Comments on: Gingrich: “America has a destiny in space”

By: Chris Castro

Chris Castro — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 13:18:32 +0000

Right on the mark;….@Doug Lassiter. I’m glad that AT LEAST someone here, can understand some of what I say, on this blogsite. “Being there” just one time in history, has never constituted exploratory innovation. Did the European explorers to the New World feel a need to cease & stop all further transatlantic sea voyages, simply because it would mean additional trips on board caravel ships?? Of course not! Did transcontinental explorers cease & stop sending expeditions out to the American West, after Lewis & Clark returned, simply because “we have already been there”?? Certainly not! The physics & engineering entailed by a manned Moon trip have NOT changed over the past 40 years. So just because the exploration scheme resembles a “new & improved” Apollo, does NOT mean that the space vehicle/ basic flight plan scheme has no merit. TO THE CONTRARY: the 1960’s engineers who designed the Apollo vehicles were brilliant, innovative sages! Future Moon crews will almost certainly do the human Lunar Return in a very similar flight mode. The difference will be the amazingly higher-capacity capabilities, that their spacecraft, tools, & equipment will have. Plus, the higher goal purpose behind this second round of manned exploration. Sure, there will be short, scientifically-geared sortie missions to special Lunar sites. But soon enough, extended stay & outpost missions will be worked in, to the flight schedule, via the unmanned & temporarily-unmanned variants of the lunar orbiter & lander craft. Something that was alluded to being possible in the Apollo days, but was never actually carried out during the program, in the 1968-1972 span.

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 07:47:56 +0000

a mighty wind wrote:

“It is a little incongruous to paste this site with stories about him, especially with the other juicy material around. It is an effort to discredit the GOP and it isnâ€™t working. “

Yes I am sure this site must get about 10 – 15 million clicks a day so if a democratic operatives wanted to really discredit and sink the entire GOP the way to do it would be to start posting little blurbs about space politics on this site.

No offence Jeff, but I do not believe your site has enough influence to tank the entire GOP.

By: Doug Lassiter

Doug Lassiter — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 23:04:59 +0000

Chris Castro wrote @ March 8th, 2012 at 5:02 am
“@Doug Lassiter;â€¦..I am being sarcastic.”

I was actually agreeing with you. What we should be doing on the Moon is to Apollo what ISS was to Skylab. So if one dismisses human return to the Moon by saying we’ve already been there, then you might as well dismiss ISS since we’ve already spent a lot of time in LEO. But ISS has offered vastly more return than Skylab ever did. One has to assume that a concerted effort on the Moon would offer a lot more than Apollo did. That’s the problem with the whole idea that human space flight is just about “being there”. Obama was unfortunately slipping into the flags and footprints rationale for human space flight. His dismissal of a human lunar return as being of importance is perhaps less worrisome than what would appear to be a conception of human space flight that is about flags and footprints.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 11:18:13 +0000

BeanCounterfromDownunder wrote @ March 7th, 2012 at 9:42 pm
“Cripes! Still canâ€™t get it right! Government funding to enable private companies to develop a capability required by the government.”

Cripes, Dingo, that’s socialism. You spend other nation’s money well– given how no how Aussie citizens aren’t funding America’s space program. How’s Auastralia’s manned space program coming along…. g’day.

By: Chris Castro

Chris Castro — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 10:02:53 +0000

@Doug Lassiter;…..I am being sarcastic. Why is it that all these jeers about “repeating far-past acheivements” never apply to Low Earth Orbit??! Ever wonder that?? These short-sighted people condemn Apollo, and doing ANYTHING that EVEN resembles Apollo, yet they are content and even gleefull about still further decades of America doing nothing else but the same old LEO merry-go-round stuff! Aren’t there ANY people out there, who are sick & tired of the same stupid space-stations-in-LEO exercise?! Just what the freak are we learning there—-a mere 200 miles up, going in circles—-that we somehow couldn’t be learning at Lunar/Cislunar distance? With the Moon as our prime destination, we will be dealing with & grappling with a planetary surface once again, plus coping with all of the hazards of interplanetary radiation levels; things that all need to be addressed BEFORE sending any astronaut beyond cislunar space.

By: BeanCounterfromDownunder

BeanCounterfromDownunder — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 02:42:50 +0000

DCSCA wrote @ March 7th, 2012 at 5:42 pm

Cripes! Still can’t get it right! Government funding to enable private companies to develop a capability required by the government. Funding based on milestones successfully completed. Again, not a subsidy but commercial contracts entered into with not one but four companies who tendered successfully against other bidders.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 01:45:37 +0000

Once again MSNBC’s Chris Matthews lampoons “Newt Gingrich, Moon President’ and his speech in Hunstville in Matthews’ ‘side show’ segment on ‘Hardball’ today, 3/7/12. Newt’s forever a punch line on matters space and the best thing he can do for America’s space program is to stop talking about it.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 22:42:06 +0000

Explorer08 wrote @ March 6th, 2012 at 11:19 pm

Government funded and managed space programs yes. Government funded privated enterprised firms, no.

Gary Anderson wrote @ March 7th, 2012 at 4:46 am

Maher isnt Abbott or Costello– or SNL… But then, this isn’t a comedy club and funding space operations isn’t a w/a $2 cover w/ 2 drink minimum, is it. =eyeroll=

By: Dark Blue Nine

Dark Blue Nine — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 20:04:43 +0000

“It is a little incongruous to paste this site with stories about him,”

Not here, it’s not. This is a site about space policy. Gingrich is the one candidate talking about civil space policy and putting forward proposals. Every time he does so, it and the consequent election results, should be chronicled at this site.

“The ExoMars controversy”

There are multiple entries in this blog on this topic:

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2012/02/24/the-mars-skirmishes-continue/

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2012/02/10/more-reactions-to-impending-nasa-planetary-science-cuts/

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2012/02/14/few-surprises-but-plenty-of-angst-in-nasa-budget-proposal/

“our relationship with the faux-democracy Russia”

An article here covered the latest on INKSNA only a week ago:

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2012/03/01/congressmen-seek-to-fix-safety-glitch-with-commercial-crew-program/

“or what in the world SpaceX is up to”

SpaceX by itself is not a policy topic, but there are plenty of entries on commercial cargo and crew, including today’s:

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2012/03/07/bolden-and-hutchison-spar-over-commercial-crew-slsorion-funding/

And if you want to know more about SpaceX initiatives, it’s not that hard:

http://www.space.com/13140-spacex-private-reusable-rocket-elon-musk.html

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-11/spacex-dragon-capsule-could-offer-cheap-ride-mars

You should learn how to use the scroll function on your computer and search engines on the web.

By: Robert G. Oler

Robert G. Oler — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 19:05:33 +0000

Chris Castro wrote @ March 7th, 2012 at 5:50 am

Why are so many millions in the American electorate content with an American space future where we never leave LEO for another 20 years??!>>

because the effort would take enormous cost…and there is no benefit for them RGO