Newt promises a permanent moonbase by the end of his second term

[mhaze]

Just a jerk? You are being too generous.

WELL it only took about 10 seconds to find the nature of the offensiveness of Pournelle to AUP and BB:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2view/view408.html#Flannery

I don't have to be a Harvard graduate to see that if the Earth were this warm 100,000 years ago, but the polar ice cap was stable for 1 million years or more, there is something wrong with his data. Nor do I recall that 95% of all species died off 100,000 years ago, but my education in those matters may be deficient. Does anyone know of such a die-off?

Flannery also tells us that hurricanes will make the East Coast uninhabitable. Well, to be fair, he says it "may" get to that. But beware 2008.

And finally, he tells us, we ought to engage in grass roots pressure and local measures. Rooftop solar heaters for hot water, as an example. Now I have no objection to such measures, and indeed if you have the proper facing and sloping roof and your house structure is strong enough to support a lot of extra weight, heating your swimming pool by passive solar heaters can save money, provided you live where there's enough solar energy.

But I also know that at higher latitudes you get less sunlight, and for horizontal surfaces less than that, so that if you're up there in the Arctic there won't be all that much insolation to begin with, particularly on flat ground surfaces. But that's another story.

I haven't time to look into all of Flannery's allegations and predictions, although they seem more or less consistent with things Hansen has been saying. Perhaps he is right. But I still don't understand how the ice cap can have been there for a million years when 100,000 years ago the Earth was warmer and the seas 12 feet higher.

Gee that was SO PREDICTABLE!

 

[BenBurch]

Don't be an ass, MHaze. You don't know the nature of my encounter with him, and you are not even close.

 

[Darth Rotor]

It's not gone unnoticed that Newt made this promise in Florida.

I noticed that as well.

I really hope Romney asks him about it in Michigan and Arizona. "Hey Newt, tell them about your moon base!"

Why not talk about his Moonbat, Michelle Bachman, who will doubtless be in Newt's mind for VP on the ticket ...

Sea of Tranquility

And Newt can have my vote if he ups the ante and promises us Star Destroyers.

He's too fat to fit the Vader suit. Not gonna happen.

I am sure there are many wives who would take exception with your comment.

And one bus driver from New York ...

C'mon, we all know that you can't be a true evil genius without a moonbase!

True enough.

Pournelle? Hrm. When I think Gingrich, I think "Dick."

And do you then dream of robotic sheep?

The biggest drawback to a space elevator would be the space elevator music.

The biggest drawback of a space elevator would be the rats in the moon corn. I wonder if old Corndogs Georgie might be of help with that ...

 

[mhaze]

Don't be an ass, MHaze. You don't know the nature of my encounter with him, and you are not even close.

I'm only stating the obvious.

And I (obviously) had a different impression when I met him.

No more needs be said!

 

[mhaze]

....4. It's cheaper and easier to send robots to Mars. The Moon is not needed for that.

I'm all for space exploration and in the long term I would like to see us colonize other worlds and even other solar systems. I just think it requires a deliberate, cost effective, well-planned effort. Newt's idea is none of those.

Ah, yes, actually it is all of that. Shows your ignorance of the actual facts. And it's not really "Newt's plan", it's a take off from Zubrin.

Also, the polar lunar base is the best stepping stone to other exploration and settlement possible. Arguably it's the only way. Although you certainly could launch robot probes in small numbers from the Earth. That's not "settlement" and it doesn't lead to colonies. For the concept of going direct to settle Mars, look at Zubrin's "Mars Direct" proposal.

The problem with "Mars Direct" is the lack of economic payback for the project, ie, it looks more like a government funded style project. That'd be subject to the tides of political opinion.

The Moon base is as proposed by Newt a privately funded endeavor, the initial motivation being government supplied prize money. Although the moon surface dust can be processed and He3 fusion reactor fuel extracted, which should be extremely valuable in the future. If we figure out how to make a fusion reactor.

