Gingrich Pledges To Establish Permanent Base On The Moon ‘By The End Of My 2nd Term'

[Vast LWC]

Am I the only person on this board that likes this idea?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Wait, how is that possible? We've been repeatedly assured that Republicans hate science.

And it takes a lot of science to get stuff to and build stuff on the moon.

Right?

THey do hate science...

Oh, stop being a fucking idiot for two minutes in a row, would you?

...and the proof is that Newt thinks a base will on the moon in 8 years.

On May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy announced before a special joint session of Congress the dramatic and ambitious goal of sending an American safely to the Moon before the end of the decade.

Apollo 11 was the spaceflight which landed the first humans, Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, Jr, on Earth's Moon on July 20, 1969, at 20:17:39 UTC.

8 years, 1 month, 26 days.


It's certainly possible. Only someone who hates science would say it's not.

You think building a base on the moon is the same as putting one or two guys on the moon? Dont be stupid

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, given the current state of the country we need to spend millions on that stuff.
Maybe he is thinking that will create jobs?

It's certainly a better idea than "green energy."

 

[Vast LWC]

There is actually a specific reason for a Moon Base now, that didn't exist before.

There's water on the moon.

That makes all the difference. It means the moon can be used as a launching platform and refueling station.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Space really is the final frontier. I'd love to be alive in two hundred years.

Funny thing, I PLAN to be alive in two hundred years....

 

[Mustang]

There is actually a specific reason for a Moon Base now, that didn't exist before.

There's water on the moon.

That makes all the difference. It means the moon can be used as a launching platform and refueling station.

Maybe they should take some cement mix up with them so they can build a dam.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Barry?

Barry da Fairy.

You know, your little tin Messiah®.

 

[Mustang]

how does he plan on paying for enough crack to get private investors to sign up for this?

Most companies that would want to go would be mining companies.

I saw a special on TV and there's titanium everywhere.


It would be a great risk, but with great risks come great rewards.

or complete and utter failure, but shh

If it is such an attractive idea to private companies, why hasn't anyone done it?

There's no customers on the moon (as far as we know).

 

[Vast LWC]

Maybe they should take some cement mix up with them so they can build a dam.

Oh, I see... Because there's so much water.

Being dismissive with hyperbole is so funny!

(not)

 

[Vast LWC]

There's no customers on the moon (as far as we know).

LIke many, many other industries, it would require a public investment to lay the foundation to make later profit available.

The long-term benefits to having a low-gravity launching pad/refueling station in our celestial backyard could be incalculable.

Mining the asteroid belt. Interplanetary travel leading perhaps to inter-stellar travel.

Think about it like this: As it stands, if you make a spacecraft, you have to give it enough power and fuel to escape earth's gravity every time it launches.

With a launching pad on the moon, the power and fuel needed to escape the moon's gravity would be miniscule in comparison.

Water = hydrogen + oxygen

Hydrogen = Fuel.

 

[Gadawg73]

Yes, given the current state of the country we need to spend millions on that stuff.
Maybe he is thinking that will create jobs?

It's certainly a better idea than "green energy."

If you really knew what green industry was I know you would not claim that.
Corporate investment is investing in green energy. Private investment and public investment.
Green energy is the best alternative we have and it will create millions of jobs.
Ground water contamination is at an all time high with natural gas drilling now. Oil, gas and coal subsidies are massive only compared to the fees they pay their lobbyists and campaign contributions to Republicans.
Solyndra was a bad idea, corruption in my book as all that was is a reward for campaign cash the other way.
But that is no indication of the future wave of green energy. Where I live many have it and it is growing.
Just as the horse and buggy manufacturers scoffed at the horseless carriage many now turn from the vast benefits and job oppurtunities in green energy.
Gas will be at $4.25 a gallon by the end of the year and how many more young men will die defending our dependence on foreign oil?
Viable now? NO. In fact I oppose large public funding now as the cost return now is less energy for a higher cost for green energy. Bad idea. However, research funding now is needed but mass deployment to that sector now is a bad idea. The delivery system of green energy is the key.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If you really knew what green industry was I know you would not claim that.
Corporate investment is investing in green energy. Private investment and public investment.
Green energy is the best alternative we have and it will create millions of jobs.
Ground water contamination is at an all time high with natural gas drilling now. Oil, gas and coal subsidies are massive only compared to the fees they pay their lobbyists and campaign contributions to Republicans.
Solyndra was a bad idea, corruption in my book as all that was is a reward for campaign cash the other way.
But that is no indication of the future wave of green energy. Where I live many have it and it is growing.
Just as the horse and buggy manufacturers scoffed at the horseless carriage many now turn from the vast benefits and job oppurtunities in green energy.
Gas will be at $4.25 a gallon by the end of the year and how many more young men will die defending our dependence on foreign oil?
Viable now? NO. In fact I oppose large public funding now as the cost return now is less energy for a higher cost for green energy. Bad idea. However, research funding now is needed but mass deployment to that sector now is a bad idea. The delivery system of green energy is the key.

