Campaign '12

Gingrich and Santorum hold their ground on space policy

While Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has been the subject of criticism and even satire for his comments about establishing a permanent lunar base (as the first step to what eventually could be statehood for a lunar settlement), the former Speaker of the House doesn’t appear to be backing down from those statements. In an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, host David Gregory asked Gingrich (after showing a brief clip of the “Saturday Night Live” sketch inspired by Gingrich’s comments) if those topics “ultimately hurts your seriousness” in the campaign.

Gingrich disagreed. “Every serious analyst understands that the Chinese are going all out to dominate space, the Russians today have the only man-rated vehicle available to the United States in space,” he said. “I didn’t propose any additional federal spending, I proposed a fundamental reform of NASA to engage the private sector in very bold and very dramatic ventures.”

Gingrich hit again on a long-running theme that NASA is mired in bureaucracy. “I think every American should wonder why we’ve spent billions and billions and billions on NASA and currently have no vehicle to put human beings into space,” he said. “I believe it’s possible to unleash the American people, to inspire the private sector, to encourage entrepreneurs and to have a dramatically better space program than we have today.”

He specifically said he doesn’t desire a massive new government program: “I’m not for a gigantic federal tax-paid program, I’m for a dramatic reform of the current program.” However, in an op-ed released by his campaign Sunday, Rick Santorum argued that was exactly what Gingrich was proposing. “Building a federally-funded moon colony would inevitably cost—at the very least—billions of dollars,” Santorum writes. “In addition to our current overspending, this would ultimately saddle our children with the price tag for another one of Speaker Gingrich’s grandiose ideas.”

Santorum’s op-ed accuses Gingrich of “pandering” to voters on Florida’s Space Coast (which, if it was, didn’t turn out to be very successful) and proposing something unrealistic and wasteful. “[I]t takes away from the more immediate, important, and realistic goals of the space program; encouraging partnerships between the space program and private businesses to grow the technology, engineering, and manufacturing sectors of our economy,” he writes. He doesn’t offer more details about how he envisions the public-private cooperation beyond that it “puts the focus on where we need it now, stimulating our economy and putting people back to work.”

In that respect, the visions of Gingrich and Santorum aren’t necessarily that far apart: Gingrich himself has reiterated his preference to have the private sector take a bigger role in space efforts, using mechanisms like prizes over traditional government programs. But Gingrich’s call for a lunar base by 2020—an admittedly audacious goal that has metastasized into a “moon colony” in the rhetoric of critics—has turned his policy into a big fat target for his opponents for the GOP nomination. On “Meet The Press”, Gingrich recalled being interviewed shortly after his Florida speech by Fox News Channel’s Greta Van Susteren, who, he recalled, said “she couldn’t imagine President John F. Kennedy being met with the kind of attacks, the kind of ridicule, the, the lack of faith in America that has come up in the last few days.” Of course, 2012 is a vastly different era than 1961, when the imperative for a human mission to the Moon was much stronger and clearer than today. By proposing a major goal for America in space without much discussion of either “why” or “how”, Gingrich has opened himself up to the criticism he’s received over the last two weeks that, remarkably, has yet to abate.

53 comments to Gingrich and Santorum hold their ground on space policy

  • Gingrich said:

    “I think every American should wonder why we’ve spent billions and billions and billions on NASA and currently have no vehicle to put human beings into space.”

    I know exactly why. It’s because the Bush administration unveiled a plan in January 2004 to have a minimum four-year gap starting with the end of the Shuttle program while we spent billions on a rocket to nowhere. The Ares I was being designed to go to the ISS — but its operations would be funded by de-funding the ISS. Go figure.

    The Congress at that time approved this proposal, and continued to go along with it until the Obama administration put an end to this idiocy.

    On “Meet The Press”, Gingrich recalled being interviewed shortly after his Florida speech by Fox News Channel’s Greta Van Susteren, who, he recalled, said “she couldn’t imagine President John F. Kennedy being met with the kind of attacks, the kind of ridicule, the, the lack of faith in America that has come up in the last few days.”

    Um, yes he was.

    JFK was pilloried for the enormous expense as the cost of the Apollo program bloated out of control. Much of the criticism came from the Republicans. He commissioned three reviews in 1963 alone, looking for a way out of the program, including a September 1963 speech to the U.N. in which he proposed a joint U.S.-Soviet Moon mission.

    But then Greta Van Susteren is with Fox News where the truth doesn’t matter.

  • SpaceColonizer

    Gingrich is betting on GOP voters actually looking into the issues themselves and becoming informed. Santorum is betting on GOP voters accepting what they’re told and having a knee jerk reaction to it. Guess who wins that bet.

