Newt Gingrich has promised that, if elected, we would have such a base by the end of his second term. This isn’t a 2012 election thread, but I’m curious: Is this claim anything other than pure lunacy? (And pun fodder?) Could we even send manned missions back to the Moon by 2020? (or January 2021, to be absolutely fair to Newt).
Finally - is there any actual scientific value to sending men to Luna? I mean, it’s a big dead place - it makes Antarctica seem verdant. What’s the point?
Of course there is scientific value to sending people to Luna, just as there is scientific value in sending them to Antarctica.
The problem is that there is no economic value. From Earths’/humanity’s POV, the Moon is not good for anything. And would not be if it were made of solid gold with petroleum seas, getting there and getting anything back again would be too expensive to be profitable.
As far as I know, at current funding and schedules, we won’t have the capability to send a man into low-earth orbit in the near future much less the moon.
And to be absolutely fair to the public, his plan calls for cash prizes to those in the private sector who accomplish the deed. If it doesn’t happen for various reasons(such as the cash prize probably wouldn’t cover the price of establishing a permanent base), then he hasn’t broken his promise-we did by not stepping up to the plate.
I’ll quote myself from Newt’s election thread:
I’m skeptical about the value of the base as well. Its a neat project, but the cost would be tremendous, and you could fund a lot of cheaper neat projects, and unlike a space station, many of those cheaper projects have well defined questions they could answer. For example, the James Webb was in danger of being canceled because it cost something like 8 billion. But it has definate, well defined scientific applications that would be near impossible to do any other way.
The space station would optimistically cost something like half a trillion dollars (consider teh ISS cost 100 billion, and was built with an existing space-craft in LEO, the lunar colony would need a new space-craft and heavy lift capabilities to be built, and would have to be built on the frikin’ moon), and while I’m sure we might learn some interesting things about lunar geology and the like building it, there aren’t any really hot science questions that it and it alone could answer.
If we commit enormous resources to the project, it might be possible. I’d like to see us do it, but I don’t know that this is the time to put that level of money/manpower into the space program given other budget issues. Maybe by 2030, with a more reasonable commitment of resources over time…
I think Mr. Gingrich’s ideas about a colony on the moon are a great example of what I don’t like about him as a candidate. I mean, read this article. Not only is the idea totally unfeasible, but also kind of pointless - why would anyone care that 13,000 people living on the moon could apply for statehood? How does that benefit anybody, and why toss around the “American” rhetoric other than to goad other people into disputing the US claim to territory on the moon?
And for that matter, promising a lunar colony by “the end of his second term” is not only completely stupid but pretty arrogant. As is comparing himself to President Lincoln and JFK. “Bold ideas the governor doesn’t understand”? Why am I inclined to believe that Romney’s years as a successful businessman and governor contrasted with this lunacy may give the former governor a better “understanding” of the value of a dollar?
I do not support Newt or this hairbrained idea. Just posting the obligatory XKCD link. Move along.
There are plenty of good reasons to return to the Moon and establish a base, the mining of hydrogen 3 and the advances in technology that come with such an endeavor. However, I think such a move may be premature at this time. Until we have a breakthrough launch technology, such as the space elevator, it is going to cost trillions of dollars to do. So really, the short term goal of lower cost transport should be the focus.
How big would a cash prize have to be to be incentive enough to build a permanent moon base?
Says here that Mr. Gingrich would offer a $10 billion prize for the first private company to make it. Genius. I saw $20 billion somewhere else but i can find a cite.
Right. It’d be a huge stretch goal to go after, esp. because it wouldn’t even possibly get kicked off for another year. If it became a high-priority government project, as Apollo was, it might be possible, but counting on the private space sector to do this (esp. when your incentives likely won’t come anywhere close to paying for the project), it’s just not going to happen.
I note that the first article linked to by punch line loser quotes Gingrich at a conference on Florida’s Space Coast…a region which has lost literally thousands, if not tens of thousands, of jobs with the demise of the Space Shuttle program. I don’t find that to be a coincidence; it’s a topic close to the heart of those potential voters.
From Kennedy’s speech to Armstron set foot on the moon was only 8-9 years. What was possible in 1960s is certainly possible with technology available in the 2010s. A Moon base may even be easier in some respect, than making a rocket for the whole return trip. It’s a stellar idea. The USA could reinvent itself, rediscover its old buzz. But such a program would taking funding and dedication. A cash prize program is just silly.
10 Billion? 
Is he going to validate their parking at the White House when they come to pick up the check, too?
As a species we need to get out into space. As a nation, the technical and scientific achievements such an endeavor would fuel our economic growth for decades. But, a lunar base in eight years isn’t even the first step. Funding it using dopey schemes ain’t going to work it either. Public-private partnerships, until there are sufficient economic reasons for business to go to space for its own sake.
Thats crazy. No one is going to be incentivized to build a moonbase for a chance to make 20 billion. Again, the project would cost half a trillion or more. I’m not sure there is even a private company that could come up with that kind of money even if they went insane and decided they wanted to burn through hundreds of billions of dollars on a risky chance that might in the end get them a 20 billion dollar check from the gov’t.
Exactly. I was going to say that it’s an empty gesture, but it’s not…it’s a coldly calculated gesture, meant to have minimal risk for Gingrich. $20 billion is a huge number to the layman, and it lets Gingrich sound like he’s all for supporting the space industry, and exploration…when all it really is is a way to pander to certain voters, with a “promise” that he already knows he’ll almost undoubtedly never have to cash.
That’s a good point, one that makes it seem even more insulting that the whole thing is most likely just an empty political maneuver. Dude’s got a penchant for saying wacky things that’ll get him in the limelight. Putting himself in the same class as Lincoln for his “grandiosity” is a little sickening.
I think you mean helium-3, which might valuable as nuclear-fusion fuel if we had such thing as controlled-fusion technology, which we don’t, it’s one of those things that’s always 10 years away.
I think you mean Helium 3, a fusion material that should produce no radioactive waste or even byproduct, basically a clean nuclear fusion fuel.
Also if we can find a way to use it it may be worth it. From a science (discovery, history, science channel?)show they claimed that a space shuttle external fuel tank full of liquid He3 could supply the peak demand of power for the US for a year.
Indeed, He3 could help fuel our burgeoning nuclear fusion power industry. Using the network of fusion reactors that we will build in [del]1985[/del] [del]2003[/del] [del]2020[/del] 2050. For sure and certain.