by Clifford F. ThiesNewt "Big Ideas" Gingrich has made a bold attempt to endear himself to the space-oriented community of Florida: Hey, let's colonize the moon! (Source: TheHill)
Why, this outdoes even Obama for big government.
For openers, the cost just to get 100 people to the moon, $15 billion. (Source: curiosity.discovery.com). Yet Newt wants 13,000 people. So, bump that number to $2 trillion.
That's just to get them to the moon. As to maintaining people on the moon, I'd like to see the plan. Currently, we maintain a mission on Antarctica. All food, fuel and other supplies are flown into that mission. The mission does not at all support itself in any way. Could Newt tell us how a lunar mission could sustain itself when the Antarctica mission cannot?So, we will have to continually supply the Moon mission with fuel, food and other supplies. And, for what purpose? To say we are there?
Repeating one of Obama's lies, Newt says colonizing the Moon would be like when the national government built the transcontinental railroad. The U.S. government didn't put one stinking lousy dollar into that project.
Here's what the U.S. government did: it guaranteed certain bonds and made land grants to the railroad of alternating sections of land about the road (doubling the sales price of the alternating sections it retained). The private companies that built the road totally paid those bonds. This was even when the private companies went bankrupt, which they did during the 1890s, because the bonds had a well-secured claim on the property of the road.
I'm sorry, but many historians, including Newt, don't actually know the facts about the first transcontinental (or the subsequent transcontinentals).
What, really, is the analogy to the Moon and to Outer Space in general? It is for the U.S. to withdraw from the Outer Space Treaty and simply say that we will support the claim of any private company that actually develops part of the Moon under the flag of the United States.
The U.S. government could give consideration to assisting any company attempting to develop the Moon, with our vast aerospace infrastructure in Florida, especially considering if we get into a race with the European Space consortium, the Chinese, or others. By the way, the Moon is a big place, and there is plenty of Moon to go around to all would develop it.
But, under the Outer Space Treaty, the Moon and all of Outer Space is put off limits to privatization. So, what would be the purpose of developing any part of Outer Space? To show we had big ideas? Or to make any promise, not matter how completely insane, to get a few votes?
36 comments:
**** "Here's what the U.S. government did: it guaranteed certain bonds and made land grants to the railroad of alternating sections of land about the road" ****
No. Here is what the U.S. government did.
#1) The government murdered, raped and drove the owners of the land off their property. (They were called Indians.)
#2) Then the government re-distributed the wealth of the land to favored corporate interests who in turn bribed members of Congress with shares of stock and cash in the Crédit Mobilier scandal.
BOTTOM LINE - Socialist re-distribution of the wealth combined with Mussolini's Corporatism.
P.S.
We need to colonize the moon.
Mars is a better bet.
1st the moon colony as a nearby base for going to Mars.
I hear that Mars needs women.
I'm not in favor of a government-sponsored moon colony, etc.
On the other hand, the costs of going to the moon, and then Mars, would be a less gory and troublesome way of transferring wealth from the productive class to "defense" contractors than continuing to lose ground wars in Asia has been. So it's got that going for it, anyway.
There's also a defense/"space race" aspect involved. China has already indicated its intent to establish a permanent moon colony. If the US can't even figure out how to suppress a handful of cave-dwelling towelheads in a decade of trying, how's it going to handle China beating it to a proprietary high-orbit weapons platform 1/6th the size of Earth?
As far as costs are concerned, getting 100 people to the moon and getting 13,000 people to the moon is probably not directly scalar. On the other hand, I suspect the base cost Thies is calculating from is probably very low, so $2 trillion to fully establish a moon colony is probably not far off the mark.
A permanent moon colony would probably have to figure out how to sustain itself in terms of food, etc., over a relatively short time period to be viable. But I bet it could be done.
What's the point. We colonize the moon, the Islamists will soon get there somehow, and over-populate us within a few decades anyway.
The bigger issue is preserving Western Civilization both here on earth, and eventually on the moon.
Eric,
Throw in Hitler while you are at it.
I favor a private sector moon and mars colony, habitated and proliferated by libertarian malcontents.
"drove the owners of the land off their property. (They were called Indians.)"
Cave men don't own land, you shit head. There are more so called Indians alive in the US now than there were then...thanks to the arrival of civilized humanity.
Is there any limit to your fucking stupidity, garie?
Hitler.
Right. Where were we?
Ah yes, the moon... Could be wrong, but I believe certain desert pagans have claimed it already, something about a prophet's portrait or some such rot.
The Transcontinental Railroad was financed in pretty much the same way that the 2008 auto manufacturer bailout was -- the US government borrowed money, gave it (and quite a bit of land) to the railroads, and let them pay it back.
Whether or not the auto bailout was quite as corrupt as the railroad project is, of course open to question.
Part of the deal was that the President of the United States, one Abraham Lincoln, got to choose the railroad's eastern terminus. He chose Council Bluffs, Iowa, where he just happened to have purchased quite a bit of land three years before becoming president and urging Congress to finance a transcontinental railroad.
"The government murdered, raped and drove the owners of the land off their property. (They were called Indians.)"
Yes, they were called "indians," and that is indeed what they were doing to each other at the time. West Coast [Bell a Koolas] made slavery an art form. Plains [S!oux] had interesting coming-of-age rites for young men involving young women (...of neighboring tribes.) [Algonk!an] camp sites have revealed, mixed-in with the bone piles of roasted animals, the skeletal elements of roasted kids.
Follow the trail of slaughter and genocide as the [Algonk!ans] moved Eastwards from the plains to the Atlantic coast and NE into Quebec and Labrador.
It gets "better" ... but I haven't got all day nor do I wish to have search engine trolls come down on Eric's site.
Me great grandma was of Northern Cree stock. So, as a kid in the '60's, I hauled all the stuff I coud read about Indians from the library shelves. Neat-o! swiftly became oh-oh. In those days "Pee Cee" censors hadn't sanitized history or the accounts of travelers.
Right. The moon. Pls. send Gary.
Almost forgot: "Hitler."
Okay, just to please you Gary.
Hitler.
Happy now?
Well, some people think the Nazis still have a secret moon base, so there's your Hitler angle.
I bet most of those guys are voting for Ron Paul, though.
Ran:
You don't even have to go that far back. Our coming here basically interrupted the expansion of the Comanches. They made the Sioux look like boy scouts.
And I would say to Gary, the red man can't have it both ways. On one hand we hear from the indians that no one can own the land and that is why they laughed their asses off when we bought manhattan for the paltry sum. They never thought they owned it. Now that the white man has proliferated, they got schooled in John Locke and all of a sudden their land was stolen.
The indians were nomadic tribes that didn't have a concept of land ownership and were out competed for it. They did the same to competing tribes too. The only difference with us is that they unilaterally lost. Somehow that makes them winners or right in the eyes of some.
Now, if you want to talk about treaties broken fine. Mistreatment and murder of women and children, ok, but it certainly isn't a simplistic situation as we stole their land. They never owned or believed they did until they saw they were going down.
Shit, now I"ll have that Les Paul tune in my head all day!
**** The indians were nomadic tribes that didn't have a concept of land ownership ****
Right Guy,
Tell that fairy tale to the very, very late George Armstrong Custer.
Custer discovered first hand that Indians wanted to protect their land from invasion.
They killed Custer because, one they could and two, they didn't fancy living on a reservation. It doesn't mean they fancied themselves landed gentry, but they preferred living as nomadic peoples as opposed to living on the res. I can understand why they wouldn't want to live on a res too, BUT, it had to do with a way of life, not ownership of the ground beneath them.
And I will ask, how did killing Custer work out for them?
**** it had to do with a way of life, not ownership of the ground beneath them. ****
REALLY?!?!?!?! What a fantasy world you live in.
So all these different tribes in the wars below really did not care about their land.
I guess Tecumseh, Red Bird, Antonga Black Hawk and Geronimo were all mistaken when they went to war. If only Right Guy had been there to advise them of the error of their ways.
Indian Wars
East of the Mississippi
American Revolution (1775–1783)
Chickamauga Wars (1776–1794)
Northwest Indian War (1785–1795)
Nickajack Expedition (1794)
Sabine Expedition (1806)
War of 1812 (1811–1815)
Tecumseh's War (1811–1813)
Creek War (1813–1814)
Peoria War (1813)
First Seminole War (1817–1818)
Winnebago War (1827)
Black Hawk War (1832)
Creek Alabama Uprising (1835–1837)
Florida–Georgia Border War (1836)
Second Seminole War (1835–1842)
Missouri–Iowa Border War (1836)
Osage Indian War (1837)
________________________________
Indian Wars
West of the Mississippi
Battle of Woody Point (1811)
Arikara War (1823)
Texas–Indian Wars (1836–1877)
Comanche Wars (1836–1877)
Antelope Hills Expedition (1858)
Comanche War (1868–1874)
Red River War (1874–1875)
Buffalo Hunters' War (1876–1877)
Cayuse War (1848–1855)
Apache Wars (1849–1924)
Jicarilla War (1849–1855)
Chiricahua Wars (1860–1886)
Tonto War (1871–1875)
Renegade Period (1879–1924)
Victorio's War (1879–1880)
Geronimo's War (1881–1886)
Yuma War (1850–1853)
Ute Wars (1850–1923)
Provo War (1850)
Walker War (1853–1854)
Tintic War (1856)
Black Hawk's War (1865–1872)
White River War (1879)
Ute War (1887)
Bluff War (1914-1915)
Bluff Skirmish (1921)
Posey War (1923)
Sioux Wars (1854–1891)
First Sioux War (1854)
Dakota War (1862)
Colorado War (1863–1865)
Powder River War (1865)
Red Cloud's War (1866–1868)
Great Sioux War (1876–1877)
Ghost Dance War (1890–1891)
Rogue River Wars (1855–1856)
Yakima War (1855–1858)
Puget Sound War (1855–1856)
Coeur d'Alene War (1858)
Mohave War (1858–1859)
Navajo Wars (1858–1864)
Paiute War (1860)
Yavapai Wars (1861–1875)
Snake War (1864–1869)
Hualapai War (1865–1870)
Modoc War (1872–1873)
Nez Perce War (1877)
Bannock War (1878)
Crow War (1887)
Bannock Uprising (1895)
Yaqui Uprising (1896)
Battle of Sugar Point (1898)
Crazy Snake Rebellion (1909)
Last Massacre (1911)
Battle of Kelley Creek (1911)
Battle of Bear Valley (1918)
Really, then explain how these antediluvian primates came about with the idea that no one owns the land, especially them. It's counterfactual to their statement that it was their land. They were lying then or they are lying now.
They didn't compete for land as much as resources, meaning food and I suppose some sort of tribal supremacy. And I will add, many of the wars you mention, they merely took sides WITH white men.
These aren't angels that somehow through the suspension of the laws of the universe had the trials of Job rained down upon them. They lost Gary. Get over it.
**** "these antediluvian primates" ****
This really says is all.
Primates. To this day these human beings are not viewed as being human.
Humans are primates.
And what gets me Gary, is just like with slavery and blacks, the debt will never be paid, even if the malefactors have been dead for decades and then centuries. The blacks and indians today will get all the mileage they can, even if they can live a life their ancestors never dreamed of. It's all a narrative created for sympathy and political advantage.
"primitives"
Gary's almost right about the redistribution part. It was redistributed capital, - unrealized potential wealth - and forced redistribution at that.
Note that "redistribution of wealth" can only occur freely between agreeing parties in a non-distorted market. Government can only forcibly seize capital and redistribute debt and distort markets. Just sayin'.
BUT RG is right. Completely.
**** Gary's almost right about the redistribution part. It was redistributed capital, - unrealized potential wealth - and forced redistribution at that. ****
Ran is showing a high degree of intelligence by agreeing with me.
From Vandals to Nazis, killing people and stealing their capital (unrealized or not) is nothing new in history.
But I love how Americans feel the need to lie to themselves and pretend they are different from every other thief in history.
"Ran is showing a high degree of intelligence by agreeing with me." Thanks, pal. I'll never live it down.
8 ]
No one is lying Gary, except the indians. I am not saying everything was on the up and up, but it wasn't as you say either. It's not black and white.
**** It's not black and white. ****
Looks black and white from here.
Step #1) White man wants Indian's land.
Step #2) Indian is dead.
Step #3) White man moves in.
History is easy when you break it down.
Like I said, Indians did plenty killing themselves, of their own and whites, at times unprovoked. It's not black and white. Your analysis presupposes that that it's possible to be a totally innocent bystander. That doesn't exist. The indians played a part in their own destruction.
Hey, Krappster, you said this:
"On the other hand, the costs of going to the moon, and then Mars, would be a less gory and troublesome way of transferring wealth from the productive class to "defense" contractors than continuing to lose ground wars in Asia has been". How does it feel to be a dumbass? Geez. Much of what we enjoy today was an outgrowth of the "defense" contractors, you numskull. Take lasers - these were INVENTED by a former employer of mine, for military purposes, but have gone on to be of huge benefit in so many ways that it's hard to count. You stupid leftist nutcases never tell the whole story. So stuff it.
This board is full of dumbasses tonight. Hey Gary, I know how "sensitive" you are to the wrongs of the past. I think we should go to England and round up all of the Normans and Saxons. Those dirty bastards stole England from the Angles. And while we are at it, we better go get the Romans and the Vikings as well - separate all of the the folks related to them and put them into Camps run by FEMA, perhaps? You idiot. Yeah, indians got a raw deal in some cases, but they were savages that treated each other about as good as the Nazis treated the Polish or the Jews. If the Indians would have been left in control of North America, there would be mass starvation worldwide right now.
"publican," with due respect, you... calling Knapp a dumbass... is like watching a chihuahua snarl at a grey wolf.
Hey RG, got any popcorn?
The check is in the mail, so you can buy. :)
Publican:
Tom is right about most things and he is as far as it goes. My question to you is, how would Halliburton benefitting from a Mars shot benefit us? I think some of what you say is true, but it takes years for that stuff to trickle down and the recent history of what Tom is talking about would leave you with the same question. Besides, defense contractors shouldn't be planning a Mars base.
publican et al.
My whole "defense contractors" point was almost precisely what publican was saying. He just didn't see what I was getting at, so I'll take it point by point.
1) The primary goal of US government since the end of World War II has been the transfer of as much wealth as possible from the pockets of taxpayers into the bank accounts of the "military-industrial complex."
2) That's probably not going to change until the US falls completely apart, which will probably be less than 50, but more than 10, years from now.
3) Now, look at the excuses used for moving the money, and how those excuses have panned out. Things like the "space race," in which the US competed on technological stuff with large enemies like the Soviet Union have tended to produce more cool stuff -- everything from lasers to Tang to the Intertubes -- than competing on the ability to fill body bags with enemies like Vietnam and Iraq.
If the primary purpose of raping the taxpayer is going to continue to be adding to the bottom lines of Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, et. al, I'd rather we paid them to build a moon base than to continue failing to figure out (because it's an insoluble problem) how to turn Kabul, Afghanistan into Akron, Ohio.
"Wants to colonize the Moon"
WY KNOTT, Gospodin? So long as it's done with private funds (tax-exempt or not)?
Post a Comment