Slashdot Mirror
President Bush To Call For Return To Moon?
Brian Stretch writes " According to the National Review: 'When President Bush delivers a speech recognizing the centenary of heavier-than-air-powered flight December 17, it is expected that he will proffer a bold vision of renewed space flight, with at its center a return to the moon, perhaps even establishment of a permanent presence there. If he does, it will mean that he has decided the United States should once again become a space-faring nation.' Here's hoping. The article also includes talk of nuclear engines and using the moon as a testbed for going to Mars."
Oh jesus. And how about some bread and circuses?
The opinions stated herein do not necessarily represent those of anybody at all. Deal with it.
Bush's government doesn't have the money to pay for his military enterprises.
It lacks the money to provide for basic infrastructure.
At a time when commercial space flight is being touted as the most logical course, Bush is now saying that he wants to send people back to the moon?
I'm all for the new frontier. It would be great if people were inspired about space again. But Bush does not deserve to be the one to get us there. He couldn't even manage the Houston Astros.
...is now really the right time to be doing this? There's a lot going on in the US right now (Iraq war, etc.) in the middle of a recession, and going to the moon just doesn't seem like the greatest idea for us right now.
I meta-mod all positive moderation Unfair, because it's abuse of the system.
Do we have the money to fund this?
We need to do it but I don't know if we can afford it.
While I love the idea and think it'd be a great thing to do, I feel that it'd also be pretty much financially impossible to make happen as things stand right now. Going to the moon would cost billions upon billions of dollars when the government's already running a half-trillion dollars a year in the hole. This time, there isn't the pressing urge for dominance and brass-balls bragging rights that there was during the peak of the cold war, and without such a rivalry, I doubt the motivation exists within government to find funding for a project this massive in scope.
Going to Mars seems to be a popular idea. Before we try establishing a permanent base on Mars, even unmanned, I think we need to prove ourselves by going back to the moon AND staying there. I.e., establish a moon base, even a small one.
Obviously the moon is much closer. More importantly, we don't need to worry about the synchronization of our orbits. The moon is always roughly the same distance away from us no matter what day of the year it is. This makes it a much easier target to hit than Mars no matter what time it is.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
IF Bush makes this statement during his speech, I will be completely in shock. As much as I dislike Bush, I think the United States definetely needs to reestablish a space presense, and on the moon, that would be great. The ISS is turning up to be more hype than anything else, anything more established.
By creating a real, strong, presence on the moon, we would research and develop much more technology, at a more distinguishable rate, and the rewards would be plentiful enough based on the technology that develops from increased space expenditure. Even if the moon is completely dead, and there are no resources, and no valuable information for us to gather on it, I think we would still come out ahead in this situation.
YOU'RE WINNER !
Another lame blog
Bush has done everything he can to give the U.S. a massive $6E12 deficit, and now he calls for this?
He knows there is no way the congress can, or would, appropriate the money for this, given the deficit, so he's just blowin' smoke for PR (read: election) purposes.
Sorry, George. Ain't fooled.
"Don't blame the log for the fire." --Andrew Ratshin
I love the idea of expanding space exploration, and it has a good chance of bi-partisan support, but with the already grossly engorged nation budget, how in the hell are we going to fund something like this? Just plunge deeper into debt? Furthermore, I haven't seen much to address the management issues at NASA being done...this could wind up going very, very wrong.
hmm. smells like re-election politics to me. "keep me in office, and I will return us to the moon within my second regime... er, term as your president..."
Kip Hawley is an idiot.
it's the first time national corporate profits have ever hit a combined total of over a trillion dollars for on quarter
Look up "inflation". It's the same trick that allows Hollywood to produce a new super biggest-box-office-of-all-time every couple of years.
we all know it was because of Clinton and his *let's help the poorest people* mentality
We do? Funny, but most people I know believe that it was the inevitable crash after a period of irrational exuberance (a bubble), to quote Greenspan. Couple that with the fact that capitalist economies follow almost regular cyclical swings, and the downturn was absolutely inevitable.
I'm a geek, and I agree with almost everything President Bush has done. So what is so odd, you insensitive clod?
why do we *need* to do it, at least at this point in time? Would we necessarily learn more about the moon , or anything else than we already do?
