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

[johnny karate]

Here are your earlier comments which show almost total ignorance of the subject of the thread along with your lies about my attitudes and opinions.

Note that once again, we see mhaze favouring massive government intervention in a market imply because some Republican has made it part of their platform. This continues with the pattern where mhaze will support any form of market intervention as long as it’s proposed by Republicans and oppose any form of action to remove externalities from a market when it’s proposed by Democrats.

You want to create a massive subsidy for the production of He3 (or you simply want nationalized production of He3 so it can be handed out as a subsidy to a preferred industry) in an attempt to make an otherwise unattractive business appealing to investors. Both forms are subsidies and therefore market interventions and as others have pointed out both are bad business decisions that would do nothing but waste massive amounts of taxpayer money.

That'd be the massively expensive moon base you are foolishly trying to argue for...​

Funny. They don't seem to have much relation to the facts.

Aw....

Did you not do your homework?

Not sure why you're being so coy about your love of Big Government. You can deny lomiller's point all you want, but it doesn't really matter. You are already on record:

The US makes energy independence a national security matter, allowing squashing dissent and legal challenges to nuclear power plants by presidential executive order. Bonds are issued for funding of nuclear plants, to the order of a minimum of $100B per year for twenty years. New designs are put into production by US Government funding, including thorium reactors. A minimum of twenty reactors per year for ten years.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

By the way, the first X Prize was an relatively modest thing. It was a challenge for private entities to reproduce what governments had accomplished decades earlier.

Has Space Ship One yielded anyone a profit yet? (I think Allen spent some $25 million on it in order to win the $10 million X Prize, and the ship was retired before making a 4th flight.) I don't know if Space Ship Two or Three have started commercial spaceflights yet. I haven't heard any such thing.

Remember, Newt's talking about getting results by 2020! He's not talking about a competition that might yield profitable results decades in the future.

 

[BenBurch]

Joe, it might have been suicide to make a fourth flight. They really needed to examine some of the dynamics. These were very difficult craft to fly.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Joe, it might have been suicide to make a fourth flight. They really needed to examine some of the dynamics. These were very difficult craft to fly.

I understand. The X-prize was more or less a proof-of-concept contest. It wasn't about a practical end result (profitable commercial spaceflight).

Newt has made tangible promises to be fulfilled within 8 years. I'm trying to point out that the X Prize model won't fulfill those promises.

I think mhaze is trying to argue that Newt's $10 billion prize idea is completely independent of the tangible promises he has made (so it doesn't matter if nothing comes of it since it would then cost us almost nothing). If so, mhaze's strongest argument is that Newt hasn't said a word about how he hopes to fulfill his promises.

ETA: See the bolding in the quote of Newt's speech in my post 320. I personally think mhaze is misreading the relationship between this $10 billion prize idea and Newt's grandiose promises. I think Newt intended the prize idea to be an example of how he proposes to accomplish what he has promised. That's why it matters very much that it wouldn't succeed.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And FWIW, tying up $10 billion of NASA's budget carries an opportunity cost. Again, given Newt's bizarre tax policy, this cost could be very significant.

 

[mhaze]

By the way, the first X Prize was an relatively modest thing. It was a challenge for private entities to reproduce what governments had accomplished decades earlier.

Has Space Ship One yielded anyone a profit yet? (I think Allen spent some $25 million on it in order to win the $10 million X Prize, and the ship was retired before making a 4th flight.) I don't know if Space Ship Two or Three have started commercial spaceflights yet. I haven't heard any such thing.

Remember, Newt's talking about getting results by 2020! He's not talking about a competition that might yield profitable results decades in the future.

Modest? Essentially duplicating the flights done by the X15 for one tenth the cost, (going down by another 3x with SS2)? You have GOT to be joking now.

Have they yielded a profit? You know what, I don't care. Not your concern either. It's a matter between Virgin Galactic and the PAYING CUSTOMERS.

Have they started commercial flight yet?

