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

[BenBurch]

And let's not forget that Newt's tax proposal would cut off $1.2 trillion in revenues in the year 2013 alone! There won't be a federal government left even to conduct an X-prize type of project. It will have been drowned in a bathtub.

If by some calamity Newt could make that happen, I would be fascinated as I watched the angry mob tear the White House down brick-by-brick to drag him out of it after things collapsed totally.

 

[mhaze]

LOL!!!!

Your lack of knowledge about China is exceeded only by your lack of knowledge about economics.

I know 6th graders who could have gotten this right.

China is not Marxist in any way, shape, or form. It is a military dictatorship where there is almost unrestrained "capitalism" in which nobody except the leaders have any durable rights at all, and anything can be had for a price, and the needs of the planet are not even thought of.

Your utopia.

Please move.

But that's the tilt that Marxism causes. The pure, altruistic concepts behind so-called common good goals do not actually exist in a Marxist society. So I don't DISAGREE with you, but I'll just note that by your logic, Soviet Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, and .... China ... and North Korea .... are not Marxist. Well, that gets us nowhere, because what we are doing then, is defining words differently and arguing about them.

Mulder, to whom I directed my comment, actually believes in the altruistic and achievable communist goals. Not in the dirty day to day reality that you express.

Of course, and more importantly, the several posters who sneered at my descriptive use of the phrase Marxism miss the central issue completely (and thus are quite irrelevant).

ALL of the nations that are talking about going back to the moon are after He3.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Thank you. Now explain how marxist china, which embodies your principles of collectivist good-for-all, is doing with their moon base plan which they pursue at the cost of vast suffering to their population - and they don't care.

Hint: It's all about He3.

But that's the tilt that Marxism causes. The pure, altruistic concepts behind so-called common good goals do not actually exist in a Marxist society. So I don't DISAGREE with you, but I'll just note that by your logic, Soviet Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, and .... China ... and North Korea .... are not Marxist. Well, that gets us nowhere, because what we are doing then, is defining words differently and arguing about them.

Mulder, to whom I directed my comment, actually believes in the altruistic and achievable communist goals. Not in the dirty day to day reality that you express.

Of course, and more importantly, the several posters who sneered at my descriptive use of the phrase Marxism miss the central issue completely (and thus are quite irrelevant).

ALL of the nations that are talking about going back to the moon are after He3.

No, they are not. I'll go back to the central issue of your post. China is allegedly pursuing a Lunar base plan at the cost of vast suffering of their population. Please respond to post #238 where I stated that China's moon base plan appears to be nothing more than "We'll do that after we put a man on the Moon in 2025." Please provide some evidence beyond your own assertions that they plan to do this to obtain He3.

 

[BenBurch]

³He we don't even have plans to use.

The only reason to want ³He is because the D-³He reaction produces less energy in the form of neutrons. None at all, you'd imagine, except that there is no way to prevent side reactions that make significant numbers of neutrons. And D-³He is actually harder to burn than DD or DT reactions. The only reasons to prefer it are that there is less activation of the hardware, and no breeding blanket is needed to convert energy into a usable source, with direct conversion a possibility.

Generally, if you want aneutronic fusion, p+¹¹B is a MUCH better choice because Boron-11 is not a strategic resource, and you don't have to go to the moon for it, but it also requires totally different sorts of confinement strategies like dense plasma or electrostatic confinement.

But ³He is not at all required for fusion, and the people who think that it is are woefully misinformed.

 

[mhaze]

No, they are not. I'll go back to the central issue of your post. China is allegedly pursuing a Lunar base plan at the cost of vast suffering of their population. Please respond to post #238 where I stated that China's moon base plan appears to be nothing more than "We'll do that after we put a man on the Moon in 2025." Please provide some evidence beyond your own assertions that they plan to do this to obtain He3.

Well, your post (and BenBurch's) leaves me two options (A) start to educate you people about He3 (B) yet again suggest you remove your ignorance by using google. Difficult.

Here's a start. The 2010 price for He3 was $2150 PER LITER OF GAS.

Let's progress from that. I'm lazy today so I'll not calculate but assume a 1:500 compression from gas to liquid. Accordingly the current price on the world market for He3 liquid one liter is $100k.

Sound interesting?

 

[Corsair 115]

I think my post was pretty self explanatory, and no, you in your misunderstandings and confusions are not qualified to ladle out work to other people. In fact, you have erred logically in making an argument to authority, when the four differences were already stated.

So, do you find ALL the work published by the CBO equally suspect? Or is it just their work on the economic stimulus?