I understand getting the space shuttle program back on track, because tonnes of experiments carried out in zero (or near zero) gravity has substantial implications for us here on earth. Perhaps the first landing on moon was a test of technology (and the "human spirit" bullshit), but what good is it going to do to go to the moon again? It's not ever going to support life, nor
is there any real chance of "mining" the moon once we've wasted all resources here on earth.
The law of excluded middle : Either I'm foo or I'm foobar
I think our country getting active in space exploration again is a great idea. HOWEVER -- Is it just my paranoia, or does this seem like one of many diversionary tactics of the current administration, designed solely to pull public attention away from the fact(s) that:
(1) bin Laden ('Old Salami BinBox' to me and some of my friends) is still at large.
(2) No matter how much spin has been put on it, the Iraqi war never had any solid justification that I can see. And Hussein ('Saddened HoseHead') is still at large as well.
(3) Our economy is still a shambles.
(4) The 'YOU-CAN-SPAM' bill is all but signed into law, thus (very possibly) bringing about the end of viable E-mail as we know it.
(5) The RIAA and MPAA continue to run roughshod over fair use rights.
I could go on, but I think we all get the idea. This is an election year coming up. The Shrub will pull out anything he or his advisors can think of to try and get himself reelected, and I really think that this is just one example.
Mod this down if you want. Heck, label it "Flamebait" if you want. I don't pretend to have even a hint of one answer, let alone all of them, but it certainly seems to me like there are other more pressing problems that need dealing with than making another trip to one very dead and airless rock.
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
Has this guy got a clue about budgets?
v e.com/4239a600.jpg)
Sorry, I'm sure to get modded as a troll for this, and I'm jazzed about our space programs getting money they need, but I'm also more terrified of the condition this country is going to be in under Dubya's rule.
I mean, if you haven't seen this chart, check out:
Bush's Budget Deficit (Google cache, an original is at http://dean-justinspoliticaljournal.cafeprogressi
$87 billion for Iraq, tax cuts aplenty, and now he wants space ships too? Oy.
In the Portland, Ore area and like card games? Check out: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/portlandgames/
He'll have to do more than say "let's go back" before I call his plan bold. Okay, so he might mention the idea of establishing a permanent Lunar base and of going to Mars. As the article said, his father already did that:
I'd like to see this Lunar base and Martian mission. But I don't have high hopes that it will be any time soon. And I don't believe that Dubya will have anything to do with it.
Right up until the Bush administration, I would have been the biggest cheerleader in the world. But this is coming from the guy who is running a single-year budget deficit of five hundred billion dollars, $500,000,000,000.00
I cringe at the thought of adding another couple of hundred billion to that particular pile.
This is a budget deficit. It matters. It will hurt.
Hopeuflly, Bush will try to unleash and provide a framework for America's creative genius. The big company / NASA / politics aproach is not working. The consolidate aero companies are currently wracked with scandal, though it's hard to think of ways to provide nuclear propulsion without heavy industry. The Wright Brothers were bicycle makers, but they beat out the whole world with it's huge companies, landed aristocrats and tyrants. We did it 100 years ago and many people are working to do it again today with cheap manned space flight. I don't know how Bush can encourage that kind of effort, but I know that it can and must be done. We shall see what Bush has to offer on the 100th aniversery of heavier than air flight. Simply paying attention to that day is a very good sign.
This is way better talk than the defeatist nonsense heard just a few years ago about ignoring the infinite resources waiting for us in space. Pro nuclear, pro space, great stuff.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
He then sliced $300 million out of that sucker, even as people were dying of hypothermia, or, to put it bluntly, freezing to death.
Sometimes he even cuts your program before he comes to praise it. In August 2002, Bush held a photo op with the Quecreek coal miners, the nine men whose rescue had thrilled the country. By then he had already cut the coal-safety budget at the Mine Safety and Health Administration, which engineered the rescue, by 6 percent, and had named a coal-industry executive to run the agency.
And I thought congress held the purse.
--fatboy
Morality, honesty and traditional values?
Morality is about the quality of an action being good and it's conformity to a standard of what is right. I would say the invasion of Iraq and the abandonment of Afghanistan is not accepted as the right thing to do.
Honesty is about being truthful, whereas Bush isn't. look at all the lies he has fed the world on the reasons why he invaded Iraq: WMDs (where are they?) and the link between Saddam and Osama (utter bullshit).
Traditional values is such a bullshit term. If you are talking about traditional US values then you could be advocating slave ownership or genocide of the native americans.
I don't really want to burst anybody's bubble here, but it ain't gonna happen.
We are not living the same political age as when Jack sent us to the moon, nor is Bush in the same position of political power that Jack was when he sent us to the moon.
Bush can say anything he wants, but it's going to go through the same political process as anything else he suggests at the moment.
Need I point out that his stock is a bit low at thet moment and this looks like an obvious ploy to to parlay patriotism into personal support?
The problem being that in 1957 we were blindsided by an outside "enemy" nation and clamored to regain a feeling of national supremecy.
Bush has blindsided himself.
This rocket ain't gonna fly.
KFG
Just think for a second . . .
.) remain neglected.
.
We have just given a major tax break.
We have gotten into a "perpetual" war, with no end in site (LAST month was the bloodiest for us . . . exactly WHEN did major combat end!?). We have already committed $83 BILLION dollars, and we will have to commit more.
Domestic problems (healthcare, SS, etc . .
Our surplus budget has become a major deficit.
I have always thought space expoloration to be the most nobel activity any nation could invest in, but is this REALITY, folks? Seems to me that this is more about distracting us from the HUGE problems that exist, than anything else.
I thought the idea was to either go commericial or international with space exploration . . . I think our relationships with some MAJOR space fairing nations are still weak as a result of our unilateral military adventures, so I doubt we could do this internationally . .
So we are going to fight an expensive and costly war (this is starting to look more and more like Vietnam, thought I am too young to know that for certain), give MAJOR tax breaks, AND return to the moon.
Come on . . . some ideas are ambitious and some things are just political agendas to get you looking the other way.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Look, the U.S. needs to go to the moon starting tomorrow the way it needed to go pulverize Iraq on March 19. There's no hurry. In fact, a little bit of deliberation will make the U.S. a better space explorer, just as a little bit of patience might have made Bush a hero in Iraq instead of the biggest goof in world politics since Napoleon.
The United States budget will run almost a half trillion dollars in debt this year. Now, some of my fondest memories are of playing sick to watch moon landings in grade school, but I'd much rather spend money on educating kids and college students today who can do space exploration right ten and twenty years from now -- if we've dug out of the financial mess we're wallowing in now.
So no symbolic Republican missions to reproduce 1969 on the moon, thank you. If you're an American and want nonsymbolic space exploration in your lifetime, work to defeat George W. Bush and elect a president who will restore fiscal sanity to the United States. If we're lucky, the president after that, or the president after that, will have a chance to send human beings somewhere useful.
And I thought congress held the purse.
You mean the Republican controled congress ?
"You don't need a weatherman/ To know which way the wind blows" -Bob Dylan: Subterranean Homesick Blues
Q: Which of the states are most closely associated with the space industry?
A: Texas (Houston, home of NASA) and Florida (site of the Kennedy Space Centre).
Q: Which of the states are most closely associated with the Bush family?
A: Texas (where George W. was Governor) and Florida (where Jeb Bush is Governor).
Wow. What an amazing coincidence!
Now Texas is a republican stronghold and real Bush country. So sending a few billion dollars Texas's way is a great way of saying thank you to the folks back home.
On the other hand, Florida is up for grabs. Remember, when the Supreme Court stopped the recount process after the last Presidential election, Al Gore was slightly ahead, and looked like he would have won the Florida vote. Of course, it wouldn't have been so close if all thousands of black voters (90 percent of whom voted for Gore) hadn't been illegally stripped of their votes by wrongly being labelled convicted felons, if the butterfly ballots hadn't have been used (at Pat Buchanon admitted himself, those Jewish voters weren't voting for him), if those chads hadn't been such an issue and if the Republicans hadn't got away with having hundreds of overseas ballots that were clearly not properly filled in time and/or authenticated count in their favour.
