Slashdot Mirror
H.R. 3057: To the Asteroids, Moon and Mars
apsmith writes "Democrats have just introduced the Space Exploration Act of 2003 to the U.S. House of Representatives; the author is Nick Lampson of Texas, with 26 co-sponsors. The bill sets a vision and goals for the future of NASA, beyond the Low Earth Orbit of the Space Station and Shuttle, outlining a series of incremental steps for human spaceflight. These include development of reusable spacecraft for carrying people around in the Earth-Moon vicinity, including to the nearby Lagrange points; sending people to an Earth-crossing asteroid; establishing a lunar base, and sending people to Mars with a base on a Martian moon by 2024."
Please, send Senator Orin Hatch on the Earth-crossing asteroid mission. The guy is a space-cadet already!
Show your love for the Hacker community
HackerLogo.com
..The bill sets a vision and goals for the future of NASA..
You are aware, Congress, that you can't legislate the advace of technology right?
Right?
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
To the moon!
/honeymooners
couldn't help myself. =]
--
a.b. murray
Rep. Lampson's congressional district includes Johnson Space Center, which would benefit greatly from an expansion of manned spaceflight.
But then again, I could be wrong.
...unless it includes appropriations for NASA sufficient to actually fund said exploration. Mandatory appropriations congress can't later cut, which is highly unlikely with Baby Bush spending the country into bankrupcy with his family's little war in Iraq and his tax cuts for his wealthy buddies.
It is a nice vision, but without adequate funding it is only so much posturing from congress, and frankly, I'm quite sick of windbags who have no intention of following through on their flowery rhetoric with concrete action.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Does it have a chance? Have any senators commented on it yet? At the bottom of the bill it lists $50 million for 2004 and $200 million for 2005. Are these on top of NASA's budget? If it is, with the deficit we're running now, this looks more like a political stunt. I hope it's not.
What they need to do is say there are terrorists with WMD massing on the moon. Then NASA can get $87 million too.
It is ALWAYS very dangerous to legislate must do goals like this. Whole beneficial programs can be scrapped to enforce some Idealistic Goal. Look at what Title 9 did to mens sports for example. This may blow up in our face. As much as I would love to get us out of LEO and on to greater things, this sort of legislation may hinder more than help.
Looks like someone is trying to get NASA back on track after a long period of waffling in the manned spaceflight program. The fact that it's a little bit of pork-barelling doesn't hurt either, but I can overlook that :)
...get them to legislate a cure for cancer.
Yeah whatever, this bill will die in committee, because it's silly.
But then, would we have gone to the moon without JFKs presidential challenge?
Short of the government ordering a mars mission and moon base, is there enough interest in such things?
Not from me, at least. Fuck mars, what's the big whoopty do about mars? Do they know something about mars that I dont? Is there something on mars worth checking out that they aren't telling me about? Because those rover pictures look mighty boring to me.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I know many of us tend to be skeptical about mission statements. However, it seems like a good idea because unlike a business (universal business mission statement: "Make Lots Of Money"), it isn't that obvious what NASA is trying to do, or should try to do. And I think it should be more specific than "explore space, and earth from space."
Right. We'll be funding all this manned space exploration then. No problem.
I grew up there and most of the episodes of COPS are shot there. In fact, Beaumont is about to open a museum dedicated to the history of "Wifebeater T-Shirts". Port Arthur's claim to fame is that Janis Joplin was born there and then promptly left calling it a redneck shithole.
You know, all those goals that the NASA administrator has to set will probably go unfufilled if nothing is done to the deficit now.
The deficit is already 455 billion. At the current rate, this deficit will probably reach 8-900 billion even with a relatively decent recovery of the economy.
10-15 years later when the deficit is so big that it hangs like Damocles sword over Capitol hill, NASA's budget will be put on the chopping block.
Bush is on fire and its not good for my lungs.
There is no way NASA can achieve those goals set with that budget appropriation. Look at the Space station NASA can barely keep that running with the $$$ they have. If they want to dump major $$$ into NASA the goal should be building a Stanford Torus type station rather than a Mars Base. It would be a real stepping stone into space.
Sounds good to me, just don't do any transdimensional experiments up there.
who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
I mean, come on. We need a base on our own moon! It can be mined for fuel and we can launch stuff from there. Saves so much on fuel and metal...
It won't be you, so it might as well be a machine. Machines can send back immersive multimedia, so it can be as if we all went up there. Machines can survive better, even if the spacecraft takes some damage or gets bathed in radiation. Machines can do more work more consistently. We won't care if many of them get the shit beat out of them during their missions. The list goes on and on.
Manned space flight is not practical, it only gets in the way. It prevents rather than promotes space exploration.
Is there some point to doing this? If we are in it just for the new technology, then there are much better ways to spend science research dollars. Is this "exploration" going to bring any tangible benefits? Is there any economic justification to this?
And the first things my coworkers and I did when we found this out was laugh our asses off.
Habitation on the moon in 15 years? Mars in 20?
Maybe if we devoted the sum output of the entire GDP to doing so! As of now, there's no hope of that happening. We need an infrastructure in orbit around Earth before we can start sending things to the moon. Larger space stations, orbital manufacturing, and perhaps craft designed solely for use in space, to ship people and material to the moon.
That costs money. More money than anyone involved is willing to spend, I bet, especially for the timetable they're legislating.
My bet is that this bunch of politicians has no idea what they're talking about, has discussed the feasability of this with no one, and is looking for some attention from the press in light of the Indian and Chinese space programs.
skye
> sending people to an Earth-crossing asteroid; establishing a lunar base
Why bother sending people to an Earth-crossing asteroid?
And why bother with a lunar base? Is there anything there worth bothering with? If not, just stick to the LaGrange points - much better for boosting out of the Earth-Moon system. Might be good to stick some telescopes on the far side of the Moon (really - there is no 'Dark' side of the Moon), though putting them in orbit nets a better picture, especially if it's orbiting the Moon.
Yes, we need a real plan for space exploration, but let's not do everything we can just because we can. And bring back the DC-X, fuckers!
>..The bill sets a vision and goals for the future of NASA..
You are aware, Congress, that you can't legislate the advace of technology right?
Think about what you just said. Of course you can't mandate advances in technology! But that's not what is happening. That's not what this bill is even proposing!
+1 insightful my foot.
The parent troll probably would have made the same criticism of Kennedy's vision to make it to the moon. The U.S. has been sorely lacking vision with respect to the space program since the moon program ended. Vision is absolutely essential to the space program. Find your member of congress, and fax your encouragement of this bill.
I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
Is rhetoric easier than actually thinking, or is it just more fun?
Slashdotter are stupid and biased.
At first I thought, "why is this specifically a Democrat issue"? Then I remembered the X-Prize. The private sector is about to put NASA outta business. THAT'S why Democrats are struggling to prop NASA up now. They don't want the government to lose control of space! Of course the way the Republicans have been acting lately, it's a wonder they didn't beat the Dems to it...
Site Manager, AC2 Warcry Owner/Founder, Tumeroks.com
They've got nothing to lose, right?
The government wants to spend money on something I like!
Maybe they can reallocate some money from ongoing projects such as propping up totalitarian regimes to a space colonization project. That would be nice.
That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
I'm floored that a Congressional bill would even mention Lagrange points.
However, they call for travelling to L1 and L2 to build "large-scale space structures such as would be required for scientific observatories". Aren't L1 and L2 already occupied by the SOHO and MAP observatories, respectively? I haven't checked the decommission dates for those observatories, but does this imply they would be building something nearby, risking those existing observatories?
Also, this bill makes lots of noise about doings things from LEO to elsewhere, but is strangely quiet about getting stuff from the surface to LEO. Is this a deliberate omission?
HR 3057 already sounds like the name of a spacecraft...
The facts have a liberal bias. --The Daily Show
I'm glad to see something new for manned spaceflight. The shuttle missions are not as insipiring as they used to be. I'm going to write my congresswoman Linda Sanchez to propose a Battle School for the bill, just in case we find any buggers on Mars.
Honk if you're horny.
this bill fills me with fear and horror
*chuckle*
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"We go to the moon, and we do these other things ... not because they are easy, but because they are hard." --John F. Kennedy
It's only when people have visions of things bigger than themselves and their immediate needs that great things happen. The visionaries provide the drive, while the pragmatists make it happen. As cynical as many of you are about Congress and its motivations, having a compelling vision for exploration and research is welcome. I'd rather have excitement and drive than ennui and cynicism.
And we will have a base on, the moon, mars, heck I bet we could even go to Jupiter. They can plan all the want, it takes MONEY to realy build something.
I am in favor of sending machines, dumping the shuttle, etc.... But it is all meanless unless we get a president that wants to actually spend MONEY on the space program.
Kennidy, wanted to and did. Reagan chalanged, but only spent on SDI (What a waste!)
*sigh*
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
This mandate should include the provision the NASA must purchase the launch capabilities from private sector companies and NOT build any craft of their own. NASA should also be given enough money to achieve these goals or else there is not point to going any further.
- We dream of the stars. Now let us return to them.
Astronauts.. TO the moon.. nya nya nya nya nya nya!
I'll believe it when I see it.
