Romney Taunts Chinese Moon Landing Plans, TPM (with video)
“On the campaign trail in Florida – home of the Space Coast – Monday, Romney taunted Chinese plans to land an unmanned probe on the on the moon in 2013. Romney: “This is still the greatest nation on earth. I know there are people around the world who are always critical of America, have something negative to say, say our greatest days are in the past. Baloney. We just won more Olympic medals than any other nation on Earth. You also just saw we just landed on Mars and took a good look at what’s going on there. And I know the Chinese are planning on going to the Moon and I hope they have a good experience doing that and I hope they stop in and take a look at our flag that was put there 43 years ago.”
Ex-NASA boss defends GW Bush “vision” (again…), Doctorlinda (Linda Billings)
“Griffin told the committee that he’s grown “tired” of pronouncements that the United States is “the world’s leader in space.”* “We barely rank number 3…. Our vision today is mostly talk,” he said …”
Keith’s note: Gee, it certainly sounds like Mitt Romney doesn’t agree with his space advisor Mike Griffin when it comes to America Vs China in space.
Keith’s note: It would seem that Mike Griffin has given up on becoming Mitt Romney’s NASA Administrator. I guess that means that the way has been cleared for fellow Romney space advisor Scott Pace: “Schafer Corporation Appoints Michael Griffin Chairman and Chief Executive Officer“
“And I know the Chinese are planning on going to the Moon and I hope they have a good experience doing that and I hope they stop in and take a look at our flag that was put there 43 years ago”
Oh really?
Really?
Ok, I know I’m not dreaming…
So…
I’m at a loss for words here…. I’ll let the rest of you fill in the blank.
The sad part is this really-lousy/ pretty humiliating day for America that will happen in the 2020s will have been a good 20+ years in the making, and also entirely avoidable… if we could be bothered to do something about it.
I can’t be the only person to realize the nature of leads: once you have them, you have to keep them. If you don’t work hard keeping them, they evaporate when the competition keeps going at full sprint and you start walking. When you have a lead you should seek to extend that lead, not “ease off”, like you won some race.
In China’s case, it will take exactly two missions to do that. The first mission will equal our greatest Space achievement. The second mission, if they follow their Shenzou example and land at the same site and start building an infrastructure/base, profoundly surpasses are achievement.
And what will we say then? Griffin is wrong on many, many things. But he’s absolutely right on this. We’re all talk. ALL talk. Even at NASAWatch, the most heated debates aren’t about Chinese Space goals and our response to them, but whether the SLS should use liquid or solid fuels or something like that. It’s like some kind of ridiculous rocket scientist blood feud.
Fact is, China is going to land a man on the moon in the 2020s at far less cost, starting far further back than we were at in the early 2000s when they started that inexorable path, because they’re simply far more serious. They don’t dissolve programs every few years or wage insurgencies against rockets they don’t like just because they lost an argument (looking at you EELV-over-SLS pushers). They, like 1960s NASA, just have a more serious mindset about Space Exploration. If there is one thin reading this site for years has shown me, its that too many people love the good fight a little bit too much.
So it’s going to happen. And it’s going to be an absolutely godawful week for this country. And there is really no reason for it, except for the fact that, you know, right now, when we still have a lead, we couldn’t be bothered to do what is necessary to keep it. Because the horrible truth about early 21st century America is this: from climate change, to budgeting, to foreign policy, to politics… failing, shrugging and then saying “oh well, we gave it our best shot, but it’s the fault of those people over there we failed” is much easier and profitable than actually being successful.
That’s why people took to the streets when Osama bin Laden was killed and why millions watched the MSL land live: it was one of those increasingly rare moments where America was actually successful and followed through. Where it was action, not just talk.
Pity then China is going to crumple up our space-pride in their fist like an old newspaper, just because we couldn’t be bothered to do something to dwarf their mission to the moon and maintain our lead when we had the chance. But I’m sure we’ll say “well, we tried but….”
“Fact is, China is going to land a man on the moon in the 2020s at far less cost”
This is not a fact, it’s a prediction. China’s government may be more authoritarian, but it isn’t immune to project cancellations, R&D shortcomings, or deadline slips.
Meanwhile, if Dragon’s SuperDraco propulsive landing capability does do well in testing, it could very well land a capsule on the moon in short order, years before China. Considering that Musk’s target is Mars, landing on the moon is substantially simpler. The question then becomes “why?” Is returning to the moon actually a useful next step for a nation that’s already done it once, or should the US be looking past it?
People keep pointing at China’s achievements (which are not impressive) and plans (anybody can make plans) as if the US has already lost a new space race, but as far as I can tell, a new space race hasn’t even been started. The first space race was entirely politically motivated, driven by a fierce cold war ideological divide between the USSR and the US. Is there a similar conflict between the US and China at present? If there isn’t, what’s the current argument for a US return to the moon?
The lunar poles are strategic high ground. Maybe better suited for the US military instead of NASA. After all, they have a larger space budget than NASA’s. I don’t think these polar bases needs to be manned 24×7 but certainly off and on they do with an active robot presence as well.
Matt, Ralphy,
Do you guys not see that you’re missing the point entirely? This isn’t another Olympics event to be won or lost. it’s about the progress and ultimately the survival of nations, and the human race. There’s no need to invent short-term, rational-sounding political and economic “justifications” for exploring and utilizing, or not, the Moon. We will do it; all that remains to be seen is who the intial “we” is. The others will catch up soon enough, for the right reasons as well a the wrong ones (and, yes Matt, this too, is only a prediction, but it’s a safe one to bet on).
Steve
The space race only occurred after the Sputnik launch and Gagarin’s launch. I don’t believe anyone called the years prior to Sputnik a space race. So China and the US, similarly, would not be in an active space race right now. However, should we wait for China to have its own Sputnik moment to jar the US into some kind of action? Not that having another space race is the way to go, but shouldn’t we be acting to prevent that situation from re-occuring?
Regarding the Moon “been there before” view, I would agree if we had thoroughly explored the Moon, but we haven’t. Yes we sent a lot of probes there. We have sent a lot of probes to Mars too. Does that mean Mars is also “been there before”? We haven’t answered all the questions the Moon has to offer. We haven’t sent any landed robots there for several decades. We haven’t studied the lunar poles in situ yet to know how much water ice is there, how it is intermixed with regolith, how easy it is to extract, how it is linked to cometary bombardment and organics, and what that reveals about the formation of oceans on Earth and life itself.
Romney seems to have the “we did that before, we’re great” view, which to me is just a variation of the “we’ve been there before, we don’t need to go back” opinion. Either way it doesn’t seem either candidate has any love for the Moon. At the very least we should be sending landed robots to the lunar South Pole to study the water ice there.
So the taxpayers are obligated to fund how much exploration before we say let the homesteaders in?
We have global maps of Luna, far more detailed then what Lewis and Clark did before we started exploiting the resources.
NASA will never ever ever ever get enough funds to totally explore the moon. EVER.
Until a NASA lunar geologist can take a commercial flight to LEO, then a commercial flight to Lunar orbit and a commercial ride to the lunar surface stay at a commercial base and lease a lunar vehicle to drive to a commercial mining operation to do detailed analysis on layers of lunar materials it is pointless to talk about it.
America should be able to put researchers on the moon for millions not billions.
We need commercial dollars exploring. Does the government explore for gold on earth? Silver, gas oil, copper etc etc.
The government opens up lands for private speculation and exploration for resources.
There is literally trillions of investment dollars sitting on the sidelines, the space frontier needs to get the property rights issue settled so hundreds of billions can be invested commercially. NASA will never get that kind of money.
Romney: You also just saw we just landed on Mars and took a good look at what’s going on there.
“A good look at what’s going on”? WTF? His answer reminds me of the jock athlete in high school who, having only half-listened to the news the night before, struggles to come up with an answer to a pop quiz question during current events that won’t make the class laugh too hard when read aloud.
However, to be fair, his answer doesn’t have that high-voltage raw stupid zing that characterized Sarah Palin’s utterances.
I think it’s clear from this and other information that Romney has ZERO personal interest or intellectual curiosity in the space program. If he is elected, NASA should brace itself for very lean times.
And Obama’s reason for not returning to the Moon: because we’ve already been there – that smacks of a keen, sharp intellect? Give me a break.
If you wanted some one with a keen intellect who’s interested in HSF, you should have supported Gingrich.
And Obama’s reason for not returning to the Moon: because we’ve already been there – that smacks of a keen, sharp intellect?
The drive and political will to send U.S. astronauts to the Moon came from old fashioned Cold War paranoia. The nation was in a science and technology frenzy to beat the Soviets in space, especially to the Moon before 1970.
The reason we stopped sending humans to the Moon after Apollo 17 was because we had been there several times and the expense of another mission could not be politically or scientifically justified. In other words: “Been there, done that.”
So the President is correct. What was true then is true today. Returning people to the Moon is not a politically viable mission.
“Returning people to the Moon is not a politically viable mission.”
Gonzo,
I have to shoot that one down, because “Returning people to the Moon” is a meaningless, incomplete phrase. Without any when, why, how, to do what, for how long, within what budget/time frame, and similar details, it’s just an ambiguous collection of words without meaning.
Steve
Without any when, why, how, to do what, for how long, within what
budget/time frame, and similar details, it’s just an ambiguous
collection of words without meaning.
In the context of this election and the goals of this or the next President, it’s perfectly clear.
The Chinese landing on the Moon isn’t going to even raise an eyebrow with the general voters. The reaction will be “So what?”
Kind of reminds me of a “water cooler” moment I had the other day. Some of us co-workers were hanging around and someone said that NASA got cancelled. I quickly interfered. For about 5 minutes I went on about the Commercial program; Dragon, Space X, Dream Chaser, Boeing’s CST100. The ORION MPCV the SLS, 500 day trips to Mars – orbit and return, the moon shot in 2021, EFT-1, etc. When I was done with my spill, everyone looked at me with profound looks. I got a few grumbles about it’s a waste of money and the typical “who cares.” A wash in my nerdiness, I quietly retreated to the cofounds of my desk.
Gonzo,
It would seem from your reply that you measure a “politically viable mission” in terms of general voter response. I guess that’s where I see us differing — despite political history/theory, I would say it’s been a very long time since general voter response to a specialized and technical issue like space policy has had anything at all to do with political viability. I think that in the case of space theory this is even more true than in the general case, since it seems that the average politician really knows little, if any, more about the subject than the average voter.
Your comment makes it clear that you think Americans, in general, don’t care about this issue, about whether America or anybody else succeeds at it. What about you, personally? How do you feel about pursuing space and about this apathetic general attitude? Would you prefer to see something different in American official space policy and the general attitude towards it (seriously, no sarcasm)? How would you suggest bringing about positive change?
Steve
I have to jump in here to congratulate both of you for basically agreeing with each other on this important topic. Yes, “Returning people
to the Moon” is a meaningless, incomplete phrase. But since the rationale for doing so has been sorely lacking — national pride?, we did it forty years ago!; national competitiveness?, yep, we can be as good as we were then!; mine water to support large number of people reaching further into space?, um, why?; 3He?, oh c’mon! It is precisely because that rationale is sorely lacking that returning to the Moon (for the primary purpose, it seems, of returning to the Moon) is not a politically viable mission.
Obama’s read on that doesn’t, I believe, smack of a keen, sharp intellect. Why? Becasue it doesn’t require a keen, sharp intellect to figure that out. It’s pretty self-evident to even minor intellects.
Helen,
First off, Gonzo and I do not agree on this issue, obviously. Second, you’re putting words into other people’s mouths again. And third, you appear to think you occupy some position of authority whereby you can “validate,” or not, other people’s opinions. I can’t honestly say whether or not any of this is your intention, but it certainly comes across that way, to me at least, in your comments.
Your latest comments would seem to make clear that:
1) you don’t favor a return of humans to the Moon, for any reason (including the many possible reasons that you didn’t list, as opposed to the pointless ones that you did);
2) you don’t like Obama; and
3) you consider other posters here, and perhaps everyone else in general, as “minor intellects,” presumably compared to yourself.
For the record, any “minor intellect” can post an opinion with absolutely no rationale or qualifiers given, and there’s not much anyone can do about it. But no one likes a self-proclaimed know-it-all, especially when they persist in deriding others based solely on their own unsupported opinions. In future, I think a little more on-line etiquette would be appropriate. If I have misinterpreted your attitude, I apologize, but I can only go by what your words say.
Steve
Well said Steve
“Intellect” and “Gingrich” do not really belong in the same sentence unless that sentence includes the phrase “who is not an”.
I guess it all depends on how you choose to poke the pig. Presently, are we not in 3rd place in HSF capability ?
If you limit the scope of the rankings to “Ability to launch humans into LEO” then yes, we’re pretty undeniably behind Russia and China at this point. Give CCDev a few years and the balance will be tipped dramatically from aging Soviet transportation to larger, safer US capsules.
But if the scope of Griffin’s statement was actually human spaceflight, he failed miserably to indicate that. Instead he suggested that the US’s position in all things space-related is “barely number 3” which is a comically bad interpretation of the relative capabilities demonstrated in the last decade or two of the US, Russia, and China. Do Russia or China have probes studying any other planets or their moons? No. Do they have any probes en route to any destination other than our moon? No. Do Russia or China even have a “vision” beyond the Moon? Not that I’m aware of. Meanwhile NASA has probes exploring or en route to the Sun, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and Pluto.
There’s much more to space exploration than how far you can send a human.
Very good mention of US space capabilities. I want to add is capabilities of the USAF Space Command are very impressive though not much is known. I do know they have some hefty recon, commo, and weather sats. And done some remarkable work with X37. Perhaps this suggest HSF is good for egos but limited practicality.
we currently have an administration committed to MORE government spending on “shovel ready jobs” to “stimulate” the economy. and apparently there are folks here who think this is better than Romney because “Griffin” is a “Romney” guy. hey grow up folks if we don’t stop the entire notion of wealth transfer to the supposedly “downtrodden” then you can hold a circle jerk for spaceflight for a century and it won’t matter a lick. unless we change the direction in washington this time around there won’t be any nation to have pride in at all. don’t forget the current guy invented the trillion dollar deficit… that’s trillion a word never used by any other country ever. boy that makes you proud…
“I know there are people around the world who […] say our greatest days are in the past. […] I know the Chinese are planning on going to the Moon […] I hope they stop in and take a look at our flag that was put there 43 years ago.”
43 years ago. Or “in the past” as it’s pronounced in Mandarin.
Well this goes back to Griffin’s assertion that China could get to the Moon with their medium lift rockets so we need a bigger, more expensive heavy lift rocket that will take longer to complete and won’t leave much money over for a lander and surface infustructure. Why can’t we develop a Moon program with our existing medium lift rockets (and the near term 53MT FH to boot) Mike?
I believe that it will in fact be the US commercial industry that beats China back to the Moon and beyond. We just need a lander but as far as I know China is not working on one yet. And when we get there, it will be as ice-miners.
First step I think will be a Dragonrider lofted on a FH for a trip around the Moon. If and when that happens, perhaps before 2020, all whole new conversation will start in this country about what can be accomplished and for how much.
There *is* the question as to what Falcon Heavy might do on its first test flight.
Wow, you are even more optimistic than I. I would only clarify that by saying DragonRider around the Moon I mean one with people on it. We send probes out to and beyond the Moon’s orbit quite frequently but it does not excite the masses. So I’m not talking about a ‘plain’ unmanned Dragon doing this, and making much impact beyond the space buff community (we would think it would be awesome though). I think a manned Dragon going on this trip would be headline news however. It is something that would sneak up on many people who did not even realize that we had the capability to do such a thing. And they will ask “Why can’t we use this rocket and spacecraft to set up a landing? What? We’re spending billions more dollars on something else that won’t be able to do this for many more years down the road? Uh, let’s go now!” It may be enough to change the political equation that is driving this whole thing and free up money to develop a lander sooner rather than later.
Anyway, I don’t think DragonRider will be ready in time for the first FH launch, or at least I hope FH is ready next year at some point, a year or two before DragonRider is ready. As far as I know, the first FH flight will still be from VAFB so it will most likely be a Polar orbit mission, with a fairing, to show off for the $$$ USAF, NRO, and others. If a consumer does not step up to take advantage of this discounted flight, I personally would like to see them launch one of their used Dragons on a simple Polar orbit mission under the fairing. This would then also prove to NASA that the Dragons are reusable which could save everybody some money for future CRS missions.
Dear Colleagues,
The signs are pretty clear: a Romney-Ryan Administration would almost certainly reduce NASA’s budget in real purchasing power (not keeping pace with inflation, or worse) more than a Democrat Administration. Assuming that what the candidate says is not accidental from day to day, then Romney’s recent joke is almost certainly indicative of general attitudes within the Campaign.
However, the worst thing about the current climate in Washington (IMHO), is this: past becomes prologue. When the Chinese do land on the Moon c. the 2020s or whenever, the two major US parties will expend all of their energy blaming each other for the situation…!
Our system has become a mess.
– John
Some things change over time and some are cursed to remain the same. I feel that many current issues in American politics are in the wrong category out of these two. When Apollo 11 landed on the Moon, the reaction the whole world over was one of “we did it,” the human race congratulating itself on having accomplished something significant an important — a common dream realized around the world. The legacy that the Wolf- and Romney-types are creating for America is that such a reaction will never occur again. If Americans landed on the Moon again tomorrow, these Neanderthal politicians would jump to make it an American-only accomplishment and throw it in the face of others nations in a purely childish gesture. Inexcusable.
It’s probably a very good thing that the next election, and the consequences from it, will not be decided by space policy, because not a single major political player that I can see is living in this decade. To every one of them, one way or another, today’s “space program” is just Apollo with another coat of paint, the Cold War with updates weapons. What I really find to be a sign of the times is that Romney hasn’t a clue what to do or say about space issues, and so Obama can easily “win” that battle by saying as little as possible and letting Romney continue to wrap himself in rope until he hangs. In short, as far as space policy goes (and certain other key platform issues as well), I think there is no way that Americans can vote for the “best” Presidential candidate, but only for the one whom they think will do the least damage. And even that may be too optimistic an outlook. Like too many American elections of the last century, the majority will go to the guy who pulls the fewest boners during the campaign. Doesn’t that scare people enormously? Come November, Americans will, once again, be voting against the loser instead of voting for the winner. As much as space policy is very important to me, I’d say it’s the least of America’s concerns in this election. To be honest, given the events of the last half century, I’m really surprised that a third major political party hasn’t arisen in America as an alternative to the same old predictable rot.
Prediction: Obama will get his second term; all he has to do is basically keep quite while Romney continues to hang himself. Fortunately, I think that would be the best outcome for America right now. And I shall do my best to make this the last of my political comments posted to NASA Watch.
Steve
remember when, some years back, in the GM boardroom they said “japanese cars won’t challenge us” …
why go back to the moon ? ’cause it’s the easiest place to learn about living long term in space. going to Mars isn’t just an extended lunar voyage, it’s a very different voyage. and many things need to be understood and learnt first.
how to go back to the moon ? in line with many comments here, not for the good of the US but for the good of the world. a multi-national moon-base is a way to share and to globalise the expedition.
“why go back to the moon ? ’cause it’s the easiest place to learn about living long term in space. going to Mars isn’t just an extended lunar voyage, it’s a very different voyage.”
You are contradicting yourself. As you say, a Mars mission isn’t a lunar-mission-plus. Therefore almost nothing will be common between the two missions; a lunar programs does nothing to answer the questions we need answered for a Mars mission.
1) why go to the moon ? to advance our knowledge and ability to live off-world. to learn the lessons we’ll need to make the trip to Mars. for the benefit of mankind (and not any particular sub-set).
2) how go to the moon ? an international moon-base (maybe we learnt a little from an international space station, about how to co-ordinate; but maybe not ?)
3) but a moment of reality … who can afford this ? (as opposed to who can’t afford this ??) The Euro crisis will probably unravel the western economies for several more years; how much cash is left in the US coffers ? how much is available from India/Brazil/Japan/Russia ? i guess that leaves China or free enterprise (SpaceX, etc) ?
4) didn’t Griffin participate (and lead) much of the “vision that is talk” ?
“why go to the moon ? to advance our knowledge and ability to live off-world. to learn the lessons we’ll need to make the trip to Mars.”
What lessons doesn’t a lunar mission teach us about Mars?
Romney and space exploration is just something I cannot fathom. If it does amount to anything, it will be very defense related. He himself has said he would fire anyone who had a proposal for a moon colony. Commercial Crew is the bright spot in NASA today, he has not indicated approval and I doubt he will throw his full support behind that since it neglects many DOD contractors.
The bottom line is that government programs cost money and I have yet to hear anything that has indicated he will support anything NASA exploration related or improvement in efficiency (Mike Griffin is not the solution for this). There are extremely conservative NASA employees who are convinced he will support the agency, never mind that their own employment is supported by tax dollars, which he will likely cut.
There is really no point in debating anyone pre-disposed to his support.
It is just pointless. The fact that he is involved with so many multi-million dollar
bankruptcies and still considered a successful businessman by his
admirers is direct evidence that there is no point to debate.
A recent argument I’ve heard is that SpaceX is a South African company, and contracts awarded to them amounts to treason. This is the level any argument
will get reduced to.
It’s just a waste of time.