Nope. Takes a little while to get the kinks ironed out. Having a couple people killed during testing didn't help. By the way, X15 cost per flight was $3M. Rutan states the that per flight cost of SS1 is $300K. Ten to one difference....

http://www.space.com/13313-suborbital-spaceflight-virgin-galactic-space-tourism.html

Looks like New Mexico thinks they will succeed

http://www.spaceportamerica.com/

 

[mhaze]

And FWIW, tying up $10 billion of NASA's budget carries an opportunity cost. Again, given Newt's bizarre tax policy, this cost could be very significant.

Really? Opportunity cost? First you were arguing that prizes for stretching the envelope far beyond what had been done on a given budge was ridiculous, so I showed some proof of why and how that worked. Now you are arguing that setting aside money for successful private companies that stretch the envelope has "an opportunity cost".

Backwards, Joe. It's the exact opposite. It's the cost of the opportunities the prizes are scheduled for.

Here's one from DARPA. Different scheme for payments, note.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_Grand_Challenge

Here's another one that is ridiculous.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/business/worldbusiness/09iht-climate.4540392.html

....ETA: See the bolding in the quote of Newt's speech in my post 320. I personally think mhaze is misreading the relationship between this $10 billion prize idea and Newt's grandiose promises. I think Newt intended the prize idea to be an example of how he proposes to accomplish what he has promised. That's why it matters very much that it wouldn't succeed.

You still don't get it, I am afraid. It doesn't matter at all to me if it succeeds or not. If it does not, then the prize is reshaped and reissued. Different rules, different money, timeframe, etc. Economically, a successful prize is one that attracts competitors, and which causes $100B of spending and R&D development for a 10B prize. That has a local economic effect of $500B for "setting aside" of $10B (of course it isn't really "set aside" because that money isn't printed until it has to be).

Economically, "success" is nothing more than having NASA set aside 10% of it's budget for prizes, and having a dozen floating around at any given time, with the commesurate economic effects. NASA's budget is 20B. Using a number of 20% for taxation, $100B of economic activity generates the $20B. Any level of economic activity above 100B means NASA has paid it's own way and is a profit center to the government, not a cost.

 

[mhaze]

....
I think mhaze is trying to argue that Newt's $10 billion prize idea is completely independent of the tangible promises he has made (so it doesn't matter if nothing comes of it since it would then cost us almost nothing). If so, mhaze's strongest argument is that Newt hasn't said a word about how he hopes to fulfill his promises......

Newt has EXPLICITLY STATED that he'd use a sequence of prizes through NASA as the means to reach goal in the space programs. This is not "debatable". I guess you can deny it all you want. He's also stated that we could have a moonbase by the end of his second term. When you make up something like "Newt hasn't said a word about how he hopes to fulfill these promises" you are ignoring reality. He's said explicitly how he'd do it - set up prizes and let private industry choose the methods and practices.

Argue all you want that it isn't feasible within 8 years (ignore that was how long it took to (A) develop suitable rocket motors from scratch (B) development the largest space boosters in history from scratch (C) develop vehicles suitable for LEO to moon and return (D) put a man on the moon...during the Apollo program.

I think it's more likely not that it can't be done, but that you wouldn't like the way it was done. Suppose Newt fired all the EPA inspectors that tried one way or another to slow or shut the projects down. As an example. Suppose he simply ordered the EPA to a status of "no environmental impact statements on any private space efforts".

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Really? Opportunity cost? First you were arguing that prizes for stretching the envelope far beyond what had been done on a given budge was ridiculous, so I showed some proof of why and how that worked. Now you are arguing that setting aside money for successful private companies that stretch the envelope has "an opportunity cost".

Yes, haze, I believe such a prize is ridiculous, and I also believe tying up $10 billion of NASA's budget--especially considering Newt's tax plan which would cut federal revenues by $1.2 trillion in 2015--is a significant opportunity cost.

Backwards, Joe. It's the exact opposite. It's the cost of the opportunities the prizes are scheduled for.

No. My pointing the out the opportunity cost of tying up $10 billion of NASA's budget is a refutation of the claim, "If they don’t figure it out, it didn’t cost us anything."