Oh, when can I expect to see your thread detailing, with evidence, why the CBO's review of the effects of the stimulus is incorrect? You are going to contact them with your concerns, aren't you? I mean, if they're getting it wrong, don't you want to call their attention to that? Don't you want to point out their mistakes so as to make any future analysis they do for Congress more accurate?

You're not just opposing their findings on the economic stimulus purely for political reasons are you?

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Well, your post (and BenBurch's) leaves me two options (A) start to educate you people about He3 (B) yet again suggest you remove your ignorance by using google. Difficult.

Here's a start. The 2010 price for He3 was $2150 PER LITER OF GAS.

Let's progress from that. I'm lazy today so I'll not calculate but assume a 1:500 compression from gas to liquid. Accordingly the current price on the world market for He3 liquid one liter is $100k.

Sound interesting?

No. Currently the world demand for He3 is small but the available quantity is smaller. Therefore the price is high. If I bring several tons of He3 to Earth from the Moon, what happens to the price of He3? Demand does not change until a fusion reactor is invented.

I have searched for the things you claim and find nothing but speculation. When I searched for China's Moon base plan I only find a vague goal after their current plan of putting a man on the Moon by 2025. Governments are not racing to bring vast quantities of He3 here. Searches turn up nothing. Please show us evidence that even one country is planning to build a Moon base specifically to mine He3.

 

[BenBurch]

OK, MHaze. I clearly learned nothing about fusion in my years in physics and the nuclear power industry.

Educate me.

Go!

 

[mhaze]

No. Currently the world demand for He3 is small but the available quantity is smaller. Therefore the price is high. If I bring several tons of He3 to Earth from the Moon, what happens to the price of He3? Demand does not change until a fusion reactor is invented.
.....

No, this is not true. This is what is called "making things up".

Many things are not being done or are being scaled back because of the current price, and the future uncertainty in availability, of he3.

A simple google search shows that. One could estimate the demand and supply curve and a high-low range of resulting price based on extraction from moon and return. But you have not done that. Instead you've made some claims which are simply not true.

Again, Ren..., I'm not willing, eager, or interested in doing your google searches for you, let alone interpreting them. And since you are not interested in strict fidelity or accuracy in the things you say being true, where does that put us?

OK, MHaze. I clearly learned nothing about fusion in my years in physics and the nuclear power industry.

Educate me.

Go!

Sure. You didn't learn the price per gram of He3.

 

[mhaze]

So, do you find ALL the work published by the CBO equally suspect? Or is it just their work on the economic stimulus?

Oh, when can I expect to see your thread detailing, with evidence, why the CBO's review of the effects of the stimulus is incorrect? You are going to contact them with your concerns, aren't you? I mean, if they're getting it wrong, don't you want to call their attention to that? Don't you want to point out their mistakes so as to make any future analysis they do for Congress more accurate?

You're not just opposing their findings on the economic stimulus purely for political reasons are you?

What are you doing now, fishing? That's quite ridiculous. Start a thread on Economics forum, carry your assertion there, and I'll answer it. You will be demolished, just as you were when you tried 3 separate threads to claim co2 was the driver of Venusian warming and Earth was analogous. But first, read the report and look at the specific phrases I used. Because you don't evidence any knowledge of the subject and I'll reply with specific page numbers and the relevance of them to my comments.

If you don't see the light, well go ahead and start your thread. You don't have a case or an issue to make, but I understand that some how you think you do.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If I understand this discussion correctly, we are still about thirty years away from getting workable nuclear fusion, and about ten to fifteen years away from a Moonbase (per Phil P) if someone makes that a fiscal priority.

Seems to me smarter to develop fusion fueled by stuff we can find on the earth, to keep cost down.

Why does fuel need to be moondust?

 

[Humes fork]

Now we know who Carl Sagan would have voted for.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

No, this is not true. This is what is called "making things up".

Many things are not being done or are being scaled back because of the current price, and the future uncertainty in availability, of he3.

A simple google search shows that. One could estimate the demand and supply curve and a high-low range of resulting price based on extraction from moon and return. But you have not done that. Instead you've made some claims which are simply not true.

I'm an engineer, not an economist. It seems to me that estimating supply and demand curves based on assumptions of technology we don't (and may never) have is foolish. Convincing investors to put up money based on them would be dishonest.

Again, Ren..., I'm not willing, eager, or interested in doing your google searches for you, let alone interpreting them. And since you are not interested in strict fidelity or accuracy in the things you say being true, where does that put us?

Speaking of fidelity and accuracy, my google searches on Chinese Moon base plans came up pretty empty. They have a stated goal of building a moon base after they complete their plan of putting a man on the Moon by 2025. They don't have an active plan for a Moon base that is so costly it is causing vast suffering amoung their population. Can I assume your refusal to back up your claims regarding them indicates that you concede that point?