Not so with Mars. No known valuable resources on Mars.

One final comment. It's commonly assumed that Mars is a "good place". That may not be so at all. That red surface is like a heavy bleach, it would be extremely irritating to humans, animals, and would obviously prevent plant growth. It may be nearly impossible or impractical to settle Mars.

Moon surface dust is not chemically reactive. It has been noted to get into everything and destroy sensitive mechanisms, but with water at the poles available in large quantities, inside pressure vessels dust could simply be washed off.

 

[BenBurch]

I'm only stating the obvious.

And I (obviously) had a different impression when I met him.

No more needs be said!

You didn't have to deal with him when he was being told "no". No matter who you are, rules are made for a reason and have to be followed. You do not get a free ride because you are Jerry Pournelle.

 

[BenBurch]

...

Moon surface dust is not chemically reactive. It has been noted to get into everything and destroy sensitive mechanisms, but with water at the poles available in large quantities, inside pressure vessels dust could simply be washed off.

Trouble is that any vacuum seal, like a hatch or a port, is going to have significant issues if contaminated with lunar dust according to experts.

I've dealt with hermetically-sealed enclosures, and you would have a hard time maintaining the seal surface in a vacuum unless spacecraft and vacuum test chambers are sealed in very different ways.

 

[mhaze]

Trouble is that any vacuum seal, like a hatch or a port, is going to have significant issues if contaminated with lunar dust according to experts.

I've dealt with hermetically-sealed enclosures, and you would have a hard time maintaining the seal surface in a vacuum unless spacecraft and vacuum test chambers are sealed in very different ways.

Really?

Nope. Not really.

Here's what you do. You have plenty of water, and you have gas under pressure. Steam, if you want it. Easy to clean seals. On Mars? The dust quickly corrodes and destroys any seal material with the exception of teflon.

I'll be happy to write up a set of rules on gasket sealing methodologies for flight in the solar system and assign the job of Rules-Enforcer to someone who likes that sort of work...

Not really. Just kidding. I'd only assign jobs to people who could do actual useful work.

Oh, and by the way.

I'll accept the possibility that you and AUP could encounter an AGW skeptic and dislike him for other reasons than he being an AGW skeptic.

Pournelle criticized and ridiculed Flannery, a high priest of your AGW religion, and that makes him an idiological enemy of you and AUP. Rational behavior by the Faithful of AGW stops at that point as we well know here.

Flannery of course is nothing but a propagandist engaging in alarmist lying and this is what Pournelle pointed out. It would just be incidental that someone like Pournelle pointing our one of your High Priests was a liar and an idiot was to be smeared for some UNRELATED REASON.

Yes, I'll accept that possibility.

 

[BenBurch]

OK, you know more about vacuum seals than I do, clearly. I just know what I have maintained and what I have read about lunar dust issues.

 

[mhaze]

OK, you know more about vacuum seals than I do, clearly. I just know what I have maintained and what I have read about lunar dust issues.

I'm not disputing that. But all that I think is reasonable to presume was written before the discovery of water.

Basically the lunar polar water means the entire book has to be rewritten. Seals are only a small part of that. I suspect what that means is that a permanent lunar base is now "easy". That could be wrong, because we really don't know much about many things. Remember in the early space program, the easy and glib ways people talked about self contained ecosystems in space (typically using algae)? Didn't exactly turn out that way.

The same is true with many guesses and assumptions about the ease or difficulty of a moon colony, but it is now feasible to go down that road. It's a bit easier for the Chinese, since they can just send people one way...

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Ah, yes, actually it is all of that. Shows your ignorance of the actual facts.

I can't wait to be enlightened.

The Moon base is as proposed by Newt a privately funded endeavor, the initial motivation being government supplied prize money.

Where did you get this idea? I have seen nothing about Newt proposing government prize money for a privately funded permanent moon base by the end of his second term.

