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.
Policy

Newt Gingrich is Still a Space Fan

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
November 6, 2013
Filed under
Newt Gingrich is Still a Space Fan

Out of this world: Why Gingrich wants to go to space and says GOP turmoil is healthy, Yahoo
“Newt Gingrich was famously ridiculed during his 2012 presidential campaign for declaring that he would work toward establishing a colony on the moon if he were elected president. But the former Republican presidential candidate and Speaker of House is still dreaming about space exploration and told “Top Line” he would like to travel to space, “if I get the chance.” “This is a good example of what’s wrong with the current political system,” Gingrich said. “I gave a serious speech in Florida at the Space Coast outlining a very bold strategy. … I got savaged by two of my competitors, Romney and Santorum, who deliberately distorted the speech. I got ridiculed by ‘Saturday Night Live.'” Gingrich, who now hosts a show on CNN, writes in his newest book “Breakout” that Washington is a city full of “prison guards of the past,” who are slowing the pace of innovation in fields like space exploration.”
Different Takes on Newt Gingrich’s Space Ideas, earlier post
Gingrich Talks About Space Policy in Florida (Update), earlier post
Other posts on Newt Gingrich

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

24 responses to “Newt Gingrich is Still a Space Fan”

  1. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    Washington isn’t “slowing down” NASA HSF it is killing it. That said, it will only get harder for the next presidential candidates to propose sending astronauts to Mars without being “ridiculed” by mainstream news media. Exploration is simply not a national priority, and Gingrich knows it. Look at the criticism directed at India’s first Mars probe, within India, that could become the straw which breaks NASA in the next decade.

    • Rocky J says:
      0
      0

      NASA has survived hard economic times. The argument that there are starving people, elderly that need more assistance has always been an argument against space travel. Kennedy raised this question and the response is that a nation cannot dismiss or postpone plans and investments in the future because times are difficult. Sure when times are extreme such as a World War, some things are delayed. There are always a subset of people that imagine that a doomsday will arriving soon. For NASA, there are things citizens and space advocates can do to force improvements for now. The management process of NASA has been in this state of affairs too long. Everyone has just grown use to it. Enough people need to imagine that things can be improved.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        The difficulty is now twofold. Outside NASA taxes are akin to sin; I see little chance of getting more money. Within NASA the budget that exists is being misapplied. There are positive signs in the commercial program, but its future is difficult to predict, particularly on the human spaceflight side.

        • Rocky J says:
          0
          0

          Yeah, I agree. If NASA receives $18B that would be very fortunate. With ACA (health care) having a rough start, its looking less likely the House won’t change majorities. It is great that politicians show an interest in space exploration so long as they keep their grimy hands off it. Gingrich’s goal of the Moon is not what we need. That would be another disaster for NASA. What we really need is to get politicians out of the equation… not completely possible but reduce legislative/executive impact on funding and setting of goals. Give the NAS the prime responsibility of setting goals for manned flight.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      The argument is made in the US that we have too many problems ‘down here’ that deserve resources over space exploration. The argument has merit, but on the other hand we do have the resources to tackle our problems (not the will, perhaps) AND go to space.

      India is different. As a frequent visitor I can attest that the level of human misery is beyond my ability to describe; neither are the resources, nor the will, present to resolve them. In fact, there is a high tolerance of poor conditions. It’s inexplicable, really.

      For India, though, the choice isn’t between helping people or going to space. Indians are firmly convinced, at least in my own incomplete interaction with friends, that the future lays solved through technology.

      It’s true that an educated populace has fewer children. Can this happen in India?

      I’m not so sure. But then it’s not my country.

      • Mark_Flagler says:
        0
        0

        The “problems down here” argument has been made in one form or another about every new, different venture. People are much more able to see how money could be spent on their priorities than they are able to perceive the ROI from exploration.
        Someone in Spain probably wanted to spend Columbus’s funding on better stables, and I still remember the mule-drawn wagons used to shame 1960s Washington into cutting expenditures like Apollo and funding earth-based programs of questionable utility.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      If the the Mars probe was not popular in India, it might be because their new armies of telemarketers can’t make annoying phones calls to Mars, several times a day, day and night, day after day, …

  2. Joe Cooper says:
    0
    0

    Washington is not going to put people on Mars. We have such an absurd BEO HSF program because a few politicians can make it sound kind of important but it’s not really important enough to any of them to call them on it. This is reality for the foreseeable future.

    There is a good case to make for tracking NEOs and for the military space programs (including AF, NRO, …) and these can exist without most of what constitutes NASA; without the space probes; without HSF; without ISS; without Mars.

    These things therefore exist as luxuries; things we can point at and say “we are awesome; the universe is awesome”. We have to _appreciate_ Kepler, Horizons, Cassini, Dawn, the rovers and the _laughably_ long list of slam-dunk wins from NASA and their partners.

    I would like it if humans were on Mars but if you put me in front of Congress to explain why the United States Federal government should fund it with everyones tax money I would not be able to make that case honestly, especially if I could pitch something else for the money.

    Do we waste more money on worse things? Yes and that is horrible.

  3. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    Commercial enterprise will soon be the norm for access and destination for LEO. Once NASA becomes a consumer of services it will change the dynamic.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      NASA was originally an R&D agency. I am not sure it makes sense for NASA to be a consumer or a provider of services. How would it be productive for our country?

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        Often times I have stated the case, that NASA should be the pump primer, and shovel the tech into the commercial sector as fast as possible. BUT …. If the Nation is going to invest in the agency, NASA, to further human exploration and expansion, I would prefer, as a taxpayer wanting the biggest bang for the buck, that the agency does not try and do transportation themselves. The pork premium prevents any meaningful hardware from being produced. Witness the Constellation program and the SLS.
        If it is going to happen anyway, let’s do it with NASA being, like EVERY federal agency, a buyer of goods and services.
        I would like it that NASA only buys turn key transportation. Like a whiteknigh2/SS2 or a NautilusX and commercial fuel. Whatever is the best buy for the taxpayer.