Either way, even if you say that Bush was the legitimate winner (which, as I illustrated is a highly contentious point), you have to concede that the Florida voting process was far from perfect and that the state is a key battleground for next year's election.
So, given that Florida's where the war was won/lost(/stolen) last time around, it's doesn't hurt Bush 2004 if Florida's got a big reason to feel good about the current administration.
It's a bit like the illegal steel import tarriffs. The Bush administration knew that they were illegal, the knew that eventually they would be forced by the WTO to abolish them or face severe consequences, but they did their job. While the tarriffs were in place, US steel manufacturers got a nice boost, despite being inefficient compared to their global counterparts, and lots of people in the steel industry had a good reason to vote Republican rather than Democrat when they last went to the ballot box.
Yep, if you want something in business or politics there's nothing like an old-fashioned bribe to grease the wheels and open the doors.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Tax Cut
You mean your one-time "benefit" of somewhere in the vicinity of $300? Real big help there.. Just in time to help boost Christmas spending so he can claim a "recovery" and a "robust, booming economy". Bzzzt.
Prescription Drugs
You mean the watered-down piece of shit that not even some Republicans wanted to sign because it held no real benefits for the majority and was actually just a step closer to privatization of Medicare? Bzzzzt.
War on Terrorism
Are you even still in the room? We totally forgot about Osama (a real live admitted terrorist) so that Dubya could go spend billions of our dollars destroying Saddam (a bad guy, but no terrorist [and don't even START that bullshit about his hosting Al Queda because the evidence does NOT support that]). So now, instead of making the world safer by taking out a very dangerous terrorist group he has scattered them to the winds (think cancerous metastasizing) and has gone to great (and expensive) lengths to further destabilize the Middle East by creating a desert-style Vietnam situation. Instead of using the political and sympathetic capital showered upon us by the world post-9/11 he has squandered it to the point where we are now feared and reviled like never before in history.
Oh, and did I forget squandering what was a budgetary surplus, creating the fastest-growing budget deficit this country has evern seen?
Bush promised smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and a foreign policy of global cooperation. So far we have double the size of government, destroyed any sense of fiscal responsibility (all the while mired in a preventable recession) and bullied the rest of the world into hating us (even our allies are nervous these days).
Sounds like a great job....
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
No it's not owned by the banks, but the member banks elect most of the board members of the district banks who are then elected to the national fed board...so it's not too far-fetched to say that they "own" the fed. I don't think it's necessarily unhealthy to fear a quasi-governmental institution that has such a far ranging impact on the economy as a whole but really only cares about the interests of one particular group (being big banks). The fed far from being any sort of responsive democratic institution, although from your tone I doubt you would care.
fuck you.
I'm going to be completely pessimistic here, and say that it won't happen.
We have no confirmation that Bush will announce any such plan, and while republicans love to spend money, especially on handouts for big business, this one may be a bit steep.
Additionally, should he announce this, NASA is in no shape to accomplish it. The agency is bloated, outmoded, and far to political. It's long since ceased to be a research and engineering agency, and is now a political animal, intent purely on justifying its budget to congress. It may still be capable of science, but only for political end, and no longer seems able to do science for science's sake.
The only hope, strangely, comes from the military. The recent JSF development program proved that project can still be done with efficiency and transparency, and any hope for space must rest on the same idea (and, if possible, the same team). Both Boeing and Lockheed-Martin both worked with the JSF Development committee, so it wouldn't be a radical change for them. It would be the end of NASA, though the name might survive.
I can see no other way to accomplishing this. Any furtherance of NASA as the entity it is today is doomed to bog down in a hell of bloated management and endless waste. I doubt such radical steps will be taken though, and I must therefore pronounce any American moon mission doomed.
Sorry.
Erik
b
Hey, the French didn't bomb Pearl Harbor either, but our first offense in WWII was against the French in North Africa.
Sometimes you have to think using strategery. You are probably a bright guy, how about putting your Bush hatred aside and connecting the dots?
Besides, NASA is too incompetent to bring this off. They haven't been able to build a new launch vehicle in over thirty years. But they've spent more money trying than they spent on Apollo.
