Because of technical problems with the Soyuz spacecraft it appears the Russians are going to postpone the next two manned launches to ISS.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Because of technical problems with the Soyuz spacecraft it appears the Russians are going to postpone the next two manned launches to ISS.

So, in one breath Americans whine about how we are dependent on the Russians to get into space, while in the next breath they lambast the only Presidential candidate (Gingrich) willing to aggressively do something about it without spending billions of dollars. You would think they’d at least be interested in what he had to say.

Share

9 comments

  • Joe2

    I am not being sarcastic. Tell me you are not really suprised by that occurance.

  • Kelly Starks

    Really.
    Gingrich’s plan sounded so far beyond what NASA has done ever, and in contrast to to NASA dilapidated current state, it sounded as nutty as Musk saying in 20 years he’ll have put up cities on Mars with up to maybe millions of settlers in 20 years.

    If Gingrich had a couple of solid sounding ideas on how he could do it where the last couple Pres space promises got nowhere, that might have interested folks — but right now with the nation unraveling and folks fearfull of keeping their homes, and wanting to hear how the gov will be trimed – exciting big projects in space is not going to play well.

  • Kelly,

    You either didn’t watch Gingrich’s speech, or are refusing to absorb what he said. What he said was far from “nutty,” especially as he based his proposals on past U.S. policy that worked very well during the 20s and 30s in the aviation industry. Moreover, he made it very very very clear he did not want to spend a lot of money on this. As he noted, you offer big prizes, but if no one succeeds in winning the prize, “It hasn’t cost you anything.”

    I don’t mind people disagreeing with Gingrich. What I can no longer stand are people who refuse to listen to his proposals, and then call him names over what they think he said.

  • i liked the speech but I did find it hard to believe . i don’t like newt as a cantidate but I do like how is seems to be the only one taking positively about america’s future in space . i know a lot of people are also saying newt’s ideas about space are unbelieveable . i would like to hear a knowledgable refutation of the points raised in stuart robbins blog post here:

    http://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/newt-to-the-moon-and-mars/

    i think most of us would agree with newt’s ideas but not his claims about the timing of when things will happen

  • wade

    since Space IS Politics….i dont like Any of the contenders the parties have to offer. yet i agree further with mr Zimmerman. Rock throwing is not only petty but embarrassing the next day. A proposal of this height, as far as any Program, is welcoming news. the Apollo Program united this Great Nation during a time of total Chaos. it created the employ of Many from scientist to an ace welder or a simple yet astute mechanic. anyone can set around and blame. but amongst the many, there exists a few leaders who pick up the the proverbial brick and add mortar ! instead of using that proverbial brick as a projectile

  • wade

    while just simmering down, watch me go Super Nova visible in a 100,000 years !

  • Kelly Starks

    I said it SOUNDED nutty. Sounded so far beyond what NASA has ever done. It really is far beyond anything NASA did. Also coming after Griffins Constellation insanity for hundreds of billions – Newt needs to give some details, and that did not .

    He said he based his proposals on past U.S. policy that worked very well during the 20s and 30s in the aviation industry — but didn’t give any details on what he ment! Hes obviously not going to contract space industry to deliver mail (the big factor in early airlines) hes not talking about subsidizing airports for commercial transport. So it was just buzz words, and that’s not going to convince anyone. Worse it just sounds like standard political hollow rhetoric – which we’ve gotten a boat full of from Obama the last few years.

    A vid with a bit more on of his speach at NASA is at http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/25/gingrich-promises-moon-base-that-could-become-51st-state/

    He also briefly discuses other ideas for it on a FoxNews interview that aired last night. http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/index.html#/v/1418871087001/inside-newts-bus/?playlist_id=86925
    (Starts at 9:15 to 15:14 in the first 16 min interview) He talks about his speech was very detailed – if so, most of it was cut from vids on news and youtube.

    In the fox vid he discussed having up to 80% of the funds coming from private (council of millionaires and Billionaires) raising/donating the funds to do it privately. The idea has merit – but it takes more then rattling off generalities.

    Also his off handed praise of SpaceX STRONGLY suggests hes not looking close enough to know what hes talking about.

  • Kelly Starks

    As to the other candidate, Dennis Wingo mentioned that Mike Griffin is advising Romney. That could be a bad sign.
    Griffin was boasting if a republican won the election for pres he’ld get the NASA admin job again. This suggests he might be right — which would pretty much end NASA.

  • Kelly Starks

    Having just seem a vid of the full speach..

    Gingritch talked about great visions, but with no substance to how he’ld do them, what it would cost, etc. Tried to do a JFK “put a man on the moon by the end of the decade” speech. But most of that speach was ignored and forgotten, and the moon flight was really seen as a race with the Soviets, and folks trusted the gov back then.

    Now in the US, with the gov having spent decades crushing them and convincing them space is impossible, they want to hear the “how” clearly outlined. Newt was bouncing all over on imges, anecdotes etc, but not meat.

    His idea for prizes (around 25min) to acheve stuff has merit – but getting the gov, or voters, to set aside $2B a year from NASA for prizes? Good luck. Further doing what he says for what he wants to putout ($10B to get to Mars, etc) how much could you get for that? Not only the question could any research team develop that much for that (launchers, life support systems, landers, etc) test them, etc for $10B or attract the difference? I mean the Xprize attracted Paul Allen to spend $25M for $1M, but billions?! 2nd, how much useful tech would you get out of those prizes? SS1 turned out to not be very comercilizable. Would the Marsprize craft be good for much?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *