Slashdot Mirror
Candidate Gingrich Pushes a Moon Base, Other Space Initiatives
New submitter thomas.kane writes "Newt Gingrich announced yesterday, while visiting Florida's Space Coast, a visionary plan for the future of space travel. He suggested a combination of the current private incentives and a government funded section, developing a moon base, commercial near earth orbit, and continuous propulsion systems to better reach Mars." "Visionary" seems an awfully positive spin on it; Gingrich is not the first President or presidential candidate to propose revisiting the moon — and the moon seems like small potatoes, by some measures.
The US federal debt is going to ensure that this never happens. Not this side of 2050. Not even if the Chinese start making concrete plans to do the same.
Newt Gingrich's new Secret Service code name:
MOONBAT ALPHA
TLR
A man no more knows his destiny than a tea leaf knows the history of the East India Company
GWB set up a program that he knew he couldn't finance and thus put all the expenses on whoever would come after him. Of course, this didn't stop them from handing out heaps of money for useless non-development - like $450,000,000 dollars for the "Ares-1x" - an ordinary surplus shuttle booster with a mockup stage strapped on top of it, that didn't even manage to separate properly and couldn't tell anything about the flight characteristics of the real Ares-1 (with a longer 5-segment booster) anyway. For comparison: the cost of that flight was more than two full flights of the Ariane-5.
Sounds like he's taking the evil dictator thing a little too far.
When we go back we are going to need a reason to be there. The strongest case I've heard is for a far side radio observatory that is shielded from radio interference from Earth. What else could be better done on the Moon's than in orbit?
After building a base on the moon, he will point a giant "laser" at the Earth, and threaten the rest of the world with annihilating a major city every day unless the world pays the US (evil pinky finger) $10.5 trillion. Then he will use that money to pay off the national debt (except that which is owed to Social Security), and thus balance the budget.
Of course, the whole thing will be stopped when a spy with bad teeth shows up.
I am officially gone from
"Tonight, I am directing NASA to develop a permanently manned space station and to do it within a decade." -President Ronald Reagan, 25 January 1984.
I'm glad y'all weren't advising President Kennedy when he planned to put a man on the moon. Unlike the pie-in-the 'investments' of the current administration (that were payoffs for campaign kickbacks), the space program has a proven record of spinoffs that have been good for the country and of all humanity. The computers you are reading this on, the satellites that move countless terabytes of information, even the fuel cells that might power the next generation of MacBooks all had their genesis from NASA research.
Not to mention that the BEST place to get experience with a serious Mars trip is our own moon... at least convenient to Earth. If you want it to pay for itself, read The Man Who Sold the Moon. How many of those dreaded 1% would shell out big bucks for a piece of the ACTUAL FRIGGIN MOON. Plus, you could probably pay for it with the rounding error from the pork barrel programs we should cut anyway, heh.
/// Not a super-genius . . . yet. ///
Obviously US has no money for this, but that never stopped a politician from making promises. Besides, so much money can be stolen/printed and provided via contracts to various contributors.
Do you know what a popular government slogan was in the former USSR? "Apple trees will grow on Mars" - that was the 'next step of the revolution'. Obviously USSR didn't have a sound economy and couldn't feed its people, but it was a great 'vision' pushed by the government elite, to have people believe in some form of 'brighter future'.
Another slogan was: "To catch up to and overtake America".
I think in US now the slogan that Obama pushes is: "To catch up and overtake China".
You can't handle the truth.
It amazes me that anybody is still taking him seriously - let alone voting for him in these primaries.
Candidates/politicians talking up space exploration, means they must be after Florida votes, funny how all the talk about ramping-up the space program, or space exploration in general never amounts to anything after the election...unless it is sacrificing science missions for something "sexy."
Playing to the local base. He doesn't mean to follow through with a breath of it. In an age of hypocrites, Gingrich sets the standard for pathetic and has for a long, long time.
So if this President of the United States of American thing doesn't work out, maybe he can campaign to be the President of the Moon?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
If I sign up, do I get an awesome evil henchman future-suit?
Every President and Presidential candidate TALKS about great new strides in the space program and all the great stuff we're going to do (always setting the goals well beyond the point where they'll be out of office, of course). Not one since LBJ has actually FUNDED the agency in a way anywhere close to the level it would need to actually accomplish any of these lofty goals.
Gingrich is just playing the game. His words are meaningless pandering, nothing more.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Gingrich said this in Florida, a few weeks before the Floriday primary. Newt needs a win here to cement his momentum, because if Romney wins it's a serious blow to his candidacy. Because of that, I expect him to spend the next couple of weeks telling voters any outlandish fantasy it takes to get elected, up to and including telling people in Miami he'll invade Cuba and kill Castro.
Floridians are promised a moon base right before primary night. Texans will be promised their independence. Arizonians will be promised a border fence. Pennsylvania will be promised a revitalized steel industry. The grain belt will be promised increased access to foreign markets for meat, milk, and grain. Alaska will get more wells AND greater environmental protections at the same time. So will Ohio. Such is the power of American ingenuity. We will have the largest economy, the largest and best equipped army, the healthiest economy, the best education, equal opportunity for everyone, but no limit on personal wealth and power. Anyone can have a gun, and we will be the safest nation on earth.
Meanwhile, opponents will be defined by their positions on controversial hot-button but trivial issues of no national consequence whatsoever.
Could be almost any politician's platform; except that Newt is an exemplary example of how extreme such cynical manipulation of the electorate can go. He truly holds the citizens of this country in contempt; no one sees the world as clearly as he does; no one possesses such incisive insight. He will do or say anything to get elected. In short he is a psychopath.
Alarmingly, that seems to be what an inexplicably large proportion of the population wants right now. It's a scary time to be an American.
What are all those aerospace researching bureaucrats doing all day if not sending people to the moon? The brilliance of this question is that it reveals a new way to determine whether or not we should cut government funded programs:
Is the program doing precisely what middle school students expect it to do? If not, the axe.
Consequently, this is a great way to connect with the average voter.
Government undertaking grandiose projects, be it man on moon, be it universal healthcare, be it war on poverty, are all typically Democratic thinking. The Republicans usually slant towards free markets, low deficits, small government etc. In moderation both sides have good ideas. When ideas from either party are taken to the extremes, it becomes grotesque. Suddenly because Floridians think they will benefit by the revival of government spending on space research, he is pandering to them. Such pandering is the bane of democracy.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Going back to the moon is not small potatoes, by any measure.
The pessimistic case, it's done by Government, will cost a fortune and get us what, a publicity stunt? Worse, NASA will take it seriously, develop extensive plans for what we really ought to do, and then as soon as the publicity wears off, cancel everything at even more cost. 1972, deja vu.
In the what-should-be-done vein, we (humans) need to go to the moon, plant a base, and then develop that base into an industrial economy in its own right. This means that we will need to find resources on the moon, develop them, and aim for a self-sustaining colony.
No politician will ever support this, because the time frame of such a project is fifty years, or a hundred years. Where's the electability in that? What political force in the US could ever conceive of something that didn't pay off in the current election cycle? What money manager would invest hard cash in a project that was two hundred quarters out? Nobody I know.
China, maybe. They are not (yet) governed by short sighted kapitalists (sic) or even more short sighted politicians.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
He wouldn't happen to "support" all these initiatives to drum up votes in Florida's upcoming primary, you know, being that much of the US space program (or whats left of it) is based in Florida? Seriously people, its obvious, its supporting a local cause, just like supporting agriculture subsidies in the mid-west or assistance to automotive companies when in Michigan. Its a ploy for support.
USA can live with 10 aircraft carriers, or perhaps 9
The savings from not having to maintain 1 (or 2) navy armada (aka carrier group) can easily be channeled to build a permanent American moon base
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
While I appreciate any pro-space travel talk, I don't think he'd keep this campaign promise. Once elected, he'd probably take on the "important" issues (dismantling Obama's health care legislation, banning abortion, slashing taxes on the wealthy to "create jobs", etc). When he was up for re-election, he might trot out the Moon base as something to do when re-elected, but that would be the furthest it would go.
Alternatively, he might decide to move ahead with it and kill every other program NASA is working on to free up money (either for NASA or, more likely, for private companies) for a Moon base. Thus, a Moon base may get made, but it would come at the expense of some very valuable scientific research.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Given this bloated gas bag's religious fanaticism, his desire to "go to the moon" is nothing more than campaign bullshit, the same campaign bullshit that has been spouted by every presidential hopeful since JFK.
too bad everything else about candidate gingrich stinks
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
how in the US political system, national and transnational space exploration interests are, every 4 years, at the potential mercy of not-so-potential morons running for office. The moon ?? A permanent base there ?? WTF ???
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Experience tells us that when politicians start making demands for highly expensive development/construction efforts, they've usually been bought (quite literally) by the industry or specific businesses involved. Now we know who's offering to fund Newt's campaign...
Gingrich has no serious plans about building a moon base. He's just pandering to Floridians to get their votes. You can rest assured that after Florida is done, he'll drop it like a bad habit.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
First off, what is blocking all that, is mostly his party. They are pushing to continue wasting 10's of billions on the SLS. Yet, what is needed is multiple private launch systems.
.5B / launch. In addition, guarantee that one will have 3 launches a year for 4 years, while the other will have 2 launches a year for the 4 years. This approach will keep the bids low so that they get the 3rd launch.
The best and cheapest solution is to get Bigelow and ideally IDC, going with a unit or two to the ISS. By doing that, it enables the companies to get their stations going so that they can build full-out private stations. Once you have private stations going, it makes it possible for multiple private launch companies. At the same time, we need to restore the cuts to CCDEV that the neo-cons put on them. We NEED multiple human launch vehicles to space. It is killing us that we do not have that.
Finally, once this is going, then we simply recreate a new COTS-SHLV. Again, offer up money for up to 2 SHLVs of 140 tonnes. Say 5 billion each, with under
By doing this, it would enable private space to go to the moon. And they WANT to go.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
There will never be a Moon base, we will never live on Mars, get over it
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/category/space/
I can't wait for a fresh series of 18 more debates...
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
humans in general) have to set up a permanent presence on the Moon, Lagrange Points, etc. if we ever want to make sure our eggs are not just in 1 basket
If it is not self sustainable then it won't matter, and we are no where close to making a self sustainable environment even here on Earth where it would be easy in comparison.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Coincidentally today is NASA's day of remembrance for all those who lost their lives during the pursuit of space.
Tomorrow (Jan 27) marks the 45th anniversary of the Apollo 1 fire that killed Command Pilot Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Senior Pilot Edward H. White and Pilot Roger B. Chaffee.
Saturday (Jan 28) marks the 26th anniversary of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster that killed Greg Jarvis, Christa McAuliffe, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka Judith Resnik, Michael J. Smith and Dick Scobee.
Next Wednesday (Feb 1) marks the 9 anniversary of the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster that killed Rick D. Husband, William McCool, Michael P. Anderson, David M. Brown, Kalpana Chawla, Laurel B. Clark, and Ilan Ramon.
Also the following were killed during astronaut training: Theodore Freeman, Elliot See, Charles Bassett, Clifton "C.C." Williams, and Robert Lawrence.
The following are were killed during space flight or cosmonaut training: Vladimir Komarov, Georgi Dobrovolski, Viktor Patsayev, Vladislav Volkov, Valentin Bondarenko, Yuri Gagarin, and Sergei Vozovikov.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
I think that is actually a good idea second only to dump them into the sun.
should explain how they are going to get the rest of the party to agree to pay for it.
Because the current state of affairs is to butchers everything, give a free ride to corporations, and have the rich pay as close to nothing as they can.
Going to Space is not in the 'Neo cons' religious agenda.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'll believe him when he uses all the money he raised on his campaign as a down payment for it and shows a 3 year break-even analysis.
Newt's wedding vows were lies, for goodness sakes. Why would anybody expect even the slightest shred of truth in his campaign promises?
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." -- Mussolini
He just wants a moonbase so he can return to his people.
"Greetings, fellow moonmen! The earthlings have made me their leader. Victory is at hand!"
I see them all whine about "Obama's debt", when most of that debt was acquired during Bush's two year term. Now they want austerity here at home, and at the same time this clown is promising a moon base.
If Obama was truly the evil socialist dictator that a few right-wingers call him up-thread, then why can't the Republican party not find a serious candidate to run against him? Obama isn't perfect, but I'll take him over this side-show act, any day of the week.
Gingrich, campaign promises, space program, okay, with you so far... wait... did you just link to larouchepac.com? As in Lyndon LaRouche? You're kidding me right? Are you even pretending to be editors anymore? You might as well link to timecube.com. Holy crap.
We always knew Comcast was corrupt, here's the proof: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1909890&cid=34545432
Given that Republican candidates seem more intent on destroying each other than discussing ways to solve America's fundamental problems, it is not a surprise to see one of the candidates throw out a total red herring. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have shown they have any solution for America's devolving situation.
Linking to Lyndon LaRouche are we? As an example of a more ambitious sort of politician? Really? Read up on him first, guys.
In November will be a lot like watching a professional wrestler punch a baby. No entertainment value whatsoever. It'll just be pathetic. I'm not a Republican and even I don't want to see that. I wish Palin would jump back into the race. Right now I think she could pick up the nomination on the grounds that all those other guys suck, and the campaign would be tremendously fun to watch even if she loses.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Is it fair to stereotype Republican goals in space as being prestige-based, whereas Democrats are more often aimed at pragmatic applications (with Kennedy being the obvious exception)? Not that there is anything wrong with either approach; they just tend to be at odds in a tight budgetary environment.
-Bob-
What's the reason for a moon base?
To attract Florida voters so Newt's current rally in the primaries doesn't fissile.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Why would they care if they link to a nutjob like Larouche as long as he's saying something against someone they don't approve of? (And they don't get caught at it.)
Smuggled hit pieces (or not so smuggled) on slashdot are pretty common in election years.
it is not up to the Republican party to pick the leading candidate, that is for certain cartels to do.
Slashdotters should realize who exactly calls the shots on this globe, presidential elections are a facade
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/billionaire-expects-millions-gingrich-super-pac-source/story?id=15433505#.TyF_DavLaSA
If Gingrich was anything close to a "visionary", he'd be talking space elevator, not moon bases.
What he is, is a liar that will say anything to gain power for himself, and that's quite clear from his history. The American voter has a very short memory, though, which is why these tyrants keep coming back even after leaving in disgrace.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Democrats: We can't go back to the moon. It's wasteful and there's nothing there we haven't seen. A moon base would serve no real purpose. (And, it's become a Republican place.)
Republicans: We can't send a manned mission to Mars. It's far away, en route radiation is a problem and it would be another Apollo go there and stop mission. (And, it's become a Democrat place.)
Or, we can't fund that vehicle. It's a $other_party vehicle and it's not being built in my district.
They've been pulling this garbage for as long as there's been a space program. Reverse the parties, and or the planetary bodies/adjust the vehicle as needed.
We lack a way to sensibly judge and maintain technical programs without the most base of politics creating budget uncertainty and stretchouts leading to failure and cancellation.
It has shot us in the foot way too many times.
"Illinois has a much higher rate of political corruption than any other state"
That doesn't neccesarily follow.
We certainly have a higher rate of them being so brazen or foolish they get caught.
I'm not a fan of Newt in any way, but he's probably fairly serious about wanting to resuscitate space exploration. He's had a long friendship with science fiction author Jerry Pournelle, to the point that they almost collaborated on a book before Newt became Speaker of the House. But like Pournelle his vision for space is far more right-wing and militaristic than that of most people here on /. or in NASA I expect.
If it is not self sustainable then it won't matter, and we are no where close to making a self sustainable environment even here on Earth where it would be easy in comparison.
The moon is easily sustainable with less infrastructure than you would need to start any small town in America. A minor investment in asteroid mining could easily provide every non-organic extra not found on the moon. Seeding hydroponic farms could feed thousands of people within a single cycle of harvest with technology that is 40 years old and proven.