[ETA: You keep bringing up the JREF MDC. You realize that JREF has to have $1 million held aside that they cannot use for any other purpose. The fact that no one has won the money, doesn't mean they can use that money. That's an opportunity cost. IN the case of JREF, that money was mostly from a gift for the purpose of establishing the million dollar prize, but in the case of Newt's proposal, the money would be coming out of NASA's budget. And remember again, Newt has proposed to drastically cut federal revenues. I'm not sure NASA would even have a budget over $10 billion under Newt's administration!]

You still don't get it, I am afraid. It doesn't matter at all to me if it succeeds or not. If it does not, then the prize is reshaped and reissued.

If it does not, we will have tied up $10 billion that could have been used for something that would result in science and space exploration, and more importantly if it does not, there's no way Newt's campaign promises can be fulfilled.

Remember, Newt introduced the bit of his speech about establishing a $10 billion prize by saying, "So let’s go back to how to do it." The "it" he was referring to were his grand promises about what he guaranteed would happen by 2020.

Get it?

Economically, "success" is nothing more than having NASA set aside 10% of it's [sic] budget for prizes, and having a dozen floating around at any given time, with the commesurate [sic] economic effects. NASA's budget is 20B.

Bull. "Success" is establishing a permanent base on a moon and getting humans to Mars using a continuous powered rocket capable of getting to Mars in a surprisingly short time. Newt promised these things by 2020. He proposed the prize as "how to do it".

ETA: And now are you claiming that $10 billion is 10% of $20 billion?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Newt has EXPLICITLY STATED that he'd use a sequence of prizes through NASA as the means to reach goal in the space programs.

And we're back to the objection most of us voiced early on in this thread: where is Newt going to get the money to fund all these prizes to fulfill his promises within 8 years?

So let's say he has a new $10 billion prize each year. Do you think $80 billion in prize money (it'd really be only 60 or 70, depending on which years you count) will result in the fulfillment of a half a trillion dollar (a wildly low estimate) project?

 

[mhaze]

And we're back to the objection most of us voiced early on in this thread: where is Newt going to get the money to fund all these prizes to fulfill his promises within 8 years?

So let's say he has a new $10 billion prize each year. Do you think $80 billion in prize money (it'd really be only 60 or 70, depending on which years you count) will result in the fulfillment of a half a trillion dollar (a wildly low estimate) project?[/QUOTE]
Joe, you don't seem to actually know anything about this stuff. You are trying to quote from previous stuff said in the thread. Why not just go read transcripts of Newt's and criticize them? Most of what I've been doing here is just correcting wrong statements, sometimes offering a personal opinion on them. Your last two posts are basically, more of the same.

But let's take one of them...bolded.

Prizes are intended to stretch technology. Remember my comment, SS1 less than 1/10 cost per flight of X15? So take a half trillion dollar project.

SS1 cost 25M, X15 300M. Entire Apollo project, 500B. what is a reasonable stretch for private company prize?

 

[johnny karate]

Most of what I've been doing here is just correcting wrong statements, sometimes offering a personal opinion on them.

No mostly what you've been doing is ignoring the arguments put forth by Joe, myself and others, and talking in circles.

Newt promised a moon base by 2020. Newt has not offered a way to guarantee that can happen. This either makes him a liar or an idiot. I'll leave it to you to sort out which.

Furthermore, the "plan" Newt did put forth is too ridiculous to even consider - let lone work - due to its failures in both financial feasibility and basic math. No one is going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to win a "prize" worth substantially less.

Also, if you're going to lecture someone on their lack of knowledge on a topic, it helps if you format the post correctly. Nothing undercuts a snarky swipe at someone else's intelligence more than an inability to properly use the quote function. I ain't rocket science, after all.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Joe, you don't seem to actually know anything about this stuff.

Well that's a well reasoned argument against the points I've made. OH wait--no it's not.

Why not just go read transcripts of Newt's and criticize them?

See my post number 320.

You're just wrong in your argument that the $10 billion prize Newt suggested is not his proposal for how to accomplish his grand campaign promises to establish a permanent moon base and so on by 2020. It's clear he says this is how to do it. He then recognizes that it's possible to fail (which goes against his promise that these things will happen), and he bizarrely insists that if it fails, it will have cost us nothing.

And yet again, this is the same candidate whose tax proposal will reduce federal revenues by $1.2 billion in a single year!

ETA: And you're still screwing up the quote tags. You can't put a close bold tag inside a close quote tag.

 

[mhaze]

Well that's a well reasoned argument against the points I've made. OH wait--no it's not.



See my post number 320.

You're just wrong in your argument that the $10 billion prize Newt suggested is not his proposal for how to accomplish his grand campaign promises to establish a permanent moon base and so on by 2020. It's clear he says this is how to do it. He then recognizes that it's possible to fail (which goes against his promise that these things will happen), and he bizarrely insists that if it fails, it will have cost us nothing.....

You mean, the post 320 where he talks about a Mars mission, and you translate that into a moon base? That's the sort of thing that led me to suggest you actually go read his words. Although it's certainly true that he is suggesting the use of prizes for those two, and numerous other space objectives. But that specific quote is about a Mars mission.

Yea, if it fails, it costs nothing. You suggest the phrase "opportunity cost" to refer to NASA budgeted money that's not spent. A lot of people would think not spending budgeted money was a good thing, since we are spending 40% over budget. Wait.....That's just about that 1.2T that you are so fearly about Newt slashing. Odd...

And come to think of it, maybe we do need "a prize" for some of those things that you ridicule. Such as a cure for Aids. Instead of ... big government programs that suck money and give little or nothing back.....

Hey, that wouldn't be the sort of thing that puts us over 1.2T behind in spending vs revenue each year would it?

Nawww....

Wait...

 

[mhaze]

.....Newt promised a moon base by 2020. Newt has not offered a way to guarantee that can happen. This either makes him a liar or an idiot. I'll leave it to you to sort out which......

No problem.

• Liars: The politicians that tell you the great things they will do with your and my money.
• Idiots: The people who believe them.
• Useful idiots: The people who repeat the lies of the politicians to the Idiots.

Newt does not and should not offer "guarantees".

 

[johnny karate]

No problem.

• Liars: The politicians that tell you the great things they will do with your and my money.
• Idiots: The people who believe them.
• Useful idiots: The people who repeat the lies of the politicians to the Idiots.

Newt does not and should not offer "guarantees".

"By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American."

So you deem Newt a liar. Fair enough.

Seems it would have been easier for you to have said that in the beginning instead of carrying on with all this pointless bloviation.

 

[BenBurch]

"By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American."

So you deem Newt a liar. Fair enough.

Seems it would have been easier for you to have said that in the beginning instead of carrying on with all this pointless bloviation.

At least he is making himself useful.

 

[Bri]

Yea, if it fails, it costs nothing. You suggest the phrase "opportunity cost" to refer to NASA budgeted money that's not spent. A lot of people would think not spending budgeted money was a good thing, since we are spending 40% over budget.

So let's just tie up a bunch of money and do nothing with it. Same result.

I suspect few people would think that'd be a good thing.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

So let's just tie up a bunch of money and do nothing with it. Same result.

I suspect few people would think that'd be a good thing.

-Bri

Surrreeee.....

• By that logic the prize that Charles Linbergh won did not result in beneficial side effects, did not stretch the envelope. Let me ponder that wisdom on my next transatlantic flight.
  
• By that logic the X Prize did not stretch the envelope, show that private companies can replicate the feats of the X15 at less than 1/10 the cost, and lead to private spaceports and private suborbital rocketry.

That's clearly the worthless end results of "tying up a bunch of money and doing nothing with it".

Who would be so stupid as to want to do something like that?

 

[johnny karate]

Edited by Cuddles: 

Edited quote of moderated post.

How am lying?

You said: "Liars: The politicians that tell you the great things they will do with your and my money."

Newt Gingrich said: "By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon, and it will be American."

By your definition, Newt is a liar. Unless you can explain why his grandiose declaration is exempt from the standards you set.