Let's see
1. Newts nuts on space
2. Obama not interested in space
3. NASA has no money, can't do it if they had money
4. America's broke
5. Many are pleased that the crummy shuttle , our only way to do any thing in space, is in a museum, OR it's not mentioned.
6. Commercial initiatives won't work
7. General public nor Congress interested in space.
Maybe we should just cancel space efforts and support Obama to give more housing, food, free education, etc. To the poor.
Many don't feel we can get a JFK initiative , like man on moon, going again.
Oh, well, we can go to the museum, look at the shuttle, express our happiness over how we are not wasting money and polluting the earth with those nasty launches and discuss how we are helping the poor with the money we are saving.
Maybe we can increase our efforts in helping the poor in needy countries around the world.
Below is a list of comments to the following article.
There are a few optimistic, pro newt comments, but the majority aren't.
Is Gingrich's Pro-Obama Space Policy Stance About to Flip Flop?
By Keith Cowing on January 25, 2012 12:07 AM. 45 Comments
Gingrich plans major speeches, including one on space, CNN
"Riding the momentum of his South Carolina win on Saturday, Newt Gingrich said Sunday he planned a week of big speeches offering "big solutions for a big country." "I'll be at the space coast in Florida this week giving a speech -- a visionary speech -- on the United States going back into space in the John F. Kennedy tradition," the former House Speaker said on C-SPAN's "Washington Journal."
Gingrich & Walker: Obama's brave reboot for NASA, Washington Times (earlier post)
"Despite the shrieks you might have heard from a few special interests, the Obama administration's budget for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration deserves strong approval from Republicans. The 2011 spending plan for the space agency does what is obvious to anyone who cares about man's future in space and what presidential commissions have been recommending for nearly a decade."
Gingrich promises JFK-like space speech, CNN"
"Two years ago, Gingrich came out in support for Obama's 2011 NASA budget in an editorial co-authored by Walker. Specifically, the two praised a proposed program to allow private companies to transport astronauts to and from the International Space Station."
- Precursors to a Paradigm Shift
- Gingrich on Space, earlier post
- Newt Skywalker, earlier post
Categories: Election 2012
Tags: election 2012, Florida, Gingrich, Obama, policy, Walker
inShare
4
LikeNo
Post as …
Cessna_Driver
6 days ago
Great news and will force other candidates to start expressing some kind of expected space policy. Perhaps our nation, greatly perceived in decline, will turn it's eyes again to the stars and know that will help raise us up again.
reply
Stevenwh99
6 days ago
Newt should announce that he will cancel Obama's as yet unnamed mission to rendezvous with the as yet unnamed asteroid by 2025. Instead, we should put humans on Mars by 2022, within fifty years of Apollo 17. America, that would be truly bold. Yes, we can!
hide 4 repliesreply
jski
6 days ago
A much better plan would be to do something that's sustainable: a permanently manned lunar station/colony. In addition, have it function as lunar resources exploration facility - i.e., give it an economical rationale.
Mars can and will follow.
hide 2 repliesreply
RogerStrong
4 days ago
A sustainable colony means having and raising kids. For the sake of bone development that means you want as close to Earth-gravity as possible. Which makes Mars a far more likely target for colonization.
An economical rationale - for people who aren't space buffs - means a payback for the taxpayers back on earth. You could find unlimited resources on the moon and still not find that payback. Those resources would still be cheaper to obtain on earth. And yes, that includes helium 3.
But yes, the moon is the best first stop, the best place to develop much of what would later be used for Mars.
hide 1 replyreply
Paul451
3 days ago
"For the sake of bone development that means you want as close to Earth-gravity as possible."
No one knows. We have no data points between zero and 1, so we have no idea of the shape of the curve.
reply
Jim Wittenborg
3 days ago
Although I have been involved with and supported the manned space Program for 30 years, I would like to see us concentrate more on deep space robotic exploration rather than sending a human. Humans in the loop increase the cost tremendously, and in doing so, lengthen the schedule and complexity of the mission considerably. For what? Pride? Let's advance our technology, retrieve the data deep in space, and propel our knowledge of the stars WITHOUT having to send a human out there to do it.
reply
Joshua Diamond
6 days ago
Yet another politician sucking up to the local populace. If this were really about space for Newt, he would have been discussing this all along. Doing it when Florida's primary is around the corner? Pure political theater, to be discarded when he moves on to states where low taxes and economic austerity are the mantra...
hide 1 replyreply
Rick Boyett
5 days ago
Yes and no... Of course there is a Florida primary, but Gingrich has consistently shown that he is very much in favor of manned space exploration.
reply
Dennis Ray Wingo
6 days ago
I find the uninformed speculation interesting here. In all probability Newt will call for a very big prize for return to the Moon.
