he says I repeatedly use the term subsidy. Fact is, I stopped using it immediately after he objected to it and tried to get cooperation as to what would be considered acceptable. This is because I believe civil discourse is a goal to be sought. However, I reluctantly accept that trying to be civil around here is like trying to be hygienic while mud wrestling with a pig.

I frequent this blog to discuss, debate and learn, and certainly I have learned a number of things on this blog (thanks Jeff). I have also been corrected on occasion, including during this drawn out discussion of ours (thanks Byeman).

I don’t think anybody has time to fact check what everybody says, but there are some things that are quite basic and obvious – just like the difference between the directions “up” and “down”.

Such is the situation with your use of the word “subsidy” as it applies to the COTS/CRS program. It sounds like since you didn’t hear a replacement phrase you liked, you’ll just keep using the wrong word. Hopefully not, as those types of things tend to distract from the real topics that we should be discussing, which on this blog is “space”, and the politics thereof.

My $0.02

I made a good faith attempt to come up with reasonable language that would not offend you.

Two words worth committing to memory: “yeah, whatever.”

Nobody’s paying you to mind their feelings.

“Maybe you missed it, but in response to your question I stated “The contractors are being paid for work they have performed” as one definition.”

Yeah great I can just say “The contractors are being paid for work they have performed” every time this issue comes up

“Did your employer compensate you with subsidies or loans? And what did your company win – subsidies or loans? Or did they create products or performs services for agreed upon compensation?”

Actually I do not remember anybody in Engineering ever obsessing about what the reimbursements that pay the salaries are called (I know I don’t). Maybe somebody in Legal or Contracts does, but if so they never mention it to me.

“No gifts, subsidies or loans. Capisce?”

Capisce, wasn’t that word used in at least one of the “Godfather” Movies. By the “logic” you use I should be saying you are accusing me of being a member of the Mafia.

I made a good faith attempt to come up with reasonable language that would not offend you. Obviously, that will not work out. Therefore in the future I will simply state what I believe to be true without worry. I will select my language carefully and I will have no secret motives or hidden agendas.

If you choose to “squint real hard” looking for things to take offense at, that is your problem

This particular conversation is exhausted and I am now exiting it.

Some confusion may result because we switch from discussion of Spudis plan as recorded and a hypothetical market for water in orbit from idealized Earth and lunar sources. Anyways:

No, for at least three reasons:

1) Extending the repayment period indefinitely causes the ROI to asymptotically approach zero. When the ROI falls below that of safer investments – treasury bods, for example – then no one will invest.

We’ve already stipulated that $88 billion is a tough aggregate for the private sector to swallow. I don’t think anyone here imagined anyone other than government fronting the initial capital.

2) The Spudis plan involves a continuing operating cost of $6.5 B per year. If water can be provided from earth for less than 150 mt / $6.5 B, then no one will buy lunar water.

The Spudis plan projects only out to Year 15, and this holds only for the period where:

1. production capacity and demand for water remains below three and a quarter million tons a year,
2. lunar annual recurring costs exceed $300 million (against an idealized Earth source), or
3. your lunar water enterprise subsumes more than $300 million of the annual recurring costs.

We can safely say 1 and 2 will remain true for some time. Three is nothing more than subsidy. We can argue whether its fair for government to either compete or offer a company an advantage in which they use a publicly funded project to compete with an Earth company. We can debate whether its prudent for government rightfully defray the cost of a lunar endeavor by doing so. But with a public backer we can’t categorically say that lunar water cannot be priced competitively.

3) The Spudis plan is going to require recapitalization periodically. It is a solar powered system and solar arrays begin degrading immediately in the space environment. Batteries have a finite cycle life. Abrasive lunar dust is going to take a toll on moving parts. In short, most or all of the initial $88 B capitol is going to be have replaced in 10 to 15 years to maintain production.

And that would undoubtedly be a pain in the ass if all we do on the Moon is extract water.

The initial $88 B has to be recouped in a reasonable period for the investment to make sense.

For a private firm, yes. But then again, a private firms overriding concern isn’t the spread of the whole of civilization and commerce into space.

“If water can be provided from earth for less than 150 mt / $6.5 B, then no one will buy lunar water.”

$6.5B for 150mt of water = $43,333/kg

Getting water to LEO, if you use Delta IV Heavy, assume $300M/launch and 15,000kg (66% of total payload), that = $20,000/kg

If you use Falcon 9 Heavy, which is advertised for $95M/launch, and 21,000kg to LEO (66% of total payload), that = $4,523/kg

The price difference for Earth vs Moon water really depends on a number of factors, like FOB origin or destination, where the water is being delivered to, and how much advance notice there is for needing the delivery (slow routes vs fast routes).

FWIW

“The point is that lunar water can be priced competitively with an Earth source simply by extending the period in which the investor recoups the initial capital.”

No, for at least three reasons:

1) Extending the repayment period indefinitely causes the ROI to asymptotically approach zero. When the ROI falls below that of safer investments – treasury bods, for example – then no one will invest.

2) The Spudis plan involves a continuing operating cost of $6.5 B per year. If water can be provided from earth for less than 150 mt / $6.5 B, then no one will buy lunar water.

3) The Spudis plan is going to require recapitalization periodically. It is a solar powered system and solar arrays begin degrading immediately in the space environment. Batteries have a finite cycle life. Abrasive lunar dust is going to take a toll on moving parts. In short, most or all of the initial $88 B capitol is going to be have replaced in 10 to 15 years to maintain production.

The initial $88 B has to be recouped in a reasonable period for the investment to make sense.

“As you are aware, on another thread I tried very hard to get a term from you that would be acceptable to use for the Government money going to the Commercial Space Firms (specifically to avoid this semantics game) and of course got nowhere.”

Maybe you missed it, but in response to your question I stated “The contractors are being paid for work they have performed” as one definition.

Before that, Vladislaw stated “It is literally performance pay”, and I believe he has said he is an economist (to give you a frame of reference).

Or just simply “payment”, which Wikipedia defines as:

“A payment is usually made in exchange for the provision of goods, services or both, or to fulfill a legal obligation.”

“I have spent my entire career (25 years) in the space business working in hardware, operations and systems engineering.”

Did your employer compensate you with subsidies or loans?

“…not that it matters but “we” won all three of those contracts…”

And what did your company win – subsidies or loans?

Or did they create products or performs services for agreed upon compensation?

If it helps you any, here is the link for the 2009 GAO report about the COTS program:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09618.pdf

On page 19 is the milestone tasks SpaceX has to perform, and the compensation they receive when the tasks are successfully completed. The list for Orbital Sciences milestones starts on page 25.

No gifts, subsidies or loans. Capisce?

OK so you are only makeing the acusation about me (an individual you do not even know). And ot course you do it with no evidence at all. Yes, that would make it much better.

As previoulsy stated:
If you do not see the discrepancy in that, then any further discussion of this topic is will serve no useful purpose.

Have a nice day.