Gingrich promises JFK-like space speech; Wants to offer prizes to priave businesses who make advancm
64 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Could it be a coincidence that GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich describes his upcoming speech on space policy Wednesday as a "visionary" address "in the John F. Kennedy tradition?"
Perhaps not. After all 2012 is the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's iconic "we choose to go to the moon in this decade" speech, where he performed a presidential Babe Ruth. Like the Sultan of Swat, Kennedy dared to point out a seemingly impossible goal and swing for it - hitting a home run.
[B]Gingrich, aiming to maintain political momentum after Saturday's primary victory in South Carolina, is expected to outline his vision for America in space following the U.S. loss of its more than 30-year-old shuttle program.
[/B]
Reversing the falling numbers of Florida’s space-affiliated jobs will be a likely message of Gingrich's speech, say industry experts. But more than that, they say the address will be Gingrich's chance to make a very public and detailed commitment to what American space exploration might look like under a Gingrich administration.
The former House speaker offered a hint during Monday’s debate when he suggested cutting bureaucratic fat from NASA and [B]using cash prizes as incentives to reach national space goals.
[/B]“There’s every reason to believe that there’s a lot of folks in this country and around the world who would put up an amazing amount of money and would make the Space Coast literally hum with activity because they’d be drawn to achieve these prizes: going back to the moon permanently, getting to Mars as rapidly as possible, building a series of space stations and developing commercial space,” Gingrich said. “There are a whole series of things we could do that could be dynamic that are more than just better government bureaucracy.”
The idea would save Washington hundreds of billions of dollars, says top Gingrich adviser and ex-Pennsylvania Rep. Bob Walker. [B]“It may well be that if we put a prize on the table that encouraged entrepreneurs and adventurers to go do it - and develop all the technologies - that we ought to offer them a prize that would be worth their while.”
[/B]Now age 68, Gingrich’s generation came of age as America’s space program triumphed over troubled growing pains to achieve historic orbital successes during the Mercury and Gemini manned space missions.
Those who know Gingrich well say he sees space exploration in sweeping historical terms - a new frontier as important as the Old West and comparable to the building of the transcontinental railroad.
"He's not for tripling the NASA budget,” says James Muncy, longtime Gingrich adviser and friend. “He's for investing in space in a way that will open the frontier and make it possible for more and more Americans over time to go live there and work there and prosper there."
Early in Gingrich’s congressional tenure he supported increases in NASA’s budget. He supported funding for the International Space Station and worked with President Clinton to preserve funding in the 1990s.
However, now, that support for funding NASA appears to have diminished.
[B]At a GOP debate last summer, Gingrich accused NASA's bureaucracy of wasting hundreds of billions of dollars since the 1969 moon landing. Without the waste, he said the U.S. “would probably today have a permanent station on the moon, three or four permanent stations in space, a new generation of lift vehicles." Instead, NASA has produced "failure after failure," he said.
[/B]Gingrich’s presidential rival, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, has warmed up to space exploration as Florida’s Tuesday primary closes in.
During a December debate, some say Romney appeared to mock the former House Speaker’s support for future lunar mining colonies. "I'm not in favor of spending that kind of money to do that," Romney told Gingrich.
At Monday’s debate in Florida, Romney said space exploration “should certainly be a priority.”
[B]Then Romney went on to blame Obama, saying his lack of “plans for NASA” have “failed miserably the people of Florida.”
[/B]
He called for NASA’s mission to be determined by a president and a collection of people from NASA, Air Force, universities and commercial enterprises. Romney called for a mission that “excites our young people about the potential of space” with commercial potential” that “will pay for itself down the road.”
Space industry analyst Jeff Foust of spacepolitics.com told CNN that Romney was talking about a "centralized, in some respect, space program centered on NASA but also bringing in the military and commercial sectors to help select priorities and to help fund those programs. Gingrich is talking basically about getting rid of a lot of the NASA bureaucracy setting out some large prizes and telling the private sector, 'OK get to it.' That's a fairly strong contrast between the two."
Another GOP candidate, Rick Santorum, has been virtually silent on space issues, says Foust, although he may offer insight into his space policy views during this week's Florida campaign stops. Likewise, Ron Paul hasn't said a whole lot about it, Foust says. "His Libertarian political philosophy would suggest that he would be opposed to big government programs." But Foust says Paul has voted in Congress to support some NASA programs.
