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

[Darth Rotor]

So... Newt's plan is to offer a $10 billion prize for someone to do something that is estimated to cost $450 billion?

That's a stroke of genius. Now all he has to do is find someone with $450 billion who is smart enough to figure how to get to Mars, but stupid enough to do it at a loss of $440 billion.

Uh, that sounds like the State Government of California.
( )

Edit for Bill:

Look up the X-29, for what was imagined, versus what they found out in flight test based on cold, hard reality.

I followed that program with some interest as it developed, and was disappointed that it didn't pan out. :-(

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/history/pastprojects/X29/index.html

Not everything NASA funds gets fielded, but I suppose some of what they learned was applicable to other aircraft.

 

[johnny karate]

Looks like my comment about his claim stands on it's merits. Otherwise, Joe's definition of moonbase could be arbitrarily chosen to make his claim true, couldn't it?

JOE: <<SECRET DEFINITION OF MOONBASE>>

Base on the moon with 10,000 people and everyone drives a Hummer.

IMPOSSIBLE! IMPOSSIBLE!

Newt's claim can't be done in 8 years!​

Yeah....suuuurrreee...

Uh... what?

 

[Spindrift]

Give me an example.

ANy advancement in technology is perceived as magic or wizardry to a lesser culture.

So give me an example of something that you can imagine that can never be true.

I already did.

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.

 

[mhaze]

Joe is not claiming that. No one is. The argument is that Newt has not explained how it's going to get done outside of setting aside a big chunk of taxpayer money and crossing his fingers.

It's all about actually doing it, you know? Paying customers, and having a product that they want to pay for.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/01/nasa-2012/?pid=2848

Think of how easy the Gubbermint would have it if there was a private moonbase.

The Gubbermint wants a deep space radio telescope on the moon? Just ask the private company how much the price would be. No more. No more building rockets, mission control headaches, nothing. Just foot the bill, give the contractor the freight and installation instructions, and get ready to use the new toy.

Funny how quickly private companies fill the gap left by the Bamster's killing the shuttle program, isn't it?

http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php

Check out this engine system "Superdrago". Guess what? It would handle moon landing and ascent. As well as protect from Challenger type disasters.

SpaceX’s launch escape system has many advantages over past systems. It is inherently safer because it is not jettisoned like all other escape systems. This distinction provides astronauts with the unprecedented ability to escape from danger at any point during the launch, not just in the first few minutes. The eight SuperDracos provide redundancy, so that even if one engine fails an escape can still be carried
out successfully.

http://www.spacex.com/updates.php

Can we do better than a 5% fatality rate with spacecraft?

Wait....let me rephrase that. Now that American companies are getting into the business of private spacecraft, can they beat the 5% fatality rate that has plagued Gubbermint spacecraft?

 

[Bri]

I think if he's going to claim that you can't have a moonbase in 8 years, he needs to be far more specific, eg number of cubic meters, number of humans, number of robots.....

Luckily, we don't have to worry about lame arguments that nobody knows what Newt meant by a moon base, because Newt already described it for us, including how many colonists it would support so that they could petition for statehood status.

-Bri

 

[BenBurch]

SpaceX is a great company, and they MIGHT be going to the moon some day.

But being able to land on the moon to deploy equipment and do science is leagues and leagues away from being able to run a self-sustaining base. That is something we absolutely do not know how to do, and which will take trillions to develop if we do it now.

But if we do NOT do it now, and let technology advance, we will find it actually a lot easier and cheaper.

For example, when we manage to develop a laser launcher or a fusion rocket, and launch costs approach $25 a pound, THEN a base would not need to be self-sustaining. Right now the cheapest launch you can get is around $400 per pound, and that is a Russian SLBM that is subsidized by the Russian navy and used for launch exercises. And those are small payloads. Regular commercial prices are several times that much, up to the $3000+ range.

Space-X has a stated goal of $1300/pound, and they might get close to it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What I was thinking was this. I think if we really really needed to and if it was a matter of survival for the species, we could probably put a moon base up there within months or weeks instead of years.

But we don't really need to, and it isn't essential for the survival of the species.

