I nominate Newt for President of the Moon.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, January 27th, 2012 4:21pm PST - promote requested by Fletch.

Hmm ... somehow this accidentally posted twice?

http://videosift.com/video/Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-on-Gingrichs-Moon-Colony-1

So sad! Seven minute difference....

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-on-Gingrichs-Moon-Colony-1

@critical_d, come dupe finish?

The promote will transfer! Yippee!

Video cannot be declared a dupe of the specified video - ignoring dupeof request by bareboards2.

Jeez, I can't read.... I misread this time by ten minutes, wrong direction.

7 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

I'm not sure I follow deGrasse Tyson's logic. So we need to build a moon base to spark interest in science and engineering because we are falling behind the rest of the world in these areas. What is sparking interest in science and engineering in the rest of the world? Are they all planning on building a moon base?

No, they aren't. I think we are falling behind for other reasons (e.g., a broken education system) and incurring massive debt for grandiose manned space exploration projects will not help the issue.

I love the idea of space exploration, but it is something a rich government should undertake. Our's is broke.

We should build a moonbase because moonbases are cool. Sometimes that's a good enough reason to do something. The government already spends lots of money on useless things, like fences around Mexico, bridges to nowhere, and x-ray scanners at airports, but those things aren't nearly as cool as a moonbase.

It's 2012, we should have had mooonbases twenty years ago. There should be orbital recreation centers by now. Scientists on the Mars research colony (that we should have) should be busy working out how we're gonna get to Alpha Centauri. And flying cars, dammit.

>> ^Tman:
I'm not sure I follow deGrasse Tyson's logic. So we need to build a moon base to spark interest in science and engineering because we are falling behind the rest of the world in these areas. What is sparking interest in science and engineering in the rest of the world? Are they all planning on building a moon base?
No, they aren't. I think we are falling behind for other reasons (e.g., a broken education system) and incurring massive debt for grandiose manned space exploration projects will not help the issue.
I love the idea of space exploration, but it is something a rich government should undertake. Our's is broke.

He did say "for me...", although I would disagree that it's a primary reason for doing so instead of just a really positive side-effect. Personally, I think the reasons for returning to the moon and beyond are greater than most of us can assimilate given the immensity of world problems nowadays. But, there will always be world problems. Why wait?

I read somewhere that we could have financed two (or more) manned missions to Mars with the money we spent in Iraq. In the long-term future of humans (assuming we survive long enough to become truly space-faring), which do you think would have greater benefitted our species? Which will history regard as an important stepping stone in human advancement/evolution? Getting Saddam and destroying the infrastructure of an entire country, not to mention the tens of thousands of lives lost, or, the cooperation of nations in getting to Mars.

Space exploration doesn't have to be just an idea, and it shouldn't be.

The usual excuse for space exploration being done by government is because the costs involved are too high.

However, doesn't the private sector tend to increase quality and lower costs with time? Maybe if we let the private sector grow and develop the necessary technologies, space exploration won't be as costly. Sure, it might take a lot more time, but at least it won't waste as much resources.

Right now, we don't have resources in the private or public sectors for this. Newt is a dumbass.

Why even send people? All that does is add immense cost.

Send robots... they're cheaper.

There's already a restaurant on the moon. Decent food but no atmosphere.

>> ^quantumushroom:

There's already a restaurant on the moon. Decent food but no atmosphere.


The Moon Wok?

>> ^renatojj:

The usual excuse for space exploration being done by government is because the costs involved are too high.
However, doesn't the private sector tend to increase quality and lower costs with time? Maybe if we let the private sector grow and develop the necessary technologies, space exploration won't be as costly. Sure, it might take a lot more time, but at least it won't waste as much resources.
Right now, we don't have resources in the private or public sectors for this. Newt is a dumbass.


Private sector business can't take risks this big. They are responsible for ensuring profitability and you cannot ensure profitability in a venture like space exploration. Central government doesn't have the profit mandate and so they can invest in things that stimulate paradigm shifts in technology and industry.

An example; I worked for my local utility company several years back (recently privatized at the time). Wind energy was a big thing and they company was very active in promoting their wind energy program. But the truth that I found was they had actually spent more money on trying to push laws to seal government gathered data that would be necessary for the wind industry to grow. You see, they didn't want to develop wind energy just yet because the profit margin was too small but they also didn't want any energy startups who were willing to accept the thinner profit margins to get a leg up on them. Nearly a decade later and that large energy company still hasn't developed their wind power any further. And there haven't been any major challengers in the market....wonder why.

The largest industries are controlled by the largest corporations and these corporations are in the business of protecting their existing revenue streams. Innovation and exploration involve risk and corporations are risk averse by their very design. Private industry is not the machine that will push boundaries and stimulate technological paradigm shifts. That takes a large entity with no profit mandate. That takes a central government.

If you believe that profitability is the best measure of value and efficiency then you haven't thought really hard on the matter. A functioning and successful society requires a balance between capital driven entities and entities who measure their success in terms of the health and advancement of the community. This isn't a matter of capitalism versus socialism. It's contrasting motivations that work in synergy.

@TheFreak, I get your point, but whether or not risks are too big becomes less and less of a problem as technology and production eventually bring costs down. It's not like Earth is falling apart or the Sun is about to explode, so we have all the time in the world to wait for technology to catch up to any dreams of space exploration we or our great grandchildren might have.

Who knows, getting the government out of the way might even help us get there faster.

I want to have NDT's babies so much, I'm prepared to get gender reassignment surgery. That guy's great!

Government's spend money to get into space for one reason only, the military advantage it provides. It means the capability to hit a target anywhere on the planet, and it's the entire reason that the cold war states ever started the space race. The race to the moon was just an extension of that. The important technology being the ability to get the heaviest object possible into orbit, again with major military implications as even just a hunk of rock in orbit is a serious weapon.

The lag of space exploration and advances has been the same. The military advantages are tapped out and there's no good reason to go much further, so funding is short.

@TheFreak: Thank you for so clearly explaining (with examples!) something I've had trouble getting across to people.

@bcglorf I agree with the military advantage, it makes government presence in space exploration justifiable in my opinion, at least where the military edge is concerned.

@direpickle, I also really like the way @TheFreak explains the difference between profit-seeking and nonprofit-seeking enterprises, but I wonder if his characterization might be a bit short-sighted.

Suppose that, in the interest of advancing human development, I decided to spread atheism by forcibly taking control of the major media outlets, internet and schools using them to spread that ideology. I'd finance this endeavour with taxpayer money of course. Sure, not everyone (or every taxpayer) would agree with my goals, specially those backwards people still hopelessly stuck in their petty religious mindsets, but I see the bigger picture here, a paradigm shift for society that would propel it into the future.

My goals are noble, I seek no immediate profit, not everyone will agree with me, but imagine the long term benefits of getting rid of religion, a a much needed paradigm shift that wouldn't otherwise happen if I didn't force society to use its resources a certain way.

Would that be justifiable?

>> ^Quboid:

I want to have NDT's babies so much, I'm prepared to get gender reassignment surgery. That guy's great!


At first I thought you meant NLG, and I got a little scared. In any event... I don't think it works that way.

Heh, he rasps quite a bit on his p's

>> ^bmacs27:

>> ^Quboid:
I want to have NDT's babies so much, I'm prepared to get gender reassignment surgery. That guy's great!

At first I thought you meant NLG, and I got a little scared. In any event... I don't think it works that way.


It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them! Don't you oppress me!