Whoa:
“I think that it is unrealistic to think that we could establish a moon base by 2020, even if we spent all the money in the world,” Rohrabacher said. “[It’s] just going to bankrupt every other program.”
Rohrabacher said Gingrich is a visionary thinker “who can paint pictures for people of what a bright future we could have. But he doesn’t have the management and leadership abilities to lead those to fruition.”
I actually disagree. I think that we could easily get back to the moon by 2020, for less money than NASA is currently spending, but only if it is important, and Congress doesn’t dictate how to do it. In other words, we can’t do it.
I think that we could easily get back to the moon by 2020, for less money than NASA is currently spending, but only if it is important, and Congress doesn’t dictate how to do it. In other words, we can’t do it.
Rand, please correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re implying that returning to the moon by 2020 will require government funding.
This seems to be a radical shift in your position over the last 10 years and more. I recall that when VSE was announced you stated that you expected there to be private parties on the moon to greet NASA astronauts when they finally arrived.
Has your position changed? If not, why all the fuss about what Congress spends money on? If so, why?
Rand, please correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re implying that returning to the moon by 2020 will require government funding.
That’s probably correct, in terms of landing, though I think there will be a private circumnavigation before then.
Has your position changed?
No.
If not, why all the fuss about what Congress spends money on? If so, why?
Ummmmm…because I’m a taxpayer? Was that a trick question?
The key issue is congress regarding space as important.
It’s doubtful Romney will regard space as important.
It’s not certain that Gingrich would regard space as important.
He seems to think it’s important, and whether he translate it into making the Congress so they regard it as important is also another matter.
I think space is important, but don’t think I convince congress it was important and there many things that many including congress do think it important.
The question is what are you going expend your first 100 days [assuming you given it] trying to get done?
In order for this to include something related to space, you basically need to campaign and win based upon this issue.
Because if you campaign mainly on other issues, and first 100 days has space as some major element – the press and the public are going make hard for you to govern- regarding anything.
So it seems a president should focus on getting things done which have support and can be done, and have being demonstrated to have public support by fact that one just got elected.
So, generally it seems that a Republican, have run against Obama doing nothing and what this needs is leadership.
And where is America going?
It seems what is needed is economic growth- somewhere around 5% per year. And we need to be less dependent foreign energy supplies of energy.
So I think opening up space frontier, will cause economic growth, but not in the near term, and you need it in near term- so doing things which get people back to work, and causing economic growth- would first priority.
Canceling everything obama gave executive order on, would another thing, getting government into into information age, and getting government to help the private sector instead of hinder it. And get NASA back on track to explore the Moon, and order them to buy rocket fuel and development technology of being able to re-fuel all space mission from depots.
There has been a somewhat radical shift in government debt recently too.
I think it’ll have to be done privately, but probably not by 2020. With Congress calling the shots NASA couldn’t do it before 2035, if ever.
Is Rohrabacher just setting himself up for alignment with the next President? If he disavows Gingrich style plans now, he is hoping to ingratiate himself with the new administration?
Dana has endorsed Romney for president, as reported in Roll Call.
I don’t think a single person critiquing Newt’s plans actually watched or read the speech. Newt explained in plain English that he’d set aside a pot of ten percent of NASA’s budget for the Moon colony (though he didn’t explain how or if this would roll over year-to-year), and if no one could get it done for ten billion, no harm done, money saved.
ABC News had an interesting take on it.
The “but” part is important because it portrays Newt’s idea as a negative despite going on in the rest of the article to support government sponsored prizes. Even when ABC News might agree with one of Newt’s positions they have to spin it as a negative.
Newt explained in plain English that he’d set aside a pot of ten percent of NASA’s budget for the Moon colony
Actually, he explained that he would set aside 10% of NASA’s budget for prizes — one of which would be for a Moon colony.
Alex, I agree. I’m totally amazed when I come here and see that I am apparently one of the only ones who has actually watched the speech.
I’m apparently better informed about what Newt has proposed than all the guy here, who I imagined were visionaries of science and space technology.
I don’t know about space technology. But I have watched “APOLLO 13,” “THE RIGHT STUFF.” “STAR TREK,” “GALAXY QUEST,” “FIREFLY” and so many more.
And I watched the speech. Which is here, if you want to actually know what Newt said: “NEWT’S TOWN HALL MEETING ON SPACE POLICY” http://conservatives4newt.blogspot.com/2012/01/video-newt-gingrich-town-hall-meeting.html – January 25, 2012 – Cocoa, Florida – 33:42
I came across the following today at ConservativesWithNewt and thought I would post it here for the apparent Eeyores of space and technology at Transterrestrial Musings.
Ricardo Galván Estrada, at American Thinker:
“Newt Gingrich’s moon colony proposal received a great deal of ridicule from the media and his fellow Republican contenders… Newt Gingrich’s plan, however, calls for opening up the space race to private companies and entrepreneurs in a way never seen before. While one can certainly debate the feasibility of such a plan, Gingrich isn’t calling for dumping billions or trillions of dollars into the usual governmental black hole. Instead, Newt Gingrich envisions a new era of space exploration, starting with the establishment of a moon colony as early as 2020. If Nietzsche’s Last Man is defined by his inability to take aim at lofty targets, then Newt Gingrich is the Zarathustra of today’s political class… Other countries have their own plans to build moon bases within the next fifteen to thirty years… The United States would be taking a backseat in space exploration as the communists of China revel in spoils we gave up without a fight… A failure to act on our part would embolden the communists’ arrogance. After all, an America not involved in the space-race must be a country in decline.” [end of quotation]
So do you actually doubt that humans will go to the moon and beyond?
Are you unaware that China and others have such plans? Honestly.
The negativity at Transterrestrial is very troubling to me.
And the assumption that Romney will be the nominee. Romney only looks plausible because the conservative vote is split. Romney has bought his wins by swamping Newt. Romney will lose the general election when, as the supposedly biggest bad guy in the valley of death, he meets the actually bigger bad guy in the valley of death. Scorched earth may lose elections for better candidates, but it doesn’t create a healthy economy or public weal. As we see from the present administration. This is self-government. Don’t we have an obligation to consider these things as more than cynical spectators?
And the continued studied ignorance about what Newt actually said about the moon, space, the prizes and who’s going to pay for what, is surprising, and not in a good way. I thought scientists and engineers were interested in facts. Guess not.
I hope to heaven there are other space and science lovers, upcoming citizens, who have vision, eagerness and imagination here in the United States.
For anyone who is curious, here are 17 of Newt’s speeches with links. Newt talks about science and space in some of these speeches as well. Try “STRONG AMERICA NOW”: http://newtgingrich360.com/profiles/blogs/2012-victory-or-death-newt-s-speeches-links-to-17-speeches
Getting back to the Moon is a pretty low bar. What we do after we get there and how long we maintain a presence is more important.
Alex:
This one has. Prizes won’t work as well as he seems to think.
http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2012/01/problem-with-prizes.html
Also, he’s crippling the effort by saying he’ll simultaneously develop a high power VASMR system.
It’ll be tough enough to do just one of those projects.
Prizes won’t work as well as he seems to think.
Just because blog says so doesn’t work make it a fact.
The blog post makes several dubious assumptions, the worst of which is that the program must be structured as one single prize rather than a series of prizes for stepwise progress.
The Lunar Lander Challenge is proof prizes do work.
Also, he’s crippling the effort by saying he’ll simultaneously develop a high power VASMR system.
He did not say he would develop VASIMIR. He mentioned a prize for the development of a constant-thrust propulsion system. That could be won by VASIMIR or something else.
“capable of getting to Mars in a remarkably short time”. If it isn’t a high-power VASMR, it’s something as challenging and expensive.
No one really knows how challenging or expensive VASIMR will be, so the comparison is meaningless.
No one really knows what it will cost, and this is an argument in favor? Really? Fund project X. No one really knows how challenging or expensive it will be, but it is very shiny. And awesome. And bold. Fund it.
No one really knows what it will cost, and this is an argument in favor? Really?
Sorry, Will, it’s plain you don’t understand how prizes work.
If you offer a prize, you don’t need to know how much something costs. You only need to know how much it’s worth to you. If accomplishing the goal costs too much, relative to the value of the prize, no one will compete and you aren’t out any money. But if someone else has a better idea than you do, they have a chance to compete.
You’ve fallen into the classic fallacy of the central planner, believing that all human knowledge can be found within the mind of one individual or one organization. Because you don’t see how it’s possible to do something, you assume no one else can. Like Simon Newcomb, who thought it was impossible to build a heavier-than-air flying machine because he didn’t know how to build one.
The Lunar Lander Lander Challenge is proof that prizes can work. America’s Space Prize is proof that they only work under certain conditions
Newt did not describe the conditions of his prizes in any sort of detail, so you’re making assumptions that are not in evidence. Obviously, the prizes could be made to not-work. Anything can. That doesn’t mean they couldn’t be made to work.
I think there is plenty of historical evidence that prizes are the optimal funding method for a very limited subset of technology projects. Even 1% of the NASA budget is probably too much.
I think there is plenty of historical evidence that prizes are the optimal funding method for a very limited subset of technology projects. Even 1% of the NASA budget is probably too much.
I think you need to read some more history. If you compare the rapid development of aviation, driven largely by prizes, with the virtual stagnation of space development, it’s obvious that spending 99% of NASA’s budget on the status quo is way too much.,
The Kremer prize was a dead end, Will McLean. I can’t think of any aeronautical progress as a result. Exactly which line of “lightweight and efficient aircraft” resulted?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AeroVironment
As a commenter to one of Rand’s recent PJM articles said, just drop a Bigelow module on the Moon, and bam! There’s your Moon base. It’s a start anyway.
(As an aside, I know that Bigelow modules are designed to be joined together in Earth orbit, but how would you join modules together that are landed separately on the Moon?)
The Bigelow modules that have flown are only slightly larger than a Soyuz capsule in internal volume, do not have radiation shielding for beyond the Van Allen belts, are not designed to survive a Lunar night, and no lander exists to just drop them on surface, Aside from that, they’re perfect.
Rickl wrote:
(As an aside, I know that Bigelow modules are designed to be joined together in Earth orbit, but how would you join modules together that are landed separately on the Moon?)
Replace the landing legs with wheels and bring along a Cushman?
Mike
Rohrabacher’s demonstrably incorrect regarding the earliest the US can establish a lunar outpost, but he’s got a point about Gingrich’s leadership and management deficiencies.
Why do I have a feeling that you know but nothing about Gingrich’s management skills.
What would you all at TM have said when Kennedy proposed getting to the moon within the decade in the 60’s. The technology was not ready them either. I understand we had precursors, but nothing ready to go. Would you have sat around, not learned what JFK had proposed, and undercut it and ridiculed it?
Really. Would someone please take an honest look at what Newt is actually proposing.
If you had been the engineers and scientists back on Earth in the film “APOLLO 13,” our astronauts would probably have never gotten home.
I’m an outsider to the space and science community, and I read Transterrestrial with great interest for that reason, but I am a dreamer and I am an American with imagination and the frontier spirit, and I am very disappointed about the can’t-do attitude here.
What’s the deal? Has the bureaucracy just beaten you down?