15 thoughts on “Why I Endorsed Newt Gingrich”

  1. I neither support Gingrich or Romney, but Ferris’ confusion of the Augustine Committee with what Romney has proposed is ludicrous. That committee was established specifically to review Constellation. It did that. What Romney wants to do is to establish a committee to decide what the hell human space flight is for. That’s different, and it hasn’t been done. No, not even the Aldridge committee did that.

    But what Romney proposed is highly reminiscent of what Congress has mandated, in their 2010 NASA Authorization bill, to have the National Academies do. Which is, to review the “goals, core capabilities, and direction of human space flight”. That study was supposed to be completed in FY12, and I gather that it hasn’t even started yet. In spite of that, what Romney proposed to do is what Congress is actually trying to get done. Makes some sense. At least it means that Mitt would listen to this review. Not clear that Newt would. Now, it remains to be seen if the National Academies can really entrain representatives of the appropriate stakeholders, the community of which is huge, but it’s worth a try.

    1. But what Romney proposed is highly reminiscent of what Congress has mandated, in their 2010 NASA Authorization bill, to have the National Academies do. Which is, to review the “goals, core capabilities, and direction of human space flight”. That study was supposed to be completed in FY12, and I gather that it hasn’t even started yet.

      I’m sure Congress always intended that study to be completed after the 2012 election, lest the price tag of any worthwhile SLS-based missions force SLS supporters to confront budgetary reality. If Congress were actually interested in the results of the study, it would have commissioned it as soon as possible rather than deferring it for two years (from the time the 2010 NASA authorization was written).

  2. I don’t know Aaron, but that is a very nice article.

    Heinrich:
    Why do we need a government committee to “decide what human spaceflight is for?”

  5. I’ll say this, Newt, and Romney to the extend he’s being an ass about it, is making space an important conversation again. And credit to Obama for setting up the situation.

  6. Congress *said* they wanted this study done in FY12. That’s in the text of the law. So what you’re sure that Congress intended wasn’t what they made into law. Now, it’s not clear that NASA want’s it done by then, and it’s the agency that may be dragging its heels. NAS studies take a long time, by the way. Nominally takes a year to get them organized, and a year to do them. That’s why Congress asked (in October 2010 when the bill was passed, which was actually the beginning of FY11) that the study be done by the end of FY12.

    Re why we need a government mandated committee to decide what human space flight is for, it’s pretty simple. It’s because, at least right now, the government is paying for it. Seems pretty obvious. But BTW, when the National Academies runs a review for the government, no government employees are on the committee that does it. So the study is being requested by the government, and will report to the government, but it’s not government employees who are making the recommendations. This is an *independent* committee. Ideally the Academies will reach out to all the stakeholders, and organize their interests in a digestable way.

  7. Unfortunately, Mr. Gringrich’s space advocacy (which I certainly agree with) is making space a partisan issue. Look at the comments to that Kos article. All good liberals are now required by the Party to heap scorn on space exploration.

    1. Oh yes! John Kennedy’s ‘intellectual’ children!

      If he had lived and knew what brats they would have became, he would have put them in a sack with a rock as babies.

      1. One could consider Gingrich’s comments ignorant or moronic. Not technically, but fiscally and politically. Again, his ideas are creative and bold. They’re just not seen as being implementable. It’s actually not hard to come up with creative and bold ideas that aren’t implementable. Colonization of Mercury, anyone?

        A much smarter campaign line would have just been to say that the Moon is important to me, and us getting back there promptly is as well. There are great things we can do there. But he had to throw in 2020, colonization and statehood, and poison his whole argument in those ways.

        Definitely true that he has taken human space flight and turned it into an enterprise that is getting a lot of laughs and scorn. What he did with human space flight may have been creative and bold, but it sure wasn’t constructive.

    5. Look at the comments here:
      http://www.politico.com/arena/archive/is-mitt-too-modest.html

      The people quoted are “establishment” Republicans and Democrats. You’ll see liberals saying “spend the money at home”, and you’ll find conservatives saying “lunacy!”, but look who says nice things about going to the moon – plenty of liberal Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi’s daughter (who also gives a shout out to Richard Branson).

      It simply isn’t true that “All good liberals are now required by the Party to heap scorn on space exploration”, and that really seems like an odd reaction to an article by Ferris Valyn.

      I thought the following comment from the politico roundup was the most interesting, so I’m going to quote it here:

      St. Sen. Will Espero
      Hawaii State Senator (D) :

      A colony on the moon is possible but not by the end of his imaginary term.

      He is attempting to be visionary and forward thinking, and I applaud him for that. As one who has followed NASA and who is a strong advocate for the aerospace industry and initiatives in Hawaii, a colony by the end of his second term is not doable in my opinion. We are attempting to establish an International Lunar Research Park on the Big Island of Hawaii whose mission would be to support R & D with the idea of going back to the moon and staying there for a long period of time. There are many people in the public and private sector who want to continue supporting space exploration.

      However, Gingrich’s timetable is a fantasy at this stage. A lunar colony can happen but practically speaking, not in eight years.

Comments are closed.