Newt Gingrich - Space President?

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-10-12 08:17:50

Newt could be good for space, but he could also be an idiot - he had a job approval rating of less than 30%, already caused areas of the Federal government to shut down because of lack of funds, and sometimes he looks clownish like the time he was kicked off Air Force One, he also could have been charged with perjury, the only time Gingrich looks good lately is when he appears on Fox news.

GCNRevenger · 2006-10-12 08:30:48

He doesn't have to look good, just better than the other guys.

I do remember a certain president, the last democrat in office, who committed a similarly serious offense as perjury (infact now disbarred from practicing law in his home state), but is still worshiped by many.

Newt offers republicans something that the other options seem to lack, which is at least some will to fight instead of roll over against obstructionism, foreign and domestic.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-12 09:55:23

You have a business- you remodel homes for a living. Would you try to make a livign, and a business by:
A: Estimating the cost of what a customer wants, and then adding in a profit so you make a buck.
or
B: Remodel the house while three or four or five other people with a similar buisness all remodel at the same time, and however finishes first wins an amount that the customer has predetermined he will pay, which may or may not cover the actual cost of the work you put in?
When contractors submit to the government their estimates, there are auditors who review and determine if the estimate is legetimate. Contracts can also be modified such that cost-over runs come out of the contractors profit margin.
You are either playing fast and loose with the reality of the situation, or have no clue as to what you are talking about.

Has this been successful with government contracts? The ISS doesn't seem to be a glowing success, and neither does the Space Shuttle. If the purpose was to save money, money was not saved. The problem is, once the contractor has the contract its his, no one else gets to compete for it. The house remodeling analogy is false as only one house is built. In the real world many houses are built and each contractor has his reputation established by the many houses he has built for other customers in the past. What I'm talking about is a whole series of Mars missions. Why should any single contractor get a monopoly on all of them just because he won the first initial bid. To make the home building analogy fit better, assume the buyer buys one house first, and then later on buys the second house and then the third. If the losing contractors offer lower prices than the winner, the buyer will buy sooner, if the contractor holds out for a higher price, the buyer will buy later.

I've tried in many ways to explain the prize system, the ones that don't come in first, default to the second or third mission and they still get paid , a lesser amount if completed sooner or a greater amount if delayed to later.

clark · 2006-10-12 10:56:21

I don't think we should try to go to Mars and live on that planet. I vote we study the appropriate technologies and support the relevant sciences to learn how to live on Tom's planet. Whichever one that might be.

GCNRevenger · 2006-10-12 12:13:27

I don't think we should try to go to Mars and live on that planet. I vote we study the appropriate technologies and support the relevant sciences to learn how to live on Tom's planet. Whichever one that might be.

Haha! Excelent!

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-12 13:51:45

I don't think we should try to go to Mars and live on that planet. I vote we study the appropriate technologies and support the relevant sciences to learn how to live on Tom's planet. Whichever one that might be.

I vote we don't have any more ad hominim attacks on each other, how about that? If we disagree with each other we learn to disagree without making personal attacks, how about that? If you don't like the idea, attack the idea, not the person who makes it. If you think I'm ignorant, maybe I am, it is not necessarily my fault that i don't have the same education you have or somebody else has, just tell me why you think I'm wrong, and if you can't pursuade me then why don't we just accept that we disagree on certain subjects and move on.

I don't agree with the way NASA was doing things for the last 40 years. I think in the 1960s, NASA was an efficient organization, but after many years it has become bloated and inefficient, and I think the reason why is because it operates in a noncompedative environment. There is no check on wasteful practises and bloated budgets.

There are some things we can agree on, and maybe on some subjects we may find ourselves on the same side. I try not to make personal attacks if I disagree with someone, is it too much to ask if you would at least try to do the same?

clark · 2006-10-12 14:15:39

Why do you think NASA was an efficient organization in the 1960's? Apollo was not accomplished by a contest, it was accomplished by government fiat.

I don't really care to persuade you Tom, I don't find you all that interesting. You have the opportunity to find answers, but you seem more interested in presenting your opinions. Well, I am more than willing to tell you that your opinons are ill informed, poorly constructed, and sadly disected.

The internet is a great equalizer in many respects, such as putting answers to questions right at your finger tips. There is an equity in that. However, understanding and analysis of that information takes time. You demonstrate that you have spent little time in thinking about these issues. You also seem to care little for seeing the counter points that are offered to your posts.

Palomar · 2006-10-12 15:31:58

I don't really care to persuade you Tom, I don't find you all that interesting.

He doesn't find you all that interesting, Tom, yet he keeps on and on. For days now you've been his focus and he's followed you around numerous threads...despite allegedly not finding you all that interesting. Yeah, once in a blue moon clark's good for a real laugh.

Frankly I doubt he gives a fig about your opinions one way or another; this is likely merely sport to him. If you react he'll jab again, etc.

Good luck if you decide to continue "the conversation."

I disagree with many of your views, but you're entitled to them.

As to the original question: Newt Gingrich? No.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-12 16:56:47

Thanks for your support by the way. I really appreciate it. I don't care so much about Newt, but the idea of introducing competition into the space race, that I like.

I'm hard put to find a pro space Democrat. John F. Kennedy was one. Edward Kennedy? I don't think so.

Unlike many people, I don't believe in the perfectibility of humanity, instead I think we should build systems that manage our imperfections and play them off one another to gain the best advantage. Clark has a very compedative spirit, he doesn't believe in competition, but he gets very compedative in saying so.

I think human beings are naturally lazy to some degree, and that in many cases it is the pressures of competition that keeps them from slacking off. if you have an organization filled with people whose jobs are safe, and don't really worry about anything, I think the natural inclination is to do the minimum amount of work, collect ones paycheck and enjoy life as much as one can.

Marsman · 2006-10-13 04:18:04

I think this is one of the best threads I have read here for a while. Many good points by all. I especially agreed with Clarks point about who should pay for all this and how the space community can't see the real issues. GCN also has some intelligent points. The fact is Tom the private companies and investors sector will not invest in Mars mission until it is a long proven, prefectly safe thing to do and the costs will have to be acceptable to them also. My guess is that is at least another 100 or even 200 years from now. (and I'm a private mission supporter). Prizes might work but they would have to be carefully structured to stimulate the whole private space sector on a long term basis.

Really it comes down to one issue Tom- Self funding. Those who want to go to Mars are going to have to be extremely pragmatic and business minded if they are ever to see private missions in our time. And it will cost them everything they have. Self funding can mean many things, from billionaires like Elon Musk to general public fund raising efforts, that is the only way a private Mars scenario might happen. The costs are massive Tom, and those numbers do mean alot to alot of people. Private or public. The idea of self funding is only now in its embryonic stage but as pro spacers begin to see that NO private company will ever(in their lifetimes) fund a Mars mission or colony they will hopefully start to turn towards more pragmatic ways of thinking and stop wasting their time, money and brainpower on things that don't work. Self funding is actually not a new idea at all, it is as old as human history. It rests on the principal of "if you want something done, do it yourself". The details of how to do it for something on the scale of a Mars mission is a whole other problem, but well worth discussing.

clark · 2006-10-13 05:40:40

What else is a discussion on the internet regarding an econmoic or politcal viewpoint related to an imagined future but sport?

The reason a prize system will fail for a Mission to Mars is largely outlined previously, but the fact remains that it costs a whole hell of a lot, and there is only one customer- the government. Who ever wins may make a proift, but everyone else who competes and loses is out billions and billions of dollars. Where and who are they going to sell their space ship to mars to? The Zubrin society?

Because we are dealing with such large amounts of money and resources and time, most sane people and, by proxy, the sane companies that are run by them, want a reasonable assurance that they will make a profit if investing such huge sums.

Yes, the contest idea has merit, if, and only if the amount of resources required to compete is not so large, or so valuable, as to exceed the possible gain.

It's a basic element of gambiling. Risk versus reward. If I have to risk more than what I deem the reward to be worth, then I am not going to risk it. The billions you throw around as a possible prize just doesn't cut it because these companies would have to gamble billions to begin with. Billions of dollars and no certainty? The risk just isn't justified because there are safer bets.

And hi Cindy, nice to know you still read my posts. I suppose the ignore feature isn't working for you anymore.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-13 08:00:20

I have a simple question:

How much does it cost to print $120 billion in US currency?

I say, it doesn't cost the US a whole lot, it is only paper until someone can get their hands on it and spend it.

So what if the US government simply states that the first prize is $60 billion, the second prize is $40 billion and the third prize is $20 billion. The money is printed out and put in a vault, and the government announces that its here for anyone who wins one of these prizes.

If what your saying is true Clark, then these piles of money will simply gather dust and the US government doesn't have to account for it, it doesn't have to sell bonds, or raise taxes or cut other programs if no one collects. The money will just sit there out of everyones reach unless they go to Mars.

