Well his plan sounds neato and all; and I would be all for it. But whats the point besides purely scientific research? Its a pretty expensive endeavor just for the sake of doing it. And its not as if we are in a pissing contest with another superpower. I find it unlikely this will ever happen given the pubic.

The only reason to do this would be resources. But the most economically viable resources are in asteroids and comets. The moon could only serve as a processing/support facility. And even then it might be an unnecessary step.

/Newt and Mitt, is this the best the right has to offer?
//Im not sure who is slimier and out of touch.

http://i.imgur.com/MqIP0.jpg

heh...been awhile.

anyway, just send them to reclaim detroit.

SquiggelyGrounders: Well his plan sounds neato and all; and I would be all for it. But whats the point besides purely scientific research? Its a pretty expensive endeavor just for the sake of doing it. And its not as if we are in a pissing contest with another superpower. I find it unlikely this will ever happen given the pubic.

The only reason to do this would be resources. But the most economically viable resources are in asteroids and comets. The moon could only serve as a processing/support facility. And even then it might be an unnecessary step.

/Newt and Mitt, is this the best the right has to offer?
//Im not sure who is slimier and out of touch.

Well, the moon is rich in helium3, which can be used on earth for power generation. That doesn't necessarily make it economically viable, but it makes it viable to the state

timujin: UtileDysfunktion: timujin:
No science? (warning: PDF, pops)

Um, keep in mind that is a NASA publication. Just sayin'.

/often times really interesting experimental data doesn't emerge for years after the experiment's over
//and it's not always from the experiments you thought it would be the most rewarding
///or the ones you spent the most money on

It's usually those that do the work that publish the results of their experiments... And while your slashies are both obvious and vague enough to be unworthy of debate, do you have any issues with the information in the document itself?

No, guess I don't. I'm sure it's all factual. I'm just saying that real contributions to science from the ISS will be found in papers submitted to independent scientific journals. Citing a NASA report to support a claim of the ISS's scientific significance is like citing the annual report of any large organization to support the claims that A) they're doing amazing stuff for mankind, B) everyone that works there is above average and ridiculously happy to be working there, and C) that their entire Board of Directors all walk on water.

My personal, unqualified, opinion is that what comes out of the ISS program will ultimately prove to be worth nowhere near the cost... that's if one could prove it. Get enough people/corporations/government agencies(/governments) involved in a project and throw enough money at it and, one way or another, it will be considered success.

Omnivorous: * allow a terrorist attack to succeed (new window)once in a while just to keep people terrorized

#7 on this list: Prepare for an inevitable EMP attack
Newt worries a lot about "a nuclear blast high above the United States that would instantly throw the nation into a dark age,"

While I would argue that "inevitable" is a stretch, seems like one of the best ways to whack at the U.S. economically without getting into a blowing-cities-up war is EMP. Hardening electronics against that makes sense.

The other things on the list? Ouch.

olddinosaur: In 1945 it cost $10 a minute to talk from New York to Los Angeles, and you couldn't do it all the time.

In 2011, I bought a whole telephone at Walmart for $10, and a card for $20 which lets me talk anywhere in the world for 18 cents a minute. I checked the phone by calling a guy at the next table ten feet away and there was a 1/4--second lag, because the call was bounced off satellite.

Your phone, your computer, your Innertubes, your banking and credit systems, all come from space research.

In 1961 the average life expectancy was 65 years, while today it is 78 for women, 74 for men---and rising. Most of that is due to space research.

Crops are better every year because space research has made for better weather forecasts, so don't talk with your mouth full---it is not polite.

If you really think space research is a crock, go ahead and braid yourself a grass skirt and chase your dinner with a sharp stick; the rest of us like the good things in life which scientific research has to offer. Take your horsesh*t opinions and wipe your ass with them.

There are much more useful ways to spend a trillion dollars than a manned moon base. Almost all space science can be done via unmanned probes and robots, which are much cheaper (by a factor of a hundred or more).

It's already getting pretty crowded up there...

Geotpf: There are much more useful ways to spend a trillion dollars than a manned moon base. Almost all space science can be done via unmanned probes and robots, which are much cheaper (by a factor of a hundred or more).

That's cool. We'll leave you here when we move to Mars after we fark this place up enough

bhcompy: wren337: I'd personally love to see a research station on the far side of the moon, probably with a large radio telescope as the anchor tenant. I'd like to get some extra-terrestrial experience on the (much closer) moon before we set sail for Mars.

