Gingrich in Florida: How does the idea of a colony on the moon grab you?
posted at 8:30 pm on January 25, 2012 by Allahpundit
Just last night I was thinking, “If only Obama would add permanent lunar colonies to his endless wish list of federal projects.”
He promised this speech would be “visionary,” didn’t he? You want the Alvin Toffler candidate, you’ve got the Alvin Toffler candidate:
To cheers and applause in an area that has suffered major job losses since the cancellation of the space shuttle, Gingrich said, “By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American.
“We will have commercial near-Earth activities that include science, tourism, and manufacturing, and are designed to create a robust industry precisely on the model of the development of the airlines of the 1930s, because it is in our interest to acquire so much experience in space that we clearly have a capacity that the Chinese and the Russians will never come anywhere close to matching.”…
Responding to rival Mitt Romney’s criticism of his proposal for a lunar settlement, Gingrich said, “When we have 13,000 Americans living on the moon, they can petition to become a state. And here’s the difference between romantics and so-called practical people. I wanted every young American to say to themselves, ‘I could be one of those 13,000. I could be a pioneer. I need to study science and math and engineering. I need to learn how to be a technician. I can be a part of building a bigger, better future.’”
This is, and isn’t, a pander aimed at the locals. It is in the sense that waving big money at NASA is always a crowd-pleaser among Florida’s space industry, but Gingrich comes by it honestly. He’s been pushing this idea for decades in his books. One memorable passage:
I believe space tourism will be a common fact of life during the adulthood of children born this year, that honeymoons in space will be the vogue by 2020. Imagine weightlessness and its effects and you will understand some of the attractions.
Yes, he means just what you think he means. My issue with Gingrich isn’t that the goal is unworthy — Ace does a nice job explaining the national-greatness appeal of big space programs to conservatives — but that message discipline on spending is desperately needed if the GOP is going to convince voters that our fiscal crisis is as dire as it is. How do you tell seniors that we need to start cutting Medicare if you’re busy telling space contractors to get cracking on moon igloos or whatever? And as for national greatness, says Ace, “I can see it going the other direction, more likely — that screw-ups, overruns, general incompetence, and graft and corrupt contracts would wind up diminishing the American spirit you’re trying to build up.” I’m in Gabe Malor’s camp on this one. If/when the day comes that we’ve shaken our status as the brokest nation in human history, then we’ll talk about the space igloos. Maybe. Click the image to watch.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Some of these people will never understand, nor do they want to. Instead they’ll use their virtual phones, computers and let their brain and their creativity dry up. Hence that’s why the US is on the decline. Dreaming is absolutely American. Hell most of you Romney supporters are getting good at it by dreaming that Mitt will win the election.
noneoftheabove on January 25, 2012 at 9:46 PM
Some people call me the space cowboy some call me the gangster of love…
BoxHead1 on January 25, 2012 at 9:46 PM
This is a quick and nasty analysis based on what he has said before, but I believe most of his space proposals are prize-based, aren’t they? So any spending on these goals would only come after they are accomplished.
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on January 25, 2012 at 9:48 PM
http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/135989/
Glenn Reynolds answers my question on space treaties and moon statehood. I think he actually teaches classes on space law.
Mark1971 on January 25, 2012 at 9:48 PM
Okay, I have considered the source and realize Slate is not among the friendlies, but it does make mucho sense and is a caliente read(that’s my pander to Hispanic voters in Florida): Newt Gingrich, Mildly Hypomaniacal?
Buy Danish on January 25, 2012 at 9:49 PM
you can expand it SF short-story, or novel, depending how much time you have on your hands…I know Asimov and Douglas Adams would be envious :-)…
jimver on January 25, 2012 at 9:49 PM
‘expand it into’…
jimver on January 25, 2012 at 9:50 PM
Some people call me Maurice
Cause’ I speak of the pompetous of love
OMG. Sooooo Newt!
Rational Thought on January 25, 2012 at 9:50 PM
1punchWill on January 25, 2012 at 9:34 PM
He’s got my vote now because of it.
I’m not happy with the field; and no, I don’t want Sarah Palin either. So you have to draw the line and say, “What could be a tipping point? What do I think would make a difference?”
So for me, and others apparently, it’s thinking big. It’s getting back to the America of ‘We can do it dammit’ instead of Food Stamp Nation. Landing a man on the moon was the greatest achievement of the human species, and AMERICA did it, and that was nearly 43 years ago. No one has matched it, no one has come CLOSE.
So why is it bad to dream big like that? Have you read any of the background around the moon landings and things like NERVA (a development effort that was related to the moon mission)? The research and diligence that went into the effort to land men on the moon cemented our tech lead, (in NERVA’s case), lead to groundbreaking understanding of materials, pushed computers to their limits. It moved us and our companies ahead of other nations, and it can do so again.
Maybe Newt is pandering a little, but not entirely. He’s talked about space related endeavours for a while now, and despite some derision and teasing, continues to talk about it. It’s a great idea and it can transform our nation and put it back on track, steer it from the narcissism, consumerism and self-absorption that plagues it now to a nation of energised citizens who aren’t looking for a government handout, but looking to the heavens. Dreams built America and they can do so again. We have it in our power to begin the world over again.
linlithgow on January 25, 2012 at 9:51 PM
BOXHEAD 1:
THAT WAS HYSTERICAL!Thanks, best laugh I had all day!
thatsafactjack on January 25, 2012 at 9:51 PM
Very well said.
noneoftheabove on January 25, 2012 at 9:52 PM
This discussion sort of reminds me of the Louisianan Purchase. Small minded people said it was crazy. We didn’t even know what was out there until Lewis and Clark went to see what we had bought.
Our future is in science and exploration not in trying to “spread the wealth” around.
The dims killed the super-collider that was already under construction in Texas. What are we doing with fusion research? Nanotechnology holds fantastic promise for future development. That’s just off the top of my head. I know that there is much much more.
Kaffa on January 25, 2012 at 9:53 PM
really, you think the rest of the world will let you keep it :-)…
jimver on January 25, 2012 at 9:53 PM
If moon colonies is such a great idea, why doesn’t Newt invests his own money and looks for investors to fund a private enterprise dedicated to establish moon colonies?
If Newt supporters really believe this is a fine idea, they wouldn’t send him their votes: rather their savings.
Of course, that would make Newt an entrepreneur and capitalist like Romney – he could even use private equity – and that would be abominable. What true conservatives like Newt do is use taxpayers money to purse their “big dreams”.
joana on January 25, 2012 at 9:54 PM
I have nothing against space or going to the moon. but we cannot even afford to keep our own space station in orbit.
we owe 16 trillion dollars. we need to bring down the deficit.
After Newt does that then he can talk about moon bases.
this is greater pandering than ethanol subsidiies,green energy.
gerrym51 on January 25, 2012 at 9:56 PM
Newt is a great fan of history and history often repeats itself. Newt will implode – he always has and always will. Hopefully it will be during the primaries and not the GE.
bw222 on January 25, 2012 at 9:57 PM
I like it! The funding explained:
tinkerthinker on January 25, 2012 at 9:57 PM
wouldn’t it make more sense to make colopnies in deserts, or antarctica,or at the bottom of the ocean. can’t be more expensive than moon colonies
gerrym51 on January 25, 2012 at 9:59 PM
Bulletchaser on January 25, 2012 at 9:42 PM
Unfortunately you sum it up all too well. =(
linlithgow on January 25, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Oh brother.
alwaysfiredup on January 25, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Obama’s a visionary with “green energy” hows that going
gerrym51 on January 25, 2012 at 10:02 PM
Damn! A whole lot of American Declinist talk among the Dreamboat Mitty camp.
I guess you folks think we should just be another good little grey and quiet nation like Belgium.
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on January 25, 2012 at 10:02 PM
What’s the average age of poster on this site? I’m just curious because somewhere along the way most were not taught how to dream and to me, that’s as bad as Obama apoligizing for this country’s success. China has tried to secure all the precious metals, US is on the decline and it’s because we’ve gotten soft. We’d rather collect an unemployment check, win the lottery, than push ourselves to be better. And you complain about Obama? Have you no shame that you don’t believe that we could actually go to the moon and explore it for precious metals? To “colonize it”. There are fearless people out there who would do this, but judging by this site, maybe not. You’re content to sit behind your computer and complain and whine all the time. Hell I found that out during 2008. As an ex democrat, I volunteered more time at my local campaign headquarters for McCain than Republicans did. All they wanted to do was complain about Obama, did the least amount of work and then was pissed because Obama won. This country is toast already, you evidently haven’t smelled the burning.
noneoftheabove on January 25, 2012 at 10:03 PM
that simple, huh? :-)….wish I thought about it before he did :-)…
jimver on January 25, 2012 at 10:04 PM
If it would make it more atractivve to tou we could send Palin.
katy the mean old lady on January 25, 2012 at 10:05 PM
Your welcome.
BoxHead1 on January 25, 2012 at 10:06 PM
some of the Paulbots, to be closer to ‘the source’ and further away from Big Brother and evil govt…
jimver on January 25, 2012 at 10:08 PM
Heh.
alwaysfiredup on January 25, 2012 at 10:10 PM
The ocean has always struck me as much more fertile ground for exploration. Landing on the Moon was a great and necessary thing and it has provided enormous benefit. Living there? Not so much. Not that we absolutely positively must establish colonies outside of Earth anyway. This seems to assume the Earth is not big enough for all of us, which I reject. Besides, I’m not keen on the idea of being subjected to a new round of Lefty attacks about the evil Amerika and its neo-Colonialist imperialist invaders. Russia (for example) may not be persuaded to cede the Moon to us.
Buy Danish on January 25, 2012 at 10:10 PM
You know… once you put aside the ‘dreams’ and the sci-fi novels, there are some real problems with the moon. Sure, we can get there, but its still prohibitively expensive, even for ‘private industry’ and will continue to be unless we discover some miracle drive to suspend the laws of physics. That’s why we don’t exploit the minerals that we’re pretty sure are there. The cost of transportation and mining are so high that they’re not worth it… at least until they’re depleted her on Earth.
About the time that any nation tries to claim it for its exclusive use, the rest of the planet is going to make the case that the moon belongs to us all.
Who is going to trust any other nation to set up colonies when the threat of a weapons platform hovering over everyone else’s head remains a possibility?
Everything would have to be transported up there from ‘moon igloos’ to food, water, transport and air. Waste disposal would be a massive problem. Reduced gravity,lack of oxygen, and extreme temperatures are not ideal conditions. Pretty much the same reasons that we’ve yet to explore more than 10% of the deep abyss that comprises 90% of the ocean’s depths.
Finally, we’ve already been there. Its time to get out into the rest of the solar system and then on into the galaxy and find out what’s there. We’ll make a lot more innovations trying to figure out how to do that than we will trying to set up house keeping on the moon.
thatsafactjack on January 25, 2012 at 10:10 PM
Is that what happened to you? I’m so sorry.
katy the mean old lady on January 25, 2012 at 10:11 PM
People all over the country are talking to their kids and grandkids about this over dinner tonight, and I think it’s fantastic.
sleepingiantsup on January 25, 2012 at 10:13 PM
With due respect, how can anyone believe as big a lie and as obvious a lie as “but not with federal funds”?
By the way, the article you cite, deceptively titled “Romney, Gingrich support space exploration, but not with federal funds” reads in part:
Hint: If it doesn’t use Federal funds, the President does not propose the business. Because it’s a private business.
kunegetikos on January 25, 2012 at 10:14 PM
+1 finally some sanity.
haner on January 25, 2012 at 10:15 PM
Establishing a moon colony and investing in space activites will ultimately pay off in big way. It will take some time, but eventually the US economy would be propelled forward given the almost limitless opportunities that are available in space.
raypat on January 25, 2012 at 10:15 PM
The lack of imagination here is astounding. Or, maybe you guys are just into battering back and forth with each other.
