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

[mhaze]

In your own words:



And yet you continue to try and defend Newt and insist that it's the people critical of him that are the "problem" when in fact it's your own attempts to defend him despite agreeing his plan is absurd that reveal you growing departure from sanity.

Ah, the world of Lomiller again! Now "fictional" is "absurd"?

Not at all. Fictional just means it doesn't exist currently. As usual, you've got no facts, just ad hominems.

 

[Bri]

Can you repost that link please? I was looking for it before but didn't run across it.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...-mechanics-of-building-a-permanent-moon-base/

-Bri

 

[Bri]

And I've already debunked our friend Plait's article.

You posted a lot of your own opinions about why Plait's (and just about every other expert) opinion is wrong. I didn't find your arguments particularly compelling. I think I'll believe the experts on this.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

You posted a lot of your own opinions about why Plait's (and just about every other expert) opinion is wrong. I didn't find your arguments particularly compelling. I think I'll believe the experts on this.

-Bri

Sure, go right ahead. That's not Plait. All he's done is summarize key points from the CSIS study. And you know what?

He wrote his article ignorant that the NASA space launch system (assumed to be used by the CSIS for both initial launch and resupply) had been cancelled. Which I mentioned here early, right? Thus his article has no merit whatsoever.

All I did was note that Newt suggested a prize for private company doing the job. I then went and looked for a suitable launch system and a suitable habitat, located both, looked at the costs, added 2/3 for good measure, and reported it here.

One further note. Even giving Plait credit for good efforts in spite of not knowing about the permanent cancellation of NASA's rocket... Plait used a the CSIS plan which used NASA's proposed rocket. That was directly contrary to Newt's proposal which was for private launch equipment.

Pretty simple stuff.

Tough, but that's the way it is.

 

[Muldur]

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

 

[mhaze]

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

I gotta admit it's tempting.

Man, that FREE STUFF...it's so fine!

 

[BenBurch]

I gotta admit it's tempting.

Man, that FREE STUFF...it's so fine!

You really are ridiculous (and I mean that literally) when you repeat this as though it were some sort of magic talisman that will make you lose the argument a little less disgracefully than you actually are losing it.

Well, it doesn't, and it also doesn't make you seem any more intelligent than your arguments do (they do you no credit.)

When the children in the group home have behaviors like this that make worse the thing they are supposed to compensate for, we usually make it a focus of therapy...

 

[Bri]

Sure, go right ahead. That's not Plait. All he's done is summarize key points from the CSIS study.

Absolutely incorrect. Please read the article more carefully. He used the estimate of costs of the moon base and lunar lander only from the CSIS study.

He wrote his article ignorant that the NASA space launch system (assumed to be used by the CSIS for both initial launch and resupply) had been cancelled.

When was the SLS program cancelled? I must have missed the information if you posted it, and can't find anything on the Internet about it. ETA: I'm not saying it wasn't cancelled, just that I can't find any information about its cancellation.

Regardless, the CSIS study doesn't include any launch system in its costs. Plait assumes that the SLS might be ready by 2020 and suggests that it is the only means by which we might get people and equipment to the moon by that date, so how does the fact that the program was cancelled increase the chances of getting stuff to the moon again?

Thus his article has no merit whatsoever.

Oh, I see. So if you omit something or get something wrong in your analysis, nothing else would have any merit whatsoever, right? I'll certainly keep that in mind when reading through your posts in the future.

Plait used a the CSIS plan which used NASA's proposed rocket. That was directly contrary to Newt's proposal which was for private launch equipment.

I guess you missed the whole section where Plait talks about the X-prize being entirely unfeasible for this sort of project. And other experts seem to agree with him. I haven't seen a single expert suggest that it's likely that Newt could accomplish everything he promised in the time frame he promised it, X-prize or not.

Mhaze, do you really think it's likely that Newt could accomplish everything he promised by 2020 while slashing the federal budget? Or are you just saying it's possible?

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/smile.gif

....
Regardless, the CSIS study doesn't include any launch system in its costs. Plait assumes that the SLS might be ready by 2020 and suggests that it is the only means by which we might get people and equipment to the moon by that date, so how does the fact that the program was cancelled increase the chances of getting stuff to the moon again?
....

No, CSIS does of course include launch system costs.

Absolutely incorrect. Please read the article more carefully. He used the estimate of costs of the moon base and lunar lander only from the CSIS study.

When was the SLS program cancelled? ....

No, Plait also used NASA estimates for launch costs.

