This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Election 2012

Gingrich Talks About Space Policy in Florida (Update)

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
January 25, 2012
Filed under , ,


Keith’s update: At the first event in Florida today, Newt Gingrich called for setting aside 10% of the NASA budget for prizes (which would be awarded tax free), that there’d be a human base on the Moon by the end of his Administration flying an American flag, that progress on a trip to Mars would be made using propulsion that would dramatically reduce travel time, that there should be 5 launches a day – not just 1, and that the current NASA civil service system should be replaced with something more akin to what is used in the aerospace industry.
At the second event with Gingrich (invitation-only) a panel of local industry and political representatives spoke for several minutes each. With the exception of SpaceX, these panelists all blew their chance to make clear points to Gingrich, the online audience, and the national media. A number of these folks resorted to self-promotion and, in some cases, were simply babbling. Gingrich asked launch industry representatives a simple question i.e. what it would take (time etc.) to man-rate an Atlas V. No one could answer. You’d think that the space communnity would have thought ahead as to how they could make the best of this one time opportunity. FAIL.

Gingrich Space Plan Promises the Moon, Literally: Lunar Base by 2020, space.com
“Gingrich’s chief rival for the Republican nomination, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, has occasionally called attention to the “grandiosity” of Gingrich’s ideas about space and other subjects. Gingrich said he doesn’t view “grandiose” as an insult. “I accept the charge that I am an American, and Americans are instinctively grandiose, because we believe in a bigger future.”
Gingrich calls for moon base, space, Reuters
“We want Americans to think boldly about the future,” Gingrich said during a campaign rally in Florida, where he outlined a space policy initiative that would cut NASA’s bureaucracy and expand on private-sector space programs championed by President Barack Obama. “By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American,” Gingrich said.”
Keith’s original note: Courtesy of Henry Vanderbilt, Space Access Society:
“Space Coast – Space Industry Roundtable”, 3:30 pm – 4:15 pm EST, invitation-only event, to be live-streamed by Florida Today, details at http://space.flatoday.net/2012/01/gingrich-to-visit-space-coast-for.html.
– “Space Coast Town Hall Meeting”, 4:30 pm – 5:30 pm EST at the Holiday Inn, 301 Tucker Lane, Cocoa, FL, schedule to be broadcast live on CSPAN 1, see http://www.c-spanvideo.org/schedule for info, http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN/ for streaming.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

48 responses to “Gingrich Talks About Space Policy in Florida (Update)”

  1. jski says:
    0
    0

    Makes more sense than our current mission to nowhere.

  2. aubskibob says:
    0
    0

    Hell yea Moon base, quicker propulsion to get to Mars, and multi-launch per day by 2020.

  3. no one of consequence says:
    0
    0

    “By the end of my second term, we will have a permanent colony on the moon and it will be American,” Gingrich said.

    And I get a pony!

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Lololol

      I thought I was the comic relief here. Lolol

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

        I consider your plans to be more rational and achievable than Gingrich.

        Gingrich isn’t as funny as a comic either. Too bad. Was hoping he’d either be more believable (God knows we need a president who understands space and has a vision) or at least be a hoot. Sigh.

        Listening to him, I was reminded of a Fritz Leiber short story called “Poor Superman”. Protagonist soars until confronted with having to deal with real rocket scientists where he becomes a liability.

        Audio book on the web:
        http://www.archive.org/down

        Quote:
        “Consider the age in which we live. It wants magicians…. A scientist tells people the truth. When times are good—that is, when the truth offers no threat—people don’t mind.… A magician, on the other hand, tells people what they wish were true—that perpetual motion works, that cancer can be cured by colored lights, that a psychosis is no worse than a head cold, that they’ll live forever. In good times magicians are laughed at. They’re a luxury of the spoiled wealthy few. But in bad times people sell their souls for magic cures and buy perpetual-motion machines to power their war rockets.”

        Written in 1951. True today.

        • Paul Roberts says:
          0
          0

          Yeah, it really is pretty sad to be that divorced from reality.

          It’s also gonna bite him in the butt ’cause everyone actually in the space industry now knows he hasn’t got a single clue about space, the space industry or how to effectively encourage it.

          Still, if he quadruples the manned space budget, it could get done…

          • no one of consequence says:
            0
            0

            Make it 100x instead of 4x. Is that more believable given past presidents?

            It takes a mandate. The one with Apollo was because the Russian’s pulled our shorts over our heads. The Chinese aren’t that stupid…

    • David Parmet says:
      0
      0

      Moon Ponies!  

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Mr. Consequence
      That’s why you need to write your book!
      Where NASA SHOULD GO by no one of consequence
      Last night I heard Dr. brezinksi on the Charley Rose Show and I thought now there is a brilliant guy that knows his subject.
      Mr. Consequence
      Someone like you needs to articulate a rational achievable Space plan to the American public as well as to the future next term president.
      Gingrich has honed the art of speaking to the blue collar middle class with his US AGAINST THEM routine. And sadly I think it might work. Old Mr. Blue has been ripped off by everyone (the public side as well as the commercial side)  and he wants to feel good, have hope! FOLLOW ME I’M NEWT. I’LL PROTECT YOU FROM THEM!!! Boogey man politics. All Newt needs is divided government to keep the economy crappy through the summer and he is in.
      The other day I was trolling another site and someone talked about using SRBS on SLS again and I was wishing that I had that post you wrote against SRBS to straighten that guy out. Many of your posts are important like that.
      Anyway you made my day. I’ll consider I got a C in your online class for paying attention about  75 percent of the time.
      When you and Mr. Wingo were discussing Newt like x prizes versus the side you were taking???  I don’t know enough to understand the position were you talking about???
      If a bubble head like me can suggest a half ass rational achievable human Space plan, imagine what the talent here can do.
      Old Newt is right that we have a lot of untapped talent. OF THAT I’M SURE.
      What if Newt does become president and does use 10 percent of the NASA budget on x prizes.
      Maybe that could be enough to get some dragons with drills on the moon next to a Bigelow habitat to create that lunar OUTPOST I have described.
      Make sure the winners of the prize leave about 2000 bucks in there. That should be enough for me to fly to Bigelow with some spray paint and I’ll write PERMANENT USA MOON COLONY on the side Lolol
      Sure would be permanent anyway.
      A  recoverable booster prize could provide the juice for the Spacexs recoverable program to happen sooner, or maybe really help a BFJ/R make a difference to LEO.
       
      So if Gingrich doesn’t cancel public TV right after taking office, I’ll look to see you on Charley right after the next election selling your book.
      DTARS
      PS I guess I laugh and joke so much, because how people act really is very funny : ). I like the ones that take themselves VERY seriously best lol.
      Yeah! I can tell you were NASA should go!! Lolol
      Again thanks for sharing your wisdom.
      Humm seems to me this site doesn’t lack for writer types that could help you with such a project. Unless their help would only make the final product unaffordable.

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

        Zbigniew Brzezinski – he’s brilliant.  Listened to it too.

        Have written books too. If only they bought them more so I could believe that the others would get published.

        Suggest you read:
        http://books.google.com/boo

        I do work at communicating to policy types. Sometimes I succeed. Try to span the gulf here – its big.

        The other day I was trolling another site and someone talked about using
        SRBS on SLS again and I was wishing that I had that post you wrote
        against SRBS to straighten that guy out. Many of your posts are
        important like that.

        Thank you for the compliment.

        Some sites are “highly uninterested” to put it mildly in my posts on that subject. Perhaps because they find them inconvenient to the “friendships” with SRB vendors and other primes. More to this unsaid but it has been costly when revealed to others. It’s a very small community.

        When you and Mr. Wingo were discussing Newt like x prizes versus the side you were taking??
        There’s a lot of inside talk. Comments are brief. Also past battles/references.

        Talking many ideas from may places is critical. Giving them critical feedback is important too.

        10 percent of the NASA budget on x prizes
        Issue is use of the budget and choice of prizes. Many important small projects have been lost with a few percent drop in budget already. For one, I know a student with a important novel sensor. It is not as easy as it seems to make the trades here. And there are legal problems as well with “prizes” as well as how they can be “gamed” politically.

        A  recoverable booster prize could provide the juice for the Spacexs
        recoverable program to happen sooner, or maybe really help a BFJ/R make a
        difference to LEO

        Agreed. And you won’t get Sen. Shelby , Hatch, and Hutchison to do so because powerful interests won’t go along.

        Because they prefer expendable, and until recoverable pays dividends, can make a good argument for that. Remember, none have pulled it off, and many think you need nuclear powered engines not chemical to do so.

        I hope I help you make your arguments better with insight. Much better than writing a book, where a point can be taken out of context by a political adversary/lobbyist to undercut a valid conclusion they’d rather avoid.

        There are a lot of smart and involved people. With transparency to what is going on, they can be remarkably effective without baggage of decades inside certain communities.

        You ask good questions sometimes too.

  4. Nox Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    I actually really like to see talks and bold plans like this. I am generally not even one inclined to agree with Republican ideas, but I think Newt Gingrich has it right. NASA still does awesome things, but organisationally it’s pretty broken. We can do the fantastic things as Human Beings and Americans if we have the right vision and the right incentives. We’ve done it before we can do it again, if NASA doesn’t change it’s not going to be NASA who does it next time.

    Especially, I like the 10 Billion Dollar prize for a Mars manned mission that Newt talks about. – I think a certain Elon Musk would be very willing to take that tax free prize.

  5. Ben Andersen says:
    0
    0

    He may not understand what is realistic, but at least he has a vision…

  6. anirprof says:
    0
    0

    I’d love to see a more ambitious space program.  And I’m willing to bet a more imaginative approach could get us to the Moon or Mars more cheaply than NASA’s plans — certainly more cheaply than the Senate’s SLS monstrosity.

    But seriously, starting in 2013 we’d have both a permanent lunar ‘colony’ (he used that word, not just ‘base’) *and* have a manned mission to Mars by 2020?  While not spending more money???  Might as well throw in a flying car in every garage, too.

  7. WIntelAgency says:
    0
    0

    That’s it, it’s a cover-up being open sourced – open governmented.   Gingrich is the new open secret, he’s that man on the moon.  He is just preparing us for that base already there on the dark side.

