Posted on 01/26/2012 7:36:33 AM PST by The_Victor
The United States will have a permanent manned colony on the moon by 2020 if Newt Gingrich is in charge, the Republican presidential hopeful announced today (Jan. 25).
Gingrich laid out this goal during a speech in the city of Cocoa, on Florida's Space Coast. He also said that near-Earth space would be bustling with commercial activity by 2020, and that America would possess a next-generation propulsion system by then, allowing the nation to get astronauts to Mars quickly and efficiently.
"By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon, and it will be American," Gingrich said.
The former Speaker of the House made no apologies for the boldness of his amibitions, which depend primarily on the emergence of a vibrant commercial spaceflight industry. He said the U.S. space program needs a kick in the pants like the one President John F. Kennedy gave it in 1961, when he promised to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade.
(Excerpt) Read more at space.com ...
Lincoln was determined to ``conquer space'' to the west. At one point, when the project seemed dead for lack of funds, he arbitrarily redefined the Rocky Mountains as starting in their foothills, so that more money could be paid to the builders under the legislated formula--$32,000 in the mountains, as against only $16,000 per mile in the flatter land. It was said at the time, ``Abraham's faith moves mountains.''
Inter-planetary space is zero-G. It would take weeks or even months to get to Mars.
Since you’re so sure, maybe you can respond with a list of these astronomically valuable resources just waiting for us to harvest.
>>If it’s paid for by tax dollars, then $.01 is too much.
Well, then let’s stay on earth and argue over taxes until we die.
>>It didn’t cost in excess of a million dollars an ounce to send Lewis and Clark anywhere. They got on their horses and went. If anyone can get in his car and drive to the moon let them go. L&C cataloged economically feasible resources. The moon is NOT economically feasible as a source of anything.
Lewis and Clark were paid by TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
>>How about just NOT spending it on subsidized health care How about - and here’s a novel idea - LETTING THE PEOPLE WHO EARNED IT KEEP IT AND SPEND IT ON WHAT THEY WANT?
I agree, but we still are at the stepping stone into space. We’ve been to the moon several times already with equipment and technology at an infant stage to what we possess now. Eventually a large enough meteor is going to hit this planet - and hopefully not while we are arguing about why expanding into space is a stupid idea.
You might say that I consider my thinking *grounded* in reality. *cough* Bob
see 121
I will go along with this, like Lewis and Clark, if the tax system and rates are the same as they were during the Jefferson administration.
We can develop all sorts of technology without going to the moon. The most popular item on the planet (no not sex), the iPhone, was commercially developed without ANY government support, and in fact with the government scooping up a fair wad of Apple's profits and squandering them on idiotic things like Soylandra.
It would probably also be a good jumping off point to explore other planets, less gravity and all that
Yes, but you still have to get there and you incur the double gravitational penalty of soft landing on the moon and then taking off again from it
we are ever to get to the next level of space exploration.
What do you consider the next level of space exploration? We've been to mars and it consists of rocks and dirt. We've been to Saturn and it consists of cold gas, and it's satellites consist of rocks, dirt, ice and dirty hydrocarbons. All of which we have here. Frankly there isn't anything in the solar system that's worth the cost of getting it. We have to make or break right here on this ball of dirt.
And Kongress uses the commerce clause to justify everything it does. But your interpretation of “general welfare” is different than mine. I don’t consider robbing one set of people and then bestowing the largess on another set “general welfare”
>>I will go along with this, like Lewis and Clark, if the tax system and rates are the same as they were during the Jefferson administration.
Well, that’s not going to happen. We do need to massively cut programs, as Newt promised with both the dissolution of all czars, dissolution of Obamacare, and hopefully the complete privatization of SS and reduction and streamlining of all federal programs. I agree that the DOT, DOE, EPA, and a host of of other programs need to be phased out immediately.
The space program, however, if allowed to set up shop permanently on the moon will become a platform for MASSIVE PRIVATE INVESTMENT. Even if the materials on the moon have no practical economic value on earth, the tourism value ALONE will make up for the difference. I am suspicious, however, that the raw, refined titanium (shot by a much smaller rocket from the moon), retrorocketed before reentry into earth’s atmosphere, shielded and parachuted to safety, will make a profit.
The big money, however, will be made when humans realize that they can set up shop on any planet, and then proceed to do so. For humans to remain human, they need to leave the earth, because lately they seem to be turning into animals.
"Let us then bind the Republic together with a perfect system of roads and canals. Let us conquer space."
- John C. Calhoun, house of Representatives, February 4th, 1817
The power to increase the size of America is not addressed in the Constitution
Therefore the federal government does not have that power; read the Tenth Amendment.
- who says America can’t own part of the moon as well?
The Constitution.
You think refraining from spending taxpayer money is “destroying entrepreneurial spirit”? Have the decency to not call yourself a conservative.
Fine, let’s fire everyone in the military. Smart.
The military is authorized by the Constitution. Have you ever read it?
a) Remove the current over-regulation of private space flight
b) Recognize that the treaty prohibiting the use of atomic propulsion in space was signed with an entity that no longer exists - the USSR. Then formally annul the treaty.
c) Allow private companies to own property and territory in space: and back up their property rights with earth-based force if necessary.
d) Do Not Add Subsidy.
e) Sit back and watch what happens.
See, it is true. I just proved it to you and made you look like an azzhat in front of all your lib troll friends.
Then the private sector will see to it. "Government" "investment" is the taking of my money.
As far as being a lib, I’m pretty high on the list of those with reservations for an unmarked grave as soon as our communist/socialist masters finish consolidating power. Who are you voting for this coming November?
Not 0bama.
Space provides humanity with a fallback position. And we may need one someday.
Lincoln signed the Pacific Railway Act July 1, 1862, authorizing huge government land grants to finance the construction. [...]
None of that addresses my statement.
Nothing is stopping you and your like minded citizens from forming a corporation WITH YOUR OWN MONEY and exploring space to your heart's content. My problem is not with space exploration per se, but with the people who think that they shoudl rob their fellow taxpayers to do it. Bad enough to be robbed to support some a$$hole welfare recipient who made a lifetime of bad choices, but then supporting a bunch of engineers and PhDs who could actually earn a living seems even more excessive.
Lewis and Clark were paid by TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
So what? You think the space program is in any way analogous to L&C? Ha ha.
Eventually a large enough meteor is going to hit this planet -
Undoubtedly. In fact it has happened before, and appears to happen on average ever couple of hundred million years, but look there is still life on the planet, and who is to say that the vast wealth required to explore space would not be better survive a disaster right here. There are much more likely catastrophes than a meteor strike. (like a second 0 term)
“Space provides humanity with a fallback position. And we may need one someday.”
We’re going to transport the worlds population to the moon? or Mars?
Let private investment build its own platforms and keep its hands out of my pocket.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.