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

[BenBurch]

You can volunteer for that suicide mission, MHaze. I prefer safer things like making my own fireworks.

 

[mhaze]

You can volunteer for that suicide mission, MHaze. I prefer safer things like making my own fireworks.

Okay, I'll bite on that. I'm sure you are aware of the NASA standards for man-qualified rocket systems....and I've previously noted we've got a 5% fatality rate.

How is your risk perception differ for ANY moon base effort? Newt did not guarantee safe spaceflight.

However, you might want to look at the redundancy and designed in capability for survival of the crew module that SpaceX has.



http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/02/spacex-dragon-advancing-launch-abort-system-new-heights/

Then take a look at the specific plan of Bigalow using the BA330 modules.



http://www.space.com/8217-private-moon-bases-hot-idea-space-pioneer.html

Here's the Falcon 9, which is the basis of the Falcon Heavy.



Looks a bit like kids 10 years old are going to mature thinking of space as private ventures, doesn't it?

I do have to mention something at this time. All the way through this thread, I've just been laughing. Not at the engineering or technical feasibility of "going to the moon in 8 years on a privately funded x prize type scheme" BUT....

on the issue of vision, or it's lack of, as to what man is capable of. This is what it's about, is what an individual believes people are capable of. I do exclude Benburch from this as obviously knows what the vision is, and is familiar with the Atlas and it's potential and other technical issues.

How did we get to the Moon last time? It wasn't NASA, it was Von Braun. That was vision coupled with brains. Later, the paper pushers took over. Three generations later, NASA is out of the manned spaceflight business. Like it or not, this is the vision that Newt tried to talk about, that could be rekindled.

 

[Muldur]

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.

Yep.

And they would be absolutely correct.

Reposting this so that the Moonies (NASA/Republican version) have to confront the truth:


1 billion dollars =

• 1 million month's rent (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

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yep.

And they would be absolutely correct.

Reposting this so that the Moonies (NASA/Republican version) have to confront the truth:


1 billion dollars =

• 1 million month's rent (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

But didn't you hear?

Newt has concocted a way of doing it that involves leveraging just small amounts of money (such as $10 billion from NASA's budget) into the tremendous projects he guarantees will happen within 8 years. I'm not sure why, but he also says that if these things don't work, it magically costs us nothing!

And apparently it doesn't matter to him that if they don't work, his promises will have gone unfulfilled despite the certainty with which he made them.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm asking for WHAT, exactly it is that you claim "Newt hasn't specified" regarding a "moon base".

Where did I make that claim? I claim Newt hasn't given a credible plan for fulfilling his wild promises of a permanent moon base and a continuous propulsion rocket capable of reaching Mars very quickly within 8 years. You're not just making up fake quotes again, are you?

If you can't or won't define it, you have no business talking.

Rubbish.

Newt made these 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].

And here is the only thing he offered as a "plan" for how to achieve it:

So let’s go back to how to do it. I would want 10% of the NASA budget set aside for prize money. Lindberg flies to Paris for $25,000. You set up prizes – for example, I forget what the Bush administration estimate was, but it was something like $450 billion to get to Mars with a manned mission. So let’s put up $10 billion. And if somebody figures it out, we save $440 billion. If they don’t figure it out, it didn’t cost us anything.

There is no problem of definitions here. Newt has offered no credible plan for achieving his promises. And the notion that offering a $10 billion prize with taxpayer money will cost us nothing if no one wins the prize shows the height of the fiscal irresponsibility.

And again, Newt has made these promises as part of a campaign, so he is definitely talking about something the government will do to achieve this American moon base. And again, Newt has also presented a tax plan that would slash federal revenues by $1.2 trillion in a single year.

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.

You forget that I'm making no such claim.

It really would help if you stop making up fake quotes, and rely on what I actually post.

I'm merely saying that Newt has offered no credible way of fulfilling his promises. You keep trying to turn the debate into me having the burden of proof of defending a claim I didn't make. Newt is the one making the wild promises without offering a reasonable way of achieving them.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Haze, I notice you have failed to respond to my refutation of your claim that Newt is not proposing a government project.

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.

*ETA: Note: when I use quotation marks to indicate something you have said, I use actual quotes of things you have said.

 

[mhaze]

.... I'm merely saying that Newt has offered no credible way of fulfilling his promises. You keep trying to turn the debate into me having the burden of proof of defending a claim I didn't make. Newt is the one making the wild promises without offering a reasonable way of achieving them.

Well, yes I am trying to get you to offer a burden of proof - note, i'm not DEMANDING, I just think your argument would be logically correct if you did so, and it would make more sense.

I've offered some proof on the other side - as to why prizes work, and why a moon base could be constructed within 8 years, and what style and size.

 

[Muldur]

But didn't you hear?

Newt has concocted a way of doing it that involves leveraging just small amounts of money (such as $10 billion from NASA's budget) into the tremendous projects he guarantees will happen within 8 years. I'm not sure why, but he also says that if these things don't work, it magically costs us nothing!

And apparently it doesn't matter to him that if they don't work, his promises will have gone unfulfilled despite the certainty with which he made them.

I don't care if it were a 100000000% certainty that it WOULD "work".

We don't need it.

We can't afford it.

We shouldn't do it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't care if it were a 100000000% certainty that it WOULD "work".

We don't need it.

We can't afford it.

We shouldn't do it.

You'll get no argument from me on these points.

I think as with the ISS, proponents of the moon base will look around to find a post hoc justification for such a big project rather than let some need or demand point toward its necessity.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I've offered some proof on the other side - as to why prizes work,

No you haven't. You haven't shown any prize that can be leveraged to produce such a major project and major new technology within 8 years time.

As I've pointed out, the X-Prize might some day result in a profitable commercial spaceflight industry, but that hasn't happened yet. And I don't think it will reasonably happen before at least 25 years have passed since the prize was first offered.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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?

You really think that's a reasonable estimate of the total cost of establishing and maintaining a permanent moon base? You're not at all concerned, for example, about food and water?

And if what you're after is a drastically down-scaled redefinition of what a "permanent base on the Moon" means, then why not just consider the debris we have left there to already be a "permanent base on the Moon"?

And do you suppose either of these downscale notions is what Newt was talking about?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

By the way, I applaud you for finally abandoning your bizarre claim that Newt wasn't talking about the promises he made--including the promise of a permanent base on the Moon--in the speech which I've quoted many times.

No. It's a statement he made concerning Mars. Why not read a bit and get your facts right instead of thinking that I care about correcting your opinions?

So you have NOW FIGURED OUT that the mention of the 10B prize, and the 440B not spent, refers to Mars, not the Moon.

 

[mhaze]

By the way, I applaud you for finally abandoning your bizarre claim that Newt wasn't talking about the promises he made--including the promise of a permanent base on the Moon--in the speech which I've quoted many times.

Well, he was talking about prizes for things such as that. A Mars direct engine system, a moon base, other things also.

Let me applaud you and others here for abandoning the ridiculous non factual concept that his scheme involved massive government outlays and didn't involve simply prizes for private sector systems fabrication and deployment.

You really think that's a reasonable estimate of the total cost of establishing and maintaining a permanent moon base? You're not at all concerned, for example, about food and water?

And if what you're after is a drastically down-scaled redefinition of what a "permanent base on the Moon" means, then why not just consider the debris we have left there to already be a "permanent base on the Moon"?

And do you suppose either of these downscale notions is what Newt was talking about?

Food and water? You didn't know the moon has water? Any idea what the launch weight of a year's supply of food one person is? It's not much.

Huh? Those were my questions to you regarding scale. I was trying to be helpful. My thinking was that likely there was some scale at which you, I and Newt would agree on no feasibility within 8 years, some scale at which we would agree, and some intermediate ground on which debate over the merits was possible. But you didn't like that route. What, now you do?