Right now I think NASA and us Americans are not smart enough to do these things. We'd probably attempt to do them anyone just to stroke our egos and risk more lives.
Let me put it this way. I thought you all cared about money. Don't you know its not profitable to do these things? So why waste the money? We have enough problems with our economy and society today.
Why can't we just admit that we're no longer the most advanced country on Earth, tuck our tail and do what is right for the people. Because we're not that smart.
Go make more money! That's what we're good at.
... Because there it is, in my CD player.
skye
It is sad that you posted that anonymously. I hope that you look for replies as this was a well written post which merits discussion.
Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, Saddam Hussein are what happens when too much religion is mixed with big government. The govt. can watch you for "terrorist" activity, then eventually for illegal activity and eventually for immoral activity. Then people in that environment become even holier than thou. When they are used to flexing their authority on and repressing those around them they move onto other countries etc... John Ashcroft is step one in creating an American Bin Laden. He is the greatest enemy to our way of life ever encountered.
Here we see what happens when Congressmen itching to spend tax money( the product of blood, sweat, tears, threats of imprisonment whatever) get a few days off and get hooked on The History Channel. Recently, the History Channel ran a number of programs about all the Moon-related missions and it must have gotten the space exploration mood going again with the Feds. Cyclical I suppose. Maybe this has something to do with the "failure" of the Space Shuttle program. (Not a failure, IMO.) I am keeping some faith in the X Prize (stupid name) as a way to REALLY get space exploration/tourism cranking along.
Simple plan for space exploration on the cheap:
1. Get some spaceships built. (Investment)
2. Sell tickets to zillionaires.
3. Profit.
4. Reinvest profits so a few scientists can strap-hang along on tourist flights out to Mars.
Oh, and sell the naming rights for that planet to the M&M candy company.
Let war pay for war. -Napoleon
In principio erat Verbum.
Given the recent trends we have seen from the US (Pax Americana, attempting to control the Gulf, the intention to control technology etc). I am curious to know how people think the US would respond were China for example to make sudden huge breakthroughs in space technology within the next 5-10 years and begin establishing Lunar/Martian bases and exploring deeper space?
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
I see goals for vehicles for Earth orbit-Moon orbit-Lagrange point trips, vehicles for Earth orbit-NEO trips, vehicles for Earth orbit-Mars orbit trips, and vehicles for Lunar and Martian landings...
But you know, it's not like we've got a whole city of astronauts in Earth orbit waiting to go places yet. At the moment if we actually wanted passengers on any of those manned vehicles, we'd need to send them up on the space shuttle for around $100M a person. That's just not going to cut it.
Rather than having NASA aim at a half dozen targets and design a half dozen vehicles we could barely use, I'd like to see them (and private contractors) designing a half dozen vehicles for just one target: getting people to orbit and back cheaply. Let one company prototype a lifting body and let another one stick reusable capsules on top of "big dumb boosters"; let one laboratory try to make the DC-X scale up to orbit, and let another try a VTHL with a flyback booster. And this time, instead of picking the X-33 proposal with the most neat-sounding untested technology, let's let every serious proposal be funded to the prototype stage; that way we can also make it clear this time that the response to "It's not working yet, can we have more money sooner?" will be "No, but we can give those excess funds to those of your competitors who could put something in the air."
then Privatize the space industry. the government has squandered its monopoly.
allow more corporate partnership and sponsorship. share patents with cooperating corporations with shorter timelimits (say 5-10 years, no extensions). there'd be plenty of financial incentive, and a net gain for the public domain.
yes, nasa science is currently all patented and free to everyone - but there just isn't anything new coming through the pipe these days. what has nasa given the public domain in the last 10 years? more than 0 stuff 5-10 years down the line is a huge improvement.
don't we all feel the burning -need- to get off this rock? to ensure that civilization will survive the next giant asteroid? to get off this rock and swing on a star?
why did it take 30 years from the moon landing until the ISS -started-? why did we waste so much time and money (and lives) on the shuttle program? why was congress -lied- to about the goals of the shuttle program and the low-earth-orbit focus?
why do we continue to trust the beauracracy who have admitted to lies, collusion and deliberate mistruths in their plundering and misguiding of the space initiative over the last 4 decades?
doesn't it bother us all that our most primal function (exploring,adapting,surviving) has been hoodwinked into jogging in place for nearly half a century? that we haven't been back to the moon a single time?
and don't start that the moon is pointless, or mars is pointless.
of course it is.
but if you never aim for the stars - you'll never get off the ground. we picked the moon as our focus in the space race - a completely pointless exercise - but look at the technology that came of it. imagine what we'd learn on our way to mars-capability. imagine what we'd learn by actually -trying- to build an outpost on a rock with no atmosphere and low gravity.
our future is up there, i say we go get it.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
Yes, except that it's Romero, not Carmack. Here you can see for example a photo of John Romero wearing a space suit.
Now we can have the biggest Red vs. Blue CTF game ever. Altough Red does have a advantage with a smaller base to defend.
"(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator for carrying out this Act--
(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
(2) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2005."
Heck, M$ could pay for the bill. Why not get some sponsorship? Good PR for the company, a mission that wouldn't have been for NASA. Just as long as the given company didn't try to patent any organism it may/may not find on Mars.
As for the bill itself, all I can do is appluad. Finally, some ppl in washington with vision. We fucked this planet up to the point where it is going to take 1000's of years to fix it (if ever). The current attitude that is mostly 'let's fix earth's problems first' simply isn't realistic anymore. In addition, we have wasted enough time in low-earth orbit. Let's really start exploring space now. The space program has been asleep since the end of apollo, the sleeper must awaken. Plus, if an asteroid pulverizes earth, at least any colonies on mars we can set up mmight survive. The time for the future has come!
"...a person needs new experiences, it touches something deep inside us allowing us to grow. Without change something sleeps inside us and seldom awakens. The sleeper must awaken!"
---Dune (The Movie)
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
Americorps
No Child Left Behind
AIDS help for Africa
Homeland Security
Rebuilding Afghanistan
Halliburton
Oh, wait. He made sure to properly fund that last one.
all this is is a huge jobs producing federal goverment spending spree.
I wonder why nasa spends sooo much money sending living beings into space when everybody else, china, us air force, etc., sends up unmanned rockets.
Hmmm...maybe why each shuttle mission costs > $500,000,000 (yea million).
Ahhh....I answered myself. They WOKE up
There is no patch for stupidity
Visit my blog
Here's the highlights:
... and additional studies to establish goals are not needed at this time.
... the main hurdle to be overcome is the lack of a national commitment to such activities.
"(7) There have been numerous commissions and study panels over the last 30 years
(8) While there are significant technical and programmatic hurdles
(11) While the ultimate goal of human space flight in the inner solar system is the exploration of the planet Mars, there are other important goals for exploration of the inner solar system that will advance our scientific understanding and allow the United States to develop and demonstrate capabilities that will be needed for the scientific exploration and eventual settlement of Mars."
w00t! I claim Tharsis Tholus!
"(20) Completion of the International Space Station with a full crew complement of 7 astronauts and robust research capabilities is essential if the United States is to carry out successfully a comprehensive initiative of scientific exploration of the solar system that involves human space flight."
Not so hot on this one.. again, Zubrin's proposals are passed over. Ah comprimise.
If you're not familiar with Zubrin, he made a plan 10 years ago to get to Mars with existing technology (Saturn VII), that would allow scientists months of surface time there, all for $10B:
http://www.nw.net/mars/docs/nearterm.txt
"(4) Within 20 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the development and flight demonstration of a reusable space vehicle capable of carrying humans from low Earth orbit to and from Martian orbit, the development and deployment of a human-tended habitation and research facility on the surface of one of the moons of Mars, and the development and flight demonstration of a reusable space vehicle capable of carrying humans from Martian orbit to the surface of Mars and back."
Again, given Zubrin's work (that he presented to Congress), this is a bummer. We'll spend a lot of time building huge spaceships, instead of getting to Mars and settling it. A lot can happen in 20 years though.. perhaps any legislation like this is good. It's especially understandable given the recent shuttle disaster.. law-makers don't stick their necks out too far.
"(1) $50,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
(2) $200,000,000 for fiscal year 2005."
Now that's what I'm talkin' about.
I believe, as part of a long term population control measure, China plans to establish a "human" export program to space. In addition to relieving population pressures and getting rid of undesirables such as proponents for democracy, the Chinese government also believes that this will distract the remaining citizens from the glaring black eye of their abysmal human rights record. Of course, I'm waiting for Elvis to come back too
Almost all manned space missions are a prestige matter and hence a waste of money for as much as science is concerned. Yes, in the sixties the U.S.A. put men on the moon to show the world how advanced they were, ahead of the rest of the world. It was a political statement in the cold war: look, Russia, we can walk on the moon, we are technically superior to you.
But what is the use in 2003 to start planning a mission to put men on Mars? Such a mission would cost billions of dollars, money that could much better be used for more interesting things, such as:
- Is there life on Venus? Although surface temperature at Venus seems to hot for live, there might well be cooler spots where bacterial life may exist. Bacteries are found alive and multiplying on earth at temperatures of 120 degrees celsius under high pressures. Who knows, there are live forms possible at higher temperatures and more, what we would call, extreme circumstances, than we so far imagined to be possible.
- More missions to moons of Jupiter and Saturn. There are hints that liquid water exists at some of the moons. Let's try to land on a few of them.
- A bigger space telescope. Yes, I know, another space telescope is already being build. But why not make it a little bit better, bigger, more advanced, more versatile?
- More budget for research on rocket ion-engines or other ways to propel a spacecraft. The speeds that we can reach with current technologies are not very impressive.
All this and more can be done for the costs of a manned Mars mission. In the name of science, lets forget about manned space flight for a while.
My karma ran over your dogma
It seems to me much better way to actually get space exploration going is to make it profitable for a business. ;-)
Is not it what a well-behaived capitalist government supposed to do? Promote good things, guard against the bad things but generally stay away?
Giving more money to large government agency that was flying shuttles mostly "because there were there" would not get us any further.
Congress needs to come up with a major incensive for businesses to go to space. Like a super Xprize. (or tax-free lifetime for any corp or individual participating in a Mars shot
Ummm, basketball and football aren't the only sports available for men to play. At my university, we couldn't have a men's gymnastics team or volleyball team. And I went to a rather large public university (40,000 students). At smaller colleges with less funding, sports such as wrestling, soccer, and swimming get the axe. In my highschool, we had 200 guys sign a petition to get a men's vball team going, but the administration said they couldn't.
IANAL, but I play one on
I'm guessing that the actual purpose of this bill is for it to go down in flames, and get Every Single Republican on the record as voting "no". This will provide a talking point for the election, showing that the Republicans are a bunch of reactionaries who can find the money to hand to Halliburton, but not to actually advance technology.
> How about resources? The Moon has resources that could be mined for use
:)
Okay, as long as I get me some Moon Cheese, and some yummy Moon Pies, I'm okay with the whole thing.
If they can legislate innovation can't they legislate more jobs? Or are they too busy legislating.
the same democrats who claim we are wasting too much money on Iraq and not spending enough money on helping our citizens?
I don't know about you, but I sure could go for a good asteroid tour to help boast the economy.
I remember readsing back in the early '90s an article comparing the computer technology of the Apollo moon missions to the consumer grade tech then in use. It said that even a "relatively low powered 486 laptop had more power than all of the computer technology in use by NASA as a whole during the Apollo era".
It would be interesting to see how various tech now in common use would stack up against that criteria. It's the sort of thing that fires the imagination. For instance, I wonder how much more processing power a PS2 or even PS1 or an outdated 1GHz Athlon has in comparison to something as mindblowing as sending humans to the moon and returning them safely to Earth.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
You have a choice: tax and spend Democrats, or borrow and spend Republicans. Choose wisely.
IAALS.
The spin off technologies will go back into high gear, as they did in the race to the moon. For every dollar spent in this process, 100$ of innovation will pump back into the American economy. Jobs will be created, and secondary jobs will spring up to support those.
The nays sayers have been around forever, and they are always proven wrong and shortsighted.
I for one would love to divert a large portion of my taxes (say the whole part that supports welfare for example) to the space program. At least then I would get some good for my money.
Note how precise the proposed milestones are. They've given up on a jack-of-all-trades vehicle like the shuttle and want to develop single-purpose vehicles. Also note how there's no mention of the Earth's surface; we'd need a permanent presence in orbit and, one assumes, a new surface-to-orbit vehicle to get the humans up there. Government support for the development of space-based manufacturing facilities would be very interesting for the far future.
But we STILL don't have flying cars. I was promised flying cars. Where are the flying cars?
but I can read Robert Zubrin's "The Case for Mars", a famous book that tells of the plan he prestend to Congress years ago. In it, he describes how to use Saturn VII rockets to launch a 2 phase, conjunction-class mission to Mars. The first phase carries no humans, instead carrying a machine to create rocket fuel, air and water out of the martian atmosphere. Once the return fuel is ready, you launch the second trip, with scientists. They get there after 9 months of artificial grav (tether-linked comparments set spinning) and set down to a full supply of oxygen and water, maybe even a backup supply.
They then do a many month investigation of the area surrounding the landing site, find life, invent martian versions geology, climatology, etc., and return home.
His estimated cost: somewhere around $10B, $20B and up for variations.
Repeat, repeat, repeat: settlement.
That was 10 years ago, and that's all off the top of my head.
You need the full GDP of the $US ($10T, or 1/5th of the money in the entire world) to do the same? I hope this isn't how the whole of JPL thinks, but if it is, perhaps that's why our space program is stagnant.
Now tell me what's wrong and ludicrous with his ideas (if you care to investigate them) and I'll find someone who can help you understand them.
If it turns out you're right, write a letter to these poor, misguided chumps in Congress.
Otherwise submit a proposal for their funding.
Or, get out of JPL and join me at McDonalds.
CONGRESSMAN: Wait a second, I want to tack on a rider to that bill - $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts. SPEAKER: All in favor of the amended Space Exploration slash-pervert bill? FLOOR: Boo! SPEAKER: Bill defeated!
"These include development of reusable spacecraft for carrying people around in the Earth-Moon vicinity, including to the nearby Lagrange points; sending people to an Earth-crossing asteroid; establishing a lunar base, and sending people to Mars with a base on a Martian moon by 2024."
... small moves.
Unrealistic goals, if you ask me. There's no freaking way we'll have a base on Mars' moon by 2024. By 2100 maybe, but not that soon. Keep with what was taught to Jodie Foster in "Contact,"
Even though I wince occasionally at government spending in the midst of a deficit, I think that a revitalized space program will help stimulate the economy, with NASA subcontracting out a lot of the work for space programs, I hope this will be a step in the right direction for our economy.
Use economics to the max. Any income in Outer Space is non-taxable.....I'd go then.
It is because of morons like you that we cannot advance. You do realize that having an ambitious program like this will develop a lot of new technologies. Not only that, but it will help to revitalize the interest in science and engineering in the US. The achievement itself would be shared by all humanity not only those who go. You probably prefer to sit in your desk and play a game, but most people (I hope) prefer to have a dream and make it true. Or perhaps you are Chinese...
This quote better sums up Kennedy's vision for space and technology:
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
I'm all for space exploration AFTER I can travel cross-country without seeing homeless kids, dying kids, kids with no health-care, kids with no parents because of some frikkin illness...
Hey, cheer up little Johnny! I know you're hungry, but why don't you watch the Needle launch on tv...
Instead of WAR, lets put some money toward projects that will show the best of the human spirit.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
follows the directions of the Republican President. The President's budget sent to Congress underfunds things like Homeland Security and Americorps. Also, Bush expended political energy to make sure he got the tax cuts he wanted. For things like No Child Left Behind and AIDS help for Africa, he gives a "What can I do?" shrug and nothing else.
Don't sweat the deficit too much. The absolute numbers mean nothing. If I told you that ten years ago, I held debt of $10,000, and now I hold a debt of $30,000, am I better off? Well, ten years ago, I made a fifth of what I make now, so I'm actually better off in terms of debt. Here are the actual numbers.
This is not to say that there's nothing to worry about; for all the conservative fulmination of President Bush, domestically he's turned out to be as free-spending as Clinton or any other Democrat. Apparently, "the era of Big Government is over" is over.
Having said that, if NASA's budget cut it would have to be politics over science (super-collider, anyone?). It constitutes such a small percentage of the federal budget that cutting it would achieve nothing. I'm a libertarian, but when it comes to the space program, I've always said that if my tax dollars are going to be forcibly extracted from me, at least a few of them are going towards advancing man into space.
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
A base on the Martian Moon phoboes and demos? Eh.... I thought I learned in astronomy that they are in a decaying orbit? Are we going to stabalize it?
Victory is gained, not in knowing your opponents next move, but in preempting them.
Yippee for Friday night bonus Treks on SpikeTV!!!
Looks like Romero made a moon-landing!
Mod parent up!
The thing with humans, is that we social animals and usually need goals to get everybody moving to get things done, to really achieve these goals, we need a lot of basic research into nanotechnology to be able to "grow" the required space hardware, both ships here to establish orbiting space ship manufacturing and also ship manufacturing on the moon and moonbases, plus all the nanotech, so that we can live on the moon and mars without any health problems, plus, the fact that any sufficiently advanced memdical nano could also be used for stopping and reversing the aging process in cells here on earth, not to mention, increasing brain power, good looks etc..it's important for the US to start on this, or be left behind as there are a lot of other countries out there who also want to get established in space, of course, if you diidn't want to compete and waste $ duclipcating space research/manuf resources, you could work with other countries that want to get to the moon and mars by combining all these seperate space efforts..also, with a big project like this, it will send a message to young people around the world that the west is not really that bad and goals for humanity are really productive and it's better than blowing each other up over stupid issues..
I work at a company that produces products for NASA and it's prime contractors. We have had equipment on every launch. That being said here is the normal progression of a current space project (I propose the normal progression for any technilogical company). 1) Come up with really big/difficult idea. 2) Present to some form of management. 3) Management trims back budget/scope/difficulty. 4) Present to customer (NASA / Boeing / Lockheed/ etc). 5) Customer trims budget/scope/difficulty. 6) Produce useless piece of equipment that is no where close to the orginal idea. 7) Program canceled and billions are spent to figure what went wrong. 8) Budget trimmed for next year's space program. 9) Repeat. WTF... Why do we even try. I live in a Dilbert world. After management and the customer are finished with a project we have a lack of vision and creativity. We're lucky if it doesn't blow up!
While I do agree it's a reasonable worry that they'll begin this plan and then not commit the money later on... other than forcing congress into commitment (and they've committed $250million over two years for this plan, if it passes), all your concerns are actually addressed *in the bill*. We need an infrastructure in orbit around Earth before we can start sending things to the moon. ... the bill seems to actually *provide milestones specifically to set that infrastructure up*.
Larger space stations,
From the bill: "(20) Completion of the International Space Station with a full crew complement of 7 astronauts and robust research capabilities is essential if the United States is to carry out successfully a comprehensive initiative of scientific exploration of the solar system that involves human space flight.". No milestones are mandated in the bill for space stations, but this and other language in the bill would seem to imply that building additional space station facilities as needed are by the bill deemed necessary to fill out the bill's milestones.
orbital manufacturing,
From the bill: "(1) Within 8 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the development and flight demonstration of a reusable space vehicle capable of carrying humans from low Earth orbit to the L 1 and L 2 Earth-Sun libration points and back for the purposes of assembling large-scale space structures such as would be required for scientific observatories, to the Earth-Moon libration points and back, and to lunar orbit and back."
and perhaps craft designed solely for use in space, to ship people and material to the moon.
Between 10 and 20 years from now, the bill would require: "the development and flight demonstration" of "a reusable space vehicle capable of carrying humans from low Earth orbit to and from an Earth-orbit crossing asteroid and rendezvousing with it."; "a reusable space vehicle capable of carrying humans from lunar orbit to the surface of the Moon and back"; and "a reusable space vehicle capable of carrying humans from low Earth orbit to and from Martian orbit".
What, exactly, is it about this bill that you find unrealistic, then? Do you believe there are steps missing that would have to happen, but would not happen unless specifically mandated in the bill? Do you believe that $250 million over the first two years is not enough? Fears that in 5 years the budget for this timeline will be lost is a very bad reason *never* to *try* the timeline.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
You know what happens when one country conquers space? and I mean, truly conquer?
Well, deterrance is over.
Let me illustrate: What happens if the crazy (bold? daring?) chinese start creating space colonies? What happens when they get, say, 500 million people in space and move their center of power there?
In that scenario, what's it to them if they nuke Taiwan? or the US for that matter?
What would have happend if Stalin, Franco, Hitler, Castro, Napoleon or even Mr. Churchill had gotten the bomb first?
It will probably take another Einstein signed letter to FDR to get the US to "do what it takes" again. And a completely different political reality.
Economics have nothing to do with it.
There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
Optimistic cynicism is perhaps a good way to categorize this legislation. Likely, some type of "grand government spending" is going to happen over the next couple decades. The alternative is a spiral of deflation (which we once referred to as depression). Not to dwell on doom & gloom; I do not think a depression is coming for the very reason that the US has a large willingness to fund expansion at the cost of deficit.
Given that, we are going to spend an astronomical (pun intended) amount of money on something(s). I would far rather see it spent in an area that will produce scientific discovery and technological progress. I, for one, do not think that overspending on the military or dysfunctional infrastructure and institutions produces anything more than political results.
We will need, of course, to make many of these goals "manned missions". All the arguments that robotic exploration is superior are correct except for one all-important factor: politics. In order to motivate the public at large, and inspire a new generation of scientists, engineers, pilots and explorers, manned-missions are paramount.
Finally, someone has awakened to the fact that we dont have ANY kind of national purpose. It took the USSR launching a basketball-sized transmitter that did nothing but beeped on HF frequencies to rattle our cages enough to get off our duff and DO SOMETHING. It was only the fear that they could replace that little toy with a nuclear warhead aimed for anywhere in the US that got us off our fat arses. On the upside, the 60's space race enriched science, engineering, mathematics, and provided the United States with a common goal. Education suddenly came to the forefront instead of the sad, dismal shape it is in now. (Anyone remember the "new math"). If you dont think that space technology doesnt give enormous paybacks then please throw your cell phone away, sell your computer, unhook your satellite TV, get rid of your landline phone, find a tube-type TV and hook it up to an outside aerial. Find an automobile with breaker-point ignition and a carburetor and throw it away at 60,000 miles. Forget about virtually every technological toy that makes your life easier. They all ultimately owe their exhistence to the space race. What is it going to take? Another rude awakening similar to Sputnik to rattle our cage? The Chinese are committing themselves to manned flight. Other countries are wanting in too. Why are we so busy sitting doing nothing examining our navels? All we have right now is a broken, aging, shuttle with no immediate replacement. The ISS is incomplete. No one even gave a crap about manned flight until the Columbia burned up. Then suddenly, it's a national tragedy. NASA is running on a shoestring budget and it keeps getting chopped. Most commercial satellites are launched by SeaLaunch (a US/Russian consortium), ArianeSpace (French), and even a few by the Chinese (notably EchoStar I). We are even using RD80 Russian engines on our launch vehicles. We are falling behind, folks. I find it refreshing that FINALLY someone is talking about getting us back into space. It is man's destiny to explore. We have pretty much exhausted the earth's surface, we are beginning to explore the deep ocean, but manned space exploration is forgotten. We stagnate without a challenge. What happens if someone amateur astronomer with an 8" telescope discovers the "great impactor", an earth shattering asteroid that will wipe out all life on earth? Will we then decide to advance space flight to the front burner? Do we have to wait until disaster looms to do something? Look up, people! The future is out there.
I am a senior exec in the space program. China definitely has enormous attention, as does India. The betting is not whether China will go to the Moon, but whether it will be three years or five years. When they go, they also plan to stay. When they begin this year to seriously launch their own manned orbital missions it will be interesting to see the US response.
I wish this had happened 20 years or so ago. When I was a kid, it was pretty much a given that by now we'd be on the Moon, and probably Mars by now, and that normal folks like us would at least be able to get into space.
/.ers has an inertialess drive ready for NASA?
Between the lack of real goals after the lunar landings, and the disasters NASA has had to deal with (at least some of which were self-inflicted), we are way behind schedule. Being now in my mid-40s, I doubt I will get into space, much less get to set foot on another planet- although I'm not giving up hope. I don't suppose any of you
Hopefully we'll begin to see insane amounts of innovation again from NASA. Other than dropping a shuttle on your head, what have they done for you since velcro[tm]?
(21) Formation of a new private branch of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, called the Union Aerospace Corporation, by 2030
(22) Propose a Bill for Inter-dimensional Travel
I understand your point, now.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Some of the things that spun off were part of the medical field and some were part of "life support" equipment. While unmanned will spin off some technology, manned will spin off much much more.
The amount of money they allocate for this is quite ludicrously small. 250 million dollar would just about cover the cost of one or two instruments on an Earth-Observation satellite. They are talking about multiple missions here, including interplanetary, and manned.
For this kind of money you could probably fund a few feasibiltiy studies, perhaps build & launch one piece of (unmanned!) space hardware as a prototype. I would assume that they want to follow this up with more funding, but I don't see any mention of that in the bill. To achieve the goals they lay out, you would probably need somewhere between 1,000--10,000 times this amount of money.
They aren't legislating the advance of technology, they're setting goals for a government agency which currently has no set goals other than "explore space". It's not unlike an executive setting a goal to have 2 Billion dollars revenue by 2010, they can't force that. Its simply a goal. a goal for NASA to strive for. Its not a demand that they get there by that time, but it gives them something definitive to work towards.
Establishing a base on our moon is on the list.
philcrissman.com.
If you actually worked at JPL, you would have known about Zubrin's idea. It's relatively common knowledge. If you hadn't heard about Zubrin but really do work at JPL then it's clear why you don't belong at JPL.
There just needs to be a grand extension of the X-prize:
The government says, "Here is X billion dollars. You get it all as soon as you deliver a [new orbiter|Earth/moon vehicle|Mar's exploration craft|*]. Until it a working vehicle is delivered, you get nothing."
There will exist a suffiently large 'X' for each project so that some company would consider it a worthwhile investment to go for it.
Otherwise, government spending fluctuations and cost plus accounting (see Zubrin's book for this, also) will kill it.
Reluctantly, if they aren't going to do this, I'd rather see the government budget going to pure science and robotic exploration as it is the most "bang for the buck".
-- stream of did I lock the front door consciousness
We're not going. Extraterrestrials have basically quarantined us on this planet. Why do you think the last few Apollo missions were scrapped, even though they were already paid for? Why do you think we limited ourselved to low Earth orbit after that and have dragged feet on Mars? The secret part of our government is aware of this, even if Congress is not.
The establishment of a Refuel/Construction station at L1 or (and knowing the government) L2, seems to be a major goal. It is not however mentioned wiether this station would be best as an automated station or a manned station. With good communication and a manned space station being maintained in LEO (Which should be pushed into higher orbit when we abandon the Space shuttle if you ask me) does this new station need to be manned? Is thier any scientific advantage to manning the station or can we operate it from earth just as well?
