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

[Bri]

Now I really have got to compliment you on that "bit of a derail".

Thanks. They both concern Newt's campaign, and I didn't want to start a new thread. I thought I made that pretty clear.

Your post was probably more of a derail than mine was, by the way.

Back to moon bases...

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

What is wrong with a moon base?

How much would it cost?

Wouldn't it be less than the 100 billion dollars that Obama basically threw in the gutter?

I doubt anyone here has the scientific background to say it would be a BAD idea. Can anyone give a link to writing denouncing it scientifically?

I think the Libs were all praising Kennedy when I first wanted to go to the moon. But now a right-winger is suggesting a perm base you all join hands and blindly say it is stupid or not worth the cost. Typical.

The economic impact of just the initial "x-prize" that Newt proposed I estimated earlier in the thread at 500-2000B positive.

RE Kennedy, yeah, that was brilliant politically because it was a Democrat proposing something that the conservatives and independants could rally behind. But this thread isn't about Newt, except I've been defending his scheme for a moon base. The scheme's been around for a while though.

 

[mhaze]

Thanks. They both concern Newt's campaign, and I didn't want to start a new thread. I thought I made that pretty clear.

Your post was probably more of a derail than mine was, by the way.

Back to moon bases...

-Bri

No problem. Sling the mud...er...moon-dust...whatever...

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

But this thread isn't about Newt, except I've been defending his scheme for a moon base.

Newt's name is in the thread title and the thread is in the politics forum.

 

[mhaze]

Newt's name is in the thread title and the thread is in the politics forum.

Right. So all political people need to come to this thread and defend or ridicule the idea of a moonbase...

Nawww....let's just talk about those ignorant anti-gay Republicans...



Seriously, I was thinking the thread should be moved to scitech or a similar one started there. Especially since the advocacy of a free market, not government funded moon base...??? what's it got to do with politics?

 

[Cleon]

Seriously, I was thinking the thread should be moved to scitech or a similar one started there. Especially since the advocacy of a free market, not government funded moon base...??? what's it got to do with politics?

Perhaps you should ask Newt, since he was the one who brought it up as a platform plank.

 

[BenBurch]

This is a bit of a derail, but probably doesn't warrant its own thread.

The Tennessee campaign co-director for Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign said in a recent radio interview that AIDS in humans came from "one guy screwing a monkey, if I recall correctly, and then having sex with men."

Not surprisingly, the statement got a Pants on Fire from PolitiFact.

-Bri

Typical GOP level of knowledge about anything having to do with gay people.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Seriously, I was thinking the thread should be moved to scitech or a similar one started there. Especially since the advocacy of a free market, not government funded moon base...??? what's it got to do with politics?

I have thought the same thing since it started out as politics and changed to technology. I think you should start a new one.

 

[Bri]

Re-rail...

Phil Plait, the creator of the Discover blog Bad Astronomy, has an article about the feasibility of a moon base. Particularly in reference to an X Prize-type idea:

Now, don’t get me wrong. When it comes to space exploration, in many ways I’m a starry-eyed optimist, but I’ve learned to temper that optimism with cold, hard, reality. And history shows that building a moonbase by 2020 according to Gingrich’s ideas not only won’t work, but would be a disaster for NASA.

NASA simply can’t do it in that timeframe; there’s no place in the budget for that sort of mission, and it’s unlikely in the extreme they’ll get extra funding for this. Perhaps because of that, Gingrich proposed taking 10% of NASA’s budget—some 1-2 billion dollars—and creating a new X Prize to motivate private industry to be involved. This has worked in the past as a catalyst for companies to work on difficult goals, like launching a piloted vehicle into space. However, going to the Moon and building a base would cost more than 1000 times as much as launching that sub-orbital rocket did, so it’s not at all clear an X Prize like this would work.

Add to that the money needed to keep the base running—an estimated $7.4 billion per year. That’s a lot of cash for a fledgling corporation. Or even a government. It’s more than third of NASA’s annual budget.

