-
The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal
June 18, 2013 | 102 comments
-
The IRS Ten: The New Keating Five
June 13, 2013 | 54 comments
-
Mark Levin: The Constitution’s Churchill
June 11, 2013 | 215 comments
-
George Clooney’s Perfect Storm
June 6, 2013 | 91 comments
-
IRS Commissioner Aided Tax Cheat Congressman
June 4, 2013 | 55 comments
Political Hay
Santorum Rejects Reagan Space Legacy
Conservative stumbles in bid to hit Gingrich as late president, Challenger remembered.
(Page 2 of 5)
Doubling down, Santorum wrote an op-ed on the subject, mocking the Reagan beliefs by comparing them to the cartoon character George Jetson. Earlier he’d said: “I promise you: no moon colonies, I promise.”
So let me see if I understand this.
The week that the nation is be celebrating Ronald Reagan’s 101st birthday — that would be February 6 — Rick Santorum has selected that exact moment to present himself as the anti-Reagan? With the nation still recalling the tragedy that was the explosion of the Challenger space shuttle 26 Januarys ago, Rick Santorum sides with… Barack Obama and Mr. Obama-Lite Mitt Romney? But says he’s the most “authentic conservative”?
Well. As the former president might say.
If this is what passes for genius in the Santorum campaign to be The Conservative Alternative — wow. And, in the spirit of fairness, since I suggested Gingrich get out of the campaign if he continued his Bain bashing (which he stopped) — the sauce for the Gingrich and Perry geese should be ladled to the Santorum gander.
If Rick Santorum is going to try and become The Conservative Alternative at the expense of the Reagan space legacy — he should stop and get out of the campaign right now before he inflicts any more damage to himself and the conservative cause.
Is there a Reagan space story here? Of course.
One particular morning in January of 1986, a man named Michael Smith got up and went to work. On the bureau dresser, he left a file card with a note to his wife, Jane. And off he went.
What did Michael Smith do?
He was an astronaut. In fact, he was a crew member of an American space ship.
Long before dawn, Michael Smith, along with his fellow crew members, was being suited up.
The names of his fellow crew members were, in alphabetical order:
Greg Jarvis
Christa
McAuliffe
Ronald
McNair
Ellison
Onizuka
Judith
Resnik
Dick Scobee
The name of their space ship — a shuttle captained by Smith’s fellow astronaut Dick Scobee?
That’s right: Challenger.
About the Author
Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (164) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jeffrey Lord
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/07/santorum-rejects-reagan-space
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
c. j. acworth| 2.7.12 @ 7:06AM
A very moving essay Mr. Lord. And I wish that the candidates could keep their comments more constructive than destructive; keeping the focus on Obama and getting rid of him.
But half a trillion is a lot of money.
Elias| 2.7.12 @ 12:41PM
If only! if only!! if only!!! Mr. Lord could say it with fewer words...
Quartermaster| 2.7.12 @ 9:19PM
Where's the money coming from for this space initiative? It's been calculated it would require above 150 billion just to get back to the moon. To establish a moon colony would 1 trillion just to get started as the stuff we will need would have to be boosted out of the Earth's gravity well, and quite possibly everything to sustain the colony for the first 10 years would have to come from here, at a minimum. Frankly 1 trillion would, in the end, just be chump change compared to teh costs we would run up.
It is foolish for a near bankrupt country to even consider such foolishness. Call it "unconservative" if you wish, but it's insane to do what you suggest and Santorum is actually being the adult.
HeyNumbNuts!| 2.8.12 @ 7:57PM
So maybe you were not listening to what Gingrich said about this being a private industry competitive venture with Prizes offered going to the winner?
And maybe you also haven't heard of the aerospace engineer Burt Rutan being funded by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen. Nor Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Group signing a deal with Paul Allen and Burt Rutan’s joint venture (Mojave Aerospace Ventures) for the rights to create a fleet of ships based on SpaceShipOne’s original design. And not to mention eventually a joint venture will be created by Burt Rutan’s Scaled Composites and Branson’s Virgin Galactic: The Spaceship Company. The joint venture would create SpaceShipTwo, a ship designed to carry six passengers and two pilots. Virgin Galactic would use the fleet of ships to create the world’s first private spaceliner, giving its customers the chance to make the trip into space and experience “zero G” from 110 kilometers above the earth.
So tell me you must be under the impression that everyone else on this blue ball has as small a venturous brain as you!
THINK AGAIN!
IzeHavitt| 2.9.12 @ 11:52PM
It is correct to note that Newt has proposed a far more privately funded space effort. Can't you people pay attention? And while the various layers of government may be broke, it's not true of the private market. By the way, great essay, Mr. Lord.
hehehe| 2.8.12 @ 2:05AM
WOW!!! if you mention the Bush Recession unemployment or the Deficit CJ, I swear you will hear Me laugh in your sleep! WOW! A half trillion and you don't even CARE what for, you'ld let a REpublican spend it on a folly.
Mark Turner| 2.8.12 @ 12:42PM
I will hold my nose and vote for Romney but I will not vote for Santorum if he is the nominee and this attack on American Exceptionalism is the reason. I would rather 4 more years of Obama than let such a cancerous, destructive view take hold in our party. And I have voted in every Presidential election since 1984 and always for the Republican candidate but I will not vote for Santorum. NO!
And nobody is proposing spending a half-trillion dollars, this is a blatant lie on Santorums part. New it proposing to re-purpose the existing NASA budget and not any new funding.
Mark R. Whittington| 2.7.12 @ 7:09AM
Mr. Lord is onto something here. Let us not forget that Reagan proposed what would become the International Space Station. His space station was attacked, with attempts to kill the program, just as Gingrich's moon base is today. Sadly Santorum and Romney seemed more a-tuned to Barack Obama than with Ronald Reagan where it concerns opening the high frontier of space.
L. Ross| 2.7.12 @ 7:19AM
The Challenger was a sad day. Sadder still is that we did not begin then and there to develop a safe and inexpensive replacement for manned lift into space. No, we had to carry on with that flawed model for a couple more decades, and lose another crew. In only 135 missions, we lost two space vehicles. Can you imagine strapping yourself into a rocket knowing it has a demonstrated catastrophic failure rate of 1.5%. The shuttle was a failure from the start. It did not reduce the cost of spaceflight, it was not safe, it did not allow for quick turn around. The tragedy is that there is nothing to replace it other than buying rides on Russian rockets, and those Russian rockets have killed no one since the beginning of the shuttle program.
Pete| 2.7.12 @ 1:21PM
You are right. Many old-timers have romantic attachment to NASA. Truth is that it has done little of note in these last 25 years except provide us with Hansen and his bogus temperature data. It was taken over by the military and ceased to be about space exploration.
I would rather see a dismantling of NASA and licensing of private parties for space exploration as a commercial endeavor.
hehehe| 2.8.12 @ 2:07AM
Good Idea. A trillion and a half wasted on what, cell phone technology so Red party investors can bribe their way through a maze of new legislation that allows for taxes on conversations?
Mr ED| 2.7.12 @ 7:31AM
"Bad enough that Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry briefly put themselves out there to appear as the anti-capitalist candidates."
But Newt didn't even consider attacking something like Bain until Mitt (and his fellow travelers in RINOmedia) let out the unremitting attacks - mostly false - against Newt. What they didi in Iowa was astonishing and the depths to which they sank in Romneys scorched Earth scrullious invective was totally ignored by the MSM and RINOmedia. I am no fan of Newt in particular, but I am even less a fan of Romney, at least as a presidential candidate. This article is just the next step in diminishing the Mittsters opponents (Santorum might win Minn) to clear the decks of anyone who might get in the way of the current Ruling Class aparatchiks who believe they ARE the party, so whatever they do, by definition, is in the partys best interests. The supposed right wing blogosphere has become nothing but a massive coordinated propaganda effort intended to get Mitt the nomination by any means necessary. I just wonder when we will get the obligatory flood of articles indignantly informing us that there was/is no coordinated effort to explain, excuse and assign false creds to the next McLame and scream from the pages of the blogosphere that it is we "purists" who are the problem, not the wise and entrenched bureaucrats who wish to manipulate us for their own selfish reasons.
Götterdämmerung| 2.7.12 @ 11:37AM
Now while I don't really have an opinion on this article one way or another I just thought I would point out that it was Jeffrey Lord who wrote the following article http://spectator.org/archives/.....eutenant/1
I just felt it unfair to attack him for being in the Mitt crowd when he seems to be just writing an opinion article (especially when this article is defending Newt again).
