|
Author
|
Topic: 2012 GOP presidential candidates on space
|
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 01-28-2012 12:55 PM
  
As a foreigner, I thought Ron Paul uttered the most sensible words on the subject of Gingrich's grandiose Moon base: "We should send some politicians up there."  Gingrich can say anything as a candidate to appease aerospace industry voters at Brevard County, which may not resonate with someone in Detroit or other deprived US cities and towns. And that is the problem. |
GoesTo11
Member Posts: 1309
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 01-28-2012 01:23 PM
Precisely. Ron Paul is a crank, but I'd be on board with any space program that included offloading our political class on a one-way trip to the Sun.But here in the real world, space policy is sadly irrelevant outside Florida and south Texas, and it's been swamped in California, like everything else, by immigration. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1586
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 01-28-2012 02:17 PM
The local papers here in New York didn't mention one word about Gingrich's proposal. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-28-2012 02:44 PM
Granted that The New York Times is not just a local paper, but it covered Gingrich's moon base plans in several articles, including: For a Moon Colony, Technology Is the Easy Part. |
FFrench
Member Posts: 3161
From: San Diego
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 01-29-2012 06:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
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.
Only being used as an example, I know, but some incorrect history here if you are wanting to use it as such. The current state of California did not pass between Spain and the United States. Spain lost the territory to Mexico in 1821 in its war of independence, and it was Mexico that ceded it to the United States in a treaty first negotiated in 1848, almost three decades later. And what year did the gold rush begin? That very same year. In fact, this is an example of a very narrow timeline, not a "long time." Gold was discovered at Sutter's Mill on January 24, when technically the region was still part of Mexico. The treaty ceding the region to the US? Signed on February 2, nine days later. Mexico literally missed out on a multi-billion-dollar goldmine. (I also think a number of Native Americans might have issue with you saying the Spanish were here "first," but that is another discussion...) |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1586
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 01-29-2012 06:49 PM
I have a tremendous respect for Capt. Cernan but I would like to know why he decided to endorse Romney. I do agree with Goesto11, only a few places in this country care much about space. NASA and space enthusiasts have failed in that regard. Our Presidents, too. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 01-29-2012 07:39 PM
Good points Francis. And it just goes to show the golden rule... he who has the gold makes the rule.  Maybe I should have used the Louisiana Purchase from the French as an example, since gold was discovered in what later became Colorado as well if I recall. As for the 1967 treaty, it still isn't going to have any enforcement teeth if a second nation is not there to keep parity with a first one. Sure, we played by the rules back in 1969 through 1973 (US flags planted on the moon not withstanding). But, if somebody gets there first and decided to abandon the treaty, there is going to be nothing to stop them if the potential mineral and energy resources are enough make them want to lay a claim to it. From at least the potential for resources on the moon, China more than likely is considering it since lets face it, they have FAR more people within their borders that they have to feed, clothe, generate housing and energy for than any other country in the world and they have leaders that want to remain in power. As long as their country prospers, they will remain in power. If things get a little shakey and there are internal problems, it begins to sow the seeds of discontent and the leaders do not want that (remember Tiananmen Square). |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2169
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 01-30-2012 08:21 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
I have a tremendous respect for Capt. Cernan but I would like to know why he decided to endorse Romney.
Text of the letter, signed by: Gene Cernan, Bob Crippen, Mike Griffin, and others currently and formerly involved in NASA and private space ventures. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1586
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 01-30-2012 10:13 AM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
Text of the letter, signed by: Gene Cernan...
