President Bush To Call For Return To Moon? 1496
Brian Stretch writes " According to the National Review: 'When President Bush delivers a speech recognizing the centenary of heavier-than-air-powered flight December 17, it is expected that he will proffer a bold vision of renewed space flight, with at its center a return to the moon, perhaps even establishment of a permanent presence there. If he does, it will mean that he has decided the United States should once again become a space-faring nation.' Here's hoping. The article also includes talk of nuclear engines and using the moon as a testbed for going to Mars."
Re:hoax or no? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Thank you China! (Score:2, Informative)
Rockets will have to carry fuel for the lunar trips to the space station, and also fueling and other maintenance modules/bays will need to be constructed and lifted to the space station. Which is big dollars, dollars which probably wouldn't result in a pay off.
Here are some good papers that talk about many of these issues, be sure to have a look at the Mars Direct PDF, it discusses methods of going from Earth from Orbit and from the Moon (if a source of water could be found there)
http://www.nw.net/mars/ [nw.net]
http://www.nw.net/mars/docs/md_reno.pdf [nw.net]
Re:It's About Time! (Score:4, Informative)
Where does that figure come from? US government programs are horribly inefficient. Like Corn ethanol that midwestern farmers insist is the next big thing... most of the money goes to ADM. For every $1 in revenue ADM has related to corn ethanol, the US gov't spends $30. It would be far cheaper to just pay the corn farmers to pick their pud than to pretend corn ethanol will ever be useful.
Anyhow, tax cuts are just as good for an economy as gov't spending. That tax cut money goes somewhere, maybe it goes into a bank account and the bank can lend the money out for someone to buy a house. Maybe it buys a yacht. Maybe it buys something else. That's better than being in the gov't coffers and ending up paying for a study on some senator's pet project with little or no redeemingvalue.
Re:$500 Billion in debt. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What's the real reason (Score:3, Informative)
Learn how Google works before accusing them of bias.
Re:Money? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Thank you China! (and Russia) (Score:2, Informative)
A Saturn 5 is a huge vehicle containing an small command module and a tiny lander. Because of this, the Apollo missions couldn't take that much equipment with them, or stay all that long. Which cut out most of the science. In order to get anything "real" done, a better way must be used than the "old" method. Otherwise it will just be (mostly) another publicity stunt. but...
As far a "the old Saturn 5 team being disbanded", NASA keeps everything and I am sure that the few remaining staff would jump at the chance to get the program running again.
So what's the answer, I don't know lets hash it out here, save NASA some trouble.
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:5, Informative)
And reading the rest of your comment, it is clear that you have no idea how the Federal Reserve System works.....or really anything financial. I'm glad to see your ignorance has led to an unhealthy fear of monetary systems and of, well, logic.
Please take a basic Econ course at your local college.....for your own benefit and for that of people around you.
Re:What's the real reason (Score:3, Informative)
And, if you load the (cached version [216.239.57.104]), you'll see that Google doesn't rely entirely on the search term being in the page, it can appear on links pointing to the page.
Thus, we have links with the phrase "miserable failure" pointing to this page, and, not surprisingly, it is a highly rated page, so it show up first or second in the results.
No conspiracy here, move along.
Not new, and not necessarily accurate (Score:2, Informative)
While the National Review article might be news to most Slashdotters, this is not news for those who have been following the ongoing space policy review by the Bush Administration. In late October SpaceRef.com first reported [spaceref.com] that a likely outcome of the policy review would be a call for resuming human flights to the Moon, with a Presidential statement on the issue coming as early as the Wright Brothers centennial speech at Kitty Hawk. On Monday SpaceRef.com followed up [spaceref.com] that original report with a new one, stating that "the return to the Moon by U.S. astronauts possibly by the end of the next decade" had become the "default" position of those planning the new policy. The National Review article doesn't add anything these two SpaceRef reports already provided.