I must say it almost seems like a feasible plan if well funded and supported. But the proccess is going to be slowed down if this first station must be inhabited.
--"Sorry for the inconvience." Gods Last Words to his Creation
DNA, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish
Not necessarily. Science projects are often an investment in the future, with great payoffs.
If we were to develop a good replacement for the shuttle that did wonders for launch costs ($100/lb or so), even if the craft is owned by Boeing or LockMart, you can bet that people are going to be lined up to use that instead of Ariane, Soyuz, or Proton rockets. This would result in a lot of folks employed in America in support of this, because you know that they'll find reasons to turn down any other suggestions for launching elsewhere.
Plus, the companies are probaly going to be traditional American aerospace contractors. Which then means that the employees of said contractors will end up with money that will go back into circulation when they buy stuff, invest, etc.
Wellfare... Now that's throwing money down the drain.
Gentoo Sucks
I like the bit about "nearby Lagrange points." Wouldn't L1 and L5 be about 90 million miles away?
(Too lazy to look it up, I *assume* that the Lagrange points are the vertices of a hexagon inscribed in the planet's orbit, which is treated as circular for simplicity's sake. Since the circumference of a circle is 2*pi*R, and our R is 93mmi, and pi is a bit more than 3, that makes the circumferential distance a bit more than (2*3*93,000,000)/6 or R+epsilon. The straight-line distance (which wouldn't matter since spacecraft don't go in straight lines within a gravity well) is a chord which makes it a bit less, so I moosh all the estimates together and make it 90mmi. Simple!)
You're confusing the debt with the deficit. The deficit is the difference between what the country earns in tax revenues and what it spends. It doesn't necessarily grow each year. It depends on how much the country spends versus how much it collects.
The best way, incidentally, to run up a budget deficit is to spend on bullshit space exploration programs during an economic downturn and a war.
Every penny proposed in this bill for space exploration needs to be spent defending the country and educating our children.
and sending people to Mars with a base on a Martian moon by 2024.
:)
Yep, and then try to create dimensional gates to earth, which result in a small side effect of leading to the wrong place
You should take a few minutes to read the Constitution between now and 2008. Of course it's not essential. It's not like W ever did (too many words and all).
Where are my mod points when I need 'em?
Seems almost too good to be true; renewed governmental interest in space development seemed to me a little like the Cubs in the playoffs...quite improbable, and not leading to much in the long run.
Apparently both are possible now, and it's about time. If I got a wish for one of the two to come true, it would be for this bill to do everything it proposes to do, with punctuality as a bonus.
But I doubt that any governmental initiative in space will ever contribute to anything done by the commercial sector. Hopefully the government won't come in and screw everything up once businesses have blazed a trail for them. It would be too typical.
~Demosthenes
Why care about energy, mass and all this physics bullshit when you have bills to make it happen? That is why most legislators are lawyers, not engineers. Lawyers have the guts to make it happen while engineers keep forever complaining about risks, budgets and other useless crap...
Senator Billy Tauzin, for the lousy OPT-OUT spam bill he's parading around.
Who's in his back pocket? Big spam? I doubt he's that smart, he's just a moron. It's really too bad he chairs the committee that hears all of the anti-spam bills.
I wonder if the Democrats will flee to New Mexico if it doesn't pass?
Back to Billy Tauzin... I don't have any confidence that the gov't can legislate any effective measures to reduce spam, however, I DEFINITELY don't want stupid legislation that gives every moron the right to send me (legally) junk email for any reason.
Someone should have been smart, whipped up an Opt-In provision, and smuggled it into last weeks' transportation bill that also contained a 4% payraise for legislators. It would've been passed without Billy Tauzin ever having the chance to shoot it down.
-- No sig for you!
domestically he's turned out to be as free-spending as Clinton or any other Democrat
I would argue far more so. I think the Clinton administration busted the myth of the 'tax and spend liberal Democrat' pretty well, what with the restraint shown in the growth of government spending, and the ultimate surplus that was used to start paying down the debt.
And I think Bush is busting the myth of the 'fiscally responsible Republican' pretty well. He has squandered the surplus and driven us to the largest deficits in history in just two years, and the government -- in size and power -- has grown enormously in that time. It's all borrow and spend, borrow and spend, while his corporate buddies are stuffing fistfuls of money into their pockets, while the average American gets laid off, has their property taxes jacked up to cover local and state short-falls, and is basically getting bupkiss back from the cuts.
Over the next ten years, the deficits the Bush Administration are racking up will come to over $33,000 for each and every tax-payer. That's scary.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
I heard that 75% of our space budget was going to Uranus!
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Actually, the best way to run up a deficit is to give a huge tax-cut to the uber-rich who don't need it and won't do much of anything with it other than sock it away, while manufacturing false justifications to go to war, do so unilaterially shouldering all the expense, and then getting involved in a quagmire that results from unilateral invasion on false pretenses. That'll bleed any budget dry pretty damn quick.
While I'm not going to comment on the specifics of this bill, one thing jumps out at me:
The 60's space program did wonders for the private sector. The lofty goals of sending people to the moon made computers smaller and more powerful (ushering in the PC revolution of the late 70s and early 80s), did wonders for materials science, and introduced a myriad of other technologies we take for granted today. (To be more specific, it made these technologies affordable to the masses.)
To be blunt, the U.S. is slipping technologically in the world. While we probably won't be overtaken by China or India in the next decade, it could happen in 20 or more years. Planting these seeds now could spawn another technological revolution 10-20 years from now. While a program like this probably won't accomplish a lot of "pure science", the economic impact could do wonderful things for industry, the economy, and our standard of living (they're all intertwined) down the road.
Consider the X33 program. MacDonnel Douglas built their Delta Clipper prototype (scaled down), and Lockeed Martin the aerospike engine and some smaller-scale mockups. Lockheed won the contract, and then the entire project was scrapped by NASA.
It's financially impractical to build a full-scale man-rated spacecraft as a prototype in a competitive bid system. No company has an amount of capital sufficient for this that they can afford to lose if they don't win the bid.
IMO the general approach used with X33 was a correct one: publish a Request For Proposal and see which aerospace companies come up with something that meets the requirements.
The requirements on X33 were far too loose. Tighten them up, focus the general configuration of the vehicle (capsule, lifting body, winged) and get some prototypes built at the expense of the bidding companies. Then award a contract and penalize the company for these massive cost overruns. Some decent project management skills would go a long way here!
Yes, I agree if we're going to have a manned space program, it's good to have a long-term vision of what we want to do with it. On the other hand, I don't believe it's been addressed why we need a manned space program, or why we need a manned program.
Sure, long-term survivability of the species is a concern. Eventually, the Earth will experience a major impact event. It's inevitable. But also unlikely in the "near" future. Frankly, I suspect this money could be better spent researching more efficient power generation systems, hybrid cars, etc, that would have a greater impact on human society than visiting an asteroid.
Manned spaceflight is great, sure. It inspires people like little else. But space exploration has pretty much always been science-driven. [1] We go to space to learn new things, see new things, etc. And, quite frankly, many of these things can be done better, faster, with less risk, and orders of magnitude cheaper in an unmanned capacity. Manned spaceflight is quite inefficient. People are fragile, and require great amounts of protection, food, oxygen, etc. that unmanned spacecraft don't.
The International Space Station is the perfect example of this. Many of the scientific reasons for its existance no longer hold, so we're just throwing good money after bad at this point.
[1] Although there was a serious beat-the-Russkies-to-the-moon, military aspect to Apollo, as I understand it.
By the way, Dennis Kucinich, one of the Democratic presidential contenders this year, is one of the bills co-sponsors. Think maybe this will come up in the debates?
Energy: time to change the picture.
Keep in mind that NASA was not putting men in space as they developed the shuttle. The last Apollo astronaut launched in 1972 and the first shuttle launch occured in 1981. Are we willing to put another hold on human space flight for 9 years to develop new vehicles and technologies? What about the ISS?
Currently it takes most of NASA's budget to operate the shuttle. Ending the shuttle program would free lots of engineers, scientist, and dollars to develop the next generation of vehicles.
Simple people talk of people, better people talk of events, great people talk of ideas.
Priorities priorities priorities... we have a situation on our hands that, in my opinion, can be solved by the following methods: A. Government puts a full interest into space/sea/land/gummi-bear exploration and gives the appropriate agencies the ability to do it. B. Privatization of space exploration. I for one, would love a trip to an orbiting resort. Send a rocket up, charge the government, make a profit? You can't tell me no one is interested enough to really get this in motion? C. Wrold-wide space agency. Hey, I agree, there's nothing better than redundancy and replication. But do we really care whether or not a Brazilian ever lands on the moon, as oppossed to any human landing on Mars? Oh... and while we're at it, send the entire Utah population into orbit. That's the only way to be sure...
We have already spent 80 Billion, the 87 Billion brings the total thus far to 167 Billion.
