Reuters reported earlier today that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich may reassess his presidential candidacy depending on the outcome of today’s primary in Delaware, where he has devoted the most resources among the five states holding primaries today. Gingrich’s odds of winning the nomination are now astronomical, as Mitt Romney has become the presumptive nominee. Gingrich had vowed to stay in the race until the Republican convention in August, but his campaign finances have become a concern.
So it’s timely, then, that Gingrich’s views on space policy are getting attention for what might be the last time as a presidential candidate. In an op-ed published late Monday by Bloomberg, Jeffrey Goldberg recalls Gingrich’s proposals to establish a permanent settlement on the Moon as he sees Discovery and its 747 carrier plane fly over Washington last week. He considers the flyby “elegiac” because “the end of the shuttle program marks the first time since the dawn of the Space Age that the U.S. government has no immediate plan to launch humans into space.” (It’s not clear if Goldberg is unaware of NASA’s ongoing plans to develop human spaceflight capability, or past interruptions in those capabilities, such as the nearly six-year gap after Apollo-Soyuz.)
Goldberg concludes “Newt is right” on space and proceeds to call him. Gingrich, Goldberg says, “seemed happy to talk about space and the terrible mistake the Obama administration made by canceling the Constellation program, which was meant to get Americans back to the moon.” (That assessment seems curious, as Gingrich co-authored an op-ed in February 2010 praising the administration’s plans.)
Ginhrich told Goldberg he regrets not addressing the criticism his January space policy proposals generated from Romney and fellow candidate Rick Santorum: “If I had been clever, I would have said to Romney, ‘You would have fired Christopher Columbus and John F. Kennedy because they were proposing daring and large things. They were proposing to go out and discover entire new worlds, and they did.’†Gingrich still believes there will be a “human colony” on the Moon someday, built if not by Americans then by the Chinese. But any such development now seems extremely unlikely to be done during a Gingrich Administration.
This is one of those useless pieces “America is in decline because it is cancelling the program I like, even though that program has never worked well”
The two excerpts that should really put the piece in perspective is this
“, because the end of the shuttle program marks the first time since the dawn of the Space Age that the U.S. government has no immediate plan to launch humans into space. ”
this is just false…several articles in the last months have illustrated the post Apollo “gap” that was many years longer then what the gap between the end of the shuttle flights and commercial can be…plus WE DO have Americans launched into space…to go to ISS which is mostly an American operation…at least we are paying for most of it
but then there is this
“But there is no romance in unmanned space exploration, and it was romance, as much as the desire to beat the Soviets, that got the U.S. to the moon. ”
this is just nonsensical…first we have not raced the Soviets to the Moon in decades…and second there was no romance to the Shuttle flights…and third there was no romance in simply building Cx…Cx was what the author describes as “. NASA still eats taxpayer dollars, ”
it has been doing that on Cx for years.
This is just babble.
America is in decline because it supports such programs AS Cx and SLS…programs which are long on talk, big on spending and short on performance.
RGO
Gingrich should have buried us in the numbers, it would have been harder for Romney to call it a 200 billion boondoggle if the numbers were a lot lower than that and the private sector and it’s capital more involved.
I think Goldberg is suggesting that the US has no credible plans to return to space within a reasonable time period. There is no need to descend into trivial technicalities about the merits of the current, moribund program.
such as the nearly six-year gap after Apollo-Soyuz
There is a lesson here for an ADD political leadership raised on Ritalin. Don’t be distracted. Stick to the solid, long term program, like our fore bearers did.
“I think Goldberg is suggesting that the US has no credible plans to return to space within a reasonable time period.”
Return? We have a crew in space now.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/expeditions/expedition30/index.html
“There is no need to descend into trivial technicalities”
Not when you can’t get basic facts straight.
“There is a lesson here for an ADD political leadership raised on Ritalin. Don’t be distracted. Stick to the solid, long term program, like our fore bearers did.”
And that lesson would be what? That “solid, long term [sic]” programs produce “solid, long term” gaps in U.S. civil human space flight and launch? Like how Apollo/Shuttle produced a six-year flight gap? Or how Shuttle produced two, two-year flight gaps after Columbia and Challenger? Or how Shuttle/Constellation/SLS/MPCV have created an 10-year launch gap (and counting)?
Yes, that’s the right lesson to be learning from our “forebearers [sic]”.
Oler is as usual missing the point. People are pointing to the end of the space shuttle and there being no credible replacement as a signal of American decline because it is such an obvious symbol.
Gingrich missed a splendid opportunity by proposing the lunar base and not being prepared to defend it when it came under attack. I am, however, counting on Mitt Romney’s cynicism to accept the recommendations of his space brain trust when they tell him what he believes.
In any case, today’s announcement from Planetary Resources give me cautious exuberance.
Mark wrote:
“People are pointing to the end of the space shuttle and there being no credible replacement as a signal of American decline because it is such an obvious symbol.”
I agree, the SLS and Orion are not a credible replacement. It will be another boondoggle, over priced, over budget, and behind schedule. Once people realize America will capture and dominate the LEO commercial access and LEO destinations they will see America moving into the future.
“I am, however, counting on Mitt Romney’s cynicism to accept the recommendations of his space brain trust when they tell him what he believes.”
Isn’t mittens already proposing a 20% cut in NASA?
NASA is getting ready to return to space.
For transporting cargo to the ISS it has COTS, the first launch will occur within a month.
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/about/c3po.html
NASA is applying for money to help the development of manned launches under CCDev and CCiCap. Multiple providers should prevent members of Congress having to apologize for the USA having no manned launch ability in the future.
http://www.nasa.gov/offices/c3po/partners/ccdev_info.html
NASA is dreaming about a Moon Base. There are several proof of concept demonstrations going on at the moment. To save money these are mostly mockups, the full project will need hardware able to take lunar temperatures. Such hardware costs a fortune.
