He sure made it a lot harder to have a serious discussion about it. And for some reason, most reporters just find it impossible to describe history accurately:
President George W. Bush planned a return to the moon, but didn’t give the program the resources advocates hoped for. President Obama scrapped Bush’s plan in favor of promoting a private sector future farther out in space, but also cut back dramatically in the face of a budget crisis.
Sigh. The administration proposed a budget increase for NASA. But instead Congress, on a bipartisan basis, added in an unneeded rocket development while cutting funds for anything useful. Because it’s all about jobs, not doing anything in space.
He won’t have ruined it if space enthusiasts find a way to demonstrate their political power. Fifteen years ago, the lamestream media frequently treated gun owners as laughingstocks as well. Now, that falls flat, since their own beloved Democrat Party won’t even touch the issue.
But note that Gingrich took something he loved, was knowledgeable about and was unable to advance that cause in the face of modest opposition. I’m not sure that makes him a great advocate / president.
What the uninformed public thinks is important. If you can’t get your point across to them, I don’t want you as my point man politician. Results matter.
Ken,
Hope you join us a TEA Party in Space. For the record we have democrats, independents, and republicans. We only work with space issues.
Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
TEA Party in Space
The idea of Mitt Romney as the 45th President is not on my mind.
If Newt wins the presidency, then it won’t matter because he’ll be in a position to push for his agenda. And that agenda will be taken seriously because he’s the president.
If Newt does not become president, then it won’t matter because by the time a lunar base becomes practical, Newt’s speech will be long forgotten.
Either way, it won’t matter.
Mike
Anyone who expects the MSM to report anything accurately is bound to be disappointed.
Report correctly? Be thankful if they can spell correctly.
CNN currently has an article written by a reporter who thinks the plural of “spacecraft” is “spacecrafts.” Not a single editor caught that mistake.
Where is Miles O’Brien when they need him?
“Spacecrafts” is a word. It refers to the odd things bored astronauts make to pass the time and decorate their capsule, and the modification of environmental systems with duct tape, hoses, and pages ripped out of a flight manual.
Designing the rocket is science and engineering.
Flying the rocket is an art and a craft.
Killing time on the way to Mars is arts and crafts.
Miles always came across as a bit of a douche but it was nice to have someone interested in space on the cable news.
I cringe every time space gets covered by the media between the parts that are reported incorrectly and the parts that are reported correctly and mocked.
As for comparing space fans to gun owners, the prime mover in the latter’s metamorphosis was a nearly monolithic advocacy group called the NRA with a very smart approach and a very clear mission. Space fans can’t even keep a group together who agree on the same goal in space.
Space fans can’t even keep a group together who agree on the same goal in space.
My eyeballs roll every time I hear that.
Space is a place. Like the ocean, or the atmosphere, or the North American continent.
Do we have one commonly agreed upon goal for the oceans, supported by one monolithic interest group? Would it make sense to combine the US Naval Institute, the Offshore Oil and Gas Association, and Greenpeace into one organization?
We can’t “all agree on the same goal” for the oceans. Why should we expect everyone to agree on one single goal for all of outer space?
I did my first current events paper on Apollo 13, as it happened. It was one of the greatest learning experiences in my life. It is sad that we have raised a generation that is bored by all thing space and all things scientific for that matter. This failure puts us all in peril. Is there anyone out there that would like to create a for profit after-school science program for parents who really want to see their children prosper?
Note that the evil Bill Maher, point man for the Democrats, is mocking and dehumanizing space travel supporters. This isn’t the first time, either; when the Heaven’s Gate cult committed suicide, he mocked science fiction fans because, hyuk hyuk, they don’t have sex. In the far-left world, that is grounds for a death sentence.
To all you space nerds like Bob-1 and Chris Gerrib who vote Democrat: you are voting for the same guys who flushed your math homework down the toilets in high school.
The NRA example actually undermines the argument for a “one size fits all” space advocacy organization.
The NRA is a “National” organization, but it does not attempt to cover every national issue. No one suggests that the NRA should merge with other “national” groups like the American Automobile Association and Handgun Control, Inc. to form a single organization that can “speak with one voice” for the entire nation.
An analogous organization to the NRA might be called the Space Weapons Association, if such an organization existed.
There is no such organization, of course. Instead, we have monolithic space groups like NSS and SFF whose members are not even allowed to discuss space weapons because mere discussion would “Divide the Space Movement [tm].”
The SFF chairman screamed bloody murder when I proposed creating a military space advocacy group several years ago. “The last thing we need is another space advocacy group!” Heaven forbid activists should have an outside forum for the sort of discussions he does not allow in his own organization.
(Strangely, though, military space opponents are allowed to form their own organizations and issue statements through groups like the Planetary Society without charges of “dividing the space movement.”)
The desire for unity above all also leads to missteps like the SFF hailing Mike Griffin as “a good captain for NASA.”
I think there’s an argument to made for more focused single-issue groups rather than a one-size-fits-all “movement.”