Poll

Are you supportive - or not - of the claims made by Newt Gingrich on a Lunar Base (as he outlined)

Supportive
Non-Supportive
Undecided

Author Topic: POLL: The Newt Gingrich Lunar Base Claim - SINGLE POST THREAD  (Read 14191 times)

Offline scienceguy

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 836
  • Lethbridge, Alberta
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 279
I'm not an American, but I'm glad to see an American politician finally announce a goal with a destination and a timeline.
e^(pi*i) = -1

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 68
Gotta take more risks.

I'm all for what he said.

NASA has become too safe and this means they move slower than a snail.

Shuttle was the age of learning on orbit assembly. This shouldn't mean NASA has to go back to super heavy lift rockets that launch everything in giant chunks.

It's amazing what you can do with a robot arm and an EVA suit.

Lunar cranes can lift a good amount for their size in the low gravity.

Landers, depots, departure stages, habs and rovers could all be launched on rockets available today and if/when there is demand for bigger payloads EELV upgrades and FH will come along to meet that demand.

I'm not saying NASA shouldn't have a SLS. Just that it shouldn't be a priority to make a shuttle derived rocket. It's already causing problems knowing that none of the hardware for the real thing is being developed yet and it's just really ripping the shuttles to bits for a couple of test flights. This is clearly a tragedy. I'm not a shuttle hugger or anything but at least one of these great machines should've been kept around just to keep ATK happy with their solids contracts and give the USA less of a gap between HSF capabilities. Build the SLS properly to the capability that is required for Mars missions in 2030. That might not even be 130mt especially if you can get lots of help from big commercial launchers by then. Who knows if SpaceX will ever build a BFR but they might be more inclined to do so after having sold many FH launches helping build a moon base.

Develop the technology (again) for landing on another planetary body knowing this time there is a real push for a Mars forward approach. Things like long term life support systems, rovers and suits can be tested in the field.

Is it possible in the timeframe?

I believe it is, even if that is just the first astronaut starting the first 6-12 month shift at a newly completed minimal hab setup in November 2020 which seems to be the minimum that would fall into his "by the end of 2nd term promise".

He never said how big the base has to be and it could be expanded by international partners later in much the same way modules have been added to ISS.

I somewhat like his idea of prizes. GLXP is obviously way too cheap to complete the mission. Billion dollar prizes would get things moving at lightning speed.

Technology programs getting cut is a big problem. Gotta offer incentives for innovation in an age where there is no Apollo giant driving it.
« Last Edit: 01/28/2012 02:52 am by spectre9 »

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Yes I am supportive of a Lunar Base.


Do I think such a program should be all government based? No because that won't last more than a year on paper before being cut.

Do I think the Speaker is maybe trolling for votes? Yes he probably is but he also likes grandiose ideas. That's in his personality. So would he really try and do this? Yes probably.


So yes supportive of a base but not the way he wants to do it. Cannot do things like this without the private sector involved and a commercial reason to do it. We know that now.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Xplor

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 253
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Very supportive of the concept.  This should be pursued with NASA/Industry/foreign partnership.

I concur with Bill's comments:
In addition, while there is much in what Newt Gingrich stands for that I deeply oppose, his call for a moon base wins my admiration.

I believe Newt's call will definitely help drive the discussion forward.

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 1
Not supportive (as he outlined)

1: Maximum use of private enterprise: good, but
2: Schedule is really too optimistic
3: Prizes will not be as effective as he claims:  http://willscommonplacebook.blogspot.com/2012/01/problem-with-prizes.html
4: Trying to develop a high power VASIMR system simultaneously is madness
5: Selling Congress on #1 will be very, very, very difficult. I don't think Newt has the temperament to pull it off.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
I am supportive. But I think that the prize idea would have to be modified. If you think of prizes as essentially "milestones payments", Newt's plan starts to make a lot more sense. Having only one big prize $10B or $20B doesn't make much sense. But having progressive prizes based on the achievement of various milestones makes more sense for both NASA (its budget expenses would be more stable) and the commercial company (its revenues would be more stable). Given that Newt said that 10% of NASA's budget would be allocated to prizes, I suspect that he is open to the idea of having progressive milestones prizes.
« Last Edit: 01/31/2012 05:23 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
I'm supportive but I wish this was coming from someone who actually has a past history of accomplishing good things.

Offline jeklund

  • Member
  • Posts: 30
  • Space lurker
  • KC, MO
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 12
I am encouraged that he at least has a vision of GOING somewhere.  Presidents are not about details, they are about having ideas and telling someone to go do it.  (i.e. Kennedy)   
All this other crap about studies and BFRs with no place to go is a waste of money.  And, no, LEO is not a destination. 

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Had to vote no because he went too far. Even the base in 8 or 9 years is pushing the envelope, but all the rhetoric about a lunar colony as 51st state was likely seen by the public as so over the top that they stopped listening and perhaps even moved in the opposite direction a bit. He gave Romney plenty of fodder in that approach.

He could have done much better this way. Lay out a list of ways Apollo accelerated the development of technology in many areas,. State that he would make Americans on Mars within 15 years of his inauguration (1-20-2028) or perhaps July 4, 2026 (U.S. 250th birthday) the primary goal of HSFP. State that it would be up to NASA to determine how to design the rockets, equipment, and mission profile. State that it isn't just to go there and say we'd done it but that research and science would be primary. State that it would give the U.S. an avenue to reclaim dominance in science and technology. (I am not saying we are not dominant there, but the public perceives we are not.) This would have made his plan seem reasonable, reachable, and realistic.

As it is, I think he lost an opportunity, just making himself seem like a loony lunatic lost in lunacy. Romney can now joke that we should send Newt to Luna.
« Last Edit: 02/01/2012 02:39 am by TomH »

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
I see NASA put out a video showing its Moon base technology.


Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1