  • Following up on Greta Van Susteren’s ignorance of history …

    From an article by John Logsdon:

    In retrospect, the impression is that Apollo moved forward without political problems; this is not correct. In 1961 and 1962, there was widespread political and public support for Kennedy’s lunar initiative, in part propelled by the enthusiasm of the initial flights of Project Mercury, including Alan Shepard’s suborbital mission on May 5, 1961, and John Glenn’s three-orbit flight on February 20, 1962. But by 1963, there was rising criticism of Apollo from several fronts. Eisenhower called the race to the Moon “nuts.” Many Republicans suggested that Kennedy should be spending more money on military space efforts nearer the Earth rather than on a lunar adventure. Leading scientists and liberals joined forces to suggest that Project Apollo was a distortion of national priorities and that there were many more worthy uses for the funds being spent on going to the Moon. Congress cut the NASA budget by 10% in 1963, slowing down its exponential increase.

    Dr. Logsdon also posted this article on The Space Review:

    As Kennedy sent his FY1964 NASA budget request of $5.7 billion to Congress in January 1963, The New York Times editorialized, “we do not think the matter [the lunar landing program] has been sufficiently explained or sufficiently debated.” Former president Dwight Eisenhower was vocal in his skepticism, calling for more “common sense”; in June he described Project Apollo as “nuts.” Eisenhower’s vocal opposition worried Kennedy; the former president was still widely respected. Congressional Republicans questioned the contributions of Apollo to national security and suggested that “if our vital security is not at stake,” a slower-paced program might make more sense. In its August issue, the widely-read Reader’s Digest included an article headlined “We’re Running the Wrong Race with Russia,” suggesting that the real threat in space was “Soviet strides toward military conquest of the space just over our heads.”

  • Newt Gingrich said:

    “Every serious analyst understands that the Chinese are going all out to dominate space.”

    Yeah, that’s why they haven’t launched anyone in 3 1/2 years …

  • GeeSpace

    He (Santorum) doesn’t offer more details about how he envisions the public-private cooperation beyond that it “puts the focus on where we need it now, stimulating our economy and putting people back to work.”

    So Santorum doesn’t think having an active space program with major objectives such as a moon base will not stimulate our economy and pit people back to work? Some good space programs or activities can not or should not “fit” into a profit and loss statement.

    Perhaps he Santorum wants a commission to study the issue and make recommendations.

    As to making fun of Gringrich’s space proposal, let’s remember that the Mercury-Gemini-Apollo programs did not have 100% approval in Congress and the program were made fun of by a guy named “Jose” who appeared on a lot of TV shows.

  • NASA Fan

    Too bad Gingrich isn’t going to win the nomination. He’s fun to watch, and provides great material for satirists; which in my mind is the only redeeming quality of politics these days, ) that is, providing material for the entertainment industry.

    Watching Willard is like watching paint dry.

    Regarding ‘serious analyst': Can anyone name such a person?

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi SCS –

    Logsdon has a tendency to get things authoritatively wrong. It took him several years to straighten himself out on “open skies”.

    Logsdon kind of leaves out Eisenhower’s approval of development of the Saturn 1, and the construction of its facilities, which were facts on the ground by the time Kennedy took office. The Apollo capsule was also far along under development when Kennedy received the keys.

    These were developments the Soviet Union would not match for 6 years.

    Note the qualifier “unless there are vital national needs” in Ike’s statement.

    Someday someone will write Trevor Gardner’s history, but it looks like that is going to be a while yet. I don’t know how many of his acquaintances are still living; most of the ones I talked with have passed on, as near as I know now.

  • MrEarl

    When I heard Gingrich say this on Meet the Press yesterday I just thought of the many people on this site and laughed.
    Newt: “Every serious analyst understands that the Chinese are going all out to dominate space,”
    Well RGO? You and others on this site, have blasted anyone else who’ve made that assertion, Windy and Marcel comes to mind, now your boy Newt makes the same assertion! Maybe Newt is thinking of Windy when he mentions; “Every serious analyst”.
    This becomes more fun as we go along. The silly season is in full swing.

  • William Mellberg

    Stephen C. Smith wrote:

    “Yeah, that’s why they haven’t launched anyone in 3 1/2 years …”

    You will see taikonauts returning to space this year. Moreover, they will dock their Shenzhou spacecraft to the experimental Tiangong-1 space laboratory. Which will pave the way for a modular Chinese space station later this decade.

    The Chinese have been following a methodical approach to human spaceflight, and they have met each of the targets they announced in advance. Their progress has been slow, but steady.

    Stephen C. Smith also wrote:

    “Greta Van Susteren is with Fox News where the truth doesn’t matter.”

    Do you think the truth matters at the other networks (ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC)? The knee-jerk reaction of some people to Fox News never ceases to amaze me. Nor does the tendency of so many “journalists” to get so many facts wrong — especially where aerospace topics are involved. Of course, that’s been true for many decades.

  • Coastal Ron

    William Mellberg wrote @ February 6th, 2012 at 11:45 am

    The Chinese have been following a methodical approach to human spaceflight, and they have met each of the targets they announced in advance. Their progress has been slow, but steady.

    Why is that cause for fear?

    I grew up with the constant threat of nuclear war, lived through various economic downturns and recoveries, and have lived to see the world become small enough that one person can set off regime change.