Brooklyn| 2.7.12 @ 1:52PM
Mr. Lord is not in the Mitt crowd. He is in the Reagan crowd. And I believe Mr. Lord is over-reacting to Santorum's attacks on the moon colony idea. Both Romney and Santorum have attacked Obama for abandoning the space program and leaving a clear field to China to take the lead in space exploration. As for the size and scope of a space exploration program, that's an issue that can be debated, but Gingrich bringing up the moon colony idea, out of the blue so to speak, was an obvious pander to the space coast, and was rather inappropriate at this time of economic and national security fears. Most people, I believe, will tune out on hearing about it, and think that the speaker, is out of touch with their concerns. I'll concede to Mr. Lord that Santorum should stop attacking the moon colony idea, give a positive message on space exploration, stating that a space exploration program will stenghthen our country, retaining our lead in innovation and discovery, and attack Obama for weakening our country by stopping our exploration of space. But Mr. Lord's attack on Santorum is over the top. He is not betraying Reagan, or conservatism, or the space program, by thinking that pushing a moon colony program to the American people in the midst of a presidential campaign where economics and national security are the major concerns.
Jo| 2.7.12 @ 1:35PM
I'd like to remind everyone that Newt only said anything about Bain initially in reply to a Fox News reporter who asked him to respond to Mitt's assertion that Newt should give back the money he earned from Freddie Mac. Newt said sure, as soon as Mitt gave back what he earned from Bain. Newt was using sarcastic humor, and that was his first explanation afterwards but, of course, the media saw a chance to screw Newt with the remark so they totally ignored his truthful explanation.
btims| 2.7.12 @ 7:41AM
I think we should re-enter manned space exploration, perhaps not on the scale of the 60s space race but at a slightly slower but still viable level. It's good for the nation's morale, it's good for technology, it's good for defense purposes. And it's good for domestic jobs.
hehehe| 2.8.12 @ 2:08AM
How do you propose to fund it?
Mike Walsh| 2.7.12 @ 7:48AM
The Space Age was over decades ago, and Newt's plan for a moonbase is absurd. Unfortunately, this sort of thing has perennial appeal for the perpetual adolescents among us, whose misplaced religious sensibilities drive romantic fancies about Our Destiny In Space. One tires of continually reminding them, but, once again: Star. Trek. Is. Not. Real.
Nick099| 2.7.12 @ 9:11AM
Uhhhhh. I hate to burst your bubble...but the religious zealotry thing usually favored no exploration of space. You've got your drivel backwards. But that is fitting, isn't it?
Your limited intellect is.......amazing!
I find it particularly surprising considering the world that we live in currently. It is the age of technology brought forth by visionaries and constructed by science; those who dared to think outside the primitive mindset you display. "Star Trek" is not real, but did in fact spur the imginations of a whole generation of scientists, engineers and inventors to bring to you some of the technologies you obviously take for granted today. Imbecile would normally fit, but not today.
Mike Walsh| 2.7.12 @ 1:00PM
The zeal for spaceflight is a fallacy of misplaced transcendence, a false eschaton, one particularly appealing to people prone to look for technological solutions to what are not technological problems, e.g. their own spiritual emptiness. There is no destination in space that offers financial rewards commensurate with the risks involved, and there likely never will be. For all practical purposes, there is no “there” there. Space offers nothing that repays capital investment except in a general sense, from a few satellites in earth orbit. And those efforts --like Hubble-- that have cultural value that cannot be measured in strictly monetary terms must still be measured against the value of any other scientific enterprise. As for the human exploration of space: what El Dorado awaits us that would ever repay the still more titanic costs of such an endeavor? What we have learned from human spaceflight is chiefly the effect of spaceflight on humans. A little sober thought reveals the utter absurdity of colonizing a place (the Moon) that makes Antarctica look like Eden. At the very best a future colony in space will resemble --and be about as important as-- a colony in the aforementioned Antarctica, that hardship post --so much for Newt's silly, grandstanding notion.
IzeHavitt| 2.10.12 @ 12:14AM
I am reminded of One Jesus of Nazareth, a rather influential chap in the shaping of Western Thought. Quoth He: "He that believeth on Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto my Father." We note that, in His day, they didn't have cell phones, or the Internet, or the ability to see and hear somebody on the other side of the world. Somebody had to dream that up. Somebody had to learn how to take previous technological efforts to a higher level. Somebody had to fire the imaginations of the people, and especially the youth, concerning these possibilities It beats the pants out of the negativity we're forced to deal with everyday.
Le Cracquere| 2.7.12 @ 9:45AM
The human yearning for exploration is not inherently adolescent. On a related note, there's nothing inherently adult about crabbed, dispirited incuriosity.
Derek Leaberry| 2.7.12 @ 11:40AM
Pay for exploration on your own dime. Ernest Shackleton received no government funds and paid for the Endurance Expedition through private funds, largely money from Sir James Caird, Dame Janet Stancomb Wills and Dudley Docker. All that he received from the Royal family was an inscribed Bible from George V, which was left on an ice flow after the ship was abandoned in the Weddell Sea.
Mike Walsh| 2.7.12 @ 1:06PM
Indeed. And all the hoopla surrounding various "private ventures" is misplaced, as well: it mostly amounts to privatizing NASA. If the government is the primary client, then such private ventures amount to little more than a species of tax farming.
Richard M| 2.7.12 @ 4:12PM
No, but Lewis & Clark certainly received ALL of their funding from the federal government, and at the time, it wasn't cheap, either.
hehehe| 2.8.12 @ 2:11AM
But it had purpose and return on investment. The moon base Does not and will NOT do either. It's just newtie hoakum for a soundbite.
Le Cracquere| 2.7.12 @ 6:00PM
Strange that people are suddenly discovering fiscal discipline w/r/t space activities only after the decades-long, cost-ineffective detour that was the Space Shuttle has finally closed shop. Space exploration has been spinning its wheels--while burning money, thank you--since the 1970s. If NASA's GOING to spend money, it seems reasonable to ask the agency to at least set its sights beyond low Earth orbit.
Occam's Tool| 2.7.12 @ 11:46AM
Mike:
Like your satellite weather reports, satellite radio? They were once Star Trek, too. We need to get back out there. However, I don't think NASA's the way to go---tax incentives for private companies might be better...
hehehe| 2.8.12 @ 2:13AM
Then NEVER mention the deficit again! Pay your war bills and you credit card bills and your gambling losses off first, before you take out a mortgage on a Lunar condo for Congressional junkets.
MachiasPrivateer| 2.7.12 @ 8:06AM
Sadly, what was once an organization worthy of the highest praise has devolved into a bureaucaracy with more grammar police than astronauts.
RIP Apollo 11! http://tinyurl.com/7fpq67m
davod| 2.8.12 @ 2:39AM
don't forget one of its primary missions is to bring the wonders of scince to the Islamic world.
Vern Crisler | 2.7.12 @ 8:14AM
I agree, this is one of Jeffrey's best essays. Newt understands the spirit of exploration, while the Romneys and Santorums of the world look at things through the eyes of accountants.
Ward Bond| 2.7.12 @ 8:57AM
This might not be a bad time to look at the world through the eyes of an accountant. Gingrich's main concern about the moon was NASA votes in Florida. A half a trillion here, a half a trillion there, pretty soon you're talking real money.
Vern Crisler| 2.7.12 @ 9:15AM
Well, it's a good thing Ferdinand and Isabella did not follow that advice.
Edward Cropper | 2.7.12 @ 10:07AM
Just what was Ferdinand and Isabella's thoughts on space exploration?
Vern Crisler| 2.7.12 @ 10:40AM
You'd have to ask them.
Derek Leaberry| 2.7.12 @ 11:32AM
Ferdinand and Isabella's expeditions actually made a lot money for the Crown and individual Spaniards. It also created a Spanish Empire that would last four centuries, albeit in decline the last two centuries.
Occam's Tool| 2.7.12 @ 11:47AM
The Space program of their day was Columbus. Don't be snooty, Eddie.
hehehe| 2.8.12 @ 2:17AM
Again, Ferd and Izzy got a huge return on their investment, just as Kennedy got on his investment in the moonshot. Do we 'NEED' momre technology, or just refined technology? Can we get that in developing healthcare equipment? Robotic prosthesis or seizure implants that work like pacemakers? Bionic eyes and fiber optic vocal chords so you could SEE the value of what I am SAYING?
