Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Space

There He Goes Again

57 Comments

On Fox News Sunday, Romney just attacked Newt again on lunar colonies. This is getting very annoying. Someone in Romney’s campaign or the man himself decided that bashing space is a good weapon against Gingrich. Newt should make him pay for it with a speech on the subject. I suppose I should be happy that he’s at least made it a campaign issue. It usually isn’t.

57 thoughts on “There He Goes Again”

  1. This might be a good time for advocates of commercial space to get in touch with the Gingrich campaign. In the past he has advocated a massive cash prize for the first company to establish a moon base. The cash prize is an excellent idea, but a moon base it far too ambitious and basing it on a race to the moon is a perverse incentive. What we need is cheap lift, and what better way to demonstrate that than by gaining market share in a large and fiercely competitive propellant launch market?

    Remember, Gingrich doesn’t have to win in order to have an effect on space policy. If Romney, Gingrich and Obama enter the race with roughly compatible plans then that will be a good outcome.

    1. This might be a good time for advocates of commercial space to get in touch with the Gingrich campaign. In the past he has advocated a massive cash prize for the first company to establish a moon base.

      The very recent past. In fact, in response to my question in Dallas, a few weeks ago.

      The cash prize is an excellent idea, but a moon base it far too ambitious and basing it on a race to the moon is a perverse incentive. What we need is cheap lift

      The two are no mutually exclusive, no matter what the Moonies think.

      1. Certainly not, but they’re not the same thing either. And cheap lift is much more important than a moon base, since it will give us everything, including moon and Mars bases as well as large scale commercial activity in and beyond LEO.

    1. Not necessarily. If the reward structure emphasises speed over sustainability we may get something else entirely.

      1. MPM, agreed. If the goal is ‘first to the moon’ then that’s where they’ll go, without any distractions along the way.

        Dennis, a moon base isn’t a bad thing, but if it’s the only thing you’re after you get the bastard offspring of Apollo and Skylab, as opposed to something permanent.

      2. Like Apollo on steroids built from the most profitable product lines of each and every legacy space company.

      3. A lunar base, like ISS is a destination, but unlike ISS, a lunar base is a destination built on a huge resource source with enormous research possibilities. Yes, the first flights might be expensive, but they will lead to better options.

        1. Yes, the first flights might be expensive, but they will lead to better options.

          The first lunar flights occurred in the 1960’s.

          They led to a cessation of lunar flights, followed by the Shuttle, ISS, and now, finally, the development of the first commercial reusable vehicles.

          So, I guess Tom just admitted CATS is a better option. 🙂

          1. Edward,

            There were NO lunar bases in the 1960’s, just a few short landings. The Lunar Base option was put on hold when NASA decided to pursue CATS (aka the Shuttle). Its been on hold ever since while NASA and the space advocate community have been chasing the CATS fallacy.

          2. Its been on hold ever since while NASA and the space advocate community have been chasing the CATS fallacy.

            Right, Tom. NASA never pored tens of billions of dollars into SEI, VSE, Constellation, etc. It was all a hoax, like the Moon landing.

            Why do the Art Bell types always end up in Nevada?

    2. With a moon base, we will get cheap lift.

      Those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are condemned to repeat them.

      Go back and read “Moon Rush,” Dennis. How many of the things you predicted have come to pass?

      In fact, it’s safe to say the Bush Vision turned out pretty much as I predicted.

      The amount of money spent on Ares and Orion could have financed a dozen launch companies — and we would be much closer to having humans on the Moon right now.

      We don’t need to colonize the Moon or Mars or Alpha Centauri in order to start reducing the cost of space transportation.

      What we need is not a Moon Rush or a Mars Rush, it’s a sustainable, affordable infrastructure that allows lots of people to go to the Moon, Mars, and lots of other destinations, for a variety of purposes. Doing it right is much more important than rushing.

      1. Wow.. ya think you could find a bigger bit of snapper to smack Dennis in the mouth with? Telling an author to go back and read his own book has got to be one of the biggest. Sheesh.

      2. Edward,

        [[[What we need is not a Moon Rush or a Mars Rush, it’s a sustainable, affordable infrastructure that allows lots of people to go to the Moon, Mars, and lots of other destinations, for a variety of purposes.]]]

        You mean like the trans-Atlantic infrastructure Spain had in 1491? First came the New World, then the Spanish Galleon. First came an ocean route to the East Indies, then the East Indiamen.

        1. Why, Pinky, that’s on the verge of coherence.

          Yeah, Columbus travelled to the New World in billion-dollar disintegrating totem poles that had to be replaced after each voyage. Cost was no object to Columbus, just as it’s no object in your imagination.