Ehem. Clinton was BY NO MEANS a "liberal Democrat." He was a centrist... I would go so far as to call him a center-right Democrat. Cases in point:
-NAFTA
-"Most Favored" trade status for China
-Military action in Bosnia, Somalia
-Keeping the openly gay out of the military (don't ask, don't tell)
(I could think of many, many more if I had the time)
dinner: it's what's for beer
Which country gets to control and legislate the moon or Mars? Are we talking about colonies like the Brits had in America hundreds of years ago or are we going to set up another country?
Think of all the law makers that will want to create all sorts of new laws regulating travel to and from the Moon, Mars and Earth.
If you think airport screening is tough wait until you see spaceport screening.
I see bad actors declaring they will leave Earth and not come back if we don't do what they want.
Since creating an atmosphere on the moon is out of the question we will need to build Moon habitats (for humanity).
Will there be private pr0perty rights on the Moon? or Mars?
I want my own moon rover!! SUV's on the Moon!!
Will there be rations on the amount of oxygen you can use?
People from Earth are called Earthlings, people born on Mars will be called Martians. What will people born on the Moon be called? Moonies?
To the moon Alice !!
Too bad that surplus was from capital gains and inflated wages caused by the smoke-and-mirrors tech bubble, and it's a miracle it lasted as long as it did (odd, isn't it, how the good times just managed to last to the election?) Or did you think is was because the federal govt was showing fiscal responsibility?
To extrapolate govt spending over the next ten years based on this year's budget is just as stupid as doing the same thing with the 1999 budget and forecasting paying off the national debt by 2012.
The main thing that will affect the federal budget over the next few decades is how long it will take the morons running this country to raise the retirement age to 72 or so, because if they don't, things will get very sucky very fast.
Then how did Sen. Al Gore invent the internet?
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
Id software already has seen the future, manned mars bases are NOT the way to go. Darn Imps.
As long as it is not endorsed, required, lead by or authorized by the school. As long as the government stays out of it, it's ok.
Why democrats are wasting time with this type of legislation is beyond me. We have far more serious concerns right here in the USA. Stop worrying about Mars. START worrying about your constituents right.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
The bill in question is EXCELLENT and the JPL "employee" made me laugh. Here's why this bill should be encouraging to everyone interested in space exploration.
e velop.pdf
1. It gives NASA specific goals that the general public (and politicians) can relate to. More importantly, it lifts expectations higher than low earth orbit.
2. It fosters public debate on space exploration. Whether it passes or not, such debate is needed.
2. It will provide more than the current shoe-string budget to advancing NASA technologies needed for space travel. Take for example the Johnson Space Center's Advanced Space Propulsion Laboratory and the Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VSIMR).
The plasma rocket drive is not powered by conventional chemical reactions as today's rockets are, but by electrical energy that heats the propellant. The propellant is a plasma that reaches extreme temperatures -- 50,000 and above. Some scientists call this the fourth state of matter.
This new type of technology would dramatically shorten human transit times between planets (about 3 months to Mars). Not only will planetary missions be fast, but the plasma drive will propel robotic cargo missions with very large payloads (more than 100 tons to Mars). Obviously, trip times and payloads are major concerns when using conventional rockets.
The laboratory was founded at NASA Johnson Space Center in December 1993. The lab director is NASA astronaut Dr. Franklin Chang-Diaz. He has been working on the development of a plasma rocket since 1979. Work began at Charles Stark Draper Laboratory then continued at the Massuchusetts Institute of Technology Plasma Fusion Center before moving to JSC.
For more information about the rocket: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/mars/reference/aspl/d
87 Billion / 200 million is:
435 dollars
So try to remember while your laughing at me, to laugh at yourself too!
Anyway, I always ask people HOW the gov is supposed to fix the economy. Should they take that 87 billion and just pass it around to everyone so they can spend it?
435 dollars? Less if you include the other 90 million Americans.
As it is that 87 billion will go into the pockets of all the companies that provide the stuff that makes the military go.
It takes a lot of companies to make the green machine (gray/blue machines too) go. Because of the nature of what they are providing, they are almost without exception, American companies. Producing rockets, bombs, bullets, uniforms, canteens, and the hundreds of thousands of other things needed to support those forces.
Last time I checked, we don't buy tanks from Russia, or any other country. Nor bullets, or almost anything else. We pay American companies. Companies like Ford aerospace for missiles.
Companies like Harley Davidson for 2000lb iron bombs. These are the kinds of bombs, once you strap a laser guidence kit, probably produced by Lockheed Martin, become a smart bomb.
So, that 87 billion get's spent in America, to help PAY Americans.
And because so much of it is classified, the money is not going to guys from India in the USA on work visas. It's going to guys like YOU who probably make less than half of what you make in that cushy civilian job you are probably very lucky to have.
So I ask, WHY is spending that 87 billion bad? How, exactly, would it be spent to "rebuild" our economy?
Venyce
remove all references to 007 to email me
Alice, to the moon!
I, myself, have a hybrid. It's the Honda Civic Hybrid and I love it. It has much better pickup than some gas powered cars do. I have had no problems, besides the fact that the power and engine useage gages are a bit distracting. Oh, this is a small thing, but when you stop the engine cuts turns off completely, therefore it is completely silent and without viboration. Since it has that big electric engine it starts the gas one fast, so that you don't notice any pause.
Actually, the best way to run up a deficit is to give a huge tax-cut to the uber-rich who don't need it and won't do much of anything with it other than sock it away
Never took an economics class, huh? The uber-rich don't just "sock it away." They invest it. Some of them buy stock, which gives companies money to use to build new factories or hire new employees. Some of them just stick it in their checking accounts, but that in turn lets their bank loan money to people like you and me to buy things like cars and homes, which in turn drives the car companies and construction companies to hire employees... and so on.
You think rich people are just sleeping on big piles of money? That's pretty damn naive.
while manufacturing false justifications to go to war
Whatever, dude. This meme died almost six months ago.
do so unilaterially shouldering all the expense
There are 31 countries providing financial support to the war in Iraq, and another HUNDRED supporting the war on terror. Your definition of "unilateral" in new to me.
and then getting involved in a quagmire that results from unilateral invasion on false pretenses
"quagmire... unilateral... false pretenses." You're just hitting all the conspiracy-nut buzzwords, ain'tcha?
That'll bleed any budget dry pretty damn quick.
And so here come the Democrats proposing a quarter of a billion dollars to put monkeys on Mars or some damn thing. Brilliant.
Seriously, wtf is going on these days. People can't be bothered to use capital letters anymore?
Oh. Oh. Oh my god.
I need a new pair of pants.
- http://pakman.sytes.net/
Wow, grub, how does it feel to FAIL IT? Go back to cracking RSA or whatever you do these days.
Unfortunately, they pay socially (and sometimes fiscally) for standing up for the Constitution and what is right.
I've always been amused that the segment of society that most distrusts the governments efforts in everything else wants them to promote religion to their children.
Here's a clue to them: If you haven't convinced your kid to want to pray on their own initiative, then all the school-forced prayer in the world isn't going to help.
They shut it down sometime last year. I believe also other activities are being relocated to Florida so any new activity would be located in that area.
:)
What would be interesting if the senator didnt know this
Subject says it all...
-- AC
Even if the moon really was made of blue cheese, going there ain't worth it either.
Save the earth, it is the only planet with chocolate...
Very well said, he(JOhn Ashcroft is one of the aces in our own deck of "52"
I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
"The main reason why Apollo ended as quickly as it did was simply that it was very expensive. The Space Age began during a period of intense rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union and, during the four years that led up to the Apollo decision, America was subject to one humiliation after the another. Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev had bid the political value of dramatic space "firsts" so high that, in response to the Gagarin flight, President Kennedy had to find a way of achieving a clear, unambiguous, final victory in what had become the "Space Race". What was required was an undertaking "so expensive and so difficult to accomplish" that the Russians would have little chance of keeping pace. So Kennedy committed the United States to a giant step forward. However, Apollo was so expensive and so difficult that it could not continue for very long. America's political will to win the Space Race could not be translated into political and financial support for sustained lunar operations, not to mention voyages to Mars. At its peak in 1965, the annual cost of Apollo was about 0.8 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product and, as more recent history suggests, there is political support for a program only a quarter that size."
o llo.epilog.html
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/ap
The current GDP is 11 Trillion?
Current political support (.0025) would be $27 Billion.
The rate JFK set for the moon missions (.008) would be about $87 Billion
Which sales pitch sounds better?
- "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
- "Our strategy in Iraq will require new resources. We have conducted a thorough assessment of our military and reconstruction needs in Iraq, and also in Afghanistan. I will soon submit to Congress a request for 87 billion dollars. "
Here is what i would do: 1. Cut all Social Programs down to zero! (Sure this may seems mean and mean spirited but there is too much port and fat being spent.) 2. Take half the money saved and throw it at NASA. Of course i would fire a whole bunch of people and personally oversee the re-construction of NASA) 3. Take about 15 billion dollors and use it get some good engineers working for both NASA and for JPL and all the other placed like Lockhead Martin. 4. Then I would institute a crash program to establish a moon base in 6 years. I would even revive the Saturn V or use Russian Heavy lifters if I had to. I would also teach those dimwits at Lockhead about a nice invention Mr. Ford Pioneered called "The Assembly Line". I would also have a competition to create a "Model T" of outer space for a space tug. 5. Set up big Tax incentives that would only be met for companies as long as the program goal was met. Example. Tax Cut for landing on the moon 100% if land 5 people on moon by 2006 50% if land people on moon by 2007 25% if land people on moon by 2008 0% if no landie 6. Transition the entire ball of wax to private industry by 2010 and fund the entire ball of wax through tax inccentives that are almost permanent. 7. profit
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
I'm sorry, but how did Clinton lead to 9/11 more than any other president?
By buckling under like a coward and not taking the fight to our enemies. He viewed the military with disdain, and treated the first world trade center bombing and the cole bombing as law enforcement issues, not acts of war that need to be dealt with firmly and decisively. He had the chance to order a strike on Osama bin laden and refused to interupt a golf game to kill the man behind the first world trade center. Osama has been quoted as saying that our responses to the Cole and the WTC bomb told him that America could be defeated.
They terrorists we fight respect one thing only: power. You may be the more peaceful type, but attributing that to folks still stuck in medieval times is an error that left us vulnerable, and embolded Al Qaida to perform 9/11.
I care not wether we piss off as many people as possible, so long as they fear our might. This is the machivellian/hobbsian world we live in buddy. Power matters.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Yeah, right. As if a private corporation (or a set thereof), that most likely has a "will generate Value for the Shareholders, no matter What" clause in its charter no less, will be any more honest and/or efficient about this stuff. This isn't to say that humanity as a species shouldn't reach for the stars with all its might -- hey, competing over "who gets a manned base on the moon first" is better than "who develops the nastiest three-phase nuclear warhead" any day of the fucking century.
Anyway... as I was saying, I don't think it'll make any difference if your government tosses money at private corporations (who're still out for Profit, remember? how many corners can you cut in space?) or governmentally operated subsections of itself -- if the thing is run by greedy assholes (which is what your country seems to produce lots and lots of these days), you'll see the same sort of lie-telling, back-stabbing crook'ry no matter who catches the fat government contracts. Which can the US congress (etc.) assert better supervision over, a private corporation or a sub-unit of the government? And don't tell me that private corporations aren't susceptible to what is essentially the same sort of political mud-wrestling familiar from every government function that occupies more than two people.
Personally, I think that the best way to get to, well, wherever we're going once we've cleared the stratosphere, is to just simply forget about all the nationalistic goal type shit and concentrate on getting some sort of feasible solutions to many of the Hard problems posed by the unbelievably hairy business of space exploration. I mean, it's not like the US is going to get there alone all by itself with all the political, economical and ecological problems you seem to have right here on earth.
France's activities are not the point, agreed. France was never more than an annoyance.
Maybe you missed the news coverage, but the war was quick and decisive. Perhaps you missed out on history, but 300 dead soldiers isn't alot, even for an occupation. Perhaps you never heard of the Nazis who continued to perform guerilla strikes well after Germany had surrendered? The experience in Iraq is not new, nor unexpected.
I personally never expected a quick occupation, seeing as how Japan and Germany took nearly a decade each, and they had a little more going for them. In addition, we're still in both countries 60 years later.
I did expect the United States military to execute a thorough, decisive victory, and they did exactly that. Around 300 soldiers dead? In terms of War, that's an unprecidented effeciency in human life. That may sound cold to the families of those 300 dead soldiers, but it doesn't sound like a lot to anyone except irrational Bush-haters.
As for a revenge tragedy, I would call it defense. In the two years since we lost 2 buildings to Islamic Terrorists, we took two of their countries. The afghanistan economy grew by 28% last year, showing the phenominal capacity of a society freed from medieval Islamic rule. Things are going well in Iraq, too, and the recent bombings in Iraq against a Mosque and the UN (the islamic terrorists only friends until then) show how desperate they are to stir chaos. The more desperate they are, the better it shows things are for us.
Basically, there's no shortage of delusion around here buddy. The Bush hating left has it in spades.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
No one has mentioned anything about a potential space elevator. Is it still so unlikely that it couldn't figure in the planning for the next few decades? The widespread distress caused by the inevitable setbacks that occur from putting people on top of massive bombs used for propulsion are debilitating. At least if we were working toward a less explosive means of reaching space we might hope to emerge from this heroic initial phase.
Notice the bill only budgets 50 million dollars in 2004 and a few hundred more in 2005 to establish an "office of exploration." No firm commitment is made to exploration that could possibly warrant this article! The additional layer of bureaucratic oversight may just adversely effect the space program...
For things like No Child Left Behind and AIDS help for Africa, he gives a "What can I do?" shrug and nothing else.
Yeah, cause Helping Africa is never a waste of money.
And the power given to the federal government to stick their noses in elementary education is listed in the United States Constitution.
(For those who can't catch my sarcasm, the power to have a hand in education, at any level, is nowhere to be found in the constitution. Yeah, yeah, the constitution poses no threat to our current form of government, but I can hope, can't I?)
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
This can only be a good thing, I mean a goverment possition that does not state what a drain space exploration is and does not take only a negative view of it must be a good thing.
Space exploration has stagnated, the reasons are varied and no one particular entity is to blame, but anything that envigorates space exploration and the riches is brings must be a good thing!
GPLv2: I want my rights, I want my phone call! DRM: What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
I fully agree with this statment, that god someone pointed out the blindingly obvius to all the emues, you can't hide your head in the sand forever.
GPLv2: I want my rights, I want my phone call! DRM: What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
This is just another gold rush for the military / space industrial complex. The money should be spent on social institutions and perhaps even raising the peoples' standard of living. When the quality of life is a bit more equalized then going to Mars and all would be excellent.
I see this in parallel to Bush and his $87 billion for Iraq - what would be the results of that much cash being spent on the people?
Well done, well done. [nt]
I think the surplus came from the tech bubble too, but what I can't understand is why we are trying to get the economy back to bubble numbers?
I have an Idea....Instead of throwing money at NASA lets feed and house our people, ensure seniors have the drugs they need and educate our children.I love the space program but this sounds like pork at its worst! a better use of space money would be funding the near earth object program.
"A towel is the most astounding Mind-boggleing useful thing in the universe, allways know where your towel is"
Setting up base on a martian moon sounds like some pre-release Doom3 publicity stunt. Maybe John Carmac has started to make campaign contributions :) I bet he's firing rockets so he can install a dimensional gateway on Deimos!
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
yeah, we should be putting funding elsewhere, but, this is a good idea, we need to work on the space program more, I bet this motivated for the same reasons back in the 60's... another country is about to show it has the bigger penis, so we have to enlarge ours. China, India, Brazil (I think) are getting into the space program, so the US has to ensure its space authority remains intact. sad, yet true, at least they're not passing another dmca-like act, or something to further put power in the hands of people like those who power the RIAA, etc, and putting money into anymore wars. this can be a good thing. Maybe we'll see a push for innovative technology again :P it was the last space race that gave way for the internet.
In the end, like george carlin has pointed out about war(except in this case, I'm gonna refer to space), it's a giant war of dicks, rockets are shaped like dicks, so someone has to push their dick into space and release their payload before the other guy ;)
How many people are you counting for the $100 Million?
The shuttle can haul a shitload of people,(30,000lbs?) if you dont carry cargo, and refit for passengers.
I saw pictures when I was a kid showing things like that, when they were deciding to put all their funding into the Shuttle. But, hell, development stopped there, as far as the public can see.
Even the concept of a 'space tug' to ferry things between geosysncronous orbit and Low Earth Orbit was discussed, as well as L5 hotels and lunar mining.
This is the shit we should have done instead of ending the Apollo program 30 years ago.
We're spending $87Billion to rebuild a country that we dusted in the first place; what would 10 Billion a year do for the space program?
However, we need to fire all the upper management first; Giving these entrenched assholes more money to piss away on overhead instead of exploration is not going to help our current situation at all.
The managers at NASA murdered the crew of Columbia when the did nothing. And everyone in that decision chain as well.
We, as a country, and a people, need to do this.
It will give us a direction, and lead us onward, instead of stagnation.
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
We get a lot of return on our investment in foreign dictators. They ensure that we get healthy profits from resource extraction and manufacturing (instead of squandering money on social programs).
While I'm a big supporter of the space program, I have to wonder whether this is going to be before or after the U.S. comes out of chapter 11 after its "nation building" experiment in Iraq.
You're forgetting Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
We need a powerful Senator or VP to shepherd a new space program through Congress, like Johnson did for Eisenhower and Kennedy, and who kept it going through his terms. It was pure ego on his part, of course, but whatever works.
Maybe someone should convince Hillary that there are potential Democratic voters on Mars...
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
Firstly, and ironically, the moon is a good place to go to because it's an easy place to get off. It isn't a giant gravity well like a planet is, so it is a great launch pad for further explorations, whether to the planet, back to Earth, or to other locations.
Secondly, as Phobos and Deimos are tiny, construction should be easier in the near zero G environment(once we learn how to do it), though finding the right materials might be more difficult.
Thirdly, it'll give us experience living off of and mining asteroids, which in many ways are preferable to planets, for the reasons above and because we'll be able to fly on them.