The lunar habitation and manned rover form are similar to those being trialed by Desert-RATS for a manned asteroid mission.
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/analogs/desertrats/index.html
Mark wrote @ April 24th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
Let’s rephrase what you said into a different time period and see how it plays out…
“Mark is as usual missing the point. People are pointing to the end of the Apollo program and there being no credible replacement as a signal of American decline because it is such an obvious symbol.”
The LEO-only Shuttle was no replacement for the beyond-LEO Apollo capsule and the lunar lander, but it went on to create it’s own American & International legacy despite coming 8 years, 3 months, and 24 days after the Apollo 17 crew landed back on Earth.
If, as is the plan, we get Commercial Crew vehicles approved by the end of 2016, it will have only been 5 years and 5 months after STS-135 returned to Earth. I think we’ll survive.
Commercial Crew opens up possibilities for expanding our presence into space more than the Shuttle or Apollo could ever do, and I look forward to that new service industry creating a much longer legacy than even the Shuttle had.
Mark wrote @ April 24th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
“People are pointing to the end of the space shuttle and there being no credible replacement as a signal of American decline because it is such an obvious symbol.”
An obvious symbol of what? Of promises about low cost to orbit? Of promises about safety? Thank goodness there is no credible replacement for that particular vehicle. They did great things, and we should be proud of the creativity and spirit that went into making them happen, but there was a price to be paid. One of the tragedies of modern culture is the confusion of symbolism with technology. Technology gets obsolete really fast, and you end up with obsolete symbols. That’s why flags are so good as symbols! Because they don’t get obsolete. Good heavens. We should be flying Mercury capsules! Those were similarly symbolic.
People are pointing to the disappearance of the Hummer and there being no credible replacement as a signal of American decline because it is such an obvious symbol of American superiority. People used to drive those things down the street with great pride, festooned with American flags and “Drill Baby Drill!” bumper stickers. Really have to wonder where those things are hiding these days.
“Revisiting Gingrich and space, possibly for the final time…”
Doubtful. Everytime SNL re-airs the archived and bow infamous show opening of ‘Newt Gingrich – Moon President’ sketch, the public will be treated to a refreshment of the damage done by Gingrich to matters space– and laugh. May ‘divorce’ be with you.
Mark wrote @ April 24th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
People are pointing to the end of the space shuttle and there being no credible replacement as a signal of American decline because it is such an obvious symbol.>>
typical right wing self aggrandizement.
First “people” are not pointing to the end of the space shuttle as a symbol of American decline…who is doing it for the most part, are right wing nuts who are trying to find any axe to grind against the Obama administration.
If Obama had reversed Bush the turd and kept the space shuttle flying people like you would have found a way to be against that. So would Charles K and all the other folks whose position on anything Obama does is well the opposite.
Second to do this people like you have walked all over their ideology. THERE WAS NOTHING people like you said when bush the last decided to end the program even as the person you like Griffin watched the “gap” grow larger and longer…and that was before Bush left office. YOu and other right wing zenophobes were completely silent.
Now you and other zeno’s are up supporting SLS a program with no mission, already slipping in schedule, not cost effective and doing it over “gasp” private solutions…
and that has required you and others to invent things like “SpaceX COTS (or OSC) is not commercial”…which IS NOT THE STAND YOU TOOK IN THE WEEKLY STANDARD PIECE (or at least you let you’re name be attached to)
Newt couldnt sell his lunar base because the corporate wing of the GOP is not buying it anymore because they want the money from NASA to go into the more lucrative corporate industrial complexes…like defense where excuses on overruns and delays are more easily covered by “you are for the terrorist”.
If there is American decline it is because of the horrific course Bush the last put us on. He badly reacted to the events of 9/11, lied about Iraq ON EVERYTHING (the war wasnt paid for, it wasnt short and it wasnt justified), he let OBL slip through his fingers time and time again…and gee the economy? He so fracked that up it will take decades to recover.
I dont think Obama has done a particularly good job…but he has had trogolytes dogging him at every turn. Now we hear from the RNC that Willards economic polices are simply “Bush’s updated”. GOOFY.
People like you have had America in decline for decades…it is a drum you bang when all else fails…it wont work here. RGO
Mark wrote @ April 24th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
. I am, however, counting on Mitt Romney’s cynicism to accept the recommendations of his space brain trust when they tell him what he believes.>>
and you support a guy whose sole claim to fame which even you acknowledge…is that people are telling him what he thinks.
“want me to be Ronald Reagan, I can be Ronald Reagan” Bob Dole just before his acceptance speech in 1996.
goofy RGO
“If, as is the plan, we get Commercial Crew vehicles approved by the end of 2016, it will have only been 5 years and 5 months after STS-135 returned to Earth.”
False equivalency.
“Commercial Crew opens up possibilities for expanding our presence into space more than the Shuttle or Apollo could ever do…”
Rubbish. And more false equivalency. 3016, weh… LOL In case you haven’t noticed, as of April 24, 2012, roughly 51 years after Gagarin was orbited by the USSR and half a century after the US orbited Glenn, commercial has failed to even launch, orbit and safely return a single human being. And now a tweet from the twit: “There’s no space station on the ground, so our work to date has been done by simulation and by approximating the circumstances that it will find in orbit and approaching the space station. This is pretty tricky,” said Musk.” Duh. He doesn’t know what he doesn’t know yet– but appears to be learing. “I wish it wasn’t so hard,” said Elon Musk. Except it is. That’s why government do it.
amightywind wrote @ April 24th, 2012 at 3:09 pm
I think Goldberg is suggesting that the US has no credible plans to return to space within a reasonable time period. >>
as the right wing nuts often do…one can interpret the words to be or mean anything…but then we are into the fantasy world that has exited in the GOP since Bush started lying about Saddam.