          I have to wonder which comic-book store you shop at, Tom.

          1. Edward,

            Have you ever gone to Corpus Christi Texas in your travels? Have you ever boarded the Replica Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria? The did make it across the Atlantic, barely, but really didn’t have the payload capacity needed to transatlantic trade cost/effect. That is why Spain developed the Galleon.

      3. What constitutes sustainable? I say it’s not the technology (important as that is) it’s finance and freedom. Real estate alone provides all the needed finance at ANY LEVEL OF COST. Understand that… and we already have the infrastructure to begin colonization today (which is not to say footprints, but the process required can start today.) We just need the lawyers and bankers to put together the paperwork. Then we could all go if we wanted.

  3. Romney is painting himself and his potential space policies into a corner, sacrificing our future to score cheap political points with country club conservatives and snake-handling Appalachians. Obama’s indifference to space is better than Romney’s mocking, hostile ignorance. If he’s the candidate I fear I’ll have to sit this one out.

    1. It might be helpful to give the Romney campaign some other stick to beat Gingrich with, since you don’t want to put him in a position where he has to lose face in order to do the right thing on space policy. The CSF and CSTF may want to get in contact with the Romney campaign too…

      1. MPM

        [[[It might be helpful to give the Romney campaign some other stick to beat Gingrich with, since you don’t want to put him in a position where he has to lose face in order to do the right thing on space policy.]]]

        How about Newt Gingrich’s proposal to arrest judges who don’t agree with him?

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/gingrich-send-us-marshals-to-arrest-uncooperative-judges/2011/12/18/gIQAlYUg2O_blog.html

        During an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Gingrich suggested the president could send federal law enforcement authorities to arrest judges who make controversial rulings in order to compel them to justify their decisions before congressional hearings.

        Yep, bring those “bad” judges before the Congress in chains. Oh, wait, the Tea Party probably likes that idea so it won’t work for Gov. Romney 🙂

  4. One thing to note in the Fox News interview:

    In the original statements Romney’s attack was that Gingrich supported a Lunar Colony which was by a definition crazy. Presumably this was aimed at the Iowa Caucus voters (at least what Romney thought they wanted to hear).

    But in today’s interview he added that a Lunar Colony was a “practical idea” just “not at this stage”. An obvious (to me at least) pivot point for his run in Florida where he can claim that his previous statements were misunderstood. That he only meant going straight to a Lunar Colony was too soon, where as he supports developing the capability to do so (and of course doing so will create lots of jobs in Florida).

    Unfortunately the interviewer (understandably – he is not a technical expert) did not do a follow up question.

    The question Romney needs to be asked is – OK you have told us what kind of Space Program you do not support, now tell us what kind of Space Program (if any) you do support?

    1. The question Romney needs to be asked is – OK you have told us what kind of Space Program you do not support, now tell us what kind of Space Program (if any) you do support?

      Yes, as I said at National Review Online, one of the most annoying things is that he continues to kick the stuffing out of the straw man of Newt’s policy, without offering anything of his own.

    2. I don’t think Gov. Romney’s (or the Republican’s) space policy is really any mystery if you look at the big picture. Like all Republican policies it will be the opposite of President Obama’s and its goal will be to reverse President Obama’s “bad” policy. So you could expect “commercial” crew will be cut if a Republican is in the White House in 2013. The charge will be that its “crony capitalism,” an easy one for the faithful to believe given that the poster boy for CCDev, Elon Musk received “Solyndra” type loans for his solar energy firm and Telsa Motors. And of course they will not let any success he may have had with Falcon 9/Dragon get in the way of politics 🙂 Instead look for a crash program to “restore” American presitage in space via NASA developed system. If we are lucky it will be Atlas 5 (or Delta IV) with a downsized Orion on it. If not, they “The Stick” may return, a reward for the good Tea Party members in Utah.

      I also predict that President Bush’s VSE will be restored, again in the name of restoring American exceptionalism in space and reversing President Obama’s space policy. And since President Obama stated that the Moon was not worth returning to you could count on a lunar return being a key goal of the new Republican space policy. Also, look for the SLS, proposed by “brave” Republicans fighting to “save” America’s space leadership, to be focused for a lunar return and elevated as the poster boy for the restored VSE. And since President Obama is proud of extending ISS to 2020 I would not be surprised that a clear statement that ISS will be ended then would be part of it, if not before, depending on how U.S. relations with Russia goes and to end the “shame” of “hitching” rides on the Soyuz.

      No, its not a rational policy, nor one even consistent with Republican ideology, but you must remember that this is power politics so neither applies.

