• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Newt "Moon Unit" Gingrich

poweRob said:
Newt is blowing hot air... yet again. He doesn't plan on making it happen. He plans on getting votes. I like exploration too but he's not being realistic. He's being an opportunist at best.
Click to expand...

Yep, as I suggested in the OP, he's pandering to the space coast workers in an attempt to buy their votes. It's what he does.
 
AdamT said:
Yep, as I suggested in the OP, he's pandering to the space coast workers in an attempt to buy their votes. It's what he does.
Click to expand...
it's like High School all over again, only the jocks are important. Those who play sports, or go to the moon, get worshipped, the rest of us are expected to support the team with our loyalty and our money.
 
AdamT said:
Okay, so we've got 100,000 years? Maybe we can address a few local problems for the next couple years ... or get our spending under control.
Click to expand...

Well you see, that's the problem.

We wait a couple years, then a couple more years, then a couple more years...

Then its too late, and the abundant cheap energy that fossil fuels represent are gone.

There are more people, fewer resources.

Its not about a global Apollo effort.

Its about taking the first steps to get our eggs in more than one basket.

As Utah says, weightlessness and radiation are two big problems. But as a species we're pretty good at solving big problems, when we have the will.

The moon has gravity, water, and soil to hide from the radiation under while we figure out the rest.

We're a LOOONG way from interstellar travel, if its possible at all.

But we could keep ourselves busy for a century or two just in local space.
 
specklebang said:
I'm hardly a Newt fan but this is one of his better ideas.

Most of this money would be spent on research thereby providing high end jobs.

The by-products of this research, just as with our past space programs, will help America regain technological prominence.

The construction of the ships etc. will be American made (I hope).

The USG could earn a fortune by bringing back valuable materials. IMHO, you could make a gold coin with a moon rock fragment and sell them for thousands of dollars. Presumably there are other rare, valuable minerals on the moon as well.
Click to expand...

Wait, wait.... are you saying that the government can indeed create jobs?

We all realize this is an extremely expensive proposition. Perhaps, Newt could combine his two grand ideas into one to save a little money. Let's use schoolchildren instead of Astronauts. Afterall, Astronauts each cost well over $100K per year plus big ticket benefits. Schoolchildren would be an affordable alternative. They all 1) need jobs to feel a part of our economy and learn the discipline and reward of hard work, 2) have science requirements in school, space travel will be just like a field trip to the museum and 3) they are lighter than the average astronaut, so we need less rocket fuel to leave the earth's gravitational pull (and maybe build smaller rockets) ......

Oh, and since we need to finance this grand project, we can do so with another tax cut.... which, as we know, always results in more tax revenue.
 
Last edited:
how can you tell when a politician is pandering?
his lips are moving....
 
specklebang said:
Then we must respectfully agree to disagree about this priority. Some day, we will all be forced to abandon tis planet. We have to begin somewhere.

May I ask what research projects you favor? That is a real question, no sarcasm. Might be an interesting discussion.
Click to expand...
You watch too many movies.
 
MaggieD said:
Maybe he just wanted to here the roar of the crowd. Nobody else gives a tinker's dam about a freakin' manned station on the moon. I think he's certifiable.
Click to expand...
Then vote for Obama.
 
Newt wants to build the ultimate crib to impress the dames.
 
poweRob said:
meh... Bush said we need to go to Mars.

I think just making grandiose statements like this, (other than pandering for support) is just an attempt to steal credit when it actually does happen. I can already see it now.... the year, 2064, we send a manned mission to mars. The GOP screams, "WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS BACK IN 2007."

lol
Click to expand...
And liberals will be lying their asses off saying they were right there with us, since they typically assume no one can go back and check on the facts. They say they vote for it before they voted against it.
 
Yes, the Government can create jobs. The problem is that the corruption level is so high that most funds are diverted to a chosen few. This will keep happening no matter which selfish p***k is elected in 2012.

I doubt that children could pilot a spaceship but they would be an excellent source of protein for the astronauts. The longer you store them, the more meat you have.


upsideguy said:
Wait, wait.... are you saying that the government can indeed create jobs?

We all realize this is an extremely expensive proposition. Perhaps, Newt could combine his two grand ideas into one to save a little money. Let's use schoolchildren instead of Astronauts. Afterall, Astronauts each cost well over $100K per year plus big ticket benefits. Schoolchildren would be an affordable alternative. They all 1) need jobs to feel a part of our economy and learn the discipline and reward of hard work, 2) have science requirements in school, space travel will be just like a field trip to the museum and 3) they are lighter than the average astronaut, so we need less rocket fuel to leave the earth's gravitational pull (and maybe build smaller rockets) ......

Oh, and since we need to finance this grand project, we can do so with another tax cut.... which, as we know, always results in more tax revenue.
Click to expand...
 
So, are you saying the Earth has unlimited resources and 8 billion people breathing, pooping, smoking, dancing etc. will never use it up? That there is NO chance of conflict that turns nuclear? That the g-d thingy has only purt life here on this backwater planet and there is nobody out there for us to meet?

