Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Moon Republicans Politics

Lunar Base Foe Romney Endorsed By Lunar Base Supporters 318

Posted by timothy
from the let's-just-howl-at-each-other-instead dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lunar Base Foe Romney Endorsed By Lunar Base Supporters

Comments Filter:
  • by Haven (34895) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @12:06AM (#38854179) Homepage Journal

    Then I remember he signed up for the circus.

    • by DanielRavenNest (107550) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @02:23PM (#38858603)

      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.

  • by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Sunday January 29, 2012 @12:08AM (#38854187)

    This guy will literally say anything to get elected.

    • by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @12:14AM (#38854233) Homepage Journal
      It's not [nationalgeographic.com] 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.
      • by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Sunday January 29, 2012 @12:32AM (#38854319) Homepage Journal

        George W. Bush of all people was probably the first president to suggest with a straight face a manned moon station.

        In Texas, a "Manned Moon Station" is 4 oz whole milk, 2 oz of Bourbon and a jigger of grain alcohol, served over shaved ice. With a tiny American flag.

        The former President thought he was ordering an aperitif.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by jensend (71114)

        A moon base may not be all that wacky an idea, but building it within 8 years is ridiculous. Ambitious schedules for the Constellation program would barely have had manned launches by then, and we've let that project rot for two years now. I don't think we could have a base finished by 2020 even if we were spending 5x NASA's current budget on the project. We'd have to be spending completely ridiculous sums to even have a chance at making it happen that fast.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29, 2012 @01:07AM (#38854509)

          NASA 2010 budget - $18,724,000,000 [wikipedia.org]
          DoD 2010 spending - $680,000,000,000 [wikipedia.org]

          There's room for a lot more spending on space if we change our priorities.
          DoD spending was actually over budget in 2010.

          • I don't see a republican president moving money from the bottom row to the top row. More likely it will be more money pumped into the military to fund gulf war v3.0.0

        • by john.r.strohm (586791) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @01:20PM (#38858181)

          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.

      • by WindBourne (631190) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @10:12AM (#38856981) Journal
        Actually, no. Many presidents suggested it. And like W, none of them funded it.

        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 .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).

        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.
    • by Gerzel (240421)

      In other words he is a politician?

    • by onefriedrice (1171917) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @01:50AM (#38854727)

      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.

  • Newsflash... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hal2814 (725639) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @12:08AM (#38854189)
    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.
  • by Beelzebud (1361137) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @12:09AM (#38854193)
    Funny how "Deficits don't matter" (Dick Cheney) once the Republicans want to do something.
    • by Sarten-X (1102295) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @12:17AM (#38854247) Homepage

      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.

      • by Beelzebud (1361137) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @12:19AM (#38854263)
        Now, just to be clear on this: When Dick Cheney said that, they had already ballooned the deficit by trillions of dollars. He wasn't talking about "small deficits".
        • by Sarten-X (1102295)
          True, but the last several comments I've seen bring up deficits have all been followed by various rants about balancing the budget perfectly, and how all debt is terrible, and China's going to own us, et cetera. I'm hoping to help avoid the same misinformation.
          • by jensend (71114) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @01:03AM (#38854485)

            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.

        • by cdecoro (882384)

          ...they had already ballooned the deficit by trillions of dollars.

          No, that's not quite correct; they had not (yet) ballooned the deficit (I assume you mean debt) by "trillions" of dollars (defined as two trillion or more). He said that to Paul O'Neil in December 2002:

          http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm [ontheissues.org]

          In the last year of the Clinton administration (FY 2000) the debt was 5.6 trillion. At the end of the last fiscal year before that statement, (FY 2003, ending October 1, 2002) the debt was 6.7 trillion, which is an increase of just over a single

          • by Beelzebud (1361137) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @01:01AM (#38854481)
            That's because for the first time since the Iraq war was started, it was put on the budget, and not in an "emergency supplement"...
            • we all know those silly 'bean counters' contribute nothing to society. other than pointing out there were trillions of dollars hiding on some balance sheet that the government lied about. but hey. do accountants ever make cool apps for cellphones? dont think so.

            • That's because for the first time since the Iraq war was started, it was put on the budget, and not in an "emergency supplement"...