I read the letter, I am just wondering why he is supporting someone who has said nothing about future goals for NASA. Perhaps he thinks Gingrich's ideas are not realistic. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-05-2012 09:29 AM
NBC's Saturday Night Live had a bit of fun last night with moon colonies and the GOP candidates... |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1586
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 02-26-2012 10:58 AM
Listening to Romney this week in Michigan, he appears more and more to be ambivalent towards manned space exploration. Later, when asked whether he would fund planetary exploration as president, Romney said he would study different options. Then he ended his response with another wisecrack about China's planned moon mission."Some people say, 'Oh, we've got to get to the moon, we've got to get there in a hurry to prove we can get there before China,'" Romney mimicked. "It's like, guys, we were there a long time ago, all right? And when you get there, would you bring back some of the stuff we left?" |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2169
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 02-26-2012 02:36 PM
In today's fiscal environment, no candidate on either side of the aisle is going to be a strong supporter of the space program, in my opinion. It's not just Romney. |
GoesTo11
Member Posts: 1309
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 02-26-2012 03:25 PM
Can I just put this thread out of our misery? Anyone who thinks that space is an issue in this campaign, or who thinks this country is going anywhere outside LEO in the forseeable future, really needs to go to Ground Zero in NY and look at that hole in the ground over a decade after 9/11 and re-consider their optimism.The America that does, and builds, great things is gone. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-26-2012 04:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by GoesTo11:
...really needs to go to Ground Zero in NY and look at that hole in the ground over a decade after 9/11 and re-consider their optimism
If by "hole" you mean the twin reflecting pools — the largest man-made waterfalls in North America — that sit where the twin towers once stood, they were completed and opened to the public on Sept. 12, 2011. The memorial museum is set to open this September.If by "hole" you mean One World Trade Center, construction has risen to the 92nd floor. The tower is already the third tallest building in New York City and the fifth tallest building in the United States. When its crowning 408-foot radio antenna is installed in April, it will be the tallest building in the Western hemisphere by pinnacle height and among the tallest buildings in the world. It will open to the public in late 2012/early 2013. Returning to the subject at hand, it is true that space exploration — and NASA, specifically — is not a major campaign issue. But regardless of that, whoever is elected as President will have an impact on the future of NASA, and for that reason, paying attention to what the candidates say on the subject is worthwhile. |
GoesTo11
Member Posts: 1309
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 02-26-2012 04:45 PM
I stand corrected.I confess I haven't been paying much attention to progress on the site. It's nice to see we're well underway erecting one skyscraper where there used to be two, and it's only taken us a decade to do it. My larger point stands. Space-wise, we're not going anywhere anytime soon. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-26-2012 05:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by GoesTo11:
It's nice to see we're well underway erecting one skyscraper where there used to be two, and it's only taken us a decade to do it.
I don't mean to belabor the point, but you've chosen a really poor example.From design to completion, the twin World Trade Center buildings also took a decade (construction took seven years, whereas construction of One World Trade Center will have taken six). As for "one skyscraper where there used to be two," actually, there are five new skyscrapers being built and one that has already been completed. On edit: I had posted the status of each of the four other World Trade Center buildings now under construction, but the details aren't really important to this discussion. To the point about space, I don't think anyone has the ability today, during a period of transition, to say definitively what will happen in the foreseeable future. The next couple of years will be important in determining the path forward. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1586
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 02-27-2012 08:44 AM
Interesting way to discuss the GOP candidates. By the way, you can see how the Freedom Tower is progressing, it looks beautiful. Anyway, Romney's comments about space never talk of budget limitations or his possible enjoyment of manned space exploration. His comments seem to trivialize or demean the issue. Like I stated previously, I don't understand why Gene Cernan would endorse him. |
ejectr
Member Posts: 1751
From: Killingly, CT
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 02-27-2012 09:11 AM
I guess he endorses Romney because he's already made known what he thinks of the current administration's plans for the future.This up and down popularity contest they call the Republican primary/nomination procedure will end and it will be Romney that is left standing. So why bother endorsing one of the others. I'm just waiting for the big dance in November and then deciding who will benefit us in space from that point. A candidate's stance on space is not going to get him the nomination. There aren't enough of us that care about that for it to be a factor. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-27-2012 09:55 AM
And there are many of us who care about space who also believe it is not the preeminent political issue - the candidate who is most capable of leading the U.S. broken economy to health (regardless of his personal position on space exploration) will best posture the country over the long run to stand-up a robust program. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-27-2012 11:32 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Cliff Lentz:
It just seems to me that Obama was in that all too familiar rock and hard place location. Spend more money on space exploration and you rile up the Tea Partiers — cut funds and you put people out of work in Florida (and across the country).
The President has no trouble spending money, nor raising spending for programs he likes. The spending levels for NASA are where he wants them to be, more or less. If he wanted to significantly raise the NASA budget and make an argument for it, he could have done so. (...and he would have to appoint an Administrator who was not going to congress telling them, in so many words, to cut the NASA budget.) Obviously the President is not alone in this regard. Spending money is not the problem. The problem is now as it has been for decades: allocation of money. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-27-2012 11:45 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
To the point about space, I don't think anyone has the ability today, during a period of transition, to say definitively what will happen in the foreseeable future. The next couple of years will be important in determining the path forward.
