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."
I couldn't agree more (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:5, Interesting)
If we gotta go to space at all, lets build a city on the fricking moon. Why not, budget's shot to hell anyway.
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: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.
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: $6,920,018,770,791.33 [brillig.com]
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:5, Informative)
And reading the rest of your comment, it is clear that you have no idea how the Federal Reserve System works.....or really anything financial. I'm glad to see your ignorance has led to an unhealthy fear of monetary systems and of, well, logic.
Please take a basic Econ course at your local college.....for your own benefit and for that of people around you.
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:5, Interesting)
Banks are middle man that simply takes a cut by facilitating you, the taxpayer, borrowing from Feds.
I wonder if we can cut the banks our of the loop and have a nonprofit organizations facilitate taxpayer borrowing from the government.
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:4, Interesting)
If he appears to support the space programme, it will be to shuffle a few Billion$ into industries located in states that are expected to support him in 2004. Plus, he can't let the Chinese steal all the "Moonshot headlines".
This administration has done more to undermine resarch, exploration and sound scientific inquiry than any more than 200 years of the Republic. Look what's happening to funds in NIH and NSF!
If Bush praises your programme, lookout for the axe! I will quote from Molly Ivins' latest here:
Don't be fooled.
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes he even cuts your program before he comes to praise it. In August 2002, Bush held a photo op with the Quecreek coal miners, the nine men whose rescue had thrilled the country. By then he had already cut the coal-safety budget at the Mine Safety and Health Administration, which engineered the rescue, by 6 percent, and had named a coal-industry executive to run the agen
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:5, Insightful)
And I thought congress held the purse.
You mean the Republican controled congress ?
Re:I couldn't agree more defcon4 (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever see that episode of the Sopranos, where the gambling addict owes money to the mob and can't pay? So they take over his business and run it into the ground, borrowing money they have no intention of repaying, so they can recoup the loss and leave him in the hole. That's what this is like. The deficit has reached a record level and they keep charging more and more extravagant purchases. They even started a war as a corporate welfare project. We have the mob answering the phone.
Yeah, there's a lot of us "South Park Republicans" who aren't happy with lots of Bush's policies, like huge spending increases, blatant pandering with steel tariffs, and corporate welfare in the energy bill. But as long as all the Democrats have to offer is "Bush is a Nazi", they're going to continue to get their asses kicked.
I don't even care if Bush is a Nazi. Did the Nazis overspend this much? He is running this country into the hole and nobody cares! We have been in uncharted territory for a long time. The deficit has never been this high. How are we ever going to pay for all this shit? Doesn't anybody care about the future anymore? Do you need some sort of song and dance to convince you that the country can't survive four more years of looting on this scale?
Not only is this off-topic, but it is false (Score:4, Interesting)
Conservatives are against runaway spending on principle, and because they figure libs won't give them any credit even if they do spend:
Federal spending soars under Bush's watch [bayarea.com]
According to one recent analysis, the government now spends $20,000 a year for every household in America, the most since World War II
Notice this isn't just on defense and homeland security (you know, the common defense that the Constitution actually calls for), but also for entitlements.
I'm still looking for AmeriCorps, the Boys and Girls Club, or job training expenditures mentioned in the Constitution.
Anyway, Bush is spending a lot. Why bother? He's being attacked by both sides. He might as well cut cut cut.
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:3, Insightful)
Tax Cut
You mean your one-time "benefit" of somewhere in the vicinity of $300? Real big help there.. Just in time to help boost Christmas spending so he can claim a "recovery" and a "robust, booming economy". Bzzzt.
Prescription Drugs
You mean the watered-down piece of shit that not even some Republicans wanted to sign because it held no real benefits for the majority and was actually just a step closer to privatization of Medicare? Bzzzzt.
War on Terrorism
Are you even still in the room? We total
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: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 (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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:5, Interesting)
recession inherited from the Clinton administration lives on until the 2004 elections.
Actually, Bush inherited a nicely balanced budget (indeed, in the surplus) and an economy so hopeful that one of Bush's campaign ideas (thankfully swept under the rug) was to make Social Security based on the stock market (incidentally an idea that Clinton, Gore, and anyone with a fiscal brain said was a *BAD* idea). In fact, as late as last year Bush still floated that Social-Security-based-on-stock-market balloon during a speech. There's a real fiscal genius running the White House... The bubble was sure to burst at some point. But the fact is that by this time 2001 (2002 at the latest) the economy should have corrected and been back to a more stable state. Instead, because Junior wants to run apeshit through the world like some coked up playboy, we are grasping for economic straws during a time of incredible unemployment. Instead of paying attention to the problems at home, Junior wanted to go create problems in the world so he could show how just like his daddy he could be (and I voted for Bush Sr.). Junior can't hold daddy's jock.