              Not really true. It may not have been part of discretionary budget, and it may have been allocated separate from the budget, but it was still part of federal spending, and still part of the deficit - the government has take in or borrow everything it spends, whether it's part of the budget or not. In fact, since 2009, congress hasn't passed a budget AT ALL, but they are still spending money, and still borrowing, and it's all part of the treasury department accounting.

        • Do you know the difference between the debt and the deficit? One is cumulative, the other is one-year.

          For the record, I voted for Bush Jr. but regretted it when he turned in the 500B deficit. I voted for Obama but regretted it when he started turning in his 1.5T deficits. I just can't win...

        • Now, just to be clear on this: When Dick Cheney said that, they had already ballooned the deficit by trillions of dollars. He wasn't talking about "small deficits".

          The deficit was never over $1 trillion until the 2009 budget.

  • Romney is a liar (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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.
  • Funding (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jeremi (14640) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @12:11AM (#38854211) Homepage

    Will we be raising taxes to pay for all of this cool space stuff, or just putting it on the credit card as usual?

    • Re:Funding (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Beelzebud (1361137) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @12:15AM (#38854239)
      Oh that's easy, we just won't fund Medicare or fulfill our obligations to the Social Security system.
      • by JWW (79176)

        You're correct, we won't. Spending on a moonbsase would be an order of magnitude lower than funding Social Security.

        Whether we build a moonbsase or not really has almost no bearing on the deficit. Yes, Social Security expenditures dwarf NASA spending by that much.

        • by AK Marc (707885)
          Social Security took in about $200,000,000,000 more than it spent last year. But, of course, turning in a $200 Billion profit indicates it's about to go under and people talking about eliminating SS never mention covering the lost revenue. SS is still smaller than Defense (so long as all defense is added together, and discretionary and "emergency" defense isn't separated, as it often is on paper). SS pulls its own weight. I won't enter into the discussion of whether it's worth it, but the question of wh
    • No they'll just print or borrow it. No need to directly go after tax payers for funding when a more stealthy approach is available. Then they can blame the "greedy" companies for the rise in prices.

      • Re:Funding (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29, 2012 @01:07AM (#38854507)

        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.

  • ...on pretty much every point: professionally, politically, personally. But I got to say, I liked the lunar base idea. It not any zanier than what JFK set out to do in the 60's. At least it would give this country a tangible goal to aspire to. It would put a new generation of kids into science programs.

    Not like Obama's "Sputnik Moment" where our goal was basically to stop buying Middle Eastern oil from last year's SOTU. A bit of a dud, that was.

    • Re:I despise Newt... (Score:4, Informative)

      by Beelzebud (1361137) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @12:16AM (#38854245)
      A lunar base would be great, but don't kid yourself into thinking Newt thought of it. Notice he only said this in Florida, where NASA is located...
      • NASA's most well known location is in Florida, but they're also in California (JPL, ARC), Alabama (MSFC), Australia (CDSCC), Virginia (LaRC), and Texas (JSC). Oh, and their headquarters is, of course, in Washington DC. You'd think it would come up in other places where NASA is huge.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_facilities [wikipedia.org]

        • by swonkdog (70409)

          True, but I think the issue came up in central Florida because the 'space coast' is primarily a final assembly and launch site. As such it saw far more job losses (both at the local contract corps. and KSC itself) than the other NASA locations that have large administrative, research or testing mandates. Not that those tasks aren't performed in Florida, they are simply on a much smaller scale than elsewhere.

          Maybe this will come up again in Alabama, but MSFC has a much smaller per capita affected community t

      • Newt floated similar ideas long ago, he even introduced a few bills that were supported in a bi-partisam manner.

        He also wrote a WHOLE BOOK on space policy long ago that is damn good if you ever bothered to read anything except political news sites.

        Newt knows more about space than any other politician in Washington, he has a lot of other issues but it is showing a high degree of ignorance to claim he brought this up for the first time in Florida.

    • We actually had competition in space back then. The only reason why we collaborate with Russia now is because they're cheaper.

      What we need to revive global interest in space is an Armageddon-like threat which motivates all nations on Earth to work together to save the planet from a large asteroid.

      it would work wonders for bringing us together as a planet. But while I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony. One with a big, spotted cock.
  • *Cricket cricket* (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JimboFBX (1097277) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @12:15AM (#38854237)

    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.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 29, 2012 @12:22AM (#38854273)

      But can you think of a reason to vote Obama back in again?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by JimboFBX (1097277)

        Yeah he does his job and he has 4 years more experience doing it than these guys do. No sexual scandals. No kick-backs to friends he has in big business. He actually tries to improve things and I agree with him a lot of the time.

