New Space Policy Questions and Advice for Mitt

PJ Media ^ | January 28, 2012 | Rand Simberg

[w4women]

Interestingly, space policy has been much more discussed in this primary campaign than any other in recent history, largely because it is a topic about which one of the candidates, Newt Gingrich, is unusually enthusiastic and conversant. With the focus on Tuesday’s primary in Florida, a swing state in which space is an important issue to many on the Space Coast, it seems to have reached a peak in the last few days, though after Tuesday’s vote it is likely to recede into the background, with few remaining debates ahead, and none focusing on a space state.

On Wednesday, Gingrich gave an aspirational speech in Cocoa Beach laying out his vision for America in space, of a ten-billion-dollar prize for the first human on Mars, a lunar base by the end of his second term, and eventually a settlement of several thousand that might become a new U. S. state. As I noted here on Friday, this isn’t as crazy as it sounds to many, and Ken Chang at the New York Times wrote a similar story with the theme on Saturday that the primary barrier was politics, not technology or cost.

[w4women]

"Nonetheless, Mitt Romney chose to ridicule it, continuing to come off (as he did in December) as a soulless, visionless technocrat."

Pretty good description of a candidate who will not rally the base.

[trebb]

"Nonetheless, Mitt Romney chose to ridicule it, continuing to come off (as he did in December) as a soulless, visionless technocrat." Pretty good description of a candidate who will not rally the base.

Apt description. Mitt's only vision coincides with Obama and the Left - acquire power to "mold" the People and to justify himself.

[only the truth]

15 Trillion in debt and another fool wants to spend billions setting a base up on the moon, WHY?

[PIF]

The billions you envision are largely from private enterprise, not from NASA.

The only ways to get out of debt is to sell something or create something. Right now the debt is equal to the total output of the US, or to put it another way, more than the value of the entire US. Selling all of the country to someone won't solve the problem, which leaves creating something.

Which do you prefer?

NG wants NASA to allocate a substantial part of its current budget to prize money, while at the same time stripping NASA of most of the bureaucrats and self-imposed rules and regulations.

Since the heavy lifting will be done by private enterprise, why not let it go forward? Of course, we could wait for China to settle the moon, as they announced, and then militarize it. Whatever money is generated by China on the moon, will not be used to pay off the US debt.

Settling the moon first solves both problems

[FreedomFighter1013]

For a Comprehensive Summary of the Arguments in Favor of a Lunar Colony.

To Obama, a $50 billion lunar colony is chump change While Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has been mocked repeatedly by his chief rival, Mitt Romney, there is a compelling series of arguments to be made for returning to the moon, this time in the form of a permanent Lunar colony. Indeed, the Lunar colony idea had been articulated by President George W. Bush in 2004 and was based on solid research developed by many serious thinkers in the space community. It had also been ratified by 2 different congresses, in 2005 and 2008. In fact, the first lunar colony was planned in the mid-1960s, called ALSS (Apollo Logistics Support System) Lunar Base and was cancelled in 1968....for more: or click here

[PIF]

Here’s a rare piece these days (I don’t want to pimp my site but this piece is hard to find):

Moon, Mars and Beyond
http://thepoliticallyincorrectfish.com/pif2/?p=595