He might even push for ZGZT
If either one of these or both happens, the world will change, for the better.
hide 3 repliesreply
Paul Roberts
5 days ago
I can see something like ZGZT and/or some sort of policy on extraterrestrial land ownership rights being a near zero-cost way of encouraging space business & industry without getting bogged down in the morass that is any effort to put through a long-term plan at NASA. It would mesh well with the traditional Republican pro-business less government approach. I don't know if his handlers are smart enough to know about it (or care about it), but it would be a pretty good fit.
Paul
reply
no one of consequence
4 days ago
No Dennis.
4 the lulz.
reply
DTARS
5 days ago
What's zGzt ??
Zero G zero tax
google is a wonderful thing :)
reply
Joe Cooper
5 days ago
Maybe he'll even pitch Zero-Gravity Zero-Adults, his plan to use child astronauts to keep unions out of orbit.
reply
Steve_Whitfield
6 days ago
“the United States going back into space in the John F. Kennedy tradition”
I’m sorry to say that I think that line was a mistake on Gingrich’s part. First off, the US can’t afford to go to space “in the John F. Kennedy tradition”; the money just isn’t there and the country’s industries couldn’t survive the upset and redirection they would experience. At the time of Gemini, Kennedy had serious concerns about “what the space program was doing to the country’s economy.” And things are much more fragile now.
Additionally, the nature of the aerospace community is very different now. In the time of Kennedy and Johnson, nationalism drove everything, especially the space program. The aerospace companies are now much more multinational, both in terms of management and the marketplace.
The Kennedy era was great, but it shouldn’t happen again.
Steve
hide 9 repliesreply
Cessna_Driver
6 days ago
Great nations dare great things, it's how they stay great.
The nations that lead on the frontiers, dictate the course of human history. I believe that is the JFK tradition he has in mind, not because they are easy but because they are hard as JFK said, yes he had cold war motives, but doing extremely challenging things be it as a nation or as individuals has immeasurable benefits. Cancel all NASA budgets or double them. Neither would make any difference to the immediate fiscal problems the nation faces today. It's one half of one penny of federal discretionary spending. Yet the horrible price this nation would pay if we turn our back on space will will come due in time.
hide 6 repliesreply
Steve_Whitfield
6 days ago
I hear what you’re saying Cessna_Driver, and I seriously applaud the sentiment, but first you’ve got to pay the bills, and that requires cash, not sentiment.
A lot of people have made the half of one cent, or half of one percent, argument, and it is valid in my mind. The problem is that the space program is not the only concern that’s vying for a portion of the money. There are more potential beneficiaries than there halves of one percent to dole out. If the American government and the American people were both willing to allocate 0.5% to space, every year, then I think there’s a lot that can be done. But clearly Congress controls the money, and clearly Congress is trying to cut NASA funding back.
This thread is about a Presidential possibility, but I think we have to face the reality that, as far as space goes, it makes no difference who is elected in November, because the President no longer has any control over the situation. Congress has long controlled the money, and now they control the program selection and definition as well. And Congress has no interest whatsoever in a JFK tradition space program. They (collectively, at least) have no idea what it’s all about when it comes to space. They shot down President Obama’s practical plan for NASA, one of the reasons being that they couldn’t see anything in the way of a short-term return to satisfy everybody’s desire for instant gratification, and instead forced on everybody a “plan” (SLS/MPCV) that would actually take much longer to produce anything of value, if it could be made to work, which it can’t.
I don’t hesitate at all to say that if a President were elected who understood the space situation, was a great fan of space, and was willing to commit sufficient money for a sufficiently long period, he/she would not stand a chance of putting any “great things” into play. He she would only be guaranteeing themselves no second term.