Although the moon surface dust can be processed and He3 fusion reactor fuel extracted, which should be extremely valuable in the future. If we figure out how to make a fusion reactor.

As long as we are dreaming of future technology, warp-drives will make galactic colonization possible. We just have to figure out how to make warp drives.

Moon surface dust is not chemically reactive. It has been noted to get into everything and destroy sensitive mechanisms, but with water at the poles available in large quantities, inside pressure vessels dust could simply be washed off.

The quantity of water at the lunar poles has not been determined. I suspect it is not present in large enough quantities to use it as wash water.

Not so with Mars. No known valuable resources on Mars.

Large quantities of water at the Martian poles is well documented.

Here's what you do. You have plenty of water, and you have gas under pressure. Steam, if you want it. Easy to clean seals.

Please provide evidence of sufficient quantities of water on the Moon that would make it feasible to use as wash water.

I said it requires a deliberate, cost effective, well-planned effort. Newt's artificial deadline (the end of his second term) pretty much garauntees it will not be cost-effective.

 

[mhaze]

I can't wait to be enlightened.


Where did you get this idea? I have seen nothing about Newt proposing government prize money for a privately funded permanent moon base by the end of his second term.


As long as we are dreaming of future technology, warp-drives will make galactic colonization possible. We just have to figure out how to make warp drives.


The quantity of water at the lunar poles has not been determined. I suspect it is not present in large enough quantities to use it as wash water.


Large quantities of water at the Martian poles is well documented.


Please provide evidence of sufficient quantities of water on the Moon that would make it feasible to use as wash water.

I said it requires a deliberate, cost effective, well-planned effort. Newt's artificial deadline (the end of his second term) pretty much garauntees it will not be cost-effective.

I'll answer the parts of your questions that Google doesn't immediately bring up - on those, if there are any questions, ask.

The future value of He3 is the value that would be paid today, for He3 tomorrow. In the world of investments, it is the discounted present value of bonds or stocks as per those for a speculative mining venture.

I think issuing such certificates would have a huge market, particularly say if a company had first demonstrated it's ability to put a man on the lunar pole. The person here that might want to weigh in on this question is Francisca.

So....you don't need a proven market for he3 to build the moonbase and mine the he3. What you need is a market to buy into that as a venture. This is the essence of private investment and private industry as opposed to government.

I'm not even saying that the private companies would successfully get to the moon, or create one or several moonbases, or that he3 will ultimately be worth a million $ per kilo. I'm saying that that's quite irrelevant.

 

[johnny karate]

I'll answer the parts of your questions that Google doesn't immediately bring up - on those, if there are any questions, ask.

How about this one:

Where did you get this idea? I have seen nothing about Newt proposing government prize money for a privately funded permanent moon base by the end of his second term.

A Google search for "Where did mhaze get the idea that Newt Gingrich wants a privately funded moon base?" yielded no results.

I'll be over here holding my breath in anticipation of you answering the question.

 

[mhaze]

How about this one:



A Google search for "Where did mhaze get the idea that Newt Gingrich wants a privately funded moon base?" yielded no results.

I'll be over here holding my breath in anticipation of you answering the question.

Actually, yes it does. Everything you say on JREF is on google for everyone to laugh at.

 

[johnny karate]

Actually, yes it does. Everything you say on JREF is on google for everyone to laugh at...

... says the guy defending stupid things Newt Gingrich says with stupid lies.

No worries. I didn't expect you to answer the question. That would require integrity.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

The future value of He3 is the value that would be paid today, for He3 tomorrow. In the world of investments, it is the discounted present value of bonds or stocks as per those for a speculative mining venture.

So, the future value of warp drive technology is the value that would be paid today for warp drive technology tomorrow. Boy do I have an investment opportunity for you.

 

[Cleon]

So, the future value of warp drive technology is the value that would be paid today for warp drive technology tomorrow. Boy do I have an investment opportunity for you.

Does it involve hamburgers?