The far side of the moon would be better for an optical telescope rather than radio. Radio isn't disrupted nearly as much by our atmosphere, light pollution, etc as optical given the technological advancements of today(software, interferometry, etc)

IANARS but I'd understood that the far side of the moon would suffer less from interference from terrestrial radio sources

wren337: bhcompy: wren337: I'd personally love to see a research station on the far side of the moon, probably with a large radio telescope as the anchor tenant. I'd like to get some extra-terrestrial experience on the (much closer) moon before we set sail for Mars.

The far side of the moon would be better for an optical telescope rather than radio. Radio isn't disrupted nearly as much by our atmosphere, light pollution, etc as optical given the technological advancements of today(software, interferometry, etc)

IANARS but I'd understood that the far side of the moon would suffer less from interference from terrestrial radio sources

That is true, but my limited understanding(one course in school) was that earth based issues are more prevalent in optical telescopes than radio. You can get a massive angular resolution earthside to help overcome some issues. Of course, a fair compromise would be to build both

TL;DR - It was Newt's idea.

StrangeQ: It's not the totality, but there are certain advantages to having a live, human being at the helm, especially when it comes to exploration. A 5 minute communication delay over a limited data pipeline is no match for a person on the scene able to react to information in real time.

Sure a human could fix flat tire on a rover but what if the information that needs reacting to is something like an air leak or loss of fuel for the return voyage or water spilling on the equipment or a broken space suit or God knows what else. The addition of humans to a mission increases the complexity of the system by several orders of magnitude. You don't plan to maintain a complex system by the inclusion of an even more a fragile and complex system..


There is also the personal aspect. What do you think is going to inspire a child more: seeing a replica of an autonomous vehicle sent to Mars that is sitting behind ropes at a museum, or having a real life conversation with a person who actually walked on another planet?

The quest for knowledge should be a goal in and of itself. We should not judge science as worthy or not based on the amount of needless risk we choose to add to it. We could force theoretical physicists to work in labs hanging precariously over a pool of sharks but why would we?

Too bad for Newt... This is a great idea, BUT it's going to require a shiat-ton of money, more than 8 years to accomplish, actual cooperation from the right, and possibly more of a international effort. There is no end to the benefits of a moon base, Newt could have had a winner here, if he'd have done some thinking before opening his mouth.

Instead, he forgoes the entire 'think things through before you speak them', and shoots himself in the foot, getting a decent concept completely ridiculed and pushed aside. It's his own fault, really, for being such an idiotic douchebag.

Oh well, some day a SMART politician will organize this concept into something we can actually use. Newt's obviously not the guy.

chimp_ninja: Useful factoid for assessing the feasibility of random space-based ideas: It costs about $5,000 to $10,000 (different estimates) to put one pound of whatever into geosynchronous orbit, let alone safely down on the moon's surface. Call it $20M/ton on the low end, assuming some research breakthroughs and economies of scale.

When people start talking about mining operations to build underground barracks, think about the equipment, people, food, water, and supplies it would take. One small John Deere backhoe for digging trenches? That'll be ~$160M for shipping and handling, and please bring your own fuel, and the oxygen to burn it in. And replacement parts. The warranty probably doesn't apply when lunar regolith scratches and fouls up anything with moving parts.

These are my favorite posts, because they seem correct, on the surface.

First, as to current costs, Spacex is offering launches at $1400/lb, much less than even $5k/lb. Current launch prices, at less than a third of your low end. Spacex also has plans for full reusability of both stages, and their capsule is already proven reusable. So, we go from a floor of $1400/lb, driven by the recurring cost of the disposable launch vehicle (Oh, and the planned Falcon Heavy, an incremental advance over the Falcon 9 that requires only minimal engineering to apply existing industry practices to put two strap-on (heh) boosters around an existing F9 brings us down to ~$950/lb) down to the cost of fuel plus amortization. Well, what's the fuel cost to launch 1 lb to orbit on any launch vehicle?

This is where it gets interesting. Typical mass fractions to low-earth orbit are around 2%. 12% or so of the vehicle mass is tanks, structure, and engines. This leaves about 84% fuel. 84:2 is 42:1, so 42 lbs of fuel for each pound of payload. LOX and RP1 are about as dense as water and about the price of milk, so $3.50/gallon times 6 gallons, or $21/lb.

Fuel costs, for liquid propellant rockets, is a trifling $21/lb. (With a low-hypersonic air-breathing first stage, you might be able to cut that in half. Maybe.) The remainder of the $1400 - $21 is engineering and consumables, namely the booster. What if you can reuse a rocket 10 times? Neglecting operations, you're down to ($140 + $21)/lb = $141/lb. How about 100 times? $38/lb. At that point, operational costs dominate. By the time we can reuse a vehicle 1000 times, replacing the heat shield every 50 launches, We're down to $24/lb plus operations. Maybe $14/lb if the air-breathing thing works as advertised.

Your backhoe still costs $500,000 to ship, but we're down a couple of orders of magnitude in cost. The Mercury capsule was 3,000 lbs with pilot. $70,000 for a trip to orbit? Yes, please!

/Oh, I may have an Aero/Astro Engineering degree.
//Spoiler: I do.

bhcompy:

Well, the moon is rich in helium3, which can be used on earth for power generation. That doesn't necessarily make it economically viable, but it makes it viable to the state

Pet peeve, but *please* stop using that as a reason to return to the moon. He3 *cannot* be used on Earth for power generation currently and may never be.

We have had more than enough He3 to get a research reactor working since the beginning of the Cold War, but no one has produced a viable reactor any more than they have with other forms of fusion.

Get a commercially useful over-unity He3 reactor working and every country and corporate interest in the world will be fighting to get to the moon. But so far workable fusion is 50 years away, just like it was 50 years ago.

Mr Guy: CliChe Guevara: Short lesson from someone who helps design this stuff;
Moon=No way, ever.
Mars=Feasible
Self-sustaining orbital colonies=Feasible


Seriously, and in a non trolling way, can you explain to me how the intersection between technology necessary to land things on Mars and technology necessary to create a self sustaining orbital platform could POSSIBLY preclude a self sustaining Moon platform? I can imagine reasons for it to be silly, impractical, maybe even pointless, but I can't possibly see how it could be argued as infeasible from a technical perspective if the other two are.


no problem. its a subject that could(and does) fill many books, but i will give you one tidbit to get started from;

atmosphere: mars has it, moon doesn't. not an atmosphere we can breathe, we don't care about that, but it does mean other things. for starters, thermal management. heat, no place to put it - on the moon it can be hundreds of degrees in the sun on one side of a rock, hundreds below in the shadow of it. atmosphere means heat moves and equalizes, giving consistent and survivable temperatures. also, a place to dump heat. moon offers no such options. vacuum is an insulator.
another point to atmosphere (and weather), mars has dirt that won't kill you and equipment. lunar regolith has never been weathered and so the super fine dust on a microscopic scale is incredibly spiky and abrasive. destroys everything. gets into fabric and cuts it up like little knives (apollo suits would not have lasted more than a few hours more. you could put your finger right through them after they came back). does the same thing to lungs - it looks a lot like asbestos under a microscope. kills you all the way dead if you breathe any. no way to get around this. any seals would be destroyed almost immediately. equipment would be impossible to maintain, and it would be impossible to keep it out of habitats, especially if they were made form the stuff.

those are just two facets of one point. it goes on from there. lunar surface is hostile as fark, mars is a relative resort in comparison.

rebelyell2006: You are correct. I just wish that humans actually would return to the moon, establish bases and other cool shiat, doesn't matter if it is the USA, China or the EU. But only if we don't do something stupid like go to war with Iran.

Hell, it's not just for 'cool shiat'. We can do a lot on the Moon. It's a good place to stage for further space exploration, since we don't have to fight the Earth's gravity to launch ships. We can also design new, more efficient ships of lighter material for the same reason. We could generate nuke power on the moon safely, since there is no atmosphere to pollute, no ecosystem to ruin, and any waste can be launched into a trajectory that would send it into the Sun, where it would just become fuel.

Those are just the first few off the top of my head.

Can I come too?

/Space
//Not obscure

You have no chance to survive make your time.

Party like it's 1999.

FightDirector:
On the other hand, given how unprofitable space exploration is in the short term (which is what corporations care about), and given how much our manned space program has been gutted recently, I'm having a hard time arguing against anyone championing such a program. What's the quote about "someday the sun will go out, and if we aren't off this rock, everything humanity has ever done is for nothing"? It seems relevant.


"Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes .. and all of this .. all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars."

Commander Sinclair, Babylon 5

/One of my favorite quotes

A poster above made the point that we need to put a human face on the project, and I think that's exactly right.

It needs to be glamorous and cool to lure the bright minds to the project and away from the high paying other options.

Consider:
When I was a kid (in the early 60's) toothpaste would make you sick if you accidentally swallowed it.
Come the NASA program, and some bright person came up with a way to make it safe to swallow, for the astronauts. No one had figured it out before, because there wasn't a need.

The moon program has touched all our lives in thousands of ways because it was a glamorous and cool project that spun off thousands of ideas.

Every electronic thing you can hold in your hand started with the space program.

