Bush To Announce Manned Trip To Moon, Mars 1595
edmunz writes "Foxnews just placed an article on their website saying that Bush is expected to make an announcement towards the middle of next week, proposing a manned mission to Mars as well as a return to the moon. Bush hopes to spark a renewed public interest in space exploration. No mission would happen any time soon, rather a preparation of over a decade would take place before the first men/women set out to explore Mars."
let's get this out of the way first (Score:5, Insightful)
- Mars exploration is expensive
Not so. The best estimate I've heard is a 20 billion startup cost spread over 10 years with a 2 billion cost per mission. Sure that's a lot but it's well within the current NASA budget if you take away ISS and the Shuttle program. Neither of those are of much use anyway.
Also, If you take a look at the federal budget [whitehouse.gov], you'll see that the NASA budget of around 17 billion is an order of magnitude cheaper than either the defense budget, or health and human services (wellfare). Even Veterans affairs gets about 3 times that money. It's a small part of the national budget if done right with large rewards down the line.
- Mars exploration is dangerous
True to an extent but nothing work getting is without risk. NASA will run out of hardware long before it runs out of volunteers. That's not to say that we'll be killing most people we send up, but rather than there is no shortage of people willing to take the risks. Oh, and if you're going to bring up the old "too much radiation" argument, see this [marssociety.org]. There are lots of things more dangerous on Earth than going to Mars. My morning comute is probably more risky.
- There's nothing to gain from going to Mars
Where do I even start? New home for humanity. Unprecedented Scientific discovery. Easy access to the asteroids ($trillion apiece in ore!). Tech jobs at home. Youngsters inspired to go into science and engineering. Plentiful fusion fuel (this will be important in the next 10-20 years). I could go on.
Going to Mars and taming space is the only way forward for humanity as a whole. For a better description of this and more please check out Entering Space [amazon.com] and The Case for Mars [amazon.com].
Lastly, I would urge everyone who is enthused about this to take action and write your representatives. I cannot stress that enough. Papa Bush made a call for this but backed out when it looked too hard because of a falsely inflated sticker price. We have to make sure that he sticks to his guns. We have to make sure he does it write and we have to make sure that he has the backing in Congress to make it work. Check out this [marssociety.org] for a primer.
Isn't he (Score:3, Insightful)
Skip the moon! Go straight to Mars! (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone today wants to be "safe". And while there is certainly no justification for recklnessness, this country didn't get to where it is today by being overly cautious. I hope that President Bush has the courage and conviction to challenge America to take our space program to the next level and plan a mission direct to Mars.
For those of you that don't know, Dr. Robert Zubrin, in his book "The Case for Mars" has shown that a mission to Mars is not only feasible, but that it is feasible with much of the technology that existed in the 60s! For more information, see here [nw.net]. With the technology we have today, and the ingenuity, fortitude, and bravery that America has demonstrated for almost 230 years, we should go straight to Mars!
Dubya's on the moon (Score:1, Insightful)
A rat done bit my sister Nell with Dubya on the moon.
Her face and arms began to swell and Dubya's on the moon.
I can't pay no doctor bills but Dubya's on the moon.
Ten years from now I'll be paying still while Dubya's on the moon.
FoxNews? (Score:1, Insightful)
One day long ago (Score:2, Insightful)
I suppose Bush may be looking for a 'legacy' here. JFK is always thought of when people mention Apollo and other programs from that era. I'd personally hate to lay the credit for a return to space on Dubya.
*Yawn* Money Talks and Bullshit Walks (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush hopes to spark a renewed public interest in space exploration.
Bush hopes to spark renewed public interest in his re-election campaign....
It's campaign season, folks. I'd love to see it happen, but let's save the Huzzahs! until it actually does, hmm?
Funding and realistic goals. Reusable craft and cheaper delivery methods to space and blah blah blah. You know the drill.
Or, we could just throw money at the problem and pretend it will go away that way. Actually, I'll chip in to a fund for an X-Ray machine for the NASA managers' and directors' skulls in case someone's actually looking for the source of the "setbacks".
who will pay? (Score:2, Insightful)
The reality is that there is a ballooning deficit that already threatens the health of the ecomony, I don't see how the average joe will think it's such a great idea to go to mars or the moon when suddenly the mortgage payments have doubled because interest rates have gone up because the govt has a money shortage!
Re:let's get this out of the way first (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The moon is only 3 days away. Mars is months away. Logistically, it's easier.
2. The moon gives us an opportunity to work out engineering issues of establishing a permanent base on foreign celestial bodies.
3. There may be immediate tangible benefits to a moon base: mining, factories, observatories, astronaut training, research.
Re:FoxNews? (Score:4, Insightful)
Tragic but true. Sigh.
Can we say... (Score:4, Insightful)
What this really means is that NASA might see a 1% budget increase instead of a budget cut next year, and after that (after Bush is re-elected or someone else is elected), it'll go back down.
Relevant Link (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't totally agree with the article, especially since it doesn't consider our need to eventually figure out how to live off this planet, but it is interesting.
Not all bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dubya's on the moon (Score:3, Insightful)
Anything else that makes life fun that you care to destroy, while you're at it?