That’s how I see it. Can you envision any proposal whereby control over space is put back into the hands of people who understand it and are not driven by ulterior motives? Can you see away to break out of the current unsustainable road to nowhere? It would be great if you, or someone, could put this out-of-control train back on its tracks. Once we again have sanity in the driver’s seat, then we can again think in terms of great things. But fooling ourselves accomplishes nothing. We have to deal with the situation in terms of what it really is, not what we think it should be nor what we’d like it to be.
I’m not by nature a pessimist, but if we want to attack a problem, the first step is to understand the problem as it really is, and that means accepting that both the White House and NASA are Cinderellas, and Congress is the evil step mother.
Steve
hide 5 repliesreply
Dennis Ray Wingo
6 days ago
Until the speech happens, this is all speculation.
hide 1 replyreply
no one of consequence
3 days ago
Well ... he talked. He's a fool!
That fantasy didn't last long.
Kelly McDonald
5 days ago
There are really teo big problems at NASA. One is the funding aspect where a president has influence, but ultimately congress decides. The second is something NASA hasn't had since the 1960's (arguably the 1980's under Regan), a president willing to spend political capital on the agency. The only thing that can fix the multiple structrual challenges within NASA is through an administrator that has the political authority to make substantive changes in the organization and a president willing to back those changes through the inevitable firestorm of critisism.
reply
Robert Karma
4 days ago
Excellent points. The person who occupies the White House hasn't really mattered since JFK & Congress started cutting back on the Apollo Program starting in 1966 & we lost Apollo flights 18, 19 & 20 along with a vigorous follow-up to Apollo. We were lucky to get Skylab out of the leftovers of Apollo. Until the American people demand an aggressive manned space program that goes beyond LEO Congress will never get behind funding it at an adequate level over the long-term. With no bucks... no Buck Rogers! I just don't have enough faith in the American people to realize how important to our future as a great nation an aggressive space program is in a world that is quickly passing us by. JFK warned us about being left in the backwash of space exploration but it seems that once we successfully landed on the Moon and returned safely to the Earth the American people moved on to other priorities. I, too, am not by nature a pessimist but as a historian of the space program it is hard not to be on this subject.
hide 1 replyreply
Paul451
3 days ago
"Until the American people demand an aggressive manned space program that goes beyond LEO Congress will never get behind funding it at an adequate level over the long-term."
So, never?
There will never be more funding for NASA. Not next year, not in ten years. Not if this or a future President gives a grand Vision speech, nor if they don't. Not under Republicans, nor under Democrats. The buying power of NASA's budget will decline over the next few decades, may even decline in actual dollar terms too. Continuously. Forever.
NASA needs to understand that, to soak it into their bones, to carve it into every assumption they make. NASA needs to figure out how to do what they want to do on a smaller and smaller budget.
If that means closing centres, they need to lobby the President and Congress to be allowed to close centres. If that mean RIF, they need to lobby to be allowed to RIF permanent staff (not just contractors). If FAR is making projects more expensive, or preventing NASA from developing commercial competition that will lower costs in the future, NASA needs to lobby for specific exemptions to FAR. If SLS/Orion is sucking up money for a program which never get cheaper, they need to lobby against it like it's a deadly poison.
But most of all, they need to come together to develop the tools and technologies today that will allow future NASA to do things on a vastly smaller budget. Otherwise they'll just do less and less until the whole agency can be safely cancelled or rolled into another dept/agency as a single line-item.
DTARS
6 days ago
Give the guy a chance to speak lol We will see if he is for the future of human space flight or just kissing up for ksc votes. Obama never should canceled constellation lolol kiss kiss kiss vote for meeeeeeee
reply
newpapyrus
6 days ago
President Obama inherited an $8.4 billion a year manned spaceflight related budget from George Bush. That's $126 billion over the next 15 years.
The Augustine Commission determined that the hyper expensive Constellation program would cost NASA nearly $99 billion. NASA has already determined that an SLS based lunar program should be more than 25% cheaper than the Constellation program.
So $126 billion is plenty of money for a manned lunar program, if that's NASA's priority.
The Augustine Commission determined that the original Apollo program that gave us manned lunar landings and a space station (Skylab) cost nearly $130 billion in today's dollars.