And even if an X Prize-type idea worked, who would be able to actually accomplish the goal of putting a base on the Moon in eight years? SpaceX is the only private company that has independently launched rockets into orbit, and while I think they have a bright future ahead, the clock is ticking. SpaceX is being extremely cautious about launching their rockets—as well they should be—and their next generation heavy-lift rocket is still being built. It won’t launch for at least two years. While that might make the 2020 deadline achievable, again, it doesn’t matter if there’s a President Gingrich or not. For that goal, the market will decide.

Of course, the elephant in the room for this mega-X Prize is where would that money come from, specifically? What part of NASA would get eviscerated to free up a couple of gigabucks? Either NASA takes on the Moon mission internally and has to sacrifice other projects to do it, or you gut NASA to get the money for the private sector to do it. Either way NASA gets crippled.​

Also, I don't know if anyone has mentioned the fact that a U.S. state on the moon would probably be illegal according to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which the US has ratified. The treaty bans any nation from laying claim to a particular piece of outer space.

The exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;

Outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;

Outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;​

-Bri

 

[Bill Thompson]

Re-rail...

Phil Plait, the creator of the Discover blog Bad Astronomy, has an article about the feasibility of a moon base. Particularly in reference to an X Prize-type idea:

Now, don’t get me wrong. When it comes to space exploration, in many ways I’m a starry-eyed optimist, but I’ve learned to temper that optimism with cold, hard, reality. And history shows that building a moonbase by 2020 according to Gingrich’s ideas not only won’t work, but would be a disaster for NASA.

NASA simply can’t do it in that timeframe; there’s no place in the budget for that sort of mission, and it’s unlikely in the extreme they’ll get extra funding for this. Perhaps because of that, Gingrich proposed taking 10% of NASA’s budget—some 1-2 billion dollars—and creating a new X Prize to motivate private industry to be involved. This has worked in the past as a catalyst for companies to work on difficult goals, like launching a piloted vehicle into space. However, going to the Moon and building a base would cost more than 1000 times as much as launching that sub-orbital rocket did, so it’s not at all clear an X Prize like this would work.

Add to that the money needed to keep the base running—an estimated $7.4 billion per year. That’s a lot of cash for a fledgling corporation. Or even a government. It’s more than third of NASA’s annual budget.

And even if an X Prize-type idea worked, who would be able to actually accomplish the goal of putting a base on the Moon in eight years? SpaceX is the only private company that has independently launched rockets into orbit, and while I think they have a bright future ahead, the clock is ticking. SpaceX is being extremely cautious about launching their rockets—as well they should be—and their next generation heavy-lift rocket is still being built. It won’t launch for at least two years. While that might make the 2020 deadline achievable, again, it doesn’t matter if there’s a President Gingrich or not. For that goal, the market will decide.

Of course, the elephant in the room for this mega-X Prize is where would that money come from, specifically? What part of NASA would get eviscerated to free up a couple of gigabucks? Either NASA takes on the Moon mission internally and has to sacrifice other projects to do it, or you gut NASA to get the money for the private sector to do it. Either way NASA gets crippled.
​

Also, I don't know if anyone has mentioned the fact that a U.S. state on the moon would probably be illegal according to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which the US has ratified. The treaty bans any nation from laying claim to a particular piece of outer space.

The exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;

Outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;

Outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;
​

-Bri

He has been wrong before. Just not very often.

Still, how does he break down "$7.4 billion per year"? What about building a self-sustaining system? Did he think of that?

He writes these blogs partly off the top of his head. Although he is usually right, I remember a blog he excitedly posted repeating a grad student's essay on what star systems are currently receiving which tv broadcasts. This was a huge goof. Radio transmissions -- the kinds we are sending as TV signals -- loose clarity rapidly.

Thou shan't use thine argument from authority.

 

[Cleon]

He has been wrong before. Just not very often.

Still, how does he break down "$7.4 billion per year"? What about building a self-sustaining system? Did he think of that?

Bill, if you'd bothered to read the article rather than looking for reasons to hand-wave it away, you'd see that - as per usual - Phil includes links to his sources. He doesn't just write "off the top of his head."

In this case, the estimated costs for a lunar base came from here.

Thou shan't use thine argument from authority.

Feel free to quote the experts who say that Newt's idea is totally plausible, realistic, and economically viable.