President Obama's 2011 budget request for NASA cut the agency's Constellation program completely, effectively canceling a five-year, $9 billion effort to build new Orion spacecraft and Ares rockets.
The new space vehicles were slated to replace NASA's three aging space shuttles (due to retire this year) and launch astronauts into orbit and on to the moon.
"To people who are working on these programs, this is like a death in the family," an emotional NASA chief Charles Bolden told reporters Tuesday, choking up at times. "Everybody needs to understand that and we need to give them time to grieve and then we need to give them time to recover."
Bolden spoke during a presentation at the National Press Club in Washington, where he presented the winners of NASA's $50 million commercial crew development competition.
The winners, five companies ranging from aerospace juggernauts to upstarts, will receive different amounts of funding to develop a variety of products, ranging from full-up commercial spaceships to the launch abort and life support systems needed to make them work.​

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3520962...a-grieves-over-canceled-program/#.T0JchPHCmf4

....I guess you missed the whole section where Plait talks about the X-prize being entirely unfeasible for this sort of project. And other experts seem to agree with him. I haven't seen a single expert suggest that it's likely that Newt could accomplish everything he promised in the time frame he promised it, X-prize or not.....-Bri

Read the above quote about NASA. You will see that they are ALREADY DOING prize awards. They've been doing them for some time. And what are the subjects of those awards?

The same exact things that liberal progressives ridicule when Newt suggest them. Gee, how about that?

Some how in your above ramblings you've ignored the simple and direct way to look at the problem. Please stop this.

I'll repeat it once more.

Newt suggested a prize for private company to go do a moon base. How to evaluate that? You then look for a private company rocket, a private company habitat, and estimate the costs and feasibility.

You simply DON'T use a NASA launch rocket, a NASA crew capsule, a NASA development program, and a NASA habitat to ridicule Newt's idea. Claiming that Plait is an authority, when his article makes the same fundamental flaw, is ridiculous, as would be any other argument from authority (even if it was valid, but using the NASA costings).

 

[mhaze]

You really are ridiculous (and I mean that literally) when you repeat this as though it were some sort of magic talisman.....

I can't even repeat it when an oppositional magic talisman argument is repeated moronically?

Awww.....

You know I agree it's been worn thin. But aren't blue jeans with bunches of holes worn through in style these days?

 

[Bri]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3520962...a-grieves-over-canceled-program/#.T0JchPHCmf4

I may be misunderstanding, but that article is about the cancellation of the Constellation program. According to Wikipedia (and other sources), the Space Launch System (SLS) is a successor to the Constellation program:

The Space Launch System, or SLS, is a Space Shuttle-derived heavy launch vehicle being designed by NASA. It follows the cancellation of the Constellation Program, and is to replace the retired Space Shuttle.​

-Bri

 

[Bri]

No, CSIS does of course include launch system costs.

The estimate Plait used from CSIS ($35 billion) does not include launch system and other costs:

Development of the lunar base is estimated at $35 billion for a base that can host a four-person crew and remain unmanned between missions. Our estimates for both development and operation of the lunar base assume that it is located at the south pole. This location offers areas of scientific interest—for example, craters with possible water ice deposits—and quasi-permanent sun exposure, as well as the most conservative assessment for transportation to the lunar surface.2 The costs do not include development of the heavy-lift Ares V or the Orion crew capsule.​

Read the above quote about NASA. You will see that they are ALREADY DOING prize awards. They've been doing them for some time. And what are the subjects of those awards?

According to your article "commercial crew development," including "full-up commercial spaceships to the launch abort and life support systems needed to make them work." That article was from over a year ago. How close are those companies from perfecting the technology they're developing? Do you think it's likely we'll have a moon base and Mars mission complete by 2020?

The same exact things that liberal progressives ridicule when Newt suggest them. Gee, how about that?

No, Newt is being ridiculed for promising a moon base and Mars mission by 2020, while at the same time promising to slash the federal budget.

Newt suggested a prize for private company to go do a moon base. How to evaluate that? You then look for a private company rocket, a private company habitat, and estimate the costs and feasibility.

The current efforts seem to be a long way from a working, permanent moon base. Do you really think Newt's proposal is likely to produce an actual working, permanent moon base and a manned Mars mission by 2020?

You simply DON'T use a NASA launch rocket, a NASA crew capsule, a NASA development program, and a NASA habitat to ridicule Newt's idea. Claiming that Plait is an authority, when his article makes the same fundamental flaw, is ridiculous, as would be any other argument from authority (even if it was valid, but using the NASA costings).