    The Chinese becoming competent at launching and using modern but limited space vehicles does not seem like the end of the world – not today, not ten years from now.

    With everything else going on in the world, why does the Chinese space program frighten you so much that you think the U.S. should make a mad dash to “conquer the Moon”?

  • “Gingrich recalled being interviewed shortly after his Florida speech by Fox News Channel’s Greta Van Susteren, who, he recalled, said “she couldn’t imagine President John F. Kennedy being met with the kind of attacks, the kind of ridicule, the, the lack of faith in America that has come up in the last few days.”

    Newt and the rest of the Republican party are largely responsible for creating this sort of anti-government spending atmosphere. This extremist philosophy has paralyzed this nation economically for decades so that government can’t really invest in America’s infrastructure anymore without it being called waste by the Republican Party.

    During the Great Depression, Federal and local government money was used to build parks, bridges, dams, and hydroelectric power plants. During the Cold War, the Federal government spent huge amounts of money developing the space industry which brought us satellites and manned space travel.

    But such government expenditures which helped to develop and grow the American economy would today be considered– government waste– by most of the right wing extremist in the Republican Party! And Newt helped to create this atmosphere and is now suffering the consequences of it. How ironic for Newt and how tragic it is for the American people!

  • John

    America’s decline in human space exploration has been steady since the Nixon administration. The latest excuse has been to blame NASA allowing Obama to make commercial and private aerospace companies scapegoats for his lack of leadership and vision. What we should be looking at is Congress and those defense contractors who have wasted billions of taxpayer dollars to maintain industry monopolies for shareholders for over 25 years. Gingrich’s suggestion was just as political as the other candidates without having to go into detail. America could easily go to the Moon, Mars and even circumnavigate the solar system. What is holding us back is the greed and corruption in Congress that has stymied NASA’s ability to evolve.

    Note: Santorim is full of it.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ February 6th, 2012 at 11:15 am

    “Newt: “Every serious analyst understands that the Chinese are going all out to dominate space,”
    Well RGO?”

    MrEarl. Sorry I could not mock it earlier…I only saw MTP late last night and was pretty tired. We are moving to our new “Ponderosa” (still working on a name) and my smokin hot wife bought LOTS of fruit trees all of which needed a 2X2X2 foot hole in the ground to be planted…and strong back weak mind…but afterwards I was so tired after putting in a short appearance at the superbowl party (and missing Madonna) I came home and then got to watch the show.

    It was an early round out today so commenting is something I am not only getting to.

    It is a goofy statement by Newt, but it is aimed at the Morons in his political base trying to rally them toward the notion of his space effort. That works with the GOP…except for buying things from the Chinese (which Walmart and other companies need to do so thats OK) the GOP is trending toward the irrational of either the Chinese as a threat or perhaps the Iranians or well heck maybe both.

    TWo points

    First “Mr. Newt” is not my boy. The only person who might get me to vote GOP (who is running now) is Ron Paul. I am worn out of the notion of endless enemies and massive foreign involvement…and if he were the nominee I might vote for him. Otherwise unless Bloomie gets in the race I am going to vote for Obama.

    If for no other reason then his space politics and policy…and the fact that I would like the right wing of the GOP to get a good spanking this election…and I think we will come out of this abyss faster with Obama then Money Willard or even Newt.

    Newt and his vision are impressive to me. Not enough to vote for him.

    Second The GOP (and to some extent Newt) are responsible for creating this mess where the US government is powerless right now to attempt infrastructure development which is desperately needed.

    The odd thing (as I Noted on the last thread) is that absent massive federal infrastructure development “the keen minds of the South” are more or less back in the physical stone age that most of their minds are. Without federal infrastructure development the south looks more like Mississippi and less like Atlanta.

    And part of fixing our problems is to fix our infrastructure not only material infrastructure but how our government is organized.

    Newt is correct on that.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Googaw

    “Every serious analyst understands that the Chinese are going all out to dominate space…”

    This is something only a serious space cadet “understands”. To the extent China poses any challenge in space it is a military one, and the military endeavors of all sides in space are in earth orbit and entirely unmanned. The main lesson of this campaign: don’t take political advice from space cadets. Especially about space.

    “I didn’t propose any additional federal spending…”

    Oh sure you didn’t. You only proposed a preposterously useless astronaut shrine of the kind that NASA has always spent hundreds of billions of dollars on (Apollo, Shuttle, ISS). And hand-waved about how your brilliant prize scheme would magically reduce the costs of building the same kind of useless money-sink paeans to the mid 20th century sci-fi of which you are so fond. Utterly useless and preposterously expensive at the same time — the perfect recipe for a thriving business in Gingrich’s mind. Though not, I’m afraid, in the minds of people who actually have some understanding of business.