In my life time the copy machine was invented (I use to use carbon paper in the type writer). In 1982 IBM came out with their first “personal computer”. The internet was unthinkable, but now we all communicate on blogs from all over the world! (I use to have a HAM radio license so that I could try to contact people in other states. I had a crystal radio with which, using headphones, I could listen to music as far away as CA.) We live in amazing times because of our technology.
A space station where we might mine Helium 3 for a fusion reactor is not out of the question. A nanotechnology manufacturing plant is on the horizon. Gene technology has just gotten started. This is all money well spent. Well spent for mankind.
Kaffa on January 25, 2012 at 10:17 PM
If there is 16 trillion dolars worth of something easily transportable back to Earth, then yes, Newt.
profitsbeard on January 25, 2012 at 10:17 PM
Take a hike Katy.
thatsafactjack on January 25, 2012 at 10:18 PM
I’d say there are probably 1-2 million scientists who would jump at the chance. Considering sales int the Sci-fi genre. You could easily find tens of millions of people willing to take a high risk, low pay job to get into space. With such a pool, the odds of finding enough qualified people are near absolute certainty.
This is not dumping money on pie-in-the-sky, like Solyndra. A prize based proposal means we only pay if we get the pie.
The arguments against are so damned skewed that I begin to question your patriotism.
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on January 25, 2012 at 10:18 PM
Helium 3 might just be that something.
Kaffa on January 25, 2012 at 10:20 PM
Me too. Dad showed me a full moon in 1954. Told me that someday we would be able to get there. I loved it and started packing.
katy the mean old lady on January 25, 2012 at 10:20 PM
I read somewhere that the 1st trillionaire will likely be a space entrepreneur.
raypat on January 25, 2012 at 10:21 PM
No thanks. I can just see her giving reports from the colony to her fellow “patriots”, sitting in front of a Martian green set with a roaring fire (just like her studio in Alaska), speechifying about vulture capitalism, rookie mistakes, and the perils of getting one’s panties in a wad while wearing a moon suit.
Buy Danish on January 25, 2012 at 10:21 PM
I remember when Newt was Speaker and someone wondered if he was from Mars. And his press secretary the late great Tony Blankley replied, “If Newt is from Mars, Clinton is from Uranus”.
Paul-Cincy on January 25, 2012 at 10:21 PM
How to lose an argument in one e.z. sentence.
Buy Danish on January 25, 2012 at 10:23 PM
Will you send a ticket? Somewhere close to the WV Appalacian trail? I’m a cheap date.
katy the mean old lady on January 25, 2012 at 10:24 PM
If we’re going to talk about reactors, lets talk about thorium liquid salt pebble reactors. Its something we developed in the 60′s, is virtually meltdown proof, there’s an abundance of thorium around, and its very efficient and produces about 1 one thousandth of the waste of a modern nuclear reactor and its almost impossible to use it to make fuel for a nuclear weapon.
You know, there’s still a lot of room for innovation right here. That’s why I mentioned the unexplored depths of the ocean, which is no more hostile of an environment than the moon.
thatsafactjack on January 25, 2012 at 10:24 PM
noneoftheabove on January 25, 2012 at 10:03 PM
Kaffa on January 25, 2012 at 10:17 PM
Both of you make great points. Materials science holds so much potential, and medical advances needed to support a full time colony will push our knowledge so far forward… to the singularity maybe? Who knows?
linlithgow on January 25, 2012 at 10:25 PM
I’m sure you can.
katy the mean old lady on January 25, 2012 at 10:26 PM
Yep, yep, yep.
Buy Danish on January 25, 2012 at 10:27 PM
Hopefully Newt will find a way to get himself to the moon and then stay there.
1punchWill on January 25, 2012 at 10:28 PM
And then maybe Romney will have another “off shore” place to keep his money…..lol Is this how this “bantering” stuff works :)
noneoftheabove on January 25, 2012 at 10:31 PM
The payoff from the moon and space programs is the problem solving caused us to make a lot of technical leaps. That isn’t the case anymore. Moon colonies or space in general doesn’t cause us to solve any problems we wouldn’t already from a need or money making problem here on Earth. It’s also crazy to think you would have established a colony in 8 years Newt is Prez from a dormant moon program.
