posted 06-13-2011 08:03 PM               

Mackin: This question goes out to Speaker Gingrich. Next month, the space shuttle program is scheduled to retire after 30 years, and last year, President Obama effectively killed government-run space flight to the International Space Station and wants to turn it over to private companies. In the meantime, U.S. astronauts would ride Russian spacecraft at a cost of $50 million to $63 million a seat.

What role should the government play in future space exploration?

Gingrich: Well, sadly — and I say this, sadly, because I'm a big fan of going into space and I actually worked to get the shuttle program to survive at one point — NASA has become an absolute case study in why bureaucracy can't innovate.

If you take all the money we've spent at NASA since we landed on the moon and you had applied that money for incentives to the private sector, we would today probably have a permanent station on the moon, three or four permanent stations in space, a new generation of lift vehicles. And instead, what we've had is bureaucracy after bureaucracy after bureaucracy and failure after failure.

I think it's a tragedy, because younger Americans ought to have the excitement of thinking that they, too, could be part of reaching out to a new frontier.

You know, you'd asked earlier, John, about this idea of limits because we're a developed country. We're not a developed country. The scientific future is going to open up, and we're at the beginning of a whole new cycle of extraordinary opportunities. And, unfortunately, NASA is standing in the way of it, when NASA ought to be getting out of the way and encouraging the private sector.

CNN Anchor John King: Is there any candidate who would step in and say, no, this is vital to America's identity, this is vital to America's innovation, I want the government to stay in the lead here when it comes to manned space flight? Nobody?

Tim Pawlenty: Yeah, I think the space program has played a vital role for the United States of America. I think in the context...

King: But can we afford it going forward?

Pawlenty: In the context of our budget challenges, it can be refocused and re-prioritized, but I don't think we should be eliminating the space program. We can partner with private providers to get more economies of scale and scale it back, but I don't think we should eliminate the space program.

King: In a sentence — in a sentence or two?

(Crosstalk)

Gingrich: John, you mischaracterized me. I didn't say end the space program. We built the transcontinental railroads without a national department of railroads. I said you could get into space faster, better, more effectively, more creatively if you decentralized it, got it out of Washington, and cut out the bureaucracy. It's not about getting rid of the space program; it's about getting to a real space program that works.

Mitt Romney: I think fundamentally there are some people — and most of them are Democrats, but not all — who really believe that the government knows how to do things better than the private sector.

posted 06-14-2011 09:03 AM               

President Obama effectively killed government-run space flight...

posted 06-14-2011 11:48 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Even if they all agreed with President Obama's proposal to adopt private sector launch solutions.

---

Because they do in fact agree in principle. The Republicans generally want to privatize government activities and kill bureaucracy and this goes right in line with that. None of them wants to say outright, however, that yes we should eliminate this source of American pride.

posted 06-14-2011 01:59 PM               

Do these people forget how many different directions NASA was forced to waste money in going back to the Reagan and continuing for every President?

posted 06-14-2011 06:44 PM               

Pawlenty's and Romney's subsequent replies cannot be called resounding rallies for a strong NASA. Pawlenty specifically mentioned "scaling back" and Romney all but gave a blanket endorsement of the private sector.

But let's look at the other candidates. Ron Paul is perhaps the easiest, as he's gone on the record before:

We must recognize the government led space program is dead and the corpse must be buried as soon as possible. Any defense functions should be put under the military, and the rest of NASA should be sold to private operators. The receipts would be applied to the national debt. Then, all government roadblocks to commercial development of space must be removed.

Michele Bachmann represents the Tea Party and while TEA in Space doesn't speak for her specifically, their reaction to the debate begins...

The policy articulated during the New Hampshire debate by Newt Gingrich, as it pertains to space, is the kind of policy we need to hear from all candidates. NASA bureaucracy is killing innovation and discovery throughout the agency.

posted 06-15-2011 08:55 AM               

I'm not sure I follow Gingrich's statement that if we used all the funds since the moon landing and applied them to the private sector, we would have a base on the moon and 3 or 4 space stations. That time period covers several Republican administrations who determined policy. It doesn't make any sense to me.

posted 06-16-2011 10:10 AM            

Unless Mr. Obama makes a grandiose announcement about the direction of NASA human spaceflight soon, one or more of these candidates should be outspoken and substantive on this issue.

posted 06-16-2011 01:25 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
Unless Mr. Obama makes a grandiose announcement about the direction of NASA human spaceflight soon, one or more of these candidates should be outspoken and substantive on this issue.

---

posted 06-17-2011 06:27 AM               

Again responding to Mr. Gingrich, he doesn't see himself and his cohorts in Congress and the White House as part of the problem. Yes NASA has wasted billions — many times because Presidents and Congresses have made NASA shift gears. Examples — Venture Star, the exact shape, size and partners for the ISS, both Bush's plans and now this new direction.

posted 12-14-2011 10:32 AM               

Moderator George Stephanopoulos asked former front-runner Mitt Romney to name a few issues on which he disagreed with Gingrich, who has surged into the lead in Iowa and several other early-primary states.

"Let's see. We can start with his idea to have a lunar colony that would mine minerals from the moon," Romney said. "I'm not in favor of spending that kind of money to do that."