Again the question…which do you think Ronaldus the Great would have supported the SpaceX OSC effort on COTS or SLS the mission to nowhere…?
WHY WONT YOU answer the question…RGO
The government’s investment in space technology has made this country a lot richer– not poorer. The SLS will give America back the heavy lift capability that placed men on the Moon and that allowed us to deploy large space stations into orbit– with a single launch. And both Russia and China and even Elon Musk are working on heavy lift vehicles.
And there wouldn’t even be the possibility of private manned space launch companies if it weren’t for the hundreds of billions of dollars spent by tax payers on our manned space program.
The idea that eliminating the $3 billion a year on the SLS/MPCV would have a significant impact on $3.6 trillion in annual Federal spending is simply ludicrous!
Dark Blue Nine wrote @ April 24th, 2012 at 4:01 pm
“Return? We have a crew in space now.â€
Yes, delivered by Russia and to be returned by Russia as long as they choose to do so.
Vladislaw wrote @ April 24th, 2012 at 5:02 pm
“I agree, the SLS and Orion are not a credible replacement.â€
Do you really think pretending to misunderstand people, then putting your words in their mouths is all that clever; when you do it over and over again?
WHY WONT YOU answer the question
Because this isn’t a very interesting thread. But so you don’t HAVE A THROMBO…
Ronaldus the Great would have supported the SpaceX OSC effort on COTS or SLS the mission to nowhere
I can’t speak for the Great Man. He may have. I don’t think he would support a program that is a logical and conceptual dead end, which our current program is. He certainly wouldn’t politicize the program as the leftists have done. I think Reagan would have done a better job selling the SLS lunar and asteroid missions. I’ll never forget Reagan’s Challenger Oval Office speech. Gave me go fever right there.
Jeffrey Goldberg is just this week’s Charles Krauthammer. Neither has a lick of knowledge about the U.S. space program, just a column to espouse partisan political views.
They’re getting more and more desperate. SpaceX goes on May 7, Orbital later this year, the commercial crew finalists will be announced this summer, and other commercial players like Stratolaunch and Xcor and Masten and Planetary Resources are stepping up to the plate.
PorkSpace is doomed. Like any animal, it’s most dangerous when cornered, which is where it is now.
Mark wrote @ April 24th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
Mark if there is a symbol of American decline it is that the party you are a member of is in the process of nominating someone who has brain trust that ” tell him what he believes”.
The GOP has fallen a long way since Ronaldus the Great…who had no one who told him what he believes. Embrace the horror Mark…he is you’re candidate.
tell us again his space policy? RGO
joe wrote @ April 24th, 2012 at 7:37 pm
“Do you really think pretending to misunderstand people, then putting your words in their mouths is all that clever; when you do it over and over again?”
Don’t like people copying your style, huh?![;-)](http://www.spacepolitics.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Funny how it’s only now that people realize that the U.S. has always had to rely upon Russia to keep our people at the ISS. I guess they forgot that He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Remembered (Bush 43) cancelled the X-38 Crew Return Vehicle (CRV) and decided it was OK to rely on the Russians. Kind of ironic.
Oh course now that Obama has decided to stop that reliance on Russia, what’s to complain about? That it’s not a government capability? That it’s not hugely expensive?
I know one of the arguments is that there is no direct Shuttle replacement today, but then people forget that under the old plan (CxP) the Ares I/Orion combo would not have been ready until after – you guessed it – the current Commercial Crew program. Oh, and for about $10B more. Weird, eh?
“Yes, delivered by Russia and to be returned by Russia”
And that changes the fact that the other poster was willfully or actually ignorant of the crew’s existence how…
“And both Russia”
Nope. The Angara 7 is receiving no funding.
“and China”
Nope. They’ve only done one engine-sizing study. Heck, China has yet to develop an equivalent to our existing Delta IV Heavy.
“and even Elon Musk are working on heavy lift vehicles.”
If an American company is developing a heavy lift launcher, then why does NASA need to spend taxpayer dollars to develop a competing launcher?
“The idea that eliminating the $3 billion a year on the SLS/MPCV would have a significant impact on $3.6 trillion in annual Federal spending”
No one is making that argument.
But key people are making the argument that spending $3 billion per year of NASA’s limited budget is keeping the nation from developing and operating any actual civil human space exploration missions.
http://www.chron.com/opinion/outlook/article/Space-Launch-System-is-a-threat-to-JSC-Texas-jobs-3498836.php
You know, I’ve read through this entire thread, and there’s hardly a comment worth reading. Most of it is idiotic regurgitation from threads of months, and now years past.
We really need to develop kill filters for blog comments. I know whom, with their repetitive tourettes-like idiocy, would be in mine.
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ April 24th, 2012 at 7:33 pm
“The SLS will give America back the heavy lift capability that placed men on the Moon and that allowed us to deploy large space stations into orbit– with a single launch.”
Single launch? You mean Single-Point-Of-Failure (SPOF).
And do we have a need to launch a 130mt space station?
I’ll make you a deal Marcel – I’ll support the SLS as soon as the funding for building a 130mt space station is approved, but until then we use the funding for other enabling technologies like fuel depots, SEP tugs, and so on. Deal?
@Earth to Planet Marcel
“The idea that eliminating the $3 billion a year on the SLS/MPCV would have a significant impact on $3.6 trillion in annual Federal spending is simply ludicrous!”
You would be right and it would be ludicrous if anyone was claiming that. What is really being said is that SLS/MPCV is a lousy way to go about reaching deep space and should be cancelled for that reason.
But then you know that already. You just like putting a weird spin on this issue.
@amightywind wrote @ April 24th, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Musk has time to make his TV appearences on The Daily Show and sit for the 60 Minutes cameras in a PR rollout weeks before the announced launch date but when it comes time to get down to business and meet announced schedules, he misses them again, claiming he needs more time to get his software ducks in line– even though he has had over a year to do that. The only thing reliable about Space X is its unreliability at meeting schedules which, for a business enterprise contracted to deliver goods and services, is indicative of poor management. Their history is riddled with delays. A bad business practice that the commercial flacks at NASA just accept. Space X has a contract, pulicized schedules and accepted government subsidies so a Congressional inquiry on why they can’t meet these much ballyhooed schedules is warranted. And Musk need not worry, C-SPAN will put him on TV as well. .
@Dark Blue Nine wrote @ April 24th, 2012 at 11:21 pm
No one is making that argument.
Because its goofy. Corporations owe no allegience to any nation-state.
People who want to place blame for the state of the space program need to look several administrations back…. Lack of vision and planning that should have taken place in the 90s…..they knew this was coming…. They even knew another shuttle accident was probable at some point.
joe wrote:
“Do you really think pretending to misunderstand people, then putting your words in their mouths is all that clever; when you do it over and over again?”
Where the hell am i “pretending to misunderstand”?
Mark wrote that “People are pointing to the end of the space shuttle and there being no credible replacement ”
I also am a “people” and I also point to the space shuttle and see no credible replacement. So I agreed with the statement Mark wrote that people see no credible replacement, which I don’t.
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ April 24th, 2012 at 7:33 pm
And both Russia and China and even Elon Musk are working on heavy lift vehicles. >>
Russia is working on nothing of the sort and China? There is no data to support your statement.
Musk is working on one…but where it differs from SLS…is that it has to be affordable. SLS like the Saturn V was, is not RGO
Rand Simberg wrote @ April 25th, 2012 at 12:12 am
The fact that you know what you would do singularly sets you apart from the nominee of the GOP for President. According to Whittington and others he is being told what he would do…which makes any discussion of his space politics and policy at least interesting.
And it makes the criticism leveled at the current Presidents space policy seem to fit the definition of tourettes syndrome…which makes one wonder if the critics of The President are just not doing it across the board. have a great day Bud. RGO
amightywind wrote @ April 24th, 2012 at 8:38 pm
I can’t speak for the Great Man. ”
Really…? You then go on to speak for him…
“I don’t think he would support a program that is a logical and conceptual dead end, which our current program is. He certainly wouldn’t politicize the program as the leftists have done. I think Reagan would have done a better job selling the SLS lunar and asteroid missions. ”
There is no evidence that Ronaldus the Great saw a space station as a “conceptual dead end”…when he proposed the space station program. He might not (nor I) like how it has evolved but the KEY POINT of the station he was arguing for WAS COMMERCIAL participation in the effort.
NASA managed to kill that BUT the reality is that SpaceX and OSC COTS are the closest thing to commercial that the station program has seen since Ronaldus the Great Flew west for the last time…and for people like you to wrap you’re anti Obama rhetoric iaround a program that bears the earmarks of what Ronaldus would have done HIMSELF is goofy.
And that is what you do when you wrap Ronaldus around SLS. You 1) speak for the Great man and 2) put him in a program that fits what you like…not him. When asked if her husband would support the Tea Party, Nancy Reagans comment was “Ronnie would not know them”.
So you are left being against a program that more closely fits Reagans notions of government/corporate interaction then SLS ever will.
That is why I am a Reagan Republican…and you are not RGO
It will be interesting to see if Planetary Resources can make a go of it…The FACT that they are attempting it shows to my mind the reality that Obama’s space policy is working…there is the start of a lot of innovation in the industry.
The company has some enormous challenges in my view to make a buck…I figure it will be about 5 to 6 billion dollars (at best) out the door before they get an ounce back from an asteroid that is marketable…
But there is a synergy developing (Launch vehicles, up down vehicles etc) that makes ventures like this at least “plausible”.
The flaw in Newt’s plan (other then Newt himself and the zenophobic nature of the current GOP) is that it was yet another government program that in some undefined way was going to have commercial involvement.
Planetary Resources has all the “makings” of the same synergy that started airplanes and aviation growing.
History never repeats, it echoes and it is hard to see close up…but to careful observers…we are going through the 1930’s in spaceflight….and that is a good thing RGO
Let us fast forward a few years and imagine that companies are:
-transporting ISS cargo and crew
-operating re-useable cargo and crew vehicles
-testing a heavy lift LV
-testing a re-useable LV
-testing an air launched LV
-testing a mult-purpose lander
-taking paying customers suborbital
and charging substantially less for all their services.
Imagine further that those lower fees bring new customers into the LEO market, generating new ideas, solutions, public excitement, economic activity and wealth.
Isn’t that a possible future to be hoped for, worked for, supported and celebrated?
Wheelwrights and liveries had to turn the page, one way or another, when faced with rails and horseless carriages.
In spaceflight, the page is beginning to turn. Jeffrey Goldberg, cost-plussers and builders of throwawy pyrimids will resist, hang on and recall a time when the nation did great things in space (for a whopping big lot of money).
But the page is turning, nonetheless. The mess of power politics will continue, but new markets and approaches for spaceflight are emerging from their lengthy time in chrysalis.
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ April 24th, 2012 at 7:33 pm
“The idea that eliminating the $3 billion a year on the SLS/MPCV would have a significant impact on $3.6 trillion in annual Federal spending is simply ludicrous!”
This “idea” is one that is totally made up. It’s just a straw man. That’s how it gets away with being simply ludicrous. No one is seriously proposing that the SLS be killed in order to decrease annual federal spending. The idea that eliminating the SLS would cure Alzheimers or prevent Mad Cow disease is also totally made up (I just did it!) If we want to have a serious discussion about the importance of SLS, then let’s do it, but let’s not flail around with artificial “ideas”. Tell you what. If you stop comparing the SLS budget to the federal budget, I’ll stop linking it to Mad Cow disease.