Conan on January 25, 2012 at 10:31 PM
Conan on January 25, 2012 at 10:31 PM
Yeah, because putting men on the moon is such an EASY thing to do, and there would be no real, complicated and unique problems that would have to be resolved as a result of putting a colony there. Yep, not a one!
The thing about a huge endeavour like a moon or Martian base is until you work out the logistics and really dig into it, you don’t even know all the issues you have to contend with. You can’t simulate that necessity by any other means than a large endeavour.
linlithgow on January 25, 2012 at 10:35 PM
Yes indeedy! I can also picture you cutting off the heads of chickens. Sarah has her carefully crafted image, you have yours.
Buy Danish on January 25, 2012 at 10:36 PM
Mark Twain met Newt’s idol, Teddy Roosevelt, twice, and concluded he was “clearly insane.” I can only imagine what he’d say about Newt.
EddieC on January 25, 2012 at 10:38 PM
There’s a vast difference between someone who reads “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress” by Robert Heilein, and someone who reads science TEXTBOOKS. There’s a vast difference between someone with a ‘grand vision’ and someone with a viable PLAN.
thatsafactjack on January 25, 2012 at 10:42 PM
This is perhaps the single most stupidest proposal I’ve heard in my lifetime. I’m fairly certain that during his acceptance speech at the convention, Ashton Kutcher is going to pop out of his Newt Gingrich suit and tell America that the GOP just got punked.
EddieC on January 25, 2012 at 10:43 PM
in the next 2 months a private space company(spacex) is going to send cargo to the ISS, in one or 2 years they will send humans,the CEO says he can send Humans to mars in the 20′s, once the price of cargo per pound decreases under his proposals these things become infinitely easier, there is already infrastructure ready to create a moon colony, it’s been built by a private aerospace company called Bigelow, who plans on launching a private space station in 2015, which will be supplied by private companies like space x, blue origin, sierra nevada. Richard Bransons virgin space plane was built by scaled composites in a lunar x private space prize, it will fly next year, Paul Allen,founder of microsoft is going to build a massive version of this space plane to go beyond low-earth orbit, the future of private space flight is already here, if we support private enterprise and get govt out of the way, that is what Newt Gingrich is proposing. A lot of you people are missing the point, he wants to increase private enterprise, the exact opposite of the boondoggle that has been NASA for the past few decades
golembythehudson on January 25, 2012 at 10:44 PM
Put that on Pay-Per-View and we could retire the national debt in a season.
It could be done with a Moon mock-up set for almost no cost and no need to actually travel there.
Maybe they could find the one that they used for the Apollo “missions”.
Cue Alex Jones X-files music…
profitsbeard on January 25, 2012 at 10:45 PM
Thats the best way to them, the heads are tasteless.
RickB on January 25, 2012 at 10:45 PM
F-ing stupid, that’s what.
Kenosha Kid on January 25, 2012 at 10:47 PM
then why he he making the speech at NASA as if he’s going to give them money to do it. Richard Branson is not going to fund NASA
gerrym51 on January 25, 2012 at 10:52 PM
You don’t.
HitNRun on January 25, 2012 at 10:52 PM
it’s people like you who ridiculed Lewis and Clark, or yelled that the earth was flat and thus, it was futile to sail beyond known boundaries, tell me, what exactly is stupid about this proposal, if you read my above post, the infrastructure to set up a moon colony is already here, it can be built by private enterprise. A whole new market can be created for American companies to profit, 15 years ago internet commerce didn’t exist.
golembythehudson on January 25, 2012 at 10:53 PM
It is more than a little revolting to see a pot-bellied socialist suggest a lunar colony. A lunar colony would require physically fit people. An American with Disabilities Act lunar colony will fail. Will utterly fail!
thuja on January 25, 2012 at 10:56 PM
Point 1: This is not a proposed federal project. It is PRIZE BASED!!!! (Damn! Do I have to go all caps to get you folks to pay attention?) That means we only pay on delivery. A lot of money may be poured down a hole on this, but it won’t be taxpayers doing the pouring, it will be investors going in with their eyes open.