If gas is above $4 a gallon in November, your Messiah® is done - I don't care WHO the GOP nominates.

 

[Gadawg73]

If you really knew what green industry was I know you would not claim that.
Corporate investment is investing in green energy. Private investment and public investment.
Green energy is the best alternative we have and it will create millions of jobs.
Ground water contamination is at an all time high with natural gas drilling now. Oil, gas and coal subsidies are massive only compared to the fees they pay their lobbyists and campaign contributions to Republicans.
Solyndra was a bad idea, corruption in my book as all that was is a reward for campaign cash the other way.
But that is no indication of the future wave of green energy. Where I live many have it and it is growing.
Just as the horse and buggy manufacturers scoffed at the horseless carriage many now turn from the vast benefits and job oppurtunities in green energy.
Gas will be at $4.25 a gallon by the end of the year and how many more young men will die defending our dependence on foreign oil?
Viable now? NO. In fact I oppose large public funding now as the cost return now is less energy for a higher cost for green energy. Bad idea. However, research funding now is needed but mass deployment to that sector now is a bad idea. The delivery system of green energy is the key.

If gas is above $4 a gallon in November, your Messiah® is done - I don't care WHO the GOP nominates.

Cute line there Moe but my support and $$$ supports Romney.

 

[bodecea]

Barry?

Barry da Fairy.

You know, your little tin Messiah®.

It continues to amuse me that the only posters here that call our President the Messiah are Righties.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Wait, how is that possible? We've been repeatedly assured that Republicans hate science.

And it takes a lot of science to get stuff to and build stuff on the moon.

Right?

Republicans also hate the truth.

yea ......im sure they ALL do......did Dean tell you that?.....or maybe Chris?.....

 

[Chris]

Wait, how is that possible? We've been repeatedly assured that Republicans hate science.

And it takes a lot of science to get stuff to and build stuff on the moon.

Right?

Republicans also hate the truth.

yea ......im sure they ALL do......did Dean tell you that?.....or maybe Chris?.....

I have said it many times.

That's why only 6% of scientists are Republicans.

 

[Toro]

Yes, given the current state of the country we need to spend millions on that stuff.
Maybe he is thinking that will create jobs?

It's certainly a better idea than "green energy."

If you really knew what green industry was I know you would not claim that.
Corporate investment is investing in green energy. Private investment and public investment.
Green energy is the best alternative we have and it will create millions of jobs.
Ground water contamination is at an all time high with natural gas drilling now. Oil, gas and coal subsidies are massive only compared to the fees they pay their lobbyists and campaign contributions to Republicans.
Solyndra was a bad idea, corruption in my book as all that was is a reward for campaign cash the other way.
But that is no indication of the future wave of green energy. Where I live many have it and it is growing.
Just as the horse and buggy manufacturers scoffed at the horseless carriage many now turn from the vast benefits and job oppurtunities in green energy.
Gas will be at $4.25 a gallon by the end of the year and how many more young men will die defending our dependence on foreign oil?
Viable now? NO. In fact I oppose large public funding now as the cost return now is less energy for a higher cost for green energy. Bad idea. However, research funding now is needed but mass deployment to that sector now is a bad idea. The delivery system of green energy is the key.

A LOT of private money is going into green energy.

It certainly makes more sense than setting up a mining colony on the moon.

 

[Mustang]

There's no customers on the moon (as far as we know).

LIke many, many other industries, it would require a public investment to lay the foundation to make later profit available.

The long-term benefits to having a low-gravity launching pad/refueling station in our celestial backyard could be incalculable.

Mining the asteroid belt. Interplanetary travel leading perhaps to inter-stellar travel.

Think about it like this: As it stands, if you make a spacecraft, you have to give it enough power and fuel to escape earth's gravity every time it launches.

With a launching pad on the moon, the power and fuel needed to escape the moon's gravity would be miniscule in comparison.

Water = hydrogen + oxygen

Hydrogen = Fuel.

In the age of massive debt and pending heavy spending cuts across the board, this idea of a colony on the moon is nothing more than pie-in-the-sky nonsense.

 

[Vast LWC]

In the age of massive debt and pending heavy spending cuts across the board, this idea of a colony on the moon is nothing more than pie-in-the-sky nonsense.

You've got your opinion, I have mine.

As far as a moon base is concerned, I see the long-term benefits as being worth the short-term loss. But then I'm looking far ahead, not just to the next decade.

One must admit that a moon base would present a large amount of opportunities for future profit though, even if you think the potential is outweighed by the short term loss.