    • Bradley Smith says:
      0
      0

      Man-rated Delta IV-Heavy (Boeing-UTC – all American, better ISP than RP, and short line to a restartable in orbit version of the RS-68);

      Apollo CSM – 3-5 seater (Boeing, rather than Orion/MP-whatever from LM failed with X-33); works as an ISS supply/lifeboat and a lunar return CM

      ISS as supply depot; with X-37C for personnel lift to LEO;

      Refuelable translunar-capable tug with a J-2X;

      LM Truck (NGC);

      Lunar Fly-by and orbital in 5 years; landing in 7; permanent research station in 10.

      Why not, other than NASA and Congress NIH?

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

        Man rating Delta IV requires significant work – RS-68 was a SSME derivative that intentionally lost what it needed for HR. And then all the related systems need to be re-qualified. BTW you won’t restart RS-68 – its a ground start first stage engine.

        Now, you put at risk national security payloads that depend on Delta IV Heavy –  none of this helps, only puts at risk (and raises costs).

        Much of Atlas V is already HR – the engines have been so already. A tiny fraction of the cost, and a two engined upper stage to be flight qualified.

        You can’t fly Apollo CSM – way too dangerous – its why Apollo/Saturn stopped flying – a million issues.

        X-37C is a wet dream for the USAF and unlikely.

        J2-X is not designed for indefinite on-orbit reuse and is not spec’d for the burn time for an orbital transfer tug.

        The problem with permanent (non-sortie) lunar exploration is logistical support is 5x that of ISS. Way too costly.

  8. Spacelab1 says:
    0
    0

    Sounds great! 

    Now only if most of the public, Congress and big business shared his vision maybe the Starship Enterprise won’t be so far fetched after all!

  9. MSFC Rocket Guy says:
    0
    0

    I am discouraged. Not by what the speaker said in his speech, but by the posts being made here. The cynicism that is reflected in the opinions here are the kinds of things that keep our industry in the proverbial dark ages. NASA is an organization build on grad idea that have lead to some of the greatest discoveries that man kind has ever known. The idea that this community is not get excited about a presidential candidate that actually has ideas akin to JFK’s moon launch is sad. It shows the rest of the american people that the “Space Nerds” have lost faith in our capability’s to achieve greatness. The discussion on this thread should be about HOW we achieve the ideas that the speaker put forward, not whether it is possible. We are a community of scientists, engineers, and enthusiasts. Its our jobs to come up with answers to the tough questions. 

    Nothing is impossible, no matter how improbable.  

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      “The idea that this community is not get excited about a presidential candidate that actually has ideas akin to JFK’s moon launch is sad.”

      Fool me once…

    • Stuart J. Gray says:
      0
      0

      I disagree. Newt is clearly delusional.
      If NASA started today designing just a simple Moon orbiter, it could not be flying by the end of Newt’s first term (unless of course they allowed the type of oversight that worked fine during better faster cheaper)
      Now try to man-rate a Moon Lander- not a chance.
      I’ll be surprised if even the MPCV will actually fly by then.

      NOW – if you gave a commercial entity enough cash and just stayed out of the way, then Maybe.
       

      • newpapyrus says:
        0
        0

        NASA doesn’t build rockets. Private industry does. And when NASA wants something like a lunar shuttle, it asks private industry to present their concepts and NASA chooses the one which it thinks is best for what it wants to do.

        If your argument is that traditional vendors like Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, or the ULA can’t build or  come up with good vehicle designs anymore– then I think you’re wrong.

        Marcel F. Williams

        • Paul451 says:
          0
          0

          Stuart is using past experience as a guide to future expectation. How they worked is irrelevant. No NASA program can achieve the goal set.

          Gingrich is relying on the switch to prizes to change the rules. And he might be right. However, note that NASA’s own internal attempts to get around the death-strangle of FAR by using SAA in CCDev is already being actively campaigned against as “putting lives at risk”. (See the recent ASAP criticisms.) It’s hard to see those people & Congress accepting even less control over a program.

          Gingrich’s claim to be able to change NASA to a more corporate culture is less believable (again, based on the number of times politicians claimed such, and their results), so in practice it just means a cut in funding.

        • Stuart J. Gray says:
          0
          0

          The problem with NASA today is that it micromanages everything to the point that to design & build even a simple Earth orbiter takes TOO LONG.
          I just finished helping get the NPP spacecraft through environmental tests.
          Anyone want to guess how long it took to design & launch that?…….. over 12 YEARS. For an Earth orbiter that was not man-rated.

          “If your argument is that traditional vendors like Boeing,
          Lockheed-Martin, or the ULA can’t build or  come up with good vehicle
          designs anymore– then I think you’re wrong.”

          No that is not what I am saying. That is why I mentioned above that IF NASA gave one of those vendors enough money and got out of the way then it could happen.

          I helped build & launch Stardust (better faster cheaper).
          Total build & environmental test: 3 years from drawing board to launch pad.
          THAT is how it should work, but it does not anymore.
          NASA is so risk averse, that they more than double the cost and development time to squeeze out that extra 2-3% reliability & risk reduction.

          Stu

      • Dr. Brian Chip Birge says:
        0
        0

         “People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.” -Chinese Proverb.