Point 2: The #1 impediment to space industry today is getting out of the well (Gravity well, to you luddites who think an atom is something the size of a small pea). A lunar colony would be what we need as a base for space mining and manufacture.
Point 3: Asteroids are lousy with extremely useful, extremely valuable metals that are hard to get on earth (an Osmium hydride battery makes Lithium ion look like an old 1930′s wet cell). We currently get most of these rare metals by mining around asteroid impact sites in Canada, Russia, and South Africa. WE NEED THESE METALS to further advance technologies that make all our lives better and all of us richer.
Point 4: The only reason turkeys are distorting Newt’s proposal and then complaining about your distortion is because Newt proposed it. If Newt came out saying he liked apple pie, I would expect a post by Allapundit in five minutes about how Newt wants to subsidize the apple farms and that pie makes him gag.
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on January 25, 2012 at 10:59 PM
Yes sir. We are not that far away from being able to do it. Maybe a Solyndra or two would be enough.
Kaffa on January 25, 2012 at 11:00 PM
Either we do it or the Chinese will. I’d rather have the high ground.
Kaffa on January 25, 2012 at 11:01 PM
he didn’t give the speech at NASA, he gave it at a hotel, he has made the conservative argument for space exploration, he wants to encourage private sector exploration and cut the budget of NASA, he has been extremely critical of the wasteful spending and failure at NASA, he is in fact, giving the TEA party line, cut govt, increase the private sector:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1999/1
golembythehudson on January 25, 2012 at 11:03 PM
Newt isn’t merely cheering for private enterprise to build a lunar colony. If and when it’s profitable, private enterprise will do it. Rather, Newt is proposing that government build or finance the building of a lunar base, a boondoggle that will cost the economy trillions in much needed economic resources.
At least Obama limits his boondoggles to a few green companies and a couple automakers.
EddieC on January 25, 2012 at 11:04 PM
Laughing picturing a ticked Romney sitting down to bone up on some space stuff before Thursday’s debate…
sleepingiantsup on January 25, 2012 at 11:07 PM
Thanks for posting. That makes sense to me. Let the private sector compete for the prize.
Kaffa on January 25, 2012 at 11:07 PM
They are not missing the point (It is right there on the top of their heads).
This consistent distortion has to be deliberate. I could watch MSNBC if I wanted this sort of bull puckey.
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on January 25, 2012 at 11:07 PM
I was a young boy when Neil Armstrong took his first step, and when he did it seemed anything was do-able and possible. I owned a Matt Mason space man action figure. My brother and I got into model rocketry in a big way. I started reading regularly, voraciously because of the appeal of science fiction at that point in my life.
But I’m older now, more pragmatic. If we’re going into space, then it seems to me the smartest move would be to do so for the purpose of military advantage, with star-gazing and scientific research relegated to secondary goals. From space, we could conceivably negate ICBM threats with a strategy other than mutually assured destruction. We could knock out enemy communications satellites in a matter of minutes and establish missile launching platforms from which there would be no defense. That, to me, would make the expenditure of money and resources worthwhile. Of course, the risk would be a new kind of space race, but we’re going to have that race eventually. Why not now, while we still maintain a significant technological advantage?
As an aside (and because it bears endless repetition), Newt Gingrich would be a disaster as GOP nominee: absolute and unmitigated. What are you Newt supporters thinking, anyway?
troyriser_gopftw on January 25, 2012 at 11:07 PM
You are either lying or stupid. I say it again:
This is not a proposed federal project. It is PRIZE BASED!!!! (Damn! Do I have to go all caps to get you folks to pay attention?) That means we only pay on delivery. A lot of money may be poured down a hole on this, but it won’t be taxpayers doing the pouring, it will be investors going in with their eyes open.
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on January 25, 2012 at 11:11 PM
Amen. The only thing Romney wants to explore is a VAT and keeping ObamaCare in place.
Punchenko on January 25, 2012 at 11:14 PM
I’m thinking that Newt is the most articulate, intelligent and experienced candidate available. He is willing to fight the dims and the msm. I lived through his problems in the 90′s and I thought it was bs than and I think it’s bs now. He has done more for conservatives than Mitt Romney will ever be able to do. Go Newt!
