Re: Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable

On Feb 26, 12:55 pm, "Len" <l...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 26, 1:13 am, "Michael Turner" <l...@xxxxxxx> wrote:





On Feb 25, 5:50 pm, Ian Woollard <ian.wooll...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Fred J. McCall wrote:
And who's up there to 'buy' it?

I don't have to be in America to buy goods in America. I don't have to
be in space to buy goods and services that are in space.

You've clearly demonstrated that the whole concept is utterly beyond
you; it's completely pointless discussing it with you. To be honest, I
can't see what you are doing in this group at all, nothing here seems to
be within your grasp; you're simply wasting your own time here.

I'm going to assume that this judgment of Fred is premature, and keep
arguing the various points with him if he wants to, and if there seems
to be progress. At some point we might just agree to disagree. I
happen to think that, with the right water-supply subsidy program,
innovations would materialize making water more useful in space than
it already is -- much more so. He'll probably call that hand-waving.
I can't prove it, after all. He can't prove I'm wrong. At this
point, anyway. Likewise for the innovations that would be required to
establish water supply from space. Would there be the required
innovations? Would they be enough to make water sufficiently
affordable as a cheaper substitute for stuff we send up, or other
substances from space? Who knows? Innovation seems reliable, but
it's never certain.

-michael turner

Hang in there Michael. a fool can be quite
useful, if you just change the spelling a bit
to "foil."

I think that we both agree that water would
already be useful--without the innovations
for its use that would be likely to come--if
it were available in large quantities at low
cost. However, the main usefulness of
a water-subsidy program--I'd rather call it
a market-guarantee program--would be
that it would either not cost anything
beyond tying up some funding for a time,
or it would result in one or more commerical
space transportation systems that could delilver
all types of payloads, not just water, at
far lower costs than prevail today.

Len- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Len writes: "However, the main usefulness of a water-subsidy program--
I'd rather call it a market-guarantee program ..."

I'd suggest more care in what you call it, because there are important
distinctions suggested by the two terms.

Water subsidy programs wouldn't necessarily "tie up" *any* funding.
Companies might look at the price, explore economical substitutability
scenarios at that price, and eventually conclude that the subsidy
makes no difference in demand. I would -- and have -- argued
otherwise, i.e., that there are more possible uses than we know, at
different prices. But I can even argue against it, because it might
have perverse effects. For example, ISS is aiming at 95% water
recycling. A subsidized price might cause planners to drop that
agenda. (Though probably not, because more complete recycling has
long-term uses in Moon-Mars.)

"Market guarantee", by contrast, has connotations of ensuring that
water will be sent up, far in advance of any (now hypothetical)
innovations generating demand to sop up the new supply, and
overshooting existing (and perhaps all future) demand by a large
margin. I.e., that companies could make money just boosting water to
orbit. As others have pointed out, this isn't a case for water per se
(with one poster suggesting "fuzzy dice"). Fuel might be better.
Anything used on orbit might be better, and it might be better just to
say "mass" than "water" or anything else so specific.

I've argued both for and against market guarantees specifically for
water as well. Derek might call this "shifting my position", or
"having a different idea of what I want." I'd rather call it
speculation and discussion, to try to figure out what might work.
It's probably just a difference of perspective on argument itself. I
like it because it can be intellectually stimulating (he'd probably
call it masturbatory) and sometimes new facts and lines of reasoning
come to light (he'd probably say that's extremely unlikely.) From his
point of view, perhaps, argument is only fun if you "win", where to
"win", it's enough to satisfy yourself that your opponents are
stupid. But that's just a hypothesis I have about him. He could
surprise us all, and suddenly say, "Oh, I see I've misread what some
you folks have been saying, and also haven't been forgiving of people
leaping to conclusions in some cases, which I do often enough myself,
fallible human that I am. Sorry." It's not impossible.

-michael turner

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
    ... Likewise for the innovations that would be required to ... establish water supply from space. ... I'd rather call it a market-guarantee program ..." ... Companies might look at the price, ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
    ... happen to think that, with the right water-supply subsidy program, ... Likewise for the innovations that would be required to ... establish water supply from space. ... that it would either not cost anything ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
    ... I don't have to be in America to buy goods in America. ... Likewise for the innovations that would be required to ... establish water supply from space. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Just returned from WDW-trip report-days 1 and 2
    ... I've heard good things about the cabins - a lot of room and a good price. ... bigger than he is) wanted him to ride. ... food is not that much different than other counter service, ... Katie has gotten to where she won't drink "tap" water. ...
    (rec.arts.disney.parks)
  • Re: Socialism in SF
    ... possible in the long term there may be price shocks, ... An "abundance of fresh water" in the sense of flooding in the next ... "Efficient price mechanisms" can change the climate? ... When you call me a lying moron, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)