Newt (or any leader) doesn't need to design the project.

As a leader they need to set the goal.

We as a nation need some kind of project to direct our energies that doesn't involve playing on fear and distrust.

Why not a moon colony?

nativefloridian "Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes .. and all of this .. all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars."

Commander Sinclair, Babylon 5

/One of my favorite quotes

To me, its one of the most irritating. First off, almost every scientist also agrees that it will take 5 billion years for the sun to go out. Secondly, I have no problem with the idea of space exploration. But to argue that all of the above are for nothing unless we go the stars is bullshiat. All of the above are important regardless of whether humanity lasts eternally (and "going to the stars" won't prevent the ultimate heat death, anyway). Buddy Holly's music, to name only one of the names listed, has been enjoyed by countless people for the last 50 years. Is their joy somehow not real if humanity is destroyed in 5 billion years when the sun becomes a red giant? Concern for the future is great, but at some point you need to live for today, as well. Otherwise you go nuts. This advice is applicable, not only to the issue of space exploration, but in your daily lives, as well.

From the moon base, Newt Gingrich can start his interplanetary search for his next wife.

LMark: nativefloridian "Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes .. and all of this .. all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars."

Commander Sinclair, Babylon 5

/One of my favorite quotes

To me, its one of the most irritating. First off, almost every scientist also agrees that it will take 5 billion years for the sun to go out. Secondly, I have no problem with the idea of space exploration. But to argue that all of the above are for nothing unless we go the stars is bullshiat. All of the above are important regardless of whether humanity lasts eternally (and "going to the stars" won't prevent the ultimate heat death, anyway). Buddy Holly's music, to name only one of the names listed, has been enjoyed by countless people for the last 50 years. Is their joy somehow not real if humanity is destroyed in 5 billion years when the sun becomes a red giant? Concern for the future is great, but at some point you need to live for today, as well. Otherwise you go nuts. This advice is applicable, not only to the issue of space exploration, but in your daily lives, as well.

The problem being pointed to tho is that we've been living for today so long that we will eventually run out of days. This planet will probably run out of the needed and affordable resources for space development long before the sun burns out.
Possibly before the end of this millennium.
Technology simply isn't deserved over time. Sooner or later the party has to stop long enough for earnest development to continue while you still have the means.

Since we are the only voices we know of in a very big universe, it's easy to assume that many others have met their ends before figuring this whole deal out.
The sun is setting, winter is nearing, and taking time out to enjoy the view is probably not wise.

rwfan: Mr. Titanium:
HOWEVER, the station is too low, because we wanted to be able to reach it with the shuttle. At the time, we had no evidence that the insulation on the wiring could survive the ozone levels at that atmosphere. The low orbit provides a lot if disadvantages, but we were so locked-in to Reagan's "space taxi" that we could not put it up where it belongs.

/Yes, Reagan is not responsible for the low orbit.
//The moron who told him it was a "space taxi" is responsible for a multitude of sins.

What the hell are you talking about?

The ISS is in a low orbit because it is as high as the shuttle, Reagan's "Space Taxi" can reach. While building it, a raging debate within NASA dealt with whether the Kapton insulation used on the wiring would withstand the ozone at ISS levels. The data from high-earth orbits said there would be no problem, but the data from high stratospheric aircraft said the insulation would have a half-life of about 5 years. There was no long-term data from anywhere between these levels. The entire ISS project moved ahead by assuming the high-earth orbit data was right. To date, I don't think anyone has tried inspecting much of the insulation, so we don't know if it is good for another 20 years, or 20 days. We could have given the shuttle more altitude by replacing the boosters, but that design change would have delayed the shuttle program by 9 months (and prevented the o-ring problem for ever occurring). So one bad design assumption (the boosters) led to another (low earth orbit for the ISS).

way south
The problem being pointed to tho is that we've been living for today so long that we will eventually run out of days. This planet will probably run out of the needed and affordable resources for space development long before the sun burns out.
Possibly before the end of this millennium.
Technology simply isn't deserved over time. Sooner or later the party has to stop long enough for earnest development to continue while you still have the means.

Since we are the only voices we know of in a very big universe, it's easy to assume that many others have met their ends before figuring this whole deal out.
The sun is setting, winter is nearing, and taking time out to enjoy the view is probably not wise.

Technology is growing fast enough. What's needed now is an eye towards conservation. That is the real problem you are describing. The "take time out to enjoy the view" crowd is not the problem. It's the "technological advances uber alles" crowd that wants the latest toys. That's why we're running out of resources. Besides, if your only concern is the long term survival of the human race, regardless of quality of life, then that raises the question of why we want to survive in the first place. Life can be wonderful, it can also suck worse than death. I've experienced both. I'm sorry, but the existence of humanity in 5 billion years is a little bit low on my radar right now.