Yeah, the AARP, a truly conservative special interest group, supported passing of that bill. Funny how Clinton made promises of prescription drug benefits during both of his campaigns and yet it took Bush to get it done.
But what you conveniently left out was that the AARP "supported" this legislation because, in their words, it was "better than nothing". In fact, they were pushing all the way for it to be brought back to the original proposal before the Republicans destroyed it in committee. In fact, in the AARP commercials their "support" is explained in this light.
Would you like to ask the troops currently stationed in Afghanistan if we have forgotten about Al Qaeda or bin laden? How about the office of homeland security, I'm sure they don't give two shits about bin laden right? Of course the CIA and FBI could care less about him too.
How about asking the troops in Afghanistan if there are enough of them to do the job required of them? How about asking if they really were thrilled about their numbers being diverted to Iraq? How about asking how busy the CIA is trying to track down the Fedayeen leaders so our troops stop getting cut down a couple of soldiers at a time on an almost daily basis? How about asking why, after a campaign promise of "smaller government", the government was almost doubled in size by the addition of a single (IMHO unecessary) Cabinet (your "Homeland 'Security'")?
I guess the dead Jews who were killed by Palestinian terrorists publicly bankrolled by Saddam don't count in your eyes. The hundreds of Kurds killed by chemical weapons and the recently discovered mass graves don't make you a terrorist.
Here's where you can really get yourself in trouble. Let's keep this simple. Saddam, in his effort to maintain his self-image as a big player in the Arab world, made a large public speech where he promised payments for Palestinian "martyrs". In fact, such payment has *YET* to be made (even well before Gulf-II). Saddam was a tempest in a teapot, easily contained by the UN actions post-Gulf-I. As for your point regarding the Kurds... well...:
1. Bush Sr. urged the Kurds to rise up against Saddam post-Gulf-I. They did, expecting US support. US support did not come, they got slaughtered by an injured and vengeful Saddam.
2. Iraq is not a "country". It is a confederation of disparate ethnic and religious parties who are quite frequently at bitter odds with each other, where the word "compromise" is not in their mutual vocabularies. A strong brutal leader is sometimes the only way to make all those parties behave. Is that a nice picture? Hell no. But it does accurately describe the shitstorm that is now present-day Iraq and why Western-style democracy probably won't work so well there. The biggest part of what makes our democracy work here is that the St
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush is an idiot, but your very first sentence demonstrates that you have no clue either. The budget was never "balanced" while Clinton was in office: every single year that national debt was at least hundred billion dollars higher at the end of the year than the start. As with pretty much everything else Clinton did, he "balanaced the budget" not by actually, really, spending no more than he took in, but by redefining what "balanced" meant.
"But the fact is that by this time 2001 (2002 at the latest) the economy should have corrected and been back to a more stable state."
ROTFLMAO. You don't correct nearly a decade of economic mismanagement by Clinton in a year or two. Bush's policies have been insane, but the recession was an inevitable result of Clinton's perpetual low-interest-rate policies and the dot bomb speculative bubble they created.
Re:I couldn't agree more (Score:5, Insightful)
You've accomplished something if you establish a second home for humanity. You also create a real new frontier which is something this world desperately needs for the adventurous spirits.
It would be one big positive for Bush in a sea of negatives if he actually made this happen but there are a bunch of doubts that arise:
- One its become pretty clear he is using the U.S. Treasury's credit card to borrow and spend the U.S. in to an economic boom to insure his reelection. He is spending like a drunk sailor and this may just be more of the same.
- Boeing is heading for fairly deep trouble. It can't compete with Airbus, its was caught cheating on launch contract bids and was suspended by the Air Force. The air force tanker contract was also designed to pump tax dollars in to Boeing but the deal stunk so bad they haven't been able to get it signed. I wouldn't be suprised if Bush wants a program to pump a whole bunch of tax dollars in to Boeing to keep it afloat.
- NASA, like the DOD, is one big pork barrel. Politicians pour money in it to get votes and pump up the economy in the large number of places powerful politicians have managed to put NASA centers and contractors. It really isn't about space exploration any more. Its just a jobs program which is why the manned space program hasn't dont anything new in 20 years. A new space initiative will be doomed if it goes down the same path. It will be just like the ISS where vast sums are scattered around the country and squandered to no good effect.
The only likely way you will be able to have an effective space program in the U.S. again is to gut NASA and start something more closely resembling the Lockheed skunk works in its glory days under Kelly Johnson. You need a lean, mean team of gifted engineers and managers in one place who are devoted to getting a job done and not in building empires and in a contest to see how big and bloated they can make their budgets and staffs. I really think an International Space Agency would be the way to go and pull all the best engineers from the U.S., Canada, China, Russia and Europe together in one place and tell them to get the job done. The down side is the politicians wont support it unless they get a share of the pork and it would be doomed before it started because of politics.