Marcel F. Williams
reply
MNealBarrett
6 days ago
Let me guess: it will consist of $PENDING, $PENDING, and more $PENDING. Oh, and Obama sucks because he spends too much.
hide 2 repliesreply
aubskibob
6 days ago
The problem with Obama is twofold: he spends on the wrong things and he spends too much. Obviously the main issue is to reduce overall spending. However, there are areas that could use increased investment even with overall spending decreases. Education, Infrastructure, space, science, etc. There are the real valuable investments that have been neglected for feel-good emotional programs with only short return.
hide 1 replyreply
Chris B
5 days ago
Newt doesn't want spending on any of those things.
reply
Steve Harrington
6 days ago
I am sure Newt will come up with a nice speech. Aerospace enthusiasts will be thrilled. However, congress thwarted the Lunar plans of President Bush and the more limited space plans of President Obama, so don't expect anything to come of it.
Steve
hide 4 repliesreply
quarkburger
5 days ago
Not sure what you're talking about... Obama canceled Constellation. Congress acted to save a few important components of Constellation, namely Orion. If Obama had his way, the interplanetary space craft would have been relegated to being a life boat for the space station.
reply
quarkburger
5 days ago
It wasn't congress. It was Obama. Congress acted to save at least some parts of Constellation from Obama's wrath.
hide 2 repliesreply
Steve Harrington
5 days ago
Constellation was going nowhere. Obama did not kill it, he just noticed it was dead. See the GAO report, See the CBO report. There was never enough money appropriated by congress to maintain adequate margins and address technical problems. The schedule was slipping more than it was advancing. Congress saved a few jobs in key districts, but there was never enough interest among voters to make it work. This has not changed.
reply
nasa817
5 days ago
I think he means Congress never funded the VSE (or Obama's plans for that matter). In fact, Bush never asked for the budget he had laid out for 2005 and beyond when he announced the VSE, which Constellation was supposed to realize. Congress further dampened things by not funding what Bush asked for. Obama saved us tens of billions by canceling Constellation. It was a farce, just as SLS is. It doesn't matter what Newt says, or what Obama does, or what Congress funds. What you all forget is the NASA no longer has the knowledge and capability to do such things. NASA HSF ended with wheel stop of Atlantis. The only way NASA will ever develop another crewed vehicle is if we are given about $20 billion per year just for HSF. We might succeed if our entire budget were devoted to HSF for the next decade. That ain't gonna happen.
reply
sch220
6 days ago
Kissing up to Florida voters prior to that state's primary. I'm sure whatever solution he proposes will involve a massive number of launches and KSC activities. You betcha!!
reply
edfromred
6 days ago
It's time for America to return to space exploration with gusto, don't fall behind and lose the scientific, material, and societal benefits. Other nations are proceeding with plans to explore and colonize the regions beyond Earth. Don't let Americas greatest achievements in space exist solely in 20th Century chapters of history
reply
Steve_Whitfield
4 days ago
Every time I look at the cropped picture of Gingrich at the top of this thread he looks more like a Romulan Centurion. I don’t know if that’s a good sign or a bad one.
Steve
reply
edfromred
6 days ago
It's time for America to return to space exploration with gusto, don't fall behind and lose the scientific, material, and societal benefits. Other nations are proceeding with plans to explore and colonize the regions beyond Earth. Don't let Americas greatest achievements in space exist solely in 20th Century chapters of history
reply
DTARS
6 days ago
Very interested to hear what Mr. Gingrich will say. We should learn how much a student he really is of space.
reply
cheryl555
1 day ago
Gingrich has been talking about ramping up the space program in a big way for YEARS! So why would he NOT follow through with the same passion he has said? That is NOT who he is! We are so used to Liars like Romney & Obama and all of those before them that righfully so, when someone comes along who thinks big thoughts and believes in America everybody thinks it a joke. Well, we will NEVER know unless we get behind this guy and see what he can do. We have given much LESSER men the chance at running this Country and at least THIS ONE loves this Country and has proven that through all his years of dedication to fixing it in the Congress! I say, give him a chance!
reply
TPISCzar
4 days ago
It will be JFK like in stature, but it won't be the big spending plan like SLS disciples are hoping for.