I'm not setting forth the BA330 system as MY proposal, mine would be quite different. It's simply an example of a rapid deployable 18 person habitat. And there's certainly nothing "downsized" about an 18 person space habitat - that's larger than anything we've ever had.

As for food and water, why is that my concern? Doesn't that relate to the definition of the prize? For example, if it was worded such that the goal was to put the moon base there, does that include putting the staff in place? Beats me....

If a question depends on how the prize was worded, you can't just assume one interpretation and then argue based on it. I have no clue how it might be worded, to include some staff, zero staff, max staff, or minimum stay times.

 

[mhaze]

No you haven't. You haven't shown any prize that can be leveraged to produce such a major project and major new technology within 8 years time.

As I've pointed out, the X-Prize might some day result in a profitable commercial spaceflight industry, but that hasn't happened yet. And I don't think it will reasonably happen before at least 25 years have passed since the prize was first offered.

Well, you've just picked a number right out of the air. 25 years. Again, you are basing your arguments on vague generalities. Depending on whatever you mean by "profitable commercial spaceflight industry", who knows whether your claim is true or not.

Did you not know that private rocket launch services have been available for some time, and that it is most certainly profitable? SOME of the swarm of satellites that give us telephone internet and tv services were and are launched on government rocket systems such as the US Atlas 5.

Private companies pay to have a government launch their satellite or package, governments pay private company to launch their satellite, it works all kinds of ways. Maybe you are just completely wrong unless you look at it backwards like this.

We certainly have a profitable and thriving private space launch business today in 2012 compared to 25 years ago.

 

[BenBurch]

If private industry only needs a small prize to go after a resource worth terabucks, then private industry is stupid to need the small prize.

If you have actual faith in the free market, the invisible hand will push private ventures to the moon without a single government dollar.

I am not seeing that company out selling stock and issuing bonds yet, ergo, now is not the right time to try this.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, you've just picked a number right out of the air. 25 years.

Nope. And I already posted my reasoning. The X-Prize was first offered in 1996. Virgin Galactic might start business as early as next year (though I wouldn't hold my breath). They definitely won't pay off their investment for some time (if ever). 25 years (that is by 2021) is being extremely optimistic.

Again, you are basing your arguments on vague generalities. Depending on whatever you mean by "profitable commercial spaceflight industry", who knows whether your claim is true or not.

What I mean by "profitable commercial spaceflight industry" is the conventional meaning of all those words. Virgin Galactic doesn't make a profit until they at least first pay off their considerable investment with revenues from the business.

Did you not know that private rocket launch services have been available for some time, and that it is most certainly profitable? SOME of the swarm of satellites that give us telephone internet and tv services were and are launched on government rocket systems such as the US Atlas 5.

Yep, and these industries were initiated by government space programs and not by anything like an X-prize. I'm examining the claim that the X-Prize "success" is a viable model for fulfilling Newt's promises.

We certainly have a profitable and thriving private space launch business today in 2012 compared to 25 years ago.

And which X-Prize type of contest led to achieving major projects within 8 years? Again, I'm examining the claim that the X-Prize's "success" is a viable model for fulfilling Newt's promises. According to Wiki, "This goal [of the Ansari X-Prize] was selected to help encourage the space industry in the private sector, which is why the entries were not allowed to have any government funding. It aimed to demonstrate that spaceflight can be affordable and accessible to corporations and civilians, opening the door to commercial spaceflight and space tourism."

The prize wasn't even won within 8 years, and 16 years after the prize was offered, the first commercial flight of the successor of the winning entry has yet to take place. Again, optimistically, they might be making a profit something like 25 years from when the prize was first offered.

And that's not even approaching the notion of "affordable and accessible"! I don't consider a ticket price ($200,000) that is nearly 10 times the median individual annual income for a matter of a few minutes in space to be "affordable and accessible", even if it is a lot lower than was previously possible.

