It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Newt Gingrich states we will have the 1st Moon Base and it will be American (in FL campaign speech)

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:48 PM
Expanding humainty into space is the future of new jobs and the world. Doing so will pay for itself once we begin to exploit the minerals and exotic materials out there. Expanding into space creates jobs and moves some of us off this rock so humanity can survive an extinction event here on earth should it ever occur again.

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 06:51 PM
Before we dismiss the idea of a permanent colony on the surface of a moon, lets look at what all would be required and the possible benefits for all of man kind that could come from such, and the down falls of such.

The first problem is, as many would point out, the cost, and ultimately that space is not a friendly environment, in fact it is a hostile environment, quiet lethal. It could be a death sentence to any who would go and would not be easy to get back once there. Even getting there is a risk, as the people being propelled there are sitting on a giant bomb that could blow them up and apart.

But beyond that, beyond the cost, beyond the risks involved, there are benefits to such a task. The first would be that R&D would be forced to come up with innovative ways to accomplish this, from having to generate energy, so there is one positive aspect to such, to generating necessary resources, to even the logistics to actually doing such safely. It would mean that the technology would have to make significant progress to get there and then to sustain people for periods of time in such a hostile environment and allowing for them to safely return. There are the medical aspects, as the requirements for the health of the people would have to be taken into consideration as well. Every detail would have to be carefully considered, weighed, every outcome and possible malfunction thought about and factored in to this, and then once it is achieved, we will have started the slow steps to something far greater and further along than what we already have. When you consider the problems that the earth currently is going through, from energy to food, this could help out and be a significant milestone in the history of all mankind. And it would start to revialize a much needed sector of the US economy, namely jobs.

While it would be nice to think that the USA would be the first to establish such on the moon, reality is that it would require a multinational effort, thus maybe starting to find peace through a common goal that would benefit all mankind, not just one nation or another.

And such a feat would fall under the category of the Space treaty, that the US did sign and is obligated to follow through with, as did a majority of the countries around the world. In short, the moon belongs to no country or individual, but to all countries and individuals. Before anything can be brought back and used economically, it would have to be shared with the rest of the world.

But going beyond the legal aspects of this, a permanent base on the moon would be a good thing, as it would enable the scientist to figure out all of the bugs, problems and other issues, before setting a person or even a colony on another planet like Mars.

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:04 PM
reply to post by sdcigarpig

I for one am not dismissing the possibility, but I think it's quite comical of Newt to contrive it during a campaign speech.

The practicalities involved in constructing, maintaining, and further colonizing a moon base would take decades.

Initial surveying of a viable building site would be the first hurdle. Unless they decided to be smart and build underground to stay protected from all the stuff flying around in space that I am sure pelts the Moon constantly and then think of all the equipment required to do that.

I am absolutely in agreement that it should be something that mankind should strive for, but to make this achievement significant to Americans makes me laugh. If the world didn't think Americans were ego-maniacal before, they may now. If this gentleman becomes president I am sure he'll bring that ego with him to the oval office, just my opinion.
edit on 1/25/2012 by UberL33t because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:23 PM
Well, Gingriches parents were quite prescient, when they chose to name their little son Newt.

“Molch” is the German translation for newt (animal).
A “Lustmolch” is a Germna colloquialism for lecher.

But Newt wasn't named after the animal, he was named after Isaac Newton.

Newton, was not only a brilliant astronomer and expert in other sciences, he also dabbled in some very weird and occult stuff. The lunatic Gingrich has also some obscure passions. No wonder Newt dreams of the moon.

Gingrich has been a prolific amateur reviewer of books, especially of military histories and spy novels, for According to Katherine Mangu-Ward at The Weekly Standard, it is "clear that Newt is fascinated by tipping points—moments where new technology or new ideas cause revolutionary change in the way the world works".[167] Gingrich has written about his interest in animals.[168][169] Gingrich's first engagement in civic affairs was speaking to the city council in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, about why the city should establish its own zoo. Gingrich wrote the introduction to America's Best Zoos[170] and he is a dinosaur enthusiast. A New Yorker writer said of his 1995 book To Renew America: "Charmingly, he has retained his enthusiasm for the extinct giants into middle age. In addition to including breakthroughs in dinosaur research on his list of futuristic wonders, he specified 'people interested in dinosaurs' as a prime example of who might benefit from his education proposals."[171] Gingrich is interested in space exploration, originating in a fascination with the United States/Soviet Union Space Race during his teenage years.[172] Gingrich wants the U.S. to pursue new achievements in space, such as sustaining civilizations beyond Earth.[173] He advocates relying more on the private sector and less on NASA to drive progress.[174] As of 2010, Gingrich serves on the National Space Society Board of Governors.

The guardian confirms this story
edit on 25-1-2012 by Drunkenshrew because: guardian link added

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:26 PM

This makes me so angry! I just get livid that this man wants to create a moon base and down here on earth we have American children going to bed hungry. And we also have people living in cars, under bridges etc.... Is a moon base really a priority?
reply to post by AuntB

Your angry about spending money on moving humanity into space?.....Well people like you make me angry. The fact is the population of humanity is increasing exponentially and the resources are decreasing. At some point in probably the not to distant future humanity is going to reach a bottle neck situation and masses of people will die from lack of resources. Actually pushing the lazy and short sighted masses into space is really the only long term solution to overpopulation, since it will simultaneously open up access to more and more resources, plus allow us to begin to move some of the populous off world, giving us more room and precious top soil to grow more food for all the people. Will it cost a lot and take a great deal of effort? Sure, but is it necessary for the long term survival of our species?, absolutely.

Plus the sheer effort required for such a monumental task could drive the economic engine of the world for the foreseeable future, definitely a lot better then the consumer based economy we have now which will fail and is failing. Sorry to be so harsh on you but, frankly I get tired of the masses with their antiquated dinosaur views, they can't see the forest for the trees. If humanity is to survive as a species in the long term, it has to go to space, no ifs ands or buts. And really why drag it out longer, we should have been laying the foundations years ago. We shouldn't have stopped going to the moon and we should have built at least a permanent base in the eighties or nineties.

In the end we can either go to space or we can sit on this planet fighting over diminishing resources until we all die, because population reduction really is never going to work, mainly because noone wants to be part of the group that has to be reduced and the over all population will continue to expand exponentially.

Now as far as Newt promising a moon base it's just more political BS. Hell even bush and obama have made similar empty gestures towards space exploration and colonization promising to authorize paltry sums of money to nasa for plans that will "maybe" happen, not now but in the coming decades. I say decades late and billions short, like most political promises. The sad fact is as long as we spend 530 billion a year on the DOD, war and destruction, while spending 18 billion on NASA and space exploration, we kind of prove our race is still barbaric idiots and maybe we deserve to go the way of the dinosaurs.

Nature gives all species two options, evolve and expand or shrivel and die, and frankly it doesn't care which options species choose, because it will simply replace them.
edit on 25-1-2012 by prisoneronashipoffools because: spelling corrections

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:35 PM
reply to post by UberL33t

Interestingly, underground is actually a good idea, to protect colonists from all of the radiation on the moon. My gifted 4th graders have been researching space, and some of them read a book about the future of moon colonization. The author suggested that underground may be the best option.

This really isn't a bad idea. The innovation stemming from this would be very exciting. Think of everything we've gotten out of NASA's research in the past. Here is an article about "10 NASA Inventions You Might Use Every Day":

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 07:46 PM

Originally posted by AuntB
This makes me so angry! I just get livid that this man wants to create a moon base and down here on earth we have American children going to bed hungry.

I imagine that we have fewer children going to bed hungry than we did in the '60s, when NASA was working on the moon missions. I am a teacher, so I have an up-close glimpse into children's lives, and I'd say there are probably fewer American children going to bed hungry than you think. There are SO many programs out there for feeding children, and not just the free lunch that ALL of the poor children get at school. I'd imagine there are a lot more children going to bed OBESE than hungry. We've definitely got issues, but I don't think child hunger is the biggest we face. Here's an article by Thomas Sowell (I love him...) called "The Hunger Hoax":

Here's another article (September, 2011) that talks about the issue:

Even better news is that there were fewer households which are classified as “very low food security” (households in which there was significant disruption of eating habits or constriction of diets but not going hungry) in 2010 than in 2009.

When asked for the reason that there has not been a greater number of households going hungry since the collapse, Undersecretary of Agriculture Kevin Concannon said: “…the principal reason for that is the impact of these nutrition programs across the country — the food stamp, or the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; programs for women, infants and children; some of the school-based programs.”

“There’s no question in my mind that there would be catastrophic levels of people that were facing food insecurity without this,” Concannon says.

So it's fine to disagree with spending the money necessary to accomplish a moon base. But the children...all of the hungry children...that should not be the main argument against it. Although it does sound compelling, and certainly grabs our emotions.

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 08:02 PM
While I wish our space program had more teeth to it (and why the hell aren't we on Mars yet!), we have American children to feed. How about we have the 1st country without starving children, then work on the space race?


posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 11:38 PM
reply to post by UberL33t

Now this part of his platform I definitely respect. It's about time we started exploring the universe some more! We could have had bases on not just the Moon but Mars decades ago if we really put our minds to it!

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 11:47 PM
More space exploration would be fantastic! I think a more honest candidate to lead the charge is mandatory.
If you thought the trillions of dollars lost prior to 9/11 by the pentagon was a big deal wait till they have a honey hole like the moon base to make money disappear! This is a frightful thought, Newt is no Kennedy, besides if John wanted a threesome he didn't call Jackie he told Marilyn to bring a friend!

edit on 25-1-2012 by brice because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:08 PM
reply to post by UberL33t

I don't believe it is ego, more like having a vision and the drive to push for such. When JFK was laying out his plans for the drive of scientific achievements, even FDR did such as well, they took one goal, one single goal and focused the nation on that, to help and achieve and more. JFK did such as he believed it was possible to land a man on the moon and return him safely back home to earth, thus setting the stage for NASA. Newt is taking a page from prior presidents, in doing just that. Obama has failed to see that space is not where you take leaps and bounds, but baby steps to learn and make mistakes, to make such an endevor such as a colony on Mars a possiblity and viable. It is time we returned to the moon.

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:43 PM
Isn't there a treaty signed by at least fifty or so countries that prevents this sort of thing from happening? What's next? Declaring Antarctica a territory of the U.S.?

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 05:48 PM
Lois said it best.


posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 07:03 PM
reply to post by Baldryck

It isn't the idea of returning to the moon that people oppose. It is this idea if you vote for Newt he will get us there. With our manufacturing in the condition it is, the amount of damage done to the economy overall it is just not something we should be seriously even considering at this point. The first space race to the moon occurred at a time when we had the money to spend on such things. Space exploration is important, but really lets get our house in order so we can do it right.

The only time politicians talk about our manned endeavors in space is when they are trying to distract us from issues that impact our everyday lives. Newt doesn't have a serious economic plan, and going to the moon isn't going to jump start the economy. Then you have to call into question the Republican mindset, that repairing and updating our aging infrastructure is a bad thing. So what happens when this moon base starts aging and needs repairs? Is it going to be too expensive to repair then? Why don't we start fixing the things we need to fix that benefit all Americans before we start building something that is only going to benefit a limited number of military personnel on the moon.

posted on Jan, 26 2012 @ 09:43 PM
Perhaps he'll make other outrageous claims like he invented the question mark, the internet or warp drive.

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:15 PM
Moon base a waste of time not hardly the moon is one answer to the world's energy crisis.

He3 helium 3 abundant and needed for clean nuclear fusion power the simple fact it would create trillions of wealth new technology and better the lifestyles of every American and export that energy.

I have seen some articles that say he3 can go for 5 million a gram.

A moon base is feasable and matches the cost benefit analysis.

Read that article or is social engineering more important than rocket engineering and getting off fossile fuels and save the planet?

But if forgot this is just a thread to bash Newt.
edit on 27-1-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in