Respectfully,Andrew GasserTEA Party in Space
reply
John Simonich
4 days ago
I'm with jski, what we need is a focused program that will achieve a sustainable SETTLEMENT on the Moon followed by Mars. In the near term, "self-sustainabilty" on either the Moon or Mars, might be impossible...but we should be planting the "seeds" and infrastructure for long-term self-sustainability. In the short-term, we should be focusing on building a settlement with structures that can safely house humans, as well as developing closed-circuit waste recyclement, as well as growing food sources. Of course, Scientific exploration is happenning concurrently. In the longer term, we can begin thinking of mining and exploiting some of the indigenous resources. I mean, there is no point getting all hot and excited about Helium-3, when we haven't even demonstrated the feasibility of controlled, energy-producing fusion of D/T. Pure Helium-3 fusion requires energies (temperatures) orders of magnitude greater then Deuterium/Tritium fusion cycle.
reply
DTARS
5 days ago
If Newt sells the x prize to the moon to the public we will see cheaper space flight in a flash and I bet Spacex falcon heavies would most likely have missions that would lead to Spacex developing Merlin 2 on their own dime :) 5 core falcon heavies for cheapp heavy lift lolol
How does this make NASA employees voters happy?
Isn't the trick for newt to help transform NASA to save it from those evil cheap commercial guys?
Make NASA happy or launch human space flight ?
Sounds like a magic trick :)
I can't wait to hear what he has to say lolol a very smart Man
reply
Nothing Much
5 days ago
I don't see why this being political makes it wrong. Kennedy's Moon project was also political. Newt is willing to bring this up, and you know he's willing to defend his stances. You've seen that already (see the Dec 10th and Jan 19th debates, it's all on display in the first 15 min.). He does have the ability to gain votes by being attacked and striking back, look at S Carolina. No matter what you think, he's the only candidate willing to bring space into the national conversation and defend it. I'm willing to bet this is indicative that he'll maintain his space goals through out his administration. SDI was the last space program to be defended in the political arena. And before that, it was the Moon program. Everything else has had to sink or swim as an orphan, and only STS was able to survive in that environment.
Space will, in the end, probably be opened by a slow evolutionary moves. However, if you are of the revolutionary school of thought. Newt is just the guy to carry out a revolution from the political side. This is what the opening move looks like. For those of you who favor the political mode of operations. Gear up, and get your kit ready, space is about to enter the political discussion as you've wanted it to be for the past 20 years. Live it up.
hide 1 replyreply
Paul451
3 days ago
"I don't see why this being political makes it wrong. Kennedy's Moon project was also political."
That's why. Because it was political it wasn't about developing capability, it was aboutreaching a goal. Once reached, the balloon burst, and there was nothing left but wishes.
reply
kl_777
5 days ago
I am glad the lame, low orbit shuttle program is over. Time to do a lot of catch up R&D, get to the Moon and Mars in a respectable about of time.
reply
Spacelab1
6 days ago
No real exciting news here. He's probably just trying to get votes from the people who lost their jobs due to the shuttle's retirement.
Even if Gingrich wins the presidency and genuinely tries to help human spaceflight, it is very unlikely that a strong enough commitment is generated to build a successful space program. I can already see the whole "Newt Skywalker" thing getting nasty with his opponents and most of the public eventually saying he's too concerned with space and neglecting real problems on earth.
The truth is the general public and Congress don't really care enough about space, and the space advocacy community is too small to generate enough enthusiasm for a successful government funded space program to develop. Even space advocates disagree on how to make HSF successful.
If the private sector can't pull it off to make HSF cheaper and more reliable, I don't see us going anywhere within the next 70 years. I hate sounding so pessimistic but the pattern against spaceflight is definitely there.
Space colonization requires mastering spaceflight to the point where it is cheap and reliable, however; space travel is still as impractical and expensive as it was 40+ years ago and a relatively few want to do anything about it! Thus, one can easily see spaceflight being just as expensive, unreliable and prohibitive in 40+ years from now.
reply
DTARS
6 days ago
Thanks for the ISS thoughts the other day Steve. Sure helped me to have a clue.
reply
Sent from my iPad
No comments:
Post a Comment