    • Robert Karma says:
      0
      0

      I am cynical not so much by our politicians but rather by the American people. While we had strong leadership and vision under JFK Congress still looked to cut the budget every year for the ambitious Apollo Program which started in 1966 if I recall correctly. Once Apollo 11 completed their successful mission in 1969 NASA had a fight to hold onto the follow-up missions. Nixon & Congress cut the budget & Apollo 18, 19 & 20 were cancelled. Why? The American people had moved on for their support of the manned space program after we “won” the Space Race to the moon. Without that popular support Nixon & Congress had no qualms about cutting NASA’s budget & putting their priorities into funding other programs. It was a hell of a battle to get the Shuttle program funded in the 70’s & we know the price paid in lives and treasure for the design compromises made to keep the STS program going. That was coming off the high of the moon landings so to think that our current society in this divisive partisan political landscape can come together to formulate and adequately fund aggressive manned space missions beyond LEO is wishful thinking. We have met the enemy of having a vibrant and healthy manned space program and it is us. Until the American people come to the realization that the future success of our nation depends in large part on having an aggressive space program utilizing both manned and unmanned missions politicians can make all of the grand proclamations they want but it will not matter. With no bucks… no Buck Rogers. Newt is just not the right politician who can ignite the imagination of the masses to rally behind a grand scheme to return to the moon and to go to Mars. Currently I just do not see anyone with a high profile in politics who has that amazing Kennedy gift to inspire a generation of Americans to once again throw our hat over the wall of space exploration.

    • Robert Karma says:
      0
      0

      I am cynical not so much by our politicians but rather by the American people. While we had strong leadership and vision under JFK Congress still looked to cut the budget every year for the ambitious Apollo Program which started in 1966 if I recall correctly. Once Apollo 11 completed their successful mission in 1969 NASA had a fight to hold onto the follow-up missions. Nixon & Congress cut the budget & Apollo 18, 19 & 20 were cancelled. Why? The American people had moved on for their support of the manned space program after we “won” the Space Race to the moon. Without that popular support Nixon & Congress had no qualms about cutting NASA’s budget & putting their priorities into funding other programs. It was a hell of a battle to get the Shuttle program funded in the 70’s & we know the price paid in lives and treasure for the design compromises made to keep the STS program going. That was coming off the high of the moon landings so to think that our current society in this divisive partisan political landscape can come together to formulate and adequately fund aggressive manned space missions beyond LEO is wishful thinking. We have met the enemy of having a vibrant and healthy manned space program and it is us. Until the American people come to the realization that the future success of our nation depends in large part on having an aggressive space program utilizing both manned and unmanned missions politicians can make all of the grand proclamations they want but it will not matter. With no bucks… no Buck Rogers. Newt is just not the right politician who can ignite the imagination of the masses to rally behind a grand scheme to return to the moon and to go to Mars. Currently I just do not see anyone with a high profile in politics who has that amazing Kennedy gift to inspire a generation of Americans to once again throw our hat over the wall of space exploration.

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        Congress killed the production of further Saturn V’s in April of 1968.  The riots in Chicago killed the chance that the last friend of space that was in the election then (H.H. Humphrey) and so it has been down hill almost ever since.

        The hippies and the malthusians hate space as a contradiction of their belief system and the eco-whackos don’t want us to pollute other worlds.  We in the space community piss on each others shoes rather than rallying to support the future.

        A very depressing sight.

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

      http://www.washingtonpost.c

      Oh, and if you’d like to see a way to make Gingrich’s proposal actually happen, see my comment in:
      http://www.theatlantic.com/

      Its actually possible to do what he says, within budget and resources, and in a gauranteed fashion. But in no way traditional or what NASA would ever dare mention. Listen closely to *everything* Newt says and you’ll get the point.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      Amen

      Hi Kendall.  🙂  

  10. Bill Dauphin says:
    0
    0

    I’m as big a space cadet as the next guy, and the big ideas Gingrich is pushing — permanent presence on the moon, accelerated human Mars missions, breakthrough interplanetary propulsion — are ones I could get excited about.

    But even if I thought he could achieve his goals, the price — Newt Frickin’ Gingrich as *president* — is staggeringly too high!

  11. NX_0 says:
    0
    0

    I would really like to see some of the other candidates throw us a bone, here.

    This is a discussion worth having.

  12. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    Well, you know, there’s another way of looking at this. History (post Apollo) shows us that each year (or each administration) we, at best, end up with X% of what we were aiming for in the space program. If we assume that X is a fairly constant percentage, then a higher starting goal means we end up with a higher actual accomplishment, much like a negotiation or a salary discussion (start high and “let” the other guy talk you down; he’ll think he’s won the game, but you actually get more than you would by starting with the “actual” cost/goal). Gingrich has suggested significantly higher goals in several key areas. If we end up accomplishing only 15% or 20% of his suggested goals, we’ll still have accomplished far more than any Presidency before him since Kennedy/Johnson.
    I think that setting aside 10% of the NASA budget (whatever it ends up being) for prizes will be a hard sell, but it’s actually a very good investment — if it is allowed to happen instead of being canceled before it has had time to grow fruit. Look at the ratio of money spent by competitors pursuing the X-Prize to the much smaller amount paid out to the winners — and in this case everything learned should end up being public domain knowledge (NASA being a civil agency). Consider also that the several “Prizes” already under way are making progress in useful areas that otherwise no one would be working on. The Prizes not only give us new capability, but they actually unload key R&D from NASA’s workload and budget.

