Newt wants a Moonbase

Disillusioned

New member
Newt wants a moonbase, really how can you guys take him seriously?

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ne...n-base-flights-mars-reality/story?id=15449425

A colony on the moon? Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich floated the idea before a massive audience on Florida's space coast. Thousands lost jobs there when the space shuttle quit flying, so what he told them was music to their ears -- the promise of jobs once again, another space race.

Gingrich offered his vision of an ambitious new space program. "By the end of my second term," Gingrich said, "we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American." The crowd erupted in applause.

And he was just getting started; by 2020, he said, there would be regular flights to Mars.

"I am sick of being told we have to be timid and I'm sick of being told we have to be limited to technologies that are 50 years old," Gingrich said.

But what are the realities? Earth already has a space colony in Earth orbit, and it's been expensive. It is the International Space Station (no one ever came up with a catchier name because that's a political hot potato). This orbiting outpost cost $100 billion to build over 10 years, after a decade of planning, with the combined efforts of 16 countries.

The station currently it has a crew of six on board, and they spend about 35 hours a week between them on cutting-edge science. The rest of the time is spent maintaining the station.
Stop someone on the street and ask them about who is in space and you are likely to get a blank look. Interest in the space program has waned.

The first man on the moon, Neil Armstrong, joined Apollo 13 commander James Lovell and Apollo 17 commander Eugene Cernan in writing a letter to President Obama, chastising him for failing to have a replacement vehicle for the space shuttle fleet, and encouraging him to start a new space effort.

"For The United States, the leading space faring nation for nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low Earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond Earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future, destines our nation to become one of second or even third rate stature," they wrote

NASA could certainly build a colony on the Moon. They know how to get there, and they know what to do when they land. Engineers have already designed the rockets, the spacecraft, the rovers, and inflatable habitats -- all prepared after President George W. Bush proposed in 2004 to go back to the moon.

That program was called Constellation. It lasted until President Obama took office.

But a commission, appointed by Obama and chaired by retired aerospace executive Norman Augustine, said a return to the moon just wasn't financially practical -- without an extra $3 billion a year, NASA just wouldn't have the money to make it work.

That's a tough sell in today's economy.

Obama canceled Constellation and called for yet another program, one which isn't fully funded, and has no specific destination -- perhaps a passing asteroid and eventually an expedition to Mars. Planners at NASA must have whiplash trying to keep up with the changes each administration throws at them.

Gingrich -- like Obama -- calls on private enterprise to take over parts of NASA's role. But no private company has yet put astronauts in Earth orbit. Gingrich is among many who have accused NASA of becoming bureaucratic and overly cautious. But the reality remains that space exploration is difficult and dangerous, and expensive as well.

The potential of exploring and living on the moon excites many -- including former astronaut Steve Lindsey, who commanded the last flight of the space shuttle Discovery.
 
i'm torn. on the one hand, it does not seem fiscally sound, on the other, i think we need to bolster our space program. the space race helped make america a superpower.
 
i'm torn. on the one hand, it does not seem fiscally sound, on the other, i think we need to bolster our space program. the space race helped make america a superpower.

Are we in danger of not being a superpower? This feels like newt wanting a moonbase because he read about it stopping and alien invasion in the latest sf book. "why should we get a moonbase?" Because it would be cool?
 
i'm torn. on the one hand, it does not seem fiscally sound, on the other, i think we need to bolster our space program. the space race helped make america a superpower.

I'm not torn. Space is one of the government projects that pay us back with new inventions, etc. It is a serious boost to our economy both directly and indirectly.
 
Are we in danger of not being a superpower? This feels like newt wanting a moonbase because he read about it stopping and alien invasion in the latest sf book. "why should we get a moonbase?" Because it would be cool?

Or becauseit would meaningfully advance science in almost every field. We could learn practical terraforming for example.
 
Are we in danger of not being a superpower? This feels like newt wanting a moonbase because he read about it stopping and alien invasion in the latest sf book. "why should we get a moonbase?" Because it would be cool?

capt said it well, the space race gave us a dramatic boost in tech etc....trust me, it is not just to be cool, don't be silly.
 
I will admit that each of the Republican candidates have made proposals I cannot support......Newt's moonbase, Romeny's keying the minimum wage to COLA, Paul ignoring future Hitlers......

still preferable to another $5 trillion added to the deficit, though......
 
Newt-Moon-left.jpg


Newt-Moon-day.jpg


newt-ego1.jpg
 
What about studying and learning about our oceans. I think there is still a lot to learn in that area.
 
I'm not huge into the space program, but I do support research into radically advancing our spacecraft technology. Some of what comes out of it could likely be used in oceanic exploration.
 
Last edited:
Arguably the space program does good things for our species by the way it surveys the solar system and beyond for dangers to our planet. Beyond that, our technology is far to infantile to do us much good, such as mine for resources, seek out life-sustaining planets, and so forth. As such, I would recommend against the launching of any more shuttles until our transportation technology can do much more than maybe put a few people on Mars (at great cost and risk, and with little potential to gather more information than our robots are currently doing already).
 
Arguably the space program does good things for our species by the way it surveys the solar system and beyond for dangers to our planet. Beyond that, our technology is far to infantile to do us much good, such as mine for resources, seek out life-sustaining planets, and so forth. As such, I would recommend against the launching of any more shuttles until our transportation technology can do much more than maybe put a few people on Mars (at great cost and risk, and with little potential to gather more information than our robots are currently doing already).

How do you expect such technology to advance without being used?
 
I saw a list, one time, of all the things that have come out of the space program, that now benefit society.

Some people might want to educate themselves on the number of advances that have come from the military side, during wars.
 
Back
Top