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

[Bri]

I don't think that's overly torturing the wording or the intent of Newt's suggestions. He wanted NASA and the US to undertake facilitating private space flight. So yes, we could give the government and/or it's politicians some credit if they did that through prizes.

Nobody suggested otherwise. I just don't think it's likely to happen (X-prize or not) in 8 years within Newt's budget constraints. I don't even think the moon base could happen within those constraints, much less the Mars mission.

ETA: Another point that you keep avoiding is that Newt actually described the moon base he was talking about, and it's not the 4-man one you're talking about.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

Nobody suggested otherwise. I just don't think it's likely to happen (X-prize or not) in 8 years within Newt's budget constraints. I don't even think the moon base could happen within those constraints, much less the Mars mission.

ETA: Another point that you keep avoiding is that Newt actually described the moon base he was talking about, and it's not the 4-man one you're talking about.

-Bri

Keep your facts straight, YOU brought in the 4 man one. That's from the CSIS study. The one I suggested from 3 BA330 modules was 18 person.

As for your (or mine, or some "expert") opinion, I can't see where that's relevant. The only opinion that should be considered is that of the contestants for a prize of this sort. Will they try for it? What time frame do they seek? What dollar amount?

 

[Bri]

Keep your facts straight, YOU brought in the 4 man one. That's from the CSIS study. The one I suggested from 3 BA330 modules was 18 person.

My apologies. Still, 18 people != thousands of people (who might apply for statehood) which is what Newt was talking about.

As for your (or mine, or some "expert") opinion, I can't see where that's relevant. The only opinion that should be considered is that of the contestants for a prize of this sort. Will they try for it? What time frame do they seek? What dollar amount?

Expert opinions are only relevant as to the likelihood of Newt succeeding (were he to become president), which is what we were discussing.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

My apologies. Still, 18 people != thousands of people (who might apply for statehood) which is what Newt was talking about.
-Bri

Well, sure. But not thousands within 8 years, but after a while. He's alluding to the gradual process of exploring and colonizing a new world or area. And sure, we can do that - but only if there are profitable activities to be engaged in on the moon. We can't do it with government tax money, but it needs to be activities that generate profits, and hence tax revenues. Or not .... if the moon base isn't a state, which would be my preference.

It's its own damn planet, after all. Speaking of which, on the subject of those prizes, by no means should attempts for them be limited to US citizens.

 

[Bri]

Well, sure. But not thousands within 8 years, but after a while.

I think it would be a stretch to say that your 18-person moon base would qualify as what Newt described. I don't see thousands of people living in tiny compartments like that one permanently. If you're saying that the smaller moon base would be a stepping stone to a larger one, then I don't think you could call it "permanent."

Or not .... if the moon base isn't a state, which would be my preference.

There is currently a treaty that prevents it. We'd have to get out of the treaty first.

It's its own damn planet, after all.

Technically, the moon isn't a planet is it? (I thought it was a moon!)

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

....There is currently a treaty that prevents it. We'd have to get out of the treaty first.



Technically, the moon isn't a planet is it? (I thought it was a moon!)

-Bri

Well, just assume that the Chinese exit the treaty, or the Russians. Then everyone else does. It's a one year notice opt out. Then the annexations begin in the prime areas. I think it's important to understand that right now we know there are some very valuable areas. There are likely others, but the number and accessibility is unknown.

For example. You want a flat plain at least 10x10km next to crater that contains ice. You want it to be on the pole so sunlight (energy) is continuous, and you want to have close by areas of continual darkness. And He3 deposits. Or other assets of value. Rugged terrain between these loci makes it less valuable.

This calls for a lot of exploration and a lot of robot probes to find the best location(s).

I think it would be a stretch to say that your 18-person moon base would qualify as what Newt described. I don't see thousands of people living in tiny compartments like that one permanently. If you're saying that the smaller moon base would be a stepping stone to a larger one, then I don't think you could call it "permanent."....

Then the 13 American colonies were not "permanent".

18 is larger than anything anyone has done to date....

