Slashdot Mirror
Lunar Base Foe Romney Endorsed By Lunar Base Supporters
MarkWhittington writes "Mitt Romney has infamously suggested that the idea of lunar colonies is 'zany' and has ridiculed Newt Gingrich's idea of building a lunar base by 2020. However Romney has been endorsed by a group of aerospace heavyweights, including Apollo moonwalker Gene Cernan and former NASA administrator Mike Griffin, many of whom have previously supported the idea of lunar bases."
Newsflash! Many people don't base their endorsements on a single issue! News at 11! Despite Romney opposing lunar bases, these folks think the space policy will be better under Romney. I don't know if I agree, but I certainly don't think it's ideologically inconsistent for a group to support a candidate despite disagreeing on one thing.
His biggest challenge right now is Newt Gingrich. And so he ridicules Newt as a way to take whatever votes he can. Newt has been thinking about space and technology for decades, whereas Mitt only knows talking points. It is a common tactic in politics to attack your opponent on his weakness and his strengths. Mitts attacks have nothing to do with the merits of lunar colonies, only beating Newt and winning Florida. Romney is a liar who says whatever is necessary to win.
It's not a new idea. George W. Bush of all people was probably the first president to suggest with a straight face a manned moon station.
it will not happen not because it is a wacky idea, but because there's too much money to be made on earth from terrestrial wars and bank-sanctioned Ponzi-schemes.
Frankly, Obama has done a bang up job and the Republican field is piss poor and is down to a bunch of former losers. The president's job is limited, and that was done on purpose to prevent any man from having too much power. For the most part, it doesn't matter what any candidates aspirations are, because if it goes against the other political bodies it will never happen.
My dad says "Anyone but Obama", but he can't ever seem to remember a good reason why. I can think of several reasons to not vote for both Republican front-runners although honestly the ones that stick out in my mind the most have less to do with their policies and plans and more to do with the kind of people they are.
Oh that's easy, we just won't fund Medicare or fulfill our obligations to the Social Security system.
Now, just to be clear on this: Small deficits don't matter. Working under a small deficit means more liquidity, a stronger economy, and therefore more growth, which means you'll be able to pay off more debt later, so you can afford a bigger deficit now, meaning more liquidity...
Once you start dealing with a deficit that's bigger than what you can reasonably expect to grow, you're in deep trouble. We've been operating with far too large a deficit for far too long, made worse by the recession.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
The election is still MANY MONTHS away. Don't play the election cycle game.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
Romney has won a single primary. He isn't even in the lead of delegates, but the media keep trying to shove him down our throats as if no one else is in the race.
Disagree with their politics or not, Newt, Paul and Santorum are still in this race.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Balancing the budget most years really would be a good idea. Trying to maintain liquidity using fiscal policy doesn't really make sense; there are better ways to do that. It's true that balancing the budget every year is foolhardy, but we should probably be balanced or running a slight surplus something like five years of every seven (in harmony with the business cycle). The only deficit spending that really helps is what automatically happens in response to crises: more people come within the scope of government assistance programs and people pay less taxes because of lower income. The deficit spending that comes as a political reaction to crises is really too late to make much of a difference in the short term and is detrimental in the long run.
The basic problem is that Congresscritters have little incentive to think about what makes sense in the long run.
Then they can blame the "greedy" companies for the rise in prices.
It's like blaming high oil prices on oil companies. It is purely a coincidence that six of the top ten all time best profits recorded by a company in a year just happen to be Exxon. And it is entirely another coincidence that these six record busting years occurred in the last 6 years.
It's totally a coincidence that Corporate America have had 2 of their best years in history in the last couple of years. That they have more cash on hand than when... well ever. But yeah, the system is totally working. Power to the rich, they deserve it. I mean who cares if the economy goes in the shitter, as long as some people are getting richer then the system is working.
NASA 2010 budget - $18,724,000,000
DoD 2010 spending - $680,000,000,000
There's room for a lot more spending on space if we change our priorities.
DoD spending was actually over budget in 2010.
This guy will literally say anything to get elected.
Seeing as how the next primary is in Florida, it seems like being for a lunar base and other NASA projects would more likely be pandering.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
they accept the idea that we (as a country) would be better off postponing something like that until we can afford it, despite how badly they would like to see it done.
Newt isn't saying we should have some giant expensive government funded plan to get a colony on the moon.
He is saying, outlay a small portion of government funds on X-Prize style contests that get the private industry heavily involved and motivated to go into space. Over time there would be a significant build up of people living on the moon for commercial purposes, and when there were enough he would welcome an application to become a state. Is that so crazy?
