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

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well golly gee. That's what I been telling ya.

No you haven't.

You have been arguing that the X-Prize led to great new innovations and made commercial spaceflight a realizable goal that would probably result in a return on investment. You have been arguing that the "success" of the X-Prize means that Newt's proposal is a credible plan for implementing his grandiose promises of things he says will happen within 8 years.

We're here speaking of the X-series of supersonic aircraft/spacecraft that were developed some 50 years earlier by publicly funded projects in NASA and the Air Force.

Don't confuse the X-series with the X Prize.

 

[mhaze]

SS1 & SS2 are remarkable for their propulsion system, their aerodynamics, and their intent, but do not break any ground that the X-planes did not break in the early 1960s.

Such craft are almost dead ends as far as getting to and from LEO.

I have been looking at SSTO and ALSSTO since the 1970s.

If you can build a SSTO, it will have to be amazingly lightweight, and will have to choose fuel chemistry that balances I_sp and tankage weight. And it will have a near zero payload.

The Atlas-1 was actually pretty close to a SSTO. It was called a "Stage and a half" vehicle as it dumped two of its three engines once it had burned off enough fuel to not require their thrust to finish the mission.

It was a giant aluminum alloy balloon.

They had to be kept pressurized at all times, including in storage, or they would collapse.

The very last one was destroyed in a launch pad accident where a dropped tool bounced into the rocket and punctured the tank.

And that is the sort of tradeoff you will need to make if you want a rocket plane to ever reach orbit.

And reaching orbit is one thing, but a rocket plane ALSO needs to be able to survive re-entry.

And as you compute how to do that, you will note that your payload margin vanishes.

ETA: Note this quote;



From; http://spaceline.org/rocketsum/atlas-program.html

These are accurate facts with one exception, it was a SS skin I forget the alloy. Elegant concept. I'm not an advocate of "reusable spacecraft that looks like aircraft", rather of things being sent one way including humans....

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

As far as you trying to question the meaning of terms like "reusable" they are well understood in the industry and are not subject to your finesse.

Your reading disorder is flaring up again. I wasn't questioning the meaning of the term "reusable". I was refuting someone who was questioning the meaning of that term. As I have proven, NASA defines the shuttle as a reusable spacecraft.

ETA: Or are you claiming that NASA isn't part of the industry? Or that their usage is unconventional in the field of space exploration?

 

[Spindrift]

NASA disagrees:



Source.

At any rate, the X prize only called for a second launch (to carry at least 3 people 100 km above the Earth's surface) within 14 days. This was attainable by the shuttle. Not in a prudent or safe way, but it was certain doable.

[ETA: And if you want to quibble over the definition of "reusable", I'd say it's arguable that the shuttles were much more reusable than a craft that only managed 3 total flights in its lifetime.]

It's not a quibble. The shuttle was never capable of a 14 day turn around. The fastest turnaround between two different shuttles was 17 days. The shortest for one shuttle was 46 days and that was pre-Challenger accident.

The shuttles routinely had to go through massive replacement of systems taking up to 18 months. NASA may have called it reusable but they are the one quibbling with the definition.

If Apollo 13 was a successful failure, the shuttle was a failed success.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's not a quibble.

You claimed the shuttles weren't reusable spacecraft. NASA says they were.

And the fact that they never did a 14 day turnaround isn't proof that they weren't capable of it, especially if the craft's total lifespan was only going to be 3 flights. And again, the earlier air/spacecrafts that Ben mentioned had already achieved this in the early '60s.

So I see nothing about the X-Prize "success" that would lead me to think it's a credible model for fulfilling Newt's promises--establishing a permanent moon base and developing a continuous propulsion rocket capable of reaching Mars very fast--within 8 years.

At best, it was a slight tweaking of feats that had already been accomplished decades earlier that would lead (in maybe a total of 25 years or so) to a possibly viable commercial aircraft tourism industry.

ETA: That's quite a leap from a prize whose purpose would be to fulfill Newt's grand promises of a permanent moon base and a continuous propulsion rocket that could get us quickly to Mars within 8 years.

 

[Spindrift]

You claimed the shuttles weren't reusable spacecraft. NASA says they were.

And the fact that they never did a 14 day turnaround isn't proof that they weren't capable of it, especially if the craft's total lifespan was only going to be 3 flights. And again, the earlier air/spacecrafts that Ben mentioned had already achieved this in the early '60s.

So I see nothing about the X-Prize "success" that would lead me to think it's a credible model for fulfilling Newt's promises--establishing a permanent moon base and developing a continuous propulsion rocket capable of reaching Mars very fast--within 8 years.

At best, it was a slight tweaking of feats that had already been accomplished decades earlier that would lead (in maybe a total of 25 years or so) to a possibly viable commercial aircraft tourism industry.

ETA: That's quite a leap from a prize whose purpose would be to fulfill Newt's grand promises of a permanent moon base and a continuous propulsion rocket that could get us quickly to Mars within 8 years.

I'm not arguing with you about whether or not Newt's 'plan' would work. Of course it wouldn't, it's totally unrealistic. It's just that calling the space shuttle 'reusable' sticks in my craw. It's about as reusable as a soda can. Sure you can cut the top off and weld on a new lid, but I wouldn't really consider it reusable. And just because NASA calls it something, doesn't mean it really is that. The Lunar Module Pilot's job didn't entail piloting.

 

[Bill Thompson]

That's not true. I can cite an infinity of examples of things that are in fact impossible, especially when they're tied, for example, to time limits.

I think you are wrong. THe United States build a new war ship per week at the height of the war in the Pacific -- Yep -- One per week, fully built and launched to sea ready for battle.

