The Space Speech Newt Needs To Give
Many (including me) were predicting that Newt’s space-policy political fiasco would be in the rear-view mirror as the campaign moved beyond Florida. Alas, at least for space enthusiasts if not late-night comedians, it remains in the news, and as an object of continuing mockery and ridicule.
While originally it was only the Romney campaign that was cynically using it as a political cudgel against his opponent (and he continued to do so in Nevada), on Friday Senator Rick Santorum started piling on as well, making it the basis of a sixty-second ad. The night of the Nevada caucuses, which Romney won handily, Saturday Night Live spoofed it as well, in their opening skit.
Newt, naturally, has been on the defensive throughout, trying to explain himself on Meet The Press the next morning:
“I didn’t propose any additional spending,” Gingrich said, noting that Russia, China and India are aggressively focused on their space programs. He believes there needs to be fundamental reform of the U.S. space program that engages the private sector.
A large part of the criticism has been a vigorous massacre of a legion of space-policy straw men, perhaps the most egregious of which is the accusation that Newt’s plans would cost half a trillion dollars, a grossly inflated figure based on a NASA study performed over two decades ago during the first Bush administration, and a conservative conventional-wisdom assessment from John Logsdon, former head of the Space Policy Institute. This is ironic, because Newt has long proposed fundamental NASA reforms that would dramatically reduce the costs of human spaceflight.
At this point, if Newt wants to redeem himself on this issue, he needs to reboot it with another speech, and not an off-the-cuff stream of consciousness that got him into trouble (as it so often does) at the Cape, but an actual prepared speech, laying out his vision, its benefits, and the actual estimated costs. For his consideration, I offer up the speech that I would give if I were him (or at least, in his current political position).
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
There has been a great deal of controversy in the last few days on a subject that, in this country, should have been fairly uncontroversial — the greatness of America and its ability to achieve great things. Ever since I gave a speech on my vision for America in space a couple weeks ago, it has been mocked and completely mischaracterized, either out of ignorance, malice, or both, and in doing so, those so mocking have only revealed their own small-minded pedestrian bean-counting lack of both vision for this nation, and their lack of knowledge of either the cost or benefits of opening up space to humanity. Mitt Romney has clearly never given this subject a moment’s thought. To the degree that his campaign has articulated a purpose for space at all, or provided a policy other than getting “top, men,” he has said that the purpose of human spaceflight is to address, quote: “the ‘existential’ objective of understanding the universe and its effects on the Earth, such as climate or the possibility of a ‘catastrophic event’; commercial; the health and well-being of citizens; and defense.”
Note that not a single one of those goals requires sending humans into space. The last three are so vague as to be meaningless in the context of a space program. What does the word “commercial” mean? Who can argue that “the health and well-being of citizens” isn’t a worthy goal, but how does humans in space play a role? And Governor Romney, Dwight Eisenhower established a civil space agency, separate from the Department of Defense, for a reason. We already have a program for defense in space — it is run by the Air Force and other defense agencies, which have as much money for it as NASA’s total budget, so that makes no sense as a purpose for the space agency.
The first straw man that my opponents accuse me of is wanting NASA to build a lunar colony of thousands of people. Anyone who listened to my speech in Florida knows I never proposed such a thing. I was simply expressing an aspiration to see it happen, and if it did, I proposed that it be eligible for statehood. If it occurs, it will be because it is paying for itself, perhaps by providing goods and services to the space-based economy that will develop off planet as the cost of access to orbit comes down in the coming decades from the growing competitive commercial transportation providers. I was simply proposing that NASA establish a base by 2020, the same thing that George W. Bush proposed, and that Governor Romney supported the last time he ran for president. Such a base would prove out the concepts of the utilization of resources on the moon, such as water for life support and propellants, and other materials, that would allow a reduction in the cost of both getting there and living there, and enable the development of a later colony that could pay for itself.
Having sat in too many of John Logsdon classes (full disclosure: he was the chair of my PhD commitee) and arguing against him innumerable times, I must state that John Logsdon has a unique well of knowledge on space programs including funding — he is likely correct on his estimate. Also having read Newt’s books, I can say he loves expensive solutions.
If you want umans to get to the Moon again (and have them speak English as a native language), Newt is the wrong man — no idea is too grandiose or expensive. He will kill any chances of getting there again.
“Obviously, I believe that there is an ROI, … Simply, it is to expand humanity into the cosmos.”
That’s not an ROI, that just hubris talking. The same speech could apply to high-speed rail, the next sports stadium, the world’s tallest building, or nationalizing health care. The speech fails to provide a compelling reason to divert precious resources to a project with a 100-year timeline. The speech also fails to state why the Chinese would loan us the money… well, I guess that’s obvious, if we don’t build it, they can’t steal it.
If you want to colonize space then use the East India Company as your model. Understand why the British, Dutch, Spaniards, French, and Portuguese established colonies in remote locations around the globe. It wasn’t for the hubris of planting the flag, it was to make money. NASA failed because it has no accountability. No amount of money is too much if your mission is to save humanity and no deadline is important if you don’t have any tangible objectives. If you want to colonize the moon then start the Sea of Serenity Company and forget about the government.
If I understand you correctly, the human motives that make space travel seem worthwhile are precisely two: hubris and venality. You’ll forgive me if that seems a little crabbed, even by the standards of ordinary cynicism.
No, the motives that make space travel worthwhile are Profit and Freedom. Grandiosely saying our efforts are for the future of humanity is nothing but hubris. Of course, rockets are excellent phallic symbols…
Thanks for the clarification. I agree that the East India Company and Puritan settlers are two excellent models for would-be space explorers, but am still not inclined to dismiss any other motives as “hubris.” That’s cutting the list of valid human aspirations uncommonly short.
Gingrich (and Simberg) is correct. The path to riches/progress has always lain in conquering the unknown. The problem heretofore is that we have done so in space on a temporary basis (hard to conquer the unknown when all you do is briefly wave at it) whereas the operational motto Gingrich is proposing is now Veni Vidi Velcro (Came, Saw, Stuck Around.)
#2 ChrisS — Understand why the British, Dutch, Spaniards, French, and Portuguese established colonies in remote locations around the globe. It wasn’t for the hubris of planting the flag, it was to make money.
Yeah but where do you plan to get the slave labour from that made all of these efforts profitable? History much?
Robotics much?
Oops. Forgot the link. Check this out:
http://www.scoop.it/t/new-space-a-new-era-in-space-exploration/p/1118759945/no-joke-these-guys-created-a-machine-for-printing-houses-on-the-moon
I must agree with ChrisS. There was no tangible goal to be accomplished in your speech. What must be focused on the reduction of cost to reach near earth orbit. Second, space resources like microgravity and much more intense sunlight must be “mined” to create usable products that can be delivered back to earth in a cost effective manner. The first product that comes to mind is electricity. Solar technology while still in its infancy would be far more effective if sunlight was not obscured by the atmosphere. Orbiting platforms that convert far more intense solar power in space to microwave beams transmitted back to earth is just one idea that has been kicked around for decades.
Real space colonization is not the reserve of simple dreamers. Many of the original colonists who first inhabited the new world were killed off because they didn’t grasp the kind of work and preparation that it would take to make their dreams a reality. Not until the cash crop tobbacco was discovered and shipped back to England for a profit was the British future in North America ensured a fighting chance. Space is no different.
Why spend time discussing what Newt SHOULD say?
He said what he said, and we can discuss that.
He might say something more on the subject, and if he does, we could discuss THAT.
But a column about what one person thinks Newt SHOULD say?
Waste of time.
I’ll give the author this, though: He did a good job of capturing Newt’s pettiness in his jabs at Romney.