NASA has been described as "the world's largest sheltered workshop". For good reasons.
Am I the only one who thinks that going to the moon at this point in history is not a good investment? For our current state of technology and economy, it is simply an unsustainable endeavor. We're still using chemical rockets for propulsion, and haven't even perfected nuclear fusion yet, forchrysakes.
Yeah, we can get there, but just think for moment how much cost and effort setting up and maintaining a permanent moonbase will cost us. You thought it was expensive to resupply the ISS, well how many bank-breaking rocket trips per year will it take to support a few people living on the moon, much less Mars?
Wouldn't a wiser investment be to put that space exploration money into fusion research, and the superconducting supercollider, and whatever other "high science" research projects are waiting in the wings or are just a glint in a Caltech professor's eye? How about we first devise a more workable propulsion system and more efficient and transportable energy source, things that also have the fringe benefit of being applicable on Earth, before we spend umpty-five-gazillion on going back to the moon?
Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
As far as the perpetual war, you must have been asleep in history class. We have not stopped being "at war" for nearly the last 50 years. Try reading a few history books and get a clue. While you are at it look to see who has actually been starting them.
Suddenly the lack of free health care and SS is a problem. When exactly in our history has either been free, and please tell me why they should be? I whole heartedly support emergency care as well vacines and preventative medicine, but full medical coverage will put us in a hole that we will never be able to dig ourselves out of. If you want free health care go live in Europe, but don't whine about the 60% income tax.
These HUGE problems have always existed and always will exist, so when exactly is the right time to goto the moon? The last time we went was when we were on the verge of global nucluer war! Which for some odd reason causes todays issues to pale in comparison
A duh, there are no other MAJOR space fairing nations other than Russians and they cannot afford to pay the bills, so why should we wait around for the Dutch to start a space program?
This current conflict looks nothing like Vietnam, as sad as the casualties are, it's not even close. We are not currently fighting with one hand behind our back like in Vietnam, and our opponent isn't being backed by a major Cold War super power. If anything people are saying we are being too rough on the insurgents.
actualy the washington post found that Bush would have won.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
The Florida SC invented election laws out of thin air that directly contradicted what was on the books. You can make a decent argument that SCOTUS shouldn't have interfered since it was a state matter, but don't hold the Florida judges up as paragons of integrity.
Sometime soon, sooner if Bush loses, maybe 6 months later if he doesn't, the Christan/neocons are going to have to break with the normal Republicans. Sadly, I think the real Republicans are going to get the shit end of that deal.
Yeah, there's a lot of us "South Park Republicans" who aren't happy with lots of Bush's policies, like huge spending increases, blatant pandering with steel tariffs, and corporate welfare in the energy bill. But as long as all the Democrats have to offer is "Bush is a Nazi", they're going to continue to get their asses kicked.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
At the dawn of the 15th century, China ruled the seas. An armada of Chinese ships explored Japan, Tiawan, and the islands of the Pacific. Turning west, they reached Arabia and sailed all the way to the east coast of Africa. The ships were much larger than anything that had sailed the seas before. The largest were 400 feet long and 150 wide and carried nine masts. They were larger than anything that would be seen in the west for centuries to come. The Chinese fleets were fabulously successful. They carried loads of Chinese silk and porcelain to western ports and returned with all the riches of Africa and Arabia. Between the turn of the century and 1433, the treasure fleets sailed seven times. These expeditions established a vast trade network for China. They also included military conquests that brought a huge amount of land under Chinese control. At the conclusion of the last expedition, the Chinese Empire reached the Persian Gulf. The next expedition might had rounded the horn of Africa. China might have "discovered" and even colonized Europe. The ships held unmatched technology and were easily capable of reaching the Americas. China stood at the brink of dominating the world. But there was no next expedition. Instead, there was a change in political control. The new Ming emperors pulled back the fleets. The treasure ships were allowed to rot or deliberately burned to prevent their use. China turned inward, became insular, abandoned its distant colonies. It would be the Europeans that went on to discover the New World. And Europeans who would reach, and dominate, much of China for centuries to come. In 1969, Neil Armstrong placed his foot in a slightly gritty powder and left the first human mark on the moon. The United States had conducted a series of expeditions into space, using successively more capable craft. The rocket that delivered men to the moon was 363' long, the largest ever made. They were the most technologically advanced devices of their time. Under Democratic leadership, they had reached another world. Seven times, from 1969 to 1972, craft from the United States reached the moon. They were fabulously successful. They delivered a bounty of knowledge, a peaceful explosion of technology, and a focus for the world. America stood at the brink of endless possibilities. Another push might have established colonies, it might have lead to clean and endless energy, it might have... There was no next time.