There is no guarantee, though, that these reports are accurate. On Sunday the Orlando Sentinel reported [orlandosentinel.com] (alternate link [qconline.com]) that any new national space policy would differ little from current plans. This report was based on an analysis of internal NASA documents obtained by the newspaper along with interviews with those in the know. This report is actually not necessarily contradictory with the new SpaceRef report: if you're not planning to send people back to the Moon until the end of the next decade, there's little you need to do differently in the near term.
If you're curious about the current interest (or obsession) some have with crafting a new "vision" for NASA, I recommend the articles "The vision thing" [thespacereview.com] and "Vision revision" [thespacereview.com] at The Space Review. (Disclaimer: I'm the author. :-) This should give you an idea that while many in Washington believe there needs to be a new national space policy or vision, there is little consensus about what that should be. Thus, don't expect any major changes soon.
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:4, Informative)
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 04 Dec 2003 at 05:40:09 AM GMT is: $6,920,018,770,791.33 [brillig.com]
Re:What's the real reason (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:5, Informative)
Lunar regolith isn't weathered like the surface debris on Earth. Consequently, it's got sharp edges. It's less like play-sand and more like crushed glass.
The astronauts reported that the stuff got into their suits between the hermetic joints, grinding into their skin. It also chewed up the lunar rovers [nasa.gov].
Re:What's the real reason (Score:3, Informative)
C'mon! Support your statements people... (Score:2, Informative)
Here's an interesting chart [homestead.com] that plots approval ratings for many recent Presidents (Clinton, Reagan, Carter...). I don't know how accurate it is, but it is nice to have some visualization.
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:4, Informative)
In 2000 my tax rate was 28%. This year it is 25%. Next year it will be 25%. The year after it will be 25%. When did one time mean more than once?
Or are you suggesting my federal tax rate in 2004 be the same as in 2000? Because (unless congress decides to pass a few laws) it won't.
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:4, Informative)
Anyway, Bush takes office and everything the Democrats predicted comes true. So what happens in 2002? The Republicans have massive wins across the country. Obviously being right isn't as important as being popular.
Re:Why do you want to go to the moon? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:1, Informative)
btw, george soros give huge amounts to the dems. he is discredited. for this issue. in fact for all issues. i dont care what a billionaire with a vendetta wants.
also, your like to soros is broken.
and if you read what greenspan said, he didnt assasinate bush like you wish he did.
you know, if the american fallacy is on the verge of collapse, go short sell soem stock, or trade currencies betting against the dollar. if you were so smart and so sure of your economics, it would be trivial for you to make a shitload of money knowing the oh so scaaaary future (backed by over a century of fantastic American economic growth). Oh im sooo scared of the grim dark future!
Re:Thank you China! (Score:4, Informative)
Nothing gets America going more than a little competition.
Yup.
The article says nothing about the method, the cheapest way (just off the top of my head) would be to update the Saturn 5,
That sounds nice, but practically infeasable. IIRC, there are two Saturn Vs left in the world after Apollo and Skylab. These are in no condition to fly. One is sideways, partially disassembled, exposed to the elements, and "restored," at the Johnson Space Center in Houston (its actually a rather impressive display, if you ever get the chance to see it). I don't rememebr the current location of the other.
More importantly, according to Bill Bryson's book, "A History of Nearly Everything," the bulk of the design notes and "plans" don't even exist any longer, thanks to NASA's thorough house-keeping. We're better off looking elswhere.
but (I think) the best solution would be to leverage a Space Station (one in the "right" orbit) and use that as a way station. That way you could reuse a moon obiter lander repeatedly.
If only to recycle landers, I don't think this would be practical. As far as the Apollo program goes, I believe the actual manafacture of the landers was pretty miniscule. Even if it does make sense as far as cost goes, maintaining a reusable space craft OFF Earth permanently is just asking for trouble. Astronauts can do some pretty impressive tune-ups as it is, but this would be a bit like keeping a destroyer seaworthy with only a mechanic's garage.
But hey, who ever said I know what I'm talking about?
Re:I couldn't agree more defcon4 (Score:2, Informative)
Although, it was so close there was gonna be doubt either way.
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:1, Informative)
If I remember correctly the US attacked the Germans in North Africa with help from the French and the Brits.
Germany occupied French North Africa, but that does not mean that the US army fought the French army there...
Freedom Fries may be OK, but please leave history alone.
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:5, Informative)
Well, by my calculations you're an idiot. The "rebate" was a one-time deal to get SOME of the tax cut into people's pockets before the next April when they filed their returns. The tax cuts were not $300 for everyone, but percentage cuts (and yes, the cuts effected all income levels).
So, the guy who said it changed his rate from 28% to 25% is not making $10k as you calculate...and will definately recieve more than $300/year from these tax cuts. He was also correct at the rates, where you were way off. The previous tax rates of 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent were replaced by a simplified rate structure of 10, 15, 25, and 33 percent.
Instead of mocking people who are happy about the much-needed reduction in tax rates who might have voted for Bush, and using your own ignorance to back it up...you might want to actually educate yourself on the matter.
It's amazing what information and simple logic can produce (understanding maybe?). You should try it sometime.
Re:I couldn't agree more defcon4 (Score:3, Informative)
According to the Stanford-Binet scale, the average IQ is between 85-110. An 85 IQ is almost retarded (it's actually 75 or less to be considered mentally handicapped) and 110 isn't that brilliant.
So, if the average person is stupid, then half the population is dumber than that. Which means a democracy is lead by a bunch of idiots. I know I am smarter than the majority, and I'd wager you probably are too.
I am not the originally poster, but I had to point out that he is probably smarter than average, and thus the majority.
I know you have heard the saying "What is right isn't always popular, and what is popular isn't always right"
Think about that the next time you decide to defend the majority. I, myself, am always suspicous of them.
Hi (Score:4, Informative)
Anyway, I'm just posting this here now because I want to link to the slashdot story [slashdot.org] on H.R. 3057, which I would like to suggest you check out.
Re:Thank you China! (Score:5, Informative)
Bill Bryson is good for a laugh, but according to this Space FAQ [faqs.org]:
Re:What's the real reason (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, If you knew much about economics, you'd know that unemployment is a "lagging economic indicator"...meaning the economy begins to improve before you see a decrease in unemployment. I know it sounds really strange/backward...but that perception can't change this fact.
If this is a jobless recovery? That remains to be seen. I doubt it it is/will be. I think many areas of our economy have corrected themselves, shed waste, made correct steps to increase/sustain productivity, etc...and we'll see non-trivial job creation in this recovery.
One other thing, I think many people are short-sichted...complaining when war takes longer than a month or the economy takes longer than a year to turn. These things take time. An economic recession or boom feeds more of the same. If you're losing your job, you're spending less, people are making less, and they need to lay off more. It takes a bit of time to turn something like that around (especially since while our economy was in this decline we had the added "insult to injury" of the WTC attacks).
Re:Opiate of the masses (Score:2, Informative)
This is simply not true. In 2001, the US spent about $10 billion in foreign aid, out of $50b worldwide. However, as a fraction of our GDP, our contributions are the smallest of any of the OECD countries, and as little as a tenth of the northern european countries.
This year, of course, we have an $87b spending spree. Only $20b of that is going towards reconstruction, though (the rest pays for the military). As for whether that's foreign aid or payment for damages is up to you.
Private aid might even score somewhat-- counting foundations, NGOs, private people sending money to their families, etc., the US sends $35b abroad every year. I can't find any equivalent statistics for other countries, though.
About 2% of charitable donations in the US leave the country.
References--
1 [terrorismanswers.com], 2 [foreignaffairs.org], 3 [oecd.org]
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:2, Informative)
We have never, in the history of the United States, allowed a citizen to vote for the President, the populous only voices their opinion.
The elctoral college for better or worse is the body responsible for electing the president,
while many states have laws deigning that their representitives must vote with the popular vote, many do not.
The election went fine, it didn't turn out the way you wanted, too bad, the election before Bush didn't turn out the way I wanted, didn't cry, just moved on.
Anything to keep the man out of office whose wife banned 2Live Crew albums for sale down here, and arrested people for selling them.
Art is free speech, your dislike of it does not give you the right to censor it, bible bangers, they're all alike, trust none of them, your party or not.
I see them for what they are elected con-men
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:3, Informative)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:3, Informative)
As long as those countries don't pull out their money, the U.S. is not currently in as much debt as you think.
A big IF there. Not likely in the near term but it's a dangerous game the capitalists are playing with USA (or for that matter any other country). If Japanese (who is the largest majority foreign owner of US debt), and a bunch of other foreign investors asked for their money back, USA will collapse overnight.
What's really funny is how the U.S. ditched the sole backing for it's monetary system (gold, something physical) for just T-bills (not really physical, just a printed image). Years ago, a sale involving cash transaction says "this $1 bill I'm handing you is a representation of the gold I personally own...being physically held in the fed". Now it just means "the fed says this $1 I'm handing you is worth something...or so they tell me...not sure what it really represents".
That's why, when capitalism collapses (which I think it will--probably within 50 years), make sure you convert all your assets into something tangible (eg. gold, house, buildings, etc). THe US dollar, as well as other currencies, are not backed by anything (other than trust). Unlike the olden (is this even a word?
Here's another absurd thing about debt: if A owes B $10, and B owes C $10, and C owes A $10, is anyone really in debt?
I think the individual IS in debt. However, the whole society has a net zero debt. For example, USA is in debt but the world as a whole is not.
After the year, he demands all of his property back plus 1% interest. In one sense you could say "well he was without his gold for a year, so he deserves something in return"....but where are the people going to get the additional 1% of gold (assuming there was absolutely none on the island)? They don't have it, so now they're in debt.
Under capitalism, you are allowed to default. A loan is a risky proposition. So if no one can pay it, thenthey will all default and the original guy "understands" that
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:Thank you China! (Score:3, Informative)
True, but just to be fair, the same is true of an earth-based launch. Apollo/Saturn launched into a very low "parking orbit" and then used all the kinetic energy from this to help perform TLI at just the right moment.
Now, the most wasteful would be to attempt to rendezvous at some intermediate station (say in a clarksian geo-sync orbit), because it requires at least four major burns (probably more, with corrections) to get enroute:
Burn #1: Establish nominal eccentricity on initial orbit (so we don't come right back into the atmosphere) [ok, this may not actually be a major burn, depends on launch]
Burn #2: Rendezvous orbit for intersection with geo-sync station.
Burn #3: Apoapsis burn at/near station rendezvous to match station's eccentricity.
(note, now we have significantly less kinetic energy than we had at LEO because geo-sync is such a high orbit)
Burn #4: TLI burn from station.
The whole "stop along the way" bit was pretty amusing, but I originally chose to ignore it, just because space travel is all about orbital mechanics, and there is no "stopping" when you are in orbit: just transfering from one orbit to another.
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:5, Informative)
Lunar regolith isn't weathered like the surface debris on Earth. Consequently, it's got sharp edges. It's less like play-sand and more like crushed glass.
The astronauts reported that the stuff got into their suits between the hermetic joints, grinding into their skin. It also chewed up the lunar rovers.
Of course, what's on the surface of the moon is much less interesting than what's underneath, since thats where humans will spend 95%+ of their time. It will take at least a few meters of lunar surface to protect them from radiation. Also, thermal issues are much easier a ways underground.
I'm pretty sure "regolith resistant" spacesuits aren't a big problem, regardless.
it'll be $44 TRILLION (Score:2, Informative)
By Peronet Despeignes of the Financial Times
May 30, 2003, 10:21
Thursday 29 May 2003
Study commissioned by O'Neill sees $44 trillion in red ink
The Bush administration has shelved a report commissioned by the Treasury that shows the U.S. currently faces a future of chronic federal budget deficits totaling at least $44 trillion in current U.S. dollars.
The study, the most comprehensive assessment of how the U.S. government is at risk of being overwhelmed by the "baby boom" generation's future healthcare and retirement costs, was commissioned by then-Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill.
But the Bush administration chose to keep the findings out of the annual budget report for fiscal year 2004, published in February, as the White House campaigned for a tax-cut package that critics claim will expand future deficits.
The study asserts that sharp tax increases, massive spending cuts or a painful mix of both are unavoidable if the U.S. is to meet benefit promises to future generations. It estimates that closing the gap would require the equivalent of an immediate and permanent 66 percent across-the-board income tax increase.
The study was being circulated as an independent working paper among Washington think-tanks as President George W. Bush on Wednesday signed into law a 10-year, $350 billion tax-cut package he welcomed as a victory for hard-working Americans and the economy.
The analysis was spearheaded by Kent Smetters, then-Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy, and Jagdessh Gokhale, then a consultant to the Treasury. Mr. Gokhale, now an economist for the Cleveland Federal Reserve, said: "When we were conducting the study, my impression was that it was slated to appear [in the Budget]. At some point, the momentum builds and you think everything is a go, and then the decision came down that we weren't part of the prospective budget."
Mr. O'Neill, who was fired last December, refused to comment.
The study's analysis of future deficits dwarfs previous estimates of the financial challenge facing Washington. It is roughly equivalent to 10 times the publicly held national debt, four years of U.S. economic output or more than 94 percent of all U.S. household assets. Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve chairman, last week bemoaned what he called Washington's "deafening" silence about the future crunch.
President Bush signed into law a $350 billion tax-cut package on Wednesday saying:' 'We can say loud and clear to the American people: You got more of your own money to spend so that this economy can get a good wind behind it."
The estimates reflect the extent to which the annual deficit, the national debt and other widely reported, backward-looking data are becoming archaic and misleading as measures of the government's solvency. Mr. Smetters, now a University of Pennsylvania finance professor, said tax cuts were only a fraction of the imbalance, and that the bigger problem "is the whole [budget] language we're using."
Laurence Kotlikoff, an expert on long-term budget accounting, alleged in a recent Boston Globe editorial that the Bush administration suppressed the research to ease passage of the tax-cut plan.
An administration official said the study was designed as a thought-piece for internal discussion -- one among many left every year on the cutting-room floor -- and noted the budget's extensive discussion of projected, 75-year Social Security and Medicare shortfalls.
Russian rocket engines (Score:3, Informative)
The cheapest way with current technology might well be to use Russian rockets. 'Course that puts a big ding in the presidential pride, right? A bit like the way the last series of American rockets using Russian engines only worse.
The successful Atlas V rocket uses a Russian design RD-180 engine. The Russian's have accelled at developing high efficiency Kerosene/Oxygen lower stage engines. Lockheed Martin was smart enough to realise this when they developed the Atlas III/V series. But the key to success of American rockets which, sets them apart from Russia and Europe, is the use of LH2 in the upper stages. The Pratt and Whitney RL-10 engine, the J2, Rocketdyne SSME and RS-68 are all spectacularly successful designs.
Personally, I'd be a lot happier if it was an international effort. That way when the US Government gets cold feet again, or is unable to meet its end of the bargain again, the mission will continue and mankind as a whole gets something out of it.
One has only to look at the International Space Station as an example to see how an "international effort" might work. The U.S. should go it alone and send back TV pictures for the rest of the world.
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:2, Informative)
The Moon would make a perfect base for a suite of telescopes. The dark side is the best location in the solar system (planet-side or in orbit) for radar telescopes. Both optical and infrared telescopes would also be well served by the location, with a combination of both very clear conditions, and a solid structure from which to build. The very low gravity means that you can build structures that would be completely unstable on either Earth or Mars. Mars has massive dust storms that makes the planet a far less useful observing platform.
There is also a significant advantage in travelling to both Mars and the Moon for geological investigation. Mars has lost of erosion and possible life, but the Moon is a pure surface, recording the past right back to the earliest history.
Not only does this give you a lot of information on the Earth-Moon system, but it also means you could use the subsurface in the same way that the ice cores from Arctic are used to measure the atmosphere back into the past, to record the history of the Solar wind back billions of years.
There are lots of reasons to send people to the Moon, and to establish a permanent base there; it needn't be Mars or nothing.
From Zurbin's book (Score:4, Informative)
The above post is taken largely from Bob Zubrin's excelent book Entering Space.