By the way, there many explanations put forth for the Fermi Paradox, way south, and many of these do not involve the civilization simply dying out. I just can't buy your implicit argument that we should not have any fun, or even compassion for others, until we've completely colonized the galaxy. Technological advances, yes. Conservation, yes. Headlong, wasteful rush into something about which we know nothing? Absolutely not.

Guntram Shatterhand: proving that Teabaggers aren't even in their right minds. They can't even be consistent enough in their own 'belief' system.

Most the 'baggers around here go on about how Ron Paul is pants-on-head retarded. Not bad for a movement started by Ron Paul supporters, eh?

Eddie Adams from Torrance: In all fairness to Newt, he doesn't really believe that we need a moon base. He's just pandering to the aerospace employees in FL.

When the NV primaries roll around, he'll probably be advocating for a casino and whorehouse on Mars.



Intrigued.

SpectroBoy: I'll vote to fund this:
[www.oocities.org image 575x414]

If they can guarantee the women will dress like this:
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x301]

Fine. As long as we don't find this:

Benni K Rok: [images.wikia.com image 513x525]

Can I come too?

I knew it was really all about Portal technology. How much Aperture Science Enrichment Center stock does Newt own?

Gingrich has a retarded idea? What a shock.

Is it more retarded than his "fire all the adult janitors and give their jobs to teenagers for less money" idea?

(skims article)

Eh, it's a wash.

I do believe in space exploration. It should be done, however, in a gradual manner, with unmanned probes for the foreseeable future. It is important for the future of humanity, but so many other things are, as well.

Rincewind53: timujin: Newt being a dingbat notwithstanding, I do have at least one issue with the article:

It took more than $100 billion to manufacture a white elephant in near-Earth orbit called the International Space Station, a large, smelly metal can that to date has produced no science, no manufacturing, and tourism that only billionaires could afford

No science? (warning: PDF, pops)

I came in here to add the same thing. Wiki's got a very extensive list of the science coming out of the ISS, here.

The author probably thinks because he doesn't have flying cars yet, there has been "no science" coming out of it. Other commenters on the article share a depressing lack of understanding of how science works, especially the guy who says that with the $100 billion the ISS cost you could "Create an HIV vaccine (probably)" and "Create a universal flu vaccine (probably)."

Came here to add this. But with less linkage and more ranting outrage.

/When I was little I dreamed of going into space
//Maybe it didn't work out, but DO NOT DIS SCIENCE.
///I HAVE CAPS LOCK!

PSIChick Came here to add this. But with less linkage and more ranting outrage.

/When I was little I dreamed of going into space
//Maybe it didn't work out, but DO NOT DIS SCIENCE.
///I HAVE CAPS LOCK!

Again, I don't think Lawrence Krauss, a Physics Ph.D., is interested in "dissing" science.

When I was a child, we were promised space stations, Moon bases, men on Mars. As I grew I watched those lofty goals tread under by Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Junior until they were hollow shells.

Fark Reagan's "Star Wars", fark his military spending. Fark every one of them cutting funding for the next generation space vehicle instead of demanding it be finished before they left office.

These selfish arseholes have stolen my dreams, and the dreams of thousands of children. They have squandered our national pride.

Newt is bad news. He's bad for the Republican party. He's bad for America. He's only good for getting Obama re-elected; as funny as his candidacy would be, we did that four years ago with Palin. Let's not repeat ourselves.

It's difficult for science to justify day-to-day or even year-to-year expenditures when we talk about the money and lives spent exploring space, but who can argue that the benefits from things as simple as Velcro to the computer you're reading this on. The indirect benefits of space exploration and scientific experimentation are enormous.

Newt may be saying these things for selfish reasons but that tarnishes the vision none. I hope that we can have a national dialogue on space exploration again, and if that occurs I will thank Newt for all that he has done.

way south A better answer to your analogy is is yes, the sun is setting. However, it's April. We need to figure out how to survive the night, and we also need get the crops in during the next couple of months. We shouldn't be so worried about how we're gonna get to our winter home quite yet.

manimal2878: fark putting men on the moon until we figure out how to put every man in a house.

Clearly you are a goddamn communist.

/or something

manimal2878: fark putting men on the moon until we figure out how to put every man in a house.

Democrats tried that, and the resulting housing crunch destroyed our economy. Way to go, Captain Dumbass.