“A successful, non military, government program is inherently against everything that right wingers believe in!”

The Space Launch System: Non military? Yes. Government program? Yes. Successful? Probably not. Guess that’s how they got all those right-wing Republicans to support it.

The scientist and engineers that Newt was speaking to in his speech was enthusiastic about what he had to say. But the Republican Party in general is suspicious of science and hostile to big government programs. And the Moon landings are now so long ago that the media treats them almost as if they were a fantasy. And there’s always been a wing of the Democratic Party that feels that manned space travel is an inherently wasteful thing for the government to do when there are so many poor people to feed. Right:-)

I suspect that most of the people who are most critical of Newt probably didn’t even see the speech. And it was a darn good speech– even if he did contradict himself by first criticizing big government and then endorsed two big government programs, Kennedy’s Moon mission and his own lunar base program.

But the extreme right can smell a big government program a mile away and they’re going to be against it no matter how good it is for the country and for private industry. A successful, non military, government program is inherently against everything that right wingers believe in!

So Newt’s own philosophy came back to haunt him. And praising liberal icons like Kennedy and Lincoln didn’t help him with Republicans either. The Party of Lincoln disappeared a long time ago.

For a lot of people, either through culturial heritage or politicial reasons do not like and are not comfortable with the word colony because of the history of european and american history as it relates to colonization. Rape and pillage, kill off the inhabitants and steal all the land.

Granted there is no inhabitants on the moon unless there is some bacteria in some crack somewhere, but some people just do not like the idea of colonizing.

Personally I am fine with it but the Planet still has to come to terms with property rights.

I believe the United States should have a policy that they will recognize property rights of any commercial firm for 50,000 acres(?) and 10,000 acres(?) for each individual. If 100 businesses made a claim and 100 individuals it would still take a decade for that much and it wouldn’t make a dent in the 9 billion acres available. But at least it would get the conservsation started.

‘Go listen to his speech in Florida.’

Why bother. SNL’s take is much better.

He is not doing so because he has been generally incompetent at defending himself on this, not because he makes no distinction between “base” and “colony.” He said “base” by 2020, and he did so for a reason. “Colony” was a separate topic to him. Go listen to his speech in Florida.

And, as I said, a permanent base by 2020 is arguably a colony by 2020. I don’t believe he’d achieve it by 2020, whatever you want to call it, but that’s another issue.

William Mellberg wrote @ February 6th, 2012 at 4:29 pm
“A colony, on the other hand, clearly implies, as Mr. Simberg suggests, permanent residents (i.e., families making the colony their permanent home).”

So, you’re going to tell New Zealand that if the thousand inhabitants of Tokelau decide to up and leave, to be replaced by others from New Zealand, who have no intention to stay out their lives there, it’s no longer a colony? Yes, there is an implication (but I call it a connotation), that is historically, rather than practically founded.

Again, Gingrich is being accused of saying that there will be families building homesteads on the Moon by 2020. He’s not dumb enough to believe that. So why isn’t he objecting to that accusation? Because that’s not what “colony” means to him, for some good reason.

“Colony” is just a word that is poorly defined, and connotes what we might like it to connote, in admiration of historical colonists. The word “exploration” is very much like that. We like to see human space flight as the cutting edge of exploration because of our admiration for historical explorers. Not because humans in space are doing anything like what those historical explorers did. In fact, very, very little of our exploration of space has come from human space flight. But it’s a comforting myth that it has.

I’ll let the matter rest.

“… my point is just that it isn’t a wholesale mischaracterization of Gingrich’s speech to interpret what he was advocating as colonization.”

I have to agree with Rand Simberg. The word ‘colony’ implies something far different from the word ‘base.’ I often use the term ‘outpost’ when talking about a permanent ‘facility’ on the Moon. Base, outpost, facility — call it what you will — the idea is that a limited number of professional people would be engaged in scientific research and resource development. While the outpost would be permanent, the occupants would not. Which, of course, is the same situation we have with the International Space Station.

A colony, on the other hand, clearly implies, as Mr. Simberg suggests, permanent residents (i.e., families making the colony their permanent home).

It is the notion of a lunar colony that has people laughing at Newt Gingrich. Perhaps that is why Mitt Romney chose the term ‘colony’ when he criticized the idea. It was certainly the focus of the SNL skit. But had Mr. Gingrich driven home the point that he was talking about a ‘base’ … perhaps he wouldn’t have been subjected to so much ridicule.

Just this past weekend, the Russians started talking again about landing humans on the Moon (by 2020, no less):

http://rt.com/news/moon-flights-russia-cosmonauts-361/

What is being laughed at in this country is not such a joke elsewhere. It is a vision … the sort of vision Mr. Gingrich seems to have been trying to convey. Unfortunately, Mr. Gingrich failed to make himself clear the night of the debate. Which is why his ideas have been mischaracterized ever since. Such is the nature of politics.