I always thought that Gingrich was a bit of a 'space cadet'

Obi, I mean this in the kindest way possible, but can you please go one political post without inserting an entirely irrelevant bashing of Ron Paul? I've forgotten what your political posts which do go without such unnecessary sideshows look like and I start to question if it's even possible.

I mean really, "not sure half of them are legal"? They're 100% by the supreme law of the land, unless there's some deviation I'm missing then it's literally impossible for them to be illegal.

Again, none of my business, but I think this Gingrich character would promise to build a permanent base on the sun if it makes him come across as having "vision".

@Eden:

Oh, I suppose I can lay off RP for a post or two... ;)

(You make a good point, though, I do bash him a lot...even for him...)

Moon base by 2020?

Sure, now go cut the DoD so there's money for Mooncity.
Only way I would support it.

Yeah Gingrich is just lying he wouldn't do such a thing however I would support such an initiative. It would redefine this country is a good way for decades.

Also I've said this before and I'll say it again.

In response to the environmental catastrophe we are wreaking on ourselves there are only two viable options.

A) Be more responsible and fix this environment
B) Get off this rock - i.e., make it so the environment of earth isn't the one thing we stake everything on - put some of our eggs in another basket. If the resources of space can be added to our economy then we won't have to worry so much anymore about resource conservation. Indeed, instead we'd have to worry about flooding the market with precious metals etc.

And since we all know A isn't going to happen, we really only have one hope left. Get the fuck out of here before it's too late. The longer we all hang around on a single planet, the greater the risk that everything we've worked for so long will just go up in smoke one day.

Problem with B is that radiation is kinda harmful to us and our favored forms of life.

We already know that there are caves (lava tubes) on both the moon and Mars... This would adequately protect us from radiation (we could tool around outside most of the time and run for cover as necessary when solar eruptions happen). The real solution long term is of course other solar systems... but in the meantime, we need the raw materials that are outside the Earth's gravity well, the energy outside the Earth's atmosphere and the experience/tools we would develop in solar system space exploration before inter-stellar exploration would become possible.

Nasty place to work, is the Moon. Aside from radiation and climate difficulties, it just doesn't have enough gravity for humans to survive. Bones would start to wither away and muscles would fade with lack of use at alarming rates. With the space station you can get around this by swapping people at very regular intervals, but the distance of the Moon combined with the expense of fighting it's gravity well would make this a nightmare.

Investing in places like CERN is our best bet of achieving workable space travel. Once they find out how gravity works we'll actually have a chance of going places. Until then we're stuck with quick visits and sending up machines.

Until some sort of workable artificial gravity can be generated

...Ignore that last line. No idea how it got there.

Obi its all political, hes in florida he wants to pretend like he is going to make more space jobs in florida.

I don't remember who but someone characterized Newt as an ideological straight shooter. Here you go. The man is willing to promise a mission to mars to get votes.

and by the way I'm sure that fits right in with his fiscally conservative identity. God forbid we protect our own people from disease and hunger, we could be offering moon colonies statehood

I don't often agree with Romney, but I think he was right on this: what company would prefer to have/operate a moon base above having a space station? Also: why does Gingrich in every state come up with the most ever more ridiculous ideas that will predominantly generate revenue for (most often) just that state?
I was rightout hilarious that debate: "if there live more than 13 000 [Americans on the moon], they can apply for state". Several questions later he commented on a question regarding the statehood of Puerto Rico (more approx 3.7 million people): I have no intention to do so.

He is right that we need a robust space program, and at some point a moon base may even make sense scientifically, economically, and strategically. But that day is far off. Certainly further away than the end of Gingrich's (God forbid) second term. As for statehood, that's too silly to even talk about. I want to believe he was joking, but with this guy you never really know.

"Investing in places like CERN is our best bet of achieving workable space travel. Once they find out how gravity works we'll actually have a chance of going places. Until then we're stuck with quick visits and sending up machines."

We need to both, it's part of the package. "Getting off this rock" doesn't mean only that, it also means knowing how to do it well. Whoever said the resources *as well* as the technology we'd develop by necessity along the way is what we're after was right.

"I don't remember who but someone characterized Newt as an ideological straight shooter. Here you go. The man is willing to promise a mission to mars to get votes."

I am the one you are referring to, but that's not exactly what I said. What I said is he is an ideologue, but a slave to *his own* ideology, not that of a perfect GOP. This is consistent with his own personal views, I think. Like someone else said - space cadet.

