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

[mhaze]

They included a $2B lander module...

-Bri

And another 12B lander module...

 

[BenBurch]

Looks like MHaze and Newt G want to follow in George W. Bush's footsteps; Today John Glenn was giving interviews for the 50th anniversary of his historic flight, and he blames The Shrub for the destruction of NASA's manned spaceflight effort. By telling NASA to go to the Moon and Mars without one dime of additional funding, said Glenn, there was no choice but end the shuttle program early and cancel many important unmanned science programs.

 

[mhaze]

Looks like MHaze and Newt G want to follow in George W. Bush's footsteps; Today John Glenn was giving interviews for the 50th anniversary of his historic flight, and he blames The Shrub for the destruction of NASA's manned spaceflight effort. By telling NASA to go to the Moon and Mars without one dime of additional funding, said Glenn, there was no choice but end the shuttle program early and cancel many important unmanned science programs.

Well, that makes no sense. There were solid practical reasons to go back to an Apollo style capsule, notably the entire launch system price per launch would have been half that of a shuttle launch. The back end first capsule reentry is fundamentally far, far safer than a winged system. The shuttle was eating up the money that could have funded a half dozen other things. It was obsolete, and it was risky. And we were just dodging the bullet on another catastrophe.

There's a solid history of failure in spaceflight were the systems were designed "too big". These include the original Station design, that was cancelled in the Clinton admin as I recall, and the Russian Energia booster, and our Apollo launch system. The Shuttle survived, but it was designed to go to and build a space station, and belatedly, it served that role. Once that was complete, it was I think totally rational to retire it.

Separately, there is Nasa's failure after 9B and 8 years to develop a practical alternative launch system. That's simply a failure of NASA, no reason to duck and dodge it.

Now we, and NASA, acknowledge that any future US manned spaceflight will be via private launch systems. That's where we are.

 

[Bri]

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".

Newt has already said that the moon base he's talking about would support thousands of inhabitants living there permanently (who could eventually apply for statehood).

-Bri

 

[BenBurch]

MHaze, Genius, now knows spaceflight better than John Glenn!

Sorry, that should be MHaze, SUPER-Genius.

 

[mhaze]

MHaze, Genius, now knows spaceflight better than John Glenn!

Sorry, that should be MHaze, SUPER-Genius.

good one. Don't get me started on the wonders of The World of Ben.

But answer this: Is John Glenn an expert on private manned spacecraft?

Nope.

 

[mhaze]

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.

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".

No, he certainly isn't talking about anything "timid". Neither are you "timid" in lying by omission. Here's the first sentence you left out, let's now look at it in context.

So, I’m going to give you a set of goals and then I’m going to make a set of observations about how to achieve those goals.

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

By leaving out the statement about "goals" you and some others in this thread have seriously misrepresented Newt's comment, haven't you? You've made it look "certain", a "promise" (that had to be fulfilled or he was lying, and you've alleged that because he "promised" it, it had to be thru a government program and not private companies working for a prize.

I'll let you explain your motives and or interpretation.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Since leaving Florida, Newt's campaign has not returned to this topic. I think even he realizes it was a dumb thing to say.

Carry on, mhaze.

 

[BenBurch]

Since leaving Florida, Newt's campaign has not returned to this topic. I think even he realizes it was a dumb thing to say.

Carry on, mhaze.

To be consistent would require that Newt had some integrity.

Divorcing a wife in the hospital and marrying the whore he was cheating with pretty much puts paid to any notion of integrity.

 

[Bri]

You've made it look "certain", a "promise" (that had to be fulfilled or he was lying, and you've alleged that because he "promised" it, it had to be thru a government program and not private companies working for a prize.

Can you tell me who in this thread has said that it had to be through a government program?

I'm sorry, but even if we take it to mean that they're just goals and he doesn't expect them to be realized (even though his phrasing clearly indicates otherwise), they're not particularly realistic goals. It's also silly for Newt to say that if we allocate money for an X-prize that's never spent we haven't lost anything.

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, he certainly isn't talking about anything "timid". Neither are you "timid" in lying by omission. Here's the first sentence you left out, let's now look at it in context.

I haven't omitted it. You're the one who explicitly denied that Newt promised a permanent base on the moon by the end of his second term.

So, I’m going to give you a set of goals and then I’m going to make a set of observations about how to achieve those goals.