Instead of building a moonbase he should give NASA the money and let the scientists decide the most appropriate use of it.
Ok. I just watched the video linked to by "the moon seems like small potatoes".
WTF is she talking about?
Travel to Mars = equality as stated in the Declaration of Independance? Ok.. I kind of get her link between pursuit of happiness, survival of the species and continued progress. Still... that is one huge leap to tie these subjects together. It kind of reminds me of creationists talking about thermodynamics.
And bringing back the Glass Steagall Act in order to put an end to the British Empire? What British Empire? And what would the Glass Steagall Act have to do with it if there still was one? While we are at it perhaps we can defeat the Roman Empire with Roe vs Wade?
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Clinton was impeached. Impeach != removed from office
You may consult dictionary.com if you do not know the correct meaning of the word "impeach".
I think all politicians should be sent to outer space.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
I was "whining" about the debt that Bush and the Republican Congress was running up with undeclared wars and drug benefits to buy votes just like the Democrats do. The people controlling the Republican party are the same power grabbing sociopaths that are controlling the Democrats. If a candidate dares to mention how we should REALLY cut spending they are shunned and shouted down. The party mouthpieces have gotten themselves in a complete tizzy shouting down Ron Paul. They have treated the guy like a pariah from the very start.
Newt and Romney are both as full of shit as Obama, who:
1) Was negotiating to keep our troops in Iraq longer than the deadline set by Bush
2) In his latest SOTU address, restated once again that he was going to set up a task force to investigate wrongdoings of the CEOs of the companies that he voted to bail out. A claim he made immediately after getting elected.
3) Has consistently run away from having to take any political heat for cutting ANY government program.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
since you apparently are such an ignorant bagger that you consider everything to his left to be socialist.
There are a few "good apples" who get the rest too much sympathy for the public to do it. Ah, I'm talking about a minority so small that in many other areas it would amount to a rounding error.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
... but what they won't tell you is that the real purpose of the new `space station` will be to provide a haven of last resort for all the government officials when things on earth go to hell.
... stand aside!`
`Sorry sir, this spaceship is full
seriously, he's actually just saying ANYTHING here. if you actually believe newt would make any improvements to our space program you really should also expect to get a free pony when he's president too. (ahem, did i say when? let's hope we're all smarter than that. Ron Paul 2012 please.)
The long-run US federal deficit is an issue because of health care costs. Social security will push things up a bit, but only a bit (in fraction of GDP terms) Everything else, including NASA, is essentially noise.
So if you're arguing for spending to be kept at current levels, you're essentially proposing to get rid of some part of Mediare, Medicaid, or VA health (the most cost-effective health care system in the US, by the way, and 100% socialized medicine).. But here's the great part. While the cost to government might go down - your "spending" sacred cow - costs to individuals are going to go up more, because that tax-eating behemoth the federal government buys healthcare a lot more efficiently than the private sector does.
Implicit in Republican proposals to cut healthcare costs is the notion that poor people should just fuck off and die. The only "death panel" necessary is the one that checks whether your credit card is good.. Which would indeed solve the healthcare cost issues. Try articulating that in public, though.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Wow! Um, hmmm.
No way in hell can you do that on the moon if you can't even do it on earth.
A minor investment in asteroid mining? Minor? It would take trillions for us to get to the point that we can even begin to mine asteroids. And much more than that to start to be able to rely on it, and even more for it to be profitable.
Then you want to have a self sustainable hydroponic farm on the moon? Where a day is 29.5 days, so we are talking about nights that take around two weeks so solar is out, you'll need a nuclear reactor for it. At least until self sustainable fusion is developed, which hey they said 20 years ago it would only take 25 years to develop so we might have it ready by the time we think about making a moon base.
People complain about space nutters on this website, I tend to think they are blowing things out of proportion, but perhaps they were just reading your posts.
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
The question is whether the money would be well spent compared to, I dunno, just about anything else.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
This is a critically important point that often gets ignored. Perjury isn't just lying, it's lying about something materially relevant to the case. The whole Clinton impeachment scandal was a Republican machination with two goals only: To embarrass Clinton and increase the chances of winning in 2000. He was acquitted, as he should have been, of the charge. The only reason why 45 Republican senators voted guilty on the perjury charge was because they were so desperate to win in 2000.
. .
You need to be able to raise staggering sums of money. That doesn't mean you are well qualified to be President but it is a prerequisite to attaining that office.
In fact, if you're a democrat and you would rather stick with the evil you know as opposed to the the evil that is likely to come, you should have registered republican and voted in one of the primaries for Gingrich. All three other candidates might be able to have a chance against Obama (which is SOOOO pathetic since Obama's approval rating is awful... if there was anyone decent, they'd be a sure winner) but Gingrich can't garner democrat votes since all Obama supporter have to do is play commercials with Gingrich bashing them. He's equally hard on the independents and well anyone who isn't republican. These days, he's even hard on other republicans.
His biggest accomplishment he brags about throughout the primaries is that he manages to establish a house of representatives with a big enough majority that he could leave over 50% of American unrepresented and laws could be passed through congress without debate or opposition. In addition, this lasted nearly 2 full years while a republican president was in office as well leaving the only road block being the senate and even though it was a democrat senate, it wasn't enough. That and the fact that most of the seats on the supreme court had been filled by republican presidents as well meant that he claims to be very nearly responsible for undermining the entire system of checks and balances which are in place to protect the American people from poor leadership.
Obama wouldn't even have to campaign against Gingrich. Just play back some commercials with Gingrich talking.
But there are a TON of people who would vote for him. He knows how to splurt populist buzzwords. He looks like a fat old church minister and will have no problem preaching to the Baptists, Methodists and Catholics. He'll play the Muslim card against Obama which no matter how many times people clear that up, people still are dumb enough to believe because you can show videos of Obama making jokes about the content of the Christian bible. Sure, Gingrich is a sinner and he "Feels terrible about it!" but that's not the issue! The issue is Obama does not love Jesus the way Gingrich does! Let the sinless man cast the first stone!
Obama tries to talk to the people in a way which treats them as bright intelligent people. (of course, he stabs them in the back by approving things like ACTA and letting everything he does get earmarked to death by the first republican to see it), but, crazily enough, though he hasn't stopped the national debt from growing, he has managed to make it grow less which in itself is just short of a miracle with what he was given to work with. His state of the union suggests doing things like taking unemployment money and paying it to companies to move jobs from China to the U.S. effectively just using that money to subsidize the American jobs, but it doesn't take into consideration that logistics and raw materials are the real problems, not the cost of employment. Those U.S. companies still need to ship their products elsewhere and the U.S. lacks the infrastructure to do so cost effectively. The U.S. also has laws and regulations about poisonous gasses that make it impossible to recover metals from old things cost effectively (and this is a GOOD thing). So, moving manufacturing jobs to America through tax breaks sounds wonderful, but his plan is useless and unsustainable and fixes nothing. On the other hand, the other guys plans such more.
Gingrich talks to people as if they're members of his church. In America, THIS WORKS. But, Obama's campaign should have no problem dealing with that. If any of the other three make it past the primaries, Obama will have to struggle because they're all about as shitty a he is.
Gingrich came to the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. Wanting votes in FL, a big space program is a great selling point. The moon is the most logical place to colonize next. Being able to run home to mother earth, but also gaining the needed knowledge to exist off earth. Obama's plans are purposefully far into the future, underfunded and probably not obtainable without increased knowledge.
Being a Ron Paul supporter NASA activates my hypocrisy gene, which gives me an awful itchy feeling about the bureaucracy yet a warm fuzzy feeling when I think about people on the moon. I would love to see the space industry under more and more private hands with private money, but like 'international waters' space will have government military presence, like it or not.
Politicians have grand ideas about space, but no one cares what they say because none of it is really true. Obama could care less about space. Bush truly stood behind his ideas, but didn't execute. Once there is a way to recover the cost of leaving the earth, private industry will push us forward and that will be when things will likely get interesting.
"In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"
Republicans are basically saying their chances of actually winning government are about as good as America putting a base on the moon in the next 5 years.