A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

gingrich wants florida votes



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 31st 12, 01:45 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 197
Default gingrich wants florida votes


"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...

I haven't heard anything about Rick Santorum's views on space.


I was watching a Senate committe hearing years ago where Santorum
was the minority chair, and Dianne Feinstein was the majority chair.
Sen Feinstein has a pretty sharp tongue, and at one point she lit into
Santorum at length about something or other. And as the C-span camera
panned back to Santorum after her rebuttal you could see Santorum mouth
the words under his breath....****ing bitch.

I couldn't believe a US Senator would respond like that.
I wish to hell I had my vcr going at the time, I could've
ruined that assholes career.

Something about Santorum that really gets to me, even
more than Gingritch. Those two rank at the top of
my all time list of despised politicians. I don't trust
either of them even a little bit.





Brian



  #12  
Old January 31st 12, 02:27 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 197
Default gingrich wants florida votes


"Quadibloc" wrote in message
news:7d593b70-d0ca-4fb9-ba87-


Oh. What if they tried to do the Apollo program that way? Would it
have ever happened? What private company would be willing to gamble
the cost of the Apollo space program on the chance of getting it back
if it was the first to succeed?



But Apollo wasn't a business plan. It was a war.
It was all about the cold war with the Soviets.

Instead, do it the way the Apollo program was done:


Which has been my point for ages here. Place Apollo
as a goal in abstract terms so we can reproduce it
with the current world situation.

Apollo was meant to win perhaps the most pressing world
problem at the time, the cold war. And to win it with
a technological race and a clear deadline.

Apollo ..connected directly to some of our greatest
fears and needs, while providing the greatest
inspirational impact possible in terms of a better future
for all.

To reproduce Apollo you have to do that for the
problems and desires which exist today.

How could a space program...today...solve some
of the greatest global problems, while also
inspiring visions of a better future?

It sure aint space tourism or mining asteroids
of a forty year long quest to put a few people
on Mars. All those NASA goals either return
little of consequence, or take so long no one
cares.

But there is one program which fits VERY WELL
all the requirements of an Apollo like goal.

With a single program, NASA could....

Solve the long-term global energy problem
Solve the climate change problem.
Bring prosperity (energy) to every part
of the planet.

Space Solar Power ...connects...the second
largest commercial market that exists to a
space policy. While connecting to visions of
unlimited energy and prosperty for the future.

$10 billion dollar loans are a weekly event in the
energy market, and Space Solar Power plants
take no longer, and cost no more, to field than a
new nuclear plant.

SSP as a goal can happen fast enough to keep
interest, it can solve enough problems so that
almost everyone on the planet could immediately
see it's relevance.

Space Tourism is a nickel and dime next to
the energy market.

If you want space activity to explode, you need
to have a profit of suitable....scale.

Only energy has that gigantic scale.


Jonathan


s





if you want
something big done, pay someone who can do it to do it - buying the
pieces from those who can supply them, and coordinating putting them
together yourself.






Maybe innovative suppliers of rockets can do things more cheaply than
those who rely on subsidizing space from missile production, but even
that doesn't require the X-Prize model.

John Savard


  #13  
Old February 6th 12, 03:19 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default NASA's Demise: [was gingrich wants florida votes]

Sorry to revive this old thread, but no one has mentioned the 400 pound
gorilla sitting there staring us all in the face.

It wasn't what the Newt proposed that I found important.
It was the reaction it caused.

Esp. the reaction of Romney.

If that isn't a clear signal to the demise of NASA and NASA-led HSF I don't
know what is.

Clearly Romney's priorities are not space.
Romney seems perfectly willing to spend money on a federal jobs program, as
long as that program doesn't reach the expenses necessary to make it successful.

Everyone else went off on Newt much like they did on Jerry Brown (remember
Gov. Moon-Beam?) a few decades back.

The press and talking heads didn't discuss the merit of the concept. Only that
it was totally loony.

America's leadership does not posses the mindset to lead in space any longer.
Therefore America (or at least its government) doesn't deserve to maintain a
lead role in it.

It is time to fold NASA. The mission needs to be re-tasked. NASA needs to
adopt the role of its NACA predecessor. The strategic shift is so major that a
department rename is in order. It cannot lead, or shall I say it will not be
allowed to lead, which is saying the same thing. Therefore it must follow. The
only other option is dissolution.

Dave
  #14  
Old February 6th 12, 05:35 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default gingrich (speaks with forked-tongue)

Jonathan wrote:
Replace NASA with incentives to private sector

Q: What role should the government play in future space exploration?

GINGRICH: I'm a big fan of going into space and I worked to get the shuttle
program to survive at one point. But NASA has become a case study in why
bureaucracy can't innovate. If you take all the money we've spent at NASA
since we landed on the moon and you had applied that money for incentives to
the private sector, we would today probably have a permanent station on the
moon, and a new generation of lift vehicles. And instead, what we've had is
bureaucracy after bureaucracy and failure after failure. We're at the
beginning of a whole new cycle of extraordinary opportunities. And,
unfortunately, NASA is standing in the way of it, when NASA ought to be
getting out of the way and encouraging the private sector.

PAWLENTY: I don't think we should eliminate the space program.

GINGRICH: I didn't say end the space program. I said you could get into
space faster & more effectively, if you decentralized it & got it out of
Washington.

Source: 2011 GOP primary debate in Manchester NH , Jun 13, 2011


Pawlenty is no longer in the race. His opinion counts for exactly... Zero.

Dave
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gingrich: NASA johnny@. Space Shuttle 7 June 15th 07 02:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.