Gingrich invokes Kennedy - Promises Lunar Moon Base by 2020

[cybrsage]

Great thinking there: fund super expensive as far as we know possibly useless endeavors that are virtually impossible because they will surely result in useful "civilian" advances.

It is a great idea, and I am glad you finally understand.

Do you really believe that lasik surgery wouldn't have happened without Star Wars? You're really reaching there.

Who, other than you, claimed this?

 

[Jeff7]

I imagine a similar stance was taken by many when Columbus was contemplating and talking about his expedition.

The moon may be a big useless rock from a colonization perspective... or it may be a mineral/raw material paradise. We won't know until we go.

It'd be awesome if the collision that formed the Moon ended up leaving the platinum-group elements closer to the crust than they're theorized to be on Earth. Platinum-group elements like to be around iron, and during Earth's formation, they'd have sunk to the bottom of the delicious liquid center. Maybe the collision was severe enough to blast away some of that into the debris field that coalesced into the Moon, though if it also (briefly) ended up with a liquid core, the platinum-groupers would be down there too.


So, I would instead propose that the US Government divert its Moon colony funds to a joint project with Sunkist to build a giant straw to tap into the valuable metals at Earth's center.
(Sorry, I just found that mental image to be amusing. )

 

[Modelworks]

It would be nice if it were possible, but financially I can't see the USA doing what is proposed without some major changes. Eventually it could easily pay for itself. The moon is rich in helium 3 which as a fuel source is capable of power the entire united states for 1 year off of just 1 shuttle payload full.

 

[ichy]

It would be nice if it were possible, but financially I can't see the USA doing what is proposed without some major changes. Eventually it could easily pay for itself. The moon is rich in helium 3 which as a fuel source is capable of power the entire united states for 1 year off of just 1 shuttle payload full.

Lol yeah, there's just that minor problem of achieving self-sustaining nuclear fusion.

 

[dainthomas]

Lol yeah, there's just that minor problem of achieving self-sustaining nuclear fusion.

According to Back to the Future, I can already power my truck off of a couple banana peels and a half full can of Bud.

 

[Modelworks]

Lol yeah, there's just that minor problem of achieving self-sustaining nuclear fusion.

Even if you don't use it for fusion immediately it is a valuable item to sell for research purposes. There are lots of other minerals the moon has in abundance that are just as valuable so mining the moon is very feasible. It just takes the right group of people with enough financing to get it started, the high start up cost is the main issue.

What is the value of that Helium 3?

“About 25 tonnes of He3 would power the United States for 1 year at our current rate of energy consumption. To put it in perspective: that’s about the weight of a fully loaded railroad box car, or a maximum Space Shuttle payload.

To assign an economic value, suppose we assume He3 would replace the fuels the United States currently buys to generate electricity. We still have all those power generating plants and distribution network, so we can’t use how much we pay for electricity. As a replacement for that fuel, that 25-tonne load of He3 would worth on the order of $75 billion today, or $3 billion per tonne.
The Payoff

A guess is the best we can do. Let’s suppose that by the time we’re slinging tanks of He3 off the moon, the world-wide demand is 100 tonnes of the stuff a year, and people are happy to pay $3 billion per tonne. That gives us gross revenues of $300 billion a year.

To put that number in perspective: Ignoring the cost of money and taxes and whatnot, that rate of income would launch a moon shot like our reference mission every day for the next 10,000 years. (At which point, we will have used up all the helium-3 on the moon and had better start thinking about something else.)”

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Even if you don't use it for fusion immediately it is a valuable item to sell for research purposes. There are lots of other minerals the moon has in abundance that are just as valuable so mining the moon is very feasible. It just takes the right group of people with enough financing to get it started, the high start up cost is the main issue.

What minerals discovered on the Moon are worth 70k or so a pound (that's the break even cost of transportation, neglecting the cost of acquiring it.)?