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

Yes, these goals are his campaign promises. Again, they're even couched in terms of his winning the presidency (twice, actually). Why don't you consider these to be campaign promises?

By leaving out the statement about "goals" you and some others in this thread have seriously misrepresented Newt's comment, haven't you?

No, I haven't.


I have never claimed that Newt was making a prediction of the future that would happen whether or not he was elected president. I have consistently pointed out that these are campaign promises.

And, as I've pointed out, these promises are tied to his "how to do it" proposals (a $10 billion prize). You were the one who denied that for about half of this thread.

I've been pointing out that he has proposed no realistic way of achieving his grand and not-at-all timid campaign promises. I've further pointed out how utterly incompatible these promises are with his general fiscal proposals (his tax plan and his call for a balanced budget amdendment).
[ETA: And this language makes clear that YOU were wrong (or in your own terms, you were lying) when you claimed that his proposal for a prize was only about Mars and not about the promised moon base. Quoting the "goals" sentence makes this even more clear. That's partly why I kept suggesting you stop and read the entire transcript of the speech so you could stop denying that he was talking about "how to do it" wrt the promised moon base and continuous propulsion Mars rocket.]

You've made it look "certain", a "promise" (that had to be fulfilled or he was lying, and you've alleged that because he "promised" it, it had to be thru a government program and not private companies working for a prize.

[ETA: A prize offered by whom? Private companies? Again, the overall context of this is a presidential campaign. Newt even expressed the promise in terms of him winning the presidency for two terms. He is promising government action of some type that would result in a permanent moon base and a continuous propulsion rocket capable of reaching Mars very quickly by the end of his second term.]

No. I've pointed out that his campaign promise for a permanent moon based was expressed as a certainty. The idea that it wouldn't matter whether anyone could "figure it out" and win the prize is preposterous. First, it's preposterous to claim that the prize would cost us nothing; and second, if no one won the prize, this is not a way of fulfilling the campaign promise that he expressed as a certainty.

He didn't claim he would work toward a permanent moon base. He claimed that he would achieve it within 8 years. (The only conditional is the implied "if I'm elected president".)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Can you tell me who in this thread has said that it had to be through a government program?

Well, it's part of Newt's campaign to become POTUS, and it was couched in terms of his winning two terms as president, and the proposal for "how to do it" involved $10 billion from NASA's budget, so I'm not sure how it could be described as other than a government undertaking.

Early on, the first time mhaze denied that this was a government proposal, I asked why Newt couldn't just make it happen without winning the presidency? My implication was that it was clearly intended as a campaign promise for a government program. Haze had no answer to my question, because he was still pretending this wasn't a presidential campaign promise.

As for the logic behind the government being able to establish a $10 billion prize (or even a new $10 billion prize every year) and expect to achieve the big goals Newt is talking about within 8 years is preposterous.

At best, Newt is suggesting we stop all other NASA exploration projects (and most of its other projects) and ONLY work toward his goals*. Maybe that gets applause with the Planetary Society, but it won't sell anywhere else, I expect.

*And even that is assuming NASA's budget survives the great federal spending reduction that Newt's tax plan and balanced budget amendment would require (basically a reduction of $2.5 trillion in spending all in one year). I've pointed out that there isn't even a credible plan to preserve NASA's funding. (Mhaze suggested that cutting entitlements by $100 billion would do it. I pointed out that that would preclude a second term, and it's still about $2.4 trillion short of necessary spending cuts.)

 

[mhaze]

Can you tell me who in this thread has said that it had to be through a government program?

I'm sorry, but even if we take it to mean that they're just goals and he doesn't expect them to be realized (even though his phrasing clearly indicates otherwise), they're not particularly realistic goals. It's also silly for Newt to say that if we allocate money for an X-prize that's never spent we haven't lost anything.

-Bri

Well, you haven't done too well on supporting the argument that they are not realistic goals. Repeating it doesn't make it true, and continually calling on so-called "experts" who don't even have the premises of the argument right doesn't get you to home base.

By the way, is Newt's talk about a fast engine for Mars a fantasy? Here's the actual thing he is talking about, VASIMR.

http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/Missions

Just as with the Falcon Heavy/BA330 products, all you need to do to find the origins of Newt's ideas is to look at current research, development and fielding of systems in the private sector.

