posted 01-25-2012 06:32 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Is another committee really necessary?

---

posted 01-25-2012 08:13 AM               

Obama had opted to cancel Constellation – perhaps with good cause perhaps not – and used the Augustine commission to help justify it.

If the GOP wins the next election I am sure the next president will come up with some sort of commission to justify a change to course of the current program (again perhaps with just justification perhaps not).

This is nothing new. Had the end of decade man on a moon goal not been stated by Kennedy I have to wonder if the same thing would not have happened in the 60s. Had the Apollo program dragged on without proper funding I am sure it too would have also faced the same sort of budget issues and suffer from cuts and political in fighting.

posted 01-25-2012 09:00 AM            

I feel especially sorry for NASA TV, in Houston, in its attempt to spin a space programme which has no definitive mission beyond the ISS. Keep plugging the MPCV like I suggested on another discussion last year.

posted 01-25-2012 12:03 PM               

At 3:30 pm EST Gingrich will participate in an invitation-only event by the Economic Development Commission of Florida's Space Coast; that event will be webcast on Florida Today's web site. (The announcement of the event appears to have a long agenda, but according to the campaign web site it will be wrapped up by 4:15 pm.) At 4:30 pm he is scheduled to speak at a town hall meeting in Cocoa, Florida. That event will air live on C-SPAN and its web site.

posted 01-25-2012 05:49 PM               

He also called for a "continuous propulsion system" to enable short-duration trips to Mars by 2020 and said he would set aside 10 percent of NASA's budget for prize-driven programs.

posted 01-26-2012 12:13 AM               

It's about time to expand our horizons and get the "can do spirit back! It's about time to give our kids something to be proud of and an opportunity to really reach for the stars and not read about the golden days of space exploration. We owe our kids more then an apology!

posted 01-26-2012 07:49 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rick Boos:
...and there is NO reason it can't become a reality within his proposed time frame!

---

But at the same time, Gingrich emphasized the need for a "leaner" NASA, which at the very least doesn't sound like he would be in favor of calling for a significantly larger budget.

I have no doubt that Gingrich is well aware that JFK's vision was made largely possible because NASA was well-funded. I am also sure he is aware that Apollo came to a quick end because that budget was withdrawn.

A permanent moon base is, to use his own term, a "grandiose" idea and indeed well within the spirit of the transcontinental railroad and moon landing. But unlike his third historical example, the Wright Brothers, it is going to require more than two men, an updraft and a pile of wood.

posted 01-26-2012 08:42 AM               

Gov. Romney, this is the state that put the first man on the Moon.

posted 01-26-2012 09:02 AM               

I mean I am all for it, the whole idea of heading right into deep space without first testing the technologies that would be used to do so, in a lunar environment is highly risky. NASA itself is just starting to write about a possible lunar landing in the early 2020's in the SLS mission planning and I am sure that's very optimistic.

posted 01-26-2012 10:50 AM               

According to Romney’s campaign, he’ll visit Astrotech Space Operations Inc, 260 Magellan Road at 3 p.m. The event is open to the public.

posted 01-26-2012 11:10 AM               

If they would just promise something realistic, and stick to it.

posted 01-26-2012 12:08 PM               

"I go back to trying to be very up front and honest with the people of Florida, the people of the country," he said.

But given a potential explosion of inflation, he said, "the idea that anybody's going out and talking about grand, new, very expensive schemes to spend more money at a time when we do not have our fiscal house in order, in my opinion, is plain, crass politics."

posted 01-26-2012 02:06 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
his call for a "leaner" NASA and set a goal that "by the end of [his] second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American."

---

posted 01-26-2012 09:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyler:
"If you're a member of a company and you come to me with that idea, you're fired."

---

If I had a business executive come to me and say they wanted to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the Moon, I'd say, 'You're fired.' The idea that corporate America wants to go off to the Moon and build a colony there, it may be a big idea but it's not a good idea.

Gingrich clearly has a desire to see space exploration flourish but he's surprisingly unfamiliar with the current state of affairs. His repeated references to the Atlas V being man-rated, for example, seem to be without any realization that three of the four companies competing for NASA's crew launch services have contracted to use the Atlas V.

I posted a summary of tonight's debate to Twitter, boiling down each candidates stance to fit within the 140 character limit:

GOP debate on space in brief — Mitt: Need to study it more. Newt: Moonbases for everyone! Rick: Can't afford it. Ron: Don't care for it.

posted 01-27-2012 01:09 AM               

If I had a business executive come to me and say they wanted to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the Moon, I'd say, 'You're fired.'

If an executive in a company proposes a project and the CEO doesn't like it, the executive is fired?

The inevitable result of that approach to management is someone that's surrounded by yes-men who will only suggest ideas they're sure the boss will like and only tell him news he wants to hear (even if it's not true) otherwise they'll get fired.

posted 01-27-2012 06:54 AM               

Gingrich's stance I like a little better, but I agree with Robert that his idea for a "leaner and meaner" NASA may not be good in the short term. I remember when George W. Bush appointed Sean O'Keefe the NASA administrator and one of the tasks of that administration as I recall was to make NASA "leaner and meaner" to try and cut some of the financial waste. Well, cracks started to appear not long after. KSC's infrastructure was starting to show signs of a growing problem. I remember an MLP developed a bad leak in preparation for one launch to the ISS, sections of the VAB roof that needed work weren't getting it. And there were other more hidden signs starting to become problems (workforce cuts, transfers of jobs from the NASA side to the contractor side, less oversight of things). And then you've got what happened to Columbia. Granted the reasons for what happened on STS-107 are a bit complicated. I don't blame O'Keefe either for what happened as the foul up occurred at a middle level management level. But I have to wonder if the administration line was "spare no expense to keep our astronauts safe" instead of "we have to cut the budget" would the situation that resulted in no DoD satellite assets being used to image Columbia's bottom have happened the same way?

Prior to that, we had Dan Goldin and his "faster, better, cheaper" mantra. And that got us two failed Mars probes. I'll give Dan credit, he was probably the most bold and inspirational NASA administrator since Paine in my opinion and he indeed talked a good game. But ultimately he can't do anything without a mission or funding approval from Congress.

posted 01-27-2012 12:47 PM               

It sounds like pure American exceptionalism to propose that this nation colonize the Moon in a decade, and it reminds us of a time when making such a proposal was a bold, risky all-in commitment. The difference between then and now is simple: Kennedy wasn't kidding. His proposal wasn't theatre.

Gingrich's proposal is just that. To achieve some momentary political advantage, Gingrich's criticism of NASA mischaracterizes the agency as it was and as it is. NASA's contracted with hundreds of private companies around the country for hardware, procedures and people to reach the moon. Implying that this was all big government is forgetting Grumman and North American and ILC and every other private interest that NASA called on. For Gingrich to call his version of a new privatized deadline-driven effort different from what happened in the 1960's is asking every one of his hearers to indulge in selective amnesia. Kennedy couldn't permit his proposal to be merely political demagoguery. Gingrich can't permit his proposal to be anything else.

We've seen many subsequent proposals since 1961. They all played to the crowd, and they all lost momentum when the echo died.

posted 01-27-2012 02:06 PM               

A leader is someone who does just that, leads, and then presses ahead with a proposal that is well thought out and well illustrated, so that most reasonable people can grasp and agree with the goal and means.

posted 01-27-2012 02:45 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
HELIUM-3!!! (and Harrison Schmitt for Energy Secretary).

---

posted 01-27-2012 03:00 PM               

And that somewhat underscores the problem with Gingrich's idea. He wants to build a moon base for the sake of building a moon base. He's offered no real explanation of what people will do with the moon base, other than perhaps applying for statehood if the population reaches 13,000.

Gingrich's primary reason to deploy a moon base seems to be to beat the Chinese. A couple of problems with that: (a) the Chinese haven't any concrete plans to build a moon base by 2020, and (b) we already beat the Chinese — 40 years ago.

posted 01-27-2012 03:23 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Setting aside the fact that even if a large quantity of Helium-3 were to arrive on Earth tomorrow, no one would be able to use it to power much of anything, Newt Gingrich didn't propose mining He3 and returning it to Earth, he proposed a moon base and those two ideas are significantly different (requiring significantly different resources).