 

[mhaze]

So, the future value of warp drive technology is the value that would be paid today for warp drive technology tomorrow. Boy do I have an investment opportunity for you.

Not the same.

Investment in speculative mining ventures is a huge industry. Company XYZ says they have options for 2000 acres in Z-land, preliminary drilling shows such and such copper deposit with such and such % gold, silver. Several rounds of financing follow. Ever heard the phrase "Gold Rush?"

And if you guessed or (preferably, calculated) correctly you'd be a rich man.

But let me give you some numbers. Lunar He3 value about 3B/ton. Extraction basically involves scooping up dust, heating to 500C, recovering outgas.

100T powers the entire world for a year at current rates.

For those who are concerned with Fossil Fuels, AGW, dangers of nuclear plants.

THE END OF ALL THAT.

So, some little ugly craft with a payload bay about equal to the STS, in one return trip to Earth, brings enough fuel to power the US for a year.

Now, it's fine with me if you thought investing in such a venture was crazy. It makes NO DIFFERENCE if you think it's crazy. What matters is whether the venture gets investment money.

And they would.

Or...they would not, which would be the opinion of the market on their scheme. And another company tries, with a better salesman, perhaps a better plan. And they get the money, and fail. And another does it, and gets the money and sends the He3 back. That's the nature of competition in free markets.

Your opinion...and the ridicule of individuals such as those on this thread... is quite irrelevant. That's true even if it is a factually informed opinion, which it does not seem or even pretend to be.

 

[Muldur]

Mhaze:

First, we need fusion technology (which we don't have).

Second, we would have to pay the cost of the trip there. As a point of comparison, a single space shuttle launch was ~$450 million

Source

That's $450 million plus each and every time we have to launch a mission either to retrieve the processed fuel, plus each and every supply mission, plus each and every personnel changeout.

The numbers as far as I can see just don't add up, even if we DID have fusion tech (which, again, we do NOT).

Meanwhile, here's my promised list (not all inclusive) of what just 1 billion dollars can buy (numbers chosen for clarity of example):

1 million month's rent (or 1 year's rent for 83,333 families) @ $1000/month

1000 homes purchased outright @ $100,000 each

10 million weeks of food assistance @ $100/week

10 million months of energy assistance @ $100/month

5 million month's of health insurance premiums @ $200/month

400,000 basic transportation cars for low income people @ 2,500/car

I ask (again), which of you space program advocates is going to look little Johnny and Suzie Sixpack in the eye and tell them they can't eat tonight because the money that COULD provide them food is being spent on a wasteful, entirely speculative and unnecessary lunar colony?

Space activities beyond launching needful satellites and an asteroid watch program are a luxury item we cannot afford and should not spend money on at this time.

 

[mikeyx]

Mhaze:

First, we need fusion technology (which we don't have).

Second, we would have to pay the cost of the trip there. As a point of comparison, a single space shuttle launch was ~$450 million

Source

That's $450 million plus each and every time we have to launch a mission either to retrieve the processed fuel, plus each and every supply mission, plus each and every personnel changeout.

The numbers as far as I can see just don't add up, even if we DID have fusion tech (which, again, we do NOT).

Meanwhile, here's my promised list (not all inclusive) of what just 1 billion dollars can buy (numbers chosen for clarity of example):

1 million month's rent (or 1 year's rent for 83,333 families) @ $1000/month

1000 homes purchased outright @ $100,000 each

10 million weeks of food assistance @ $100/week

10 million months of energy assistance @ $100/month

5 million month's of health insurance premiums @ $200/month

400,000 basic transportation cars for low income people @ 2,500/car

I ask (again), which of you space program advocates is going to look little Johnny and Suzie Sixpack in the eye and tell them they can't eat tonight because the money that COULD provide them food is being spent on a wasteful, entirely speculative and unnecessary lunar colony?

Space activities beyond launching needful satellites and an asteroid watch program are a luxury item we cannot afford and should not spend money on at this time.

never mind.