The affordability issue for SLS has nothing to do with the federal budget. It has to do with a level NASA budget, and zero-sum gamesmanship. What we’re spending on SLS is money that we aren’t going to spend on other things. The lack of funds for SLS payloads is a primary concern. It’s simply an illusion that the ISS budget line will just disappear, and an SLS payload line will replace it. Why won’t the ISS budget line just disappear? Because the “gap” threat that has haunted our human space flight program will really rear it’s ugly head as soon as we bail on ISS and we no longer have Americans in orbit.
The “180-day” report from NASA, as mandated by the FY2012 Appropriations Conference Report, is due out very soon. This report is charged with presenting to Congress a clear set of exploration goals for human space flight. It will be interesting to see how this report justifies (as opposed to reporting progress on) the Space Launch System, and how that system is fundamentally needed to achieve those goals.
I can see why many in the space community would nitpick the facts and on several points Goldberg is wrong with the information. But to say that romance was not a part of it? Maybe not for the people in the trenches doing, but for every young person watching, it was exciting and romantic. We small soft mostly bags of water creatures that we are decided that we could challenge the universe. We defied the skeptics and bravely left the Earth to visit another world. That isn’t romantic? That doesn’t inspire you?
We can get so bogged down in the detail that we miss the point. Yes the details matter, but the spirit was in the right place.
Maybe I am looking at this wrong. I want to go. I want to see the Earth from Space. I want to experience the wonder. I want to share that wonder with others. The hardware will get us there, the dream will get the hardware built.
“If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea.”
— Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
“Because its goofy. Corporations owe no allegience to any nation-state.”
The argument that the other poster made was about SLS and its percentage of the federal budget.
The fact that no one else is making that argument has nothing to do with corporations.
False equivalency!
Or are you just cranking to crank?
We all know that it’s very hard for you to keep up, but please try harder.
“People who want to place blame for the state of the space program need to look several administrations back…. Lack of vision and planning that should have taken place in the 90s…..they knew this was coming…. They even knew another shuttle accident was probable at some point.”
Why stop in the 90s. It was clear by the 80s that shuttle was never going to deliver on its promises. Why didn’t we start on a replacement then? Arguably, it was clear by by the time the phase B studies were complete. It probably should have never left the drawing board.
Wingo has been pushing this PGM extraction…I would be curious what his views on the subject are? Care to share Dennis? RGO
Musk has time to make his TV appearences on The Daily Show
Have you ever seen the CEO of Orbital self-promote like this? No. They are just mounting a very credible, deliberate effort and I hope they will succeed. Doesn’t the first launch of Pegasus count as the launch of the first private industry vehicle to reach orbit? They beat SpaceX by more than a decade.
That is why I am a Reagan Republican…and you are not RGO
That’s OK. I have always fancied myself a Ted Nuggent Republican anyway. Reagan never disparaged the GOP. You do routinely. Reagan was a proponent of low taxes. You rail against GOP tax policy.
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ April 24th, 2012 at 7:33 pm
“The idea that eliminating the $3 billion a year on the SLS/MPCV would have a significant impact on $3.6 trillion in annual Federal spending is simply ludicrous!â€>>
Yeah Doug L is correct that argument is a strawman proffered when you or anyone else really dont have a reason to support SLS…
The billion plus spent per year on SLS (and the 3 billion spent on it and Orion) could go to retiring the budget deficit…one has to start somewhere and almost all the cuts are in “single digit” billions slice. There are some of course in doublt digits…pull out of Afland and the situation really gets better…but a few billion here and a few billion there eventually make 100 billion…
However, the worst thing about SLS spending is three things 1) it preserves a failed infrastructure…its like building Battleships in World war 2…useless…2) it stops the spending on other more worthwhile projects which can actually yield results…and 3) in the end even if the project could get built…it would be not affordable…unless you want to spend even more money.
Sorry you are pushing a bad argument RGO
amightywind wrote @ April 25th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
. Reagan never disparaged the GOP. You do routinely. Reagan was a proponent of low taxes. You rail against GOP tax policy.>>
actually Ronaldus did “disparage the GOP”…you might not have paid attention in the 76 campaign.
Reagan believed in low taxes, but not national suicide…he raised taxes quite a bit…to confuse people like you he called them “revenue enhancers”.
And you support big government space over private enterprise…and in that you are no Reagan Republican…you are a member of the nut wing of the GOP which tries to cloak itself in Ronald Reagan..but as Nancy said about the Tea party “Ronnie would not know them”. Go figure RGO
Rhyolite wrote @ April 25th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
“Why stop in the 90s. It was clear by the 80s that shuttle was never going to deliver on its promises. Why didn’t we start on a replacement then?”
Good point. What was missing from the Shuttle, and no doubt will be missing from the SLS should it ever become operational, is a group charged with determining if the program is meeting it’s goals and should continue to receive public funding.
Because that was never done, we limped along with a dangerous Shuttle vehicle for probably 10-20 years longer than we should have, regardless how much life was left in the airframes. Dangerous and unaffordable are good enough reasons to ground a system before it’s design life is up.
Politicians should do this type of review, but big ticket programs usually take on political ramifications that keep this from happening, as it did with the Shuttle. This happens in business too, so it’s not unusual, but nonetheless when we’re talking about $Billions of taxpayer money, an independent oversight group, with the task of recommending continuation or cancellation, should be mandatory.
Oh course the SLS would fail such a review as of today, since there are no funded uses for it, and no customers asking for it to alleviate their business or program pain (i.e. “commercial rockets are too small for what we need”).
But it’s beginning to look like Romney, if elected President, will kill the SLS just by downsizing NASA, so no matter who is elected in November, the future for the SLS is not so bright. About time.