LOL. Had to make that joke folks.
JimH| 2.7.12 @ 11:58AM
Certainly Newt raising the subject in Florida had political motivations, but he has been an advocate of a strong American presence in space for a long time. Newt does not look to be calling for much in the way of taxpayer dollars other than in awarding prizes for various achievements in space, the size of which is dwarfed by one day’s spending on government pork. For the long term security of the country, both economic and military it is important that we have a significant presence at the strategic high ground. This is Earth orbit now and will be on and around the Moon in the future. And we need our own means to get there. We ought not to be buying tickets on Russian rockets.
hehehe| 2.8.12 @ 2:19AM
A defensive rocket, launched from the moon, would take 3 days to hit a target. I can put 50,000 Bedouins on camels with stinger missiles, get there faster for the same money and do more damage.
Garfield| 2.9.12 @ 12:10PM
While it may take three days to hit a target, you also potentially don't even need a warhead, you can just lob rocks and it'd be just as destructive as a nuclear weapon if not worse.
Don't believe me? It is believed that the Gulf of Mexico could actually be an impact crater.
calvin | 2.7.12 @ 2:47PM
Gee. And I thought I was the only one to remember and like Everett Dirkson.
davod| 2.8.12 @ 2:42AM
I believe Gingrich's ideas revolve around mainly private financing.
George S| 2.7.12 @ 11:00AM
It's not the eyes of accountants but the perception it gives to the slacker class: "We have money for moon colonies and I'm still paying a student loan, here?"
I have no doubt that the implementation of the Great Society came at the heels of John Glenn's flight. We gave the impression we had money to spend; if we can send a man into orbit, we sure can help granny pay for a doctor.
Slacker| 2.7.12 @ 12:03PM
I think you are correct. NASA will not fly another manned space vehicle in my lifetime. The space station served mainly as a destination for the shuttles. It will be decommissioned before too long.
Manned spaceships are extravagances enjoyed by successful societies. Our wings have been clipped. Santorum is merely telling it like it is.
VonMisesJr| 2.7.12 @ 11:31AM
Hey Vern,
I think it is more an issue of worldview, than book keeping. Obama, Romney and Santorum (in this instance) are embracing "Utopianism" and sliding backward in a reactionary mindset. They are thinking like Rousseau with his "Noble Savage" in that we should return to primative cognitive state. They appear to me like an overbearing mommy.
Newt is embracing rugged individualism and freedom. He understands like my mother did, that boys need to play rough and compete. they need to learn and grow. They need to experience and live. Newt, for all his faults, understands the ideas of conservativism based on Locke, Burke and our Founding Fathers.
Newt is projecting progress, while the rest wish to stagnate in a slow death. It happened to Cuba where they drive 1957 and older vehicles, and the USSR that imploded in misery and poverty.
It is not possible to stand put. Once you stop moving forward, you slide backward in comparison to those who continue to push forward.
But statist cannot enslave individuals moving ahead without their domination. But a collective of sheep can be hearded.
Pete| 2.7.12 @ 1:27PM
I see your point, though I don't see why its up to the government to explore space. However I do see that we must resists security seeking decisions. It results in depression. You go lean and mean, so that you can allow freedom and hope and prosperity, not because you are afraid of the bill collector.
VonMisesJr| 2.7.12 @ 3:23PM
National Defense is one of the seventeen Enumerated Powers plus the power to tax. So, it can certainly be argued that space/military technology is warranted.
It turned out well in the past since the government paid the private sector to innovate (Honeywell, Lockheed, United Technologies, etc) and manufacture. Therefore, we got the F-16 and stealth bombers instead of Chevy Volts and Solyndra solar panels.
hehehe| 2.8.12 @ 2:21AM
if it was NOT privatized, it would have cost about half as much of the 5 trillion in defense taxes paid by our parents and our selves.
Dan Phillips| 2.7.12 @ 3:11PM
I'm shocked, simply shocked, that the guy who writes a book length defense of Lincoln's usurpations is a big fan of unconstitutional expenditures on the space program. Vern, the authentic conservatives of the world look at things (expenditures) through the eyes of constitutional authorization.
aware| 2.7.12 @ 4:49PM
Yes. But unfortunately there isn't much constitution left to be seen.
Vern Crisler| 2.7.12 @ 5:13PM
Eh, ever hear of the Louisiana Purchase? Not exactly authorized by the Constitution....
Vern Crisler| 2.7.12 @ 5:13PM
Book-length defense of Lincoln. My essay on neo-confederates is not the much longer than one of Jeffrey's essays. ;-)
Should Have Impeached| 2.7.12 @ 9:38PM
Call me incurious, but.... We do need to save money. Let's talk about the joys of space exploration after we save the country. But I do get that Gingrich was trying to give us something exciting to rally around. Just that it sounds about as practical right now as California's impending speed train. Yikes.
Should Have Impeached| 2.7.12 @ 9:46PM
But on the other hand, if you want to talk about Reagan's Star Wars for self defense, count me in. A protective shield we could use.
hehehe| 2.8.12 @ 2:22AM
Against whom?
Notary Sojac| 2.7.12 @ 8:16AM
"Reagan's space legacy" turned out to be a space pork program designed to funnel taxpayer billions to Florida, Texas, Utah and California whether the recipients managed to design and build any new rockets or not. Mostly - not.
And space "exploration" at least on the manned side, has amounted to thirty years of doing glorified science fair experiments in low earth orbit. That, and generating a pile of climate change propaganda.
I would be the last one to question the character of our astronauts. But they do need a different, non governmental, employer.
Nick099| 2.7.12 @ 9:02AM
Yeah, I know...particle weapons...what a waste of time. All that laser tech, now mounted on warships protecting our nation...what a waste. Smart-bombs.....laser guuidance...yeah all a freakin waste. Send in the troops instead...let them get killed the old-fashioned way... the same way we have been doing since we began!!! Yeah, let's lose 10,000 men in an afternoon, like D-day in WWIII...those were the good old days!!! You are tooooooo smaaaaart for me!!!!
George S| 2.7.12 @ 11:02AM
Not to mention the Soviets laughed so hard they forgot to pay the maintenance bill on the Berlin Wall and soon after went out of business.
davod| 2.8.12 @ 2:50AM
"Not to mention the Soviets laughed so hard " because the fellow travellers among the Democrats told them they would stop the program.Which they did many times.
Garfield| 2.7.12 @ 4:21PM
Speaking of energy weapons, we're actually starting to see them come into existance.
hehehe| 2.8.12 @ 2:25AM
They have this really cool sonic pain wall of silence! i mean it is ultrasonic, but will cause intense bodily pain on advancing crowds without physical damage! i saw it on 60 minutes a year or so ago.
hehehe| 2.8.12 @ 2:24AM
Laser tech is interesting, but you watch too much TV. you can develop the same quality of technology in a healthcare agenda for about half of the Military agenda you rub your phallus over.
Garfield| 2.9.12 @ 12:12PM
Lasers in the healthcare industry are short-range.
Anyways due to the fact the Moon is just outside Earth's magnetic field a lot of the time, I'm actually thinking of shielding technology to make some advancements.
mjs_pa| 2.7.12 @ 8:17AM
Mr. Lord totally ignores that we stand on the brink of financial disaster. I guess he can be counted among those "conservatives" who don't really think deficits matter.
There are many entrepreneurs who are attempting a truly free market based, capitalist approach to space. I'm sure Reagan would approve this uniquely American approach to "going where no man has gone before."
The years have proven that NASA is no better than the Post Office or the DMV. It is more bureaucracy and less about space. Goodness...obama has even turned the agency into a Muslim outreach program.
I cannot believe that the energetic pioneers who seek their personal ambitions and destiny in space would ever let their mission be burdened by such "political" baggage.
Dreaming big, reaching for the stars, is not the prerogative of the federal government, it is the responsibility of the American people.
Bill Whittle has a most excellent video on YouTube entitled: Bill Whittle: The Future Is Bright for Private Space Exploration.
Mr. Santorum and Mr. Whittle believe in the private sector. Mr. Lord and newt believe in the government.
Now you tell me who the principled conservative is. In my book, it's not even close.
Nick099| 2.7.12 @ 8:57AM
One more time.....private money...Got it?????
"Reaching for the Stars ....the American People?????" What kind of pipe dream is that???? Another disorganized imagery-laden spurious claim made to fool the ignorant. Space exploration is an orderly process. The benefits have proven immense...if you do not know that...I cannot help you. It's far too late.
