In Support of Gingrich's Moonbase

Republican Presidential Candidate, former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich has come under ridicule by the media and Mitt Romney for floating an idea during a campaign speech in Florida in which he proposed a "moonbase". His quote is basically a generic campaign promise, like "I will close Guantanamo Bay".

"By the end of my second term [2020], we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American,"

This has actually become a major political story, with Newt's poll numbers dropping in Florida and it becoming a debate talking point of his rivals.

I am no Newt supporter, I supported Obama in 2008 and will absolutely vote for him over any Republican in the field this time. But while it makes me cringe to say it, nothing he is saying is unreasonable, and furthermore the criticism he is getting for this one-liner reflects more on the current state of America than on Newt Gingrich's supposed erratic behavior. A sound bite from Romney during a debate has been repeated several times today:

"I spent 25 years in business, If I had a business executive come to me and say they wanted to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the moon, I'd say, 'You're fired.'"[1]

 First of all, one angle of criticism as expressed by Romney, is that the idea itself is so outlandish that it deserves no discussion and proves some lack of reality on the part of Gingrich. Lets just step back for a bit here: In the 1960's, now nearly 5 decades ago, the US built a space program that sent multiple manned missions, that landed on the moon, allowed people to explore and return with hundreds of pounds of lunar material. This was all with a guidance computer that had a 2Mhz processor and 38KB of storage memory made out of magnetic coils[2]. Since then, though NASA and the US Government have spent 40 years stuck in Low Earth Orbit, with the Skylab and Space Shuttle programs. Regardless the technology certainly exists for physically getting people or materials to the moon, what is lacking is funding and political will. We have sent craft outside the solar system , robotic probes in orbit around other worlds such as Galileo (Jupiter), Cassini (Saturn) and Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. We have had a continual presence in space for the past 10+ years [3], (not that far from permanent) in the International Space Station .

Not to get all science-fiction-y, but the idea of the Moon-base is hardly new, or outlandish either. Since the 1950s, Arthur C. Clarke and others(including governments) have made proposals for lunar colonization. There has been plenty of NASA and independent research on the idea of space colonization generally from the 1970s. Yes, there is plenty of debate even among space enthusiasts over the best strategy of exploration and colonization, from orbital space stations, direct to Mars missions or other ventures to asteroids, a gradual approach to all of the above etc. Not to discount any other approach (in fact, my preference would be some kind of space colony at a Langrangian point such as Earth-Moon L4/L5), but even if you search right now on NASA's website they have a whole Why the moon? page with documents from as recent as 2006 with various suggested motivations for going back to the moon, including eventually extending human civilization with permanent settlements. Among 6 reasons selected for going back to the moon (in the exploration sense, initially at least:

Human Civilization
Extend human presence to the moon to enable eventual settlement.

Scientific Knowledge
Pursue scientific activities that address fundamental questions about the history of Earth, the solar system and the universe - and about our place in them.

Exploration Preparation
Test technologies, systems, flight operations and exploration techniques to reduce the risks and increase the productivity of future missions to Mars and beyond.

Global Partnerships
Provide a challenging, shared and peaceful activity that unites nations in pursuit of common objectives.

Economic Expansion
Expand Earth's economic sphere, and conduct lunar activities with benefits to life on the home planet.

Public Engagement
Use a vibrant space exploration program to engage the public, encourage students and help develop the high-tech workforce that will be required to address the challenges of tomorrow.

Sign me up! I don't think I am alone either in my view that the Gingrich's idea itself isn't outside what is possible given our current technology, nor a worthless exercise. The timeline might be aggressive, with current NASA resources, although, the Constellation program under President George W. Bush sounds remarkably like what Gingrich is talking about, in a way, they are saying the same thing as President H.W. Bush did in 1989, when he proposed a return to nuclear rocket research[4] aimed at goals of a moon base and Mars missions. [5]

I could write a whole other article on the feasibility of nuclear rockets, after just finishing a book on the subject, The Nuclear Rocket: Making Our Planet Green, Peaceful and Prosperous, by James Dewar which delves into why chemical rockets will never truly allow for a equitable, private-sector based exploration or colonization beyond Earth orbit. In the case of the moon, we probably don't need to go there, though it adds interesting ideas to bring the cost down. That could be part of Gingrich's plan, but probably it isn't. In any case, its not even something his critics are really talking about.

This goes to my final point, obviously Gingrich has plenty of enemies now, from his current Republican rivals, to left-liberals still bitter over the 1994 Coup d'état, so as it is in politics, you don't really need a rational basis for attacking someone's ideas, it just needs to sound bad when taken out of context. But I find it odd, that even among the supposedly "patriotic" right-wing, who claims to believe so strongly in the notion of American exceptionalism, there is so little faith that such an idea, to build some kind of station on the moon in 8 years is an impossible dream? I wonder if this is the continuing creep of anti-science thought that is growing in this country, from evolution, stem-cells, climate change/global warming. This may just be the latest example where science and technological progress is denounced with no basis. Amazing that something that was done 50 years ago is now a crazy idea today!

I leave you with Niel deGrasse Tyson, making excellent points, explaining why we are declining and that we are losing our edge in space since we don't spend too much on space anyways...

References
[1] Oliphant, James, Robin Abcarian, Kim Geiger, and Michael Memoli. "Moon base! Freddie! Self-deportation! The GOP debate's top 5 moments." Los Angeles Times 27 Jan 2012, n. pag. Web. 27 Jan. 2012. <http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-florida-debate-top-5-feistiest-moment-20120127,0,7763027.story?page=1>.
[2] O'Brien, Frank. The Apollo Guidance Computer. New York: Springer, 2010. Print. 
[3] "Facts and Figures." International Space Station. NASA, n.d. Web. 27 Jan 2012. <http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/onthestation/facts_and_figures.html>.
[4] Bush, George H.W. NSPD-6. “Space Exploration Initiative.” NASA Historical Reference
Collection. (File: 012605). 9 Mar. 1992. <http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/867.pdf>
[5] Hsu, Jeremey. "All Spaced Out: Past President's Cosmic Visions." Space.com. N.p., 16 Apr 2012. Web. 27 Jan 2012. <http://www.space.com/8234-spaced-presidents-cosmic-visions.html>. 

Images credit to NASA/courtesy of nasaimages.org.