Again, the argument isn't that we couldn't establish a permanent moon base in short order by spending enormous resources on the project. [ETA: And in fact, a moon base that is completely independent of support from the Earth is not possible in any case within the next 8 years. Also, as I mentioned much earlier, it would be less costly for us to populate Antarctica than it would be for us to move any significant portion of the population to the moon.] The argument is that we won't do that, and Newt has offered no remotely credible plan for achieving his promise.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And that's the argument I was fixing to make to Joe's blithe generalities. I think if he's going to claim that you can't have a moonbase in 8 years, he needs to be far more specific, eg number of cubic meters, number of humans, number of robots.....

You are shifting who is making a claim and who has the burden of evidence. Newt promises in no uncertain terms that we will have a permanent moon base within 8 years. He has offered no credible plan for achieving this.

My only claim is that the plan he has offered will not achieve this. In fact, I'm sure it's possible, but it would require a HUGE expenditure of resources. I do believe that that huge expenditure would be impossible (politically, fiscally, etc.) to undertake if we also adopted Newt's tax plan. [ETA: But that's moot, because Newt is not proposing a massive public expenditure to achieve his promises within 8 years.]

So please don't try to change the debate to one of me making a claim. The topic of this thread is very clear.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Looks like my comment about his claim stands on it's merits. Otherwise, Joe's definition of moonbase could be arbitrarily chosen to make his claim true, couldn't it?

JOE: <<SECRET DEFINITION OF MOONBASE>>

Base on the moon with 10,000 people and everyone drives a Hummer.

IMPOSSIBLE! IMPOSSIBLE!

Newt's claim can't be done in 8 years!​

Yeah....suuuurrreee...

I've said it before and I'll say it again, when you find yourself making up fake quotations and putting them in the mouth of your opponent, it's a pretty good sign that you're arguing against a straw man.

Again, I will remind you the subject of this thread is about Newt's promises:

By the end of my second term we will have the first permanent base on the Moon, and it will be American [applause].

We will have commercial near-Earth activities that include science, tourism, and manufacturing, and are designed to create a robust industry precisely on the model that was developed by the airlines in the 1930s, because it is in our interest to acquire so much experience in space that we clearly have a capacity that the Chinese and the Russians will never come anywhere close to matching [applause].

And by the end of 2020 we will have the first continuous propulsion system in space capable of getting to Mars in a remarkably short time, because I am sick of being told we have to be timid, and I’m sick of being told we have to be limited to technologies that are 50 years old [applause].

I'm not offering some "secret" or alternative definition of "a permanent base on the Moon". Where did you get that malarcky from, haze?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Uh... what?

It's just Haze carrying out a make-believe debate with a straw version of me in his head. He does that fairly regularly when he can't refute the points I actually make in reality.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Look, we are talking private enterprise moonbases here. They are likely to be very different than those stupid gubbermint schemes.

Nope. In case you are unaware, this is a campaign promise made by a guy who is seeking the GOP nomination. He even phrased it in terms of his winning the presidency "by the end of my second term".

I quote Newt's promise about every 4th or so post, but you still don't seem interested in reading it.

ETA: Also, how do you figure Newt's proposal to allocate $10 billion of NASA's budget for a prize is anything other than another of those "gubbermint schemes" you like to deride? Believe it or not, Newt Gingrich is campaigning for political office! His promise was a campaign promise.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

SpaceX is a great company, and they MIGHT be going to the moon some day.

But being able to land on the moon to deploy equipment and do science is leagues and leagues away from being able to run a self-sustaining base. That is something we absolutely do not know how to do, and which will take trillions to develop if we do it now.

But if we do NOT do it now, and let technology advance, we will find it actually a lot easier and cheaper.

For example, when we manage to develop a laser launcher or a fusion rocket, and launch costs approach $25 a pound, THEN a base would not need to be self-sustaining. Right now the cheapest launch you can get is around $400 per pound, and that is a Russian SLBM that is subsidized by the Russian navy and used for launch exercises. And those are small payloads. Regular commercial prices are several times that much, up to the $3000+ range.

Space-X has a stated goal of $1300/pound, and they might get close to it.

I would add that the notion of a permanently manned moon base also requires some reason for why we'd do it. If the purpose is to further exploration and science, we can achieve those ends without such a costly endeavor. (I made the same arguments against the ISS, FWIW.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The same thing that makes me reasonably confident there's no such thing as the Loch Ness Monster.

You might want to check out the rest of the randi.org, Bill. I mean, apart from the forum.

But I'm merely an agnostic when it comes to the possibility of the existence of a teapot in orbit around the Sun somewhere between the orbits of the Earth and Mars.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That is not true either.

Yes it is.

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.

I made no claim that it's impossible to make a barn fly. Please pay closer attention.

 

[mhaze]

You are shifting who is making a claim and who has the burden of evidence. Newt promises in no uncertain terms that we will have a permanent moon base within 8 years. He has offered no credible plan for achieving this.

My only claim is that the plan he has offered will not achieve this. In fact, I'm sure it's possible, but it would require a HUGE expenditure of resources. I do believe that that huge expenditure would be impossible (politically, fiscally, etc.) to undertake if we also adopted Newt's tax plan. [ETA: But that's moot, because Newt is not proposing a massive public expenditure to achieve his promises within 8 years.]

So please don't try to change the debate to one of me making a claim. The topic of this thread is very clear.

I'm not, and I'm being directly critical of your blithe generality. Take the statement "Man can't fly". This is quite different than the statement "No way 400 people can fly in some vehicle at 500 miles per hour".

I'm asking for WHAT, exactly it is that you claim "Newt hasn't specified" regarding a "moon base". If you can't or won't define it, you have no business talking.

Consider for example, that you claim "X can not be done within 8 years". Without your defining X, the statement has little or no meaning. If on the contrary you define X, you might find that I don't disagree, when it is defined in that fashion. There isn't any way you can get around this.

 

[johnny karate]

This thread is about a claim Newt Gingrich made. No one other than him has an obligation to define the terms of that claim. If there is some "version" of a moon base that would make his claim less preposterous, he needs to spell that out. Until then, it simply remains a preposterous claim.

 

[mhaze]

This thread is about a claim Newt Gingrich made. No one other than him has an obligation to define the terms of that claim. If there is some "version" of a moon base that would make his claim less preposterous, he needs to spell that out. Until then, it simply remains a preposterous claim.

Far be it for me to urge incessantly either you or Joe to stop being ridiculous in fanatically linear pursuit of denigrating political opposition. But by pointing out the auspicious lack of basic definitions, I clarify this problem rather than hinder it.

So....STAND FIRM ON YOUR AMBIGUITY!

 

[Cleon]

Far be it for me to urge incessantly either you or Joe to stop being ridiculous in fanatically linear pursuit of denigrating political opposition. But by pointing out the auspicious lack of basic definitions, I clarify this problem rather than hinder it.

So....STAND FIRM ON YOUR AMBIGUITY!

Ambiguity?

By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon, and it will be American.

It's a *********** stupid thing to promise. Whether Newt's "plan" is funded with public money, private capital, or just by selling Kevin Smith's weed stash, it's a *********** stupid thing to promise.

Spin faster, mhaze.

 

[johnny karate]

Far be it for me to urge incessantly either you or Joe to stop being ridiculous in fanatically linear pursuit of denigrating political opposition. But by pointing out the auspicious lack of basic definitions, I clarify this problem rather than hinder it.

So....STAND FIRM ON YOUR AMBIGUITY!

It's Newt's claim. If there are terms to be defined or ambiguity to be clarified, it's by him.

To suggest that anyone other than him "define" what he means by a moon base is ludicrous.

 

[mhaze]

Ambiguity?



It's a *********** stupid thing to promise. Whether Newt's "plan" is funded with public money, private capital, or just by selling Kevin Smith's weed stash, it's a *********** stupid thing to promise.

Spin faster, mhaze.

Why?

Looks to me like 3 BA330 modules could be configured for a moon base pretty quickly, and each, with a 6k m/s booster launched using the Falcon Heavy rockets.

What do you suppose the total cost for that might be? Stated numbers are in the order of $100M per BA330 and $125M per Heavy launch. Add to that a budget for the booster to the moon from LEO. Maybe triple the base prices?

Look. Irrational optimism isn't wise, but neither is arrogant ignorance.