Kaffa on January 25, 2012 at 11:14 PM
A prize, for God’s sake? To be funded by taxpayers?
Here’s some Econ 101 for you. In a free market, the “prize” is the profit earned by a private enterprise when it brings together economic resources in such a way that the final product is worth more than the inputs.
We don’t need to throw government “prizes” at the studio that delivers the Best Picture, or the farmer who realizes the highest yield, or the “green” company that produces the best solar panels. To believe so reveals a profound ignorance of the nature of the free market.
EddieC on January 25, 2012 at 11:19 PM
I suspect there must be some value to a space program or the Chinese would not be pursuing the development of a space program for themselves. Obama’s abondonment of space troubles me as does his dramatic reductions in defense spending. He never seems to cut hand outs to failing enterprizes but is happy to cut areas where the US has been successful. If we can get private industry to invest enough to keep an American hand in space exploration and exploitation, that is fine by me. It beats Obamas wasted stimulus progarm and green energy program.
KW64 on January 25, 2012 at 11:27 PM
good post. Not sure I agree with the illegal immigrant stuff. But this country is in need of a vision. bush the first didn’t have it, clinton didn’t have it Bush the second didn’t have it and Obama’s vision is too scary to think about. it’s been 11 years and ground zero is still a hole in the ground. That is not the america I grew up in. We accomplished things, we built stuff, we invented, we laughed at the rest of the world’s inferior products. We liked quaility. Reagan got the vision thing. His vision was accomplished almost within his terms. That of the total defeat of the USSR. Mitt wouldn’t dream of taking on a vision. Newt gets it. America needs a leader with a vision. Mitt isn’t it. Obama isn’t it.
Newt might be.
unseen on January 25, 2012 at 11:31 PM
from a military POV think of space as the “High ground” Our entire military and weapons are based on the concept of GPS and us being the top dog in space. china understand sthis and Obama does also. You give up space and you cede the High ground to the enemy. Not only is our military dependent on space but also our economy. If china or russia controls space we are done as a super power.
unseen on January 25, 2012 at 11:33 PM
Offering incentives to private companies is a legitimate role of government. That’s why there are tax breaks for companies that do certain things that government deems necessary. Like the building of the F35 fighter. Government is not building the plane, but they are offering incentives for companies to compete for the contract to build the plane. Free enterprise is taking the risk and reaping the rewards of success.
BTW I’m sure that I went way past Econ 101 when I got my MBA and name calling does nothing to strengthen your argument. If you’d like to argue that the government has no role in providing incentives to private enterprise to strengthen national defense, then I am more than willing to listen to those arguments.
Kaffa on January 25, 2012 at 11:36 PM
Wow, you’re right — it’s pretty creepy, particularly his handwritten musings. Yikes!
cam2 on January 25, 2012 at 11:37 PM
With respect, Allah, NASA isn’t the reason we’re going broke.
The_Jacobite on January 25, 2012 at 11:39 PM
What was the prize for the nuclear bomb? What was the prize for the ICBM or the Keyhole satellite?
What if there isn’t much money to be made in space for the short term? Do we let the Chinese control space while we wait for an opportunity to invest in their asteroid mining companies?
sharrukin on January 25, 2012 at 11:41 PM
Something you miss about the nature of the free market is that it tends to favor short-term goals. Few investors will invest in something that will only start to pay off in 50 years or more unless there is some other consideration. (stability, for instance) Do you think we would have so many commercial ventures looking to get into space at this time without the X-prize there to pay off the one who got there first? More money was invested trying to win the prize than was paid by the prize itself, and yet all that research and engineering was done for that goal.
The early 20′th century had a series of prizes set to spur development of the aviation industry. A lot of people tried and failed to win those prizes, and those failures helped others learn what to do to achieve the prizes goals. As a result, I could go and get a ticket to just about any place on earth as far back as the 1960′s. Do you really think aviation would have developed so far so fast without those prizes?