Also. I think that number is the high end, sort of like the way tents are rated at 2 or 4 or 6 person. When modules are designed for activities, perhaps for 18 people to be comfortable you'd want about 10 modules. Once again, though...think 3d printers.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That sounds like a straw man to me. I don't think anyone here said that in order for Newt's "goal" to be fulfilled it would have to be done solely through NASA as opposed to NASA offering a prize for private companies. If Newt were to accomplish it via an X-prize, that would certainly accomplish the goal.

Indeed.

And that's a huge "if".

First of all, how would a prize leverage private investment to achieve so much in such a short time? (The example of the original X Prize, as I've shown, argues against it. The prize was first offered in '96, and it still hasn't led to commercial spaceflight. It might start next year--though I doubt it--but it will be a looong time before that business ever turns a profit, if ever.) [ETA: And remember this private spaceflight tourism industry is relatively speaking a very timid thing. They're talking about an airplane that will fly to suborbital space--just over 100km--for a matter of a few minutes of micro gravity. Again, the X-series of supersonic jets had already flown a civilian to this height back in the '60s, so the technical achievement is nothing remarkably new--nothing like the challenges and costs of establishing a permanent moon base!]

Second, Newt didn't seem at all concerned that it might even be likely to fail, as if he hadn't made the campaign promise!

Third, Newt is wrong that if the prize fails (and no one claims it), that it will have cost us ("we the people") nothing.

And fourth, under Newt's fiscal promises, it's unclear how ANY money can be spent by the federal government on any new project. He'll effectively be cutting federal spending to roughly 1/3 its current level!

And straying from Newt's speech, mhaze claimed that this NASA prize fund would become a profit center (for "we the people"), though he quickly evaded questions about it by trying to pretend he was talking about making it profitable for a private company (if NASA gave $10 billion to a company for something that only costs $3 billion). But clearly, his "profit center" claim was in the context of the federal budget.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not to harp on this point, but think about this: the X-Prize's modest advancement over what was done back in '63 was to have a craft that carried 3 people rather than 1 and that took off on its own rather than being carried up to an altitude of about 13.7 km before going on its own.

But the X-Prize was won by a craft that made a total of 3 flights (and will never fly again) and it was in 2005! Going back from '63 by the same interval (from 2005 back to 1963) takes us back to 1921--the era of the very infancy of commercial passenger and freight air travel.

Is this the very bold kind of advancement Newt has in mind?

 

[mhaze]

.....
And straying from Newt's speech, mhaze claimed that this NASA prize fund would become a profit center (for "we the people"), though he quickly evaded questions about it by trying to pretend he was talking about making it profitable for a private company (if NASA gave $10 billion to a company for something that only costs $3 billion). But clearly, his "profit center" claim was in the context of the federal budget.

Now Joe, let's avoid the amateurish, silly bald faced lying. Or maybe you have a short memory. Go back and check the first half of this thread you'll see I explained the beneficial economics of these type prizes .... 5 TIMES ....

You'll also find numerous claims that Newt "must have been talking about a NASA paid moon effort" because "Newt Promised!".

Or just keep lying, fine with me.

By the way, you do understand that establishing a moon base is essentially sending a number of payloads one way, right? Which is much simpler than doing round trips.

.... Again, the X-series of supersonic jets had already flown a civilian to this height back in the '60s, so the technical achievement is nothing remarkably new-.......

Wow....just ignore the fact that private industry did X plane type trips for 1/12 the cost and follow on venture by Branson is commercializing them, again for order of magnitude lower cost per flight and per person.

Finally, a question for Joe. I happen to not like horse racing, but a lot of people do. I think rowing competition is ridiculous, but running marathons is cool. But I don't feel obliged to push my attitudes on other people. I realize that other people like horse racing, and rowing. Joe, why do you think anyone cares about your anti-space attitudes?

 

[mhaze]

.... I don't see thousands of people living in tiny compartments like that one permanently. ....Bri

Obviously you've never been in a submarine. But leaving that aside, there's only one thing to consider:

3d printers and moondust.