 

[Bill Thompson]

I have got a better idea. A moon base without people in it.... at first, that is. Yep, no people for months. Next, have remote control and artificial intelligent robots tending to and manning the base and expanding it using raw materials mostly found on the moon. I am talking about something like the Mars rovers but with better arms. Then, only send up the humans as a final step after an entire eco-system has been set up and tested. And by then have it self-sustaining. What would Plait say about that idea?

 

[Cleon]

I have got a better idea. A moon base without people in it.... at first, that is. Yep, no people for months. Next, have remote control and artificial intelligent robots tending to and manning the base and expanding it using raw materials mostly found on the moon. I am talking about something like the Mars rovers but with better arms. Then, only send up the humans as a final step after an entire eco-system has been set up and tested. And by then have it self-sustaining. What would Plait say about that idea?

Probably that it's worth exploring as a long-term project.

If you tried to peddle the idea that it's doable by 2020, he'd likely laugh at you.

Of course, you could PM him and ask.

 

[Bill Thompson]

7.4 billion dollars a year is a lot of money. So we get 7.4 countries pay one billion dollars a year who participate in the effort and rewards.

Remember Obama threw away 100 billion on failed stimulis packages. Maybe other countries have invested in similar failures and if there are 8 of them who would like to see what one billion dollars a year will bring, we have our program.

 

[Corsair 115]

7.4 billion dollars a year is a lot of money. So we get 7.4 countries pay one billion dollars a year who participate in the effort and rewards.

Measured as a percentage of GDP, the entire Apollo Program cost roughly $422 billion in current dollars. That total is less than half of what was spent on the Department of Defense in 2010 alone ($889 billion), and nineteen times larger than what NASA spent that same year ($22 billion).

Remember Obama threw away 100 billion on failed stimulis packages.

I don't know what your definition of "failed" is, but the CBO has been producing quarterly reports detailing its estimates of the effects of the stimulus package in terms of how much it lowered unemployment from what it would otherwise have been, and how much higher GDP growth was from it would have otherwise been. You can read them for yourself here. From reading those it is clear the stimulus spending was not a "failure" in that the it prevented things from being even worse.

 

[fishbob]

. . .
Remember Obama threw away 100 billion on failed stimulis packages. . . .

There's your problem - today is not opposite day.

Up is the other way.

 

[mhaze]

Re-rail...

Phil Plait, the creator of the Discover blog Bad Astronomy, has an article about the feasibility of a moon base. Particularly in reference to an X Prize-type idea:

Now, don’t get me wrong. When it comes to space exploration, in many ways I’m a starry-eyed optimist, but I’ve learned to temper that optimism with cold, hard, reality. And history shows that building a moonbase by 2020 according to Gingrich’s ideas not only won’t work, but would be a disaster for NASA.

NASA simply can’t do it in that timeframe; there’s no place in the budget for that sort of mission, and it’s unlikely in the extreme they’ll get extra funding for this. Perhaps because of that, Gingrich proposed taking 10% of NASA’s budget—some 1-2 billion dollars—and creating a new X Prize to motivate private industry to be involved. This has worked in the past as a catalyst for companies to work on difficult goals, like launching a piloted vehicle into space. However, going to the Moon and building a base would cost more than 1000 times as much as launching that sub-orbital rocket did, so it’s not at all clear an X Prize like this would work.

Add to that the money needed to keep the base running—an estimated $7.4 billion per year. That’s a lot of cash for a fledgling corporation. Or even a government. It’s more than third of NASA’s annual budget.

And even if an X Prize-type idea worked, who would be able to actually accomplish the goal of putting a base on the Moon in eight years? SpaceX is the only private company that has independently launched rockets into orbit, and while I think they have a bright future ahead, the clock is ticking. SpaceX is being extremely cautious about launching their rockets—as well they should be—and their next generation heavy-lift rocket is still being built. It won’t launch for at least two years. While that might make the 2020 deadline achievable, again, it doesn’t matter if there’s a President Gingrich or not. For that goal, the market will decide.