 

[Corsair 115]

What are you doing now, fishing? That's quite ridiculous. Start a thread on Economics forum, carry your assertion there, and I'll answer it.

You appear confused. YOU are the one doubting the CBO analysis, so it's for you to make your case as to why it got it wrong.

You will be demolished, just as you were when you tried 3 separate threads to claim co2 was the driver of Venusian warming and Earth was analogous.

You appear confused. YOU were the one who claimed that CO2 played "almost no role" in warming Venus. A position you maintained in spite of being shown evidence to the contrary. Several times.

 

[3point14]

What are you doing now, fishing? That's quite ridiculous. Start a thread on Economics forum, carry your assertion there, and I'll answer it. You will be demolished, just as you were when you tried 3 separate threads to claim co2 was the driver of Venusian warming and Earth was analogous. But first, read the report and look at the specific phrases I used. Because you don't evidence any knowledge of the subject and I'll reply with specific page numbers and the relevance of them to my comments.

If you don't see the light, well go ahead and start your thread. You don't have a case or an issue to make, but I understand that some how you think you do.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that you have provided no economic evidence to back up your theory and appear to be running into the 'It's off topic, start another thread about it' corner while continuing to beg the question.

 

[mhaze]

You appear confused. YOU are the one doubting the CBO analysis, so it's for you to make your case as to why it got it wrong.





You appear confused. YOU were the one who claimed that CO2 played "almost no role" in warming Venus. A position you maintained in spite of being shown evidence to the contrary. Several times.

SAYING someone is confused does not mean they are, in your case it may be projection.

Also, you need to understand something. If someone says that he uses a differing DEFINITION of "unemployment" than the CBO, and therefore reaches different conclusions, this is different than your above assertion "You are the one doubting the CBO analysis". That may, or may not have validity as to the conclusion. You are not able to ascertain validity without comparing the two positions, so it is ridiculous of you to be critical.

Secondly, I suggest you go ahead and start a FOURTH thread on Venusian warming being similar to Earth and proving CO2 blah blah blah. Hey go ahead but can I make a suggestion? Give up on that and start the thread in economics on CBO blah blah. You might learn something.

The "Venus CO2" thing is ridiculous, the question about the CBO analysis is not ridiculous. Not if it is asked by someone from outside the US, at least.

I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that you have provided no economic evidence to back up your theory and appear to be running into the 'It's off topic, start another thread about it' corner while continuing to beg the question.

Sure, yeah, it's really off topic, but I'm saying I'll discuss it in the right place. Looks proper to me....unless you can explain what relation it's got to Newt's moon base?

 

[mhaze]

I'm an engineer, not an economist. It seems to me that estimating supply and demand curves based on assumptions of technology we don't (and may never) have is foolish. Convincing investors to put up money based on them would be dishonest.
....

A lot of investment prospectus documents have "forward reaching statements" which I have no issue as being alternately described by the phrase "dishonest". But that really depends on the exact wording.

Look, you said "demand does not change until fusion..."

But it does change. How many scientists would LIKE to do experiments very close to absolute zero, but cannot due to this issue?

 

[3point14]

Sure, yeah, it's really off topic, but I'm saying I'll discuss it in the right place. Looks proper to me....unless you can explain what relation it's got to Newt's moon base?

I really don't know, but I saw you make an unsuported assertion in response to a very well supported assertion and then try and handwave away the fact that you failed to produce evidence when your debating adversary produced a whole report. You were being dishonest in your debate and still are. If you're not prepared to discuss it here, you can't lean on it as a prop for your argument.

I thought I'd call you on it. I'm still calling you on it.

 

[mhaze]

I really don't know, but I saw you make an unsuported assertion in response to a very well supported assertion and then try and handwave away the fact that you failed to produce evidence when your debating adversary produced a whole report. You were being dishonest in your debate and still are. If you're not prepared to discuss it here, you can't lean on it as a prop for your argument.

I thought I'd call you on it. I'm still calling you on it.

Well, if you really don't know...I can't see the relation either. So I think I was pretty reasonable, because that's a serious detour. By contrast He3 price elasticity and quantity relation is related to the topic.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Look, you said "demand does not change until fusion..."

But it does change. How many scientists would LIKE to do experiments very close to absolute zero, but cannot due to this issue?

That seems to be an existing demand.

Since you have conceded the China Moon base point I will take my leave. Newt's Moon base campaign promise has been shown to be foolishly short-sighted. I'm not disputing that Mankind should build one sometime in the future, just that 8 years is far too severe a time restraint to put on such an endeavor.