  4. Starfun says:
    0
    0

    What is maddeningly insane and disgusting is that he is part of the team that is trying to ‘drown government in a bathtub.’ So his support of any more ambitious human space flight effort, even in partnership with industry, is a sign of his complete disconnect with reality. The only propulsion that he has helped are the flame throwers of the Tea Party.

    • Gary Anderson says:
      0
      0

      TEA Party in Space (TPiS) promotes fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets in U.S. space policy. NASA’s budget stands at @$16.5 Billion dollars. $16.5 billion is still A LOT of MONEY if utilized appropriately. There is so much happening within the space industry. Equating the tea party to flame throwers is just typical from big government fans from either party. The space industry primarily rests in ‘red states’. Yes we know that and we are trying to educate those representatives and senators on the advantages of moving away from big government and more to commercial enterprise based policy. Flags and footprints no more. Big rockets? No need for them right now. Utilization of space for space activities is a must. Space is not the last frontier, but the infinite economy. Once we can convince the populace that their next job, no matter what it is, will eventually support the space economy. Yes you read that right. Space economy, not space as a segment of the economy. Framing the discussion is critical to an audience beyond scientists, engineers, sci-fi fans, and professed ‘geeks’. FWiW we are doing our part regardless of the name calling. I (we) relish it.
      Gary Anderson
      National Coordinator and Director of Operations
      TEA Party in Space
      PS I typically do not front on the policy side, my role is to bring in every day Americans to take an active role in U.S space policy. If we pay for it, we have a right to partake in it.

      • kcowing says:
        0
        0

        Have you read @TPISczar tweets lately? This guy (your boss) is clearly on the bus to crazy town.

        • Gary Anderson says:
          0
          0

          Keith, not to get into a tit-for-tat, but Andrew is very conservative and that is his person twitter account, not the TPiS account. @TEA_in_Space is the official twitter feed of TEA Party in Space.
          You can find me at @raren2go as well, and on the bus you think Andrew is sitting. I am probably driving the dang bus. Limited government is not no government. Most people see a wildfire as devastation. I see it as rejunvenation. Our government as we see it today is deserving of rejunvenation.

          • kcowing says:
            0
            0

            It is his personal Twitter account – so he calls it TPISczar . Right. Enjoy the bus ride to crazy town.

      • Mark_Flagler says:
        0
        0

        As used by the Tea Party, in space or otherwise, the terms “fiscal responsibility,” “limited government,” and “free markets” are all oxymorons.
        “I do not think those words mean what you think they mean,” to paraphrase The Princess Bride.

      • Starfun says:
        0
        0

        Gary, your sound like someone that I might have a rational conversation with. Heck, we might even agree on some things. And I consider myself a liberal (and progressive). And yes, I believe in government. I believe government, is, radical thought coming here–us! And I believe government can work and does work. Every time I see a NASA/industry launch I say to myself–that is amazing! Look what WE did. The collective We.

        But what the radical (Christianist–to use Andrew Sullivan’s term) right is is a mix of anarchists and people who want to impose their world view on me. And now they are fighting each other. I recoil at this dangerous group as much as I recoiled at the Yippies of the 60’s.

        So we are ALL suffering at the hands of this anarchy and fighting. The only hope I have is that now people are seeing that they are dangerous. They are throwing flames at OUR government.

        When the flames die down, then maybe we can get back to solving problems. I only hope it is not too late for my kids (read–global climate change).

  5. SouthwestExGOP says:
    0
    0

    For once Newt said something that I agree with – the government space effort was able to take risks but no more. Now they are worried about who has a parking space, who has a Deputy (to help run an office of less than 10 people!), etc. People want to be safe and not jepardize their retirement.
    The commercial side is going to make progress for now on.

  6. David Peters says:
    0
    0

    I am awe struck that these die hard Keynsian, Quantitative Easing, big borrowing, stimulus true believers want to cut NASA. NASA is the ONLY government agency that actually returns money to the economy as predicted by the aforementioned theories.
    In English, for every dollar spent on NASA, SEVERAL dollars are returned to the economy via the multiplier effect.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      Military R&D has occasionally had a higher payback potential than NASA, i.e. with the GPS system. Most government spending has some multiplier effect since the money is spend again by the people who are paid. Medicaid and similar programs for poor people have relatively high multipliers since the money is spent immediately in the community.

      The NASA programs with the highest payback are technology which is actually commercialized, such as the Whitcomb winglets. But this kind of success is quite difficult. NASA tech development researchers are not very well funded, particular once they get beyond the concept demonstration phase. It’s been many years since NACA developed and tested the standard airfoils; today many manufacturers are ahead of NASA. Moreover it’s not easy (for me at least) to point to any commercial potential for the substantial funds invested in SLS and Orion.

    • Mark_Flagler says:
      0
      0

      It’s not the Keynsians. Federal spending is the primary province of the House of Representatives; if you look at the composition of the various GOP controlled committees that decide the NASA budget, you find Tea Partiers and uber-conservatives everywhere. They have significantly shrunk NASA’s budget, and plan to shrink it further.

  7. ed2291 says:
    0
    0

    I am no fan of Newt and would never vote for him, but his space proposals were unfairly given short shift. The Planetary Society and others seemed to go into their elect Obama mode rather than see it as an opportunity to discuss space exploration and make a case for it. Was Newt right in this one narrow area? Maybe not, but the tragedy is it will be a long time before either party again makes a serious space proposal.