Maybe you don't read enough.

:)


American said:
You watch too many movies.
Click to expand...
 
UtahBill said:
the human body is not built for weighlessness,or the amount of radiation it will get when there is no atmosphere to shield it..
too many people want science fiction to become fact, and some of it has, but most of it has not, and will not.
why not have NASA work on alternate fuels to replace oil. Isn't that our most pressing need?
Click to expand...

We can compensate for those problems.
 
Teapartier: We absolutely cannot afford higher government spending.......unless it's for something WE want.
 
jambalaya said:
We can compensate for those problems.
Click to expand...

But they ARE very real and serious problems.

At the least it'll be a LONG time before choosing to live/work in space is a one way trip. Meaning you spend enough time out of the gravity well and you won't be able to come back.

Reproduction is another major issue due to radiation exposure.

But humans are tricky, if we WANT to solve these problems we undoubtedly will. Its what we DO.
 
American said:
You watch too many movies.
Click to expand...

We're not talking next week or even in the lifetime of our grandchildren (barring some catastrophe).

But EVENTUALLY sure as hell.

And its possible to wait too long. And then not be ABLE to open up the ultimate frontier, simply due to lack of resources.

Then we'll be stuck on our little island, drowning in our poisons.
 
What if...? said:
We're not talking next week or even in the lifetime of our grandchildren (barring some catastrophe).

But EVENTUALLY sure as hell.

And its possible to wait too long. And then not be ABLE to open up the ultimate frontier, simply due to lack of resources.

Then we'll be stuck on our little island, drowning in our poisons.
Click to expand...

Regardless if that is the case or not, I think we can all agree that the "point of no return" is not going to be within 9 years. I think we can afford to wait a decade or two and concentrate on getting things straightened up here at home.
 
It's genius, in my opinion. That's an entirely untapped voting population.
 
DashingAmerican said:
It's genius, in my opinion. That's an entirely untapped voting population.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how all those "We can't afford more government spending" are lapping this up because it's a GOP member doing it. It just goes to show the GOP will not decrease the debt anymore than a Dem will. And the two-party system screws America again.
 
TheNextEra said:
It's amazing how all those "We can't afford more government spending" are lapping this up because it's a GOP member doing it. It just goes to show the GOP will not decrease the debt anymore than a Dem will. And the two-party system screws America again.
Click to expand...
I actually totally agree. Nobody, except Ron Paul, perhaps, has any interest in decreasing spending.
 
specklebang said:
I'm hardly a Newt fan but this is one of his better ideas.

Most of this money would be spent on research thereby providing high end jobs.

The by-products of this research, just as with our past space programs, will help America regain technological prominence.

The construction of the ships etc. will be American made (I hope).

The USG could earn a fortune by bringing back valuable materials. IMHO, you could make a gold coin with a moon rock fragment and sell them for thousands of dollars. Presumably there are other rare, valuable minerals on the moon as well.
Click to expand...

Part of the R&D in new space technology is already happening under the current administration as this USAToday article makes clear. Going back to the moon is part of a future space plan, but building a moon base...?....we're a long way away from turning that "idea" into a reality. The construction alone would cost trillions! Consider the logistics:

- Another Saturn 5 rocket (at least) with a large cargo bay to take up building equipment.
- The number of flights to the moon in order to establish the "fundation" for the base itself.
- New training methodologies required for performing the kind of construction work necessary to build the moon base.
- Dozens of astronauts and crew members on the moon's surface and in orbit to monitor activities on a rotating basis.

And that's the simple stuff!

I'm not necessarily knocking Newt's idea entirely. Establishing a moon base would be great! But you have to have a purpose for it. You can't just build it just to build it. What's the purpose/objective? I think if you read the mission Pres. Obama has laid out for NASA atleast in the short term, I'm sure most would agree it's a better plan and seems abit more realistic.
 
AdamT said:
So ... really? When Republicans are fixated on spending cuts and fiscal austerity, why did Newt promise that he would build a permanent manned station on the Moon and launch a manned mission to Mars ... by his second term? Surely the price tag of these items must be in the tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars?
Click to expand...

Because, like most rightwingers, he's a hypocrit who only talks about limited govt when it helps him win a debate. He, and most rightwingers, don't actually believe the crap they spew
 
Newt Gingrich promises to build a moon colony by 2020; make it a U.S. state | Technology News Blog - Yahoo! News

Newt wants to colonize the moon, declare it United States' territory, and make it the 51st state?????????????
has the man lost his mind????????????

damn, maybe his ex-wife should have given him an open marriage. maybe it would have kept him from going total loony.

$15 trillion in debt, lookign to cut hundreds of billions in entitlements, and yet this fool wants to colonize the ****ing moon???

how the **** can he claim to be a fiscal conservative?
 
DashingAmerican said:
I actually totally agree. Nobody, except Ron Paul, perhaps, has any interest in decreasing spending.
Click to expand...

We have the tax and spend Dems vs. the tax cut and spend Reps..... and least one side is logical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom