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

[mhaze]

The battlefield of pseudo rational liberal arguments against moon bases has became awfully quiet, and buzzards land to pick on the skulls of the abandoned absurdities and polemic.

Odd, isn't it? How those arguments once seemed so meritorious, and how quickly they collapsed when confronted with facts.

 

[BenBurch]

You just declared victory after you got everybody to go away by annoying them. Nobody is interested in repeating the same arguments a tenth time to you only to have you ignore them.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You just declared victory after you got everybody to go away by annoying them. Nobody is interested in repeating the same arguments a tenth time to you only to have you ignore them.

This.

And apparently mhaze doesn't get sarcasm.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

You don't really believe this do you?

Is this the answer to the entire $1.2 trillion in lost revenues (in one year) Newt's tax plan will cause? Just imagine that expensive government programs are going to become profit centers somehow?

I know I'll regret this, but how will removing half of NASA's budget from NASA activities and using it as a prize result in making NASA a profit center?

I know--for every $1 million in prize money, NASA charges a $1.5 million entry free!

 

[mhaze]

You just declared victory after you got everybody to go away by annoying them. Nobody is interested in repeating the same arguments a tenth time to you only to have you ignore them.

Facts are rather annoying. Darn them facts.

...Is this the answer to the entire $1.2 trillion in lost revenues (in one year) Newt's tax plan will cause?

Your assertion, which presumes no additional spending cuts and also, presumes no additional revenue growth spurred by the tax cuts, does not have any relation to the question at hand.

....how will removing half of NASA's budget from NASA activities and using it as a prize result in making NASA a profit center? ...

Since Newt proposed using 10% of the NASA budget for prizes, you miss the mark again from the standard of factual accuracy.

Somehow both postulates you have....have no relation to reality?

Why?

Meanwhile, looks pretty much like a budget of 3B for a private company would do for that moon base, hence a tidy profit could be made on the 10B prize money. Also looks like given the LEO testing already having been done for the Bigalow modules, the build time for those would be relatively short. As for the launchers, it'd be nice to have a track record for the Falcon Heavy, in the absence of that, the total time to get a moon base up might stretch from a couple years to who knows...maybe 6 or 7 or ... heaven forbid....8 years.

 

[johnny karate]

Meanwhile, looks pretty much like a budget of 3B for a private company would do for that moon base, hence a tidy profit could be made on the 10B prize money.

So you advocate the government spending $10 billion on something that only costs $3 billion to achieve?

Seems awfully wasteful, even for a fan of Big Government such as yourself.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Since Newt proposed using 10% of the NASA budget for prizes, you miss the mark again from the standard of factual accuracy.

It doesn't bother you that Newt proposed putting up 10% of NASA budget for prizes and in the same breath said, "So let’s put up $10 billion"?

You're complaining that I'm being factually inaccurate when I quote the figure Newt gave? He's the one who's being inconsistent.

($10 billion is roughly half the current NASA budget. [ETA: Actually it's more like 53%: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516674main_NASAFY12_Budget_Estimates-Overview-508.pdf])

Meanwhile, looks pretty much like a budget of 3B for a private company would do for that moon base, hence a tidy profit could be made on the 10B prize money.

Hold the phone! First I'm only stipulating that one could have something that might be called a "moon base" for $3 billion for sake of making another point.

We spend $10 billion to get something that's worth $3 billion, and we're making a "tidy profit"?

Remember, it was your claim that this prize fund would become a profit center for NASA, not a profit center for someone else at the taxpayer's expense! If not, then you need to back up and address my question about where the money is going to come from given Newt's absurd and unrealistic tax proposal!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Since I have this handy: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516674main_NASAFY12_Budget_Estimates-Overview-508.pdf

Let's revisit for a moment Newt's assertion that if no one claims the $10 billion prize that it would cost us nothing. I introduce again the concept of opportunity cost.

Offering a $10 billion prize will require de-funding $10 billion worth of programs as described in the above budget.

This is the opportunity cost of offering a $10 billion prize, and it is a cost even if no one wins the prize.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

It doesn't bother you that Newt proposed putting up 10% of NASA budget for prizes and in the same breath said, "So let’s put up $10 billion"?

You're complaining that I'm being factually inaccurate when I quote the figure Newt gave? He's the one who's being inconsistent.

($10 billion is roughly half the current NASA budget. [ETA: Actually it's more like 53%: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516674main_NASAFY12_Budget_Estimates-Overview-508.pdf])

Your link doesn't work for me but I think you forgot to multiple by 8 didn't you? You're citing a yearly figure I believe.

 

[mhaze]

So you advocate the government spending $10 billion on something that only costs $3 billion to achieve?

Seems awfully wasteful, even for a fan of Big Government such as yourself.

Let's see...Johnny Karate. Yep, you are the same guy that said this a couple pages back:

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

Well. A while later I said:

These kinds of prizes are nothing new - they are intended to stretch current vision and capability by an order of magnitude.

Some pay off big, some don't.

Well, you might want to reflect that part of "stretching current vision and capability by an order of magnitude" includes doing things cheaper, better and faster. In this case, cheaper enough that you are now able (and willing) to complain about the exact reverse of what you complained about earlier.

Better I think would be to say something like...

Gee...you mean private industry can do for $3B what gubbermint wants 450B for? Let's figure out how to get more of that! Cool!

But instead there is just this negativity. Probably because the concepts came from the political enemy you think you have.