So is this really your model for how Newt will fulfill his promises of a permanent moon base within 8 years and the other stuff (also by 2020)?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

By the way, since Newt is also pledging a balanced budget (he supports a balanced budget amendment), so his tax plan that would cut $1.2 trillion in revenues from a budget that already runs a deficit means drastically reducing federal spending. I'm not sure where he thinks ANY money for his space projects will come from. He also pledges to save Medicare and Social Security, "revitalize" our national security by pledging to "adequately fund" and "recapitalize" the military, control the borders (an effort he compares to the effort in terms of "resources and will" we put into winning WWII in just 3 years and 8 months), and who knows what else he might promise depending on who he's addressing.

I suppose he means to fund all these projects with relatively small government funded prizes that he thinks won't cost us a thing if they aren't won.

 

[mhaze]

Nope. And I already posted my reasoning. The X-Prize was first offered in 1996. Virgin Galactic might start business as early as next year (though I wouldn't hold my breath). They definitely won't pay off their investment for some time (if ever). 25 years (that is by 2021) is being extremely optimistic.


What I mean by "profitable commercial spaceflight industry" is the conventional meaning of all those words. Virgin Galactic doesn't make a profit until they at least first pay off their considerable investment with revenues from the business.


Yep, and these industries were initiated by government space programs and not by anything like an X-prize. I'm examining the claim that the X-Prize "success" is a viable model for fulfilling Newt's promises.



And which X-Prize type of contest led to achieving major projects within 8 years? Again, I'm examining the claim that the X-Prize's "success" is a viable model for fulfilling Newt's promises. According to Wiki, "This goal [of the Ansari X-Prize] was selected to help encourage the space industry in the private sector, which is why the entries were not allowed to have any government funding. It aimed to demonstrate that spaceflight can be affordable and accessible to corporations and civilians, opening the door to commercial spaceflight and space tourism."

The prize wasn't even won within 8 years, and 16 years after the prize was offered, the first commercial flight of the successor of the winning entry has yet to take place. Again, optimistically, they might be making a profit something like 25 years from when the prize was first offered.

And that's not even approaching the notion of "affordable and accessible"! I don't consider a ticket price ($200,000) that is nearly 10 times the median individual annual income for a matter of a few minutes in space to be "affordable and accessible", even if it is a lot lower than was previously possible.

So is this really your model for how Newt will fulfill his promises of a permanent moon base within 8 years and the other stuff (also by 2020)?

As I recall a fair amount of the delay with the Ansari X Prize was getting a bill passed through Congress that handled some liability concerns of the contenders. It was a required prerequisite that was non existent. After this was done, the companies went to work and Rutan won the competition.

If, similarly, there were legal obstacles of one sort or another placed in the way of an X prize for the moon, that would cause delays.

As for what YOU consider "affordable and accessible", you don't matter. The question is what price fills up the seats, not whether you or I are in those seats. Finally, as I mentioned before, the SS2 and related business of Branson's Virgin Galactic is an offshoot, but not a component, of the Ansari X prize design SS1. You've strung them together as if they were one thing to make your point.

Similarly, Newt's suggestion that we could "having a moonbase within 8 years" wasn't "Having Virgin Moonlantic making regular daily trips to the Moon" within 8 years.

Let's keep things straight a bit, please.

 

[mhaze]

By the way, since Newt is also pledging a balanced budget (he supports a balanced budget amendment), so his tax plan that would cut $1.2 trillion in revenues from a budget that already runs a deficit means drastically reducing federal spending. I'm not sure where he thinks ANY money for his space projects will come from.....

Actually, yes, you do know, if you have read his transcripts. As I noted several times in this thread, the net tax revenue from increased economic activity related to prizes can be easily shown to cause the "Prize section" of NASA to be a profit center, not a loss center.

 

[mhaze]

But didn't you hear?

Newt has concocted a way of doing it that involves leveraging just small amounts of money (such as $10 billion from NASA's budget) into the tremendous projects he guarantees will happen within 8 years. I'm not sure why, but he also says that if these things don't work, it magically costs us nothing!

And apparently it doesn't matter to him that if they don't work, his promises will have gone unfulfilled despite the certainty with which he made them.

I'm thinking I'd just repost this, since JOE! You finally got it.