Regardless of other ideas, this is the best way to leverage government funds to get a desired result. Rather than spend a ton of money on well connected green energy programs (for example), it would be far better to outlay a prize for some level of target efficiency in solar panels. Then companies that can ACTUALLY PRODUCE RESULTS instead of writing applications get the money. That is a far better outcome, and it would work really well to fire up R&D across the nation with different similar proposals.
Newt has a lot of issues in other regards but at least he has vision. Romney and Obama are just politicians through and through, just a shell of promises.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Um yeah maybe, I know what TANSTAFFL means but that was in 1970 and the world is a bit different now. If Iranian forces on the moon lobbed a rock at NYC the US would obliterate Tehran before the rock was half way here. The throwing rocks scenario worked because the lunar rebbels were outcasts with no relatives back home.
Additionally I reckon the US retains a military capability to operate on the lunar surface and in low lunar orbit, even if this capability does not add up to the ability to create a civilian presence there.
The lessons from Apollo were learned and the technology was relatively simple. I doubt enemy forces could dig themselves in fast enough to survive bomardment from Earth and retain the capability to fight back.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Actually, no. Many presidents suggested it. And like W, none of them funded it.
.5B to launch. In addition, these companies will be awarded 2 launches a year for 5 years. However, the lower bid will get to launch 3 launches a year (at the same cost / launch).
Interestingly, the one who is the closest is O. The reason is that he is pushing private space for getting there. Newt is correct that we can be there within 2 terms if we push private space. The reason is that we have the base itself mostly done (bigelow and IDC Dover). Combine with that the work that has been done on the ISS.
So, what is missing? Heavy launch, transportation to/from lunar surface and a way to fund it. Yet, this is trivial.
Multiple companies are now working on VTVL. What is needed is a competition for these to lift 20 tonnes to 100Km or more and land it under power on earth. Then do this 5 x without a re-build.
Hold a COTS-SHLV for 2 vehicles that will take up 125 tonnes to LEO. Each vehicle will be given 5 billion for development, and must costs below
How much would this cost? A fraction of what SLS will costs to develop. Interestingly, once this is going, it is cheap to go. Why? Because it is private space. They sell trips to the moon for multiple nations, including America.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Are you on crack? We've spent over a trillion dollars on those wars and continue to spend at nearly $100b/yr on new, permanent deployments. You also neglected that most of the entitlement spending is taken care of by FICA taxes and under honest account SS is not a budget problem. DoD dominates discretionary budget. Cut the fucking weasel words, "small fraction" bullshit. You know the numbers: 20% of the budget is directly DoD, about another 9% is indirectly DoD (homeland security, bulk of the DoE budget is nuclear arms, new state dept crap in the gulf, foreign assistance), and nearly 4% is just the interest is prior war spending. $9-10 trillion of the total federal debt is due to increased defense spending, and poorly planned mandates, and ideologically driven, yet catastrophically stupid tax cuts, and recent bailouts. Fuck you ideologically programmed intellectually dishonest asshole.
On May 25, 1961, John F. Kennedy committed the United States of America to landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth, by the end of the decade (1970). On July 16, 1969, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Mike Collins lifted off from Cape Kennedy. Four days later, Neil and Buzz landed the "Eagle" in the Sea of Tranquility. When Kennedy made that speech, the experts in the field were convinced he was out of his mind: the United States had not yet put a man in orbit. (John Glenn, Mercury-Atlas 6, 20 Feb 1962. Wikipedia has its uses sometimes.) It was at that time known that men COULD be put in orbit and recovered safely (Yuri Gagarin, 12 April 1961), but that was about it.
On December 7, 1941, Japan attacked the United States Navy, at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. V-J day was August 15, 1945. (There was this small matter in Europe that had to be handled first.) Take a look sometime at the number of new airplanes that were developed, flown, and fielded in quantity during those four years. Take a look at the electronics development that took place.
Eight years is longer than you realize.
Building a Moon base/colony without a sustainable infrastructure to support it would be wildly expensive and wasteful. We need low cost transportation to space, and to learn how to "live off the land" (extract energy and materials in space).
The Moon is big and obvious in the night sky, but it is not the closest place in in terms of fuel to reach. Some near Earth objects have lower delta-V to get to, and all of that delta-V can use efficient electric thrusters instead of inefficient chemical ones for Lunar lander rockets. The first thing you want to extract from NEOs is fuel, but you can get 98% of everything you need to support yourself in space by mining and chemical extraction. The remaining 2% comes from Earth, but combined with launch costs that are not measured in their weight in precious metals, then you can afford a Lunar base, not before.