Yeah, let’s work on some infrastructure projects, just not in the USA.

The three biggest recipients of NASA dollars are Texas, California, and then Florida. These States are not part of the United States?

Supporting science? Why would Newt want to alienate* his base?

* Pun intended

Would Newt want Tyson’s children to clean the moon base toilets?

The seeds of tomorrow’s ecomomy are blowing in the direction of climate science not space exploration.

I think he meant “the Moon” wasn’t in the US.

Dream on. I love Star Trek as much as anyone but I can distinquish between fantasy and fact. Send robots to explore local space. It’s cheaper.

I love how this article is setup, it gives this appearance that Neil Degrasse Tyson is applauding Newt´s moon mission.
In the original interview, while Neil welcomes Newt Gingrich´s idea, his a scientist
and easily figured out the reason why Newt Gingrich gave that speech was that it was in Florida
in the home of scientists, and by the way Gingrich criticizes Government spending,
but if he wants moon mission, Government spending needs to be directed at NASA.

private markets Do not take the risks NASA are allowed to take cause they are not for profit.
Moon mission involves a lot of risks, risks that Capitalists simply do not take.

I gave your comment some “Like”, but the fact remains that the vast majority of the physics/astronomy branch of the scientific community would must prefer a more ambitious space program that the one we’ve got now aimed pretty much entirely towards the Webb Telescope going up in a few years (hopefully) & some long range mostly as yet unfunded plans for long range probes. And it’s not just to get more youngsters thinking more ambitiously & creatively about space, it’s to get more funding into allowing scientists to think about & poke around things that aren’t obviously commercially oriented. But you get the “like” not only because it’s inevitable – we HAVE to do more climate science, like home work – but because our biological form can’t travel far or well out of this thin layer of atmosphere we call “weather”; not “currently doesn’t”, just flat out can’t.  

Plus, we wouldn’t even be having this ‘science vision’ conversation, if we – meaning Congress – had screwed up so badly on cancelling something we atmosphere-limited creatures CAN do & COULD have done – the Texas supercollider. If we’d gone ahead with that, the TXSC & not CERN would have invented the basis for the current Internet & probably replaced it by now already with the coming Grid, & the Higgs boson & other fundamental discoveries would be made in the USA not in Europe. And who led the charge to cancel it? Just guess – & I’ll even throw in a hint as to the first name: think slimy amphibian.  

In addition to being an incompetent historian, Gingrich isn’t even a competent geek – just a Reaganesque boob, a guy who finds futurist romance in stuff from stuff real scientists got over decades before, a guy who gets his ideas from his father’s collection of back issues of Science Illustrated & Weird Tales from the 1950s. (The Future belongs to … Buck Rogers of the 21st Century!). 

Finally, just consider for a second who it is that Tyson’s branch of scientists, in fact the vast majority of the scientific community did in 2008, & now would still, support – Obama (although I’m very sure Tyson himself would choose Stephen Colbert). 

Yeah, the states are. The moon isn’t. Was my comment that hard to understand?

But that doesn’t create as many jobs or truly inspire a nation. http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/07/doing-science-in-space-humans-vs-robots.html

My team is going to the Moon:
http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/teams/jurban

NOOTS way ahead of you,Cons are much more efficient with messaging in a vacuum.Unfortunate for the Echo Chamber,well Rush you’re not invited.

Not a fan of Newt, would never vote for him. But unlike many on his side at least he’s not anti-science. Yea its a crazy idea,  and yea its not going to happen in our lifetimes, but at least he has an interest and curiosity on whats our there. Most on his side don’t.

LOL that was funny!

Newt could go find himself a Moon Mistress.

I like space as much as the next guy and I believe that our destiny as a species is in the stars.
But, don’t we have more pressing matters here on Earth right now? We’re 16 trillion in debt and a colony trip to the moon would cost hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars. We simply can’t afford it right now.
Lets talk about space exploration when we’re not killing our nations future with crushing debt and destructive “progressive” policies.

Shorter Bashir: …and here’s a black guy who I expect will join in with me to ridicule Gingrich.

Thanks for your collective interest in my interview.  A few clarifying comments.

Yes, the title of this page misrepresents the actual breadth of my criticisms of Mr. Gingrich’s plan.  A more accurate title would be “Tyson Comments on Gingrich’s Plans”

Also, 15% of the Federal Budget is spent annually on Education and Welfare.  While NASA’s fraction of the Federal Budget is 1/2 of 1%.  So to suggest that somehow social programs would greatly benefit from a reallocation of NASA’s funds is absent a true fiscal understanding of the nation’s spending profile.

And to talk about shifting interest from space to climate science ignores the fact that early computer climate modeling was stimulated by the realization that Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect and that a large enough (local)  asteroid strike would alter Earth’s entire climate. Jupiter has the largest storm system in the solar system, and one of its moons has the the most active volcano.  And the detailed behavior of the Sun influences the energy budget that drives nearly all planetary climate.  So to think we learn about Earth only by studying Earth is not only shortsighted, it’s inconsistent with the history of cosmic discovery.

Neil deGrasse Tyson
New York City

Thanks for your collective interest in my interview.  A few clarifying comments.

Yes, the title of this page misrepresents the actual breadth of my criticisms of Mr. Gingrich’s plan.  A more accurate title would be “Tyson Comments on Gingrich’s Plans”

Also, 15% of the Federal Budget is spent annually on Education and Welfare.  While NASA’s fraction of the Federal Budget is 1/2 of 1%.  So to suggest that somehow social programs would greatly benefit from a reallocation of NASA’s funds is absent a true fiscal understanding of the nation’s spending profile.

And to talk about shifting interest from space to climate science ignores the fact that early computer climate modeling was stimulated by the realization that Venus has a runaway greenhouse effect and that a large enough (local)  asteroid strike would alter Earth’s entire climate. Jupiter has the largest storm system in the solar system, and one of its moons has the the most active volcano.  And the detailed behavior of the Sun influences the energy budget that drives nearly all planetary climate.  So to think we learn about Earth only by studying Earth is not only shortsighted, it’s inconsistent with the history of cosmic discovery.

Neil deGrasse Tyson
New York City

No your comment is stupid – those that benefit from such a project are here on Earth. And yes sure there are infrastructure projects that are here in the US that need to be done. Then have at ‘em. Don’t blame NASA for your politician’s failures.

No not trillions.Yes it would be expensive but trivial to what is wasted in other areas. Military spending for example, in 2012 alone will reach up to $1.4 TRILLION (all defense related spending including military pensions and interest on debt from past wars).

The sad part is we really do need a new direction is space exploratio­n (i.e., commercial space flight), and there’s every reason to believe that we could get to the moon with largely private innovation. Newt’s eight-year timetable is the only screwy thing about it.  If it weren’t for the FAA and its 80-year-old regulations, we would probably already have commercial space transports carrying people into space for pennies on what NASA spends.

The Moon is a harsh mistress, I’m told. :P

The root of commercial is commerce.
What could we mine, grow or manufacture on the moon, that would make the launch prices, even at pennies on the dollar, profitable for the commerce required?

All you need to get started is a handful of wealthy sponsors.  “Space tourists” have already paid to be passengers on American and Russian flights, so if the price comes down from $20,000,000 to $200,000 you’ll have a whole industry.

Like I said, a sustainable colony on the moon is a long way off.  But it’s not so far-fetched to think that private enterprise (e.g., Virgin Galactic) will be putting people in space in just a few years – and making a tidy profit in the process.