Better that a rat bit your sister, and MANKIND is on the Moon, than a rat bit your sister and the Moon nobody's on the moon.
Re:let's get this out of the way first (Score:2, Insightful)
How about Antarctica? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, Mars is more exciting. But practicly, exploring Antarctica is many orders of magnitude easier. The barren continent (a few penguins may be) may hold plenty of promise within a much easier reach...
$20 billion? More like $200 MINIMUM (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed, this is just vaporware (Score:5, Insightful)
Bottom line is that 04 will see a record budget deficit - there is not room for a $50-$200 billion Mars mission.
Good cop... bad cop (Score:5, Insightful)
With all the soft PAC money restrictions annulled, Bush will play "good cop" trying to get Americans excited about the future and his leadership, with goofball pie-in-the-sky claims he has no intention of fulfilling, but after all the fear and awe his administration has laid on the people, they'll buy into the crap, while his corporate cronies unleash all the fear and mud-slinging at his opponents. The American people will be stunned like deer in the headlights of the GOP media-blitz.
Re:Skip the moon! Go straight to Mars! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Skip the moon! Go straight to Mars! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dubya's on the moon (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, nice rhyme. Don't know if it's original or not, but well done.
The same argument was made in 67, when they started to pour tons of money into the first moon landing, and continued for ages. There was a comic in Mad Magazine, from roughly 1972.
Q "How come the guvmint can put people on the moon, but they can't feed us poor people?"
A "Who wants poor people on the moon?"
The same argument goes towards any and all basic scientific research, and budgets for groups like NASA and the NSF get attacked regularly, because there's always somewhere else more dire to spend the money. Unfortunately, throwing more money at medical care won't fix the problems there, and will take away from potentially incredible discoveries. True. you need money--LOTS of money--to make (for example) health care work, but the money is already there. It's reform that's needed, not more cash into the same system.
As for the statement about the US deficits, it's very true--and (again) stopping the space program won't help in the slightest. The US is in a stage of horrible mismanagement, rampant unchecked capitalism, and money(for the people) or power(for the government)-lust. I'm starting to think that within my lifetime, I'll see the first capitalist country to burn itself up, and make no mistake--it will be the US.
And killing off the space program won't change a thing.
why so long? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mars is out of reach using current technology (Score:4, Insightful)
If we look at similar projects, such as building the atomic bomb in WWII, or the Apollo program launched by Kennedy, equally, if not greater, technical challenges had to be solved under intense scheduling goals.
The question is not whether we can accomplish a mission to Mars in the next decade. The question is whether we are willing to expend the resources to make it happen.
A great place to develop propulsion systems (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing is on the Moon--absolutely nothing. That's what is so great about it. Cost effective space exploration depends on developing propulsion systems which developing on Earth is very risky to the environment.
Timing is everything (Score:5, Insightful)
We really can't afford to be passed up by China in the space programs. The implications on many fronts, from technological, military, and national stature are too important. As the wars of the 20th century were swung by air superiority, a future war bewtween the US and China could easily be swung by space superiority. (Imagine how blind our forces would be if our satellites were disabled or destroyed.)
And we've proven we can get craft to Mars and land them safely. Granted, there have been some spectacular failures, but the US is the only nation to put functioning equipment on the Martian surface. With humans at the controls we would dramatically lessen the risk of a crash on the surface. There wouldn't be anxiety over whether the airbags were deploying or what petal the ship was landing on. The biggest issue would be getting supplies there ahead of time and being sure they landed. We'd have to send supplies and a means of getting off the surface ahead of time. Astronauts would be spending several months on the surface, and there is no emergency return, so we'd need to be sure that everything is in place.
I think those two factors - a space race with China and our ability to get craft to Mars - came together at the right time. A successful manned Mars mission would be a stunning success for mankind, and if we're going to do it, now is a good time to start the planning process.
Re:One day long ago (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mars is out of reach using current technology (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it's not perfectly safe. I (and I'm sure many others) would be willing to take the risk, though.
More like arms race (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: One day long ago (Score:5, Insightful)
> Conservative is not nessesarily limiting government spending, at least not to me.
Yes, that was a political myth generated by Republicans during the Clinton era. Now that roles are reversed, the Democrats are trying to create a new myth that says they are the ones who don't like reckless spending.
The real difference between the Republicans and Democrats when it comes to spending is which segment of society gets the handouts.
"Who to send" is a serious question! (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, the people we send to the moon and especially Mars need to work as a unit and either get along or be married couples. People who are cramped in a pressurized metal tube for days on end will start having problems, especially if the didn't like each other in the first place. Assuming it will take at least 7 days to get to the moon, do research, and get back, the strain is tremendous when it's all done in 1000 cubic feet or less. If Mars is involved, the travel time could be just over 6 months (ideally with a plasma drive system and only 2 weeks at Mars, 3 months there and back) to just over a year (advanced chemical drive system). The wrong combination of people could cause unprofessional attitudes among other things. Also, how big is the proposed Mars craft? And will it have artifical gravity?
Re:A great place to develop propulsion systems (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem as got to be solved just the same moon or amrs if we want to get anything permanent going. Solve it close to home.
The lower escape velocity of the moon might make a foundry in micro gravity possible, producing finished superalloy products simply impossible to make on earth. Not to mention how wide could Si waffers on the moon be made, 72". Not to mention, no pollution problems, no enviroment to screw up, and a hard vacuume for all your cleanroom needs. Optics freed, or less constrained by the earth's gravity.
The moon has a lot going for it. Not the least of which is it's proximity to earth.
That said, it's all bullshit, more empty words. Ask not what you are due, but rather, ask what you can do for Halliburton.
2004 (Score:4, Insightful)
I tend to suspect that this "leak" is a way to test the water. Some people will say it just what the country needs, others will whine about the cost. If they flag wavers seem to predominate, he'll make the actual announcement. If the whining is louder, he'll say that it was just a tentative plan that the media blew out of proportion.
Either way, this just isn't going to happen. I mean, where's the money supposed to come from? And Dubya knows this, of course. He hopes to commit a few billion on "plans" that will come to nothing. But by the time this is obvious, somebody else will be President.
Except this might all backfire. This kind of blatant manipulation tends to feed people's cynicism. It's certainly feeding mine.
Yeh, right. Please put down the pipe. (Score:4, Insightful)
Bush has no interest in men on Mars, this is a political statement designed to make him look "presidential" in the JFK way, a la Apollo. What he hopes is people will rally around and say "this guy Bush, he has VISION! We need VISONARIES like George Bush!" It's all fluff and spin, no substance.
What would really impress people is if he came out and said "I am nationalizing the pharmaceutical industry, and the world will no longer need or want for the meds that will stem world suffering."
Or, he could say "I have decided to walk the walk, and get rid of all the Weapons of Mass Destruction that the United States has both developed and proliferated to mankind."
Or, he could say "I have decided to fund new technologies that will free us from the chains of fossil fuels, and bring about a new era in sustainable energy."
But no, instead he will wax wildly about Man's need to discover new frontiers, to extend Man's reach into the universe. Look for wild ideas about multinational corporations mining minerals on the surface of Mars, polluting it just as we have done here on our own planet.
Re:The moon is just a rock! (not) (Score:3, Insightful)
Since we haven't yet figured out how to produce useful energy from hydrogen fusion (hydrogen bombs don't count, presumably...), talking about exploiting the Moon's atmosphere for helium fusion is just nonsense. Even assuming we could produce the vastly higher temperatures and pressures required, at around 1000 atoms per cubic centimeter, there's not a whole hell of a lot there as it is.
Plus, what we don't find a direct commmercial use for we can always drop down the gravity well on terrorists at really nice velocities.
What's good for the goose...
Mouser
Re:Isn't he (Score:5, Insightful)
He makes a huge deal out of a great sounding plan that no one who wants to get re-elected can dispute. He gets it passed into law. The kicker? There is no federal budget to actually put the plan into action.
See post-9/11 mandates to first responders and "No Child Left Behind" for examples.
For the record, I think there was merit to these ideas, but not funding them while reaping all the political benefits is too machiavellian even for me.
...and if he's not re-elected? (Score:5, Insightful)
mars is important. (Score:3, Insightful)
Honest answer (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA's annual budget is something like $15B.
There are about 2 billion individuals who survive on less than $2 per day equivalent purchasing power (this may not consider non-wage agricultural production such as gardens, but $2 is obviously very little money).
Give $15B to 2B people -- it's $7.50 per capita. In other words, if direct subsidies are the answer to poverty then NASA's budget would be inconsequential.
That isn't to say that $15B could not be employed to raise the standard of living of many individuals. A "Manhattan Project" to end Malaria would be a boon to hundreds of millions of people. There are other, similar sorts of investments one could make.
Instead of aiming your ire / consternation / disapproval at NASA for 'wasting' money (needless to say they're wasting American taxpayers' money), why not examine the kleptocratic warlords, juntas and strongmen who use food, water and education as weapons against their ethnic, cultural and political foes?
Re:...and if he's not re-elected? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Isn't he (Score:1, Insightful)
No, he's the president whose main goal seems to be to make sure tax funds make it into the hands of the giant corporations, or people wealthy enough to hold large shares in giant corporations.
We may not get anyone to the moon or to Mars, but I'll bet the effort is organized so that several giant companies have a chance to make major profits. I have a friend who works in Washington, just below the appointed level, who says the word is out that Mr. Bush knows who funded his election and is determined that they will get repaid.
Sorry, feeling cynical this evening.
I think it was Noam Chomsky who once said... (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I think the money would be best spent on fusion research first. There are several reasons:
1. The urgent need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, the middle east, reduce global warming and pollution in general
2. We obviously have to get fusion working before even thinking about mining the moon for fuel. And once on the moon (or Mars) fusion would be an excellent power source
3. Fusion powered rockets will get us to Mars and elsewhere in the solar system much faster than chemical rockets
Another thing we've gotta get right first is closed ecosystems or biospheres. eg. Growing food, recycling air and water etc. They had a pretty good crack at it a few years ago with Biosphere 2, but IIRC there were problems with oxygen being absorbed into the concrete foundations. So again, they've got to get that right before sending anyone out to the moon or Mars to live on a base. You could do a nice simulation by putting a biosphere underwater, far enough down to reduce the sunlight to the same intensity as Mars. Then check which plants are best able to grow and produce oxygen.
Re:Scrapping shuttles (Score:4, Insightful)
In 1961 Kennedy said we'd make it to the moon by the end of the decade. They seem to have stuck through that plan.
Re:"Who to send" is a serious question! (Score:5, Insightful)
What? Are you saying the resources out there are insecure now? By the way you don't need to send people there in order to take the resources.
The moon is an ideal "space station" (Score:4, Insightful)
Its low gravity and lack of atmosphere make cheap slow-acceleration launch tech like linear motors perfectly sensible. It's ideal as a place to build spacecraft or spacecraft parts, to launch things into earth orbit, to park and refuel spacecraft, and to land, warehouse and refine things mined in bulk from elsewhere in the solar system.
Seeing the moon as a planetary colony is IMO the wrong model. Seeing it as the ultimate ready-made orbital space station makes much more sense.
Re:*Yawn* Money Talks and Bullshit Walks (Score:3, Insightful)
And thank $diety.pref that the USA is a Democratic Republic, where this desire for reelection makes the leader do what he thinks the masses want. Would you rather he build a network of palaces? How about some big-ass scimitars above Penn Ave?
Lighten up. Of course this is because of reelection-- that is a good thing.
I don't want to be an Astronaut... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mars is out of reach using current technology (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, a large cause of the amazing progress in space research in the 60s was because we were in a space race with the Soviets. Competition can be a very good thing.
Re:let's get this out of the way first (Score:5, Insightful)
Space Elevator better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
"The administration examined a wide range of ideas, including new, reusable space shuttles and even exotic concepts such as space elevators" (my emphasis).
A space elevator, now there's a project worth pursuing. If we could only master the technology needed (superstrong materials, read Arthur C. Clarke's Fountains of Paradise or see this site [spaceelevator.com] for details) a space elevator would pay for itself in a matter of years and open up space for humanity like no other initiave we can even imagine today.
That aside, I wonder if we will read about this period in 30 years time like we do today about Nixon's deliberations about what to do with the Apollo program, not to mention how special interests got the Space Shuttle funding even though there was little science to gain from the program which basically tied us to LEO for decades? I wonder how much frenzied scrambling has been going on inside NASA these past few months to come up with realistic programs while the Prez is in a benign mood (all part of the re-election strategies, no doubt).
Whatever comes from this, if anything at all, let's try to make it an international effort. First of all that would be good for international cooperation in general, it wouldn't look like one country was doing this for strategic purposes and it would ease the burden somewhat for the US taxpayer. Fair is fair, the entire human race will (hopefully) benefit from this, so we should all chip in.
Ohhh good, waist more money (Score:3, Insightful)
and... we're going to SEND PEOPLE TO THE MOON AND MARS ??!!
I can think of at least ONE THOUSAND better things to do with that money.
Then again, this is probably just election year hoopla. Even if Bush were to get a second term, we wouldn't be ready to send anyone to a planet until his term was over. I doubt our next administration will be willing to spend this money on such a lame cause.
space =wasteful. other science = better. (Score:1, Insightful)
Stem cell research comes to mind. Imagine curing stupidity at the genetic level. The risks would be high but the pay off could be astronomical.
The first time we went to the moon it was a proof of concept. The second time was a redundant waste of resources. Until someone invents warpdrive, explore space with telescopes!
Re:Scrapping shuttles (Score:5, Insightful)
More money was spent redesigning the ISS to meet the continually changing requirements from congress than was in the original budget to complete and launch it.
NASA has wasted stupendous amounts of money over the years by starting projects and expecting congress to deliver the additional money (promised by congress) needed to complete them. Congress changes their minds, cuts and changes the budgets, and generally screws things up. The end results generally mean a lot of money spent, but little accomplished.
Part of the reason that NASA has been more effective over the last few years was that a new director came in (I forget his name), who understood what was happening and starting planning for it.
Re:let's get this out of the way first (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Scrapping shuttles (Score:2, Insightful)
Is death by terrorism really any different from death by cancer to warrant massive budget increases in the military and reductions in anything else? Especially considering that you were 20,000% more likely to die from cancer in 2001 than you were from terrorism?
Re:let's get this out of the way first (Score:5, Insightful)
Humanity as a whole has problems a lot more serious and significant than finding new sources for iron oxide and colonizing a planet that lacks a breathable atmosphere. We'd be much better off, for example, pushing hard to find ways to make sure that the atmosphere of the planet we currently inhabit remains breathable.
Despite the fact that more than half of Earth is covered in water, we're currently unable to provide enough clean water for our population to drink.
Good news! We now have the technology to manipulate the climate of an entire planet! Bad news: we can only move it in one direction.
Future space travellers will be happy to learn that Earth can produce more food than its population requires, but they may be dismayed to realize that we haven't yet figured out how to distribute it to the Earthlings that need it, let alone a Martian colony.
Would humanity as a whole be better off sending a man to do a robot's work on Mars, or spending an additional $20 billion on reducing AIDS, TB, SARS, etc?
Would Americans be better off sending a man to Mars, or spending money to provide drugs for those that need them, and getting those who abuse drugs to stop?
Honestly, I think space exploration is a great thing, and something to which we should aspire. Spending a few $billion to do it makes sense. And yeah, it'd be a really, really cool thing to be able to visit Mars in person, even if 6 billion of us have to do it vicariously through a lucky two or three astronauts. But if you think that this is the most important thing we should be doing, or even that it's just very important, I think you should take a long look at the world around you.
Let me tell you what's really going on with this proposal. Through a series of tax cuts and spending increases, the current administration is doggedly pursuing a "starve the beast" [pkarchive.org] strategy that will ultimately require a huge decrease in the size of the federal government, and a corresponding increase in the power of the states. Which, essentially, is what Republicans have been trying to accomplish for years. The more money the Bush administration commits us to spending over the next decade or two, the greater the pressure to reduce spending in other areas such as Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, education, and social services. And the cherry on top is that Bush gets to announce popular new spending programs to dupes like you who'll eat it up.
So yeah, by all means write to your representatives. But first think long and hard about what you want to tell them.
You can thank China for all this. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm serious. All you hardcore space exploration people have one country above all others to thank for this, and it's the one who just recently put their first man into orbit and has been spouting off about a moon base for the better half of last year. And from paranoia's point of view, I can see why. Space is the ultimate high ground and danged if I'd want a nation with China's human rights record dominating it. But regardless of how or why...
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a space race!
A stepping stone to power.. (Score:4, Insightful)
It looks to me like spending more on space infrastructure actually does lead to a solution to dependence on fossil fuel!
"Borrow and Spend Republicans" (Score:3, Insightful)
And this is the time he proposes to spend a few dozen more billions of borrowed money? Someone cut this guy's credit card!! As much as I hate taxes, I have to say I prefer "tax and spend" to borrow and spend".
This obviously can't go on. Don't believe for a second that this won't start crashing, hard, soon after the election!
Re:Here's a summary. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh God, that would be so sad. I'm all in favor of manned flights, but it would be silly to cancel unmanned exploration in order to make that happen. The unmanned spacecraft are the ones that allow us to learn all about the other planets and moons before we risk human lives. Besides, it's ridiculously cheaper - easily 10 unmanned flights for the price of one manned, if not even more.
Disclaimer: I work at JPL, the NASA center whose primary mission is the robotic exploration of the solar system. If all of NASA's unmanned programs were cancelled, a good fraction of the 5,000 people at JPL would either be out of a job, or at best would get transferred to a manned mission, giving up on years of dedication and experience.
Re:Scrapping shuttles (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, hold on, let us take a look at your scary figures:
800,000deaths/365days = (more or less) 2200 deaths per day.
2200 per day over the whole united states.
number of cities in US over 100,000 = 260
2200/260 = 8
Thats 8 deaths per city over 100,000, per day. We'll lower the number a little because we're discounting hundreds of small towns under 100,000.
So on average a populate area has 6-7 deaths per day from heart disease. More if your a bigger city..less if your a smaller city.
YAWN.
Will that even put a scratch in the stockmarket?
not one iota. reason why? it's nature. plus people chose to eat that mcdonalds and not exercise. The people in the twintowers didn't choose their fate.
Several Thousand going all in one instant, in the same place?
Hell yea, that'll make an impact.
You see, one is called nature. And the other is called horror. Your statistics aren't so scary when put in proper perspective. I could talk about the number of people dying around the globe, and work those numbers up so that headlines read very startingly.
move along nothing here to post about.
Bush & Dick & America (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And.. (Score:1, Insightful)
Isn't it amazing? (Score:3, Insightful)
What a load of crap.
Incredible (Score:5, Insightful)
If a man were to step on another planet, it would be one of the most meaningful and inspiring moments in thousands of years. It would change humanity forever.
The amount of scientific knowledge that could be gained by the research effort to complete this mission is incalculable.
But to stand around and cynically bitch about trivia before such magnificent sagacity is truly depressing. I thought knowledge, science and engineering were values, not budget categories.
This idea should be supported.
Sorry to tell you this but... (Score:5, Insightful)
This will all get killed in budget negotiations after the election. He'll be able to look like he's fighting for it, but ultimately his own people in congress will cut the budget. Kinda like no child left behind. Yeah, real leadership there, except that the budget isn't there to run it properly.
So, for now, just whip out your 3D glasses and check out the photos coming back because that's as close as we are getting for a very long time.
Re:bottlerocketeer (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, considering the previous three presidents did fuck all to advance space exploration in any meaningful -- or more importanly, exciting way -- I'll take the president that can't pronounce the words, but can try to get people excited about going to the Moon / Mars, thanks.
George W. Bush could declare Linux the official OS of the government, get a Penguin tattoo and give Linus Torvalds the Medal of Freedom and /. would still find a way to bag on him for it.
Re:Excellent time to give NASA a goal (Score:4, Insightful)
But, that aside, it's a PR NIGHTMARE. You have to admit that a large part of having a space program is nationialism, generating pride in your citizenry, "look at what we can do", "we are so awesome", etc. No matter how logically you try to explain it the truth is a lot of people will be very put off by the notion that the state is going to end someone's life like that. It's a downer no matter how cold you try to approach it. Imagine if the Apollo 13 crew had all died. There would have been memorials out the wazoo, and the nation would have collectively cried and mourned like you can't imagine. Surely you recall how the entire nation was so completely breathless and mortified when even the *notion* of the crew perishing came up. To send men in space that you know damn well are going to die would be even worse, in terms of public perception. There's no way around it. You just can't do it.
Re:More like arms race (Score:4, Insightful)
The idea of letting the world's last great Communist power - China, despite their recent reforms - land someone on the moon where they can toss a few rocks back down the gravity well is a REMARKABLY bad idea.
So the only solution is to beat them to it. They've announced their plans, time for us to beat them at the game.
Re:Scrapping shuttles (Score:5, Insightful)
If I did not misunderstand you, then I have almost diametrically opposed views. I think to spend enormous sums as a result of a single aberrant event (that killed scarcely more people than died the same day from heart disease) shows a lack of objectivity. Except, I do not think the spending is a result of 9/11 anyway: 9/11 is the excuse used to justify the spending priorities they would have wanted anyway.
go to the moon? (Score:3, Insightful)
We can always add more steps to the process: space stations, Moon bases, on-orbit assembly, nuclear propulsion, space elevators. And I'm not sayig that any of these are bad ideas, but none are necessary in order to perform a manned mission to Mars. As Bob Zubrin is always pointing out, we are more ready to go to Mars now than we were ready to go to the Moon when it was announced by Kennedy.
Re:Sorry to tell you this but... (Score:5, Insightful)
As happened with the Moon shot? If this Bush makes a declaration, he will try and keep it. Otherwise he'll end up compared to his father. Jr. wants to be a JFK and Reagan in one compassionate conservative package.
As for the budget - the money will be found - since it'll all go to the aerospace/defence industry.
You are exactly correct (Score:5, Insightful)
If you recall, he promised a renewed emphasis on space after the shuttle crash. This is probably a gentle way of telling NASA that this will not happen, that any new programs will be deferred to another president.
Go for it america (Score:5, Insightful)
Since 9/11 America has done far to much shoe-watching. Nothing could be more inspiring than the country pulling itself up and seriously expanding outwards again. This may be at one level bread and circuses, but if it gives Americans (and the West generally) confidence back in themselves, their civilization and it's values then it's a thoroughly good thing.
As a European there's many, many things I dislike about the USA and particularly it's recent behaviour on the international stage - from Iraq to Koyoto. Nevertheless, the values that America (and western civilization generally), are based upon do represent some of the best that humanity has achieved, and when the chips are down I know where we should stand.
So, if the USA is about to shake itself out of it's introspective, somewhat paranoid, behaviour and regain it's confidence and enterprise there's only one thing to say...
God Bless America.
You are cutting on the worng place. (Score:2, Insightful)
That could have been avoided (or the burden shared) if the US was serious about international law and cooperation.
And what is the US defense budget again? Don't know, but is more than what the next 10 more dispendious countries put all together.
Mars, the Moon, Africa (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Sorry to tell you this but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now move 10 years forward and imagine China or Japan on the moon. One of the two Japanese space agencies, NASDA, stated about 10 years ago that they would go to the moon if there was water to be found since that would make the project actually economically viable, and likely profitable.
Add to this that there is one piece of valuable real estate known today, a mountain on the lunar south pole that has direct view of Earth far more frequently than any other place on the moon. Sure, land on the moon cannot be claimed but just already sitting there is in practice controlling it, much as the South Pole cannot be claimed yet the US base (McMurdo Base) on the very Pole gives real control.
Under such circumstances it is likely the US will follow. That is follow, not lead; the current NASA is in no shape to lead anywhere today. It is horrific as it is with shuttles blowing up and investigative boards showing that little was learned. Imagine astronauts fighting for their lives with no hopes over a foreign planet. That would surely be the Vietnam of US space explorations.
Re:Sorry to tell you this but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget, it's the same technologies used to send men on the moon as to send nukes to Moscow. That drive is no longer there. The current Goldstein (terrorism) has no space implications.
It has implications for tracking technologies, but that's not news around these parts.
Re:Mars is out of reach using current technology (Score:3, Insightful)
The U.S. population was happy to spend big bucks on those programs because at the time they seemed necessary for the country to survive. The average American doesn't care a whole lot about going to Mars (whether they should or not).
The way people feel about Apollo or the Manhattan project: "We have to do this, or we're screwed."
The way people feel about going to Mars: "That'd be kinda cool, huh?"
Re:Who to send...how many to send... (Score:5, Insightful)
To draw a logical conclusion from your statement, in order for your choice of candidate to be voted in, something like, oh, a literacy test would have to be instituted? Or perhaps do you have some other method for keeping the "under-educated" from voting?
It seems to me that you think, for some inexplicable reason, that these "under-educated" people have less right to elect leaders than you do. I'm curious how anyone can believe this, frankly.
Re:Sorry to tell you this but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You are exactly correct (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For the history books (Score:2, Insightful)
All these wars have started when we have colonized INHABITED lands.
Or did I miss the big Antarctian war? (Unfortunatly its hard to find other good exambles of colonizing of uninhabited lands - but I hope you understand my point anyway!
Re:Who to send...how many to send... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who to send...how many to send... (Score:1, Insightful)
The new retro Democrats would like to adopt the ideals of the old Dixiecrats - literacy tests and things like that - to keep the unwashed from tainting the voting pool. So in a way, they have much in common with your average far right wing looney. For example, we could have the potential voter pick a paragraph written by Noam Chomsky from several other paragraphs written by David Duke or Pat Buchanan.
Now of course that literacy test will not be applied to say, african-american voters, who might be tempted to mindlessly vote for Democrats, no matter how little they actually do for them. As long as a bogeyman or bogeymen like Trent Lott can be brought out, they don't have to worry about former clansman and Democratic Senator Byrd saying nigger on national TV or Senator Clinton making jokes about Ghandi working at a gas station. No, just keep voting for Democrats cause their social programs have done a bang-up job helping black folks - unless you are going to actually measure such things as illegitimacy, home ownership; all of which have gotten worse since the "war on poverty" and social programs were instituted.
But hey, at least those government entitlement programs keep them on the "Democratic Plantation", electorally speaking of course. Because Democrats are all for helping black folks, as long as they vote for the same old crackers they put up for office year after year. After all, the Democratic party did give us our first "black president". And what black person doesn't swell with pride to hear that statement - a president who will be most famous for getting a hummer from a 20 year old intern in the oval office. Too bad the "Clinton" economy didn't seem to reach to down to all his brothers and sisters.
Re:Go for it america (Score:2, Insightful)
"This may be at one level bread and circuses, but if it gives Americans (and the West generally) confidence back in themselves, their civilization and it's values then it's a thoroughly good thing."
A forthcoming announcement about a new direction in space for NASA, or whoever will get stuck with the order is a cynical attempt by Bush and his bunch of crooks to win votes in an election year. He could not give a feck about space, Mars, or the Moon.
cheers
front
Re:Excellent time to give NASA a goal (Score:2, Insightful)
Like it or not, someday someone will make a 1 way trip to Mars. Its built into the whole premise of colonising the place. Do you think all humans should die on Earth? It doesn't have to be suicide though, There could be a bunch of resupply missions every 26 months. With sufficient tools and equipment a person or small crew could survive there for 10s of years building the first colony which would serve as a base for future manned missions.
Peacetime NASA? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Scrapping shuttles (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's about time someone said this.
In fact, I've heard damn few Americans say ANYTHING like this lately.
I would MUCH rather die in a terrorist attack, than live in a country that isn't free.
Osama bin Ladens suicide bombers and poisons don't scare me. It's his ability to terrorize my sheep countrymen, and make them beg to take away their freedom that scares me.
Re:For those unfamiliar with the Poltiics Home Gam (Score:4, Insightful)
From the peanut gallery:
DNA - 1953, First heart transplant - 1967, etc
If I had more time I could list hundreds or thousands of things that were impossible for humans to do.
With that, I'll simply state that those who say it cannot be done should get out of the way of those doing it.
-Adam
Re:Sorry to tell you this but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Scrapping shuttles (Score:1, Insightful)
after 9/11 we heard over and over how certain actions or certian inactions would mean 'the terrorists have already won' to the point where hearing it was nauseating.
nonetheless, the point of terrorism is to terrorize, to instill fear. something this obvious shouldn't have to be pointed out, but people don't seem to get it, because they can't seem to react in any other way than to be scared. The current administration, with the help of sensational media, has done nothing but *reinforce* the fear, while systematically destroying the freedom that makes this country what it is. I wouldn't believe it if i wasn't seeing happen myself, that a nation so ostensibly protective of liberty would allow itself to be so easily shackled; that a nation founded on disobedience to unjust rule should fall so far that citizens are called TRAITORS for disagreeing with the policies of the administration in power; that the richest and most powerful nation on earth could be filled with people who haven't the vision to look past headlines and marquees and analyze what's being done to them by the very people sworn to represent them.
W said that there must be limits to freedom, which is among the few statements he's made that i consider 100% true, but he misinterpreted those limits. He wasn't talking about the limits on freedom which separate a democracy from anarchy, he was talking about those that separate a democracy from a police state, a place where "safety" and "security" against an amorphous, undefined foe, have replaced freedoms we allowed ourselves to take for granted.
it is our fear that empowers oppression.
Re:Tax and Spend (Score:1, Insightful)
It seems to be a pattern of conservative presidents over the last twenty years- look what happened under Reagan, Bush I. Fiscially conservative, my ass.
Re:Ohhh good, waist more money (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Who to send...how many to send... (Score:5, Insightful)
It amazes me (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, you laugh, but we are now about four years into the Bush presidency and look what he has suceeded in doing. He got his tax cuts. He broke the Taliban. He conquered Iraq. He revamped the EPA. He created a new federal agency. Do I need go on?
You may hate his policies. I am sure you will even offer long anti-Bush posts after this. But, it does not change the fact that he does what he says, and succeeds in doing it. If he says we will got Mars, we will go. How can any truly thinking indavidual read the situation otherwise?
My two cents,
-Iowa
Re:Sorry to tell you this but... (Score:1, Insightful)
Reagan's legacy therefore is that communism won.
It's economically unfeasible for the US to be a manufacturing powerhouse.
Maybe we can all just stand around and polish each other's Mercedes with all the leisure time we have now.
Re:yes, let's get this over with (Score:3, Insightful)
You could produce oxygen there, and of course there's the argument for terrforming - which you'd want to start early considering the timeframe.
They're called "robots". You may have heard of them, since one is on Mars right now. NASA designed and launched two of them for $860M, less than the estimated cost of three shuttle flights. We could and should build a lot more of them, at very reasonable cost. They're fun, they're cheap, they work pretty well, and even if they occasionally blow up... nobody dies.
One human scientist on the surface of mars would literally be about 1000x more efficient than all of the landers we have now plus ten more combined. Plus (and here is the big plus) around 90% of the planet is simply not even considered for a lander because it's too dangerous for the lander to traverse - not even just to land, but to drive around. Humans could ruch much more of the surface using moon-buggies or the like. I'll site NOVA as my source of reference for the range of landing sites.
Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Which do you think we need: more tech jobs, or more unemployed techs?
We simply need more people to be inspired by science and get out and build new things, rather than a nation of couch potatos we are becoming.
There are already plenty of inspired youngsters. They become postdocs. For every scientist with funding, there are 10 scientists working as postdocs, or accountants, or cabdrivers. Instead of spending billions of dollars trying to put spam-in-a-can where no spam has gone before, how about if we give that money to actual scientists? So we can cure diseases, or reverse-engineer the brain? Or even... build robots?
How about we inspire new scientists so they can build things no-one can imagine, instead of giving all our money to a slowly shrinking pool of scientists working under conventional wisdom. In science, you are bettre off with sheer numbers of people thinking about things for it only takes one "what-if" moment to surpass a thousand researchers gridning away at boring science jobs.
Please, do go on. I can already hear the violins, warming up to play the Star Trek theme.
That's funny, I was hearing the Sanford And Son theme. "All that money on a Mars mission! Oh My heart!! I'm going now!!".
You pretty much define the word "Curmudgeon" (or, dare I say, "Troll"?).
Re:Who to send...how many to send... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Who to send...how many to send... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now everybody stop and think for just a minute. This is
But apparently If Bush gets to suggest it, well Democrats can HAVE that can they. I just waiting for my esteemed Senator Daschle to rip into this for some reason or another, when his real reason would be its Bush's idea.
I think we should just chuck all the damn politicians indo deep space and then prepare for the Mars mission.
When did it happen that everyone had to reflexively oppose any idea of the party they "dont belong to" instead of possilby nodding and saying, hey thats a good idea we should go for it?
So if you're a
Re:yes, let's get this over with (Score:2, Insightful)
THINK POSITIVELY. I read that positive thinking people outlive others, if you're interested in being around a while to see the fruits of Mars exploration.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ohhh good, waist more money (Score:3, Insightful)
This must account for your spelling and grammar.
old people have to pay tons of money for pills
Didn't Congress just pass legislation about this one? I think the prescription drugs are covered by Medicare now.
homeless people fill out city streets
This is a legitimate problem, but not one throwing money at will fix. Re-education, retraining, mental medical help, etc. will help, and these plans exist, but my feeling I get is that most homeless people have too much pride to get help / want help.
AIDs is destroying Africa
people are starving in North Korea
In 1961 people could think of a thousand better things to do than launch three people to the moon and back. However, I don't hear many of those people complaining about their use of the products and equipment that have spawned from that effort, you inclusive. Simple things that we take for granted today did not exist prior to the national effort to get to the Moon and back.
Try to be less short sighted in the future mmkay?
Re:Who to send...how many to send... (Score:3, Insightful)
Take a look at an eighth grade exam and give it to an eighth grader today.
Now onto the reason for the electoral college look at the trouble we had with a close election in Florida with the recount now imagine trying to count and recount if we went by a popular vote, not only Florida but every vote in the nation would have been recounted. Today with computers to tally think of the effort that would have taken.
An electoral college gives you a reasonable way to break down the vote into countable chunks and only twice in more than two hundred years have the EC and the popular vote differed.
Re:Who to send...how many to send... (Score:3, Insightful)
We do if they're at least the age of consent...16 in most states. I'd say 16-17 year olds make up the majority of the underage, competent-enough-to-make-their-own-decisions-in-a
16 is also the age at which the vast majority of working teenagers start working, and thus earning their own money and being taxed on it.
Maybe this should be the voting age as well. Seems logical and reasonable. Most 16-year-olds are either apathetic (won't vote anyway) or passionate about various causes, so their contributions to the electoral system would be just as valuable, if not more (due to being more informed) than your average "adult's."