Experts say Gingrich moon base dreams not lunacy

Jan 31, 2012 By SETH BORENSTEIN , Associated Press
Republican presidential candidate former House Speaker Newt Gingrich speaks with members of the media outside a polling place at the First Baptist Church of Windermere in Orlando, Fla.,Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2012. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)

(AP) -- Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich wants to create a lunar colony that he says could become a U.S. state. There's his grand research plan to figure out what makes the human brain tick. And he's warned about electromagnetic pulse attacks leaving America without electricity.

To some people, these ideas sound like science fiction. But mostly they are not.

Several science policy experts say the former House speaker's ideas are based in . But somehow, Gingrich manages to make them sound way out there, taking them first a small step and then a giant leap further than where other politicians have gone.

Gingrich's promise that "by the end of my second term we will have the first permanent base on the moon" got amped up in a recent debate in Florida, which lost thousands of jobs with the end of the . By then, the lunar base had become a colony and even a potential state, and his moon ideas were ridiculed by rival Mitt Romney.

Returning to the moon and building an outpost there is not new. Until three years ago, it was U.S. policy and billions of dollars were spent on that idea.

Staying on the moon dates at least to 1969, when a government committee recommended that NASA first build a winged, reusable shuttle followed by a space station and then a moon outpost. In 1989, President George H.W. Bush proposed going to the moon and staying there.

Sixteen years later, in 2005, his son, President George W. Bush, proposed a similar lunar outpost, phased out the space shuttle program and spent more than $9 billion designing a return to the .

George Washington University space policy director Scott Pace, who was NASA's associate administrator in the second Bush administration and is a Romney supporter, said the 2020 date Gingrich mentioned was feasible when it was proposed in 2005.

But it is no longer, felled by funding cuts and President Barack Obama's decision to cancel the program. Pace said it would be hard to figure out when NASA could get back to the moon, but that such a return is doable.

What kept killing return-to-the moon plans were the costs, starting in 1969. The proposal died 20 years later when the price tag was released: more than $700 billion in current dollars. The second President Bush's plans started running into problems due to insufficient funding. After a special commission said those plans were not sustainable, Obama cancelled the return-to-the-moon program. Instead, he ordered NASA to aim astronauts toward an asteroid and eventually Mars, something many space experts say is even more ambitious.

"Some of you may like it and you may dislike it, but I gave the boldest explanation of going into space since John F. Kennedy in 1961," Gingrich said this week in Florida. "I believe in an America of big ideas and big solutions. I believe if we unleash the American people we will rebuild the American dream."

In Florida, nearly all the Republican presidential candidates promoted private companies sending astronauts into space. Several companies are building private spaceships. Commercial space companies taking over the job of getting Americans into low Earth orbit is a cornerstone of the Obama space plan. But, again, money has been an issue.

For example, NASA received $406 million in its current budget for private space programs. Obama had asked Congress for $805 million.

Neal Lane, former head of the National Science Foundation and White House science adviser during the Clinton administration, said Gingrich's proposals aren't crazy, although he may disagree with some of them. Gingrich's ideas and actions are "very pro-science," said Lane, who credited Gingrich with protecting federal science research from budget cuts in the 1990s.

"He's on the edge of mainstream thinking about big science. Except for the idea of establishing a colony on the moon, it's not over the edge," added Syracuse University science policy professor Henry Lambright.

In Iowa, Gingrich pushed a "brain science" initiative that advocates spending more private and federal money to map the human brain to help fight and cure Alzheimer's disease. He said the idea was based on the experience of watching his late mother's transformation from a happy person with friends to living in a long-term care facility suffering from bipolar disease, depression and physical ailments.

Gingrich said his "whole emphasis on brain science" is based on his mother's depression and mental illnesses. Discussing the issue in Iowa, he wiped away a tear, saying: "It's not a theory. It's in fact, my mother."

The idea of mapping the brain to figure out how it works is a traditional scientific approach to a difficult problem. Scientists have tried to conquer disease by mapping the human genome and figuring out the basic biology of cancer, said Arizona State University science policy professor Dan Sarewitz. The trouble is that, in the past, it hasn't paid off as promised, he said.

Gingrich also has raised eyebrows with his dire warnings about the threat of electromagnetic pulses. The fear being that a nuclear bomb detonated hundreds of miles above America could knock out the country's electricity for a long time. In 2009, Gingrich said it "may be the greatest threat we face ... We would in fact lose our civilization in a matter of seconds."

