Posted on 01/28/2012 3:30:36 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
COMMENTARY | During the Republican presidential debate in Jacksonville, Fla., Thursday night, the subject of Newt Gingrich's moon colony idea came up. During the exchange, Mitt Romney especially revealed a smallness of vision and an ignorance of the issue.
[snip]
If Romney wants to know why Gingrich is so focused on the moon, he could go no further than to read Paul Spudis' The Case for Renewed Human Exploration of the Moon" in which the rationale for returning to the moon, not only for science, but also as a prelude to the exploration of the Solar System is examined. Spudis also covers mining lunar resources, such as water.
Then Romney can read Taylor Dinerman's piece about the strategic value of the moon and its importance to national security. Spudis also covers the Chinese challenge where it comes to the moon.
Can we afford to return to the moon with a $15 trillion national debt? The question is actually whether we can afford not to?
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I’m not buying any of his promises. If people would read Alvin Toffler’s ‘Third Wave’ they’d know all that is needed to know about Newt and his MO.
Chinese man go to moon.
Chinese man lift big rock. Oh, not so heavy as on earth.
Chinese man throw big rock at earth .
Rock fall faster and faster, like bullet.
Big boom-boom. Boom-boom very bad thing. No more Pizza Hut, no more Red Box video, even welfare place blown away to nothing.
Chinese man goes, wow. Chinese astronaut friend say, do it again. Chinese boss on radio say please don't hit China.
But then mormon MoonQuakers catch them and make them open chinese restaurant, they tired of eating moon rocks. MoonQuakers save Earth.
THE END ;^)
Hahaha, thank you.
No.
You are having the wrong talk with the wrong people. Defense didn't put us in this situation. Exploration didn't put us here.
We are here for two reasons: 1) the great sucking maw of entitlements and 2) the equally great sucking maw of government expansion.
Cutting back on constitutionally mandated duties that the government has been doing well for 200+ years is simply another form of denial of the problem. You aren't addressing anything, you are paving the way for even more extra-constitutional expansion.
You welcome, I stop talk like mongoloid now.
I’m down to my 3rd and final choice with Santorum.
He isn’t perfect but I don’t have to sell my soul to vote for him.
Just the raw materials of the solar system.....other than that....nothing.
"When politicians say a "private" space company, what they really mean is private contractors funded by government instead of giving the money directly to NASA."
Which would be far cheaper than giving the money directly to NASA.
"Its not free market capitalism by any measure."
"Free market capitalism" has never existed, and likely WILL never exist, anywhere. But what Newt is proposing is exactly what the US (and the colonies before them, and the Brits even before that) have done forever....provide the "seed money" to get a risky venture up and going. See....Erie Canal...intercontinental railroads.....establishment of air transport (contracts to "carry the mail")....and on and on. It has worked, and will work. Being a historian, Gingrich knows this.
The moon is not a microgravity environment.
"no solution yet for long term protection from solar radiation and cosmic rays..."
It's called "underground". A few feet will do it just fine. You can look up the shielding calculations in any nuclear science textbook.
"no solution yet for Moon based food, oxygen, and water supply...
Lots of solar energy available. The basis for all the rest is already there. Water "might" have been a problem, but we now know there is lots of it available.
"no experience in mining a micro-gravity environment...
Again, not microgravity. Mining on the moon would actually be safer than on earth, as the needed equipment already used on earth would be grossly over-designed for the LOWER (but not micro) gravity. Swap out the diesels for electric motors and you've got all the "knowledge" you need.
"no knowledge of long term impact of regolith (moon dust) on man and machines...
Good lord, man, it's DUST (actually more nearly sand--I was lucky enough in grad school to have done a short project on a VERY small sample of "moon dust", so I have "first hand" knowlede of it). There is nothing terribly special about it. Anybody who lives near or in a desert knows all he needs to know.
...not one of the allegedly priceless minerals on the moon has ever been tested commercially on Earth..."
Actually, they have. Lots of experiments done on the materials returned by Apollo.
"..how long before the Green Party demands the Moon be designated a pristine wilderness area?..."
The greens will love it. The moon is the ideal place to do the really nasty manufacturing that the earth needs.
"the Space Station, in low Earth orbit, has cost $100 billion for construction and maintenance...
Because it "is" in low Earth orbit, with no resources of it's own already in place. Totally different from the moon.
