Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Moon NASA United States

Newt Gingrich Trying To Sell Trump on a Cheap Moon Plan (politico.com) 95

Posted by msmash from the whatever-it-takes dept.
WindBourne writes: Newt Gingrich and an eclectic band of NASA skeptics are trying to sell President Donald Trump on a reality show-style plan to jump-start the return of humans to the moon -- at a fraction of the space agency's estimated price tag. The proposal, whose other proponents range from an Air Force lieutenant general to the former publicist for pop stars Michael Jackson and Prince, includes a $2 billion sweepstakes pitting billionaires Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and other space pioneers against each other to see who can establish and run the first lunar base, according to a summary of the plan shared with POLITICO. That's far less taxpayer money than NASA's anticipated lunar plan, which relies on traditional space contractors, such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and is projected to cost $50 billion or more. Backers of the novel approach have briefed administration officials serving on the National Space Council, several members of the group confirmed, though they declined to provide specifics of the internal conversations.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Newt Gingrich Trying To Sell Trump on a Cheap Moon Plan More

Newt Gingrich Trying To Sell Trump on a Cheap Moon Plan

Comments Filter:

  • 50 Billion (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sit1963nz ( 934837 ) on Monday August 19, 2019 @04:49PM (#59103378)
    or less than about 8% of what the US spends on the Military.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by rickb928 ( 945187 )

      2018 defense budget was $623 Billion. This sweepstakes is closer to 3.2% of yearly defense spending.

      Maybe .08% of all yearly US mandatory spending.

      And this would be worth every penny. Gotta do it, it's at least as sensible as buying Greenland for strategic purposes.

      A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.

      • Included in the defense budget is health care and pensions for retired soldiers. Which won't be cut, and which represent a lot of the total.

        • Re: 50 Billion (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Type44Q ( 1233630 ) on Monday August 19, 2019 @07:39PM (#59104004)

          Which won't be cut

          Says you; veterans' benefits have been getting chipped away at for years.

        • Included in the defense budget is health care and pensions for retired soldiers. Which won't be cut, and which represent a lot of the total.

          Nope. The VA is not included in that number, it adds another 220 billion to the military bill.

    • Re:50 Billion (Score:4)

      by ShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) on Monday August 19, 2019 @05:34PM (#59103528)

      or less than about 8% of what the US spends on the Military.

      Justifying spending money on something by pointing out that we spend more money on other things that are even stupider, is not a good argument.

      Every expense should be justified on its own merits.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Agreed, and military spending is not justified.

        Close each and every foreign US-run military base. Without exception.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Ocker3 ( 1232550 )
          The point of having military bases around the world is so that the USA can protect it's trade routes and spend money in friendly nations to incentivise them to stay friendly. Soft Power, so that US foreign policy objectives can be met. But the problem is that the US manufacturing base has been slashed horribly, so they can't really justify spending so much money defending trade routes. Who can? China...

      • Re:50 Billion (Score:4, Insightful)

        by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Monday August 19, 2019 @05:40PM (#59103566)

        pointing out we waste much more money waging war on those that didn't attack us is a valid point. we could be doing useful things with the money.

        • pointing out we waste much more money waging war on those that didn't attack us is a valid point.

          No, it is not a valid point. The fact that we started a stupid war 16 years ago has nothing to do with whether going to the moon makes sense today.

          It makes no more sense than saying we should go to the moon because you don't like anchovies on your pizza.

          we could be doing useful things with the money.

          We can easily afford a moon mission. We can also easily afford to have a pizza party, with or without anchovies, for the entire population of Mozambique. That doesn't mean that either expense makes sense, even though neither is as stupid as the Iraq War.

          E

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Zorro ( 15797 )

      Elon Musk says "Hold My Joint and Watch This..."

  • Not going to work out (Score:5, Funny)

    by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Monday August 19, 2019 @04:56PM (#59103400)

    Boeing and Lockheed Martin are going to quickly wise up to this tactic. Then they'll hire the likes of Kid Rock, Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton to lobby Trump to keep the existing lunar mission plans.

    Final result: No changes.

