Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Moon Government NASA United States Science

Rep. Bill Posey Introduces 'Back To the Moon' Bill 562

Posted by samzenpus
from the 123-moon-street dept.
MarkWhittington writes "In an attempt to rationalize and give focus to NASA's human space flight program, Rep. Bill Posey, Republican of Florida, has introduced a bill that will direct the space agency to send astronauts back to the Moon with a goal of permanent habitation of Earth's nearest neighbor."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rep. Bill Posey Introduces 'Back To the Moon' Bill

Comments Filter:
  • Rovers and robots (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 24, 2011 @07:08PM (#35924588)

    Why waste the money on transporting meat bags to the moon? Send rovers and robots.

  • Umm... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MrEricSir (398214) on Sunday April 24, 2011 @07:08PM (#35924592) Homepage

    How does this advance the Republican goal of balancing the budget?

  • What a surprise! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Nebulious (1241096) on Sunday April 24, 2011 @07:10PM (#35924606)
    He's from Florida. Quit bringing down the space program so that your district can keep leaching off the system, leech.
  • On Spending (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Warbane (2034760) on Sunday April 24, 2011 @07:11PM (#35924618)
    While I'm firmly of the stance that we need to drastically reduce spending (almost) across the board, this is the type of project I wish money would go to if it's going to be spent.

    Trying to be ambiguous as to not divert the discussions focus, but spending on an endeavor that will ultimately benefit the entire nation as well as be a boon to science seems like a better use of funds than programs heavily favoring a specific subset of the nation. (Take that how you will, I have no particular program in mind.)
  • Re:A better idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MightyYar (622222) on Sunday April 24, 2011 @07:15PM (#35924644)

    How about paying the government deficit that is about to default in a month so humans can habitat Earth first

    Because if man is to survive as a species, we must leave this planet. To leave this planet, we must advance the state of the art. To advance the state of the art, we must spend money on human space exploration/colonization.

    Deficits will never go away, and neither will the fact that the sun will eventually incinerate the earth.

  • Re:Umm... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ildon (413912) on Sunday April 24, 2011 @07:27PM (#35924742)

    This is local politics. Need to keep the money flowing into NASA to keep the constituency happy, regardless of your party affiliation. Plus NASA's budget vs. the entire budget is close to nothing. Just like that recent budget "cut" the republicans were bragging about was like less than 1% savings on the entire budget. I guess you could say the victory is that it didn't go up, but whatever. Still seems pretty crappy.

  • Re:A better idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ColdWetDog (752185) on Sunday April 24, 2011 @07:32PM (#35924784) Homepage

    Because if man is to survive as a species, we must leave this planet. To leave this planet, we must advance the state of the art. To advance the state of the art, we must spend money on human space exploration/colonization.

    Deficits will never go away, and neither will the fact that the sun will eventually incinerate the earth.

    If your worried about the sun going nova, then take a couple of deep breaths and relax. We've got time. Although I strongly support the space program, we would do better as a species if we realized that we're NOT getting off this rock anytime soon and we'd best spend some energy keeping what we've got habitable.

    Supporting the space program could be done without materially increasing the deficit (NASA takes up some tiny fraction of the US budget at present). But it really bugs me when congresscritters put up stupid bills like this one. You get all sorts of earmarks and pork embedded in it, you get NASA (or whatever organization) pulled in all sorts of usually contradictory ways. You get things changing from year to year. If someone came up with a bill that funded NASA with x% of the Federal Budget for 50 years, maybe I could go for that but the current bill is just grandstanding and appeasing his constituents.

  • by macraig (621737) <mark...a...craig@@@gmail...com> on Sunday April 24, 2011 @07:47PM (#35924908)

    ... if he didn't have a purely selfish agenda because it would just happen to directly benefit his state/district economically long before we'd even get there, and even if it gets cancelled later and we don't.

  • Re:A better idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pixelpusher220 (529617) on Sunday April 24, 2011 @07:55PM (#35924986)
    You mean an event that will not happen for millions of years as in 2029 and 2036 [nasa.gov]? Just because the likelihood is low doesn't mean it won't happen tomorrow. Frankly, humans themselves are a *lot* more likely to make Earth uninhabitable and a lot faster than a million years.
  • Re:A better idea (Score:1, Insightful)

    by NiceGeek (126629) on Sunday April 24, 2011 @07:59PM (#35925018)

    Would you rather the Moon and other celestial bodies be carved up by megacorps?

  • Re:A better idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pixelpusher220 (529617) on Sunday April 24, 2011 @08:03PM (#35925046)

    The Earth is a lot tougher than we are, and will be here for a long long time, so "man is destroying Earth" isn't a reason.