Yeah, the cynicism of Mitt–Willard the Chicken Hawk–Romney–firing anyone for even suggesting going back to the moon as a slide rule ready stimulus project ie., pulling a Jack Kennedy New Frontier act. How petty. I bet Mitt, like Al Gore and more, has an original iconic Blue Marble poster of the earth some where on a wall in one of his mansions. Let’s see, when we were going to the moon in sixty nine, Willard was hiding out from the Vietnam War draft, in France, playing the missionary on a mission from god. At least Al Gore showed up in South Vietnam playing an army reporter with an army supplied body guard in 1971, and apparently has been suffering from monsoon induced PTSD ever since. I wonder if Al Gore blames his PTSD, and Mitt his car accident in France, on Nixon, Johnson, or Kennedy, or all three?
Can we send Muslims to the Moon, perhaps combining Obama NASA Policy with Gingrich NASA Policy.
Send the lot of them up there….and leave them.
This is not a new idea from Newt. It goes way back.
For more background you can go to Jerry Pournelle’s place and read it yourself.
Newt had planned to go private back when he was speaker. Then his wheels fell off.
http://tinyurl.com/7n2qatb
I was watching two shows about the Moon on the Science channel this past Monday or Tuesday. One from 1999. One from 2007.
Both thought a permanent moon base was feasible. The 2007 show, assuming a lot of effort from private industry, put the estimated cost at $15 billion.
I have no idea if that figure is right or not (sounds low), but if a show from 5 years ago and 13 years ago respectively say the idea is feasible, Newt is not crazy.
People lack imagination.
I’d do it much shorter:
America needs to debate how we wish to develop the opportunities of space development & I hope we will do so. However, what has passed for discusion in the last few days totally changing, perhaps accidentally, what i actually said.
I never said I intended to spend the sums, of anything up to half a trillion dollars that some politicians and indeed “journalists” have claimed. That is simply untrue. In fact I stated, very clearly, that I did not anticpate it being necessary to increase the amount which is currently spent by NASA, merely that we should use it with less stifling bureaucracy and more entrepreneurialism.
While I do not demand a specific apology I am forced to ask those that have made this non-factual claim to either publicly retract it or else point to exactly where I allegedly promised the figures they claim.
The key is not just money but letting loose the innovative nature of free enterprize. It requires no “audacity of hope” to recognise that Ameica can be best placed to achieve this, but if our political class reject this some other country will inherit the solar system. If I am in a position of authority America will lead in what is certain to be an expansion of the field of human endeavour that will,in due course, far outstrip that of Columbus & may, in a thousand years, be seen as America’s “finest hour”.
I am happy to discuss this publicly with those who disapprove. The only condition I must attach is that discussionn be on the basis of what I have actually said not what has been made up.”
I think that sounds sufficiently pompous and Presidential and calls Romney and the media liars without having to go to the bother of naming anybody. Obviously none of them can claim he said the half trillion or make the not quite an apology requested while anythinmg other than producing a quote will make them look weak, shifty and dishonet.
But we have to have a counterweight against the Nazis!
http://www.ironsky.net/
You know, this crap about sending Muslims, or Obamacrats, or whoever, to the moon was dumb the first time around; now it just shows a mind stuck on stupid.
I wish Newt would give a speech similar to Rand’s proposed one. All of the other Republicans have shown how Earthbound their ideas are. We do not know how long the U.S. will have any spaceflight capability–who’d have thought that 40 years after Apollo we would not even be able to put a U.S. citizen in space without buying a trip from the Russians? Most of the energy and material in the solar system is off-Earth–and if we get both from space we don’t have to carve up our mountains to have them!
If anybody wants to know what real scientists are saying about the possibility of moon colonies they should check out this exhibition at the American Museum of Natural History in NYC: http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/beyond/
I talked to a friend that was a strong space supporter. He said that Newt might well be right, but with the idea coming from Newt, it will probably discredit an idea that would otherwise have been taken seriously.
Well done, Rand. The way internet searches work, I wouldn’t be surprised if one of his staffers gets this in front of Newt. As Geoff pointed out, this is no passing fancy for Mr. Gingrich, he has been in favor of HSF and off-planet resource utilization for a long long time, and if he were President, might fight for these important programs a tad better than Obama has (even though the Prez put out a dandy yet doomed FY2010 NASA budget proposal).