Again, Plait indicated that in his opinion, the X-prizes are unlikely to produce the technology needed to have a moon base and Mars mission completed by 2020. Every other expert seems to agree. I don't know that much about the topic myself, but I tend to believe the experts on this, and see no compelling evidence to the contrary in anything you've posted or asserted.

Again, do you really think it's likely that if Newt is elected we would have a moon base and Mars mission by 2020? Or are you just saying that it's possible?

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

The estimate Plait used from CSIS ($35 billion) does not include launch system and other costs:

Development of the lunar base is estimated at $35 billion for a base that can host a four-person crew and remain unmanned between missions. Our estimates for both development and operation of the lunar base assume that it is located at the south pole. This location offers areas of scientific interest—for example, craters with possible water ice deposits—and quasi-permanent sun exposure, as well as the most conservative assessment for transportation to the lunar surface.2 The costs do not include development of the heavy-lift Ares V or the Orion crew capsule.​

According to your article "commercial crew development," including "full-up commercial spaceships to the launch abort and life support systems needed to make them work." That article was from over a year ago. How close are those companies from perfecting the technology they're developing? Do you think it's likely we'll have a moon base and Mars mission complete by 2020?
....
....
-Bri

You are misreading the referenced article and Plait's comments. The costs do not include the DEVELOPMENT costs of the launch system. I have not included those either, just 125M per rocket launch. So I'm still correct in my prior comments and you are wrong. The CSIS article clearly discusses direct flight costs. It's like the difference between designing and building a Boeing 737 and chartering one for a flight.

Orion is dead.

One major difference between the CSIS approach (Plait has no independant analysis, he simply references their numbers and approach) is that they assume all materials including O2 and H2O to be sent the moon base by rocket launch from Earth. I have assumed these to be available at or near the moon base location on the ground. (From water you get O2 and H2).

If you asked CSIS to redo their costs with this scenario, their costs would go way down. Similarly, if you asked them to redo their costs using the Falcon Heavy and the BA330 modules, their costs would go down yet again.

....
Again, Plait indicated that in his opinion, the X-prizes are unlikely to produce the technology needed to have a moon base .....The current efforts seem to be a long way from a working, permanent moon base. Do you really think Newt's proposal is likely to produce an actual working, permanent moon base and a manned Mars mission by 2020?

Produce the technology? Private companies already have most of the technology for the moon base right now.

Look, if you want to keep quoting "experts", doesn't it seem a bit odd that I knock down their opinions so easily with readily available facts?

I think that Newt's general approach if reduced to a prize correctly would result in a private company attempting to do the moon base by 2020 and with a bit of luck succeeding. Any question like this, please return to the first rule of (current spaceflight): 5% fatalities. Things could and will go wrong.

Mars, I don't think has merit and there is a huge gap in the basic research prior to attempting such a flight. I view it as easily 10 times hard or more costly. I think we need hundreds of robotic Mars missions and very careful and lengthy study of the Red planet before attempting going there, and I'm certain that at the right time, we will go there.

Newt talked about a "fast to Mars" engine that is a useful and interesting item, for sure. That would change the issue a bit, but it would not change my point of view.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Hey MaGZ, don't you think that there's a risk of Newt's base competing with Hitler's base on the dark side?

 

[mhaze]

Hey MaGZ, don't you think that there's a risk of Newt's base competing with Hitler's base on the dark side?

ssshhh...stay quiet about that let's just keep it between us ok?

At least until the movie comes out.

 

[Bri]

You are misreading the referenced article and Plait's comments. The costs do not include the DEVELOPMENT costs of the launch system. I have not included those either, just 125M per rocket launch. So I'm still correct in my prior comments and you are wrong.

I didn't misread it. I said that the estimate Plait used from CSIS ($35 billion) does not include the development of a launch system, which is exactly what you just said. The $35 billion is for development and launches to build the moon base, but assumes the use of a launch system that has already been developed. It also doesn't including operating costs ($7.35 billion per year according to the CSIS document).

Produce the technology? Private companies already have most of the technology for the moon base right now.

Look, if you want to keep quoting "experts", doesn't it seem a bit odd that I knock down their opinions so easily with readily available facts?

What I find odd is that these "readily available facts" are only "readily available" to you but apparently not to the experts.

I think that Newt's general approach if reduced to a prize correctly would result in a private company attempting to do the moon base by 2020 and with a bit of luck succeeding.

What do you think the probability would be of this succeeding, both assuming Newt does and that he does not keep his promises of extremely deep federal spending cuts?

Mars, I don't think has merit and there is a huge gap in the basic research prior to attempting such a flight.

So you agree that Newt would probably not be able to keep his promise of a moon base and a Mars mission by 2020?

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

I didn't misread it. I said that the estimate Plait used from CSIS ($35 billion) does not include the development of a launch system, which is exactly what you just said. The $35 billion is for development and launches to build the moon base, but assumes the use of a launch system that has already been developed. It also doesn't including operating costs ($7.35 billion per year according to the CSIS document).

What I find odd is that these "readily available facts" are only "readily available" to you but apparently not to the experts.

Oh, they included about 15B for the lunar lander in the job, didn't they? I didn't see that as necessary at all.

"Experts"????

Sorry, but if you quote "experts" who answer the wrong question - eg, how to get or not get Newt's proposal done with NASA hardware, not private hardware, then their answer is just irrelevant.

...What do you think the probability would be of this succeeding, both assuming Newt does and that he does not keep his promises of extremely deep federal spending cuts?

So you agree that Newt would probably not be able to keep his promise of a moon base and a Mars mission by 2020?

-Bri

There are two completely separate points of view at work here.

• One is the concept of prizes for accomplishments which stretch our capability substantially. I've given some examples of these - the current autonomous vehicle competition, the Google lunar lander prize, for example.
  
• The other is a certainty of accomplishing something.

These are diametrically opposed viewpoints. Newt doesn't have a "promise to keep" except to implement the prizes. Then, it's up to individuals to choose which they might pursue if any. Can this result in a moon base by 2020? Sure. Might it not? Sure, that possibility exists.

Private industry might accept a higher risk than government on a moon mission, for one reason. If the prizes are intended to substantially stretch our capability, then there is implicit in that, the possibility that the job will not be done.

 

[Bri]

Oh, they included about 15B for the lunar lander in the job, didn't they? I didn't see that as necessary at all.

They included a $2B lander module.

Sorry, but if you quote "experts" who answer the wrong question - eg, how to get or not get Newt's proposal done with NASA hardware, not private hardware, then their answer is just irrelevant.

No, they were responding to all of Newt's statements, including the X-prize part. They just felt that the X-prize as Newt described it would be entirely ineffective and/or inadequate for something like a moon base of a Mars mission.

Newt doesn't have a "promise to keep" except to implement the prizes. Then, it's up to individuals to choose which they might pursue if any.

No, Newt clearly said, "By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon, and it will be American." He went on to promise a Mars rocket as well, also by 2020.

Can this result in a moon base by 2020? Sure. Might it not? Sure, that possibility exists.

I asked if you thought it likely or just possible. I take it from your answer that you don't think it likely.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

At any rate, Newt wasn't suggesting that fulfilling his promises would cost only $3 billion. He mentioned a $10 billion prize as a model of how he would go about fulfilling his promises.

I've already pointed out the two serious flaws in his claim that if nobody figures it out, it costs us nothing: 1) if no one figures it out, the promises he made as statements of certainty won't be fulfilled and 2) there is a huge opportunity cost to setting aside more than half of NASA's current budget for prizes (basically means the cessation of all exploration projects).

I've further pointed out that under Newt's other campaign promises (his tax proposal and call for a balanced budget) will result in federal spending that is roughly 1/3 what it is now (the $1.2 trillion in lost revenues and making up the current $1.3 trillion deficit).

Newt's fiscal campaign promises are clearly not consistent with these grand space exploration promises he has made.

Mhaze, neither you nor Newt has yet to answer the entirely reasonable question, "How will you pay for these things?" He's guaranteeing a permanent moon base and a continuously powered rocket (that can reach Mars very quickly) within 8 years. He can't even say how NASA will be funded for its current projects.

ETA: And your argument that a permanent base on the moon will only cost $3 billion is clearly not what Newt had in mind. (Why bother with $10 billion prizes?)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Newt doesn't have a "promise to keep" except to implement the prizes.

You can't possibly believe that, can you?

I've quoted this text from the transcript of his speech like half a dozen times already--and it's paraphrased accurately in the thread title:

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].

ETA: And NB: in that last sentence, it's clear that's Newt's promises include new technology and not just implementing what we already have on as small a scale as might possibly fit a minimal definition of his promises. He is not talking about anything that is "timid".