      1. Like all Republican policies it will be the opposite of President Obama’s and its goal will be to reverse President Obama’s “bad” policy.

        […]

        No, its not a rational policy, nor one even consistent with Republican ideology, but you must remember that this is power politics so neither applies.

        I have a solution here. How about you stop writing irrational space policies for the Republicans? After all, you even admit that it’s a bad idea, yet you still insist on forcing Republicans to have this policy.

        1. Karl,

          Nope, I am just predicting what its likely to be if the Republicans gain control of the executive branch. As for its irrationality, that merely ensure it fits with the rest of the Radical Republican Right’s agenda…

          1. You haven’t a clue what will happen if the GOP takes the White House or if our own Dear Leader keeps it. But don’t feel special: neither does anyone else.

            The reason is that political maneuvering trumps logical planning on stuff like this every single time.

            The NASA budget is noise when compared to the big money issues. So one might think that if you are looking to cut and slash with a meat ax (which so far neither side seems to be interested in), no one would waste time with NASA money.

            But then, if you are interested in facade – you know like the Congress that said they cut 300 billion from the budget and it turned out that they actually ADDED something like 300 million – then you might slash and burn NASA and await the parade for saving $15 billion and call it a brutal trim of Big Government. Or if you are a beleaguered Prez you might decide to try to avert the gaze of a jobless populace from you, to some starry-eyed goal. And if you are a Congressional party interested in thwarting said Prez you might deny any funds……

            How it shakes out depends upon the wheeling and dealing. NASA is a bargaining chip.

            And then, no matter WHAT they decide, if the EU slides into dissolution every single bet is off.

          2. Gregg,

            Of course no one knows, but its reasonable to make predictions based on past behavior. If you don’t like it make your own predictions and lets see who is closer to what happens IF the Republicans include a space plank in their platform?

            Also you are assuming that NASA’s budget will go down with the “Commercial” crew was cut. Why should NASA budget go down if its cut? Why not up to “repair the damage” President Obama has “done?

            As for motive, – how about trading it for an endorsement from Senator Shelby? Or from the Utah delegation? What would please them more than a nice increase in funding for Orion and SLS to take home to the voters as a thank you for endorsing him? Simple cash and carry politics.

            And Yes, NASA is not important to the average person which is why it wouldn’t cost Gov. Romney anything to proclaim President Obama’s space policy is gone and President Bush VSE restored so Americans will “once again walk on the Moon.” Just the kind of thing to make the Anti-Obama Tea Party happy – rejecting an Obama policy and restoring American prestige and past glories in one blow! 🙂

  5. Ok.
    You have more political connections than I do (almost anyone does).
    How do we get him asked that exact question (no trying to slant it toward a specific alternative)?
    I suspect his answer (or lack thereof) will make Rick Perry look very articulate.

    1. How do we get him asked that exact question (no trying to slant it toward a specific alternative)?

      Rephrase that using the active voice — how do you ask that exact question?

      Same way I did with Newt. Find out where he is and go ask him.

      1. Edward Wright December 18, 2011 at 4:39 pm | # | Reply
        “Same way I did with Newt. Find out where he is and go ask him.”

        Unfortunately I have day to day activities that prevent me from chasing him around the country trying to ask him questions in suitable venues (as I suspect most people do). That is why I asked the question (of Simberg not you).

        If you have a more useful suggestion, I will greatly appreciate it.

        1. Then joint a teleconference. Do your day-to-day activities preclude using the telephone?

          Rand has day-to-day activities, too, and a limited number of hours in the day. So, if everyone depends on Rand, a lot of things are not going to get done.

          That is one reason why the space movement is so much less effective than the environmental movement. Environmentalists tend to volunteer, while spacers tend to sit around hoping someone else will volunteer.

          1. That is because “Spacers” as you call them tend to have full time jobs and families, while most environmental volunteers don’t have either and have nothing better to do then volunteer.

            Plus why should someone making under 100K and having a family to support spend their valuable spare time lobbying for government contracts for millionaire funded space start-ups? What is the benefit to them? By contrast most environmentalist activists focus on creating more laws and regulations to create more unemployed to share their low income lifestyle 🙂

          3. Right, set up a joint teleconference with Romney.

            I will have my staff get right on that.

            Well, that’s one possibility. I think it would be a lot easier to join a telecon scheduled by his campaign, however.

            Whatever works for you and your staff.

          4. Edward, in fairness, it isn’t obvious how to join a teleconference. I just went to MittRomneycentral.com and MittRomney.com to look for the teleconference schedule, and couldn’t find it. I joined a Romney chat room and asked how to join a teleconference. I said I had “a friend” who wanted to ask Romney a question directly via a teleconference.” I was told, and I’m cutting and pasting their exact answer: “get involved with the campaign and they will invite you.”