Paul Fischbeck, a professor of engineering and risk at Carnegie Mellon University, said the threat has existed for about a half a century and is real. But "it's getting more likely and more dangerous" as America becomes more electronic-dependent and other countries advance in technology, he said.

Still, it's space where Gingrich dreams biggest and raises the most eyebrows.

Much of the criticism of his space plans, especially in the media, have been unfair, said Alan Stern, NASA's space sciences chief during George W. Bush's administration. He said Gingrich is just thinking big, like a pioneer.

"That's how `Star Trek' begins," said Stern, vice president of the Southwest Research Institute and director of the Florida Space Institute. "But when a government guy or politician talks that way, they just get clobbered about being unrealistic and that's unfortunate."

Explore further: Red moon at night; stargazer's delight

4.8 /5 (16 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Romney sees starships fueled by private enterprise

Jan 28, 2012

Republican White House hopeful Mitt Romney tried to boost support on Florida's "Space Coast" Friday ahead of next week's key primary, promising business would play a bigger role in future missions.

NASA: Good night moon, hello new rocket technology

Feb 01, 2010

(AP) -- President Barack Obama is redirecting America's space program, killing NASA's $100 billion plans to return astronauts to the moon and using much of that money for new rocket technology research.

NASA chief charts agency's shuttle-less future

Apr 08, 2010

(AP) -- NASA may not be going to the moon anytime soon and its space shuttles are about to be retired, but it could conceivably increase the number of agency jobs under a new reorganization, NASA's chief ...

NASA to get more money, but must scratch moon plan

Jan 28, 2010

(AP) -- President Barack Obama is essentially grounding efforts to return astronauts to the moon and instead is sending NASA in new directions with roughly $6 billion more, according to officials familiar with the plans.

Recommended for you

Red moon at night; stargazer's delight

10 hours ago

Monday night's lunar eclipse proved just as delightful as expected to those able to view it. On the East Coast, cloudy skies may have gotten in the way, but at the National Science Foundation's National Optical ...

Meteorites yield clues to Martian early atmosphere

13 hours ago

(Phys.org) —Geologists who analyzed 40 meteorites that fell to Earth from Mars unlocked secrets of the Martian atmosphere hidden in the chemical signatures of these ancient rocks. Their study, published ...

Let's put a sailboat on Titan

16 hours ago

The large moons orbiting the gas giants in our solar system have been getting increasing attention in recent years. Titan, Saturn's largest moon, is the only natural satellite known to house a thick atmosphere. ...

Image: Rosetta's Philae lander snaps a selfie

16 hours ago

Philae is awake… and taking pictures! This image, acquired last night with the lander's CIVA (Comet nucleus Infrared and Visible Analyzer) instrument, shows the left and right solar panels of ESA's well-traveled ...

User comments : 52

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2012
-Except that gingrich seems to be unaware that the russians, NASA, and ESA are already discussing a joint venture, which I assume he wouldnt be much in favor of.
http://www.space....ope.html
Callippo
1 / 5 (19) Jan 31, 2012
Without cold fusion the lunar base has no meaning and its economically unfeasible. The USA/Russia even cannot maintain the ISS base at the 300 km distance from Earth.
Xbw
3.1 / 5 (17) Jan 31, 2012
@Ghost
It would certainly make much more economic sense to work together. 700b split between multiple nations would hurt much less. However, our competitive nature and the nationalism that is present in most space-capable countries will probably win over. In the end, it will be another competition to see who can do it first.

@Callippo
Enough with the cold fusion crap already. Power can be maintained with Nuclear power easily enough. http://en.wikiped...the_Moon

Solar is another option but I think it would take too many resources as it would require multiple solar arrays places around the moon to ensure constant power.
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (8) Jan 31, 2012
How about we pay for our toys from the last century before we buy more on our endangered credit?
ShotmanMaslo
3 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2012
Its certainly not a lunacy, lunar base is a realistic proposal, especially utilising existing rockets and private execution as proposed by Newt. We have the technology, and the money (increase of a few billion a year) is also pretty negligible in the grand scheme of things. The only thing we lack is political will to do it.
Deathclock
3.2 / 5 (16) Jan 31, 2012
Are you serious? We don't have the money, we are trillions in the hole and LOSING money every year... what kind of a lunatic thinks this country "has the money" to do anything? Maybe this type of mass delusion is what got us into this mess to begin with.