Thank you China! (Score:5, Interesting)
The article says nothing about the method, the cheapest way (just off the top of my head) would be to update the Saturn 5, 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.
Re:Thank you China! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Thank you China! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is true, but there are other benefits to TLI (trans-lunar-injection) orbits that are based on an existing LEO (low earth orbit) station, rather than an earth-based launch:
1. Orbital inclination. If the station is at the same inclination (which a station used exclusively for TLI would be) as the moon's orbit, it's a very very easy shot. No inclination burns/azimuth adjustments at launch.
2. Orbital windows. TLI windows based on LEO are "wider" and there is no chance of atmospheric/meterological conditions screwing the window up.
3. Large payloads. As you indicated, the bulk of spent energy is to get into LEO. However, for large mass projects, they can be ferried to an LEO station, assembled, and then (relatively) cheaply injected to the moon. Currently, delivering large-mass to a lunar orbit is impossible, we don't have a rocket or "space transport system" large enough to deliver both payload and TLI/Lunar Orbit/Descent propellent from an earth based launch site in one go.
Re:Thank you China! (Score:4, Insightful)
As for the propellant, it would be nice to have space tankers for delivering the fuel and only the fuel to LEO. A good part of the launch price is reliability. If you only have fuel on board, you can cut the expences. If rockets are 50% cheaper but 25% of them fail, it's still OK for the space tankers.
Look, it's not a question of physics! (Score:5, Funny)
"President Bush to Call for Return TO the moon";
its:
"President Bush to Call for Return OF the moon";
Whoever took the moon had better give it back, soon.
We NEED the moon. We need it for the children. This is a war - a war on terror. A war against whoever took the moon.
President Bush has called for a return of the moon - and with good reason!
How else are we going to govern the tides? I've done it by hand, and let me tell you, this "moon" thing they came up with is a lot better. I, for one, will be glad when it's were it belongs - back in the US, and out of the hands of terrorists.
Re:Thank you China! (and Russia) (Score:5, Interesting)
International organisations such as The Artemis Society know a lot more about this kind of thing than you realise. I work for TransOrbital, so I know what I'm on about. I speak here in an unofficial capacity, by the way.
Resurrecting Saturn V won't work. The teams are disbanded or dead of old age, the buildings re-used, the launchpads were demolished for the shuttles, and they don't make the tools to make the bits anymore.
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.
Vik
Re:Thank you China! (and Russia) (Score:5, Interesting)
They tested their moon rocket, the N-1, several times in the 60s and early 70s. Each one blew up, mostly due a combination of bad luck, design bureau infighting, and a design that used 30 engines on the first stage alone. (What are the odds of no problems with that?)
They had better luck in the 80s with the "Energia" core booster for their space shuttle clone, the Buran. It was designed so that it could be launched without the heavy shuttle and with extra booster units to achieve very impressive payloads. It successfully launched their shuttle for one unmanned orbital flight, but IIRC the project was canceled after that.
Re:Thank you China! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thank you China! (Score:5, Insightful)
If current events are any guide, we'd have troops bogged down in a quagmire, looking for non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction, in a Middle Eastern country with no relation to the moon beyond its dominant religion using the crescent moon as a symbol of their faith.
And regardless of whether or not the job was done, we would leave the moon just in time for our President to use the "victory" footage in his re-election campaign.
In the meantime, the Justice Department would use the threat of moon-men to justify warrantless searches of your library borrowing, while granting even more power to the very intelligence agencies that failed to predict the attack in the first place.
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:Thank you China! (Score:5, Informative)
Bill Bryson is good for a laugh, but according to this Space FAQ [faqs.org]:
Re:Why do you want to go to the moon? (Score:4, Interesting)
The moon mas plenty of resources, such as it's LACK of atmosphere. Do you think in any way the air on earth, or it's magnetic field, or it's clounds or airplanes or radio waves bouncing around inside it make it easy to use radio telescopes and such? The moon has little to none of that interference. Much less than low earth orbit, even. Solar power collection? 24-hour free solar energy beamed to earth? Yea, the moon is SO overrated.
And if you think that they're going to cancel space flights and deny someone taking off to return from the moon then you must be trolling. Let's leave them up there to definetly fir as opposed to taking the chance they might survive...good call.
The reason we don't go there now for cheap is we haven't done it in 30 years. Think about 30 years ago: big bulky unefficient cars, clunky appliences, computers the size of your house.
I'd say we're about ready for another wack at it.
I'm Moving (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm Moving (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I'm Moving (Score:5, Funny)
And thus.... (Score:4, Funny)
What's the real reason (Score:5, Funny)
Actually (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What's the real reason (Score:5, Interesting)
This can't possibly be a coincidence; it doesn't seem likely to be a bug; and it damned sure isn't a legitimate search result. What it is, is the first instance of overt politicization I've seen in Google's ranking system.
I'm not a Bush defender, but this deliberate bogus query shows a lack of professionalism on Google's part that isn't the least bit cool. Google does not represent itself as a subjective editorial site. Search engines, like armies, are valuable public resources with the potential to do a lot of good or a lot of harm. They both work best when they keep their politics to themselves.
Re:What's the real reason (Score:3, Informative)
Learn how Google works before accusing them of bias.
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.
Re:What's the real reason (Score:5, Funny)
Go to Advanced Search and check Occurances. Those are all the places Google looks for your search phrase in relation to a page. In the title, the URL, the text, and in links to the page. Thus, every time we say miserable failure [whitehouse.gov] W's bio moves up in the ranks.
So, (miserable failure [whitehouse.gov]) Google is not (miserable failure [whitehouse.gov]) actually (miserable failure [whitehouse.gov]) conspiring to overthrow our beloved (miserable failure [whitehouse.gov]) leader, (miserable failure [whitehouse.gov]) it's just me. (miserable failure [whitehouse.gov])
Re:What's the real reason (Score:3, Insightful)
Yields no results. So none of the pages that link to Bush's bio contain the phrase "miserable failure". Hmm... conspiracy theory is looking a little better.
Erik
b
Re:What's the real reason (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What's the real reason (Score:3, Interesting)
What's puzzling is that there is no rational reason for that kind of growth. The deficit is getting bigger, the trade deficit is getting bigger, the dollar is getting weaker, and the stock market is limping along. I for one am not convinced that those number are for real nor am I convinced that this kind of growth has any legs
Re:What's the real reason (Score:3, Offtopic)
Did your stats say how many hapless people have been unemployed for so long that they don't even qualify for benefits anymore? Or how many people never qualified in the first place? All your stats mean is that the rate at which jobs are being cut is falling, but it doesn't mean that new jobs are being created any faster in replacement. That 105,000 drop is most telling of the truth, and is l
Wow.. I don't know if I'm happy about this (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but I suspect that by the time we actually figure out what this new plan is, it will turn out to be utterly unambitious, re-doing what we've already done (um.. let's go to the moon! yeah!) for the sole sake that we feel like we have to one-up the Chinese. I hope I'm wrong, but this appears it is going to be politics driving science, not the other way around, and I question its usefulness if it is going to be implemented in the same closed and uninclusive manner it's being planned.
I mean, the direction of these plans look like they're being guided directly by NASA. I want to say that's a good thing. But NASA lately has shown a distinct lack of vision. NASA as of late has almost been more about lip service than anything-- being able to say, "Yup! We can get into low earth orbit!" or "We've got a space station!", but then not not actually caring what interesting or forward-looking things we can do as a result. This leads me to worry that if NASA is deciding what we do next, it will be the same sort of lip service-- just going to the moon for the sake of going to the moon, and not exploring what revolutionary or groundbreaking things that we could do in the process.
On the other hand, this looks like it would involve an increase in NASA's budget. I've heard it charged the problem with NASA's lack of ambition of late is not the leadership, but just that they don't have enough money to do anything more than the bare minimum. An increase in funds might mean they would have breathing room to do great things again. And most of NASA's such problems-- the aimless floundering that's characterized the attempts to replace the Shuttle, for example-- have been due to a lack of direction. A clear set of direction and goals, any of them, no matter now small, could once again cause NASA to streamline and orient itself toward getting positive work done. Bush's plan would very likely provide that sort of orientation.
Anyway, I just don't know what to think here. Am I being too pessimistic?
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.
The possible reasons why: (Score:5, Funny)
2. Saddam or Osama, or both, may be hiding in a moon crater.
3. The moon is made of oil.
4. Don't want those pinko commie Chinese taking over our moon.
5. Because the Mooninites are really funny and he wants to meet them.
Re:The possible reasons why: (Score:5, Funny)
Free the moon now!
I nominate Bush to be on first flight to the moon (Score:5, Funny)
Opiate of the masses (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Opiate of the masses (Score:4, Insightful)
btw, wheat has opioid peptides in it. It IS an opiate of the masses.
Civilization needs a goal, without a goal, its just endless individualist pricks who all want to be different and be special. Simply existing is not enough. A person can't accomplish a damn thing on their own.
Through unity, there is strength. From strength, comes power. With enough power, anything is possible.
The Romans were able to create an island of civilization out of the natural world. No one was forced to live there. If you wanted to leave, you could. The Bread and Circuses line is a description of what happened when the Empire was collapsing. It doesn't mean anything that unifies a people is bad. When the Roman Empire was conquering the mediterranean, we don't say "That was just a way to control those stupid soldiers, har har". People moved into those conquered regions, civilization began anew into many of the modern countries of Europe.