            Not unreasonable, but not as simple as just looking up the schedule and then picking up the phone.

  6. I love you science guys. I come to transterrestrial to find out about space travel and other things of interest, originally from a link at instapundt, which I love love love.

    I have been watching Newt Gingrich’s speeches and interviews for at least a year.

    I want to send you a little message in a comments virtual bottle here, and let you know that, unless you are getting your information from the speeches first-hand, you are not getting a clear picture of Newt is proposing.

    He probably understands modern technology and the implications of the breakthroughs we are achieving in science than any politicians since — when? — I don’t know. He gets it.

    In addition, he is trying to design a method by while citizens can communicate to the government in a QI feedback loop, so that the good ideas, of people on the front lines in whatever field, can reach the government for INTELLIGENT consideration. I know; impossible, right?

    You can search for speeches longer than 20 minutes or by title if you want to find out for yourself. I can tell people haven’t been doing that because the discussions don’t yet address specific concerns or problems with what he is proposing.

    Here are some titles if you’re interested: “2012: VICTORY OR DEATH”(2009); “MICHIGAN MUST CHANGE OR DIE”(2010); STATEN ISLAND TEA PARTY Dec. 3, 2011; “STRONG AMERICA NOW”; “THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN EDUCATION”(search the web, not on YT); “IOWA FAITH AND FREEDOM”; “POLK COUNTY IOWA DINNER”.

    The difference between what he is actually saying and the reports on the MSM are like the difference between what people say about each other on their wedding day versus what they say in a divorce. There may be some truth in it, but it is distorted so that it makes an ugly picture.

    Science people and technology people would benefit and might enjoy a Gingrich administration as he is proposing it.

    Please don’t let the MSM be your source on what he’s proposing.

    And thanks, Rand Simberg, for transterrestrial. I learn a lot from the blog and the comments.

  7. I will vote for Mitt, I will give money to Mitt, I will campaign for Mitt. Not despite his anti space anti Newt rhetoric but because of it. IF, IF he says something rational like…”Space is an absolute waste of time and money. We won’t do anything there in our or our children’s lifetime. I propose that we withdraw from the outer space treaty. If there are people out there who believe they can make money in space…go to it. The government won’t stand in your way.”

    So, I say it to you, Mitt…go ahead, make my day.

    1. “Space is an absolute waste of time and money. We won’t do anything there in our or our children’s lifetime.”

      If he said that and believed it, Why should he bother abrogating the Outer Space Treaty?

      “I propose that we withdraw from the outer space treaty.”

      And critics will only consider the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ provisions. There are other ways of dealing with the issue of off-Earth property rights, without going into that can of worms….if a man who truly believed it a waste of time and money would bother.

  8. Mitt is a flip flopper on this issue. In 2008, when he was looking for votes in Florida, he warmly supported the now defunct Constellation program.

    1. Mark, I know I might as well be talking to a fence post, but the lunar colony which Newt is talking about has nothing in common with Constellation except for the accidental coincidence that they both concern the Moon.

      Confusing the two is like confusing a tuna fish and the island of Oahu because both happen to be in the same ocean.

      1. Ed,

        You are looking at this with too much nuance. Romney is not making these types of distinction, it is too far below his threshold of understanding. His understanding is crude and simplistic. “D-O-G, Dog! Dog spells Moon!”

        To Mitt Romney, you and Mark are likely identical in your views from his frame of reference. You and Mark are at the pick-up truk vs moving van level. Mitt is still at the hay vs gasoline level.

        1. You and Mark are at the pick-up truk vs moving van level. Mitt is still at the hay vs gasoline level.

          No, Monsieur Puckett, they are not as similar as pick-up trucks and moving vans. They’re as similar as pickup trucks and snoring.

          Just because A and B are related to the same celestial body does not mean they are as similar as two types of trucks. Pickups and snoring are both related to the same celestial body (Earth). That does not mean snoring is a type of truck.

          Constellation was a specific configuration of government hardware. A lunar settlement prize is not a slightly different configuration of government hardware.
          This isn’t “nuanced,” it’s about as different as you can get.

          If someone proposed a prize for the settlement of Antarctica, would you say the prize was almost the same as a government-funded nuclear snowmobile?

          2. No, Monsieur, it didn’t go over my head. There’s a difference between not getting a point and telling you that your point is wrong.

            Romney is against Gingrich’s lunar plan primary because it’s Gingrich’s plan. Just as a lot of Republicans are against Obama’s space plan primary because it’s Obama’s plan.