When asked if her husband would support the Tea Party, Nancy Reagans comment was “Ronnie would not know themâ€.
If true, that demonstrates nothing but her ignorance of the Tea Party. Which would be unsurprising if she only gets her news from the MSM.
Wingo has been pushing this PGM extraction…I would be curious what his views on the subject are? Care to share Dennis?
Dennis told me at the orbital ops workshop at JPL yesterday that he doesn’t bother to comment here any more, because he doesn’t have time to plow through all the dreck from the trolls (I’m paraphrasing).
We have been informed that cancellation of SLS will not automatically result in the money being available for other NASA activities. I guess this is a threat by our supposedly tax-conscious legislators – try to exercise restraint in spending by cutting an unneeded program and we slash your budget.
However my feeling is that if SLS/Orion were cut and only 10% of the SLS/Orion budget were applied to technology development and Commercial Crew, that would still be worth it.
MFW: “both Russia and China and even Elon Musk are working on heavy lift vehicles.”
A good reason not to build SLS since, should we ever really need an HLV, these alternatives (including proposals by both SpaceX and Boeing) are much less expensive.
Coastal Ron wrote:
“But it’s beginning to look like Romney, if elected President, will kill the SLS just by downsizing NASA,”
That is of course if he could get it by the congressional committees on pork .. oops .. I mean science.
I have a feeling if he is elected those hundreds of filibusters on President Obama may haunt any republican that gets to the Whitehouse as payback seems to be par for the course.
Rand Simberg wrote @ April 25th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
“If true, that demonstrates nothing but her ignorance of the Tea Party. Which would be unsurprising if she only gets her news from the MSM.”
Yes the only reason people could not like the tea party or think that they were in the mold of Ronaldus the Great is because they are subject to the propaganda of the MSM (or “lamestream media” as that well versed spokesperson Sarah Palin would call it) and if only they would listen to the true prophets at Fox News shouting out the call for liberty then all of us would get it, including Mrs. Reagan.
An alternative explanation is that you and others who claim to be tea party folks never really understood Ronaldus the Great and are instead like the GOP Nominee being told what to think by people who know how to manipulate you. And Mrs. Reagan who slept with Ronnie for Decades…is correct.
Occams razor is a principle urging one to select among competing hypotheses that which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect.
enjoy the tea. RGO
vulture4 wrote @ April 25th, 2012 at 3:01 pm
“We have been informed that cancellation of SLS will not automatically result in the money being available for other NASA activities.”
I can accept that. Out of curiosity, in what way did this get passed down?
“However my feeling is that if SLS/Orion were cut and only 10% of the SLS/Orion budget were applied to technology development and Commercial Crew, that would still be worth it.”
That’s the way I look at it too.
The SLS is a growing liability, and NASA is better without it. If they redirect some of the cancelled budget back to NASA, then that’s money NASA wouldn’t have had with the SLS anyways, so bonus.
An alternative explanation is that you and others who claim to be tea party folks never really understood Ronaldus the Great and are instead like the GOP Nominee being told what to think by people who know how to manipulate you.
Like most of your “explanations,” that would be a pretty idiotic one.
@Stephen C. Smith wrote @ April 24th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
Jeffrey Goldberg is just this week’s Charles Krauthammer. Neither has a lick of knowledge about the U.S. space program, just a column to espouse partisan political views. Apparently you haven’t been reading your own blog. No difference.
There are some political lessons that come from the Gingrich lunar colonization episode that will, I believe, haunt him for a long time. One could ask what he should have said. The lessons are, I think, of some relevance to, shall we say, the lunatic fringe of human space flight. Let me take a stab at it.
Gingrich simply presumed that the idea of lunar colonization was valuable, inspiring, and exciting to the American public. He talked about cities, states, and even voting rights up there. But what he should have been communicating was the importance of inspiration and excitement to the health of our country, and as a leader he would work to achieve those things. He could have described the importance of those things to a healthy nation. Then perhaps as an aside, he could have used a lunar return as one possible example. That example should have been couched with other examples closer to home.
Where Gingrich fell flat on his face (as in, squashed nose) was in that presumption. That colonizing the Moon was the goal, and not, as JFK said, those other things. See, we’re not electing a President to take us to the Moon. That’s not the job. Where he received due ridicule was that presumption that what was important to the nation was colonizing the Moon. The important things to the nation are, on the contrary, physical and economic security. In his grand picture, colonizing the Moon didn’t really touch those important things. It could be that value, inspiration and excitement beget that security, and it could be that a return to the Moon gets you those things. But his argument was backwards. I’d like to believe that politicians henceforth learn something from the Gingrich lunar debacle as they carefully defend a space program.
Doug Lassiter wrote @ April 25th, 2012 at 6:30 pm
as usual Doug that is a good post, one of the best this thread…and you ask a pretty good question and give it a good answer. I’ve said it to my “political thread” it is that good.
let me think about it for a bit RGO
Doug Lassiter wrote @ April 25th, 2012 at 6:30 pm
Doug…what separates Newt Gingrich from Jack Kennedy (are so many things) but for this discussion…iti s mainly a belief in the ability of the federal government to actually accomplish things that make the lives of the citizenry better…and in most cases give them more oppurtunity.
Kennedy (as well as Nixon and others) came from an era where the federal government had taken over the economy; shaped it into a war machine…and produced its way (along with brave people) toward victory in WW2.
I was doing a speech on the 70th anniversary of the Doolittle raid…FDR when he agreed to the raid knew he was going to lose; no matter how well it went about 1/2 of 1 months production of B-25’s. By 1944 the US was producing 60-80 B-25’s a DAY.