A large scale space program will employ hundreds of thousands of people, it could bring a minor revival to our industry, and give our people something to live for beyond watching TV and being consumers. This is the next step for humanity. This is our first step in expanding civilization, just as the Romans did 2000 years ago.
btw, I would say we are far worse off than the Romans ever were. The only reason we aren't conquered by some more unified people is because we have nuclear weapons.
Perhaps this is just what the people need.
Money? (Score:4, Insightful)
It lacks the money to provide for basic infrastructure.
At a time when commercial space flight is being touted as the most logical course, Bush is now saying that he wants to send people back to the moon?
I'm all for the new frontier. It would be great if people were inspired about space again. But Bush does not deserve to be the one to get us there. He couldn't even manage the Houston Astros.
December 17th should give you a clue. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hopeuflly, Bush will try to unleash and provide a framework for America's creative genius. The big company / NASA / politics aproach is not working. The consolidate aero companies are currently wracked with scandal, though it's hard to think of ways to provide nuclear propulsion without heavy industry. The Wright Brothers were bicycle makers, but they beat out the whole world with it's huge companies, landed aristocrats and tyrants. We did it 100 years ago and many people are working to do it again today with cheap manned space flight. I don't know how Bush can encourage that kind of effort, but I know that it can and must be done. We shall see what Bush has to offer on the 100th aniversery of heavier than air flight. Simply paying attention to that day is a very good sign.
This is way better talk than the defeatist nonsense heard just a few years ago about ignoring the infinite resources waiting for us in space. Pro nuclear, pro space, great stuff.
Okay, before you flame people (Score:5, Insightful)
We have just given a major tax break.
We have gotten into a "perpetual" war, with no end in site (LAST month was the bloodiest for us . . . exactly WHEN did major combat end!?). We have already committed $83 BILLION dollars, and we will have to commit more.
Domestic problems (healthcare, SS, etc . .
Our surplus budget has become a major deficit.
I have always thought space expoloration to be the most nobel activity any nation could invest in, but is this REALITY, folks? Seems to me that this is more about distracting us from the HUGE problems that exist, than anything else.
I thought the idea was to either go commericial or international with space exploration . . . I think our relationships with some MAJOR space fairing nations are still weak as a result of our unilateral military adventures, so I doubt we could do this internationally . .
So we are going to fight an expensive and costly war (this is starting to look more and more like Vietnam, thought I am too young to know that for certain), give MAJOR tax breaks, AND return to the moon.
Come on . . . some ideas are ambitious and some things are just political agendas to get you looking the other way.
I like science and all, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
$500 Billion in debt. (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to do it but I don't know if we can afford it.
$500 Billion in debt. (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand getting the space shuttle program back on track, because tonnes of experiments carried out in zero (or near zero) gravity has substantial implications for us here on earth. Perhaps the first landing on moon was a test of technology (and the "human spirit" bullshit), but what good is it going to do to go to the moon again? It's not ever going to suppor
Re:$500 Billion in debt. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:$500 Billion in debt. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:$500 Billion in debt. (Score:5, Interesting)
Sadly impractical at this point (Score:4, Insightful)
Baby Steps (Score:5, Insightful)
Going to Mars seems to be a popular idea. Before we try establishing a permanent base on Mars, even unmanned, I think we need to prove ourselves by going back to the moon AND staying there. I.e., establish a moon base, even a small one.
Obviously the moon is much closer. More importantly, we don't need to worry about the synchronization of our orbits. The moon is always roughly the same distance away from us no matter what day of the year it is. This makes it a much easier target to hit than Mars no matter what time it is.
Re:Baby Steps (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Baby Steps (Score:5, Interesting)
All materials required for the survival of men living on the moon would have to come from Earth.
If men can live on the ISS for many months at a time, I am sure they could at least do the same on the moon. Basically, you need food, water, and air. Two of those can be recycled. Food would be the only issue, but I imagine it would not be tough to find room to build a big enough kitchen on the moon ;-)
I agree that a Mars mission is far more promising in terms of advancing our species and science. But the moon has advantages. Like I said, its proximity makes travel easier, especially in an emergency. I forget the mission number but one of the Apollos had a ruptured oxygen tank and barely made it back to Earth safely. On a Mars mission, with a year or two travel time, they would have died for certain. Refilling supplies is a much shorter trip. This means it is cheaper and emergencies are easier to handle.
The government will find ways to screw this up. By going to the moon first they can make their mistakes and learn from them before going to Mars. Mars is for sure a much more important goal. My point is just that the moon is a step along the way.
A Step In The Right Direction. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
IF Bush makes this statement during his speech, I will be completely in shock. As much as I dislike Bush, I think the United States definetely needs to reestablish a space presense, and on the moon, that would be great. The ISS is turning up to be more hype than anything else, anything more established.