    Will Gingrich’s space proposal come to be in its entirety? Of course not. But it looks like he’ll get us far more than any of the other candidates. So, instead of ridiculing him based other people’s past performance, let’s figure out how to convince the power players in the game to think more in line with Gingrich’s proposal. If we ridicule him, even down here at the blog level, Mr. Gingrich is going to change his plans. If we’re not willing to scratch his back, he’s certainly not going to scratch ours.

    Please don’t be automatically cynical, or you’ll turn our friend into an enemy. On all of the many other issues, I honestly don’t know how he’d fare as a President. But in terms of going to bat for the space program, he’s the only candidate who’s on our side, so let’s think more about how to make the system bring his proposal into being and save your ridicule and humor for the bad guys.

    Steve

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

      No sir. It doesn’t work that way in DC – trust me I know. On the hill in the senate majority leaders office for FY2011.

      If you start out with a unreasonable position, you don’t get half a loaf. You get no loaf at all. Even Gingrich isn’t that delusional – he’s simply telling people what he thinks they want to hear. It’s like telling every girl you meet that they’re the one for you. Transparent.

      Now, how do you get what you want? By understanding the games and putting something on the map close enough to be sucked in by all the players. All presidential candidates know this cold. You’re smart – you tell me what it is too.

      The real issue is who is a) genuine and b) can pull it off. Obama couldn’t get squat through Congress no matter because they won’t period. Now – can’t this happen to any president, assuming they succeed in dislodging him? E.g. once you get used to screwing over a president, they will always screw over *any* president from now on.

      And they all know that as well.

      So this ironically means that Obama is the only chance for rational HSF longterm … even though he has a clear personal dislike for it. My read of why is because its so easy for Congress to mess up.

      Its ugly but thats how it plays out. Don’t like it but don”t like denial or delusion or pandering even less.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        no one of consequence,

        It appears that you have elected to accept the status quo and continue to live with it. I’m disappointed; you seem, to me, to be contradicting yourself, based on past posts. You want change; you want the system “fixed,” but at the same time you’re saying that’s not how the game is played. I’m afraid there’s no escaping the fact that as long as people believe that the system is broken, and act as if the system is broken, the system will stay broken.

        Change has to start somewhere. In the theory of representative democracy, which America is supposed to be, The People inform the politicians what they want (where what they want is generally a choice between alternatives), and the politicians work towards enacting what the majority of their constituency wants (assuming it’s reasonable). Although I am often cynical about the intelligence and actions of The People as a mass, they’re not really stupid. I think that if a Presidential candidate were completely honest about the issues it would be a big step toward “fixing” the system, because the people would respond in kind.

        I strongly urge people to NOT accept the current nonsense as “that’s the way the game is played.” As long as The People accept that and act accordingly, they’re putting every last iota of power and decision into the hands of the politicians. If you continue to play the game by their rules, you’re going to lose, because they are the masters at using their rules.

        Many people, I think, believe that their elected reps have all the power and work only in their own self interest (“all politicians are crooks.”) Well, as long as everyone believes that, and talks and acts as if it were true, then it will be true. because the politicians will respond accordingly.

        As I said above, change has to start somewhere. Either the politicians change first (making all the decisions) or The People change first (telling their elected reps what they want and need). As long as people are willing to accept the status quo, nothing is going to change. I think enough people in the western countries blog and otherwise express/spread their views that politicians (or their aides) get a pretty accurate across-the-board feel for the attitude of their constituents. And, as long as they see The People calling them crooks (or however you want to put it) and appear to accept that “that’s the way the game is played,” then things will just continue down the same path.

        It’s always harder to make positive changes. It’s always harder to change than to keep doing it the same things. It’s harder to envision changes that are beneficial to the majority. It’s hard to change when you realize that something you’ve stood by and believed in for years turns out to be false. But the longer hard things go undone, the harder it will be to change them. If I may borrow a quote that we all know: “All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.

        Change has to start somewhere. We can take the initiative, or we can wait for ever for politicians who
        are not going to change until they have it driven home to them that The People demand it. I imagine that some of the people reading this think that I’m being naive. And that’s a shame because if we put forth a common message that we want change, we’ll find that synergy is stronger than cynicism.

        Steve

        I’ve just realized that if we take this post and add four simple guitar chords, we’ve got ourselves a pretty good Bob Dylan song. We can call it The Times They Need A-Changin’

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

          Steve,  we are talking past each other.

          First, you’re smart and have good ideas and intent. And I’m sorry I can’t communicate better with you.

          However, I’m old and experienced in this area with this. Take it for granted some of my insights.

          And I want your “change” even more than you – I’d like to see things turn around. Its the only reason I bother to post any comment at all.

          My above comment to yours was to address the political reality, and let you come to a conclusion of where change will happen.