I find it a win-win situation. Printing the money doesn't cost all that much, it is 1,200,000 One Hundred Dollar Bills sitting in a vault gathering dust, costing the US government only what it costs to print these pieces of paper that say One Hundred Dollars on them. If some one wins, then the US government pays and only then.

As for what to do with the spaceships after the prize is won, perhaps the companies that build them might consider this question and try to make economical vehicles that could be used for other purposes. I really don't think the US Government has a clue on how to make things economical.

And Marsman, if you think it will take 100 to 200 years, what the heck are you doing here. Obviously space travel is a waste of time and resources if that is true.

clark · 2006-10-13 13:18:17

You have got to be kidding me.

If this was even a realistic possibility, we might as well apply it to every conceivable problem or goal- just print a bajillion dollars, lock it up, and whoever meets the goal/soles the problem first, well they get the bajillion dollars!

We only have to worry about it when it comes pay day.

If you are competing for a prize, normally the best way to win is not to look for the economic pay off of a long term buisness, but to look at how to win the prize with as little effort as possible and with maximum effeciency.

We are better off investing or working directly with companies to build what we want- not burying some prize money in the ground on the off chance some lunatics will chase after it.

Let's just settle this and say you are a visionary who is obviously ahead of the times, and can obviously see opportunities that we mere mortals have no chance of glimpsing.

Meanwhile, I will work out what happens to the world economies when we suddenly dump 120 billion on the market after some company collects because they win.

GCNRevenger · 2006-10-13 16:39:46

Preeeetty much Clark. I mean, wow, that was unexpected...

Of course, the solution to any money problem, just have the government print a bunch of money! Works real good, just ask early 20th century Germany or today's Zimbabwae(sp?). $120Bn is a lot of money. Metted out over the course of years its a signifigant but not outrageous sum.

All at once though, that much money would cause a sudden and acute damage to the worth of the dollar versus other world currencies, the value of which is critical in today's globalized economy. $120Bn is a almost seven percent of the entire trillion-plus federal budget!

And as Clark emphasized, a prize system encourages a quick, dirty, unsustainable, and un-upgradeable system to get to Mars which is precisely what we don't want, even if it winds up delaying the first landing. If you make the details of the prize really specific, like "build Mars base", then you might as well just offer a contract and call for bids.

This still does absolutely nothing to address the simple problem that no prize of sane size will induce anybody who has the reasources to go for it, the risk is just too high.

Since nobody rich enough got that way by being stupid enough to risk it all on building a rocket to go to Mars (think about how that sounds from he average persons' point of view), and the damage to US interests in commerce, this is just a bad idea.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-14 01:10:07

It solves a "chicken or egg" problem of getting into space however.
But what if the result adds value to the economy. What if instead of a prize for a Mars mission, we had a prize for building a scramjet spaceliner capable of lifting 100 passengers into low Earth orbit, bring them back safely and do it again within a 24 hour period? Say we had the same prizes for accomplishing this: $60 billion, $40 billion, and $20 billion. In this case the prize money would act as a "sweetener" the companies that compete for this prize and win would end up with a valuable asset which they can capitalize on once the prizes are won. If their are three prize winners, then we have 3 compeditors competing with each other to build passenger scramjets, and once the R&D costs are recovered throgh these prizes, the rest is a scramble to sell tickets to paying passengers. Having mass space travel is added value to the economy, so the awarded prize wouldn't be entirely inflationary, as the number of goods and services in the economy will increase as a result of the opening of the space frontier. What the prize system would do is to light fire under their bellies.

Low Earth orbit is "halfway to anywhere" so if you reduce the cost of that first leg of the journey, you reduce the cost to anywhere else in the Solar System.

clark · 2006-10-16 05:35:32

R&D costs for the recent commercial jet liners was about 15-20 billion and took 10 years or so. This is with technology and materials that are developed, and are largely effeciency improvments. Most of the advancements were derived from military (i.e. government) funded research over the last 30 years.

Scram jet technology is in its infancy, is largely researched in educational settings, requires new and exotic materials, and the aerodynamics is still being worked out.

100 people? 24 hour turn around? Maybe in 50 years after a 100 billion in focused R&D it could happen.

Global warming will happen before that and we will all take boats anyway.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-16 08:30:34

Your such an optimist, aren't you.

Perhaps it will take 50 years and $100 billion because government operates inefficiently. Suppose the Government posted a $1 trillion reward for anyone who can develop a 100 passenger scramjet that is able to reach orbit. If it is impossible, then the government gets to keep its $1 trillion, and if it is possible, then it is well worth the deficit. The US government can finance the added $1 trillion easily enough, and cheap access to space would expand the economy tremendously, it can be divided this way $400 billion first prize, $300 billion second prize, $200 billion third prize and $100 billion fourth prize. This will produce a number of compeditors in the scramjet busniness, they would each be competing for the top prize, but if they come in fourth place at least they would recoup their investment. Afterwards, each of the companies would be able to procure their own business without the need for further prizes, and all that added business would expand the economy as humanity expands into space. Well worth the cost I think, and it doesn't cost the government a thing until the prize is paid. Scramjets would make going to Mars alot cheaper too.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-10-22 12:39:36

FOX News keeps insisting that we’re facing a crisis in North Korea. Tuesday night, 10/10/06, contributor Newt Gingrich said that the situation was so dangerous, it could result in “losing Seattle” or more American cities.
Another C-List
Nevertheless, Hannity & Colmes has presented a remarkably low level of foreign policy and national security “experts” to discuss the situation. Maybe that’s because the “blame Clinton” mindset seems to be more important than credentials. Last night’s (10/11/06) Clinton-blaming, national security “expert” was Ann Coulter.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich Visits Bakersfield
Newt Gingrich came to town in hopes of drumming up support for congressional candidate Kevin McCarthy Monday.He said McCarthy will be effective in the house and has the ability to get things done.
http://www.turnto23.com/news/10038912/detail.html
During his visit he also spoke about the trouble in North Korea.
He said the U.S. government should avoid any face to face confrontation with the dictatorship of North Korea

Gingrich warns of third world war, dictators
http://www.bakersfield.com/102/story/78141.html

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-22 12:56:44

FOX News keeps insisting that we’re facing a crisis in North Korea. Tuesday night, 10/10/06, contributor Newt Gingrich said that the situation was so dangerous, it could result in “losing Seattle” or more American cities.
Another C-List
Nevertheless, Hannity & Colmes has presented a remarkably low level of foreign policy and national security “experts” to discuss the situation. Maybe that’s because the “blame Clinton” mindset seems to be more important than credentials. Last night’s (10/11/06) Clinton-blaming, national security “expert” was Ann Coulter.
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich Visits Bakersfield
Newt Gingrich came to town in hopes of drumming up support for congressional candidate Kevin McCarthy Monday.He said McCarthy will be effective in the house and has the ability to get things done.
http://www.turnto23.com/news/10038912/detail.html
During his visit he also spoke about the trouble in North Korea.
He said the U.S. government should avoid any face to face confrontation with the dictatorship of North Korea
Gingrich warns of third world war, dictators
http://www.bakersfield.com/102/story/78141.html

How does this prove or disprove that Newt Gingrich would be a good space president? Are you saying Newt is giving bad advice about avoiding a face to face confrontation with North Korea?

I'm sorry but you can't make a domestic political issue out of this, this was just something Kim decided to do on his own, no President could have pursuaded him otherwise. This has nothing to do about space policy, so why do you bring it up here?

publiusr · 2006-10-27 13:10:50

Newt would wreck NASA--or put Griffin out and put some Goldin type hack back in--to give money to space start ups--and we would still have nothing.

He has gone against VSE--so he has a no vote from me. He is one of these kinds of folks that goes to an Ayn Rand website with power coming from TVA--while typing how we don't need gov't--when driving on the public Interstate system.

We need pro-NASA people.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-28 09:48:21

Finally, a good point rather than someone ranting on about North Korea, an important issue no doubt, but it has nothing to do with space police.

VSE, what's that? I'm not very good with acronyms, could someone spell it out for me? NASA has been launching the Shuttle for a while, I always get the feeling that it could have been doing something else during that time. I always felt that NASA was supposed to be a space exploration agency, and not a space transportation agency. The Shuttle has eaten the bulk of NASA's budget in operating expenses, it is not very efficient, and because it costs so much to operate, there is little money left over for manned space endeavours beyond low Earth orbit. We could build a follow on vehicle either, again because the shuttle's operating expenses took the lion's share of the budget.

cIclops · 2006-10-28 11:44:17

The Shuttle has eaten the bulk of NASA's budget in operating expenses, it is not very efficient, and because it costs so much to operate, there is little money left over for manned space endeavours beyond low Earth orbit. We could build a follow on vehicle either, again because the shuttle's operating expenses took the lion's share of the budget.

It's worse than inefficient and expensive, it 's unreliable. That's why the plan is to retire all three orbiters in just over three years from now.

Three factors have combined to limit the funding available for the development of the Ares I/Orion follow on vehicle:

1. The need to finish ISS construction; the costly Shuttle is the only vehicle capable of doing the job otherwise it could have been retired after the Columbia disaster and money spent fixing and operating it saved.

2. The low credibility of NASA to complete projects means the budget is tight. After the failures and cost of the X-33 and X-34 replacement programs, Congress is reluctant to give NASA the extra money it needs.

3. Science projects have grown to a consume a third of NASA's budget and they are fighting for increased funding for a long list of expensive future projects.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2007-04-07 11:09:05

Newt Gingrich: Spanish Is The Language Of Living In A Ghetto
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articl … leID=23215

I wonder what our bi-lingual 'Ghetto' astronauts would think of this ?

Martian Republic · 2007-04-07 18:11:56

I have a simple question:
How much does it cost to print $120 billion in US currency?
I say, it doesn't cost the US a whole lot, it is only paper until someone can get their hands on it and spend it.
So what if the US government simply states that the first prize is $60 billion, the second prize is $40 billion and the third prize is $20 billion. The money is printed out and put in a vault, and the government announces that its here for anyone who wins one of these prizes.
If what your saying is true Clark, then these piles of money will simply gather dust and the US government doesn't have to account for it, it doesn't have to sell bonds, or raise taxes or cut other programs if no one collects. The money will just sit there out of everyones reach unless they go to Mars.
I find it a win-win situation. Printing the money doesn't cost all that much, it is 1,200,000 One Hundred Dollar Bills sitting in a vault gathering dust, costing the US government only what it costs to print these pieces of paper that say One Hundred Dollars on them. If some one wins, then the US government pays and only then.
As for what to do with the spaceships after the prize is won, perhaps the companies that build them might consider this question and try to make economical vehicles that could be used for other purposes. I really don't think the US Government has a clue on how to make things economical.
And Marsman, if you think it will take 100 to 200 years, what the heck are you doing here. Obviously space travel is a waste of time and resources if that is true.

You got to be kidding me Tom!

Currently the US Government does not create it own money. The Federal Reserve has that power, not the Federal Government. But, if the Federal Government were to borrow that money from the Federal Reserve, then the American Tax payer would have to pay interest on it to the Federal Reserve bank and pay off the entire amount over time. The Federal Reserve is a private bank with a government charter to act as the central bank of the United States or the bank of last resort.

Larry,

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2006-10-12 08:17:50

Re: Newt Gingrich - Space President?

#27 2006-10-12 08:30:48

Re: Newt Gingrich - Space President?

#28 2006-10-12 09:55:23

Re: Newt Gingrich - Space President?

#29 2006-10-12 10:56:21

Re: Newt Gingrich - Space President?

#30 2006-10-12 12:13:27

Re: Newt Gingrich - Space President?

#31 2006-10-12 13:51:45

Re: Newt Gingrich - Space President?

#32 2006-10-12 14:15:39

Re: Newt Gingrich - Space President?

#33 2006-10-12 15:31:58

Re: Newt Gingrich - Space President?

#34 2006-10-12 16:56:47

Re: Newt Gingrich - Space President?

#35 2006-10-13 04:18:04

Re: Newt Gingrich - Space President?

#36 2006-10-13 05:40:40

Re: Newt Gingrich - Space President?

#37 2006-10-13 08:00:20

Re: Newt Gingrich - Space President?

#38 2006-10-13 13:18:17

Re: Newt Gingrich - Space President?

#39 2006-10-13 16:39:46

Re: Newt Gingrich - Space President?

#40 2006-10-14 01:10:07

Re: Newt Gingrich - Space President?

#41 2006-10-16 05:35:32

Re: Newt Gingrich - Space President?

#42 2006-10-16 08:30:34

Re: Newt Gingrich - Space President?

#43 2006-10-22 12:39:36

Re: Newt Gingrich - Space President?

#44 2006-10-22 12:56:44

Re: Newt Gingrich - Space President?

#45 2006-10-27 13:10:50

Re: Newt Gingrich - Space President?

#46 2006-10-28 09:48:21

Re: Newt Gingrich - Space President?

#47 2006-10-28 11:44:17

Re: Newt Gingrich - Space President?

#48 2007-04-07 11:09:05

Re: Newt Gingrich - Space President?

#49 2007-04-07 18:11:56

Re: Newt Gingrich - Space President?

Board footer