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

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

No. If your hypothetical were true (and it's not!), it would only mean that the government grossly overestimated the cost and value of their $10 billion investment and made a really bad purchase.

And it still doesn't explain how this makes the NASA prize fund into a profit center, or where even that $3 billion will come from under Newt's tax/budget proposal.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

Yes, I see. You haven't got a clue how the prize center will become a "profit center". That's why you attempted to pretend that you meant it would be profit center for the private business taking the money rather than for "us"--the people of the U.S. (When you said, "Who's the we? I would side with the company.")

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.

You've done no such thing. (I most definitely said I'm only stipulating that figure to make these other points.) And you still haven't shown even where that $3 billion will come from.

Given that the current total NASA budget for exploration is $3.6 billion, your take on Newt's proposal would suspend pretty much all current NASA exploration projects and missions (and would waste considerably larger investments that have already been made in these projects). Also, since Newt would reduce our revenues by about 1/3 and call for a balanced budget, we have to assume NASA's budget will be cut by 1/3 as well.

So where's the money coming from? Arm waving about increasing revenues ignores the fact that we have a credible non-partisan analysis that says the result of Newt's tax plan will be to reduce revenues by $1.2 trillion.

If nobody takes the bait, increase the prize or change the rules.

This isn't rocket science.

Close. If we tie up this money in prizes, then there will be no more NASA rocket science.

 

[BenBurch]

...
Close. If we tie up this money in prizes, then there will be no more NASA rocket science.

What makes you think that isn't the goal of the whole idea?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What makes you think that isn't the goal of the whole idea?

I think it is more or less Newt's goal. One of my first posts on this thread (way back at post #59) mentioned that Newt would be too busy drowning the federal government in a bathtub to undertake any large projects.

 

[mhaze]

I think it is more or less Newt's goal. ....

Maybe that's a good idea. After all, how far has NASA gotten in 8 years on Constellation and how much have they spent?

No more needs be said. If they can buy transportation to get satellites and people up much cheaper, isn't that better? Then NASA could concentrate on planetary exploration and robot probes.

If launch was far cheaper through private enterprise, then how much would NASA save? That's the money that could be put aside for prizes.

So...Joe...want to take a guess at how much that is?

Since you basically have looked nothing up and are only using facts from the thread, I'll help out. Constellation? 9B down the hole, no flight vehicles. NASA's estimate of cost to go back to moon with Constellation? $81B by 2020.

Darn those facts. Darn them. So, Joe....you were screaming about the fantastic impossibility of Newt's claim we could be back on the moon in 8 years? Looks like NASA agreed with him, but they just can't do things cheap.

....You've done no such thing. (I most definitely said I'm only stipulating that figure to make these other points.) And you still haven't shown.....

There is a peculiar one-to-one relationship between the number of things I've shown and the number of things you've ignored...

This corner that you are getting backed into....It's a pleasant corner, right? Stocked with beer?

 

[Spindrift]

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.

Since the 'government' in this case would be NASA, if NASA thinks a job that could be done for 3B is going to cost 500B, then NASA should be disbanded.

 

[mhaze]

Yes, I see. You haven't got a clue how the prize center will become a "profit center". .....

Answered this I believe 5 times in this thread. Please continue to ignore the answer.

But that's NOT the way Tommy became pinball wizard, you know...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOUqRZkR8dE&ob=av3n

Tommy pay attention to those facts, all the little things, how they add to to a win. And he blind deaf and dumb!

.....since Newt would reduce our revenues by about 1/3 and call for a balanced budget, we have to assume NASA's budget will be cut by 1/3 as well......

Really? Who da we, dude?

I assumed we could cut entitlements by 100B and raise NASA by 100B.

Guess we thunk differently.

 

[BenBurch]

...
Guess we thunk differently.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Maybe that's a good idea. After all, how far has NASA gotten in 8 years on Constellation and how much have they spent?

So this is your honest position: you deplore NASA space exploration. Don't pretend then to be defending the glorious aspirations Newt was trying to sell in that speech.

Darn those facts. Darn them. So, Joe....you were screaming about the fantastic impossibility of Newt's claim we could be back on the moon in 8 years?

You're full of crap, haze.

You don't even know what you're trying to argue for now.

That a $10 billion prize (that you still have no clue whatsoever how it will be paid for) is going to leverage a $450 billion investment or that it will buy a $3 billion project?

That the NASA prize fund will be a "profit center" bringing money into NASA (magically) or whether it will simply displace and put an end to NASA.

You don't even know whether you're defending the idea that Newt didn't say how he proposes to establish a permanent base on the moon within 8 years or whether he did.

This corner that you are getting backed into....It's a pleasant corner, right? Stocked with beer?

You're full of crap, haze.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Answered this I believe 5 times in this thread. Please continue to ignore the answer.

No, you didn't. You first pretended that "profit center" meant a profit to the company selling a $3 billion project to the government for $10 billion. Then you employed some arm waving about stimulating the economy, ignoring the fact that that notion has already been refuted by the Tax Policy Center analysis of Newt's proposal.

But that's NOT the way Tommy became pinball wizard, you know...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOUqRZkR8dE&ob=av3n

Tommy pay attention to those facts, all the little things, how they add to to a win. And he blind deaf and dumb!

You're embarrassing yourself now.

I assumed we could cut entitlements by 100B and raise NASA by 100B.

So cut entitlements $100 billion (good luck with getting a second term!), but you still haven't said where the money will come from.

Remember, Newt's tax proposal will revenues by $1.2 trillion and calls for a balanced budget. The current budget already runs a $1.3 trillion deficit.

So you'll cut entitlements by $100 billion. How will you make up the other $2.4 trillion?

Where will you find the $10 billion prize Newt proposes to offer?

And do you still believe him when he says that if no one wins the prize that it costs us nothing?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Since the 'government' in this case would be NASA, if NASA thinks a job that could be done for 3B is going to cost 500B, then NASA should be disbanded.

Yep. But of course the claim that a permanent base on the moon would only cost $3 billion is just haze's fantasy. I doubt even Newt would believe that whopper!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Constellation? 9B down the hole, no flight vehicles. NASA's estimate of cost to go back to moon with Constellation? $81B by 2020.

This is supposed to support your absurd claim that a permanent base on the moon would cost only $3 billion?

 

[mhaze]

Since the 'government' in this case would be NASA, if NASA thinks a job that could be done for 3B is going to cost 500B, then NASA should be disbanded.

A number of credible, reliable space experts have noted that possibly the ONLY THING THAT OBAMA HAS DONE RIGHT was to stop the shuttle program.

Yes, there is a huge disconnect between prices which NASA believes is true for them and private sector costs. But I was indicating that NASA might do better if they were out of the rocket business. Leave them to science, planetary other areas.

At first glance these disparities do seem terribly confusing. Newt's idea of a prize makes it all really simple. Lay the prize out, let them try to win it. Make the prizes a "stretch" from prior achievements.

Yep. But of course the claim that a permanent base on the moon would only cost $3 billion is just haze's fantasy. I doubt even Newt would believe that whopper!

Really? Well, I showed the parts and costs earlier. What part do you have a problem with?

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Right. I found myself incapable of resisting the urge to type something about chopping entitlements by 100 and jacking NASA by 100. Hell if you increase NASA's budget by 100 they'd by the facts we have presented produce no more than private industry seems able to do for $3B.

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by mhaze
Constellation? 9B down the hole, no flight vehicles. NASA's estimate of cost to go back to moon with Constellation? $81B by 2020.

This is supposed to support your absurd claim that a permanent base on the moon would cost only $3 billion?

It certainly does show the striking contrast between the utter incompetence and costs of gubbermint, collective enterprise and private enterprise.

Actually, more important is the fact that on the Constellation, the 9B has not resulted in any flight hardware, and the program is now cancelled - this is defacto admission of incompetence and great cost.

Looks to me like if we hadn't spent the money on Constellation, we could have 3 moon bases right now. Or maybe the contractor would have given us a discount. A package deal. 4 moon bases, 64 person capability, for the price of 3. $9B.

Instead, we've got 9B spent and we've got .... Nothing... So, Joe, do you want to keep arguing about "Where's the prize money coming from?"

 

[johnny karate]

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.

The only lesson I see is that you think it's okay to bilk the American taxpayer out of $7 billion.

Why do you support wasteful government spending?

 

[johnny karate]

It certainly does show the striking contrast between the utter incompetence and costs of gubbermint, collective enterprise and private enterprise.

Yes, your entirely made-up number regarding the cost of a fictional moon base does an excellent job of showing us how private enterprise is more efficient than the government. Well done.

Actually, more important is the fact that on the Constellation, the 9B has not resulted in any flight hardware, and the program is now cancelled - this is defacto admission of incompetence and great cost.

Looks to me like if we hadn't spent the money on Constellation, we could have 3 moon bases right now. Or maybe the contractor would have given us a discount. A package deal. 4 moon bases, 64 person capability, for the price of 3. $9B.

Instead, we've got 9B spent and we've got .... Nothing... So, Joe, do you want to keep arguing about "Where's the prize money coming from?

Why do you grouse about a waste of $9 billion, but advocate for a plan the would waste $7 billion? Is there some imaginary cut-off between those two numbers where it stops being okay to throw money away?

 

[mhaze]

Yes, your entirely made-up number regarding the cost of a fictional moon base does an excellent job of showing us how private enterprise is more efficient than the government. Well done.

Why do you grouse about a waste of $9 billion, but advocate for a plan the would waste $7 billion? Is there some imaginary cut-off between those two numbers where it stops being okay to throw money away?

Yes, there's a reason. You see, the quote for a Falcon Heavy launch is < $125M. The 9B resulted in NOTHING, and we could have with that money, bought 72 launches.

"Waste" is the fact that NASA tried to do a part of the job and failed.

"Waste" is not giving a profit to someone who only accepts the money if they succeed.

Now what could we have done with 72 launches?

Johnny at this point, I can't figure out what you and Joe are defending. It's not the Democratic vision of space flight, there isn't one. Is it just sort of the opposite of anything I say?

If that's the case, you guys need to stick to some subject you know something about. Really...

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, there's a reason. You see, the quote for a Falcon Heavy launch is < $125M. The 9B resulted in NOTHING, and we could have with that money, bought 72 launches.

"Waste" is the fact that NASA tried to do a part of the job and failed.

"Waste" is not giving a profit to someone who only accepts the money if they succeed.

"Waste" is most certainly spending $10 billion for something that only costs $3 billion.

Johnny at this point, I can't figure out what you and Joe are defending. It's not the Democratic vision of space flight, there isn't one.

Other than putting men on the moon, you mean.


Is it just sort of the opposite of anything I say?

If that's the case, you guys need to stick to some subject you know something about. Really...

I can't speak for Joe, but I'm not "defending" anything. I'm merely pointing out the glaring flaws in your arguments.

First you defend a proposal that would require someone to take a $440 billion loss, and then you suggest a plan that would require the government to throw away $7 billion. I'll give you credit for at least getting the number down, but either way you're still advocating for wasting a ridiculous amount of money.

I may not have the background to discuss the finer points of aerospace technology - nor have I attempted to - but I can handle basic math.

How about you?

 

[mhaze]

"Waste" is most certainly spending $10 billion for something that only costs $3 billion.



I can't speak for Joe, but I'm not "defending" anything. I'm merely pointing out the glaring flaws in your arguments.

First you defend a proposal that would require someone to take a $440 billion loss, and then you suggest a plan that would require the government to throw away $7 billion. I'll give you credit for at least getting the number down, but either way you're still advocating for wasting a ridiculous amount of money.
...

the 440B? I didn't exactly "defend it". It was quoted that was the estimated price such as by NASA for the job. You wondered why anyone would do it for $10B. I mentioned that commonly people have spent more than the prize money, for the prize. Does that mean they would likely have spent 440B? Hmmm.....given the cost disparities between the quoted private sector and the government estimates, no, it doesn't mean it is likely they would have spent 440B.

 

[lomiller]

Yes, your entirely made-up number regarding the cost of a fictional moon base does an excellent job of showing us how private enterprise is more efficient than the government. Well done.

I found this amusing as well