I see Iran has launched a earth watching orbiter maybe old Newt isnt far off from wanting to settle on the moon, think about it. Control on the moon you could control earth. Syfy, maybe

Exploration whether to the moon or deeper in our oceans is benefical because it creates new discplines evolving our species. Just think back on the ocupations that were and no longer exist and the occupations of today. Man has needed to explore from his beginning. It is the natural order of things. so Newt is right but too many progresives think in terms of entitlements and not banking for the future.

“If I had a business executive come to me and say I want to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the moon, I’d say, ‘You’re fired,’” said Romney, a former businessman

John McCain - "Let's send Newt to the moon".

Originally Posted by rubicon;449***

Exploration whether to the moon or deeper in our oceans is benefical because it creates new discplines evolving our species. Just think back on the ocupations that were and no longer exist and the occupations of today. Man has needed to explore from his beginning. It is the natural order of things. so Newt is right but too many progresives think in terms of entitlements and not banking for the future.

Originally Posted by coralway

“If I had a business executive come to me and say I want to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the moon, I’d say, ‘You’re fired,’” said Romney, a former businessman

John McCain - "Let's send Newt to the moon".

I find this hard to believe, even if it is two RINO's saying it. With Trump endorsing Romney they're probably already planning for the first Mega Hotel, Casino and golf course on the Moon!

When I heard Newt talk about a moon base, I immediately thought of Ralph Kramden.........

You wanna go to the moon, Alice?

Nobody mentions just WHY we might want to stake a claim to the moon.

Helium-3 - look it up.

It could literally be the next generation power source to solve a LOT of problems. It's used in fusion research at the moment - and as we solve the problems with maintaining a fusion reaction, Helium-3 could end up being the next "Texas Tea" or "Black Gold".

I, for one, would feel a lot better if *we* had the launch, mining and return capabilities when fusion becomes more practical.

1, We cannot afford any of this nonsense. Space exploration is NOT nonsense but thinking we can afford it purely is.

2. In the last week, President Obama who continues to support EXPANSION of the H-1B visa program once again said that we have a shortage of high tech engineers and thus we need to import lower paid hi tech engineers to this country. This despite employers openly admit that they use this program because the engineers come cheaper. Read a quote which is dated a few years ago from someone in India who referred to it as the "outsourcing visa". Either our President is out of touch or just doing the bidding of those who promise money and/or votes.


We then add the NYT article on the outsourcing by Apple to China and we are simply kidding ourselves.

We are NOT serious about any of this stuff. Our leaders, from the WH through congress just play games with words and we suck it up depending on who says it. This is NOT simply a critique of the President, although you would expect that the CHIEF executive would be better informed, BUT it is a critique of our congress who thinks on such a shallow plain thus how is this even in conversation.

The Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2011

Originally Posted by djplong

Nobody mentions just WHY we might want to stake a claim to the moon.

Helium-3 - look it up.

It could literally be the next generation power source to solve a LOT of problems. It's used in fusion research at the moment - and as we solve the problems with maintaining a fusion reaction, Helium-3 could end up being the next "Texas Tea" or "Black Gold".

I, for one, would feel a lot better if *we* had the launch, mining and return capabilities when fusion becomes more practical.

I think this makes at least twice you've stated something I agree with.
It's nice to see that we don't disagree on everything!

Not only does Newt want to establish a base on the moon, I think he wants a McDonalds up there too, ASAP.

Originally Posted by coralway

The Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2011

YEP and pretty much approved by both parties across the board. Makes it easier to give the jobs away.

Why do we not have companies emulating our service academies.....pay for the education with a guarantee from the student that you must work for me for x number of years. I guess I am a simpleton on this but it seems like it would be a way to go.

Originally Posted by Rags123

YEP and pretty much approved by both parties across the board. Makes it easier to give the jobs away.

Why do we not have companies emulating our service academies.....pay for the education with a guarantee from the student that you must work for me for x number of years. I guess I am a simpleton on this but it seems like it would be a way to go.

Makes sense to me.

All we do is call people names...nobody discusses actual issues anymore. Maybe someone can clarify why this law expanding the immigration law is a good thing for this country.

The Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2011, eliminates the per country numerical limitation on employment-based visas.

From what I gather, the argument seems to be that under present law, no more than 7% of H-1B visas, which are used for engineers and other highly skilled workers, may be issued to persons from the same country in any year. Supporters of this legislation believe this quota harms U.S. competitveness, because a small group of countries, including India and China, produce a disproportionate number of workers who would otherwise be eligible for such a visa.

Basically, they (the US Congress) wants to INCREASE the number of Indian and Chinese skilled workers.

The current administration has essentially gutted NASA and slowed to a crawl any benefits from the scientific research the agency has accomplished over the years.

Before we all agree that we can't afford NASA, we should know how much space exploration really costs us.

NASA's annual budgets for the past fifty years have amount in total to $471.23 billion dollars—an average of $9.06 billion per year. By way of comparison, total spending over this period by the National Science Foundation was roughly one-fourth of NASA's expenditures: $101.5 billion, or $2 billion a year. NASA's FY 2008 budget of $17.318 billion represented about 0.6% of the $2.9 trillion United States federal budget during the year, or about 35% of total spending on academic scientific research in the United States.

So before we conclude that we simply can't afford it, maybe we should compare how much we spend on NASA and what we benefit from those expenditures to other spending done by the government. Let's start with just a couple small examples...

• The largest annual budget for NASA amounts to only about 1% of what we've spent fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001.

• We spend more each year air-conditioning our facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan than the entire annual NASA budget.

• The cost of only one month of the war in Afghanistan is more than the entire annual NASA budget.

• We've already spent more than $11 billion building the Yucca Flats nuclear waste storage facility in Nevada. That's more than half the cost of an entire year of NASA's space program. And the Yucca Flats facility has never been used and will likely never be used because of political bickering.

So before we conclude that "we can't afford NASA and the space program", we should think about where else we're spending money and whether we think those expenditures have produced as much as NASA.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

The current administration has essentially gutted NASA and slowed to a crawl any benefits from the scientific research the agency has accomplished over the years.

Before we all agree that we can't afford NASA, we should know how much space exploration really costs us.

NASA's annual budgets for the past fifty years have amount in total to $471.23 billion dollars—an average of $9.06 billion per year. By way of comparison, total spending over this period by the National Science Foundation was roughly one-fourth of NASA's expenditures: $101.5 billion, or $2 billion a year. NASA's FY 2008 budget of $17.318 billion represented about 0.6% of the $2.9 trillion United States federal budget during the year, or about 35% of total spending on academic scientific research in the United States.

So before we conclude that we simply can't afford it, maybe we should compare how much we spend on NASA and what we benefit from those expenditures to other spending done by the government. Let's start with just a couple small examples...

• The largest annual budget for NASA amounts to only about 1% of what we've spent fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001.

• We spend more per year in air-conditioning our facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan each year than the entire NASA budget.

• The cost of the war in Afghanistan for only one month is more than the entire annual NASA budget.

• We've already spent more than $11 billion building the Yucca Flats nuclear waste storage facility in Nevada. That's more than half the cost of an entire year of NASA's space program. And the Yucca Flats facility has never been used and will likely never be used because of political bickering.

So before we conclude that "we can't afford NASA and the space program", we should think about where else we're spending money and whether we think those expenditures have produced as much as NASA.

Comparing NASA budget to wars does not seem to address the point. While it would be great to have the money to afford a program as noted, it is a larger undertaking (moon colony) than anything ever attempted and while I have no idea of how to even estimate the costs it seems to me that the cost would far exceed anything from the past !