    If you mean that the pile of crushed metal is still 'technically' a car sure we aren't destroying the earth. We are destroying the environment we absolutely need to survive. That's pretty much what people mean when "we're destroying the earth".

  • You are an idiot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WindBourne (631190) on Sunday April 24, 2011 @08:32PM (#35925222) Journal
    Kennedy was more conservative then reagan, poppa bush, or W. Back then they could balance budgets. Now, we have uneducated masses voting in neo-cons who speak of balancing budgets, stopping illegals,and getting to the moon, but do the exact opposite. Sadly, these followers ignore results and simply listen to rhetoric. Neo-cons have fucked up education in America. Hell, reagan and W grew gov more than all other president EXCEPT for lincoln and FDR who were dealing with real issues.
  • Re:A better idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by piripiri (1476949) on Sunday April 24, 2011 @08:33PM (#35925228) Journal
    Yeah, right. Because the current greedy business model we have down here has a bright future.
  • by matunos (1587263) on Sunday April 24, 2011 @08:33PM (#35925230)

    ...the "Federal stimulus for Florida's 15th congressional district to get Bill Posey re-elected" bill.

  • Great! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Locke2005 (849178) on Sunday April 24, 2011 @08:35PM (#35925254)
    Sure glad the Republicans have solved that whole deficit problem, so that now they can turn their attention to spending more money on pork-barrel projects!
  • Re:Great! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BeanThere (28381) on Sunday April 24, 2011 @08:57PM (#35925376)

    Unlike the Democrats, right, who are totally busy solving that deficit problem? US seems to be screwed either which way.

  • waste of money (Score:3, Insightful)

    by currently_awake (1248758) on Sunday April 24, 2011 @08:58PM (#35925384)
    1-Manned space flight serves no scientific purpose, is expensive, and puts people at risk without cause. If we really wanted a public works project to help the world how about terraforming the sahara desert or building cities under water. 2-the USA is deeply in debt and going deeper by the second, you really can't afford it. If you can't afford universal health care you certainly can't afford space flight. 3-it's hard to plan ahead when you don't know if your project will be funded after the next election. What about the people you put up there? 4-there are only 2 tasks that could justify a permanent lunar base: astronomy (big telescope without interference) and solar panel production (launch into earth orbit, in bulk it's cheaper than earth launches).
  • Re:A better idea (Score:3, Insightful)

    by khallow (566160) on Sunday April 24, 2011 @09:17PM (#35925494)

    Because the current greedy business model we have down here has a bright future.

    And that's the thing that routinely is ignored. The so-called "greedy" business model works because it gives a channel for so-called "greedy" people to contribute to society in a meaning and positive way. The future is indeed brighter.

    The so-called "multinational" (the label which includes any business that operates in two or more countries) will have to buy space-based goods and services to support its claims and it'll have to come with profitable enterprises (which contribute to society) with which to support its ongoing expenses. Figuring out how to do that will lead to innovations and developments which will dwarf anything done in space to date.

    That's far better than merely letting the Solar System be the occasional playground for a bunch of incompetent and disinterested governments (currently, the only other parties that can play in space).

  • by Identita (1256932) on Sunday April 24, 2011 @09:27PM (#35925558)
    In a country which is trillions of dollars in debt, which apparently cannot afford to offer national healthcare like others do in the UK and Canada but CAN afford to bail out the heads of banks who've screwed the US population out of their children's future can somehow come up with the rationale to send people to the moon because? Common sense is clearly gone today. I don't know what the hell anyone in government thinks anymore
  • Re:A better idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Surt (22457) on Sunday April 24, 2011 @09:36PM (#35925618) Homepage Journal

    Recent evidence would seem to suggest that said greedy people do not wind up contributing in a meaningful way, but instead wind up finding every edge case they can to try to skim off the productivity of others.

  • Re:A better idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Risen888 (306092) on Sunday April 24, 2011 @10:28PM (#35925914)

    That's right! Man will never fly! You tell them!

  • Re:A better idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sg_oneill (159032) on Monday April 25, 2011 @02:00AM (#35926982)

    Just so you know, the US isn't going to default its debt. Thats silly speculation from the conservative press thats led to a bit of nervousness from some isolated quarters because the statuatory debt limit is being reached.

    But its just a debt limit, its got nothing to do with defaulting what so over, because pushing the default button would nuke the economy and the whitehouse knows it. It simply won't happen.

    The US economy is still held to be a low risk of defaulting, simply because it doesn't need to, as it can just go austere instead. Or raise the limit.

    Of course austerity is going to suck, because spending cuts wreck economies that are slumping, but life goes on.

    If you ask me, its about time the US pulled out of a few wars and cashed in that peace dividend.

<<<<< EVACUATION ROUTE <<<<<

Working...