But once again, for all the belly-aching going on...reasoning, listening skills and reading comprehension are not too strong here.
Gingrich's ideas involved 80% private funding instead of a the current bureacratic model.
And the Media calls Newt "volatile????" If I had to listen to infantile-minded adults whine all day, I would be volatile too.
davod| 2.8.12 @ 2:54AM
Remember, we need to save the money for food stamps, thedole. and expanded Medicaid.
nibblesyble| 2.7.12 @ 7:59PM
I recognize you from scoop! I have an issue with you regarding Newt believing in the Gov't with regards to the Space Race...he said he would like to see it funded 90% by the private sector..every time he spoke on it, he said that, so where are you getting that he wants the Gov't to pay for it?
hehehe| 2.8.12 @ 2:26AM
it's a muslim outreach program because there are NOT enough education programs in the US, TY RED menance!
Marco2| 2.7.12 @ 8:33AM
The United States of America is bankrupt, with 15,000,000,000,000+ in debt, 100,000,000,000,000+ in unfunded liabilities. As a polity, it teeters on the verge of collapse. What kind of nincompoops would propose pissing away another $1,000,000,000,000+ on making the moon the 51st state? Messrs. Gingrich and Lord, that kind. Further, in view of recent revelations about horndog Kennedy, I wouldn't think it a propitious time to talk about goings on under his desk. It reminds one of the antics of horndog Newt, still a liability in Republican ranks. Right now, this country doesn't need a moon colony. It needs a sane, sober, decent, honest, ethical, moral, competent, pro-American president. Newt is none of those, save perhaps pro-American, but he seems to conflate even that with pro-Newt.
Nick099| 2.7.12 @ 8:48AM
If you listened Marco....private money.....that was the plan outlined. OK???? Pay attention.
Al Adab| 2.7.12 @ 10:27AM
The debt, which we all abhore, is the result of "entitlement" social welfare spending, not the result of the former space program. The shuttle program was a misguided attempt to follow on to the great accomplishments of the Apollo program. We went to the moon, but had no plan for long term exploitation of that goal.
What is proposed, and should be done, is to establish a presence on the moon similar to the scientific stations in Antartica. Long term research presence is not colonization, which in lunar although not in planetary terms, is untenable. The costs are much less than the social welfare programs which are bankrupting the nation and promise much greater rewards.
Nick| 2.7.12 @ 12:02PM
Al Adab,
I believe the same could be accomplished with robots, no? Sending robots to the moon solves many problems, including food, water, and oxygen. To name but a few.
This is what should have happened after Apollo. Instead of Skylab and the space shuttle, we should've been sending robots to explore the moon for any valuable minerals or metals. Then the private sector could've spent the money on R&D to figure out how to bring it back here for a profit.
This would have followed the example of the exploration set by Columbus. The state funds the initial exploration. Then, private interests figure out how to make a profit from their discoveries.
That's my two cents, anyway.
Al Adab| 2.7.12 @ 12:35PM
Nick:
Same as Nick099?
Anyway, lunar exploitation which actually has a great profit potential, can in large measure be done roboticly. Nonehteless a certain human presence is still required. That said, the long term (think thousand years) future of mankind in space and on the planets MUST be driven by Western Civilization, not by any other cultural tradition. We would not be true to ourselves were we to abandon the future. See my discussion of the Ming Chinese also above.
Al Adab| 2.7.12 @ 12:36PM
OOPS, that post is below labled 10:35
Nick| 2.7.12 @ 1:15PM
Sorry, Al Adab, I should've clarified. No, this is Nick from Detroit.
I agree with the long term vision of manned space exploration. But, until the cost to deliver a payload into orbit drops to a more profitable level (currently, it is about $10,000 per pound, I believe,) there will never be enough incentive for private interests to go into space. The future of space exploration belongs to the private sector.
All of this leaves out the more attainable goal of deep-sea exploration, of course.
Al Adab| 2.7.12 @ 1:59PM
Thanks Nick, You didn't sound like a Luddite.
Your analysis is good, but the development will lower the cost. Kind of a symbiotic thing. Deep sea potential is much more immediate yes, and promises greater economic return. That cannot however negate the long term potential of space.
What did you, from Detroit, think of the Eastwood ad?
Nick| 2.7.12 @ 2:25PM
Thank you, Al Adab.
I don't think we are that far apart.
As far as the Eastwood ad goes, if Fiat-owned Chrysler thinks that Detroit has turned around, or, has begun its second-half, I've got some beach-front property to sell them!
Governor Snyder is about to appoint an Emergency Manager for Detroit, and democrats are fighting it, tooth-and-nail. If Detroit is the model for the rest of the nation, we are in BIG TROUBLE!
We have a family-run heating and air conditioning business, here, in the Detroit-metro area. 8 years of Jenni-pooh Granholm almost sank our business. We've been running it out of the house for the past three years, because we couldn't afford the rent. Next year, we'll have to deal with Obamacare.
Every kook-liberal idea that wart-faced witch had was a complete failure. And, yet, she still has the nerve to blame the Republicans!
I see she now has a show on Keith Olbermann-child's network. I'm sure she'll feel right at home, with all the other marxists there.
Sorry, didn't mean to rant. Have a great day!
Al Adab| 2.7.12 @ 3:28PM
Nick:
Thanks for the feedback on Detroit and the ad. What I heard it say was "It's halftime and we can still get off the mat, stick it to those who put us here and win one for the gipper". Leftisdt/statist policies got us here. Let's learn the lesson and end this travesty.
I think we are close on space. Hey maybe the Detroit guys can build some equipment. Have a good evening. Pleasure meeting you.
5280| 2.7.12 @ 11:51AM
I would like to know who the private concerns are that would supply the tens of billions of dollars needed.
Al Adab| 2.7.12 @ 2:00PM
Facebook stockholders maybe. Read Heinlein, The Man who Sold the Moon.
PCC| 2.7.12 @ 8:36AM
A touching and reverential tribute to the Challenger astronauts - and a completely unconvincing argument for continuing space exploration under NASA's present-day leadership.
Mike| 2.7.12 @ 8:41AM
Phony conservatives who declare absolutely that we must not raise taxes and cut government, unless it is a space program that they think is neato, or a war we don't need to fight, or a fighter that we don't need to deploy.
This blogger's real agenda is the Newt is great at everything agenda.
Nick099| 2.7.12 @ 8:47AM
Ah.... the caveman pundeth his club.
Did you not listen to Newt's plan or are you just commenting for the sake of an impression of 15th century inquisitors?
Newt had stated 80% of his plan was to be privately funded. Couple that with current funding and you would save money and get more. Got it???
Nick099| 2.7.12 @ 8:44AM
I thought the other candidate's pounding of Gingrich on space showed a basic difference between Newt and the others: Newt has macro-vision. The others have micro-vision. Gingrich has the ability to see issues from the high-ground. Not necessarily in moral terms but in global terms. Gingrich sees the big picture. As a result his style of leadership is to guide by vision and goals followed by amazingly detailed plans. Few people in the world have this kind of ability, which is why they are often paid large sums of money for their services. It is a God-given blessing...and sometimes a curse to those who are burdened by it, because the bearer must suffer the short-sightedness of his peers ( which can explain Gingrich's youthful volatility). None of the other candidates could see the value of space exploration. From their idiotic comments to the looks on their faces, they had no comprehension or interest in even discussing the subject except to ridicule Newt as "Zany." I thought Conservatives were supposed to be higher up on the evolutionary scale than their Marxist conterparts...apparently not all on the stage fit that standard. It was disgusting.
I have respect for Santorum. Strangely, I believe he is an honorable man....despite being a politician. I think he is a man of integrity ( again strange for a politician) but to me he appears to have integrity tattooed to his forehead. But he needs more time. He needs to learn more.
While he is a thousand times better than Romney, I still think he needs to learn from his mentor...Newt Gingrich. Santorum may not have the gift that Newt has in seeing the big-picture, but he may be able to learn that possibilites exist.
Then maybe, he might just be able to see the gigantic benefit the American Space Program has been to the American People and the world.
Vern Crisler| 2.7.12 @ 9:13AM
Dittos Nick....
Tommy Frisco| 2.7.12 @ 10:31AM
Well said, Nick.
We can tell a lot about a candidate by their supporters. I'm proud to stand beside you in supporting Newt Gingrich.
George S| 2.7.12 @ 11:12AM
People with big ideas abhor the details. That's why Newt is losing, not because of space colonies.
Bill| 2.7.12 @ 8:56AM
Santorum's problems:
1. voted for NCLB
2. voted for Medicare Part D
3. voted against "Right-to-Work"
4. no tax plan, no regulatory plan, no real change
5. lost his senate bid by 18 points in 2006
Santorum's advantage:
1. if he gets the GOP nod, he may carry PA, too bad for Obama
Nemo| 2.7.12 @ 8:59AM
Thank you for this splendid article - the best I have read for months. The Gipper himself might have written it. You undestand heroism!
MAC| 2.7.12 @ 9:27AM
I think you are being a little hard on Mr. Santorum. Times are different now than when Reagan became president. The scale of the problems are huge compared to 1980. Carter was a disaster and Reagan was just what we needed. Now we have an administration that seeks to destroy capitalism. Let us defeat the enemy then in the near future we can began to reexamine our space program but let us slay the fire breathing dragon first!
hardcard| 2.7.12 @ 9:33AM
The problem is not all of the above. The problem is obama and socialism. We are losing focus to the delight of the left.
cdc| 2.7.12 @ 10:09AM
Santorum proposed the Santorum Amendment, of course he dislikes and has no use for science and exploration.
David| 2.7.12 @ 10:23AM
Mr. Lord, have you asked Santorum if he agrees with Bam Bam's actions to halt the space program?
I seriously doubt that he does. What he is doing is objecting to a "moon colony". Does that mean that would not continue with the space program?
Did you call him and ask before writing this article?
Looking at all of the issues facing our country right, both domestic and foreign (Egypt now our enemy and holding hostages after 30 years of being our ally) the candidates' positions on a moon colony should not be an issue, and certainly not worth you writing about it.
Of course I wish Santorum would drop the subject, but again, this will be a non-issue in this primary.
That said,
Santorum will provide the greatest contrast with Bam Bam.
Remember, Newt, Mitt, and Barack all hold the following positions.
They believe in man-caused global warming baloney, and the regulations and restrictions that have resulted from such thinking. Santorum does not.
They supported the Wall Street bailouts. Santorum did not.
They support and/or supported individual mandates for health insurance. Santorum never has.
They all criticized Paul Ryan's plan to get our fiscal house in order. Santorum embraced it.
Santorum is of the opinion that ILLEGAL immigrants have not broken ONE law (by crossing the border) as many claim, but that they have continually been breaking America's laws by working here, driving here, etc., and should NOT be rewarded for doing so.
Santorum cannot be accused of being a flip-flopper.
Santorum cannot be accused of telling people what they want to hear.
Santorum cannot be accused of stating his positions based on the particular audience in front of him at the time.
It is clear that Santorum has been the adult in this race. His criticisms have been on the other candidates' records and he does not distort or misrepresent their records as they do to one another.
It is also clear that he has been the true, principled, consistent conservative his entire politcal career.
Ward Bond| 2.7.12 @ 10:45AM
David, dittos
David| 2.7.12 @ 10:26AM
Nick 099, "Santorum needs to learn more"???
Please tell us on what issue(s)/problems we have that you think Santorum is not well-studied and has reasonable and intelligent solutions to those problems?
Please let us know.
Derek Leaberry| 2.7.12 @ 10:30AM
There are several areas of contention in Mr. Lord's anguished diatribe that they deserve some sort of compartmentalization.
First, it is rather tiresome that Ronald Reagan is brought up in a way in which those who want continuation of one policy or another think that the career of Ronald Reagan can be used as a static cloak to prove their current policy "Reaganite." Mr. Lord defends the old NASA program of the Cold War past by maintaining that Reagan supported it 25 years ago. However, we do not know what Reagan would have thought about NASA in 2012, a very different time in history with very different crises. Reagan has been dead since 2005 and incapacitated since 1994. Bill Kristol presents similar generational calumny with regards to a "Reagan" foreign policy two decades after the death of the Cold War and the USSR.
We must understand that Ronald Reagan was a man of his times. He grew up during the Coolidge boom, grew to maturation in the Depression, played a very small role in defeating the Axis tyrannies, turned his back on the New Deal when he experienced the yolk of exorbitant taxes, and became a firm opponent of World Communism. Reagan was the paramount figure of his age. But that is not our age and we do not know how he would have reacted to the events that we are experiencing now.
One truth about the two Reagan presidential election victories is that it is doubtful that one voter voted for Ronald Reagan because he supported the space program. Not one. The Space Program of the 1980s was a sideshow to issues like handling the Soviet Union, the communist infiltration of Central America and the Caribbean, tax cuts and tax reform, the fight to limit government spending, social issues, providing for a judiciary that actually believed in the Constitution, and many more.
The space program of one of our more liberal presidents, John F. Kennedy, was one that was based on top-down central government planning. This was much different than other explorations like the Arctic and the Antarctic which were carried out largely by private funds. Even the Lewis and Clark Expedition was done on the cheap albeit with federal money. A future space program should be largely funded privately as the federal government is massively in debt with future expenditures likely to lead to bankruptcy.
Lastly, it is ironic that Reagan was an actor. Actors pretend to be people that they never were. Unfortunately, too many of those who consider themselves conservative live in cinematic fantasyland. Films like Star Trek and Star Wars provide emotional release from their mundane world of paying bills and working jobs. The space program of NASA acts as a more realistic surrogate for the world of space that they wished they lived. Sad to tell the space junkies, Flash Gordon, Mr. Spock, Captain Kirk, Klingons, Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader, R2-D2 and all the rest do not exist and are products of febrile imaginations.
Al Adab| 2.7.12 @ 10:35AM
There is a great irony here in the current Luddite, anti-space (because of the cost) outcry. From the world historical perspective rejecting further exploration would be a grave mistake.
In the early 15th century, the Ming Chinese sent great ships out to explore the world. They reached Africa and likely Australia and perhaps beyond. After a brief time, the dynasty rejected further voyages as promising little in the way of return. As a result, Europe "discovered" the world and the Chinese were left behind.
Now we are faced with the opposite choice. Having given to mankind the promise of space, the United States proposes to turn its back on that accomplishment and to watch as the Chinese follow on, explore and ultimately establish a human presence on the planets. What we might ask, will the world a thousand years from today be like if non-western values become the legacy of our decisions?
btims| 2.7.12 @ 10:52AM
You anti-space, anti-NASA zealots need to answer this: If not a couple of GDP percentage points for NASA, you'd rather spend the money on.......?
ACORN? More "social program" spending? More "buy-offs" of voters with mortgage "help"? More bi-lingualism? More printing of voter ballots in 50 different languages?
Slash social spending by just 10% and the federal govt would save huge amounts of money.
George S| 2.7.12 @ 11:20AM
Then run for office with the promise to cut whatever by 10 percent. Remember: we cannot spend money unless we borrow it. We need to find 5 trillion dollars just to break even. How much are you willing to send to the treasury so we can get back into space?
Derek Leaberry| 2.7.12 @ 12:04PM
I believe in a minimalist government. If I were an absolute monarch, I'd get rid of Medicare and Social Security and repay those who were forced to pay into those two un-American systems. I'd end the Interstate Highway System and rid the country of the gas tax. I'd cut the military by half and get troops out of Europe, Korea, Japan and Afghanistan. I'd abolish half the departments- Labor, Education, Energy, Commerce, Vet Affairs, Hud and sub-departments like the EEOC. I'd fire half the Secret Service and FBI. I'd sell the Post Office to private investors. I'd love to have a budget of, say, of $ 1 trillion with the savings paying down the debt and for massive tax cuts.
aware| 2.7.12 @ 5:01PM
And that I hope is just the 1st year.
DatsunMark| 2.7.12 @ 10:55AM
"A man's reach should exceed his grasp."
Oldefarte| 2.7.12 @ 10:56AM
I have most supported Jeffrey's intelligent editorials here previously, but respectfully he is absolutely wrong on this issue [and Romney and santorum are correct]. This nation presently is extremely mired in economic/financial debt and our defecit is exploding from historically too much governmental spending by mostly Democrats. We are simply broke and out of money. Romney as a professional businessperson [and Santorum agrees with him] knows full well that the primary job of any Republican president elected is to immediately and painfully begin the process of reducing governmental expenses in order to start the difficult process going forward of bringing about a re-balancing of the budget over time. Space travel [although admirable in thought/idea] is extremely expensive and at this critical budgetary time of excessive defecit, is unwarranted and unnecessary regarding governmental expendature. The problem in general with the mostly Democrat politicians who have historically spent taxpayers' money like a DRUNKEN SAILOR WITH A STOLEN CREDIT CARD is that they don't care about governmental expenses, since IT AIN'T THEIR MONEY THAT'S BEING SPENT [OTHERWISE THEY WOULD CARE]. Romney knows that a virtual braod axe is going to have to be taken to the nation's budget in January of 2013, and that there will simply be no moneys available for the frivoloties of space travel [and that only the essential/vital government services necessary for the nation's survival should be funded until such time as a re-balancing of the government's budget occurs]. In business, you have to priortise expenses to be paid, and space travel is not a prioriety. We can't be allowing things like Social Security to be destroyed and expensive governmental healthcare to be needlessly shoved down our throats, all the while funding the extremely expensive space travel. That simply is a fact of life!!!!!!!!!!!!
Pete| 2.7.12 @ 1:29PM
No, we shouldn't fund it. It should fund itself and we should not prevent it.
HarryS| 2.7.12 @ 11:29AM
" I just wonder when we will get the obligatory flood of articles indignantly informing us that there was/is no coordinated effort to explain, excuse and assign false creds to the next McLame and scream from the pages of the blogosphere that it is we "purists" who are the problem, not the wise and entrenched bureaucrats who wish to manipulate us for their own selfish reasons."
that's going to be on February 22
HarryS| 2.7.12 @ 11:36AM
Let's spend more money on education and encourage kids to follow their passion and dreams. Then when that kid wants to be an astronaut we can mock them and tell them how wasteful, silly and stupid being an astronaut is. We can't waste money on that. Instead, let's spend more money on education and encourage kids to follow their passion and dreams.
hardcard| 2.7.12 @ 11:38AM
The space program, you mean the obama muslim outreach program ?
Egypt Steve| 2.7.12 @ 11:51AM
I'm sorry, but I missed the part where Challenger was heading to the Moon when it exploded, or the part where Reagan ever actually advocated a Moon base.
Or is your argument that, since Reagan was in favor of our space program, then any proposal to do anything related to space is something he would have agreed with -- and therefore, any opposition to any proposed space project, no matter how far-fetched, is an insult to Reagan and the Challenger astronauts?
How about this. I advocate a comprehensive high-speed rail-network that will be connected to inter-planetary teleportation stations. In this set-up, you will be able to get on a train in South-Bend Indiana, be in Chicago in 20 minutes, and then get beamed to the Moon.
If you're against that, you hate Reagan.
Egypt Steve| 2.7.12 @ 12:16PM
By the way, let me just preempt any commenter who will reply that this is not a serious proposal, since teleportation is contrary to the laws of physics.
My reply: Who told you that, some scientist? The same guys who are going on and on about global warming and evolution? Ha. I'm no sucker.
Second: we can build that high-speed rail system now, while we perfect matter-energy-matter conversion, reconversion and transmission. The Chinese are doing it.
Occam's Tool| 2.7.12 @ 11:53AM
We need to get back into space. It's defense. Anybody here, besides Nick 099, understand what a gravity well is and its military applications?
(Hint: would you rather be on the bottom of a well throwing rocks up or the top of a well throwing rocks DOWN.) I think the Chinese understand this very well. They do nothing idealistically.
Egypt Steve| 2.7.12 @ 12:21PM
Gravity was invented by Galileo. I don't think the Chinese have gravity, unless they stole it through industrial espionage. More of that damn Chi-Com theft of our intellectual property!
Al Adab| 2.7.12 @ 12:29PM
Newton my Egyptian friend. Galileo was experimenting with a deduction of Aristotle.
O/T: See my posts above.
Dai Alanye | 2.7.12 @ 12:38PM
Newton invented gravity? In that case I guess that I reinvent it each time I drop a stone into the pond. Newton, of course, propounded a theory of attraction between masses. But I'm sure you knew that.
Al Adab| 2.7.12 @ 2:03PM
Of course, thanks for clarifying. Gravity and other natural laws (including morality) exist with our without our acknowledgement.
JimH| 2.7.12 @ 12:54PM
One of my faves is The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I suspect that we might wind up doing more mining in the asteroid belt because of the Moon's gravity well
Al Adab| 2.7.12 @ 2:03PM
Hei9nlein always pops up. The Man who Sold the Moon for example.
Drunken Sailor| 2.7.12 @ 4:59PM
One of my favorite authors.
Laurel | 2.7.12 @ 12:02PM
It isn't about ever reaching the moon, which is possible, and I guarantee you China and Russia would like to. What it is about is the enormous amount of technology and innovation that come from the race to space. People are clueless as to how much modern conveniences they have in their own homes due to that very thing.
Laurel | 2.7.12 @ 12:02PM
It isn't about ever reaching the moon, which is possible, and I guarantee you China and Russia would like to. What it is about is the enormous amount of technology and innovation that come from the race to space. People are clueless as to how much modern conveniences they have in their own homes due to that very thing.
fmm| 2.7.12 @ 12:23PM
This is such an over reaction to a proper economics based statement by Santorum. There is nothing anti Reagan in his sentiments, only an understanding that government supported programs of this type have no future until this country is again on a firm financial footing. Shame on you for such an insulting piece.
Dai Alanye | 2.7.12 @ 12:32PM
The only thing I previously disliked about Jeff Lord was his prolixity. Now he's getting to me with his ridiculously exaggerated attempts to clear Newt Gingrich of the charge of stupidity. Gingrich's wild ideas (and past wild behavior) play right into the hands of Romney, who has the money to take advantage of them. The best thing to be said about Newt's pushing a moon colony is that it wasn't as damaging to him as his proposed Star Chamber for judges.
Moon colony? Fine idea, and Santorum has nothing against it. But not NOW, for Heaven's sake. First we've got to get our financial house in order.
Newt was playing the fool even to bring the idea up, especially with talking about statehood for Luna. Very few voters look upon the conquest of space as a hot-button issue, and it will assist Dems who wish to portray him as a loon. It's just one more example of his grandiosity and inability to stay on message. The election-winning ideas today are government spending, jobs, Obamacare, illegal immigration and right to life. Candidates who waste time on minor issues do themselves no favors.
It is intriguing that Lord felt the need to go after Santorum at this point, exactly when Romney is attacking Rick. One thing is sure, both Romney and Gingrich are hearing footsteps behind them, and rightly so, because conservatism still pays off in Republican primaries, and Santorum is the only true conservative in the race.
Lest we forget -- Santorum's ratings:
American Conservative Union -- 88%
National Right to Life Committee -- 100%
Americans for Tax Reform -- 95%
National Tax Limitation Committee -- 92%
U. S. Chamber of Commerce -- 88%
League of Private Property Voters -- 94%
Al Adab| 2.7.12 @ 12:41PM
Dai,
May we expect your next book to deal with the ethical problems of planetary colonization? Assume of course no indigenous life forms, it still presents interesting issues of human nature. Kim Stanley Robinson dealt with it somewhat in his Mars trilogy.
Nick| 2.7.12 @ 12:55PM
Come on, Mr. Lord, don't try to pull the wool over our eyes.
Mr. Gingrich proposed the moon colony for votes, period. I'm quite confident that he won't be bringing this up during the rest of the primary contests. If the former Speaker does become president, his proposal will go about as far as President Bush's plans to go to Mars did.
As I stated, in another comment, robots can do the exploring far cheaper than sending men back to the moon. If they find anything worth bringing back to earth, the private sector can figure out how to do this, for a profit.
I would also point out that the underlying premise behind the race to the moon was to show the Soviets that our ICBMs could hit their targets with extreme accuracy. The side benefit from the Apollo program was that it made Integrated Circuit chips (IC chips) very cheap. Which directly lead to the Computer Age, i.e., the laptop on which I'm typing this comment.
However, no one planned this computer revolution, or, even predicted its onset. It just happened. And, no one can guarantee that a moon colony will result in another such technological revolution.
I do appreciate the reminder of Challenger tragedy, though. Thank you.
james wilson| 2.7.12 @ 12:59PM
First, Gingrich wasn't channeling Reagan, but Kennedy.
Second, the shuttle program was always a very bad idea from nut to bolt, was eight times more expensive than Big Stupid Rockets, and unreliable. The way to utilize space is to get Big Brother out of the way and leave some oxygen in the room, which is now happening. NASA has become a messenger for global warming and the Government Motors Volt.
You know all these things, but cannot resist singing the old fight songs.
Pete| 2.7.12 @ 1:33PM
Oh, and don't forget Islamic outreach.
RichG| 2.7.12 @ 1:18PM
You know, I was at that space coast rally for Gingrich. I heard what he said about a moon base, not a colony or a state as some fallaciously have stated. The whole idea that Newt put forward that day was to offer a reward with tax dollars to companies interested in commercial moon exploration. Much like that which encouraged a few bicycle salesmen named the Wright brothers back in the day to try and get a manned flight apparatus going. Newt advocated NOT using tax dollars as Santorum and Obama-lite Romney have misconstrued and twisted Newt's comments. I personally am not for tax dollars to put a man on the moon, but to encourage entrepreneurship, business growth and jobs by offering a prize to the company that develops the technology is fine with me. This garbage spewed by Santorum is just further indication he is more like Romney than any conservative out there. This is simply politics as usual, is it not?
Pete| 2.7.12 @ 1:32PM
Thanks for the update. One has to read comments in blogs to get the truth these days. I support Newt 100 percent in this.
David| 2.7.12 @ 1:28PM
Let us not forget Romney's comment in the last debate that he favors indexing the minimum wage to inflation. Young people, and especially blacks, have such high umemployment rates already. Why? Because they are already being paid an inflated min wage for doing jobs that are not worth what they are paid for them.
Thomas Sowell explains it well in his article on Townhall.com.
Mitt is no conservative!!! Vote Santorum!!!
Garfield| 2.7.12 @ 2:14PM
I thought this country is starting to lose its edge in science and technology. A serious space program would put us back into the lead on science and technology. Kids need a reason to want to learn science and technology, space exploration has that draw.
Furthermore, there are a lot of things that you probably have in your household, that you wouldn't have if not for the space program. I think we can find the money.
Ron| 2.7.12 @ 2:49PM
Sort of sad really...i remember being enthralled with science fiction when I was young. When the first shuttle was proposed, I got to meet Deke Slayton at a library presentation in Green Bay, Wisconsin. he made me a believer in the capabilities of what man could do. His vision was so vivid, I would have jumped on board if a real "Enterprise" had been proposed.
But, then, as I grew older, reality set in. There is such a small percentage of astronauts that benefit from the various space programs that it has not been cost effective. Even with the hoopla of "first teacher in space, or first civilian yada...yada...yada, despite some technological advances, it is still expensive, and our budget cannot afford it.
Dan Phillips| 2.7.12 @ 2:51PM
With the publication of this hackery, can we now please forever and always dispense with the charade that Mr. Lord is some sort of conservative who is attempting to defend conservatism?
Mr. Lord, while a Constitutional argument could be made for funding a defense application of space technology, there is no Constitutional authorization for a space program for a space program's sake or to advance science or whatever. Simply attaching something to Reagan does not make it conservative. Before advocating for a Federal program you have to "attach" it to some authorization in the Constitution. Authentic conservatives understand this. One major party candidate for President understands this. You apparently do not, even though originalism and enumerated powers doctrine should be a fundamental part of any true conservative's thought processes when evaluating a Federal program.
Dan Phillips| 2.7.12 @ 3:05PM
It occurred to me that a good alternative title for this article would be Lord Rejects Founder's Constitution Legacy. Since Mr. Lord has been known to reply to critics, I hope he will see fit to answer this question. What article and section of the Constitution authorizes a space program for space exploration's sake, the advancement of science, etc.? I anxiously await your reply.
Garfield| 2.7.12 @ 3:20PM
To throw this back in your face, you can authorize Space Exploration with the US Constitution on the basis on National Defense.
What's more, I don't even have to split hairs or twist things in order to prove it either...
Dan Phillips| 2.7.12 @ 3:52PM
Garfield, as I said in my comment before this one if you had bothered to read it before spouting off: "Mr. Lord, while a Constitutional argument could be made for funding a defense application of space technology, there is no Constitutional authorization for a space program for a space program's sake or to advance science or whatever."
So, you could arguably justify SDI, but you can't justify space exploration for space exploration's sake. Try again.
Garfield| 2.7.12 @ 4:13PM
1. The concept of space travel didn't even exist in the late 1700s.
2. The fact that Space Exploration can fall under National Defense means that the Constitution arguably does authorize the existence of a Space Program.
Dan Phillips| 2.7.12 @ 5:50PM
"The concept of space travel didn't even exist in the late 1700s."
Obviously, but the Constitution does not authorize federal expenditures for science research or advancement in general. NASA is unconstitutional for the same reason federal funding of research into the mating habits of squirrels is unconstitutional. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes it. Are you even familiar with the concept of enumerated powers?
Re. #2, you are reaching. Federal funding of specifically defense related space applications may be defensible. A lunar base is not.
Garfield| 2.9.12 @ 11:48AM
Actually it does, in order to set up a lunar colony, we would have to develop technologies that would be applicable to a strong national defense.
Furthermore, a lot of this would be private enterprise, not the government.
TrueBlue | 2.7.12 @ 3:43PM
I agree it's not exactly Reaganesque (but then neither is ANYattacking of those on your own side) but let's face it. Santorum is right, FOR NOW. Given the state of the country we have better things to spend our money on, and tons of various spending items to reduce/remove, before we consider revisiting the space agenda.
One thing at a time. Budget first, then deficit, THEN we can go deal with space firsthand again. Odds are by then the private sector will be kicking serious tail in innovations though, so maybe we won't need a government sponsored moonbase.
TrueBlue | 2.7.12 @ 4:01PM
He also suggested stronger partnerships between government and the private sector when it came to space development, so really the ONLY thing he said was that he wouldn't use government funds to get a moon base, not that it was a bad idea.
From that same article. “The pioneers of flight and space exploration are inspiring to millions and the advancements that result are beneficial to our quality of life and also critical to our national security – particularly as China ramps up aggressively in this area,” Santorum wrote. “But I am less concerned about creating a government program to build a colony on the moon more concerned reducing government to build a strong economy here on earth.”
You're pulling a liberal media trick (intentionally or not) by only quoting part of an article/statement and ignoring the rest. Presumably because you were so shocked by the first that you didn't see the rest.
Garfield| 2.7.12 @ 4:23PM
If you look at the crisis of us losing our edge in science and technology, you'd see why Gingrich suggested what he suggested and why it is needed.
Kids need something to inspire them to go into science, to think it is something that is cool, etc.
davod| 2.7.12 @ 4:11PM
"Elias| 2.7.12 @ 12:41PM
If only! if only!! if only!!! Mr. Lord could say it with fewer words..."
I do not think it is the number of words so much as the way the pages are formatted. A little less of the blurb surrounding would allow for the possibility that the article would appear on one screen instead of three or four.
Sari| 2.7.12 @ 6:21PM
Taking MY money to pay for a USELESS moon colony that YOU want is not only NOT CONSERVATIVE, it would make the Founders CHOKE.
Riddle me this: Why is a Moon Colony o.k., and pure Reagan conservatism; whereas high-speed rail is abject redistributionist socialism?
Because YOU want a moon colony.
You couldn't even tell me what possible benefit a moon colony would have.
It's pure COST at a time when the nation is $15,000,000,000,000.00 in DEBT.
Nothing in the world has changed since Reagan and his space policy, I guess. Reagan was probably just pursuing it because he liked science-fiction and thought it was cool. There was no Cold War. No Soviet Union. No Space Race. No need to establish the nation as the first to be able to militarize space and to prevent the USSR from doing same. Nope, none of that. It was just a cool thing to do, and since every single American thought it was the right thing BECAUSE it was so damned cool, paying for it was really less of a tax than a volutary contribution, right?
......RIGHT?
Garfield| 2.8.12 @ 4:45PM
To joke about a moon base, we've got to have somewhere to send Pelosi/Obama/Reid.
A more serious reason why what Gingrich said is actually a good idea. Putting together a potential moon colony focuses people on dreaming big dreams. Kids these days have no equivalent of Neil Armstrong to look up to as a role model. All they have are athletes and movie stars.
Additionally, everyone here has benefitted from the space program.
Newt Gingrich is thinking long term, and trying get us back on the path of being an exceptional nation. One thing about this country is that we have always been for dreaming big dreams and then making it happen.
Niniane| 2.7.12 @ 6:31PM
In 1986, the unemployment rate was between 6.6 to 7.2 percent, and 1.2 million people did not quit looking for work in one month. The U.S. debt in 1986 was $1.75 trillion instead of $16.4 trillion. Then we did not have the financial mess we have now which needs to be solved before we start spending on a moon base. (When Newt said in a speech that was the goal for the end of his second term, he had a slipper thrown at his face on TV.)
John II| 2.7.12 @ 9:28PM
Well, on this one, I think the conservative number-crunchers are wrong and the conservative visionaries are right.
I got my first truly bitter taste of liberalism when I was in the Army in 1969. A fellow draftee from the east coast was among a group of us huddled in our combat fatigues in front of a small-screen TV watching the moon landing. At the (admittedly canned) remark of Neal Armstrong regarding big steps for mankind and all, the liberal burst out in derisive laughter. The rest of us hurled some friendly abuse at him, as we were wont to do with our liberal buddy, but he just sat there and fumed.
"When you get right down to it," he said (addressing no one in particular), "the Space Program is just a big bore!"
The degenerate cynic Professor Obama was eight years old when I heard that remark, which
forever crystallized my sense of the secular-left mindset.
Now, I was just a kid of 24 at the time, and I had been drafted out of (an eastern) graduate school and therefore was more or less privy to liberal bias. But the depth of the liberal's cynicism, I recall, took my breath away. And these were the days when liberalism had not yet morphed into its present toxic stage.
Space exploration is an appropriately joint government and private endeavor, and not just for immediate military and political purposes. It is an inspirational human endeavor which calls on vast resources of human ingenuity and courage, a focus of the human spirit in action.
Full disclosure: I am alive today (and for the past 12 years) because of huge advances in cardiology directly traceable to the Space Program. You have to learn a hell of a lot about how the human body works to keep it alive in space.
And now back to "Rocketship X-M" (1950), an early foray into the SF genre starring a very young and robust Lloyd Bridges, whose son turned into a cynical lefty know-it-all and Obama supporter.
stage9| 2.7.12 @ 9:43PM
Wow, when you jump off a cliff, you really do it well Jeffry. So, because Santorum doesn't advocate a moon colony, he's anti-Reagan? Reagan isn't even MENTIONED in the articles you linked to!
Rick Santorum is the only rational Conservative person in this race! Reagan would be PROUD to endorse him!
GoldenEagles| 2.7.12 @ 9:49PM
Did Ronald Reagan say this? "This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me."
Dan| 2.7.12 @ 9:56PM
Santorum couldn't win re-election in his home state and would not carry it in a presidential election. His only claim to running for president is I'm a faithful to my religion. He has about as much qualification as Obama did when he ran. It's just not enough.
St. George| 2.7.12 @ 10:05PM
Support for US manned space flight should not be a litmus test for conservatives, particularly trips to the moon.
As far as a space race goes guys, we won that 40 years ago. Anything the Chinese decide to do is pretty much playing catchup.
From a technical point of view, it's hard to imagine any economic reason for going to the moon. The only thing close is mining helium-3 - which wouldn't have value until fusion reactors are invented. I don't think that the reality of space economics are clear to most fans of space exploration. The Space Shuttle could have returned from orbit fully laden with gold and would still have lost money. Going to the moon would be even more expensive.
There may be a time in the future when going to space will seem like the sort of extravagance a successful species can afford, but there's no good evidence that now is the right time.
Garfield| 2.9.12 @ 11:50AM
Wrong, because we no longer have a space program thanks to Obama. Anything the Chinese does actually puts them ahead of us.
Havoc| 2.7.12 @ 11:03PM
Sorry, I'm with Santorum on this one. What is the reasoning for building a 'Moon Colony'? I have heard nothing compelling. (A cluster of politicians shouting, "Let's build a colony on the Moon!" ... does not move me.
POST American| 2.8.12 @ 12:21AM
"America better watch it or in
a couple of decades we're going
to be a minstrel show --for RED China."
-Gore Vidal
1985
(the heyday of Reagan)
------YES, let's HOPE Santorum is
going to reject the Reagan/Bush 'legacy'.
grigory| 2.8.12 @ 8:21AM
What a load of self-righteous hysterics. Who knows what the Challenger mission had to do with a proposed multi-billion dollar moon base (an idea which is fantastically impractical, wasteful and arrogant -- all things which are hardly 'conservative').
grigory| 2.8.12 @ 8:21AM
What a load of self-righteous hysterics. Who knows what the Challenger mission had to do with a proposed multi-billion dollar moon base (an idea which is fantastically impractical, wasteful and arrogant -- all things which are hardly 'conservative').
Garfield| 2.8.12 @ 4:50PM
Santorum and his supporters are missing the point.
It is about inspiring children to actually want to learn. Believe it or not, the drive to explore is a hallmark trait of Americans, further the amount of technological advancement needed to establish a colony on the Moon, or to travel to Mars, would have enormous potential as spin offs that we would all benefit from.
For the only nation to have ever set foot on the moon (currently) to turn its' back on space exploration while other countries look to gain dominence in space is incredibly foolish and short-sighted.
FeFe| 2.8.12 @ 6:27PM
Among the waters of Long Beach, CA harbor, on a tugboat, we would shuttle forth crew off incredible tankers from ports far and wide with an endless variety of peoples and much to our delight, beer, and workers to the four "Astronaut Islands." These man-made oil drilling islands were lit at night with colored floodlights for an aesthetic like the inside of I Dream of Jeannie's bottle, and with fog, the Northern Lights. Their namesakes were: Grissom, White, and Chaffe (Jan. 27, 1967 Apollo 1 crew killed by cabin fire) -- and Freeman (Air Force test pilot chosen as astronaut but killed in a 1964 jet crash, thus, America's first astronaut corps fatality from Haverford, Pennsylvania).
When I think of a "physical reminder of the human dream of exploration" I am reminded of the deep night under navigation stars cutting our way among man's dedication to mysteries of all the elements. I too was disheartened by Santorum's monetary focus to Newt's moon base, and yet, I cannot doubt the harsh reality that NASA is now a global warming shill.
Garfield| 2.9.12 @ 11:52AM
That's due to pencil pushing politicans that are running things at NASA, rather than engineers.
steve hilton| 2.9.12 @ 10:34PM
Agreed, I don't care for the negative ad. Not crazy about the tone of the affront to Newt, either. But, on the other hand, we're over 15 trillion in debt, the middle east is burning and we're divided as never before in this country, thanks to a caste favoring Marxist in the White House. Now is not the time to be racing to the moon to the tune of another trillion plus. Nobody loves Ronald Reagan more than I do, but he took care of first things first. Spur the economy, dismantle the Soviet Union and unite the country through national pride, then we'll deal with space travel, etc. He didn't set it as a national priority, it was a Result of national prosperity! Thanks for the opportunity Mr. President. America misses you.
John| 2.11.12 @ 10:57PM
I understand that this author is a shrill Gingrich partisan, but this is just going too far. When the nation is driving off a 15 trillion dollar cliff of debt, the conservative position is to save money where we can - not putting a colony on the moon would fit within that.
Bill Jones| 2.14.12 @ 10:29PM
If Scrotorum is the republican candidate, we will vote for the Kenyan.
Dr Ron Polland | 2.23.12 @ 8:41AM
Santorum never misses an opportunity to take a cheap shot at Gingrich. most inexcusable was parroting Romney's Super-Pac lies and then telling the former speaker that "We threw you out of Congress. We threw you out of the peaker's position."
Wrong on all counts.
First Newt was cleared of all ethics charges. These were bogus Democrat attacks and both Santorum knew it.
Secondly, Santorum did not throw out anyone. Newt resigned rather than fight the attacks on him.
Third, Santorum would NOT have been elected without Newt's help. Period. Santorum has the distinction of losing a congressional race in Pennsylvania by the largest margin ever.
Lastly, every rocket scientist, geologist, astrophysicist, and astronaut agree with Gingrich on a moon colony because of the vast resources of Helium3 - the fuel that could power the Earth for the next 10 centuries.
Mining it would pay for the mission.
Oh, and Newt never proposed spending any Treasury money on the project. He suggesteded prizes for private exploration - much like the prize awarded to aircraft designer Burt Rutan for being the first private person to build a low-cost space craft.
Rutan was the Steve Jobs of the aviation industry.
Seems like the only thing "shovel ready" that Santorum and Romney have proposed is the same old manure.
Jill| 3.8.12 @ 7:58AM
Foamy Santorum believes in time travel. He wants to send America back, back waaaaay back to the days of Cotton Mather, ignorance, superstition and enforced church attendance, when only the privileged could read and write and women were the property of their husbands.
The Foamster is proof that evolution does in fact exist, except in his case it moved backwards.