    “I proposed a fundamental reform of NASA ”

    Your “fundamental reform” is to pursue the same old plan of next logical cathedrals, except now we’ll wave hands about how “private enterprise” instead of NASA will slavishly follow these centrally planned goals. When in fact, outside the pages of sci-fi, real space commerce is has all along been doing business in a radically different way from what von Braun prescribed in the pages of Collier’s. As with the military, none of the precious astronauts are involved.

  • Vladislaw

    “Greta Van Susteren, who, he recalled, said “she couldn’t imagine President John F. Kennedy being met with the kind of attacks, the kind of ridicule, the, the lack of faith in America that has come up in the last few days.”

    There wasn’t the ability to reach the masses in the early 1960’s that you have today. The internet and 500 cable channels is a lot different then trying to air your complaints/rants with walter croncite.(sp)

  • Robert G. Oler

    Fred Cink wrote @ February 5th, 2012 at 11:10 pm

    Mr Oler, “Without TVA the south is just a bunch of hicks who loose the light once the sun goes down.” Am I the only person on this sight who questions the ASTOUNDING ARROGANCE of your thinking/comments?”

    Arrogance is a dish best served with audacity.

    The reality about federal infrastructure, including space spending is that the very people who gripe the hardest about “the federal government being in our lives” are the ones who live in the region where if the federal government was not in their lives, their lives would be in the stone age in almost every concievable way.

    With the exception of four months in RI and a few months in Minot and some “here and there” I was born and grew up in the part of Texas that is a southern state, and absent the time overseas (a little over a decade) I have lived exclusively in the “south” including the deep south.

    Dallas survived the drought last summer because of reservoirs built by federal dollars (so did Atlanta), the south would still be trying to preserve Jim Crow if the FBI had not broke the Klan…and Clear Lake would have only stopped being rice and cotton fields sometime in the 80’s as Houston continued to grow…unless there had been the spending of federal dollars on a government centered government controlled effort like Apollo, the shuttle, the station…

    Yet go listen in the cafeteria of the now Johnson Space Center and when politics comes up you will find almost all of the folks there, many on the federal payroll beat up on how the federal government is intruding into every part of our lives.

    It is a greater hubris then mine (grin) for the pols in the South (and Texas) to gripe about federal spending, then go out and argue tooth and nail not only for federal spending…but spending on such things as SLS which have no repeat NO chance of changing the entire nation economy for the better.

    The funniest thing for me was being asked by one of the folks who followed me on the school board to help the board try and get access to the federal stimulus plan because they desperately needed the money to open the doors only because they had cut the property taxes a few years earlier and broke the bank. They wanted me to talk to a few Congress folks around here who are Dems because they could not be seen, as good Republicans supporting Obama’s supplemental stimulus nor the demand (in legislation) that it be used for the schools.

    I dont mind arguments over federal spending, but for people to argue for their own federal spending and then turn right around and use the “anti federal spending” on someone elses project is to me worse then Goofy

    That is the Keen minds of the South RGO

  • Googaw

    “JFK was pilloried for the enormous expense as the cost of the Apollo program bloated out of control. Much of the criticism came from the Republicans.”

    That’s true. Apollo funding only became assured after Kennedy’s martyrdom. The result was astronomically generous funding for about 3 years after he was shot — just enough to achieve the stated goal, then inevitably this spectacular but otherwise useless Cold War project was cancelled.

    Today, there’s no need for a marketing campaign of heavenly pilgrimages to prove that our rockets are bigger than somebody else’s. Gingrich’s mind is still lost somewhere in the middle of the Cold War.

  • Robert G. Oler

    John wrote @ February 6th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
    . What is holding us back is the greed and corruption in Congress that has stymied NASA’s ability to evolve…

    this is an astute observation.

    What is holding back policy in almost the length and breadth of the federal government from social programs to defense to space…is just what you state.

    in the end “howwe do something” has become more important then that it work .

    Robert

  • Vladislaw

    “Tiangong-1 space laboratory”

    Why don’t the Chinese refer to this as a lab? In the white paper it was a vehicle for docking tests, a space vehicle, a test vehicle. I look at several chinese papers and it is never refered to as a lab, but a test vehicle that is going to deorbit in a couple years after two more docking tests.

    But everytime you see this short term vehicle for docking tests mentioned in the west it is a laboratory? It isn’t, two more tests, 1 robotic and one crewed and it’s gone.

  • William Mellberg

    Coastal Ron wrote:

    “Why does the Chinese space program frighten you so much that you think the U.S. should make a mad dash to conquer the Moon?”

    Why do you put words in my mouth? I never said I was “frightened” by the Chinese space program. Nor have I said that the U.S. should make a “mad dash” to the Moon because of China’s announced interest in Luna. I was simply stating the fact that the Chinese have done all that they have said they would do in terms of human spaceflight. And their accomplishments have been considerable, even if their pace has been slow.

    My remarks were made in response to Stephen C. Smith’s comment that China hasn’t launched anyone into space for the past 3-1/2 years. My point was that the Chinese have maintained the flight schedule they announced at the end of the Shenzhou 7 mission. Slow, but methodical.

    I did mention that this year’s Shenzhou missions will be flown in conjunction with China’s program to build a modular space space station in LEO by the end of this decade. I said nothing about the Moon.

  • DCSCA

    Nothing Newt or Santorum say on spaceflight carries any weight with the American public. But they do generate laughter, don’t they. Immediate references to ‘Newt Gingrich, Moon President’ are made– and will be made for years to come thanks to videotape and YouTube. And Santorum’s line is the same dismissive swill conservative chucklheads spewed back in the early ’60’s when Project Apollo was proposed. These two are doing damage to space discourse far beyond the area of their competence and have telegraphed a greenlight ot the PRC to go for Luna. That’s why it will take an external event to change the course of American space policy. A policy always reactive, never proactive, in nature.

  • Dennis

    the whole idea of a lunar base is outstanding. It would be an historical move for our species. Not only for our future survival, but for our techno prowess. As a species we MUST make our own history, and to date war seems to be the most pronounced in our record. A major move out into the Universe would be a tremendous undertaking, and allow us at last to live off planet. Id go in a heart beat! At first it would be difficult, and costly, but in the end, it would become a self suriviving entity of its own, with future generations living their whole lives out there. The Moon is within our reach, only a few days travel time, while Mars is considerable further on. From a lunar stance moving further out would be easier, and probably carried out by those living already on the Moon. Sadly we as a species would rather take our finances and put them into the war machine. That seems to be the high point of human history…… Everyone asks if there are civilizations out there, why havent they contacted us? With our history, why would they want to?

  • Coastal Ron

    William Mellberg wrote @ February 6th, 2012 at 4:06 pm

    Nor have I said that the U.S. should make a “mad dash” to the Moon because of China’s announced interest in Luna.

    You’re right. I was lumping in Newt’s wish for a lunar base by 2020, as I see that as part of a similar “China Space Race” narrative.

    China’s space efforts have been considerable, but they have a ways to go before they catch up with “the West” (which includes Russia for space). And while China may have their own space station up by 2020, being serviced by one model of spacecraft, our space station will be in it’s second decade of use, and will have five cargo & at least two crew spacecraft servicing it.

    Despite how dysfunctional we point out NASA to be, we do have a functional space industry that is also moving forward, so it will be a while before China catches up, much less surpasses, where we are. And since there is no space race, even that wouldn’t change much. At least from my perspective.

  • Robert G. Oler

    “Gingrich hit again on a long-running theme that NASA is mired in bureaucracy. “I think every American should wonder why we’ve spent billions and billions and billions on NASA and currently have no vehicle to put human beings into space,” he said. “I believe it’s possible to unleash the American people, to inspire the private sector, to encourage entrepreneurs and to have a dramatically better space program than we have today.””

    this is an amazingly accurate statement…and I notice that few in the SLS crowd are willing to discuss it.

    In the end Cx spent THREE TIMES the money Gemini did (in current dollars) flying the entire program and for Cx there was nothing but a goofy suborbital test flight.

    Robert

  • “With everything else going on in the world, why does the Chinese space program frighten you so much that you think the U.S. should make a mad dash to “conquer the Moon”?”

    The ruling oligarchy in China knows that the US is a– Sleeping Giant– that is currently economically paralyzed because of the perpetual political wars between the extreme right and the extreme left in the country. They also know that US corporations will sell them practically anything– even America’s freedom and security, for a price. So everything right now is going their way.

    The ruling oligarchy in China has also learned from history. They’re not going to make the mistakes that NAZI Germany, Imperial Japan, or the former Soviet Union made. So they’re not going to do anything that would be provocative enough to wake up the Sleeping Giant in the US and its power scientific and economic engines. China’s going to let sleeping dogs lie while they continue to pursue their gradual– but relentless– efforts to economically dominate both the heavens and the Earth!

    Marcel F. Williams

  • That should read:

    The ruling oligarchy in China has also learned from history. They’re not going to make the mistakes that NAZI Germany, Imperial Japan, or the former Soviet Union made. So they’re not going to do anything that would be provocative enough to wake up the Sleeping Giant in the US and its– powerful– scientific and economic engines. China’s going to let sleeping dogs lie while they continue to pursue their gradual– but relentless– efforts to economically dominate both the heavens and the Earth!

    Marcel F. Williams

  • William Mellberg

    Vladislaw wrote:

    “Why don’t the Chinese refer to this [Taingong-1] as a lab?”

    But they do:

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/sci/2011-11/18/c_131255050.htm

    As Shakespeare wrote, “What’s in a name?”

    The Soviets described the docked Soyuz-4 and Soyuz-5 spacecraft as “the world’s first experimental space station.” [The Soviet Encyclopedia of Space, Mir Publishers, Moscow, 1969, page 388]

    This article from SinoDefence.com offers a good look at terminology:

    http://www.sinodefence.com/spacelab/tiangong1.asp

  • “China’s going to let sleeping dogs lie while they continue to pursue their gradual– but relentless– efforts to economically dominate both the heavens and the Earth!”

    What makes you think there is any sort of master plan at all? Most of us simply muddle our way through life going from moment to moment. China wants to be involved in developing spaceflight for their country and to stay relevant with the other spacefaring nations of the world, but at the moment that isn’t exactly too hard to do. With American manned spaceflight all but dead and Russia’s problems with getting their vehicles to launch and the ESA hardly leading the way in terms of space technology, China only needs to worry about keeping up with Japan… again hardly a major ground breaking country in terms of new spaceflight hardware. Perhaps the Brazilians will get their act together? I guess India has announced in the past that they want to go to the Moon eventually as well, so perhaps an Asian space race is what is going to be happening?

  • Doug Lassiter

    Dennis wrote @ February 6th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
    “the whole idea of a lunar base is outstanding. It would be an historical move for our species. Not only for our future survival, but for our techno prowess.”

    I like to believe that the information revolution of the last decade or two has done exactly that. It has been a historical move for our species, and it’s not at all about war. It transforms who we are and how we see ourselves. It contributes to future survival and is a historical move in technological prowess. So let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that all we have to show for the latter is warfare, and the best way to assert it is to put people permanently on the Moon. To a large degree, our country was responsible for the information revolution.

    Aside from the fact that Foxconn does a pretty good job of making hardware, China doesn’t have a clear flag to plant on that revolution.

  • Coastal Ron

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ February 6th, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    China’s going to let sleeping dogs lie while they continue to pursue their gradual– but relentless– efforts to economically dominate both the heavens and the Earth!

    Oh, they’re going to sneak up on us? ;-)

    The Chinese certainly have the ability to hide small things like one-off airplanes from us while they are being built, but China is no longer behind an impenetrable wall within their country, and what leaves Earth is fair game for all to see. It will be quite apparent from their launch and activity tempo what they are planning far in advance before they do it. You frighten too easily.

  • well

    Willard has no space policy. At least Newton Leroy has an interest in the subject and is familiar with some of the issues involved.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ February 6th, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    That should read:

    The ruling oligarchy in China has also learned from history. They’re not going to make the mistakes that NAZI Germany, Imperial Japan, or the former Soviet Union made. So they’re not going to do anything that would be provocative enough to wake up the Sleeping Giant in the US and its– powerful– scientific and economic engines. “”

    well the second time was not any better…indeed all it shows is that you understand history about as much as the neocons do and are desperately trying to glue current events into historical ones.

    China (the PRC) is unique among American “opposition”, there is a modest similarity between the relationship tht the US had with GB between 1790 and 1820…but not much.

    The PRC has a pretty insignificant military force but they have managed to drive their way economically into the soul of The Republic…the rich are in large measure getting richer because of the economic involvement of The PRC inside The Republic. This is unlikely to change as long as the GOP is able to continue its BS of blaming the economic issues on the poor and getting the lower middle class to buy this.

    Space sadly has nothing to do with this. You might think that the Chinese are trying to go to the Moon, but you have invented that out of thin air.

    Robert

  • DCSCA

    “I think every American should wonder why we’ve spent billions and billions and billions on NASA and currently have no vehicle to put human beings into space…”

    Little wonder “Newt Gingrich, Moon President” keeps earning street cred as a lunatic- a president from his own party cratered the deal:- Republican GWBush terminated the shuttle and underfunded the Constellation Program and its core follow-along manned spacecraft, Orion. Next Week’s Episode: Emperor Ming Names His Moon Child, Regolith. Stay-tuned!

  • Fred Cink

    Mr Oler, “I don’t mind arguments over federal spending, but for people to argue for their own federal spending and then turn right around and use the “anti federal spending” on someone elses (sic) project is to me worse than goofy.” The crux of the issue that we seem to agree upon, (miracles never cease to amaze) but just as important is the other side of the “ONLY/NOT in my back yard” coin. It’s called HUMAN NATURE. Your “noble endeavor/ worthy project” is my “wasteful pork/self interest earmark” and vice versa. $125.000.00 of federal spending PER SECOND (do the math) with $50,000.00 PER SECOND of it BORROWED (or printed) is unsustainable.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Vlad –

    You have the Chinese test schedule wrong.
    Marcel, all – all that we are watching is China reclaim its global position after the chaos of the last 300 years. In my opinion, In the recent past we have influenced this for the better of everyone.

    But in my opinion we should try to prevent damage to key US industries and their employees while this occurs.

    At some point China’s leadership is going to have to develop their theory of trade unionism; their current problems from wealth inequality are known to them, they just have not figured out what to do yet. But neither have we.

    Hi RGO –

    John wrote @ February 6th, 2012 at 2:23 pm
    What is holding us back is the greed and corruption in Congress that has stymied NASA’s ability to evolve…

    this is an astute observation.

    What is holding back policy in almost the length and breadth of the federal government from social programs to defense to space…is just what you state.

    in the end “howwe do something” has become more important then that it work .

    Robert

    RGO john – I think is was just Thiokol’s greed.