Technology does things every day that only a few years ago would be considered impossible.

Nothing is impossible.

 

[Bill Thompson]

"Anything is possible, but only a few things actually happen"

THat is true.

On the back cover of a book I saw written by a lesser known Apollo moon walker was this quote:

"Going to the moon was not a miracle. We just decided to do it"

 

[johnny karate]

Nothing is impossible.

Sweet! I look forward to owning my own lightsaber.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Nothing is impossible.

It's impossible for a runner competing legally in the Olympics to run a 100 meter dash in less than 7 seconds.

Teleportation of the large amounts of materials and supplies necessary to establish a moon base is not currently possible--and will not be possible within the next 5 years.

It's impossible to cut taxes dramatically, increase spending dramatically and substantially reduce the deficit in the short term.

It's definitely impossible to establish a permanent base on the moon within 8 years AND adopt Newt's tax proposal.

In fact, any proposition of the form (P and not-P) is impossible to be true.

The United States build a new war ship per week at the height of the war in the Pacific -- Yep -- One per week, fully built and launched to sea ready for battle.

Unless these were space-faring warships, that accomplishment does nothing to make Newt's promises more credible.

In fact, the massive spending increases in WWII also led to the highest deficits we've ever run.

But again, the debate isn't about a hypothetical claim that a moon base is or is not possible. Newt promised that it would happen--and that it would happen within 8 years! He has offered no credible plan for how it would happen.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not arguing with you about whether or not Newt's 'plan' would work.

That's the only point I'm arguing.

Haze thinks that the X-Prize is somehow proof that a prize like that can result in the achievement of remarkable accomplishments with no risk and minimal taxpayer cost. I merely pointed out that the achievement of the X Prize was relatively modest. Everything it required had already been accomplished decades earlier. Maybe not all of the requirements--3 people, 100km altitude, turnaround time to second flight within 14 days, had been achieved in a single project, but there was no dramatically new accomplishment, except that it was done by a private company.

A permanent moon base would either require MASSIVE public spending or incredibly and dramatically new technology. And even if either one of those things happened, it'd still be a stretch to think it's achievable within 8 years.

That undertaking is something orders of magnitude more ambitious than the X Prize, which took nearly a decade to be won and still hasn't resulted in commercial spaceflight.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Liberals must win every argument.

The money is there for a moonbase.

What is more, is this. It could pay for itself in cheap constant solar energy sent to earth via microwave.

Get a couple of countries to invest and there you go. You don't even need a full time staff to man it either.

Plus, it could be a military decision. No, I don't mean a military base. I mean a PR stunt like the Apollo mission was. If someone was on the fence about fighting or joining the infidels, this might help push more to our side.

 

[Bill Thompson]

It's impossible for a runner competing legally in the Olympics to run a 100 meter dash in less than 7 seconds.

That is not true either.

If you throw enough money at a barn you can make it fly. That is a military expression and I can attest it is actually true.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Liberals must win every argument.

The money is there for a moonbase.

I have a suspicion that if Obama proposed a moonbase, it would be decried by Newt and other Republican candidates as an enormous waste of money and resources.

 

[Cleon]

Liberals must win every argument.

I'm sorry that you keep losing them.

The money is there for a moonbase.

No, it isn't.

What is more, is this. It could pay for itself in cheap constant solar energy sent to earth via microwave.

We do not have the technology to implement such a plan. Further, using that sort of power generation scheme on the Moon doesn't make any sense; you are aware that the moon rotates and revolves around the Earth, yes? Not a particularly good source of solar power.

Get a couple of countries to invest and there you go. You don't even need a full time staff to man it either.

I'm pleased that you're able to fully deduce the automation capabilities and staffing requirements of a system that is, as of now, science fiction.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I'm sorry that you keep losing them.

OH? You think I am a Liberal?

I tell you , anything is possible.
A N Y T H I N G

If you can imagine it, it can happen. And you have to imagine it to write it here.

How about cell phones that are invisible that when you use them you look like you are talking into your palm with your index finger in your ear. Guess what? Done. The Secret Service already have then.

How about paint my fart purple? Well, how much money do you have? Not enough? That is bull. THe department of homeland security make miracles happen every day that would be considered impossible just 10 years ago. ANd all that money is borrowed from China.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I have a suspicion that if Obama proposed a moonbase, it would be decried by Newt and other Republican candidates as an enormous waste of money and resources.

It could actually pay for itself. He should have proposed it. All this talk about alternative energy and we have a giant solar collector above our heads with the land mass of Africa.

 

[Spindrift]

OH? You think I am a Liberal?

I tell you , anything is possible.
A N Y T H I N G

If you can imagine it, it can happen. And you have to imagine it to write it here.

How about cell phones that are invisible that when you use them you look like you are talking into your palm with your index finger in your ear. Guess what? Done. The Secret Service already have then.

How about paint my fart purple? Well, how much money do you have? Not enough? That is bull. THe department of homeland security make miracles happen every day that would be considered impossible just 10 years ago. ANd all that money is borrowed from China.

Simply imagining something does not mean it can happen.

I can imagine that the George Washington is still alive. Aint gonna happen.

I can imagine myself pitching in the World Series. Ain't gonna happen.

I can imagine that you might make a cogent argument. Ain't gonna happen.

I can imagine that the Cowboys won the last Super Bowl. Ain't gonna happen.

 

[BenBurch]

It's not a quibble. The shuttle was never capable of a 14 day turn around. ...

However, the system had an initial design goal of a rapid turnaround.

It also had a design goal of really cheap space access.

The failure of the first goal doomed the second one.

 

[BenBurch]

Sweet! I look forward to owning my own lightsaber.

I want a fembot.