Moondust is 40% oxygen, and 30% common metals. It sinters at a fairly low temperature, meaning if you point a magnifying glass at it in the sunlight available, it should fuse into a solid. It's known that it fuses with 250w microwave energy. Building things with this dust and 3d printers means that structures can be made of somewhat arbitrary sizes. So, rather than the CSIS point of view which was..."everything required by the moonbase, including o2 and h2o, is brought from earth", we need thinking about developing the exact opposite.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Now Joe, let's avoid the amateurish, silly bald faced lying. Or maybe you have a short memory. Go back and check the first half of this thread you'll see I explained the beneficial economics of these type prizes .... 5 TIMES ....

You go back and see that I had refuted your arm-waving claims that Newt's plan would somehow stimulate the economy such that his proposals would add to rather than take away from revenues before you even made it.

The Tax Policy Center considered future growth from such stimulus. The result: a $1.3 trillion decrease in revenues in a single year.

So again, arm waving over "stimulus" aside, Newt's tax plan will result in $1.2 trillion decrease in revenues, and his balanced budget promise will result in an additional $1.3 trillion (current deficit) decrease in spending.

[ETA: I also note that you have proposed cutting spending on entitlements by $100 billion. I pointed out that that will pretty much preclude a second term, but even so, you're still about $2.4 trillion short!]

Where is the money going to come from to fund NASA at all?

Wow....just ignore the fact that private industry did X plane type trips for 1/12 the cost and follow on venture by Branson is commercializing them, again for order of magnitude lower cost per flight and per person.

I haven't ignored anything, haze. I've pointed out that they achieved this some decades after it had been done by the government, and that the X-Prize itself wasn't even won for 9 years and has yet to lead to a profitable private spaceflight industry. (It might, if all goes well, start in business next year and might even turn a profit within 25 years after the X-prize was first offered.)

You've failed to show how this model can possibly fulfill Newt's promises, AND you've failed to say where the money for anything will come from given Newt's proposal.

Joe, why do you think anyone cares about your anti-space attitudes?

I'm not the one with an "anti-space" attitude. I've already pointed out that Newt has proposed to gut NASA for a government endeavor (offering a $10 billion prize) that isn't likely to achieve anything but would certainly shut down many if not all current NASA exploration missions. I even cited the current NASA budget (IIRC, the total budget for all exploration was around $3.6 billion) as a point of comparison.

So which programs in NASA should we eliminate by holding this $10 billion aside? (And this is being extremely generous in assuming that NASA will have a roughly $18 billion budget, which isn't realistic if Newt were to get his other campaign promises enacted.)

Here's a list of current missions:

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/current/index.html

Where does the $10 billion come from?

And remember, Newt even concedes that it's possible that no one will win the $10 billion prize. He wrongly claims that if that happens, it has cost us nothing. But we all know that's bunk. You can't offer such a prize without setting aside the money. There would be an immediate opportunity cost of effectively removing $10 billion from NASA's budget.

It isn't "anti-space" to insist that we consider how promises can be paid for. It isn't "anti-space" to ask why we would even undertake one project as opposed to many others.

Except in your own little space fantasy, of course.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

BTW, haze, have you abandoned the following claims you've made?

That Newt didn't promise a permanent base on the moon within 8 years.

That Newt wasn't proposing the prize idea for anything other than the Mars rocket?

That the NASA prize fund would be a profit center for NASA (though you tried to dodge that one by pretending --illogically--that you meant it would be a profit center for the private company that won the prize)?

If you wish, I can provide quotes of your own posts for each of these points to show that I am not mischaracterizing what you have said.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You'll also find numerous claims that Newt "must have been talking about a NASA paid moon effort"

You're really going to invent fake quotes to attribute to me again?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: when you find you need to do this, it's pretty good evidence that you're arguing against a straw man.

However, I will concede that I think what Newt is proposing is part of a presidential campaign promise, and that he explicitly proposed a $10 billion prize funded out of NASA's budget. There's no way you can characterize this as other than a government project, even if he hopes to lever that public money with private investment.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So, rather than the CSIS point of view which was..."everything required by the moonbase, including o2 and h2o, is brought from earth", we need thinking about developing the exact opposite.

YOu think this is realistically something that can be realized within 8 years?

Also, I thought you were claiming that the rationale for a moon base was to extract He-3. Water might be extractable in useful amounts near the poles, but He-3 is most abundant at lower latitudes.