          Realize that the other presidential hopefuls are actually “dead ends” on HSF. You’re left with two right now by default.

          So where’s change going to come from? Gingrich? No because he’s not credible by choice. Obama? He’ll get fought even if he says the pledge of allegiance.

          What I’m happy about today is that Gingrich brought it up. That’s where the chance for change came from, because it means people will discuss what we need for HSF. Which means that the candidates positions will “evolve”. Change.

          So why don’t you help them “change” like I am doing.

          Trust me it works better than pandering.

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            NOoC,

            I don’t think we’re too far apart in our respective visions of how the system works, but rather in the way to go about changing/using it. I certainly don’t have all the answers, and I honestly enjoy it when anyone can convince me and educate me further.

            The way I see it, there are two separate but interdependent entities here:
            1) the US space program
            2) US politics
            (and I mean interdependent; it’s not a one way street).

            I’m a Canadian, so I’m not really entitled to an opinion about US politics, except where it impacts Canadians. However, it’s almost impossible to talk about the US space program without also talking about US politics, so I do, but I try to tread carefully. Although I’ve been following the US space program for 40+ years, in all honesty, I haven’t spent a lot of time following US politics until the last decade or so.

            If I’m following you, you’re advocating trying to change, or at least redirect, the space program by dealing with the politicians using their rules, playing their game. I don’t see how that can work. Despite the mountain of knowledge that (presumably) exists in the aerospace and space advocacy worlds, in the political arena we’re children going up against the pros, and we’d only be fooling ourselves to think otherwise. The politicians do what they do 24/7, all year long, year after year, and hold all the high cards.

            The politicians are not going to make the kind of changes we want to see, no matter how much sense it makes, unless there is a way to make them a) believe it is in the best interests of the country, and b) commit to and stand by long-term planning and money allocation. The biggest road block that I see is that Congress people, being the only people who are “in the game” for any length of time, should be the long-term thinkers (Presidents, lobbiers, space advocates, et al are generally around for a few years at most), yet Congress people are typically the ones who are least in the habit of thinking long term (except with respect to reelection, of course).

            So, if Congress and the White House are not inclined to change the space program, and we can’t beat them at their own game (which I believe), all that’s left is to either use the democratic process to convince the politicians that change is the will of the people, or just accept things they way they are. But it’s pretty clear that the majority of The People are not interested enough to make an effort in support of the space program, so what does that leave?

            I think we agree that NASA working with industry in the COTS and CCDev manner is beneficial to all concerned and is a step in the right direction, but it comes back to Congress again, who have already proposed and implemented cuts in the money allocated. Congress is the biggest hole in the sustainability equation. How do we tackle that? In your previous post you said, “By understanding the games and putting something on the map close enough to be sucked in by all the players,” which, to me, contradicts your prior assertion that “Even Gingrich isn’t that delusional” — if they’re smart, which they are, then they’re not likely to be sucked in by a play which is that transparent.

            I think that where we’re diverging shows when you say, “If you start out with a unreasonable position” because I’m not proposing anything unreasonable, and Gingrich or any other candidate may talk “over the Moon,” like Gingrich has, but we know from experience that by the time it all goes down paper and into a bill, a much more reasonable program has been proposed.

            I’m going on far too long here. Let me finish up by saying that I don’t think approaching this in terms of how they do it on the hill is the right way to go; that only further spreads the disease that permeates Congressional politics. And I don’t think that proposals that either overstate or understate the needs of the space program is the way to go either. I’m proposing a novel approach — the truth. That probably sounds pretty naive, but that just reflects how jaded we’ve all become. If we all just told the truth, to the best of our abilities, instead of having to filter the truth out of a sea of BS, the history of the space program (and much else) would have been very different.

            I don’t know what the magic answers are, but I am convinced that any progress in the space program has to be initiated by The People, not the politicians. And in taking the initiative we have an opportunity to change the “House rules.” I’m not sure how, but I’m convinced it’s up to us. We have people all over the planet who dearly wish they were living in a democratic society, and we in North America who have it seem happy to ignore our democracy and let a roomful of politicians make all our important decisions for us. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

            Steve

  13. Eric Fielding says:
    0
    0

    BBC Op-Ed has interesting analysis:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/w

  14. Nothing Much says:
    0
    0

    Wow. Im amazed. I’ve been learning more and more about my country since the GWB administration. … And my education continues. Folks, really you can’t expect an Apollo project ever again in this nation. The last time a self centered womanizing super ego said the nation should go to the Moon, the nation went along with few questions asked. Now …

    Okay, there are good reasons to doubt Gingrich. However he opened up the debate over what we should be doing in space, what we could be doing in space, and how it will effect the nation. To all you government space types this is your chance to at least engage in a constructive conversation on the subject. Here you have a candidate who has some real insights and prescient questions on why things are going so badly in the American space sector, and instead of engaging in a conversation you all are squandering the chance to engage in a national discussion. Take his plan apart, discuss why his funding models will or wont work. Can we return to the moon in 8 years? Why? Why not? Does Gingrich’s specific goals not constitute a space policy while Romney’s vague statements do?  Why? Why not?

    The press is already setting up Gingrich in much the same way the press forced Goddard into seclusion in New Mexico. And you are helping that process by keeping the level of discussion low brow and personal.

    The future is watching you. The next time a candidate wants to take a stance on space, they are going to ask themselves if they can engage the space community. I’m afraid their answer will be a resounding no. The press has resurrected the “Moon Man” moniker, and its sticking. You in the space community should understand more than most what is going on. I’m not saying rush to Gingrich’s side. I am saying play it smart, calculated, and intellectual like you are supposed to be. You’re supposed to be above it all. You’re supposed to be more educated, and well thought out. Please for the sake of your own cause, act like it.

  15. AstroLoggie says:
    0
    0

    I’m trying to get my head around 5 launches a day.  KSC would look like an ant hill.  I’d really like to see a plan that would get a moon base established in 8 years, too, and hear the debate on the cost for it.

  16. raymac44 says:
    0
    0

    A vision that is not realistic is a fantasy.

  17. Brent Andrew Hawker says:
    0
    0

    Wow… Look at all the Naysayers! Yes, I too am saddened by the attacks on this blog  and other because you don’t like Gingrich and his “far-fetched” ideas that obviously would cost jillions and jillions of “NASA” dollars in these hard pressed econonmic times, but let me give you something to think about here before you write him off; just as the farmer next door to the Wright brother’s in Ohio did because this frekless contraption they where testing was scaring his cows:

    At the Mojave Airport just a couple of miles north of Edwards Air Base there is a company up there you all may have heard about that has a couple of light-weights by the name of Paul Allen and Burt Rutan, a couple of nuts really, have never done anything like this before, other then Space Ship One with it’s unique carrier aircraft that took a civilian in a rocket to the edge of space and repeat the task the very next day, and oh by the way, scored a few million in prize money for doing so. Cost to Taxpayers? Zero.

    So impressed was a no name named Richard Branson, (heard the guy own’s Virgin Airlines, but who cares), decided to create a partnership and a company and built a Spaceport in New Mexico to create the worlds first Spaceline where hundreds of people have paid deposits in advance for tickets at $250,000 pop so they can ride in sized up version of Space Ship One, (called Space Ship Two) that will haul six people at a time to the edge of space. This other apparently lacking-in-vision company with zero experience in aerospace, (Northrop Grumman, who the hell are they anyways? I’m sure they didn’t build B-2’s, Orion Spacecraft, ass ends of F-18’s, the whole F-14’s blah, blah, Mars lander’s, who cares?) joined in wanting part of the action and called the venture Scaled Composites, and have built huge buildings there at the Mojove Airport/Spaceport so they can build even more SS-2’s and their carrier aircarft

    Well, obviously they must all be nuts, because right next to this lovely Airport/Spaceport, there is a boneyard of dozens and dozens slightly used but still servicable 747-400’s and wouldn’t you know it? Those same wacky guys, Burt Rutan, the same guy who got a plane to fly-around-the-world-on-one-tank-of-gas, (Voyager), is at it again with his buddy Paul Allan and they plan on building a MEGA PLANE this time, one big enough to carry full sized “to orbit” rocket like the Falcon Nine, but since half the journey is already done by the carrier MEGA PLANE, and then dropped at a very high altitude and launced, it only has to be a Falcon Five to carry six or astronauts to space. The crazy guys are doing it on all on their own money, saving millions and million in development costs by utilizing flight controls, landing gear, and even suspiciously 747 looking cockpit windows, (hey, why reinvent the wheel?)  What is the cost to the US tax payer to build this twin-fuselage, six 747-engined monster to hurl cheap-big-rockets to space, with almost all weather launch capability Zero. Newt wants several launches a day, what’s to keep Burt Rutan and company to built more then one of these completely reusable MEGA PLANE Rocket Launchers? Nothing if there is a market for it. What are they going to put up?

    Well…. there’s this other no-name that knows nothing about lodging and hotels, think his name is Robert Bigelow or something… but that’s another story 😉

  18. Spacelab1 says:
    0
    0

    Mr Gingrich, I ask for only one humble goal in spaceflight. I’m not asking for bases or “colonies” on Mars or the Moon or anything like that. All I’m asking for is to reduce the cost per pound to orbit down to 20 dollars per pound to LEO by 2019. 

    The rest will take care of itself.

  19. WIntelAgency says:
    0
    0

    Maybe “Moon Man Gingrich” will be the Commercial Space Consortium’s hired gun similar to Freddie Mac’s?? http://influencealley.natio

  20. Nox Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    The idea of prize money for space projects that accomplish stuff is the kind of incentives we need that get start-ups and companies to do stuff that was previously unthinkable.

    -Nox

  21. Synthguy says:
    0
    0

    Having watched the Florida debate today, I was saddened to see the lack of vision and leadership from Romney, Paul and Santorum vs. Gingrich’s stated goals of establishing a lunar base. Its not my intention to get into a political slanging match as to which Republican candidate is best to challenge Obama – I’m Australian so I won’t be voting for any of them. But I am a space enthusiast and so the future of US human space flight does concern me greatly. 

    I accept that Gingrich may be pushing a lunar base simply to get votes in Florida – a key state in US politics – but he also has a long history of being pro-space, and the lunar base idea is not a new one of his. My point is this…

    At least he has an idea, he has a vision, and he gets the importance of the US maintaining its leadership role in human space flight. He knows that the US needs to go somewhere! Its a frontier nation built on exploration and expansion, and there is no reason for that exploration to end.  

    Its simply not good enough to say ‘I’m not interested in going to the Moon or Mars’ (Ron Paul), or ‘Let’s have a review and a committee but ultimately, domestic economic matters will mean space is not a high priority’ (Santorum and Romney). The 21st Century is going to be a century of intense inter-state competition – between China, Russia, India and the United States (I doubt the EU will rise to the occasion, at least not for a while). These four states are going to be the four leaders of humanity in the next hundred years. If the US does not address key issues with its economy and its society, it won’t be four, it will be three states, and most likely, only one – China – will really lead. Strategic competition in Space is an important aspect of 21st Century major power relations in coming decades.  

    How to maintain the US’ global leadership position, especially when its economy is plagued by debt and deficit, ballooning social welfare costs, declining education standards, and ageing infrastructure? You can try to do it by reducing spending to cut a$16tn debt, but the price you pay is an economic recession, and spiralling unemployment. Or you can spend your way out of crisis to supercharge economic growth and employment. That means big investment in big idea projects. You can also invest in making the US resource independent – particularly through investment in high frontier technologies, such as space-based solar power and nuclear fusion power. 

    Big ideas and big visions – like a lunar base – open up potentially big benefits and rewards for the state which can achieve success. Remember, ‘Fortes fortuna adiuvat’ – Fortune Favours the Bold! or put another way, to gain big rewards you have to be bold, be decisive and show leadership, and even take some risks. Kennedy understood this – he knew why we needed to go to the Moon, and to do the other things, not because they were easy but because they were hard. He understood the significance of being second to the Moon. Does Romney, or Santorum or Paul (or Obama) understand the significance of China being the first back to the Moon? I don’t think they get it at all. 

    The justification for going back to the Moon is not to do science or gather more moon rocks (though that will happen), but to use the Moon as a stepping stone to exploit space resources for generating wealth here on Earth. You don’t haul up large space-based solar power satellites from the Earth’s surface – you use automated lunar based manufacturing and lunar resources to construct them and then exploit the Moon’s shallow gravity well for low-cost transfer to Earth orbit so that they can start feeding power to ground based rectennas. You mine Helium 3 to fuel nuclear fusion reactors on Earth. (Obviously we have to perfect commercial fusion power, and that may come later, but without the Helium 3, nuclear fusion on a commercial scale won’t happen.) Finally, you use the Moon as a jumping off point for accessing resource rich asteroids which can be mined, and then the profits flow back into the US economy. The average resource wealth of a single small metallic asteroid was estimated in 1997 at $20 trillion – which would pay off the debt (now at $15 trillion) and leave some spare change. If the US really wants to deal decisively with its debt, mine the asteroids. That’s best done from a lunar base because the Moon is our ideal stepping stone into the inner solar system, along with the Lagrange Points. Do US politicians understand this? Has anyone briefed them? 

    At the same time as the US is building up a space-based economy. it should be investing in ensuring it leads in exploiting Disruptive Technology, such as nanotechnology-based materials and manufacturing that not only can be directly applied to a space-manufacturing sector, but also make access to space easier in coming decades, through enabling the development of lightweight but super-strong materials, which could one day be used in advanced SCRAMJET engines on hypersonic single stage to orbit aerospace planes, or even a Space Elevator. 

    Who leads? Government, Private Industry? Why not both? I think private industry and commercial space should take the lead on what might be called ‘the mundane day to day task of getting off the rock’. Commercial space should be responsible for getting humans and cargo from Earth into LEO, and ideally to higher orbits in Cislunar Space. NASA should not be bogged down in deciding whether to build a Space Launch System that can get 130 metric tons to orbit. NASA should continue to exist, but its role should be to focus on how to establish an expanding human presence beyond Earth and beyond LEO, to the Moon, to Mars, the near Earth Asteroids, the Main Belt, and on to the Outer Planets. That means NASA focuses on advanced space transportation concepts – not big dumb boosters. NASA should be developing nuclear-electric and nuclear thermal propulsion, as well as solar-electric propulsion. It should be working with private corporations developing advanced propulsion like Ad Astra developing VASIMR. The goal should be to get places and payload fast, safe and cheap, not slow, expensive and dangerous. NASA should be working with Bigelow on both space-station technology and lunar base technology.  NASA has a role, but its current one – a hangover from the Shuttle era – is not the right one for the new era in human spaceflight. 

    The US is at a critical inflexion point in its journey from Mercury Redstone 3 and  Alan Shepard in 1961 to where the US is now, almost 41 years later. It can either continue the journey and lead, but only through bold and decisive political leadership, that gets the reason why humans should travel in Space, or it can surrender such leadership and look on passively as other states – most significantly in my view, China – takes the lead. In that case, historians in the future will look back and note that for a brief while, the US led human space exploration, but lacked the political will, economic means and strategic vision to continue the journey. 

    I know which path I’d take…

    Dr. Malcolm Davis,
    Canberra, Australia