Skip to comments.Back to the Moon — For a Fraction of the Old Price: Gingrich is right...
Posted on 02/02/2012 5:06:21 PM PST by BCrago66
As a former NASA executive, I am saddened by the media response to Newt Gingrich's proposal that we return to the moon. The mockery and ridicule does America a great disservice. Space exploration and development is an important national issue. It's not only possible and necessary to safeguard our futureit can be a lot cheaper than anybody dreams.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Only after the Chinese have established a permanent base on the moon and declared it Chinese “territory” will the American public wake up to understand how shortsighted this administration has been.
Not only cheaper, but the benefits to this country and the world in technological advances will more than pay for the costs.
obamney secret donor revealed!...
I’ve got one question. Where’s my flying car?
We were promised flying cars in our future back in the 60’s, and it’s now 2012, so I figure they are way past due already. Before we even think about building a dang moon base, I want my flying car! /rantoff
Yup, the Chinese will get there first and we will be stuck buying our moonrocks from Walmart.
The Moon is the gateway to the rest of the Universe. Sort of like the Erie Canal was the gateway to the West.
Not a subscriber and not going to at this time but I think see where it appears to be going and he is right. Newt a true conservative and a believer in free enterprize and our capitalistic system with a vision of greatness for America. A grand project such as this can not only be accomplished but provide jobs, profits and revenues to the government, a great bounty to great people and country.
“...the benefits to this country and the world in technological advances will more than pay for the costs...”
I want to see your math.
I like the privatization that’s been taking place. I see the potential for government taking a smaller role but continuing the scientific push that advanced technology (and hence our lifestyle) more than anything.
I’ve said it befor:IF a flying car could be built economically the government would add enough regulatory costs to kill it.
A flying car would give people way too much freedom for the liking of many.I’m not so sure milliuons of people in flying cars is a good idea.Envision the current traffic carnage in 3D.
A moonbase could be cheaply done ... the moon has water ... a base there is far less problematic than the ISS ,, resupply is easier with heavy lift rockets... (look up “260 inch motor”) .. sure we visited and planted a flag but we need a permanent presence ... starting an exploration from the moon is far more feasible than from the Earths surface..
Arrogant, short-sighted Romney scoffed at it.
Only Newt Gingrich can turn this Republic around and not manage its decay.
Oh well, I suppose if we attempted to colonize the Moon the damned enviroweenies would keep us tied up in court for so long that we'd eventually have to declare it a national monument and no one would be allowed to go near it.
“.Im not so sure milliuons of people in flying cars is a good idea.Envision the current traffic carnage in 3D.”
Meh, if everyone had that attitude, we’d still be driving buggies. Or walking.
I want to see your math.
There is no math. Benefits to mankind from technological advances cannot easily be quantified or planned. Some take place years after the normal election cycle in our Congress.
There are a myriad of technological advances that can be traced to NASA (and DoD) R&D. Many applications have no relationship to the intended applied R&D. They are unplanned.
Unfortunately our country has be dumbed down for so many years, that the concept is foreign to most. That is, it was difficult years ago to connect the dots. Today it is impossible. There was a time when the NSF was looking into the benefits of applied R&D to the population at large. I do not know what and whether NSF is exploring this avenue.
Yeah, I’ve seen that, but that is not a flying car. That is a plane that you can taxi along the roads in. I want a flying car, like the Jetsons, or Bladerunner, or Back to the Future!
What does your post have to do with this thread?
Anyone with a modicum of intel knows that holding the ‘high ground’ is of paramount importance in military maters.
Googling "Back to the Moon" in the news section - the top hit was the full text of the article - in this case directly from WSJ itself! ;-)
You're welcome! ;-)
Then, why hasn't it been?
“...There are a myriad of technological advances that can be traced to NASA...”
Yeah, but I hate tang.
Are you a homo
Look to your screen. Without the space program of the past you would not be online reading my post.
Spending a $hundred billion on space will put the US into a lot better economic condition than spending that same $hundred billion on supporting another generation of welfare dependents.
I’m disgusted at my country for scoffing at the idea of going into space.
This attitude is decisively symptomatic of a civilization in decline that’s lost its will. The US is contracting inwards in an appeal to address its internal decayturning away from innovation, exploration, and expansion, as dying civilizations are wont to do.
No, I meant the other tang.
Then, why hasn’t it been?
Because we design almost everything for human survivability .. a moonbase could be thrown up there with heavy lift solid boosters ... the boosters upper stages themselves could be some part of the base structure if they were just empty tubes... there would be no fuel burn to remain in orbit ... solar arrays mounted in the moons soil would be incredibly cheap and easy to build and scale up as needed ... simply reviving and updating the Apollo capsule on top of a reliable booster would get us there... sure a 69 Ford LTD isn’t current tech ,, it ain’t sexy but it plain works.
Charley - we’re broke. We can’t go to the moon no matter how cheap the ride. A penniless man can’t afford a $50 clunker to drive.
lol have a great super bowl week end
There is a huge difference between driving and flying.
Have many cars driving directly above your home today?
Typically the are several disabled vehicles every day that barely make it to the side of the road and impede traffic in a city like Cincinnati; multiply that by the rest of the country ,realize planes can’t just pull to the side-they crash, and even you might understand there are problems.
I believe there is also a slight problem of increased fuel consumption in that it takes more energy to keep a relatively compact mass in the air than the same mass rolling on wheels.Ultralights already exist and are about the closest we’ve come to universal aviation.But even ultralights need some room to take off and land.And trunk capacity is extremely limited.
Also,to preserve any semblance of privacy ,and traffic control,the flying cars in any significant number would need tighter air traffic control than exists for today’s aviation.Probably means computer/GPS/? system that flies the aircar only along approved paths,spacing,etc. Tailgating in an aircraft is insanely dangerous.
You could also demand a personal submarine capable of exploring the Titanic for everyone;all you need do is reduce the cost of the current model by a factor of 1,000!
Peter Pan was a story;everyone else had to grow up.
Sadly we’re broke because short-sighted politicians bowed to insane enviromental lobbyists and thereby forced us to send our wealth to people that hate us,in exchange for oil to keep our immediate needs met.The nation that sent men to the Moon also had a strong manufacturing economy and wasn’t buying its consumer goods fromCommunist China
Then we engaged in hugely expensive wars to fight those funded by our wealth.
I’ve always found it interesting that Nixon was hounded from office after strongly supporting Israel and then calling for America’s energy independence.
You make a lot of good points, but I’m not budging. We were promised flying cars, and I’m not giving up the dream, man!
I watched the Jetsons,too! Those grueling work hours poor George had to face.
I want the electricity they said would be so cheap to produce that we wouldn’t have meters!Even the old 2 cents a kwh of the 1960s would seem like free compared to the 12 cents per kwh plus the month;y $20 fee just to be connected.The connection charge didn’t exist in the 60s.
Because - especially lately - it was borne of the government, done by the government, for the government...
Article mentions several space pioneers and astronauts, including Elon Musk, Paul Allen and Jeff Greason.
A Reusable Spaceplane Prize would solve this problem. As Mr. Gingrich pointed out in a speech last month, in the 1920s and 1930s entrepreneurs like Bill Boeing, Glen Martin, Donald Douglas, Jack Northrop and the Wright brothers with some help from the U.S. government created the greatest aviation industry on this planet. America is still the home of the entrepreneur, and we now have space-travel pioneers like Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Robert Bigelow, Burt Rutan, Paul Allen and Jeff Greason.
For example, Jeff Greason is doing work for SpaceX which was founded by Elon Musk, with the money from sale of PayPal - which he co-founded with Peter Tiel (original investor in Facebook) - to eBay. (Elon Musk is also a founder of Tesla Motors, but that's another story.)
SpaceX is a private space/rocket company, involved in manned and unmanned space missions such as tourism, cargo, laboratory, commercial haul and delivery (from/to ISS) etc., with launching and landing sites in CA, TX, FL and sea / ocean platforms.
SpaceX rockets are designed to be modular, 95% reusable, much lighter and cheaper to launch and land than NASA shuttle. Almost 50% of SpaceX revenue currently comes from NASA, but the projects are fixed-cost, i.e., any delays or overruns come at the expense of SpaceX, not the taxpayer. The rest of revenue is from commercial and scientific projects, including non-US non-military entities.
Most of research, technology, materials, production and testing are state-of-the-art and done in-house, little is outsourced.
Check out Dragon / Falcon-9 rockets, with some modules nearly ready for human delivery.
Other space companies include Virgin Galactic, brainchild of Richard Branson (UK), which are looking for certain joint ventures with SpaceX and other companies. It's not a pipe dream, it's happening; most people just don't know about it because it's not seen in pop-media or at NASA, it's happening outside and around them. U.S. government should encourage these developments, and unshackle these companies, not stand in the way or burden them with undue regulations, just because something didn't come out of NASA or other government agency.
Gingrich not only understands it (which, in itself, is unusual for conventional politician), but is willing to talk about these aspirations and needs, while keeping in mind the cost-benefit of venture.
Unlike most politicians, Newt is willing to share this vision, only to be subjected to ridicule by his opponents (like Mitt Romney, the "safety-net Mr. Fix-it") or the brain-dead media, liberal and "conservative" alike. Nice to have a candidate with a vision, and who doesn't think that all good things can come from government, and government only.
To paraphrase Ralph Waldo Emerson, Liberalism and bureaucracy are hobgoblins of little minds.
I agree that the U.S. government should encourage spaceflight R&D and not burden them with undue regulations. Most, if not all, advances in space R&D came from the private sector, funded by NASA and DoD.
No bias there. Translation: "As a government bureaucrats whose money came from the taxpayer funded trough...
I am saddened by the media response to Newt Gingrich's proposal that we return to the moon.
Translation: When I heard Neut, I though there was a chance the gravy train would start up again, but the media didn't see any advantage for themselves so they didn't cheer the idea as I wished they would have.
The mockery and ridicule does America a great disservice
Translation: Getting a realistic assessment of the incredible cost and abysmally low worth of a moon base out to the voting public is not in the best interests of NASA bureaucrats whose money is based forcing taxpayers to pay for things that most of them have no interest in and wouldn't give a penny for if they were given the choice.