    What’s wrong with the US space program?
    The shuttle did not deliver low cost launch, and neither did Ares.
    Thiokol is now trying to minimize the effects of Ares’ .7 G oscillations that would homogenize its passengers (astronauts) brains.

    Remember, we could have had DIRECT and 2 manned launch systems for what was wasted on Ares.

  • vulture4

    Our goal in space should be to defuse tensions between the US and China, not to incite them. Our nations are certainly rivals, but there is no reason for them to be adversaries. Human spaceflight can serve as a demonstration of collaboration precisely because it has little strategic value.

  • @Well; I agree. It’s too bad that Willard Romney is showing not even a mild interest in the space issue. But my guess is that when he gets to the Oval Office, he might be inclined to change his mind, if he was persuaded to the view, that a human spaceflight program going into deep space would matter, in the long-term future of the country. After all, George Bush Jr., didn’t emerge as a space fan until the final year of his first term, when in 2004, he boldly started with Project Constellation, to replace BOTH the Shuttle AND the damned stupid ISS! Again I tell you: THE ISS IS A BURDENSOME DEAD-WEIGHT HOLDING US BACK. We don’t need it at all, for making future voyages Moonward, with astronauts. So the original plan of sinking it into the Pacific Ocean, by 2015, was, in my view, completely on the mark! Ridding ourselves of this 3-billion-dollars-a-year colossal waste, would free up cash for the next generation of deep space rockets & spacecrafts.

  • Dennis

    Doug, yes our tech has improved, but most of it due to the space program in general. With space our boundaries are challenged at every turn. To move off planet, even in a small way, and I dont mean a 13,000 person colony, as I dont believe he could do it in two terms. would give us the edge we lack today. Our boundaries will from that point on be expansion, and it will help the economic picture. War doesnt help but only destroys. Maybe U have a job in one of those factories building some high tech weapon, and do not think of its potential for destruction? As a Vietnam vet, I think it is time to turn our efforts to more constructive persuits. Space has it……….

  • vulture4

    “THE ISS IS A BURDENSOME DEAD-WEIGHT HOLDING US BACK”
    If we cannot figure out how to become productive in LEO, we cannot possibly become productive BEO, where the costs are far higher. ISS is not just a footprint in space, it is a foothold.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi Chris –

    I commented here earlier on how NASA screwed up ISS utilization, and what they need to do to fix that.

    As others here point out, if you can’t operate in LEO, then you certainly can’t operate BEO.

    That includes cost sharing.

    While Zubrin’s ISRU is a wonderful concept, in my opinion his Mars Direct architecture can not work.

  • Doug Lassiter

    Dennis wrote @ February 7th, 2012 at 6:12 am
    “Doug, yes our tech has improved, but most of it due to the space program in general. ”

    If you’re referring to my post, I was commenting on the revolution in information technology. To say that most of that technology improvement is “due to the space program in general” is just wildly incorrect. Re “constructive pursuits” and IT, I certainly wasn’t referring to warfare. Information technology has changed the way we work, play, and live, and makes us a vastly more connected species.

    That putting a large number of people on the Moon would give us an “edge we lack today” is not self-evident. Just having people there gives no edge whatsoever. That they might be doing something edge-worthy is what the discussion is all about.

    My point was just to push back against those who would say that our last great accomplishment and demonstration of technical prowess that is a historical move for our species wasn’t putting humans on the Moon.

  • Doug Lassiter

    This is pretty funny. The AIAA Daily Launch comes out with this remarkable item …

    “Gingrich Thought To Be Polling Well From Space Policy.

    The Washington Post (2/7, Kamen) “In The Loop” blog reports, “The Washington Post-ABC News poll released Monday contains some good news for the increasingly underfunded space agency and some excellent news for presidential candidate Newt Gingrich.” Gingrich polled close to Mitt Romney so “space exploration and the implied massive infusion of funds for NASA, are pretty much the winning ticket for the former House speaker.” The blog does note it is “hearing NASA’s budget is about to take a massive hit, so a Gingrich victory in November would surely reverse that.”

    It isn’t entirely obvious without reading through Kamen’s piece — http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/gingrich-moon-shot-polling-well/2012/02/06/gIQAjFxDuQ_blog.html — but it appears to be thoroughly tongue-in-cheek. It would seem that was no poll actually done on Gingrich’s space policy, and Kamen is just snickering about winning tickets.

  • Googaw

    “THE ISS IS A BURDENSOME DEAD-WEIGHT HOLDING US BACK.”

    Yea, it’s so embarrassing to see all the hype and promises space activists made about space stations back in the 80s and 90s come to naught. Nothing for it but to crash the ISS into the Pacific and hope that people will soon forget. Meanwhile it turns out it’s the lunar base not the space station that is the astronaut shrine that will make our dreams come true! Cancel the old fraud, on to the next fraud!

  • Googaw

    Doug: “To say that most of that technology improvement is “due to the space program in general” is just wildly incorrect.”