Gingrich has indeed voiced support for lunar mining in the past, and he reaffirmed that support on Saturday.

"I'm proud of trying to find things that give young people a reason to study science and math and technology and telling them that some day in their lifetime, they could dream of going to the moon, they could dream of going to Mars," Gingrich said in response to Romney.

posted 01-03-2012 02:12 PM               

The Space Review contacted all seven campaigns last month and provided them with a brief list of questions regarding their views on civil and military space policy, including what, if anything, they would do differently if elected president in November. Unfortunately, none of the seven campaigns responded by the time this article was prepared for publication. Instead, this article will instead focus on what the public statements and voting records of the candidates reveal about their space positions — which, in most cases, is very little.

posted 01-22-2012 07:33 PM               

I'll be at the Space Coast in Florida this week giving a speech, a visionary speech, on the United States going back into space in the John F. Kennedy tradition rather than the current bureaucracy.

posted 01-23-2012 01:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
As I recall, the Air Force and DoD were not exactly too keen on when Constellation got the axe. I can't recall exactly what their prime gripe was on that front.

---

posted 01-23-2012 01:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
Well, one thing that makes space a little different in this election year is it is somewhat tied to defense expenditures as well.

---

posted 01-23-2012 06:24 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blackarrow:
Didn't a candidate called Obama do the same four years ago?

---

When it came time for Obama to write his fiscal 2011 budget, which was his next big opportunity to help the economy, he began to chip away at some dramatic campaign commitments. For instance, in 2008 he had promised a bold space program. "As President," he had said, "I will establish a robust and balanced civilian space program" that "not only will inspire the world with both human and robotic space exploration but also will again lead in confronting the challenges we face here on Earth, including global climate change, energy independence, and aeronautics research." In November, 2009, his advisers, in a memo, delivered some bad news: "The 10-year deficit has deteriorated by roughly $6 trillion." The next sentence was in boldface type and underlined: "Especially in light of our new fiscal context, it is not possible to achieve the inspiring space program goals discussed during the campaign."

Obama was told that he should cancel NASA's Bush-era Constellation program, along with its support projects, like the Ares launch vehicles, which were designed to return astronauts to the moon by 2020. The program was behind schedule, over budget, and "unachievable." He agreed to end it.

posted 01-23-2012 10:47 PM               

Gov. Romney, this is the state that put the first man on the Moon. America right now has no way to put people into space except to hitch a ride with the Russians. Meanwhile, the Chinese are ramping up their space program. At a time when you all want to shrink federal spending, should space exploration be a priority?

Romney: It should certainly be a priority. What we have right now is a president who does not have a vision or a mission for NASA. And as a result of that, there are people on the Space Coast that are suffering, and Florida itself is suffering as a result.

So what's the right way forward? Well I happen to believe our space program is important not only for science but also for commercial development and for military development. And I believe the right mission for NASA should be determined by a president together with a collection of people from those different areas: from NASA, from the Air Force space program, from our leading universities, and from commercial enterprises.

Bring them together, discuss a wide range of options for NASA, and then have NASA not just funded by the federal government, but also by commercial enterprises, have some of the research done in our universities, let's have a collaborative effort with business, with government, with the military, as well as with their educational institutions, have a mission that once again excites our young people about the potential of space and the commercial potential will pay for itself down the road.

This is a great opportunity. Florida has technology, the people here on the Space Coast have technology and vision and passion that America needs. And with a president who is actually willing to create a mission and a vision for NASA and for space, we can continue to lead the world.

Would you put more tax dollars into the space race to commit to putting an American on Mars instead of relying on the private sector?

Gingrich: The two are not incompatible. For example, most of the great breakthroughs in aviation in the 20s and 30s were the result of prizes. Lindbergh flew to Paris for a $25,000 prize.

I would like to see vastly more the money spent encouraging the private sector into very aggressive experimentation, and I'd like to see a leaner NASA. I don't think building a bigger bureaucracy and having a greater number of people sit in rooms and talk gets you there.

But if we had a series of goals that we were prepared to offer prizes for, there's every reason to believe that you'd have a lot of folks in this country and around the world who would put up an amazing amount of money and would make the Space Coast literally hum with activity because they’d be drawn to achieve these prizes: going back to the Moon permanently, getting to Mars as rapidly as possible, building a series of space stations and developing commercial space. There are a whole series of things we could do that could be dynamic that are more than just better government bureaucracy.

They're fundamentally leapfrogging into a world where you're incentivizing people who are visionaries and people in the private sector to invest very large amounts of money and finding a very romantic and exciting future.

posted 01-24-2012 02:04 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
I still question why the program wasn't modified or streamlined the way other federal programs that are over-budget are.

---

posted 01-24-2012 02:39 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by AJ:
Granted, it wasn't an actual plan, but it wasn't bad!

---

I believe the right mission for NASA should be determined by a president together with a collection of people from those different areas: from NASA, from the Air Force space program, from our leading universities, and from commercial enterprises.

Since 1969, 24 blue-ribbon panels have (re)assessed HSF [human spaceflight] strategy, and exploration concepts and technologies...