        Romney's a villain in my eyes. He's a bad example; a person I'd be scared if children looked up to. First, he has a ton of kids. Imagine if we all did that, we'd be overpopulated like china in no time. There'd be so much competition that finding a decent job would be near impossible

        • Morman church

          So you know so little about Romney's church that you can't even spell its common name right, but you know for certain it's evil? Where have I seen that kind of thinking before...

          • by JimboFBX (1097277)

            As an individual who's never been a member of the Mormon church, yes, I'll admit it that in the 5 times in my life I had to spell it as opposed to just simply say it, I never realized I was spelling it wrong

            I never said it was evil though. Bacteria in a petri dish are self destructive but I don't find them to be evil

        • No kick-backs to friends he has in big business.

          You obviously haven't been paying attention.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by jmichaelg (148257)

          > No kick-backs to friends he has in big business.

          Except for Solyndra execs taking the fifth when asked about their ties to the White House.
          Except for George Kaiser, a Democratic fundraiser and Solyndra investor.
          Except for the Keystone pipeline being killed when it just "by accident" benefits Warren Buffett's holding in railroads that transport oil and coal in Canada and the midwest.
          Except for the raid on Gibson Guitar for using Indian rosewood and ignoring Martin Guitar's use of same. Just a coincidence

            1. Solyndra is mostly a republican project. You will find that the top execs there were republicans, which is part of why they pleaded the 5th. But the real problem is that we subsidized China's dumping on our markets. That makes it impossible for American businesses to compete. Again, that was backed by the republicans
            2. Keystone is not dead. Far from it. Instead, Obama tabled it for a time. He knows that it would be used by either side right in front of the election. He was bright enough to let it go. For now.
        • Most of the Green companies Obama forced the government to invest in (Solyndra was known to be a huge risk and beyond saving at the time of investment) are collapsing now. All of them were huge donors to Obama.

          The stimulus funds largely went to big Democratic donors. Obama is about systematically funneling government funds to Democratic groups. If you haven't been paying attention the deficit has ballooned in the last few years as the robbery accelerates to unprecedented levels (yes both parities do this

        • by Score Whore (32328) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @02:54AM (#38854989)

          Obama may have had no sex scandals, but neither did Bush if that's your criteria. As far as non-sex scandals go, there's Fast and Furious for a start. There's all the "green" energy companies defaulting on their federally guaranteed loans. I'm sure it's entirely coincidental that they're owned by Obama campaign bundlers [opensecrets.org] and supporters.

          As far as Romney goes your complaints are:

          1) He has too many children? Oh yes, how terrible that he has five children all of whom have bachelors degrees and four of which have post-graduate degrees. What a rotten place the world would be if everyone supported their children and instilled in them the necessary work ethic to finish college and graduate school and become doctors and entrepreneurs.

          2) He doesn't pay an high enough percentage in taxes? He pays about 15%, which is higher than 80% [cnn.com] of the tax payers in the country. In 2009 (the last year that the IRS has stats up for) there were 58,603,938 tax returns filed without any taxable income. I'll take the guy paying 15% over the 58 million who are paying between -6% (yes, there are people with a negative effective tax rate, i.e. they receive a larger refund than they had withheld during the year) and 0%.

          3) The average effective income tax rate for households earning over $200,000 is only 9.9%. Add in FICA and that tax rate will still just be topping 13%. If you pay higher than 15%, then either I congratulate you on your exceptionally high earning or seriously recommend that you find a financial adviser.

          4) Charitable giving is opaque? Huh? If you want to know where your money is going, then charitable giving is your best bet as you have total control of who you give to and you can select recipients that have just as much transparency as you desire.

          5) Only about 60% of Romney's declared charitable giving went to the LDS church. The other 40% went elsewhere. Regardless I find it amazing that you can complain about the LDS church. Sure they may be wealthy on a per capita basis, but why? It's not because they're penny pinchers as they do copious amounts of charitable works and disaster relief. Remember these are a group of people who walked out of the United States because multiple attempts to settle down and do their own thing ended up in their homes being burned, their leaders being murdered and their land and chattels stolen. They crossed half the continent and settled in the middle of the desert next to a lake full of water they couldn't drink. And still they are thriving. Why? Because they believe in family, hard work, education and self-reliance. And you don't want people to look up to that?

