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."...........
LOL. I'm a LONG way from a "big, government Republican", and in fact have never been either Republican, Democrat, nor member of any other party. I registered as an independent when I first signed up to vote forty-four years ago, and have been so registered for the whole intervening period.
The simple fact is, I "do" know history, and I repeat, there has never been a "free market economy" of the type that is the libertarian wet dream on any scale above that of a small town, ever.
"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.
If we keep pouring dollars down welfare ratholes, yes. But easy and cheap access to space can PREVENT precisely what you are talking about. And Gingrich knows that. Evidently you don't. And he knows that the best way to get there is to HARNESS competition between private companies (hence prizes) rather than "having the government do it".