 

[mhaze]

It doesn't bother you that Newt proposed putting up 10% of NASA budget for prizes and in the same breath said, "So let’s put up $10 billion"?

Meanwhile, looks pretty much like a budget of 3B for a private company would do for that moon base, hence a tidy profit could be made on the 10B prize money.

Hold the phone! First I'm only stipulating that one could have something that might be called a "moon base" for $3 billion for sake of making another point.

We spend $10 billion to get something that's worth $3 billion, and we're making a "tidy profit"? ....

Who's the we? I would side with the company.

You are the same one that was arguing earlier no one would go after the prize because of the cost vs the gain. Now I show that they would, and you turn around and claim that it's unfair to the government? Well, make up your mind. Either you want people to innovate and find ways to do things cheaper, and they keep the excess, or you don't.

 

[johnny karate]

Let's see...Johnny Karate. Yep, you are the same guy that said this a couple pages back:

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

Well. A while later I said:

These kinds of prizes are nothing new - they are intended to stretch current vision and capability by an order of magnitude.

Some pay off big, some don't.

Well, you might want to reflect that part of "stretching current vision and capability by an order of magnitude" includes doing things cheaper, better and faster. In this case, cheaper enough that you are now able (and willing) to complain about the exact reverse of what you complained about earlier.

Better I think would be to say something like...

Gee...you mean private industry can do for $3B what gubbermint wants 450B for? Let's figure out how to get more of that! Cool!

But instead there is just this negativity. Probably because the concepts came from the political enemy you think you have.

You said a moon base could be established for $3 billion.

You said the government should pay $10 billion for this $3 billion moon base.

How is that a good investment for the government?

 

[Tricky]

The battlefield of pseudo rational liberal arguments against moon bases has became awfully quiet, and buzzards land to pick on the skulls of the abandoned absurdities and polemic.

Today as I walked to a restaurant I saw an unwashed beggar yelling about how armageddon was coming. Not one person stopped to argue with him. I guess he must be right.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

deleted.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Who's the we? I would side with the company.

You claimed that the way Newt is going to resolve the problem of where this money is coming from is that the NASA prize fund would become a profit center.

Now you're saying the opposite.

You are the same one that was arguing earlier no one would go after the prize because of the cost vs the gain. Now I show that they would, and you turn around and claim that it's unfair to the government? Well, make up your mind. Either you want people to innovate and find ways to do things cheaper, and they keep the excess, or you don't.

Nice try, haze. I said I'm only stipulating your BS numbers to make the point that you're now arguing that this endeavor will cost the federal budget much more than what it's worth.

So again, how do you think the NASA prize fund will become a profit center?

What you describe now is just a really really bad government contract, one where the taxpayers are just shelling over money (that based on Newt's tax and budget proposals doesn't exist) for something worth much less.

Do you even read the nonsense you've been writing lately?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Just to refresh your memory:

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.

And it's going to be a "profit center" by spending $10 billion to get something worth $3 billion? How does that work?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Your assertion, which presumes no additional spending cuts

Actually no. If Newt's proposals are accepted, I presume massive spending cuts.

Read back in the thread.

I'm pretty sure my first or second post said something like this moonbase project will be impossible to finance because Newt will be too busy drowning the federal government in a bathtub. (Did you perhaps not understand the allusion?)

presumes no additional revenue growth spurred by the tax cuts,

I've also linked several times to the analysis provided by the Tax Policy Center that does indeed take into account claims of stimulated economic activity that might increase revenues. It doesn't buy that reasoning. (Or rather growth estimates are taken into account in its analysis of the impact of the tax proposal on federal revenue.) Right now the rich are already taxed at very low rates relative to modern history, and the "job creators" are not failing to create jobs for lack of capital. The idea that giving them even more tax cuts will result in enough increase economic activity to offset the massive loss in federal revenues is not credible.

does not have any relation to the question at hand.

Of course it does. Newt promised we'll have a permanent base on the moon within 8 years. How will he finance this massive project?

 

[mhaze]

Just to refresh your memory:



And it's going to be a "profit center" by spending $10 billion to get something worth $3 billion? How does that work?

Go back and look at the examples. The calculation of NASA's proposed "prize department" would be based on the entire group of offered prizes, the group of payouts, the group of contenders for each and the total money they spent stimulating the economy, and so forth. The fact that I've just shown a possible solution to the Moon Base issue that is in the 3B range, and the fact that our hypothesized prize for a Moon Base is 10B, doesn't change any of that.

IF you think a Moon Base is a 500B endeavor, then there's nothing wrong with a $10B prize. If you think a Moon Base is a 3B endeavor, then set the prize accordingly. If nobody takes the bait, increase the prize or change the rules.

This isn't rocket science.

 

[mhaze]

You said a moon base could be established for $3 billion.

You said the government should pay $10 billion for this $3 billion moon base.

How is that a good investment for the government?

This may be a bit hard for you to stomach but consider the following:

IF the government thinks that a moon base is a 500B job and thus it is rational to offer a 10B prize, and IF private industry can do it for 3B, then private industry TAKES the 7B and laughs all the way to the bank, and the government gets a 500B job for 10B.

Somewhere in there is a lesson to be learned, methinks.

I'm not sure 3B in out of pocket costs and a 10B tag isn't out of order though. There would quite likely be fatalities and/or difficulties of various sorts.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Today as I walked to a restaurant I saw an unwashed beggar yelling about how armageddon was coming. Not one person stopped to argue with him. I guess he must be right.

I just stopped in to see why this is still being discussed. I still don't know.