6 thoughts on “Newt’s Lunar Base

  1. Ralph Buttigieg

    G’day,

    My understanding the Outer Space Treaty prohibits nations claiming sovereignty over the Moon. However it does not prevent nations having sovereign control over their own property including the base. If the inhabitants of Moonbase Newt decide to call themselves a separate state I can’t see what the problem would be.

    ta

    Ralph

  2. Hope Change

    I appreciate that you took Newt’s proposal seriously enough to comment on its feasibility. I do think that eventually, humans will have bases on the moon and it’s lunacy to think otherwise. (See what I did there?)

    However, a person can’t assess the political feasibility unless the person understands what the political landscape will, or could, look like if Newt gets the nomination.

    That is why I ask the transterrestrial cohort to watch Newt’s speeches, in which he lays out the plan to team up and make a clear agenda, upon which the American people will be voting this fall, in which the new congressmen and congresswomen and Senators will be agreeing to the repeal of Obamacare, Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank, as well as other exciting prosperity-promoting changes too numerous to reiterate.

    If Newt wins the nomination, there is a very high likelihood that the political landscape will be completely different from anything most people might imagine right now. MUCH more conducive to enacting a conservative agenda that will restore our Constitution and balance of powers.

    Newt says that many of his Republican colleagues in congress thought the idea that they would take the house in 1994 was a joke THE NIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION.

    Doesn’t the aerospace industry attract visionaries, people who dream? I don’t know much about it. I thought the desire to fly and to create flight would make a person eager to imagine.

    http://newtgingrich360.com/profiles/blogs/2012-victory-or-death-newt-s-speeches-links-to-17-speeches

  3. MfK

    Good article, Rand. The only change I would make is to substitute “electrolysis” for “hydrolysis” (which produce opposite effects).

    Otherwise, you’re spot-on. The lunar program today would cost nowhere near what it did for Apollo if it were done by commercial (especially prize-driven) enterprises. SpaceX is a genuine existence proof of the cost aspect, and the Ansari XPRIZE is a proof of the prize concept. Some of that is due to what Apollo brought into existence, and the lunar experience Apollo gained will be invaluable (if it still exists) in informing commercial enterprise how to proceed.

    Keep up the great work!

  4. gbaikie

    I think rather than base, Newt should focus on exploration of the Moon- something he could get done within his first term.
    Explore Moon- robots and human. Prepare [and the prize thing] for Mars.
    End of second term, maybe be going to Mars.
    In nearest term, NASA needs to develop refueling in space. Needs to buy rocket fuel in space- and develop all it’s missions to refuel in space.
    Mission that don’t need to refuel in space should examine to see if they could be refueled , and if by doing so would add value.
    A mars sample return seems as a guess something that could be improved if refueling is part of that mission. Robots send to the Moon, should looked at to see if re-fueling in orbit or on lunar surface, would add anything. NASA should make it “free” to any mission to add refueling.
    So right now it’s not option, make it an option and encourage using such an option.

    1. Edward Wright

      I think rather than base, Newt should focus on exploration of the Moon- something he could get done within his first term.

      That depends on what you mean by “exploration” and “done.”

      If you mean “first landing on the Moon,” we did that during Richard Nixon’s term.

      If you mean complete exploration, well, we’re not “done” exploring the United States. We have a government agency for that — the US Geological Survey — not to mention travel agencies, oil and mineral exploration firms, etc.

      Exploration isn’t something you get “done” with.

  5. Jim Bennett

    Ralph, the Outer Space treaty allows in-situ resource utilization and implies the ability to declare a local keep-away zone on the Moon but that is a far cry from a legally recognized, court-enforceable property title. Once you have that you can finance projects tapping large pools of capital that just aren’t available to unsecured venture deals. Look at the big mining plays in the Canadian Arctic that require billions in capital, and get it from New York and London without a problem. And the Arctic is a difficult, expensive location to work in. But in Canada you have secure title to the resource. You can’t even sell shares in a US company that says it can use resources on the Moon because, without title, the SEC could prosecute you for fraud. And you can’t get title insurance because nobody would issue it to you. We either have to create a legal environment that gives secure title within the OST, or amend it, or withdraw from it. Right now it’s a big roadblock.

Comments are closed.