Fourthly, no pesky Martians.
If you want the kind of space industrialization that'll generate jobs for ordinary people including IT pros in the rest of the Solar System, manned space vehicles and non-rocket technologies for launching low-cost freight into LEO, advancing manned space flight technology is the way to go.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Railgun? Space elevator? Scramjet?
Tech Public Policy stuff
The other half of the answer is to find something cheaper than rockets to get freight into orbit. My guess is that over 90% of the materials needed to build a space infrastructure can tolerate short exposures to vacuum and if packed properly, can tolerate acceleration from rail guns of reasonable (say, 70 mile) length. Of course, if the space elevator really is practical, neither accelaration nor vacuum is necessarily important, but the nanotube stuff that's in the labs now has to be proven practical for mass production.
Freight is actually more important than manned vehicles, it's the hard part. If we can put stuff into orbit by the gigaton cheaply, somebody will think of a way to get people into LEO to take those payloads and assemble them into industrial parks and housing and research facilities.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Would you want a space station over your head using maneuvering jets controlled by WinCE to keep it in orbit? Would you like to have that OS controlling your life support systems? Or Windows 2003 running space platforms as a whole?
Though this would give a certain meaning to the favorite in-house MS saying about "cutting off their air supply".
Tech Public Policy stuff
Sorry, but I'm not interested in helping pay billions of dollars to give a few researchers something to publish in academic journals.
The kind of technological development needed to make exploiting the Solar System practical isn't going to come from taking a few pictures or getting a few rock samples.
If we get the full orbital infrastructure needed to put industry into orbit, the kind of multibillion dollar research projects the "no manned space projects that compete for OUR funding" can be accomplished with chump change, i.e. ordinary academic research or industrial research grants. It'll be possible to send researchers into orbit for a price comparable to a trip to Antarctica.
Tech Public Policy stuff
The second annual Space Elevator Conference actually happens to be going on right now, in Santa Fe. Expect to hear more on this next week... By the way, this bill doesn't talk about getting from Earth to Orbit - Space Elevator may be the solution that makes all this possible and much less expensive.
Energy: time to change the picture.
We're at war
No, we're not. Congress has not declared war as required by the Constitution with which you wipe your ass. Just because Bush says something doesn't mean it's true.
and our economy is struggling (due in no small part to the Clinton administration's trade policies, by the way).
Can you Far-Right Troglodites please do me a favor? Huh? Please? GET THE FUCK OVER BILL CLINTON. Your pathetic attempt to drive him out of office over a blowjob failed and in any case he's not been President since January 20, 2001. That's more then THREE YEARS AGO. Three years in which pResident Bush has seen our economy bleed out millions of jobs, failed to catch Osama bin Laden, helped Atorney General Ashcroft rape our civil liberties in the name of "security" and gotten us into a totally pointless war in Iraq. But that's all somehow Bill and Hillary's fault, right?? And now Bush is starting up with Iran. Hell's bells!!
The government is spending necessary funds on defense and reconstruction, and investing in capital growth to get us out of this downturn.
"Investing in capital growth?!" Oh you mean like the trillion-dollar federal deficit we're piling up faster than a gambling addict using his credit card?! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!! Pull the other one, it's got bells on it!!
Meanwhile you're suggesting that the Congress put in mandatory appropriations for bullshit man-on-the-moon programs, and Bush is the one who's spending the country into bankruptcy?
Yes. He is. See above, or most any reputible news source aside from the Moonie-run Washington Times or Faux Newz.
And as for going back into space being "bullshit," I really hope that you're young right now. That way you can live a nice long time in a declining superpower as it slowly bleeds itself white fighting meaningless imperial brushfire wars all around the world while the Chinese colonize space and exploit it's resources, leaving us in the dust just as the rising United States left the old British Empire in the dust, so long ago. Didn't the Brits own full 1/2 the planet at one time, back in the 19th Century? Bet they never would have believed that it would end the way it did for them either, back at the dawn of the 20th.
Fuck you, man. Fuck you and all the left-wing nutjobs like you. You wouldn't recognize fiscal responsibility if you tripped over it.
And YOU wouldn't recognize long-term national priorities either, blinded as you are by fear and hatred. Fool.
The world has come to an end! The Demos have accomplished what Al Quieda could never do!
If this goes through, how could someone go about getting involved with the project?
I know its a broad question, but I wouldn't mind having something to do with a 20 year space exploration project... even if its just to mars (for now).
Simple. We've been there how long? And we've found how many?
The way I see it, one of three things is possible. Either the government sincerely believed the weapons were there and was wrong; the government never believed they were there and lied to us; or, and this one's my favorite, Iraq is full of WMDs and our troops are just too damn inept to find them.
No matter which one you choose, it makes our government look bad. Question is, how bad do you want them to look?
The point is, I don't jump to conclusions unless I have empirical evidence to justify that leap. In this case, none has been provided. The fact that Saddam is an evil prick notwithstanding, we had no good reason to attack Iraq. You give me absolute proof that WMDs still exist in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling them up until our goverment invaded his country, and I'll issue a formal apology without malice, and without regret. Until then, shut the hell up.
There they were, sitting in the van with all those dials, and the cat was dead. -V. Marchetti, CIA
I'd spend $1 trillion in Iraq if it meant transforming the Middle East in a way that led in time to the elimination of tyranny there, and the end of state support for Wahabbism. This is the neocon's long term strategy. I just wish he would explain this clearly to the American people. The alternative is to let political opportunists exploit every failure and every loss along the way as pointless, and to characterize the effort in Iraq as "Bush's little war."
We've had a national debt for well over a half century; sure, it's grown considerably during the past twenty years, but it was there when Armstrong was on the moon. National bankruptcy isn't a limiting factor: take a look at the current amount of money the US is in the hole; we're still capable of deficit spending. That doesn't mean we should, mind you; it just means that we can.
Amazing how much Republicans and Democrats sound like console-fanboys. My party wastes less money than your party sounds so much like My console pushes more polys than your system. And really: What did trickle-down economics ever do to our country? From the economics courses I have taken, I don't recall such polices ever stimulating the economy to a large degree.
My party wastes less money than your party sounds so much like My console pushes more polys than your system.
Wow. That is far and away the most ignorant statement I've ever read on Slashdot, ever. And that's saying something.
What did trickle-down economics ever do to our country?
Founded it, for starters. Go study post-Colonial economic policy sometime. It basically drove the Industrial Revolution, too. It led to the rise of Communism, and to Communism's downfall and extinction. It got our country out of the Great Depression, and funded our war effort. And, finally, it fueled the largest peacetime economic expansion in the history of, not the country, but the WORLD.
You know nothing about economics. Don't advertise this fact.
Allright, well, neither of us is making any headway with the other. Just let me point out something about your medivac buddy.
By job definition, all he sees day in and day out is death and misery, and then you, his best friend, fill his mail with shit about how you think the entire operation is pointless? What are you trying to do, improve his morale?
Nice friend. I hope you send something encouraging every once in a while.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Hubba-wha!?!
Funny, I don't recall the Clinton administration outsourcing support for troops to a Halliburton subsidiary with a cost+profit no competion contract (whatever price they submit as their costs, they get that back plus a profit on top. No limits, no checking. And they were the only ones it was offered to).
I also don't recall the Clinton administration giving Halliburton subsidiaries no competion contracts to repair the oil production mechanism in Iraq, and then setting up the administration contract requirements so that ONLY Halliburton would meet it.
TO THE MOON!!
In both presidencies, you will find that the people that actually determine the budget were of opposite party than the president. The House of Republicans during Clinton went Republican, and they refused to pass many spending increases. When Bush was elected, the Democratic Senate is doing everything they can to increase spending (see Edward Kennedy's school bills). In both cases, the presidents needed to compromise in order to obtain their other goals.
Since you seem to enjoy demogoguing Bush, allow me the honor of doing the same to Clinton. Here we have a guy that approved reductions in military and science budgets, his appointees stifled government oversight of the markets (which is what governments are for, keeping things legal) leading to a bust larger than any in recent history (and yeah, the crap hit the fan in 2000, before Bush was in office). And guess what, there never was a surplus, the entire thing was projections based on growth that turned out to be fabrications (as we learned in 2001). That administration's policies drove a thriving economy into the ground, and its embarassing how many people defend it.
While the law may not forbid prayer in schools, many schools take the spirit of the law a little too far. When I was in highschool, some friends and I started setting aside time to pray as a group one morning a week before school. Eventually, it was a large enough group that we had to turn it into a formal school club. This turned out to be a problem. We had to have an advisor so we could keep meeting on school grounds, but the advisor couldn't ever do ANYTHING with the club, because that would mean the school was "endorsing" our prayers. Frustrating, that's for sure. The school also wouldn't let us advertise like other clubs did, since that would also be "endorsing" us.
Basically, we turned into a little clandestine group that barely had permission to meet for prayer one morning and Bible study a different afternoon. Outside of our circle of friends, we didn't know who else might be interested, and we had no way of reaching out to people we didn't know. The club died out when most of us graduated.
Have you read the Moderation Guidelines Addendum?
I shot Tupac!
This post's sole purpose is to change "666 posts" to "667 posts"