Of course, the elephant in the room for this mega-X Prize is where would that money come from, specifically? What part of NASA would get eviscerated to free up a couple of gigabucks? Either NASA takes on the Moon mission internally and has to sacrifice other projects to do it, or you gut NASA to get the money for the private sector to do it. Either way NASA gets crippled.​

Also, I don't know if anyone has mentioned the fact that a U.S. state on the moon would probably be illegal according to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which the US has ratified. The treaty bans any nation from laying claim to a particular piece of outer space.

The exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;

Outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;

Outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;​

-Bri

Well, that's chock full of errors. Let's take them one by one.

1. The treaty, we can opt out on a year's notice as can and will the Chinese.

2. Assertion is false premises:

And history shows that building a moonbase by 2020 according to Gingrich’s ideas not only won’t work, but would be a disaster for NASA. NASA simply can’t do it in that timeframe​

The false premise is that somewhere Gingrich proposed NASA do it.

He simply didn't. Plait raises Strawman on Moon Base logical error.

3. Which is why Plait produces the propaganda lie first (2) THEN follows with Gingrich's actual statement.

Perhaps because of that, Gingrich proposed taking 10% of NASA’s budget—some 1-2 billion dollars—and creating a new X Prize to motivate private industry to be involved. ...going to the Moon and building a base would cost more than 1000 times as much as launching that sub-orbital rocket did, so it’s not at all clear an X Prize like this would work.
​

It's totally irrelevant what you, my or Plait's opinion as to "whether it would work" is. The Earth side positive economic impacts exist whether the goal is reached or not. They I earlier calculated at 500-2000B. That was for the X prize like moon effort alone not the continuation of the base.

4. Next Plait claims it's unsubstainable.

Add to that the money needed to keep the base running—an estimated $7.4 billion per year. That’s a lot of cash for a fledgling corporation. Or even a government. It’s more than third of NASA’s annual budget.​

Again we see false "Strawman on Moon" premises. These are a false vision of what "moon base" might actually consist of. As noted, it could be largely robotic. If a commercial free market venture, it would be profit oriented, and thus not your, my, or Plait's concern. The number of people on the base would be based on the short term needs for human talent in the extraction and return of He3.

For example, a base could be established in an X prize type contest, then lay dormant for 13 years when there is an immediate or near term use for He3, then the base is reactivated on short notice. All private sector. Regardless, the spending to maintain the base represents economic growth on Earth - IF IT IS PRIVATE SECTOR. Plait is right that it is a drain on government if it is public sector money. BUT THAT WASN'T NEWT'S PLAN.

So....Plait makes up some more straw. Isn't moon-straw nice?

This is not complicated stuff but it seems like there are really widespread misunderstandings and almost compulsive drives to think in terms of government programs instead of private ventures.

Short story: Plait, skeptical yes, critical thinker...no...

 

[mhaze]

....

I don't know what your definition of "failed" is, but the CBO has been producing quarterly reports detailing its estimates of the effects of the stimulus package in terms of how much it lowered unemployment from what it would otherwise have been, and how much higher GDP growth was from it would have otherwise been. You can read them for yourself here. From reading those it is clear the stimulus spending was not a "failure" in that the it prevented things from being even worse.

My definition of "failed" is creating $50,000 per year jobs for $1,000,000 per year in government "stimulus". And other such ridiculous things. How about yours?

 

[Bri]

My definition of "failed" is creating $50,000 per year jobs for $1,000,000 per year in government "stimulus". And other such ridiculous things. How about yours?

This doesn't have much to do with moon bases. Still, I'm curious as to what you mean by "$50,000 per year jobs" and where you're getting your numbers from.

-Bri

 

[GlennB]

As noted, it could be largely robotic. If a commercial free market venture, it would be profit oriented, and thus not your, my, or Plait's concern. .

For example, a base could be established in an X prize type contest, then lay dormant for 13 years when there is an immediate or near term use for He3, then the base is reactivated on short notice. All private sector.

Regardless, the spending to maintain the base represents economic growth on Earth - IF IT IS PRIVATE SECTOR.

My bolding.

See your problem here? Vast initial capital investment and ongoing maintenance costs for a project whose eta is not even remotely predictable.

Outcome? Zero private sector investment. It's your pipe dream.