Along the way federal government directed efforts developed weapon systems that took warfare from horse cav to the A Bomb. By 1944 we were producing more SG radars (which was better then anything anyone else had) a month then Britain could produce of the comparable product…in a year.
Jack Kennedy knew that given enough money the same “machine” that did what it did in WW2 could 16 years latter…do the same thing…and that is why Apollo was probably the last hurrah of a command economy.
Today for a variety of reasons the federal government is viewed by most Americans as unable to accomplish much. One of those reasons is that the corporations have gotten hold of the wealth transfer mechanisms…ie federal programs…and now it no longer matters what the programs do…they keep on going. This is the “industrial complexes” that Ike warned everyone about.
Newt really could not get up and give a speech such as you suggest…and after that back and forth with the Atlas guys about how long it would take to human rate the vehicle and getting a blah answer…he had to of known it.
Its hard to make the government work anymore and Newts efforts at going back to the Moon would be no more successful then Bush43’s were. I got a lot of flack here predicting what eventually happened with Bush43’s vision..it was easy to know it would fail. Bush and his flunkies were not capable of making anything work really well…and quickly inertia took over under Griffin and we got what we got. Newt would have about the same amount of “luck”.
Worse for Newt…the GOP no longer really believes in doing things through the federal government. They always had this anti streak…they were against the Ike highway system. Reagan made it (the government0 work in things that mattered to him…but todays GOP is more interested in corporate handouts for little to show for it.
Newt might rail against the NASA machine…but when he was Speaker he fell right in line (see DAvid Frum’s book “Dead right”)…and in reality while he has good words sometimes…he is a creature of the corporate industrial complexes like the rest of the GOP…
His ideas no matter how good Muncy worked them…were just something he nor anyone in the party can make work. RGO
@Doug Lassiter wrote @ April 25th, 2012 at 6:30 pm
“There are some political lessons that come from the Gingrich lunar colonization episode that will, I believe, haunt him for a long time.”
Long time… try forever. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow lampooned Gingrich’s ‘moon president’ statements again tonight. And, of course, the archive opening of SNL of ‘Newt Gingrich – Moon President’ is a ‘go to’ for decades to come. Th damage onwe by Gingeich to all matters space in the public discourse is incalculable. .
@Doug Lassiter wrote @ April 25th, 2012 at 6:30 pm
“Gingrich simply presumed that the idea of lunar colonization was valuable, inspiring, and exciting to the American public.”
Considering the egocentric nature of Gingrich, in fact, it was- to a chubby kid clutching a candy bar splayed out on the living room floor reading comic books in the early 50s– which is Newtster in a nutshell, who then watched space travel become a reality.
Robert G. Oler wrote @ April 25th, 2012 at 11:28 pm
“Newt really could not get up and give a speech such as you suggest…”
Perhaps. But what he could have talked about was what was important to the nation, and how that shapes his beliefs about the challenges he sees and the investments he’d try to make. That’s the talk of a presidential candidate. Colonization of the Moon is, in and of itself, fundamentally not important to the nation. I guess Newt could have tried to draw some lines between lunar colonization and what’s important to the nation, but that’s an exercise that has to be done with some care and delicacy. His presumption was that lunar colonization and national needs were joined at the hip. That presumption is laughable, and it’s sure getting a lot of laughs.
I do agree that his vacuous blathering has done incalculable damage to all matters space in the public discourse. It is just flabbergasting how Gingrich’s deep political experience (and Muncy’s too if he set Gingrich up to this) could lead to such a debacle. Again, there are lessons to be learned from this that go well beyond his remarks being a political mistake.
Doug Lassiter wrote @ April 26th, 2012 at 11:33 am
Robert G. Oler wrote @ April 25th, 2012 at 11:28 pm
“Newt really could not get up and give a speech such as you suggest…â€
You replied:
Perhaps. But what he could have talked about was what was important to the nation, and how that shapes his beliefs about the challenges he sees and the investments he’d try to make. ”
YEs exactly…the problem is that the GOP particularly that group which holds sway in a primary does not think that “visionary” policies…ie changing the nation toward some unseen future” (Star Treks “the undiscovered country”) is IMPORTANT.
Almost to a person what the non corporate wing of the party wants to do is go back to a past which they have created and had created for them, in their own minds.
Look at the support HERE and elsewhere for SLS and Orion…it is soley an attempt to recreate Apollo…there is all the internal mechanisms (heavy lift, one time use capsule etc all it lacks is the white shirts narrow black ties and totally white people)…but there is also all the external mechanisms…ie “The Chinese (code for Red Chinese) are going to go to the Moon and do all the things we didnt do with Apollo”, “they are going to do it with a heavy lift” etc…
and then look at the politics external to space of the people here who are arguing for this approach.
In almost every venue of the GOP we have people now arguing to go back to a past that they have created. Tony Perkins (Family research council) gave a speech where he picked and chosed from the 1960 census to prove that blacks were better off Then then now…the country is spending near record levels in constant dollars on defense (almost at 1944 levels) and the GOP wants to spend more…
these are all “go back” not go forward.
If Newt had any intention or ability (through Muncy) to address those issues he would have been drummed out of the party…I think he did have the ability (hence his initial response to Paul Ryan’s budget) but the fact that this blew up in his face stopped that.
Where I think Newt was surprised is that the pander did not work. He advocated something that he thought played to the way back machine..and Willard with the help of fools like Scott Pace and Griffin and the old Apollo crowd was able to shut that down…they want Apollo redone…
Newt has done enormous damage to human space endeavors…but it will heel itself if the GOP is flushed this election.
The GOP simply no longer has any real vision. RGO
It is just flabbergasting how Gingrich’s deep political experience (and Muncy’s too if he set Gingrich up to this) could lead to such a debacle
I’m quite confident that Muncy was just as frustrated about this as anyone. No one controls Newt.