"...in the Moon, multiply by 10.
Nope. Startup costs only.
"We should be spending most of the manned space budget on robotic explorers and space telescopes.
By definition, the MANNED space budget doesn't go for robotic explorers and space telescopes. Or are you suggesting we should de-budget manned operations altogether and just do "robots and telescopes"?
You are rationalizing big government Republicanism just like your types did in the Bush days.
It doesn't matter anyway, in my opinion there will be a near total collapse of the economy within 5 years because neither side will let go of big government.
When the stores don't have food and gasoline is $100+ a gallon maybe you'll change your mind on the worthiness of wasting money on space circuses.
You seem determined to cast this as a continuation of one-off stunts when it is not but rather an extension of our economy. Have you ever read this?
Speech by OSTP Director John Marburger to the 44th Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium..........."I am always puzzled by debates over the vision for space exploration because the choices are so constrained by physical reality. We humans dwell in a vast universe whose chief features only became apparent during the twentieth century. We have known for a long time that a huge gap separates the objects trapped by the gravity of our star, the Sun, and everything else. Information about phenomena beyond that gap can come to us only through the rain of photons and other elementary particles spewed out by the awesome processes of the cosmos. Our observations of that part of space began in prehistoric times and they continue to sustain the growth of science in our era. Phenomena on our side of the interstellar gap, in what we call the Solar System, are potentially amenable to direct investigation and manipulation through physical contact, and can reasonably be described as falling within humanity's economic sphere of influence. As I see it, questions about the vision boil down to whether we want to incorporate the Solar System in our economic sphere, or not. Our national policy, declared by President Bush and endorsed by Congress last December in the NASA authorization act, affirms that, "The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program." So at least for now the question has been decided in the affirmative.
The wording of this policy phrase is significant. It subordinates space exploration to the primary goals of scientific, security, and economic interests. Stated this way, the "fundamental goal" identifies the benefits against which the costs of exploration can be weighed. This is extremely important for policy making because science, security, and economic dimensions are shared by other federally funded activities. By linking costs to these common benefits it becomes possible, at least in principle, to weigh investments in space exploration against competing opportunities to achieve benefits of the same type.
I want to stress how very different this kind of thinking is from the arguments that motivated America's first great space vision, the Apollo program. President Kennedy launched the Apollo program during an intense period in the Cold War, four years after the Soviets launched the first Sputnik satellite. In his 1961 message to Congress, Kennedy said of sending a man to the moon and returning him safely that, "No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important in the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish..." The tone of this message clearly conveys the intention to send a signal to the world that America will lead the way into space, and this spirit remains a vital factor in our ability to accomplish great feats of engineering to get us there. The Apollo program was what mathematicians call an "existence proof," a demonstration that a problem does have a solution and that efforts to discover its details will not be in vain. Like all firsts, it was unique. No subsequent space endeavor can be quite like it. President Bush's vision also declares the will to lead in space, but it renders the ultimate goal more explicit. And that goal is even grander. The ultimate goal is not to impress others, or merely to explore our planetary system, but to use accessible space for the benefit of humankind. It is a goal that is not confined to a decade or a century. Nor is it confined to a single nearby destination, or to a fleeting dash to plant a flag. The idea is to begin preparing now for a future in which the material trapped in the Sun's vicinity is available for incorporation into our way of life."...........
Just like the railroads that crossed our great continent right?
You are so wrong I won’t even start.
Thanks for sparing us.
The surface of the moon is not micro gravity! A colony “on” the moon is a misnomer , it would be a colony “in” the moon, tunnels, plenty of protection from radiation and cosmic rays, falling rocks. There is O2 everywhere on the moon, simple chemical processes to release it. With O2, if ice is not utilized, combine with Hydrogen and WALLA you have water.
And the green party can stuff it up their not so pristine back door.
I’m with you. He’s not a big government fan anymore than any other sane person - despite what mud may be slung. Heck, those that are flinging sure do ignore the fascist impulses of the top two contenders.
I also sleep with a clear conscience and trust in God’s sovereignty. If we go over the edge, He remains in control for His name’s sake. At the bottom of things, America isn’t the apple of God’s eye - it’s just a tool. We can and should be thankful we’ve had such a long blessing.
Welcome to FR, you sure hit the ground running, almost like a retread.
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.