"B) Get off this rock - i.e., make it so the environment of earth isn't the one thing we stake everything on"

Thucy the problem with this argument is that the environment every where else in the universe is far far far worse than than the worst of potential environmental catasotrophes here on Earth. We might have a polluted atmoshere but at least we have an atmoshere. (Yes the Moon has an atmoshere but it is very very thin).

"Investing in places like CERN is our best bet of achieving workable space travel. Once they find out how gravity works we'll actually have a chance of going places."

The secrets of gravitational propulsion are already known:

http://www.dreamlandresort.com/area51/lazar/lazartec.htm

Do we really need to spend tens of billions dollars re-inventing the gravity amplifier?

I think you're all neglecting the fact that he made this statement in Florida at a Space Coast convention infront of space exploration supporters. He's pandering for more votes, that's all.

Anyways, as was mentioned before, building a moon base wouldn't be that hard. There are tons of inflatable pods out there that could be carried up and shape to the contours of the lava tubes on the moon

http://www.space.com/8217-private-moon-bases-hot-idea-space-pioneer.html

or for those of us with more of a sense of humor
http://www.mocpages.com/folder.php/1436

Back to seriousness though, there is the technology to have a firm, airtight, expandable seal that can coat the walls of the lava tube. Then the habitation pods would be expanded after that. The main problem is with how you build it, not if we have the materials to do it. Also, the gravity issue octavious brought up would be something we have to look into to keep our cosmonauts, astronauts, and whatever the Chinese call their space cadets healthy (thinking in terms of the human race, not countries now due to a very inspirational speech I heard from Bill Clinton last night. Got to shake his hand too!). But if we don't do a moon base and want to build a larger space station, just make that thing spin and you'll get artificial gravity due to centripetal force.

Truth is that there won't be any real interest in space until the next asteroid hits. The last big one was in 1908 and did a hell of a lot of damage to some vast unpopulated area. The next one (and they come every 100 years or so) will be the first ever to be seen under the full glare of global 24/7 media and will no doubt make a huge difference to how the public percieves space.

As things stand we are woefully underprepared for these fairly common and potentially disasterous events. We had one of the closest ever near misses of an asteroid yesterday. We only noticed it for the first time on Wednesday!

Unless you get into mining the moon. There is a LOT of raw material up there, many of which are almost completely absent or incredibly hard to find on earth. Titanium, helium-3, etc.

Gingrich is a lunartic (geddit)

Goldfinger, small point, but Titanium is actually very common on Earth (the tenth most common element in the Earth's crust). It is just very expensive to extract. I wonder if if it will ever be cheaper to extract it from Moon sources than Earth sources?

I think if we were to find a good economic reason for major construction in space, then quite possibly mining the moon might be a better option than mining the Earth.
I suggest that that major construction could be massive solar panels in space to supply energy needs on Earth. If this could be considered technologically and economically feasible at some point in the not too distant future then maybe Gingrich is right. We should aim to build a base on the moon. Step one to achieving our aims will be to solve the complications of living on the moon.
I think of all our *grand* plans of somehow exploiting space that energy production is the most likely candidate, far ahead of finding somewhere else to live after we have destroyed the Earth (as Thucy suggests).

Spyman:

If we can learn how to live in space:

A) We will know how to live on Earth no matter how fucked up
B) If Earth is completely beyond habitation we will avoid extinction

I'd say from a "future of our species" point of view, which is what people really mean when they quaintly talk about their concern for their "children, and their children's children, and...", that getting this going as soon as possible is wise.

And spyman, I am not seriously suggesting that any politician or powerful person will put us in space principally because they are worried about the future - I'm smarter than that. No decision based on anything longer than a 20 year timeframe ever occur.

But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. So if that means extolling the benefits of space mining, go for it. We're going to end up running out of something here on Earth eventually anyway, so yes, the market *will* eventually drive us into space.

Best get going now - invest in some capital goods if you will.

In theory you're right Thucydides. In theory.

But we won't be closer to extinction as a species because Mitt Romney and Barack Obama don't put a premium on space travel.

I see your point Thucy. There is definitely merit in "shooting for the stars". How much technology do we use today in our everyday lives is a result of the space program? I would say quite a lot. So perhaps learning to live in space will make us better at living on Earth.