President Obama cut NASA’s Constellation program - which was aimed at returning Americans to the moon - but preserved Orion, a multi-purpose manned space vehicle designed for long distance missions.
Two years ago, Gingrich came out in support for Obama’s 2011 NASA budget in an editorial co-authored by Walker. Specifically, the two praised a proposed program to allow private companies to transport astronauts to and from the International Space Station.
[B]NASA’s 2012 budget – $17.8 billion – is about the same as 2009’s – the final budget hammered out during the Bush administration.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Source: [url]http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/24/gingrich-promises-jfk-like-space-speech/?hpt=hp_t2[/url]
Can a mod fix the typo in the title? "Priave" should be "Private"
I like the idea of private companies being able to send people in to space. A private company would probably be able to do it cheaper, faster, and more safely than NASA, considering NASA's record.
[editline]24th January 2012[/editline]
However I don't think that space should be solely a private venture. Government funded scientists should still be studying the universe, in space when possible.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34375330]I like the idea of private companies being able to send people in to space. A private company would probably be able to do it cheaper, faster, and more safely than NASA, considering NASA's record.[/QUOTE]
And won't be tied down to a beaucratic budget storm at the mercy of political ideology.
Fuck finding life on other planets. Let's send some millionaires into space!
Failure after failure?
A bit exaggerated isn't it? He should get a list of all the things NASA has achieved. Hell, even private space corporations are supported/have contracts with NASA.
[QUOTE=Stockers678;34375361]Fuck finding life on other planets. Let's send some millionaires into space![/QUOTE]
Sending millionaires into space is the first step to sending [i]us[/i] into space.
[editline]24th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Swebonny;34375363]Failure after failure?
A bit exaggerated isn't it? He should get a list of all the things NASA has achieved. Hell, even private space corporations are supported/have contracts with NASA.[/QUOTE]
Political speech is full of exaggerations. Newt isn't that unique by exaggerating, hell, Obama does it too.
[QUOTE=Swebonny;34375363]Failure after failure?
A bit exaggerated isn't it? He should get a list of all the things NASA has achieved. Hell, even private space corporations are supported/have contracts with NASA.[/QUOTE]
It's exaggerated for past accomplishments but you don't really hear about NASA in the news very often anymore for great achievements like you did in the 60s and 70s.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34375369]Sending millionaires into space is the first step to sending [i]us[/i] into space.[/QUOTE]
Not really, without profit, a single flight would cost tens of thousands of dollars to run.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34375330]I like the idea of private companies being able to send people in to space. A private company would probably be able to do it cheaper, faster, and more safely than NASA, considering NASA's record.[/QUOTE]
And then one company cuts corners and shows that corporations can't be trusted.
[QUOTE=Stockers678;34375417]Not really, without profit, a single flight would cost tens of thousands of dollars to run.[/QUOTE]
History shows that fresh, new products are always expensive in its infancy. After a while (probably a long while for this), prices will eventually drop.
Just look at the cost of a computer in the 80s compared to one today.
[QUOTE=Stockers678;34375417]Not really, without profit, a single flight would cost tens of thousands of dollars to run.[/QUOTE]
That's why they find cheaper methods of flying people into space. A company would want to gain profit from the poorer people who want to go into space, that greed spurs innovation.
[editline]24th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=VengfulSoldier;34375423]And then one company cuts corners and shows that corporations can't be trusted.[/QUOTE]
It's better for one company to cut corners than NASA, which it is known for doing.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34375434]That's why they find cheaper methods of flying people into space. A company would want to gain profit from the poorer people who want to go into space, that greed spurs innovation.[/QUOTE]
I love healthy competition, it's win-win for everyone <3
Well, I hope people realize that NASA being a failure is a bit of an opiniony statement. I just can't find anything to fucking like about Newt...even with this sort of aspiration from him. I wish I bitched at him at least a little when I saw him walking in to a restaurant to eat here in NH. He was right fucking there, and I just figured I would make an unnecessary scene talking to him, so I restrained myself.
only a few million in NASA's budget = THEY FAIL.
[QUOTE=NO ONE;34375453]Well, I hope people realize that NASA being a failure is a bit of an opiniony statement. I just can't find anything to fucking like about Newt...even with this sort of aspiration from him. I wish I bitched at him at least a little when I saw him walking in to a restaurant to eat here in NH. He was right fucking there, and I just figured I would make an unnecessary scene talking to him, so I restrained myself.[/QUOTE]
The media loves unnecessary scenes around dumb politicians, you should have done it. Coulda became famous
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34375428]History shows that fresh, new products are always expensive in its infancy. After a while (probably a long while for this), prices will eventually drop.
Just look at the cost of a computer in the 80s compared to one today.[/QUOTE]
That's not entirely true. Gas has been around for a long time, yet it is more expensive. Since rockets use a great amount of fuel, a price raise on the fuel by even 1 cent per gallon would cost at least thousands more to go into space.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34375480]The media loves unnecessary scenes around dumb politicians, you should have done it. Coulda became famous[/QUOTE]
There was no media around though.
I agree with him that privately funded space ventures are the way to go now, but I disagree that NASA has been a failure since the moon landings. Yeah, they haven't done anything massive. But massive projects require massive budgets. When NASA was performing the moonlandings, they had almost 4.5 percent of the entire federal budget to use. Now they have less then .5 percent. They are doing passive, safe research now because that's what they've been limited to.
I've a better idea, how about you don't spend at least €700 BILLION on military and wars and give that money to NASA instead? We'd be on Mars ages ago if that's how it was done.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;34375490]That's not entirely true. Gas has been around for a long time, yet it is more expensive. Since rockets use a great amount of fuel, a price raise on the fuel by even 1 cent per gallon would cost at least thousands more to go into space.[/QUOTE]
Resource prices tend to rise; technology tends to get cheaper
Personally I believe we should keep NASA but reorganize NASA so that it regulates space flight rather than attempts it. Companies are great and all at making things cheaper, but you can't exactly trust them to keep up to regulations. Especially if they can save money by cutting corners.
[QUOTE=NO ONE;34375492]There was no media around though.[/QUOTE]
Damn \:
[QUOTE=Hidole555;34375490]That's not entirely true. Gas has been around for a long time, yet it is more expensive.[/quote]
Gas? As in Petrol or Natural Gas? Either way, is it more expensive relative to median wage, inflation, or any of those types of factors?
Either way:
[quote]Since rockets use a great amount of fuel, a price raise on the fuel by even 1 cent per gallon would cost at least thousands more to go into space.[/QUOTE]
Rockets do not require petrol(assuming that is what you are talking about). They use rocket fuel, which is mainly...liquid nitrogen(someone correct me on this, I'm sure it's not correct).
[QUOTE=darkrei9n;34375528]Personally I believe we should keep NASA but reorganize NASA so that it regulates space flight rather than attempts it. Companies are great and all at making things cheaper, but you can't exactly trust them to keep up to regulations. Especially if they can save money by cutting corners.[/QUOTE]
Take money out of NASA
Give it to DARPA
Say, "See the moon boy? SICK!"
Watch us colonize the moon by 2014 :v:
[QUOTE=Techno-Man;34375511]I've a better idea, how about you don't spend at least €700 BILLION on military and wars and give that money to NASA instead? We'd be on Mars ages ago if that's how it was done.[/QUOTE]
You can't just give money to an organization. If NASA is being mismanaged(here's a hint: it is), then that money is a waste.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34375330]I like the idea of private companies being able to send people in to space. A private company would probably be able to do it cheaper, faster, and more safely than NASA, considering NASA's record.[/QUOTE]
Well, private companies barely have a record at all so I wouldn't claim they'd do better than NASA just yet
[QUOTE=Clavus;34375555]Well, private companies barely have a record at all so I wouldn't claim they'd do better than NASA just yet[/QUOTE]
I'm just saying that it wouldn't be hard to beat NASA's record. Also, private companies tend to have a better record than government organizations in ideal circumstances anyways.
Oh really, NASA has a disappointing record?
I can't imagine how something that only gets 0.6% of the budget has underperformed.
I'd still like to see more private spaceflight, but NASA has its purpose.
In my opinion we need someone that is separate from human trifles and have more computational resources to get us into space and connect us to extraterrestrial civilizations
we must create that which can create
that is why I have decided to devote my life to the making of ai
[QUOTE=Clavus;34375555]Well, private companies barely have a record at all so I wouldn't claim they'd do better than NASA just yet[/QUOTE]
Private enterprise into space is still very far in its infancy, I wouldn't really make a judgement like that just yet.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.