---

posted 01-27-2012 03:53 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
And that somewhat underscores the problem with Gingrich's idea. He wants to build a moon base for the sake of building a moon base. He's offered no real explanation of what people will do with the moon base...

---

As for the Chinese, they are slow and methodical in their achievements, taking a building block approach. So they quietly test, build, launch. Yes, it is "easier" to build for LEO than it is to build for the moon when you don't have a booster with the lifting capacity to get something to the moon in two or three launches. But, they are at least thinking about it on the outside.

Considering on average it takes five years to develop a new US spacecraft and launcher IF you get the proper funding from day one (so a moonbase by the end of the decade is about as fanciful as anything I've heard to date), we could hit a point where hypothetically down the road China has a methodically developed capability and the US has to go with some sort of a crash program to catch up since the foundation and infrastructure is not there.

Yes, technically we "beat" them to the moon 40 years ago if one thinks of it as a race with a finish line. But what if China were to "occupy" the moon for longer than just a day or two every few months? If it becomes a game of mining and materials, it isn't about who got there first. It is about who can stay there.

The California gold rush to my knowledge started long after Spain sold territory to the United States. The Spaniards were there first, but that doesn't mean they had a grandfather clause claim on any gold mined out of California.

That should at least be a concern of both candidates, regardless of which approach they want to take.

From my perspective, I see the approach differences between Mitt and Newt being Romney wanting to take it slow while Newt wants it quick (and maybe a little dirty). One has the potential risk of going too slow to the point of little support while the other has the risk of alienating the Congress to the point where they would laugh in his face.

The idea of financial prizes is interesting, but if we are talking A LOT of money to make it worth while financially to the private sector, there is so much chance of abuse and cutting corners a bit too close. A little risk properly harnessed is a good thing. Too much risk if you exceed the limits and kill somebody in the process can bring the whole thing tumbling down like a house of cards.

posted 01-27-2012 03:58 PM               

Personally I'd be for it, but it's completely out of character with the way power is created and delivered today via private, municipalized and investor-owned utilities. It's possible in theory, but the entrenched interests against that model are old, powerful and for the moment, in charge.

posted 01-27-2012 10:26 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Rick Santorum was asked at Florida State University about whether he would expand NASA programs after Newt Gingrich's pledge for a new moon base.

---

posted 01-28-2012 10:00 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fezman92:
With Gingrich's idea of having a state on the moon, doesn't that violate the Outer Space Treaty?

---

That international treaty was a PR stunt, nothing more. At the time it gave the appearance of cooperation between the two superpowers.

Since neither country had the ability to colonize the moon back then it was easy for them to sign some document extolling the praises of "the peaceful uses of outer space."

posted 01-28-2012 10:30 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cozmosis22:
That international treaty was a PR stunt, nothing more.

---

Rand Simberg discussed the issue in his recent essay examining the feasibility of Gingrich's moon base plans.

When Speaker Gingrich proposes that the settlement eventually become a U.S. state, he is implicitly advocating withdrawal from the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which explicitly prohibits claims of national sovereignty off planet. The treaty can be withdrawn from with one year's notice (and in fact Bob Bigelow has been warning over the past year that the Chinese intend to do exactly that), but getting the State Department and Senate to go along with abandoning a long-standing treaty that we helped negotiate, and which performs a lot of other vital functions, may be a non-starter politically.

Better perhaps would be the approach of the Space Settlement Institute, which proposes to have the U.S. recognize private claims of non-state actors, which could accomplish the goal of allowing property on the moon without the need to withdraw from the OST. It would also provide a tradable market in lunar real estate, allowing private settlement ventures to raise funds without the need for taxpayer money. It wouldn't be a U.S. state, but it might be a settlement of Americans, with American values, which is probably what the former speaker’s goal is.

posted 01-28-2012 11:59 AM               

1. What Newt Gingrich wants or thinks is a fantasy. He has zero chance of being the next President of the United States.

2. His vision of our future in space, even as a theoretical subject of discussion, is irrelevant. If anyone here cares to make a case that a nation that's $15 trillion dollars in debt and now needs a decade to barely start rebuilding two skyscrapers should even be talking about moon bases, let's hear it.