I realize the money we are talking about is a drop in the bucket, but there are thousands of "drops in the bucket" and they add up, I am not only arguing against this, but against all of those other drops as well.
ShotmanMaslo
3.7 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2012
I realize the money we are talking about is a drop in the bucket, but there are thousands of "drops in the bucket" and they add up, I am not only arguing against this, but against all of those other drops as well.


No matter how small the manned space exploration spending is, you would be saying the same thing. The truth is, because this spending is negligible, it is not really money that prevents a moonbase, it is a lack of political will. Thats how space politics work.
Xbw
2.3 / 5 (12) Jan 31, 2012
Death, I agree with you to a point. Money spending is way out of control.

I think rather than put billions into a bureaucratic/government run program for space exploration, the government should offer large monetary rewards for companies which pass certain milestones. Much like the X-Prize but on a larger scale.
Callippo
1 / 5 (14) Jan 31, 2012
We don't have the money, we are trillions in the hole and LOSING money every year.
Money and lives. http://pesn.com/2...olocaust Actually, the solution of every great plan must start from roots. The building and utilization of Lunar base will require the energy, which we haven't. So we must develop the reliable source of energy first, just after then we can start to dream about its utilization. Actually, the untilization of cold fusion must start from widespread acceptation of its promoters. Every, who is downvoting me instead of upvoting me in this context is actually an enemy of the lunar plan progress and the human civilization as a whole. All big things start from details and if we don't switch our earthbound thinking about this subject, we can forget the success for ever.
bewertow
5 / 5 (9) Jan 31, 2012
Hey Callippo/Rawa since this is just a sock-puppet account. How about you build a cold fusion reactor and then sell it to NASA for major profits?

Oh yea, I forgot, it's a load of shit.
Isaacsname
1 / 5 (7) Jan 31, 2012
Hey Callippo/Rawa since this is just a sock-puppet account. How about you build a cold fusion reactor and then sell it to NASA for major profits?

Oh yea, I forgot, it's a load of shit.


...since we will always have the opportunity to advance what we think we know, by opening our eyes with a little willingness, isn't is reasonable to accept that we_don't_ know everything yet ?

I only get the feeling that things like " cold fusion " are just an indication of what _could_ be possible if we put our heads together.

We put our heads together all the time, but for some reason it just seems to makes a hollow *bonk* noise.

..so...how do any of us know for certain that we even understand the difference between sh*t or anything else ?
epsi00
3 / 5 (2) Jan 31, 2012
Are you serious? We don't have the money, we are trillions in the hole and LOSING money every year... what kind of a lunatic thinks this country "has the money" to do anything? Maybe this type of mass delusion is what got us into this mess to begin with.


A lot of people forget that the money the US is spending is Chinese money. And we know that one is often more generous with someone else's money.
rwinners
4 / 5 (3) Jan 31, 2012
Well, we have been to the moon and we certainly can return. I suggest we leave that to commercial enterprises interested in profit. I also suggest that these not be subsidized.
As for EMP's, I'll bet my retirement that more than 2 nations have the ability to detonate large nukes over 'enemy' space to create them. So what? No one country will suffer the consequences. Anyone remember MAD? This is just a factor.
Oh, and if anyone ever discovers what makes Newties brain tick, please advise the National Science Foundation!
yakinsea
5 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2012
"Every, who is downvoting me instead of upvoting me in this context is actually an enemy of the lunar plan progress and the human civilization as a whole."

God, I hate this line of reasoning! Is your first name Newt?
Thrasymachus
1 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2012
It's not about money, it's about gathering and processing the necessary natural resources and motivating the necessary manpower to do it. In a democratic republic, that means amassing the political support for the government to exercise its absolute power over the supply of money to pay to gather those resources and pay for the people it needs to do what it wants to do. Worrying about the federal debt is silly. The Federal Government controls the printing presses for money. In a very real sense, they can't be in debt in their own currency.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2012
I suggest we leave that to commercial enterprises interested in profit. I also suggest that these not be subsidized.


If the government will not "buy" the moonbase, there will be no moonbase, or anything else for that matter, except communication sattelites in orbit. There is no profit to be made.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2012
I think the US gov needs to balance the budget before proposing any more big cartoon projects. We're in serious trouble. The country will default on its debt eventually, and the devaluing of the dollar needs to stop. Big gov spending is absolutely out of control. In fact the dems don't even acknowledge a problem!

Now the far left democrats (Obama) are going to attempt to make the case that the debt is not really a problem, while the main thrust of the right will be get massive spending in control.

So the context of Newts science proposal should already presuppose this.

Personally, I think it would be smarter for the republicans to support a Manhattan'esque project as focused to make nuclear power safer (dev fission) , and develop other practical energy alternatives, as a matter of national defense. This would undermine the lefts social solutions to AGW, and would support science.
rubberman
5 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2012
It's not about money, it's about gathering and processing the necessary natural resources and motivating the necessary manpower to do it. In a democratic republic, that means amassing the political support for the government to exercise its absolute power over the supply of money to pay to gather those resources and pay for the people it needs to do what it wants to do. Worrying about the federal debt is silly. The Federal Government controls the printing presses for money. In a very real sense, they can't be in debt in their own currency.


The first four words in the above quote are completely contradicted by the rest of the words in the quote.

If it wasn't about money...we would be there now.
Good luck Newt.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2012
@Thrasymachus, The government can't simply "print money" and spend it. The fed buys gov bonds from banks who receive cash, if the banks want to sell. So the government has no money of its own. It comes from taxes on wealth that is generated in the private sector, and The People vote in the type of government they want.

You can't just devalue the crap out of the dollar either. You're living in a cartoon world.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2012
,.. the government doesn't have arbitrary "power over the supply of money".
Cluebat from Exodar
5 / 5 (2) Feb 01, 2012
The fact is that as long as we are not a spacefaring culture, we will be vulnerable to global annihilation.

Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 01, 2012
Worrying about the federal debt is silly. The Federal Government controls the printing presses for money. In a very real sense, they can't be in debt in their own currency.


Yeah, and see what happens to inflation when they turn the presses lose.

You'll need a truck full of money to buy bread.

Hello Zimbabwe
jalmy
5 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2012
Great title.
Shootist
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2012
Without cold fusion the lunar base has no meaning and its economically unfeasible. The USA/Russia even cannot maintain the ISS base at the 300 km distance from Earth.


You're madder than Oliver.
Xbw
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 01, 2012
The fact is that as long as we are not a spacefaring culture, we will be vulnerable to global annihilation.


A simple and to the point agreement with Stephen Hawking.
When asked why he was taking a weightless flight in the "vomit comet" he said this, "Many people have asked me why I am taking this flight. I am doing it for many reasons. First of all, I believe that life on Earth is at an ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster such as sudden nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus, or other dangers. I think the human race has no future if it doesn't go into space. I therefore want to encourage public interest in space"
http://en.wikiped..._Hawking
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2012
A US Moon colony or a another US state on the Moon is illegal under all outer space treaties (just like a state or colony in Antarctica would be). Gingrich should know this.

I only get the feeling that things like " cold fusion " are just an indication of what _could_ be possible if we put our heads together.

If you remember a lot of scientists DID put their heads together after Pons and Fleischmann made their findings public (at a press conference and then - pressured by their university who wanted to get patenting rights - in a publication). No one could replicate it. Not even Pons and Fleischmann
Modernmystic
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 01, 2012
A US Moon colony or a another US state on the Moon is illegal under all outer space treaties (just like a state or colony in Antarctica would be). Gingrich should know this.


A colony is most certainly not illegal. A state would be under CURRENT agreements....

However it's highly unlikely that the Moon will remain in it's current state of property limbo indefinitely.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2012
A colony is most certainly not illegal.

I said a *US* colony. Only an 'Earth' colony would be legal...and even that could be iffy legal ground. The way I read it any colony on the Moon would be automatically an independent legal entity.
Modernmystic
1.5 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2012
A colony is most certainly not illegal.

I said a *US* colony. Only an 'Earth' colony would be legal...and even that could be iffy legal ground. The way I read it any colony on the Moon would be automatically an independent legal entity.


If the colony's purview is research and not economic activity it can be a *US* colony. Much like Antarctica.

Also, all the United States would have to do is give one years notice and they could pull out of the treaty entirely...
Thrasymachus
1.4 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2012
Nobody in the private economy "makes money." They make things or provide services that they exchange for money. That money comes from the Federal Government. Without the goods and services, money is worthless. Even with them it's worthless if people won't exchange their goods and services for it. People are willing to exchange their goods and services for money because they need money to pay their debts and their taxes. You can't pay your debts or your taxes in goods or services, you need dollars. The government only cares about goods and services when it spends and buys those goods and services. When it taxes, it only cares about money; maintaining demand for money and removing excess money from the economy. Money is not equivalent to value because it has none in itself. When the government prints money or taxes money, it is not increasing or decreasing value anywhere. It just changes the motivations for private actors in creating value.
Callippo
1 / 5 (1) Feb 01, 2012
The USA/Russia even cannot maintain the ISS base at the 300 km distance from Earth. .. You're madder than Oliver.
Nope, I'm just a realist in cruel way. The times of cheap oil are over and the decline of cosmic era is just an one of many consequences. We simply need to start the new Belle Époque with new generation of fuel.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2012
When the government prints money or taxes money, it is not increasing or decreasing value anywhere. It just changes the motivations for private actors in creating value.


The more cash the fed floods the economy with, the less purchasing power the dollar has; the value of the dollar declines and consequentially the more things will cost. This is a problem for people with cash reserves and savings. In fact it is a form of redistribution of wealth. Also, who is going to want to invest in the USA dollar if it gets diluted? It absolutely matters.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 01, 2012
,... also the national debt is near 100% of the GDP which can cause a drag on the economy if past 90%.

Greece had this problem, and the euro nearly collapsed. The Feds can't just release cash arbitrarily.
Thrasymachus
1.4 / 5 (5) Feb 01, 2012
What you're worried about, Noumenon, is called inflation, and its solution is apparent. Tax the excess dollars out of the economy. But it would be stupid to start doing that unless and until inflation actually started occurring. As far as redistribution, that's the whole point of government, to redistribute goods and services to accomplish the tasks the public decides, through the legislative process, to do.

Europe's problem with the Euro, and Greece's problem with it in particular, is that they have given up control of the money they do business in to a consortium of international bankers. Europe has essentially gone back to a gold standard, where money is backed by the lending of private lenders instead of gold.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2012
No one could replicate it. Not even Pons and Fleischmann
Steven Jones at University of Utah replicated it. He also proved that the twin towers were taken down by thermite! Or was it marmolite? Anyway not bad for a CIA asset.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2012
The Feds can't just release cash arbitrarily.
The FED can do whatever they want. Especially while China buys treasuries and keeps the yuan cheap. They are private and above the law. The president can hunt you down and shoot you in the face for no reason at all. Welcome to USA 2.0

Eventually the world will grow tired of your worthless paper. At that point you may try to instigate WWIII instead of peacefully collapsing into a third world backwater while your braintrusts take the next flight out of your failed empire and you're reduced to selling sex toys for bananas.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Feb 01, 2012
The FED can do whatever they want.

Pretty much. They've been giving out bank loans (read: printing money) at a cheap 1% interest so that the banks they loaned to would have more capital to give out cheap loans to businesses - and thereby get the economy going.

So far, so good.

But instead the banks turned around and have since started buying US bonds (at 7.15%). And the interest has to be paid by, you guessed it, the tax-payer.

It's a neat perpetuum mobile cash machine for the banks as long as the inflation stays below 6.15%

Oh...and the price of the inflation will then also not be paid by the banks. It will be paid by you.

Cash and carry. Welcome to capitalism.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2012
If the government has a hand in it, it is not capitalism.

"...the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $ 5 trillion dollars [to $9 trillion],.... It's irresponsible. Its unpatriotic." - Barack H. Obama (2008)

Sounds like even Obama was concerned about the national debt at one time, at least when it was convenient to be anyway,.. when it was G.W. Bush that was in office.

Our novelty president has added more debt in just three years than even G.W. Bush added in eight years.

rwinners
5 / 5 (1) Feb 02, 2012
"Experts say Gingrich moon base dreams not lunacy."

Isn't it weird? Even lunatics have lucid moments.
rwinners
5 / 5 (2) Feb 02, 2012
A thought: I think it very shortsited that the wealth in America is not made to clean up the messes that are made by themselves or in their interests. There will be a backlash.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Feb 03, 2012
Here's an idea: Why don't they fund a lunar program to put ONE man on the Moon to prepare for this great lunar base? I vote we send Gingrich.
kochevnik
not rated yet Feb 04, 2012
The more cash the fed floods the economy with, the less purchasing power the dollar has; the value of the dollar declines and consequentially the more things will cost. This is a problem for people with cash reserves and savings. In fact it is a form of redistribution of wealth. Also, who is going to want to invest in the USA dollar if it gets diluted? It absolutely matters.
Untrue. The more cash the fed floods the economy with, the less purchasing power OTHER CURRENCIES HAVE. This has caused the Middle East uprisings and revolutions around the world the past few years. This because the USA dictates the price of energy worldwide with their worthless Rothschilds paper, while the Rothschilds buy all the gold. Nations are required to purchase and sell oil in PETRODOLLARS. The key is to abandon the US dollar then it will readily collapse into a 3rd world backwater as it's only major product is war. And it will have no more gold obviously being a silly pawn.
Skyking211
not rated yet Feb 05, 2012
The moon has Helium-3 which can be utilized, eventually.
The lunacy of Newt's statement was his ultra-nationalism of the moon being a strictly American base, which of course is antithetical to Roddenberry's vision of a United Earth.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Feb 05, 2012
I think the Libertarian solution offered by Ron Paul is the best idea for America. Cut 1 trillion from the U.S. budget in 2013, and throw 30 million Americans onto the unemployment line as a result.

Don't you agree Tard Boy?

"I think the US gov needs to balance the budget before proposing any more big cartoon projects." - NoumenTard
Alcedine
not rated yet Feb 05, 2012
What doesn't get discussed much, but (after seeing a certain TED talk) what continues to pop into my head, is that there's an equally wonderful ocean of opportunity for exploration in... well, the ocean.

There's a whole other universe there, biologically as well as in terms of inorganics. If your purpose is primarily to explore, not profit (i.e. if you are doing it "for science"), I can't really see any reason for space being more "in" than ocean, other than the fact that marine exploration has comparatively shit PR.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Feb 05, 2012
I can't really see any reason for space being more "in" than ocean

I'll give you a reason: going out into space will save the species when a global desaster strikes (not 'if'...'when')

Going into the oceans will not.

Certainly the oceans should also be explored. This isn't an either/or decision.
Alcedine
not rated yet Feb 05, 2012
Okay, let's talk about evacuation schemes.

Space evac is good for a greater range of scenarios (in particular, it does not exclude those where the oceans are vaporized). But I suspect we're more likely to face something more superficial, in the spirit of toxic gases or nuclear winter. In this case, underwater complexes can accommodate (in comparison to spacecraft) more population by orders of magnitude, and with a shorter prep period.

Of course, if we're expecting something completely cataclysmic, we do need to get off the planet. But before we can send out any significant amount of people, we'll need a couple of breakthroughs in materials and engineering (or at least the current tech will have to be much more advanced); on the other hand, given a few decades' warning, which I think we'd have in the majority of cases, a team large enough to "save the species" can probably be sent out in time (given a significantly greater budget than NASA has now, but I doubt they'd be denied that).
Callippo
not rated yet Feb 05, 2012
The moon has Helium-3 which can be utilized, eventually
The nickel from micrometeorites and hydrogen from solar wind trapped inside of lunar regolith are way more abundant and affordable source of energy at Moon.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Feb 05, 2012
"If the government has a hand in it, it is not capitalism." - NoumenTard

Well then... Since Da Gubderment polices all financial transactions in your view then there is no such thing as Capitalism.

And that makes you a MMMOOOOORRRRRRROOOOOONNNNNNN
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Feb 06, 2012
What is absolute lunacy though, is Gingrich's presidential campaign.

He is one pathetic Republican liar, and always has been.
kochevnik
not rated yet Feb 06, 2012
Anyone who accompanies sociopaths into space won't live very long.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Feb 06, 2012
Space evac is good for a greater range of scenarios (in particular, it does not exclude those where the oceans are vaporized).

I don't think evac is a possibility. Sending a few choice individuals in a self sustained ecosphere is probably the best we can hope for for the foreseeable future.

In this case, underwater complexes can accommodate (in comparison to spacecraft) more population by orders of magnitude, and with a shorter prep period.

While I agree that the prep period would be far shorter for ocean based living we would certainly only think of going for it once the disaster has already struck (and by then it will be far too late to start building anything in the oceans.) So I don't expect any safety there.

I expect such 'foreseeable' disasters with prewarn time on the order of decades to be cosmic - not homemade.

More news stories

Meteorites yield clues to Martian early atmosphere

(Phys.org) —Geologists who analyzed 40 meteorites that fell to Earth from Mars unlocked secrets of the Martian atmosphere hidden in the chemical signatures of these ancient rocks. Their study, published ...

Let's put a sailboat on Titan

The large moons orbiting the gas giants in our solar system have been getting increasing attention in recent years. Titan, Saturn's largest moon, is the only natural satellite known to house a thick atmosphere. ...