Rand Simberg wrote @ April 26th, 2012 at 3:01 pm
“No one controls Newt.”
no more accurate words were ever typed…and congratulations you have just stated why “mr. newt” is unsuitable to be President or any high elective office….No one, including Newt control him RGO
Planetary Resources
Fascinating. The usual NewSpace suspects (Anderson, Diamandis, & Co.) have decided to expand their model beyond the bounds of the traditional HSF cult. But the other ingredients of NewSpace are still here:
(1) Hype to heaven a futuristic “commercial” fantasy to attract legions of loud and gullible NewSpace fans.
(2) Hire some talented people who are good at working on NASA contracts, but NASA and traditional contractors wouldn’t pay them enough.
(3) Use the lobbying power of their legions of fans and their better paid talent to win the same old NASA contracts. (Here, what they will actually work on, if NASA pays them to do it, are humble little space telescopes and space probes — no robots will actually get their claws dirty).
Still, I have to give them credit, at least they’ve chosen a less cliched fantasy, something that when its time eventually comes will be far more useful than astronaut shrines. And they might actually accomplish some incremental progress in reducing the costs and increasing the functionality of space science and real space exploration. Just as Space-X, when all the hype about Mars greenhouses and Dragon astronauts and Falcon Heavy and flyback boosters oh my! dies down, seems to have accomplished some good incremental progress in bringing down launch costs for satellites.
Gingrich was right! He just should’ve been keen enough to know who his audience was, and tailor-make his speech accordingly. The average joes out there in the general public never seem to care for REAL space exploration—-they only want to be entertained by Hollywood & more delusional sci-fi. He should’ve gave a toned-down, sober, pragmatic, realistic-sounding speech promoting a concrete, manned Lunar Return and the establishment of an Antarctic-type base there. Only when he was certain to be speaking to the space-interest community, mainly, should he have uttered a single word about a possible colony to be emplaced there. Like if the National Space Society would interview him for “Ad Astra” magazine, or something along those lines. Newt Gingrich was my second favorite of the presidential aspirants, and I even contributed to his campaign, some weeks ago. By contrast, the current President has proven to be nothing more than the ‘low earth orbit president’. BO has certainly done his part, in assuring that Americans shall never leave low earth orbit, until way after 2020.
Chris Castro wrote @ April 28th, 2012 at 9:12 am
“Gingrich was right! He just should’ve been keen enough to know who his audience was, and tailor-make his speech accordingly.”
He should have, but he didn’t. That’s Gingrich for you, and indicative of why he’s now an also-ran. Now if only he can find the few willing to pay off his abortive campaign debt…
“…and I even contributed to his campaign, some weeks ago.”
Oh, well, there you go.
“By contrast, the current President has proven to be nothing more than the ‘low earth orbit president’.”
Yes, he is in that exclusive club consisting of only Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton – i.e. everyone except Bush 43. Yep, Obama is sure unique on this issue.
Don’t you see the trend on this? Even earlier you pretty much hit the nail on the head when you said:
“The average joes out there in the general public never seem to care for REAL space exploration—-they only want to be entertained by Hollywood & more delusional sci-fi.”
Yet you blame Obama for not ignoring the “average joes”. I imagine you’ll have the same feeling about Romney if he wins in November and doesn’t create a Moon program. Oh well…
@Coastal Ron;…..My, my, isn’t it a gloomy picture, just how many U.S. Presidents have never given a hoot about BEYOND LEO manned space initiatives! Think about it: Just George H. Bush & his hapless son W. Aside from them, you just have two Democrats: John Kennedy & Lyndon Johnson, who concurrently strived to see Project Apollo through. But in recent decades, it seems that NASA is better off in the hands of the Republicans, as the Democrats pander too much into this welfare-state-only paradigm; with zero, zilch, nada interest nor spirit for higher than LEO strides. So even if a hypothetical Romney administration is ice-cold at first, to the notion of renewed Lunar exploration—-and of course, THAT could later-on change, towards the later part of his first term—-in whatever case, to me, it will be satisfaction enough, that the low-earth-orbit-only administration of BO will have been brought to an end, and that a new cast of government characters will take the stage, and possibly make a different start of it all, with regard to NASA and its subsequent fate.
What timing. SNL’s April 28 telecast was a rebroadcast with the ‘Newt Gingruch, Moon President’ opening skit, as the players were at the WHCD in Washington. Nothing like refreshing the public memory with Newt’s foolishiness. And it was just as funny the second time ’round. Best line- ‘may divorce be with you.’ As noted earlier, the residue from Gingrich’s grandiosity has damaged public discourse on matters space for years. Tom Lehrer’s ditty on Von Braun lingers still… ‘Newt Gingrich- Moon President’ will always be a go-to punchline with this generation of MSM talking heads which pass for ‘journalists’ these days. Go away, Newt. Just go away.
The relationship between NASA and the Government is almost schizophrenic. We need to establish one program an follow it all the way trough. A solid program will take at least 10 years. That’s guaranteeing that at least two Precedents will be in charge trough it’s completion. So if one President comes on-board and cancels ideas of the other President then we are back to the drawing board. On a personal note I think we have to primarily focus on going to Mars. A base on the Moon will be nice, but kinda pointless because the same things can be achieved by sending space craft to High Earth Orbit (overcoming Moons gravity cancels the advantage out).
‘Newt Gingrich – Moon President’ officially ‘suspended’ his presidential campaign this afternoon as his effort for the COP nomiination plummeted to Earth, sans drogue and main chure deploy. =yawn= And amidsts the long goodbye resume he verbally delivered was a nod to fellow traveller and ultra-right wing loon, bob Walker, and an admission that his now infamous ‘moon base’ comment was ill-advised. Too bad he can’t apologize for the SNLS skit, which will live on long after Newt has passed from the political scene.