The question isn’t if it would pay off eventually, because that answer would be yes. The real question is is it worth the amount of the prize to speed that development. It would depend on the amount, but if, say a $60B prize for the first sustainable settlement on (or in) the moon means it happens a century sooner than it would otherwise, it would indeed be worth the cost of prize.
Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on January 25, 2012 at 11:43 PM
I am sure that you are a Greek God. Send pix.
katy the mean old lady on January 26, 2012 at 12:19 AM
3554 Amun is an M-type Aten asteroid (meaning it crosses Earth’s orbit) and a Venus-crosser. It was discovered on 4 March 1986 by Carolyn and Eugene Shoemaker at Mount Palomar Observatory. Its estimated diameter is 2.5 kilometers, making it one of the smallest known M-type asteroids.
Amun was once considered metallic, based on its M-type spectrum. However, like the asteroids 22 Kalliope and 21 Lutetia, the radar albedo of the object is inconsistent with a metallic composition. In ‘Mining the Sky’, planetary scientist John S. Lewis calculated the value of 3554 Amun at $20 trillion dollars.
(6178) 1986 DA is another M-type near-Earth asteroid with lower inclination that is actually metallic.
Amun passes closest to Venus, and in 1964, 2034, and 2103 comes within 10 Gm of it.
trigon on January 26, 2012 at 12:49 AM
Common Sense!! Wake up!! Don’t Settle!! Stop being told who to vote for!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJEbFI03BNA
dom89031 on January 26, 2012 at 12:56 AM
Don’t worry about Mitt getting to the moon…he has his own world to be God of, along with his celestial wives…
Funny how the Mitt supporters diss Newt on this, when their man believes he can be God of his own world…amazing.
right2bright on January 26, 2012 at 1:02 AM
Meanwhile you support a man who claims he can be a God of his own world…it never ceases to amaze me…
right2bright on January 26, 2012 at 1:06 AM
To quote Tom Wolffe, “No bucks, no Buck Rogers.”
Manned space flight under NASA is a colossal waste. I’m speaking as one who is very proud that his father worked on the LEM and was greatly inspired to become an engineer because of it. Government bureaucracy is in no way fit any more to take intelligent risks. Instead, the costs of failure to the government functionary far outstrips the rewards of success. That leads to insane “regulation” of space craft, often ignoring real dangers but insulating the agency from liability. IOW, CYA.
The knowledge to be gleaned from unmanned missions is far greater and a fraction of the cost. We need to continue and expand our space presence, but not through manned space flight.
MJBrutus on January 26, 2012 at 6:23 AM
I accept the reality that a majority of Republicans, desperate for a conservative to emerge from a sea of tarnished RINOs who failed to distinguish themselves in any way during the Bush years and subsequent liberal wave, have defaulted to a clownish, adulterous, pompous, undisciplined, self-absorbed gas bag as their chosen nominee, and that we will have four more years of Our Idiot Marxist President as a result.
Despair…
Jaibones on January 26, 2012 at 6:35 AM
I support the moon base idea. It’s a great dream. Space is the new New World. Governments have had a lot to do with expansion and exploration in the past. Anyone remember the name Columbus?
Bottom line, if we don’t get there, other nations, eventually in time, will. We have to.
JellyToast on January 26, 2012 at 6:42 AM
Sure I remember Columbus. He has been replaced by the HST and many other unmanned vehicles and terrestrial assets. Much less costly to the Queen’s purse and much better at acquiring the scientific knowledge we are seeking. If old Chris wants a job, I suggest he reeducate himself to obtain the skills that we in the modern world can make use of. Just like all those tellers who have been replaced by ATMs.
MJBrutus on January 26, 2012 at 6:52 AM
The Chinese have stated the same goals….given the majority of the response I’ve seen I’m betting on the Chinese
rwven on January 26, 2012 at 7:20 AM
There you go again…
Buy Danish on January 26, 2012 at 7:58 AM
Populate the colony with environmentalists and then let them protest that a “natural” environment must be maintained. How long could they last in a natural environment on earth much less the moon?
Grunt on January 26, 2012 at 9:16 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »