Posted on 01/26/2012 7:36:33 AM PST by The_Victor
The United States will have a permanent manned colony on the moon by 2020 if Newt Gingrich is in charge, the Republican presidential hopeful announced today (Jan. 25).
Gingrich laid out this goal during a speech in the city of Cocoa, on Florida's Space Coast. He also said that near-Earth space would be bustling with commercial activity by 2020, and that America would possess a next-generation propulsion system by then, allowing the nation to get astronauts to Mars quickly and efficiently.
"By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon, and it will be American," Gingrich said.
The former Speaker of the House made no apologies for the boldness of his amibitions, which depend primarily on the emergence of a vibrant commercial spaceflight industry. He said the U.S. space program needs a kick in the pants like the one President John F. Kennedy gave it in 1961, when he promised to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade.
(Excerpt) Read more at space.com ...
>>in a society where trillions are spend on subsidized health care, it might be better spend on the final frontier - space.
>I have a conservative idea: let’s do neither.
I guess the Louisiana Purchase was just the government wasting money on forests filled with hostile indians that are too dangerous to invest in.
I guess destroying entrepreneurial spirit is conservative.
Unless the high ground is too far away. A suborbital spacecraft (Reagan's Orient Express) would be much more valuable to the United States than a Moon base, or a space station.
You really don’t want to go that route.
It was Constitutionally unauthorized. Does one violation of the Constitution justify another - even if the first one turned out well?
I guess destroying entrepreneurial spirit is conservative.
You think refraining from spending taxpayer money is "destroying entrepreneurial spirit"? Have the decency to not call yourself a conservative.
If it's paid for by tax dollars, then $.01 is too much.
Lewis and Clark
It didn't cost in excess of a million dollars an ounce to send Lewis and Clark anywhere. They got on their horses and went. If anyone can get in his car and drive to the moon let them go. L&C cataloged economically feasible resources. The moon is NOT economically feasible as a source of anything.
but in a society where trillions are spend on subsidized health care, it might be better spend on the final frontier - space.
How about just NOT spending it on subsidized health care How about - and here's a novel idea - LETTING THE PEOPLE WHO EARNED IT KEEP IT AND SPEND IT ON WHAT THEY WANT?
Yet, despite seven ambitious expeditions, Zheng He failed to leave a lasting mark in the history of maritime exploration. The voyages emptied imperial coffers, and as a result, brought forth complaints from influential court officials. After the death of Emperor Yongle, the succeeding emperors discontinued the expeditions, and forbade overseas trade. Years later, court officials even burnt documents of the voyages and destroyed the gigantic junks that once ruled the seas. By the time Portuguese ships roamed the Indian Ocean, remnants of Zheng He’s magnificent fleet had all but vanished completely.
“I guess the Louisiana Purchase was just the government wasting money on forests filled with hostile indians that are too dangerous to invest in.”
The moon isn’t just across the river.
Sure I do or I would not have posted it.
I guess the Louisiana Purchase was just the government wasting money on forests filled with hostile indians that are too dangerous to invest in.
Let’s pay down some debt, straighten up entitlements, make the government smaller first... conservative things.
You must have your asbestos underwear on today. Good luck!
Yes and no. Building postal roads - yes. Research - can't find that in my copy of the constituiton.
One important thing that Alaska always had that the moon will never, AIR!
>>It was Constitutionally unauthorized. Does one violation of the Constitution justify another - even if the first one turned out well?
The power to increase the size of America is not addressed in the Constitution - who says America can’t own part of the moon as well?
>>You think refraining from spending taxpayer money is “destroying entrepreneurial spirit”? Have the decency to not call yourself a conservative.
Fine, let’s fire everyone in the military. Smart.
I'm admittedly speculating... Are you speculating as well or are you certain there is not some point (perhaps size and weight) where it makes more sense to assemble and launch from space? I'm sure there have been studies to compare the two approaches and you may be familiar with them.
Though not a direct analogy, consider that with rare exception, we generally assemble large naval vessels by shipping the components to the ocean and launching from there as opposed to building inland and moving the fully built craft to the water.
leaving aside that NASA is one of very few government expenditures with a measurable return on investment, I at no point said “use government money”. IMO Space exploitation will quickly pay for it self.
As far as being a lib, I’m pretty high on the list of those with reservations for an unmarked grave as soon as our communist/socialist masters finish consolidating power. Who are you voting for this coming November?
LOL WW! These remarks by Gingrich are insane, IMO. You may call my response “small-minded”, but my brain IS large enough to recognize folly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.