This week has been interesting for outer space.

For something so vast and mysterious, space stays pretty quiet in mainstream news. During his campaign in Florida this past week, however, Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, turned our eyes back to the stars.

In a likely unintentional homage to President John F. Kennedy, Gingrich vowed that, as president, he would put a U.S. colony on the moon in nine years. Take that, 1969.

Gingrich’s “Manifest Destiny: Lunar Edition” has been met with mixed reviews. Opponent Mitt Romney mocked the plan. True to form, Ron Paul deflected the question and managed to not really respond at all. And now, experts seem divided on the issue, half saying it is not plausible and the other half saying we have reached the age of “Space Odyssey.”  

Of course, everyone can agree that a lunar neighborhood would be crazy expensive – to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. And you thought campus housing was bad.

However, Gingrich offered a potential way to pay for this plan as well: use 10 percent of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration budget for prize-based competitions. The lunar base – and Gingrich’s simultaneous space plan to finally venture to Mars – would be “90 percent private sector.”

Under this plan, NASA would offer prize money to the first person or corporation that successfully completed the project.  The work would be privately funded and executed. Collecting the prize money would presumably allow NASA access to the winning team’s plans and technology.

It should be noted that a similar idea has also been presented by President Barack Obama.

There’s a history to this idea. The New York Times article “For Moon Colony, Technology is the Easy Part,” reports that a prized-based  incentive program paid Charles Lindbergh $25,000 for flying across the Atlantic Ocean. Recently, a program paid out $10 million for a commercial spacecraft.

Critics say these types of programs spend money this economy doesn’t have. Others say we’re further crippling ourselves by not putting more effort into science. Incentive programs complete projects at a fraction of the cost, but are we willing to spend even that?

There’s a moral side to the issue, too. Is this where innovation is headed? To financial-based programs, which give advantages to large corporations and wealthy individuals seeking glory? Are we able to give up the idea of ingenuity for the sake of ingenuity and replace it with a race for

cash?

Of course we are. This is a capitalist society.

If corporations are willing to shell out money and complete projects in exchange for recognition, that sounds like a pretty sweet deal.

Not to mention, there are a number of issues we are facing that could be solved, or partially solved, by new technology at a lower cost.

The most topical of these are green energy and alternate fuel. An incentive program to find new ways to run electricity might yield results that are beneficial and closer to home.  Space, while mysterious and romantic, is still pretty far away.

And, let’s face it, after addressing the cost, the real question about Gingrich’s plan becomes:  Why? Other than living out the plot of “Avatar,” there doesn’t seem to be much practical use in living on another planet. The moon doesn’t offer a wealth of resources. 

While I’m impressed Gingrich offered a plan to deflect the costs of his program, he hasn’t supported the lunar base with a reason yet, beyond it being America’s “destiny,” which, was just a really great choice of words. No one could say that pursing our interpretation of destiny has ever harmed us in the past.

The proposal took another turn when Gingrich explained that the

Article source: http://www.dailynebraskan.com/opinion/cook-gingrich-s-space-plan-needs-a-little-revising-1.2693910