          That's quite some villain.

          • Re:*Cricket cricket* (Score:4, Informative)

            by RajivSLK (398494) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @05:38AM (#38855661)
            Your tax reasoning is flawed and so is CNNs. 80% of ALL Americans paid 13.3% in FICA taxes alone (yes the employer portion is a tax too -- hiding it on the employer side doesn't make it zero). Why do you guys never count FICA? It's a tax that the working poor pay. I continually hear reports like "50% of americans pay no income taxes at all!". As a Canadian I think "How can this be?" and then I realize that you guys are just bad at accounting / math.
        • by Z34107 (925136)

          Romney's a "villain" because he's Mormon and has a large family? And this currently sits at +4 Interesting?

          9/10. Well done.

      • Re:*Cricket cricket* (Score:5, Interesting)

        by fyngyrz (762201) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @12:38AM (#38854349) Homepage Journal

        But can you think of a reason to vote Obama back in again?

        Yeah... although I'd prefer Ron Paul, I *can* think of reasons to vote Obama back in again:

        Due in some degree to Obama himself: Medical care for 40 million or so people who otherwise wouldn't have it; gays being allowed to serve openly in the military; the pro-consumer pushback against the credit card companies; the end of the Iraq war; the limited engagement with Libya instead of spending our soldiers lives for no reason (again!); he signed the closure order for Guantanamo; and good odds that in his second term, when he doesn't have to concern himself with re-election, that he will turn his attention to some of his other campaign promises.

        Due to other factors: Romney is an out-of-touch rich idiot; Newt is a scumbag; Paul isn't going to be supported by the republicans because they prefer an idiot or a scumbag to an actual conservative who would try to obey the constitution. Which, I guess, is why I'm seriously thinking about voting for Obama. Again. The republicans have done an *outstanding* job of shooting themselves in the foot this time around.

        Is Obama perfect? Hell, no. Is he better than Romney or Gingrich? Yes, in fact, so much so that it's a slam dunk to vote for him, if those are the choices. On the other hand, on the (very) off chance that the republicans wake up and put Paul up against Obama, I'd vote for Paul simply because he says he'd bring our soldiers home and close all those foreign bases. And as president, he'd actually have the power to do it (and very little else on his agenda, so I don't worry about that other stuff much.) But let's face it: the repubs are going to put up one of the clowns, not Paul, and consequently, they're going to lose *really* badly.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          National deficits that have already put us into an impossible situation.
          Gitmo still open.
          Still in Afghanistan. Tried to keep us in Iraq.
          Signed into law a bill that would allow for indefinite detention of American citizens.
          Votes to lower funding for Social Security payroll taxes, making the system more insolvent than it was when he took office.

          • The payroll tax reduction was fancy math. The total funding for Social Security was not affected, as the missing 2% was reimbursed by the general budget. You can argue that gov't IOUs don't mean much, but if you're doing that, then we're so screwed already the 2% didn't affect anything anyway.
          • Signed into law a bill that would allow for indefinite detention of American citizens.

            Senate Vote [govtrack.us]

            HR Vote [govtrack.us]

            Although it doesn't look like it would have many any difference in the bill passing I wish he would have at least tried to veto it.

        • by hal2814 (725639)
          Medical insurance is NOT medical care. If you think it is, try going to the pharmacy and picking up your medication without paying the co-pay.
        • Medical care for 40 million or so people who otherwise wouldn't have it

          That is a lie and what about forcing people (sorry, people not Democratic donors) to pay for insurance they don't want?

          Those 40 million were required already to be treated by emergency rooms. Instead Obama put impossible burdens on state budgets across the U.S. forcing them to support extra services. Obamacare was a GIANT kickback to the insurance and pharma industries. If you love big corporations, absolutely continue to vote for Oba

      • by Nimey (114278)

        The Republican Party.

        • by 0123456 (636235)

          The Republican Party.

          Yeah, it's a sad day when the Republicans seem determined to put up a candidate who will make Obama look like the least worst choice.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by argStyopa (232550)

      As a Republican, I think Obama's been a terrific president.

      - Kept Guantanamo open, with no sign it's closing.
      - Has made nice noises about getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but we're really not completely leaving any time soon.
      - Has set the stage nicely for war with Iran if we want it.
      - Has bailed out banks and big businesses, saving them from insolvency and the consequences of their own bad decisions and cheerfully used TAXPAYER dollars to do it.
      - Has pretty much laid the legal basis for the detention

      • Obama's been an awesome failure as a Democratic president, that's for sure. In recent months I've heard his presidency described as George W. Bush's third term, and I can't disagree.

        When it comes to voting for Republicans, though, I'd definitely vote for the incumbent black Republican to get a second term if my two choices were Obama vs Gingrich or Obama vs Romney.

        Which is why I'll be 'throwing away' my vote on a third party again. Remember, it's only throwing away your vote until enough people do it.
  • by jensend (71114) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @12:23AM (#38854281)

    Having a long term plan for an extraterrestrial base is a great idea. Trying to foist one on an American public tired of heavy deficit spending when our credit rating is already going south is not. Trying to build it in less than eight years when we have no plan and no existing budget is, well, loony.

    You know, a one-way Moon shot would actually be inexpensive and quickly achievable. With that in mind: Newt Gingrich for President of the United States of the Moon (population: 1) 2016!!

  • by cosm (1072588) <thecosm3@EEEgmail.com minus threevowels> on Sunday January 29, 2012 @12:28AM (#38854297)
    The election is still MANY MONTHS away. Don't play the election cycle game.
    • by JimboFBX (1097277)

      but people need to vent their anger to other completely uninformed individuals to have already come to the same conclusion.

      • by JimboFBX (1097277)

        dammit, I meant:

        but people need to vent their anger to other completely uninformed individuals who have already come to the same conclusion.

  • by Greyfox (87712) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @12:45AM (#38854379) Homepage Journal
    "After doing the global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi, Newt realized the earth was sick and decided to leave it for a younger planet."
  • The summary reads:

    Lunar Base Foe Romney Endorsed By Lunar Base Supporters

    While what the article says is:

    While laying out four principles that his space policy would follow, Romney declined to state what his space policy or goals would be. He reiterated his desire for a committee to experts from across NASA, the military, the commercial sector, and academic to determine what that policy might be. He did not reiterate his opposition to a moon colony, however.

    So what about this summary instead:

    Romney holds space plans for later; enjoys support from space heavyweights

  • by Lord Kano (13027) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @01:01AM (#38854479) Homepage Journal

    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

  • I'm bored with the space station... de-orbit it for all I care. I want a lunar base. I don't even need people on it. You can have it fully staffed with robots for all I care. But make them capable of doing if only by remote control everything a human being could do on the moon.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Didn't those guys attack Obama's efforts to cancel Constellation that was started under George W. Bush? Didn't Romney just attack Obama for trying to cancel much of Constellation?

    Newt Gingrich mentioned the need to do things very differently at NASA. Newt Gingrich mentioned the need to be able to launch 4 to 5 times per day. Newt Gingrich mentioned the lack of failure of the missile guys in his speech, and that DARPA was the only part of government that took risks. Newt Gingrich even mentioned the Atlas V r

  • by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Sunday January 29, 2012 @01:58AM (#38854761)

    Sure, they'll try to sell people on its scientific and exploratory merits; but it's all a sham meant to hide their real mission of storing spent nuclear waste on the far side of the moon. Then all it'd take is one catastrophic accident and - BAM! - the moon's sent out into deep space, and poor Barbara Bain and Martin Landau are never seen again.

  • Republicans who support Newt Gingrich don't want to pay taxes even to maintain their crumbling roads, but Gingrich wants to build colonies on the moon and make it into a 51st state?

  • The fix is in. Romney is the "desired" candidate of the elites in the GOP and especially the media and the Democrats. But, they'll eat him for frickin' lunch in November. All the media love being shown to him to him? That's a trap. You can bet your sweet bippy that come election time, they'll turn on him and endorse Democrats. About the space program? "Oh, please, Mr Putin!! Can we ride one of your rockets into space? Our president SHUT DOWN OUR MANNED SPACE PROGRAM, so we need a ride. Won't you please help

To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so.

Working...