Posted on 02/01/2012 2:03:54 PM PST by Nachum
In August 1994, I was invited to have dinner with House Minority Whip Newt Gingrich. At that time, I was a senior engineer working for Martin Marietta Astronautics in Denver, where I had been responsible for inventing a new plan called “Mars Direct.” By radically simplifying the mission architecture and making bold use of Martian resources starting on the very first mission, this concept offered the potential to reduce the cost and schedule of a human Mars-exploration program. NASA analysis had confirmed these advantages, and word had leaked to Newsweek, which featured it as the cover story of its July 25, 1994, issue celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. “A manned mission to Mars?” the editors asked. “The technology is already in place. And at $50 billion — one tenth of previous estimates — it’s a bargain.” Gingrich had read the article and wanted to know more.
Thus it was that I found myself in a closed room in a Chinese restaurant a few blocks from the Capitol, providing a detailed briefing on Mars-mission design to the future Speaker of the House.
Gingrich listened to me closely and became enthusiastic about the possibilities. “I want to support this with legislation,” he said. “But I want to do it in a more free-enterprise kind of way than just gearing up the NASA budget to go to Mars.” I countered by saying that while Mars Direct might cost $30 to $50 billion if implemented by NASA, if done by a private outfit spending its own money, the out-of-pocket cost would probably be in the $5 billion range. Thus if a prize several times this amount were put on offer for the first crew to reach the Red Planet, it might be possible to ignite a privately backed space
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
I believe Newt was talking about this as a project for his 2nd term. His main goal is to cut the budget, regulations and red tape thereby stimulating the economy.
The taxpayer-funded prizes are the problem.
I'm afraid you have an incomplete copy of the Constitution. The complete text of clause 8 is, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
No help there for moon base prizes.
"No new spending" is an excellent place to draw the line.
After all, the money is already being spent far less efficiently by NASA.
So let's put it back in the pockets of those who earned it.
Newt is absolutely right to get private companies etc involved and let them take the risks. It works.
Tell that to people who have benefited from science.
"Welfare is unconstitutional? Tell that to people who have benefited from welfare." Your latest argument is the death of conservatism.
Science and welfare are the same? Who knew!
Stickler. lol
Educate yourself: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy
You have a nice day. AND you may have the last word.
Bye bye!
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.