 

[BoberFett]

I love the right... build up our infrastructure....FUCK NO WE CAN't AFFORD IT!!!! But the moon? Oh yeah baby let's go!.... Wow just wow. Of course, this isn't exactly unexpected.

Newt = The Right?

 

[ichy]

It's not just start up cost, operating costs are going to be insane as well. Mining pure gold on the Moon wouldn't be profitable.

 

[zsdersw]

It's not just start up cost, operating costs are going to be insane as well. Mining pure gold on the Moon wouldn't be profitable.

It's not just the start up cost, operating costs are going to be insane as well. Setting sail for the New World wouldn't be profitable.

 

[ichy]

It's not just the start up cost, operating costs are going to be insane as well. Setting sail for the New World wouldn't be profitable.

If you think that the two things are in any way comparable you don't know very much about this topic.

 

[Karl Agathon]

If he promised a warp capable ship, then that would catch my attention :awe:

 

[Acanthus]

i am surprised there isn't already a MOONBASE meme.

Didn't he also say other outrageous things like when the moonbase reaches 37000 people it can apply for statehood?

 

[Muse]

I imagine a similar stance was taken by many when Columbus was contemplating and talking about his expedition.

The moon may be a big useless rock from a colonization perspective... or it may be a mineral/raw material paradise. We won't know until we go.

Uh, that's a great reason to spend a trillion dollars. In the words of William Blake "the poor man's farthing is worth more than all the gold on Africa's shore." Let's address our serious issues before we go after pie in the sky, especially pie that may turn out to be worth less than a cow turd. The US infrastructure is in a critical state of disrepair. Are you one of those people who thinks that investing in certain projects will fix the ones that people would rather not address directly by virtue of trickle down effects? I do not believe that the expense of prospecting on the moon is worth the gamble, and make no mistake it's a huge gamble. Columbus sailing to the West Indies was no big deal. He just took a sailing ship that already existed, and sailed west, big fucking deal.

 

[zsdersw]

If you think that the two things are in any way comparable you don't know very much about this topic.

The attitude is comparable. "It's expensive so we shouldn't do it" is a terrible attitude for a society to have that wants to advance.

 

[zsdersw]

Uh, that's a great reason to spend a trillion dollars. In the words of William Blake "the poor man's farthing is worth more than all the gold on Africa's shore." Let's address our serious issues before we go after pie in the sky, especially pie that may turn out to be worth less than a cow turd. The US infrastructure is in a critical state of disrepair. Are you one of those people who thinks that investing in certain projects will fix the ones that people would rather not address directly by virtue of trickle down effects? I do not believe that the expense of prospecting on the moon is worth the gamble, and make no mistake it's a huge gamble. Columbus sailing to the West Indies was no big deal. He just took a sailing ship that already existed, and sailed west, big fucking deal.

Well, there are many things wrong with what Newt said, what others have proposed, and the timelines for making it all happen... but the point I'm making is that we shouldn't shy away from big challenges.

I have no doubt that the material composition of the moon can be determined ahead of time without needing a permanent base and without a huge price tag. If it's not worth anything in raw materials, fine... it wasn't a huge cost to find that out. If it is, though, that's when we try to make the economies-of-scale work and figure out how to mine the moon economically.

 

[Fern]

NASA has a plan 'B' that looks like it could achieve Newt's plan and would cost about $40 billion over 10 years. I.e., $4 billion per years. That's chump change compared to what we spend now.

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/30/10271899-to-the-moon-its-not-that-loony

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

NASA has a plan 'B' that looks like it could achieve Newt's plan and would cost about $40 billion over 10 years. I.e., $4 billion per years. That's chump change compared to what we spend now.

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/30/10271899-to-the-moon-its-not-that-loony

Fern

We should abandon the old paradigm of heavy launch vehicles and build a Space Elevator which would recoup it's costs in short order and that doesn't count advances in material science.

