Was that supposed to constitute an argument? Provide a business case for getting “insanely rich” on the “wealth of space” or stop hitting the taxpayer up for money. If we are going to get that rich, it should be pretty easy to explain.

“You are seriously full of it.”

Pot. Kettle. Whatever.

“If that’s your argument, zero out commercial crew and cargo, ISS, hell the whole of NASA. What’s the concrete, undeniable ROI on any of it anyway?”

ISS was really sold on fostering cooperation with a former enemy. Was it worth it? That’s debatable. COTS and CCDev were sold as cheaper ways of operating ISS. They are justifiable if ISS can be justified. Cancellation is always an option.

“opportunity cost, which calculating–as is befitting its association with 2)–is, whether out of cuteness of hindsight, often an exercise in frivolity.”

You’re on the right track, but you stopped reading too early – get to the part about “Implicit costs”.

“this example [inventory issues] arises only in the confines of an economists’ mental playground”

Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist – it does, and every company that produces a product has to deal with it. Some do it better than others, and I’ve been asked to mitigate far more than $10M worth of potentially excess inventory at one company I’ve been at. Those non-liquid assets kept us from pursuing significant business opportunities.

“By this reasoning, any architecture not running at max capacity in a given period is “wasting money.””

Yep. But as long as you’re competitive with the rest of the market it’s not always recognized. If you get a chance, read “Blue Ocean Strategy“.

“1. 70+ ton nuclear reactors,
2. BA-2100”

Is that it? Let us know when they get funded and we’ll start work on the rocket that can carry them. Until then let’s focus on things we can put into space using existing launchers, which include module systems like the ISS.

“If your foresight ends with resupplying the ISS and rotating crew… If not, then you’re already stuck in the world hypothetical payloads.”

Lots of darts tossed, but no bulls-eyes. This needs a different thread if you want to get into the details.

“1. You’re arbitrarily setting time limits on ROI”

Don’t forget your mantra of “To realize the wealth of space as soon as possible”. The SLS slows us down, it doesn’t speed up exploration.

“2. What’s the ROI on SpaceX’s CRS?”

This one can be calculated, since the alternative costs are known. But you’ll need NASA to cough up what they are getting charged by their partners for ATV, HTV and Progress to add to the known costs of the Shuttle. Just comparing to the Shuttle, I would say CRS pays back well within the first CRS contract, and their follown-on support costs will likely drop even further because of the maturity of the supply systems.

“Probably because “$30 worth of space exploration” is a nonsensical phrase.”

It’s easily quantified. Give two teams $30B to do space exploration. One team has to fund, build and use the SLS, the other uses commercial launchers. When the money runs out see who has accomplished the most in space (mass launched, people in space, places visited, etc.). The average taxpayer could easily judge the results.

There are two ways of looking at inventory – how it’s accounted for on the companies ledger, and how useful it is to the company.

Let’s call them:
1) the way that actually means something, and
2) the way you define it to make a cute point.

BTW, the term you’re looking for is opportunity cost, which calculating–as is befitting its association with 2)–is, whether out of cuteness of hindsight, often an exercise in frivolity.

For example…

If you have $10M worth of unique inventory on hand for Product A, but all the customers are ordering are Product B, then that’s $10M less dollars the company has to work with. Not good.

…this example arises only in the confines of an economists’ mental playground; a convenient stretch to convey an Aesop. We’re not going to space to dump $10 million worth of…I don’t know…vacuum into inventory.

And so it is for the SLS.

Except, it’s not.

If we don’t keep the SLS busy at lifting SLS-sized payloads into space, then it’ll be wasting money.

By this reasoning, any architecture not running at max capacity in a given period is “wasting money.”

And since no one has been able to point to even one likely SLS-unqiue payload…

1. 70+ ton nuclear reactors,
2. BA-2100

That’s two.

…much less years and years of them…

If your foresight ends with resupplying the ISS and rotating crew on and off and meeting the needs of the present satellite market, you’ll be fine with a medium lifter and a capsule with 6000 kg up-mass. If not, then you’re already stuck in the world hypothetical payloads.

…see $30B being tied up in something that won’t return $30B worth of value.

1. You’re arbitrarily setting time limits on ROI; something government’s manifestly do *not* do even when concerned about such things.
2. What’s the ROI on SpaceX’s CRS?

It won’t be giving us $30B worth of space exploration.

Probably because “$30 worth of space exploration” is a nonsensical phrase.

“Since when have Americans lacked the money to do things in space?”

Since when have we lacked money for the FAA to support a known need?

Same answer – when politicians decide there isn’t enough.

There are two ways of looking at inventory – how it’s accounted for on the companies ledger, and how useful it is to the company.

You are thinking in terms of the ledger, where inventory is indeed put into the asset category. But talk with a CFO and he’ll tell you that having lots of inventory for inventory sake is a liability for the company, in that it ties up cash that could be put to work somewhere else (new equipment, more sales staff, etc.).

Inventory should only be on hand for the least amount of time it takes to transform it into revenue. Anything longer means that it’s a drag on the companies finances, and it makes the company less flexible to changing demand. If you have $10M worth of unique inventory on hand for Product A, but all the customers are ordering are Product B, then that’s $10M less dollars the company has to work with. Not good.

And so it is for the SLS. If we don’t keep the SLS busy at lifting SLS-sized payloads into space, then it’ll be wasting money. And since no one has been able to point to even one likely SLS-unqiue payload, much less years and years of them, I see $30B being tied up in something that won’t return $30B worth of value. It won’t be giving us $30B worth of space exploration.

And accounting/finance says the same thing.

Then your accountants are committing fraud.

Seeing as you’re not really concerned about how money is spent, I can see how you wouldn’t understand this.

My views on frugality have nothing to do with your utterly ridiculous nonsense about marking assets as liabilities.

However since we don’t lack the will or talent to do things in space, just the money, I think it has relevance.

Since when have Americans lacked the money to do things in space?

“Who cares? It’s their accountants’ views that matter.”

And accounting/finance says the same thing. I have a background in this type of thing, including being appointed by CFO’s to manage inventory issues. Believe or don’t believe – I don’t care.

Seeing as you’re not really concerned about how money is spent, I can see how you wouldn’t understand this. But again, this is not a core issue related to what we could/should be doing in space.

However since we don’t lack the will or talent to do things in space, just the money, I think it has relevance. And determining who cares about how much things cost, and whether they are worth the money invested, seems to be a good indicator of what approach people want to take regarding space exploration and exploitation.

Who said anything about negative growth in the satellite market – other than you?

You, and you alone it seems.

We are talking about your fantasies to ““Dig, crack, and explode the hell out of it until there’s enough to build something of value out of it.” so you can exploit the “wealth of space.” The economics stink.

Sorry, the Gospel According to Rhyolite wasn’t on the syllabus in macro.

Why the tax payers should foot the bill for HLV when there is no foreseeable return on that investment?

You are seriously full of it. If that’s your argument, zero out commercial crew and cargo, ISS, hell the whole of NASA. What’s the concrete, undeniable ROI on any of it anyway?

Please go bankrupt on you own dime.

“It certainly has something to do with your delusion of negative growth in the satellite market.”

Who said anything about negative growth in the satellite market – other than you? We are talking about your fantasies to ““Dig, crack, and explode the hell out of it until there’s enough to build something of value out of it.” so you can exploit the “wealth of space.” The economics stink. Why the tax payers should foot the bill for HLV when there is no foreseeable return on that investment?