            It is not because he has any genuine philosophical objection to — or looking for — lunar colonies. He probably hasn’t given two seconds thought to the subject, except as a “zinger” he can hit Gingrich with.

            He wouldn’t necessarily be against Constellation because that isn’t Gingrich’s plan, so there is no opportunity to score political points.

            You’re giving Romney entirely too much credit for deep (or even medium-shallow) thoughts on the subject.

      2. Edward, I am certainly familiar with Gingrich’s view on the subject. Like Mike said, though, Romney doesn’t care. The lunar mining colony is just a club to beat Gingrich with. It doesn’t matter who builds it or how. It doesn’t matter if Romney even believes what he is saying.

        1. It doesn’t matter if Romney even believes what he is saying.

          If it doesn’t matter, why are you discussing it?

          1. Because it speaks volumes about Romney and how he regards the burning issue of lunar mining colonies.

  9. Someone in Romney’s campaign or the man himself decided that bashing space is a good weapon against Gingrich.

    Romney has decided he needs to attack Newt on the issues. Unfortunately, if he attacks Newt on the issues (any issue), he runs the risk of looking uninformed to anyone who understands the issue because Newt almost certainly knows more about than he does.

    So, he’s picked a very obscure issue that almost no one understands. Thus, he looks ignorant to a very small number of people who understand the issue while possibly scoring points with a much larger number of people who have no idea what he’s saying but like the way he says it.

  10. Thus, he looks ignorant to a very small number of people who understand the issue while possibly scoring points with a much larger number of people who have no idea what he’s saying but like the way he says it.

    The problem is the minority of fanatics vote the issue, not the casual cuff-laughers.

    That is how gun contrl not only died, but the minority ascended to the majority.

    Of course, the space faction is way too splintered compared to the 2nd Amendment lobby of the mid-90’s. Too many competing ideas chasing too few dollars.

    As far apart as Ed Wright and Mark Whittington are about the methods, all of us want at the end of the day a robust, sustainable, expanding, self-perpetuating and economical human presense in the cosmos, but our disagreement on the initial path to that goal keep us too divided to ever develop a significant level of political clout like an NRA.

    1. The problem is the minority of fanatics vote the issue, not the casual cuff-laughers.

      “Analogy is always suspect.”

      Lunar settlement prizes are not gun control. The tiny minority that follows prizes has never swung any election in history, nor are they nearly as fanatical as you believe. Even the most fanatical prize supporter probably wouldn’t swing his vote from Gingrich to Obama, or vice versa, merely on that basis.

  11. M Puckett,

    Actually there is another different. The NRA is not about the best way to design guns or about promoting government funding to develop new guns, its focus is simply on preventing gun control. A better analogy would be if a decision was being made to pass some law against space commerce. Despite their differences the space community would unite to stop it.

    1. The NRA is not about the best way to design guns or about promoting government funding to develop new guns, its focus is simply on preventing gun control.

      More liberal nonsense. The NRA provides a wide range of programs and services. Youth education programs, safety classes for adults, competitive shooting, retreats, insurance, a museum and traveling exhibits.

      If you want to know the best way to design guns, there are NRA gunsmithing schools.

      Lobbying is a small part of what the NRA does.

      A better analogy would be if a decision was being made to pass some law against space commerce. Despite their differences the space community would unite to stop it.

      No, the correct analogy to gun control on Earth would be gun control in space — the space weapons ban.

      The space community has not united to stop the ban. It’s divided between those organizations who are calling for it and those that want to remain neutral so as not to “divide the space movement.”

      Which is getting pretty far off topic.

  12. [[[Lobbying is a small part of what the NRA does.]]]

    Which probably why they have many many more members than all the numerous space advocate groups together 🙂

  13. Mr. Glover –

    As even the most casual reading of SF will show you, space colonisation will have to be much more controlled than the colonisation of the various Earthbound frontiers was. The reason is very simple; anyone with affordable, large-scale access to space automatically has access to WMDs. This is a problem only in the early stages, of course; once there are a few hundred working orbital habitats, messing up Earth won’t matter too much.

    To link this issue to another one affecting the freedom, and indeed survival, of humanity; one measure that needs to be taken, at least early on, is an absolute prohibition on any Muslim getting into space. SJS is nasty, when the perp has a gun or two; if he has control of an astroid-diversion mission…

    1. Put WMD in the hands of lots of people would really get the space race going wouldn’t it? It would also make space important to the average Joe as well.

      Perhaps terrorists in space is the incentive we need to have humanity survive?

      How ironic would that be?

Comments are closed.