 

[Craig234]

I saw muse quote this:

Originally Posted by zsdersw
I imagine a similar stance was taken by many when Columbus was contemplating and talking about his expedition.

The moon may be a big useless rock from a colonization perspective... or it may be a mineral/raw material paradise. We won't know until we go.

You need to learn history.

On Columbus, 'a lot of people' didn't say much at all about it. Spain was a monarchy and it was the choice of the King and Queen to fund the voyage. It was expensive (for example his second voyage took 1,200 men) and Columbus promised to return with much gold - as well as spices and silk, from Asia where he was planning to go.

This promise of returning with gold is what was behind the horrific genocide of millions of natives forcing them to find gold that wasn't there, killing all of them in 30 years.

On the moon, um, we know pretty well its composition.

 

[LumbergTech]

Not a Gingrich fan, but I support the idea. America needs a new purpose and needs to regain its can do attitude. The people shit talking this apparently would rather that some other country sets all the precedents and reaps all the rewards. I would be very proud of our country if we set a big goal and worked towards it.

 

[Muse]

It is a great idea, and I am glad you finally understand.

Your sarcasm (not to mention your premise) just boggles the mind.

Who, other than you, claimed this?

Lasers predate Star Wars, early versions were there in the early 1960s. The uses of lasers are derived from the understanding of the technology, not the ill-conceived and foolishly spendthrift project of Ronald Reagan to protect the USA from the threat of nuclear attack by arming satellites with high powered lasers. And you know, the only way to test such a system is to endure an attack, not something any 1% sane person would want to happen. It was just a colossal waste of money.

 

[Muse]

Not a Gingrich fan, but I support the idea. America needs a new purpose and needs to regain its can do attitude. The people shit talking this apparently would rather that some other country sets all the precedents and reaps all the rewards. I would be very proud of our country if we set a big goal and worked towards it.

Well, you know the now shopworn adage: Be careful what you wish for, you may get it. I personally hope we will have more to brag about in 2020 than that we've colonized the goddamn moon.

 

[DrPizza]

DP you make some good points but I'd disagree with one. There is no physical law known which would prevent colonization of other worlds. It's not technically feasable now but even I can give reasonable ways based on current ideas which may not be an issue in a few hundred years, and at time I would think they would appear quaint.

I'll leave open this possibility: some sort of antimatter/matter reactor. There was another recent thread where I went over a lot of the calculations - did you see those calculations? I invited people to attempt to poke holes in them. I haven't checked back, but afaik, no one was able to dispute the figures.

The physical law I'm mostly referring to is conservation of energy. The minimum amount of energy necessary for such a trip is overwhelmingly huge. Chemically, impossible. Via fusion - borderline, but I believe on the impossible side. That is, unless you decide that your goal isn't necessarily to travel to another star, but rather, to build a permanent traveling space base that doesn't depend on solar power. By permanent, I mean, 1000's of years of generation after generation of humans.

 

[Craig234]

Well, you know the now shopworn adage: Be careful what you wish for, you may get it. I personally hope we will have more to brag about in 2020 than that we've colonized the goddamn moon.

That's 8 years away. What do we have since 8 years ago? Things are going the wrong direction as the wealthy have crippled our country.

 

[zsdersw]

You need to learn history.

On Columbus, 'a lot of people' didn't say much at all about it. Spain was a monarchy and it was the choice of the King and Queen to fund the voyage. It was expensive (for example his second voyage took 1,200 men) and Columbus promised to return with much gold - as well as spices and silk, from Asia where he was planning to go.

This promise of returning with gold is what was behind the horrific genocide of millions of natives forcing them to find gold that wasn't there, killing all of them in 30 years.

On the moon, um, we know pretty well its composition.

No, actually, we don't "know pretty well its composition". We know some rare-earth elements and things like Thorium are there, but we don't know what the concentrations are, where they're located, or how they're dispersed in the moon's crust.

The only way we'll know for sure is to get and study drilling samples and do some actual prospecting.