  • Maybe Trump can pilot (Score:5, Funny)

    by fredrated ( 639554 ) on Monday August 19, 2019 @04:58PM (#59103406) Journal

    the landing module. Because he's like an amazing pilot, probably the best in history.

  • It will never happen (Score:3)

    by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Monday August 19, 2019 @05:00PM (#59103414)

    It may be cheaper than the current plans but all that money that is saved is money that would otherwise go to traditional space contractors like Boeing and Lockheed Martin and from there to jobs in key congressional districts (jobs that in turn win votes)

    • On top of that, did they even check with Musk and Bezos to see if they'd be interested? Because both very well may not be interested, depending on what the fine print says.

  • I think going forward, the better path for NASA would be space overseeer, and purely scientific research.

    We are on the cusp of private flights to the moon, maybe beyond - what follows is almost certainly moon-base. If people are willing to pay millions to fly around the moon up close, how much more might they pay for a stay there? Private funding just from advance sales could easily fund at the construction of a private moon base, after a few landings to determine a truly viable site.

    Sending people into s

    • Maybe we could go back in time and send Newt to the Moon before he utterly corrupted US politics with his constant barrage of lies and hyperbole

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Rei ( 128717 )

      I'd like to see NASA become more like NACA again - not just a conductor of basic research, but also applied research that functions as an enabler to others. There's a strong need for that today in the space industry.

      What they shouldn't try to be is a space taxi service.

  • Tin is too expensive for the spacecraft hull but aluminum foil is cheap enough.

    • eh what? We're not running out of titanium alloy for aircraft so we can keep making spacecraft too.

      • Astronaut Chris Hatfield played a guitar and sung "Space Oddity" by David Bowie on the International Space Station. The song was about an astronaut flying in his "tin can", as the early spacecrafts were called.

  • Not new, so why be nasty? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Shotgun ( 30919 ) on Monday August 19, 2019 @05:18PM (#59103468)

    How is this anything other than an X-prize competition? So, why the derogatory "reality show-style plan"? There was nothing in the article to indicate that anyone would be voted off the island. Nothing looks like a reality show, just a large prize to spur development. Is the TDS this deep?

  • If Boeing or Lockheed says they can do it for 1.5B but then it ends up costing us $10B because of overruns, we need to stop that. "You will do it for this price or we will take you to federal court." If they know that going in, they aren't going to lie to get their foot in the door. If they over-estimate then maybe someone else can do it cheaper.

    • If Boeing or Lockheed says they can do it for 1.5B but then it ends up costing us $10B because of overruns, we need to stop that.

      Indeed. The standard rule of thumb is that aerospace projects end up costing 3 times the initial budget. So if they say it will cost $1.5B, then they need to keep it below $4.5B. $10B is ridiculous.

    • All US government contracts need to be written as payment on delivery.
      If something is supposed to last 10 years, then they'll get 1/10th of it when they deliver, then 1/10th annually for 9 years or until it breaks, whichever comes first.

      In what fucking world does it make sense to pay for shit that's late, broken, or never even delivered? Why would anyone ever agree to price X and then agree to price 10*X for the same shit, later, and broken??

      • In what fucking world does it make sense to pay for shit that's late, broken, or never even delivered?

        A world where design & construction schedules last for ten years, presidential terms are 4 years, and congressional terms are 2 years.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Hodr ( 219920 )

      That assumes a fixed firm price contract, which is almost never the case for large contracts like this (too much risk).

      And avoidable cost overruns that are the contractor's fault are generally not paid for by the government.

      That's why these companies are experts at making everything the government's fault. Oh, you didn't provide the GFI'd blueprints for the gantry bearing sleeve on time (even though it was one of our subs that designed it, so obviously we could have got it ourselves), so you delayed us a m

    • "You will do it for this price or we will take you to federal court."

      And then what? Get your money back? They'll just declare bankruptcy. Now you don't have someone who makes aircraft in the US, you've just lost a massive part of the third biggest export in the United States, and you've just pissed off everyone who worked in that industry which is a shitton of voters across a greater than 50% number of states.

      How about instead of going the scorched Earth path, you try the "help develop competitors" and then when one company isn't literally the major backbone of one of the

  • Who slashed NASA's budget in 1995? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by darthsilun ( 3993753 ) on Monday August 19, 2019 @05:28PM (#59103504)
    Back when he was Speaker of the House?

    Yes, the same Newt Gingrich that now says we need to spend billions and go back to the moon.

    Ironically, Newt said that the cuts were needed then to balance the budget.

    What's the GOP's line on balancing the budget these days?

    • Re:Who slashed NASA's budget in 1995? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by garyisabusyguy ( 732330 ) on Monday August 19, 2019 @05:40PM (#59103558)

      The GOP is in power, so blowing the budget up with tax breaks, etc... is A-OK

      Hypocrisy, thy name is GOP

    • I am amazed Newt is still in the public eye despite being one of the most disgrace politicians of the 90s. But his fans don't remember that, just remember him being the conservative bulldog who impeached Clinton, so all sins forgiven.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by godrik ( 1287354 )

      I am no fan of Newt Gingrich, but let's be fair for a second. That was 25 years ago. Lots of things in the world have changed in 25 years. It is not inconceivable that something that was not important in the mid 90's is important in 2019.

      Now, this is completely in line with Republican patterns. Argue for budget cut and fiscal conservatism when you need to curtail the other chamber of the presidency that you don't control. And completely blow the budget when you control everything.

      • Fair? Who said the things need to be fair? I grew up being told "life isn't fair."

        And lest we forget, one of Trump's campaign promises was to balance the budget, "quickly." Just one more of the nearly 11,000 lies he has told since he started running for office.

        • "life isn't fair."

          Ironic how it works both as a solace for when someone else does something awful to you, and as a justification for doing something awful to someone else.

          Life's not fair, is it? You see, I... well, I shall never be king. And you... shall never see the light of another day. - Scar, in The Lion King

    • Yes, the same Newt Gingrich that now says we need to spend billions and go back to the moon.

      Actually, he is saying they should be spending billions less than they have budgeted.

      Ironically, Newt said that the cuts were needed then to balance the budget.

      He is saying the same thing now: Spend $2B instead of $50B.

    • He just wants his moon mirrors to reduce crime by banishing the night, see then it will save money on law enforcement.

      This is Newt the Gin Grinch, don't expect a regular cartoon politician. It is way beyond that.

  • In this week's "Newt's World" podcast, Gingrich presented his ideas on space development.

    It's an interesting podcast in general -- some episodes are, as to be expected, partisan, but many of them are not, and some of them are downright fascinating.

  • Now, Denmark is refusing to sell the moon to the USA too.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      He's working on a 3-way deal between Denmark, Mexico, and NASA to build a green wall on the moon, or something like that.

  • Sounds just like the joke I saw over the weekend.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kargan ( 250092 ) on Monday August 19, 2019 @05:54PM (#59103624) Homepage

    4 point plan to fund national health care:

    1. Tell Trump that we should buy THE MOON
    2. Get Trump to cut check for $93 Trillion
    3. Print a certificate for Trump saying he now owns THE MOON
    4. Pay for health care

    • Reads comment.
      Makes discovery.
      Dr. Pepper blown at high speed through the nostrils not only makes the keyboard sticky, but burns like hell!

    • $93,000,000,000,000 wouldn't cover shit.

      That's around 200,000 per person who would claim coverage in the first year.
      Your typical user of medical care can "cost" 6 or 7 figures annually, easily. Yes, the costs are bullshit. But when there's "free" money, they'll demand the number shown on the bullshit receipt. And of course, prices will go up several fold as demand goes up (because it's "free").

      Your 93 trillion would be completely exhausted within 3 or 4 years, and it would all go to the same crooks who ar

      • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday August 19, 2019 @08:18PM (#59104108)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by skam240 ( 789197 )

          "Unsubsidized insurance is a few hundred a month, how could it possibly cover healthcare costs if the average person was spending a million dollars a year?"

          One reaches such conclusions by starting with the premise that socialized medicine is bad and then just making shit up to fit that premise.

      • You can calculate the real numbers by looking at Western countries with socialized healthcare. Let's take the UK. Their total healthcare budget next year will be £134 Billion ($162 Billion) for 66 million people - $2500 per capita. Times that by 327 million US people and you get $817 Billion/year total cost. The UK has a good healthcare system - perhaps the US is better, but anybody who wishes can pay out of their own pocket to "go private" and access the best healthcare money can buy. The $93 Trill

  • They always make this sound so easy, but there are a million things we don't know that would lead to the certain deaths of Lunar colonists.

  • For those who have forgotten, or were not aware, in 2013 Newt Gingrich made a video questioning what we should call a smartphone. Except that this clueless has-been is holding a a contemporary iPhone during the video and calling it a cell phone. He goes on to propose we all refer to it as a pocket computer. The entire video was worthless, tonedeaf, and quite confusing. He's since tried to scrub it off of the Internet. You can find mirrors and reaction videos.

    This man has no right being anywhere near policy,

  • I'm all for this plan, provided that Newt Gingrich are on the first flight. Just remember the immortal words of John Glenn: "I felt exactly how you would feel if you were getting ready to launch and knew you were sitting on top of 2 million parts — all built by the lowest bidder on a government contract"
  • My god, could Donald Trump and Newt Gingrich actually be a force for good for once? What a forward-looking use for 2 billion government dollars. This is the sort of pocket change that our government spends on useless wall sections on our southern border, or truckloads of MAGA hats. Could we just do this instead? It might actually help propel our species forward.

  • First Greenland and then the Moon! Then the US could really make China squirm by threatening to take the moon and go home - messing up the entire lunar calendar.

  • 1 step plan to Moon mission funding (Score:4, Funny)

    by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Monday August 19, 2019 @08:29PM (#59104124)

    Tell Trump the first president to get a station on the Moon will get it named after them. Boom, instant funding

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by 4im ( 181450 )

      So you're saying that Trump should've tweeted a fake Trump tower pic not on Greenland, but on the moon?

  • Yes, it is expected to cost $50 billion +. Yes the "Newt" proposal is a sweepstakes reward of $2 billion.

    Any company even willing or able to "enter" the "raffle" will be putting out an enormous amount of capital just to try.

    Any company that "wins" will be expending an enormous amount of cash just to say "We did it it"

    There is little ROI in the short to medium term, if at all.

    I am all for the sciences, as a science major myself.

    But at least on the surface it sounds like they want a bunch of top US companies

  • There's an old parable about good old Newt. One of his office staffers relayed this story.

    Newt has lots of ideas, all the time. He wrote them on 3x5 cards and had his office staff look them over and file them in boxes. So they had a closet full of showboxes. Nearly all of them labeled "Newt's Ideas" and down in the corner, all alone, one box by itself labeled "Newt's GOOD ideas"

    So basically, 99% of what he says is horseshit.

  • uhh... (Score:3)

    by SuperDre ( 982372 ) on Tuesday August 20, 2019 @04:42AM (#59104842) Homepage
    Elon Musk, Jef bezos and others don't need permission from the US goverment to start a moonbase..... It's not up to the US to decide, the moon isn't their property, it isn't anybody's property..
  • Come on let's do it! The ROI will be fantastic!
  • There will never be civilians going to the Moon, military personnel maybe. The Apollo astronauts told us the stars are not visible from cislunar space or the lunar surface but nobody questioned why, or asked for experiments to be done to check if it was true. If civilians were to confirm this then all of presently accepted astronomy goes in the bin, along with much of astrophysics. The Apollo astronauts never talked about the Sun even, and there is no proof that it is visible from cislunar space.

  • How did Hillary end up with so much face fatigue, while Newt has lingered even longer, and ended up with so little?

    No need to examine a DNA swab: these are kindred organisms from the same swamp epoch, beyond any possible doubt.

  • What started as a friendly competition between corporations to be the first to establish a foothold on the moon, became the catalyst for the first corporate vs corporate warfare.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne

Close