 

[lomiller]

Now Joe, let's avoid the amateurish, silly bald faced lying. Or maybe you have a short memory. Go back and check the first half of this thread you'll see I explained the beneficial economics of these type prizes .... 5 TIMES ....

And you were wrong all 5 times

What you described was a subsidy designed to get companies to stop spending money producing useful items and spend it on useless stuff instead.
In your proposal; the taxpayer is out:
a) The value of the subsidy
b) The value of the tax collected producing and selling those useful items
c) The jobs created producing and selling those useful items
d) The taxes those workers would have paid
e) The value of the useful items they could have had

 

[lomiller]

And remember, Newt even concedes that it's possible that no one will win the $10 billion prize. He wrongly claims that if that happens, it has cost us nothing. But we all know that's bunk.

It is known .

You can put a monetary value on a promising to pay money based on some event happening. These are liabilities and have real values associated with them. If this were not the case then there would be no insurance companies because this is exactly what they do every day.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It is known .

You can put a monetary value on a promising to pay money based on some event happening. These are liabilities and have real values associated with them. If this were not the case then there would be no insurance companies because this is exactly what they do every day.

Indeed. And mhaze several times compared Newt's proposal to the JREF MDC. Recall that one of the most frequent bogus wriggling out of the challenge is the false claim that the money doesn't exist. The money does exist, and JREF can't put that million dollars to other uses as long as they're offering the MDC. In JREF's case, the money was raised for this purpose, so that's no big deal.

In NASA's case, it would absolutely have to take away from other budgeted projects. (And again that's being generous and ignoring the fact that Newt's tax proposal and balanced budget proposal doesn't even allow room for current NASA funding.)

 

[mhaze]

And you were wrong all 5 times

What you described was a subsidy designed to get companies to stop spending money producing useful items and spend it on useless stuff instead.
In your proposal; the taxpayer is out:
a) The value of the subsidy
b) The value of the tax collected producing and selling those useful items
c) The jobs created producing and selling those useful items
d) The taxes those workers would have paid
e) The value of the useful items they could have had

Hey, I was wondering when someone would come up with the "alternate production" logical error.

Because there is at this time a great deal of holding back from production.

 

[lomiller]

Because there is at this time a great deal of holding back from production.

So mhaze is in favor of stimulus when it's a Republican proposing it! Not only that he insists arguments against it are "asinine"!

Of course the problem with stimulus is that it needs to be pulled back when the economy starts to improve. If the time for it isn't over already it will be by next year, so your moon base stimulus plan is about as badly times as Bush's tax cut stimulus 10 years ago. Bad idea.

 

[mhaze]

So mhaze is in favor of stimulus when it's a Republican proposing it! Not only that he insists arguments against it are "asinine"!

Of course the problem with stimulus is that it needs to be pulled back when the economy starts to improve. If the time for it isn't over already it will be by next year, so your moon base stimulus plan is about as badly times as Bush's tax cut stimulus 10 years ago. Bad idea.

Stimulus?

• You mean of the sort where there's a payment only after a substantial accomplishment made?
  
• Not a stimulus where money is just printed and paid out to the political cronies, banks, and favored corporations?

Yes, that sounds pretty much ok to me. I'll just ignore your silly forecasting. No one is planning their future based on Lomiller's political assurances.

Indeed. And mhaze several times compared Newt's proposal to the JREF MDC. Recall that one of the most frequent bogus wriggling out of the challenge is the false claim that the money doesn't exist. The money does exist, and JREF can't put that million dollars to other uses as long as they're offering the MDC. In JREF's case, the money was raised for this purpose, so that's no big deal.

In NASA's case, it would absolutely have to take away from other budgeted projects. (And again that's being generous and ignoring the fact that Newt's tax proposal and balanced budget proposal doesn't even allow room for current NASA funding.)

Actually, nope. There'd be an accounting entry for the funds allocated, but it wouldn't be stuck in a bank account anywhere. The money'd be printed when it was needed.

Or if it was because of some aspect of the prize rules, I betcha it would be "invested in Treasury bills", which reduces to pretty much the same thing.