Archive for January 27th, 2012


Presidental Vision – and more thoughts about the “Gingrich space program.”

January 27, 2012

One of the problems we have in this Presidential primary is that we tend to believe the sound bites we hear as the sum total of each candidate’s beliefs and philosophy. That is, of course, not true. I tend to listen to quite a bit of conservative talk radio, and I know that those people have their own agendas, too. Still, even if you’ve watched all the debates – and who would want to, with the infighting? – I think you only have a partial idea of what each candidate stands for.

Example: Newt Gingrich has released the bare bones of his “21st Century Contract with America.” You can find it here. It includes such pro-conservative items as lowering or eliminating many taxes, repealing regulations like Dodd-Frank and Sarbanes-Oxley, and reforming the Federal Reserve. He was pretty specific in the documents about his plans.

You may disagree with him, but once you’ve read the Contract you at least know more about what the man stands for, instead of hearing people make jokes about “Newt’s crazy idea of a lunar colony.”

As I mentioned in a previous post, Newt actually knows whereof he speaks in regards to the space program from decades of involvement in it, including the Strategic Defense Initiative. We’ve been told for so long now that our space program is in decline and that we couldn’t possibly do such a thing in eight years that people believe it. Too many people think that somehow we were deluded into the race to the Moon by a misguided belief we were “beating the Russians” there. I’ve heard too many times that NASA knew before Apollo 11 that the Russians weren’t racing us to the Moon at all, that it was all a sham, some kind of hustle perpetrated by the “military-industrial complex.” (Thanks, President Eisenhower, for that term.) Of course, they were developing the N-1 giant launch vehicle, but the complexity of the task was too much for them, and each test flight failed. The Saturn V, on the other hand, was launched successfully every time.

The real truth is that we could be back on the Moon in less time than that, with appropriate funding and a belief that the funding level would remain predictable for the next five years. I’d love to believe we could do it in five years, but I think it would take at least six; a couple of years would be required just to rehire all of the personnel and reactivate the facilities.

I think it’s interesting that Lockheed Martin continued to build a simulator for docking the Orion, an Apollo-like space vehicle,  and continued to build the prototype vehicle even though they knew the program was dead; and that Boeing continued development of their CST-100 on their own money, and then both continued on the trickles that came out of NASA sort of under the table, as the space agency defied the Administration and Congress citing “previous contract commitments.”

Newt Gingrich is a pretty smart guy. He may have bigger dreams for America than Mitt Romney, but why is that a subject for ridicule? Back in 1979 the “Reagan is stupid” meme was already making its way through the media. Detractors liked to bring up the fact that he was a registered Democrat at one time. People said he was too old. People said he didn’t know enough to be President, and would be in far over his head. People said his wife was plastic, and that he had been divorced and both of those were liabilities. Wasn’t it funny that his supposed naivete actually turned out to be an inspiration to millions of people, not just in the US but in Eastern Europe, the USSR and other places? In fact, the only thing they could say that was positive was that he was “a great communicator.”

Ten years later he was referred to as “The Great Communicator.”

I feel like we’ve decided as a people that we are content to watch our 3D movies, and our football on our widescreen plasma TVs. We’ve decided to lament that China would soon overtake us, but what can we do? We can’t stop them, we have no right to stop them, and we’re a people in decline. The best we can hope for is that our decline is comfortable enough, and that maybe Social Security will last long enough. We’ll die earlier than we expected, because it’s too expensive too keep us alive even though we have the tools to do so.

I felt in 1979 that there was a grayness, a darkness, over the country. We were being told our savings would never recover. Countries in the Middle East did not respect us. Our President talked about a “National Malaise.” America was in decline, and somehow we were supposed to be. We deserved it, after the loss in Vietnam and the scandal of Watergate. We were nothing but trouble for the rest of the world, we were consuming all the resources that belonged rightfully to others, and we were always sticking our nose in where it didn’t belong. We were a nation of undeserving bigots, and everyone hated us.

Then Ronald Wilson Reagan said that none of that was true. We were America – the “shining city on the hill” that other peoples looked to with hope. Reagan, Pope John Paul II, and Margaret Thatcher said things could be better and should be…and people believed. A dockworker named Lech Walesa bravely defied the Communist Polish government and became the first President of a free Poland. It started in 1980, just about the same time as the Presidential election here. The day of Reagan’s inauguration the Iranian government returned American hostages held for 444 days. Gradually, the sun came back up on America.

George H.W. Bush was a good man, but lacked the vision of Reagan. Soon the country knew it, but the changes set in motion during the Reagan years were beginning to bear fruit. We lost our way, of course, and elected a charismatic but irresponsible President. (I won’t even get into the influence of Ross Perot’s third-party run.) Two years later people were beginning to see their folly, and the first House Republican majority in decades was presided over by…Newt Gingrich.

Is he the perfect candidate? Of course not? Will he be able to deliver? That remains to be seen. I just think that he has seen the influence of visionaries and charlatans close up, and he has chosen the less-safe plan. Do we want to continue down the path of decline Obama has put us on? Do we want a competent executive running the country? Or do we want someone with vision to inspire us, to urge us to be better than we already were, to be the inspiration ourselves for the rest of the world?

No, we belittle a man for saying he believes we could be back on the moon in nine years. The first time, with computer technology far less than what we have in our cell phones, we did it in less time than that…from a standing start, after a President challenged us to do it “because it is hard.” Today, we could do it in six. I truly believe that. I hope others do as well.

The power of belief is stronger than we know. If we really think about it, it’s all we’ve had as an edge – a belief we were a unique people, and we had the freedom to do what we set out to. The freedom we enjoyed helped create the optimism and “can-do” attitude that Americans once had in large numbers, and that was rekindled in the 1980s. It can be done again, but it is far easier to do when we have a leader who believes in us, and in American exceptionalism.


My grudging support for Newt Gingrich

January 27, 2012

Let me start by saying I’m not happy with either of the frontrunners in the Republican primaries. I think they have been spending too much time playing gotcha with each other when they should be focusing on the issues. One of the best reasons for having all these debates is that more of the public is exposed to ideas about government other than what the current Administration want us to hear. That’s why even having Ron Paul in the debates is good. (I’m not sure I believe I said that.)

But I’ve not watched even one of the debates. I knew from the outset that Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich had the wrong idea about this, or their handlers did. Instead of trying to show us the differences in philosophy between them, they have focused too much on tearing each other down. All this does is breed mistrust in the public about the character of both men – and provide the Obama team with a great collection of sound bites for the summer and fall. (And he has the hundreds of millions of dollars to get them out there.)

That said, I have to say that Newt seems to have a vision for the future of America that Mitt doesn’t show. The other day Newt did a speech in Cocoa Beach, Florida. It could be said that he was pandering to a group that is facing high unemployment – the space launch infrastructure industry. Sure, many of those jobs are going away, or have already. (Although NASA cut a deal with the United Launch Alliance that saved some.) But I think he took the opportunity to use the location to talk about something that he really does believe in – space exploration. The boldness of saying that we should have a lunar colony by the end of his second term – nine years from now – is not “typical Newt craziness.” The only reason the development of new hardware for space flight is taking so long right now is because the amount of money available to hire the people needed to do the work is so limited. An Apollo-style push may not be in the cards, but it’s not needed; just a larger, and consistent amount of money. (During the Apollo push, about 4% of the Federal budget was devoted to space exploration; today it’s about 0.6%!)

Am I being a hypocrite by saying the government should spend more money on space, while advocating as I do for reduced government and lower taxes? The two are not mutually exclusive. It’s not just how much money we spend but where we spend it.

Let’s look at the Department of Education for a minute. Yes, I believe we don’t need it at all, and that education should be a responsibility of the several states. It’s not constitutional and it has proven to be of nearly no help in providing a better education for the students of the US. The budget for the US Department of Education for FY2012 is somewhere around $ 68 billion…NASA gets about $ 18 billion on a good day. Let’s just cut the DepEd to 50% – give ’em $ 35 billion, rounded up. Then give another $ 6 billion to NASA specifically for manned space flight and lunar colonization. That would increase the budget of NASA’s  space exploration division to  250% of what it is today. (It’s about $ 4 billion today; another $ 4 billion goes to maintenance of the ISS.)

It might even inspire students to learn subjects that are used in technical fields like engineering and physics, just like it did in the 1960s. It might provide more positive benefits to education than the Department of Education does…but don’t you just hate intangibles like “inspiration”?

I’ve not heard another Presidential candidate, including the Present Occupant of the White House, say anything positive or inspiring about space exploration.

Yep, it’s my pet issue. Everybody has one, right? Well, it’s mine, and I’ll vote for the candidate I believe will do the best for my pet issue. I just wish it was more people’s pet issue.


Apollo 1, in memoriam.1/27/67.

January 27, 2012

Today is the anniversary of the Apollo 1 (or Apollo/Saturn 204) fire. We need to remember the sacrifices of Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee. While it shouldn’t have ever happened, this fire was a horrible wake-up call at the time for NASA and North American Aviation, prime contractor for the Command Module. It’s hard to believe today with our paralyzing fear of failure that at one time we were in a headlong rush into space. In this case it resulted in a Block I spacecraft that had a myriad of problems. It shouldn’t have required a loss of life, but the Block II spacecraft that ultimately went to the moon was a far better (and safer) machine.

Click here for the Apollo I Memorial Foundation.