    Doug how dare you question the dogma of spinoffs! When you’re working for NASA it’s just cosmic. Engineers working on missiles or spy satellites, or at Bell Labs or SRI or Xerox PARC, just can’t produce important breakthroughs the way they can when they are daydreaming of astronauts!

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis wrote @ February 7th, 2012 at 6:12 am

    Doug, yes our tech has improved, but most of it due to the space program in general.

    Piffle. “Most”? Name five technologies that are significant in our lives today that are direct outgrowths of what NASA has been doing in the past 10-20 years.

    OK, I know that was hard. Name one.

    The Shuttle last had an effect on technology back in the 70’s. The ISS likely used whatever technology we had at the time, but didn’t break ground on anything significant.

    Companies making products for the consumer market (technology, medicine, etc.) drive the majority of innovation today. I doubt NASA contributions even show up as a blimp on the chart.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Fred Cink wrote @ February 6th, 2012 at 9:32 pm

    The crux of the issue that we seem to agree upon, (miracles never cease to amaze) but just as important is the other side of the “ONLY/NOT in my back yard” coin. It’s called HUMAN NATURE”

    No Fred its called politics…

    Look pork is pork no matter the perspective and two things are true about pork. First it has existed since the dawn of The Republic and second its not in itself bad.

    Pork is like a family stopping for an icecream desert or going to a entertainment place or …whatever it is something that gives us enjoyment, regional flavor and preserves in large measure our cultural identity. I have no more problem with 1 million spent on the “Steam engine museum” any more then I have a problem with 1 million spent on the “Cowboy museum” in both OK City and Fort Worth.

    What I Have a problem with, and where things have gotten out of hand…is that now we have very very large projects masquerading as infrastructure when they are pork.

    Whittington for instance likes to bang on the Obama stimulus…I didnt like it much either but at least I am fair about it. Mark’s big gripe about it seems to be that Cx wasnt included in it..and then he list projects that he thinks are bad…and goes on about how Cx should have at least been funded as those were…goofy

    Bad performing programs are bad performing programs if they are social programs, bad foreign policy or well bad domestic technical programs.

    THE REALITY is that Cx had more money then Gemini spent on an operational program..in fact it had THREE times the amount of money and really had nothing for it.

    To then go on and try and defend that to argue for it continuing is where we are at with so many things in The Republic today. The F-35 has consumed more real dollars then the entire F-14 buy did. What is up with this?

    This is not a matter of perspective and just because one supports the goals of the effort does not mean that the effort alone has value.

    This is now where the GOP is today. In some cases; Iraq, the F-35, Cx and lots of others we are way past debating the goals of the project; we are into debating the competency about which the project was undertaken…and it is goofy for people, mostly Republicans to rail against out of control government spending…when they are supporting the most out of control spending…in history

    RGO

  • Googaw

    “but it appears to be thoroughly tongue-in-cheek.”

    You skeptics, you can’t recognize visionary visions when you see them. We really will have that congressional delegation from the 51st state and they too will be visionaries — you will be outvoted!

    Cynics like you fail to recognize the central role of our heavenly pilgrims in making all our tech dreams come true. As soon as Chinese taikonauts set foot on our holy sanctuaries in the heavens we are doomed! Doomed I say! Repent of your skepticism now before it’s too late!

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/07/santorum-rejects-reagan-space/

    This sort of shows a few things…

    but 1) I think that the article misinterprets Ronaldus the Great’s space policy…and 2) it shows the obsession with Reagan 30 years later that is dooming the GOP to a level of mediocrity that is just stunning.

    Who knows what Reagan would have done today? Reagan handled his times well, but these are not his times.

    Anyway the article shows some interesting splits in the GOP over Newts space policy.

    RGO

  • Googaw

    Since Santorum has attacked the moon base he has risen in the polls at Gingrich’s expense. Maybe coincidence, maybe not.

  • Doug Lassiter

    Googaw wrote @ February 7th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
    “You skeptics, you can’t recognize visionary visions when you see them. We really will have that congressional delegation from the 51st state and they too will be visionaries — you will be outvoted!”

    There’s a thought. Though I’m thinking that instead of statehood, they’ll just end up in FL-24. Redistricting results in some innovative district morphologies, so why not? Why shouldn’t the space coast include a space crater or two?

  • Robert G. Oler

    The GOP race just keeps getting more entertaining.

    one wonders if space policy will come up in both Ohio and Texas now that both primaries could be pivotal…RGO

  • well

    GOP voters are making it clear they don’t want a moon base. They want an expedition to find the lost ark.

  • DCSCA

    Let’s review- Gingrich is lampooned by SNL as a ‘moon president'; Romney would fire and exec who proposes a moon base to him; Paul says no to gonig to the moon as any old coot would and Santorum, a creationsit who labels global warming a myth, labels building moon bases a waste of resources. Republicans in general and conservatives in particular have no interest in big government projects to return to the moon but rather, prefer big government projects like waging wars right here on Earth instead.

Leave a Reply to Googaw Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>