By creating a real, strong, presence on the moon, we would research and develop much more technology, at a more distinguishable rate, and the rewards would be plentiful enough based on the technology that develops from increased space expenditure. Even if the moon is completely dead, and there are no resources, and no valuable information for us to gather on it, I think we would still come out ahead in this situation.
Yup, Bush calls for return to moon! (Score:5, Funny)
Oh no! (Score:3, Funny)
And need I mention the Terrible Space Secret [somethingawful.com]? I think not...
I will say Space 1999 had the coolest looking ships of any series. They actually seemed to be well designed and functional.
Like Mars? (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed! (Score:3, Funny)
Well, Duh! (Score:3, Interesting)
With What Money? (Score:5, Insightful)
He knows there is no way the congress can, or would, appropriate the money for this, given the deficit, so he's just blowin' smoke for PR (read: election) purposes.
Sorry, George. Ain't fooled.
First Iraq, now the Moon (Score:3, Interesting)
One thing for sure: if there is any life on the Moon, they better pray that there is no oil there, or they will have to be 'liberated'.
Promises trustworthy? (Score:5, Interesting)
OTOH, Texas has this big space center, so this might be a way to spread some cash around back home. So it's possible he doesn't have any motives other than the obvious ones. O, and he has this brother who's governor of Florida. They might be in for a cash infusion too. OK. He has "legitimate" reasons. But the first paragraph stands. (He's so far welched on most of the promises that I thought important.)
Yeah, that's exactly what I thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
A: Texas (Houston, home of NASA) and Florida (site of the Kennedy Space Centre).
Q: Which of the states are most closely associated with the Bush family?
A: Texas (where George W. was Governor) and Florida (where Jeb Bush is Governor).
Wow. What an amazing coincidence!
Now Texas is a republican stronghold and real Bush country. So sending a few billion dollars Texas's way is a great way of saying thank you to the folks back home.
On the other hand, Florida is up for grabs. Remember, when the Supreme Court stopped the recount process after the last Presidential election, Al Gore was slightly ahead, and looked like he would have won the Florida vote. Of course, it wouldn't have been so close if all thousands of black voters (90 percent of whom voted for Gore) hadn't been illegally stripped of their votes by wrongly being labelled convicted felons, if the butterfly ballots hadn't have been used (at Pat Buchanon admitted himself, those Jewish voters weren't voting for him), if those chads hadn't been such an issue and if the Republicans hadn't got away with having hundreds of overseas ballots that were clearly not properly filled in time and/or authenticated count in their favour.
Either way, even if you say that Bush was the legitimate winner (which, as I illustrated is a highly contentious point), you have to concede that the Florida voting process was far from perfect and that the state is a key battleground for next year's election.
So, given that Florida's where the war was won/lost(/stolen) last time around, it's doesn't hurt Bush 2004 if Florida's got a big reason to feel good about the current administration.
It's a bit like the illegal steel import tarriffs. The Bush administration knew that they were illegal, the knew that eventually they would be forced by the WTO to abolish them or face severe consequences, but they did their job. While the tarriffs were in place, US steel manufacturers got a nice boost, despite being inefficient compared to their global counterparts, and lots of people in the steel industry had a good reason to vote Republican rather than Democrat when they last went to the ballot box.
Yep, if you want something in business or politics there's nothing like an old-fashioned bribe to grease the wheels and open the doors.
Don't get me wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)
(1) bin Laden ('Old Salami BinBox' to me and some of my friends) is still at large.
(2) No matter how much spin has been put on it, the Iraqi war never had any solid justification that I can see. And Hussein ('Saddened HoseHead') is still at large as well.
(3) Our economy is still a shambles.
(4) The 'YOU-CAN-SPAM' [weblogs.com] bill is all but signed into law, thus (very possibly) bringing about the end of viable E-mail as we know it.
(5) The RIAA and MPAA continue to run roughshod over fair use rights.
I could go on, but I think we all get the idea. This is an election year coming up. The Shrub will pull out anything he or his advisors can think of to try and get himself reelected, and I really think that this is just one example.
Mod this down if you want. Heck, label it "Flamebait" if you want. I don't pretend to have even a hint of one answer, let alone all of them, but it certainly seems to me like there are other more pressing problems that need dealing with than making another trip to one very dead and airless rock.
Gimme a break. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Gimme a break. (Score:4, Funny)
2.?????
3.KARMA!!!!!
Tax and spend Democrats^H^H^H^HRepublicans? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, I'm sure to get modded as a troll for this, and I'm jazzed about our space programs getting money they need, but I'm also more terrified of the condition this country is going to be in under Dubya's rule.
I mean, if you haven't seen this chart, check out:
Bush's Budget Deficit [216.239.57.104] (Google cache, an original is at http://dean-justinspoliticaljournal.cafeprogressi
$87 billion for Iraq, tax cuts aplenty, and now he wants space ships too? Oy.
Re:Tax and spend Democrats^H^H^H^HRepublicans? (Score:4, Interesting)
However, space exploration falls under the constitutionally duty of the federal government to fund science. Bush is perfectly within his party's vision and the bounds of the constitution in proposing this. I want my tax dollars to fund this.
Re:Tax and spend Democrats^H^H^H^HRepublicans? (Score:4, Insightful)
No, only when it doesn't directly help the American people.
I'm not inherently opposed to the programs, it's just that *right now* is a bad time to be trying all this stuff. After a recent layoff and several months of unemployment, I'm lucky to have a found a job, despite it being back at about my 1996 salary. Each month I'm continuing to have to tap into more and more of my home equity just to keep the bills paid. There are huge problems with growing poverty in our own country, our education system is slipping through our fingers, healthcare costs are rising at rates triple (or more) than inflation.
I just want to see some of those issues fixed (or at least addressed) before we start more rhetoric about foreign countries to invade and other planets (or satellites) to commandeer.
The sad jest in my original subject line was that it used to be the Democrats with the bad rap for running up big spending tabs and now they are being completely outclassed by this Republican president with a Republican congress. I'm not dissing the Republicans... I'm just afraid of them. I want there to be something left of this country for my daughter to look forward to. Hopefully something worthwhile.
Let us boldly go... (Score:5, Insightful)
He'll have to do more than say "let's go back" before I call his plan bold. Okay, so he might mention the idea of establishing a permanent Lunar base and of going to Mars. As the article said, his father already did that:
I'd like to see this Lunar base and Martian mission. But I don't have high hopes that it will be any time soon. And I don't believe that Dubya will have anything to do with it.
Good... (Score:3, Interesting)
NASA needs to *know* that the cash will be available to fund crazy stuff, stuff that's way out there. We'll have to rebuild/repair quite a bit, launch facilities, bigger rockets, a massive hiring spree (NASA's hemorrhaged quite a few talented people in the last decade).
If this is for real, perhaps I'll switch my major (from cs, of course) to someone more related to space....
I knew Jack Kennedy, and you sir. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
We are not living the same political age as when Jack sent us to the moon, nor is Bush in the same position of political power that Jack was when he sent us to the moon.
Bush can say anything he wants, but it's going to go through the same political process as anything else he suggests at the moment.
Need I point out that his stock is a bit low at thet moment and this looks like an obvious ploy to to parlay patriotism into personal support?
The problem being that in 1957 we were blindsided by an outside "enemy" nation and clamored to regain a feeling of national supremecy.
Bush has blindsided himself.
This rocket ain't gonna fly.
KFG
Imminent Threat of Not Going to the Moon (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, the U.S. needs to go to the moon starting tomorrow the way it needed to go pulverize Iraq on March 19. There's no hurry. In fact, a little bit of deliberation will make the U.S. a better space explorer, just as a little bit of patience might have made Bush a hero in Iraq instead of the biggest goof in world politics since Napoleon.
The United States budget will run almost a half trillion dollars in debt this year. Now, some of my fondest memories are of playing sick to watch moon landings in grade school, but I'd much rather spend money on educating kids and college students today who can do space exploration right ten and twenty years from now -- if we've dug out of the financial mess we're wallowing in now.
So no symbolic Republican missions to reproduce 1969 on the moon, thank you. If you're an American and want nonsymbolic space exploration in your lifetime, work to defeat George W. Bush and elect a president who will restore fiscal sanity to the United States. If we're lucky, the president after that, or the president after that, will have a chance to send human beings somewhere useful.
It's all about the Military (Score:3, Interesting)
Quote: To increase their
effectiveness,
ground-based
interceptors like the
Armys Theater
High-Altitude Area
Defense System
must be networked
to space-based
systems. pg. 64
as will be discussed below, space dominance
may become so essential to the preservation
of American military preeminence that it
may require a separate service.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAme
If you've never heard of the NAC website, it's a think tank with all the leading NeoCons behind it. Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfield...etc..
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofpr
The PDF was 2000 and if you read it, is become American policy.
Wasn't the 60's moon program a money maker? (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps it would have been a better investment to take that money and put it in the stock market. I don't have those numbers, and even if it was, who cares? It was a wonderful program because it advanced basic science, created high paying jobs, gave us something positive to look forward to, and "grew" the economy. For a government program, it was a hat trick and then some.
I have no idea if a modern moon or mars program could do that again, but wouldn't it be worth trying? Even if it only broke even economically, wouldn't we be ahead in science and national pride?
Personally I'd like to see more private investment in space, but I think that there is going to have to be a core of federal money to get the ball rolling.