 

[Bri]

Well, it's part of Newt's campaign to become POTUS, and it was couched in terms of his winning two terms as president, and the proposal for "how to do it" involved $10 billion from NASA's budget, so I'm not sure how it could be described as other than a government undertaking.

Right, it would certainly be a government undertaking regardless, even if the technology wasn't actually implemented by the government, but the government only offered the prize.

However, mhaze said:

By leaving out the statement about "goals" you and some others in this thread have seriously misrepresented Newt's comment, haven't you? You've made it look "certain", a "promise" (that had to be fulfilled or he was lying, and you've alleged that because he "promised" it, it had to be thru a government program and not private companies working for a prize.​

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.

The argument has been that it's unlikely to be possible to accomplish it in 8 years, either through an X-prize or solely through NASA. Not without a much larger price tag than $10B, and not considering the deep spending cuts that would be required by Newt's tax plan and balanced budget amendment.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Well, you haven't done too well on supporting the argument that they are not realistic goals.

Other than presenting evidence of experts who don't think they are realistic goals, you mean?

Also, you seemed to indicate that you agreed that the Mars rocket isn't particularly realistic in 8 years.

By the way, is Newt's talk about a fast engine for Mars a fantasy? Here's the actual thing he is talking about, VASIMR.

I don't think anyone said his ideas are fantasy, just that they aren't likely to be accomplished as he described in the time frame he gave.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

Other than presenting evidence of experts who don't think they are realistic goals, you mean?

Also, you seemed to indicate that you agreed that the Mars rocket isn't particularly realistic in 8 years.

I don't think anyone said his ideas are fantasy, just that they aren't likely to be accomplished as he described in the time frame he gave.

-Bri

Yes, I do refer to your "evidence of experts".

The Mars rocket? You mean the one that's scheduled for testing on the ISS this year, shortly? That one, developed by a private company?

Realistic? Apparently a lot of people think it's realistic.

If you are referring to my skepticism regarding Mars human exploration it is based on different issues entirely. The rocket system as proposed most likely will do fine. I just don't see a clear profit in private ventures to Mars.

And I'm afraid we'd need to up the expected fatality rate. Earlier I said 5% was the record, and for the moon, we might be at 20%. Mars, it could go much higher. Somewhere upwards of 20%, that starts to be a bit troublesome,at least to me. Mars needs a great deal of work by robots before we go there. Well, that's my private opinion, Newt or others may not share it.

A great deal of work can be done on the Moon.

http://www.space.com/8236-3-printing-device-build-moon-base-lunar-dust.html

 

[mhaze]

Right, it would certainly be a government undertaking regardless, even if the technology wasn't actually implemented by the government, but the government only offered the prize.
.....

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.

 

[BenBurch]

BTW, the most likely result from any manned Mars mission is going to be dead astronauts. If not dead promptly, dead from cancers within a very few years.

There is simply no way to shield that you can afford to send to Mars.

You can go during the quiet part of the solar cycle, but quiet is only relative.

The only alternative is a rocket that can sustain a very high acceleration for weeks at a time and so get to Mars and back in a couple months. And we don't have a clue how to do that yet.

 

[mhaze]

So, I’m going to give you a set of goals and then I’m going to make a set of observations about how to achieve those goals.

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

....You're the one who explicitly denied that Newt promised a permanent base on the moon by the end of his second term.

Yes, these goals are his campaign promises. ....

Well, now "goals" are "promises", are they? I guess we are sliding into Joe-World now. But let's try to keep things pretty steady, if you don't mind. I don't think we need to vomit up definitions of the two words for anyone to know the differences between them.

I could agree that he promised those would be the goals, but not that he promised the goals would be reached, or that "goals" are "promises".

This goes back to what I said earlier, that he was trying to set or re establish, a vision for the country as a whole.

 

[mhaze]

BTW, the most likely result from any manned Mars mission is going to be dead astronauts. If not dead promptly, dead from cancers within a very few years.

There is simply no way to shield that you can afford to send to Mars.

You can go during the quiet part of the solar cycle, but quiet is only relative.

The only alternative is a rocket that can sustain a very high acceleration for weeks at a time and so get to Mars and back in a couple months. And we don't have a clue how to do that yet.

Although there are specific details there that I disagree with, this is only ONE of the ways that death could occur on a Mars mission. Don't forget simple, stupid things like stuck propellant valves.

A manned mission to Mars would be about like proposing that the Wright brothers could have flown across the Atlantic.