I am glad to read, after saying to so many on this list that we were wrong when we said there was no plan in place, no clear path forward, that you have finally come around and agree. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-27-2012 01:47 PM
I'm sorry to disappoint, but you've misconstrued what I wrote.There is a plan in place and a clear path forward. However, we aren't past the point of no return and as this is a time of transition, Congress and/or the President can more easily change that path (reference X-33 vs. the space shuttle). The current plan will see astronauts fly beyond low Earth orbit (around the moon) in 2021, which is definitely within the "foreseeable future," which was the point of my reply. |
AJ
Member Posts: 511
From: Plattsburgh, NY, United States
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 02-27-2012 04:54 PM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
Spending money is not the problem. The problem is now as it has been for decades: allocation of money.
This is my favorite dead horse. You could give me a million dollars and I could disperse it to charity, invest it, feed the homeless, or I could blow it on Chanel handbags, diamonds, and champagne. You could dedicate the entire federal budget to NASA but you couldn't guarantee the money would be well spent. NASA needs to fix how it spends the money it is given. The James Webb Space Telescope is a huge reason why planetary sciences at NASA are now suffering. JWST was allowed to suck up money with no end in sight. Ed Weiler, who now claims to have quit over a cut in Mars funding, played a big role in this. In the end, it's sad that something so extraordinary is brought down by human failings. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2169
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 02-27-2012 10:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
And there are many of us who care about space who also believe it is not the preeminent political issue - the candidate who is most capable leading the U.S. broken economy to health (regardless of his personal position on space exploration) will best posture the country over the long run to stand-up a robust program.
+1
|
cjh5801
Member Posts: 185
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 03-01-2012 04:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
Like I stated previously, I don't understand why Gene Cernan would endorse him.
I have a lot of respect and admiration for Gene Cernan, but his political affiliation is pretty well known. Given that most of the other signatories are known to share his political affiliation, I'm not surprised at his endorsement. I'm sure that he believes the statements in the letter about the candidate's qualifications and intentions, and he may even be privy to information on the candidate's goals in space that is not available to the general public, but personally I believe that the letter is wrong in claiming that the current administration has not set a goal and does not have a vision for space. It's just not a goal or vision that is shared by those who signed the letter. |
alanh_7
Member Posts: 1252
From: Ajax, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 03-01-2012 07:38 PM
It seems to me there is no shortage of goals in the space program these days. The, moon, astroids, comercial spaceflight, affordable spaceflight...all worthy goals.There is no shorrtage of goals, only a shortage in funding. |
kr4mula
Member Posts: 642
From: Cinci, OH
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 03-02-2012 11:21 AM
As a somewhat cynical guy, I agree with those here that suggest any campaign promises regarding space are all but irrelevant. It's not a national issue, in terms of causing voters to swing one way or the other. And even if it was, historical precedent shows that it's very difficult for a new president to make good on his promises, even the most meaningful of them.So who should you vote for if you want a robust space program? Not the guy with the biggest vision for space, which seems to be Newt. You should vote for the guy you deem most able to turn the economy around. The old adage about a rising tide floating all boats applies. If the country does well and has lots of money, we can afford luxuries like the space program. If it's in the tank, it's a hard sell to most of the country to spend a lot of money on space, where prestige is the main spinoff. As an aside, I feel that we should spend a lot on space because it's a better economic investment in the country than a lot of recovery act-type projects. We'd be funding a lot of engineers, scientists, technicians, factory workers, etc., not to mention supporting the one industry where the U.S. exports more than it imports. Remember, money isn't spent in space; every dollar is spent here on the ground, in our country. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-02-2012 11:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by kr4mula:
Remember, money isn't spent in space; every dollar is spent here on the ground, in our country.
Every dollar, but not every cent. There's currently 26 cents that are "spending" the rest of their existence exploring space — a quarter on New Horizons and a penny on Mars Curiosity.  |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 185
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 03-03-2012 01:20 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
There's currently 26 cents that are "spending" the rest of their existence exploring space...
Yes, but did the 26 cents come from taxpayer money? |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-07-2012 05:57 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
NBC's Saturday Night Live had a bit of fun last night with moon colonies and the GOP candidates...
Gingrich Invites 'SNL' to Space Camp
If Newt Gingrich prides himself in being a candidate of big ideas, no idea of his was bigger and more cynically received than his Florida speech calling for a colony on the moon.But on Super Tuesday, the candidate doubled down on his commitment to that dream, holding a rally in Alabama at the U.S. Space and Rocket Center, where he began by addressing the chorus of criticism regarding his vision for space exploration. "One of things I got lampooned for, I got on 'Saturday Night Live,' I got in a little bit of an argument with (Mitt) Romney and (Rick) Santorum, I said we should have a very aggressive space program," Gingrich said. "I invite 'Saturday Night Live' to come here to Huntsville and film their skits."
|
Topic Closed
advertisement