- doug
How can you tell it's from the National Review? (Score:4, Funny)
In the interest of equal time I'd like to point out any such declaration would likely contain amendments authorizing Ashcroft to eat babies of suspected terrorists, promoting Justice Scalia to Pope of the One True Faith, and paying Halliburton $1 billion to stripmine Yellowstone and sell the tailings as a food additive.
Oink, Oink (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, NASA is too incompetent to bring this off. They haven't been able to build a new launch vehicle in over thirty years. But they've spent more money trying than they spent on Apollo.
NASA has been described as "the world's largest sheltered workshop". For good reasons.
Going to the moon? Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, we can get there, but just think for moment how much cost and effort setting up and maintaining a permanent moonbase will cost us. You thought it was expensive to resupply the ISS, well how many bank-breaking rocket trips per year will it take to support a few people living on the moon, much less Mars?
Wouldn't a wiser investment be to put that space exploration money into fusion research, and the superconducting supercollider, and whatever other "high science" research projects are waiting in the wings or are just a glint in a Caltech professor's eye? How about we first devise a more workable propulsion system and more efficient and transportable energy source, things that also have the fringe benefit of being applicable on Earth, before we spend umpty-five-gazillion on going back to the moon?
China, America, and the Moon (Score:5, Insightful)
From Zurbin's book (Score:4, Informative)
The above post is taken largely from Bob Zubrin's excelent book Entering Space.
Google? What the Heck? (Score:4, Funny)
Has anyone recently tried entering "miserable failure" in Google?
Can you tell me what happens?
Regards,
??????Not Funny (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems to me that there are certain people that would hate Bush even if he figured a way to eliminate 100% of poverty. Not that he will, but my point is that some of the posts I have been reading have the tone that "it doesn't matter what he does, I hate Bush".
I have the unprovable itch that some of these same people who are bashing his as-yet unanounced plans for moonbase 1 would have rooted and cheered if certain other presidents had made this same decision.
I have also seen numerous comments regarding Bushing fouling up the economy. I won't argue whether or not his plans to help the economy will work--that remains to be seen. Ask me again in 4 years, which is about how long it takes for a president's policies take to be felt (sometimes longer). If, even for a moment, you think that something Bush does today will affect the economy tommorrow, you are sadly mistaken.
Let me make this clear: I DON'T support everything Bush does. I don't like the Patriot act, and I certainly don't care for the way he has handled Iraq (if he wants to go around removing dictators, be up front about it, and be consistent). I do think Saddam needed to be removed. Yes I am aware that the US helped him gain power, but that was not GWB's decision (altough it may have been his dad's, which is NOT the same thing at all, no matter what anyone thinks).
I AM however, willing to let him try somthing different. So, what the hey, let's go to the moon. Just one thing. Before you blast Bush for this, think about whether or not you would have supported this idea if Clinton had been pushing it. If so, then don't rant and rave about how evil Bush is. Not that I expect everyone will be honest about this, but come on, give it a shot.
Now, having defended Bush, even a little bit, I am ready for the flame war. I expect that I have offended a good number of you, and that's okay--I expect to. But let's make one thing clear--I am not trolling, and this is not flame bait. I want to hear honest and considered opinions.
Decisions, decisions... (Score:4, Funny)
- Hate Bush
- Love space travel
What to do? What to do?Back to the Topic (Score:5, Insightful)
knock, knock.... does anyone in the class remember what this discussion topic was about?
Going back to the Moon.
The first Moon program, begun by JFK, was an absolute boon to the economy, returning about 7 times to the economy what was spent on the program. Most tech jobs today, and their subsidiary jobs, are a direct spin-off of the Moon program... transistors, plastics, ceramics, biology, medicine, miniturization of computers, software technology (and perhaps Slashdot itself)
If a return to the Moon has the same effect this time as it did last time the gains will create employement for a LOT of people and be a boon to the economy.
However, there is one thing we should do first: move our energy base from Carbon to Hydrogen. A Hydrogen Project similar to the "Manhatten Project", sans the secrecy, should be initiated to complete the necessary research, if it needs completion, and begin the transfer of our power generation and transportation industries. Solar Power Tower II is a very good start. Forward thinking communities could divert resources from dead-end Windmill plans to SPT2 sites and get a better return on their investment.
There is less than two decades of Carbon reserves remaining. We've got to get moving...
Re:hoax or no? (Score:3, Informative)
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:Saturn V does is no more, what rocket to use? (Score:3, Interesting)
So, what rocket can be used instead?
Probably one that is launched from space, possibly the ISS. In the past there has been talk about a space launch platform in orbit. It is potentially much cheaper and easier to go from Earth to orbit to the moon than straight from Earth to the moon. Of course, this depends on us developing better propulsion systems.
The basic idea is that we can use existing technology to get into orbit, then have a new spacecraft that does not need to be able to enter the atmosphere