I'm not sure what you would really accomplish with a permanent base on the moon. It has very low gravity, no atmosphere and its in doubt if there is water. If you want to do something useful in space put a permenent colony on Mars. Don't waste the time and energy planning another goofy Apollo strategy where astronauts spend huge amounts of time on the round trip to spend very little time there picking up rocks. Send cargo ships followed by a one way trip with colonists who are there to stay. Mars probably has enough resources that a viable, self sustaining colony can be placed there and it will be a nicer place to live than the moon, especially if you start terraforming.
You've accomplished something if you establish a second home for humanity. You also create a real new frontier which is something this world desperately needs for the adventurous spirits.
It would be one big positive for Bush in a sea of negatives if he actually made this happen but there are a bunch of doubts that arise:
- One its become pretty clear he is using the U.S. Treasury's credit card to borrow and spend the U.S. in to an economic boom to insure his reelection. He is spending like a drunk sailor and this may just be more of the same.
- Boeing is heading for fairly deep trouble. It can't compete with Airbus, its was caught cheating on launch contract bids and was suspended by the Air Force. The air force tanker contract was also designed to pump tax dollars in to Boeing but the deal stunk so bad they haven't been able to get it signed. I wouldn't be suprised if Bush wants a program to pump a whole bunch of tax dollars in to Boeing to keep it afloat.
- NASA, like the DOD, is one big pork barrel. Politicians pour money in it to get votes and pump up the economy in the large number of places powerful politicians have managed to put NASA centers and contractors. It really isn't about space exploration any more. Its just a jobs program which is why the manned space program hasn't dont anything new in 20 years. A new space initiative will be doomed if it goes down the same path. It will be just like the ISS where vast sums are scattered around the country and squandered to no good effect.
The only likely way you will be able to have an effective space program in the U.S. again is to gut NASA and start something more closely resembling the Lockheed skunk works in its glory days under Kelly Johnson. You need a lean, mean team of gifted engineers and managers in one place who are devoted to getting a job done and not in building empires and in a contest to see how big and bloated they can make their budgets and staffs. I really think an International Space Agency would be the way to go and pull all the best engineers from the U.S., Canada, China, Russia and Europe together in one place and tell them to get the job done. The down side is the politicians wont support it unless they get a share of the pork and it would be doomed before it started because of politics.
@de_machina
As for the propellant, it would be nice to have space tankers for delivering the fuel and only the fuel to LEO. A good part of the launch price is reliability. If you only have fuel on board, you can cut the expences. If rockets are 50% cheaper but 25% of them fail, it's still OK for the space tankers.
If the moon flew planes into our skyscrapers, we would have people on it inside of a week. :)
If current events are any guide, we'd have troops bogged down in a quagmire, looking for non-existent Weapons of Mass Destruction, in a Middle Eastern country with no relation to the moon beyond its dominant religion using the crescent moon as a symbol of their faith.
And regardless of whether or not the job was done, we would leave the moon just in time for our President to use the "victory" footage in his re-election campaign.
In the meantime, the Justice Department would use the threat of moon-men to justify warrantless searches of your library borrowing, while granting even more power to the very intelligence agencies that failed to predict the attack in the first place.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
Yeah, there's a lot of us "South Park Republicans" who aren't happy with lots of Bush's policies, like huge spending increases, blatant pandering with steel tariffs, and corporate welfare in the energy bill. But as long as all the Democrats have to offer is "Bush is a Nazi", they're going to continue to get their asses kicked.
Ever see that episode of the Sopranos, where the gambling addict owes money to the mob and can't pay? So they take over his business and run it into the ground, borrowing money they have no intention of repaying, so they can recoup the loss and leave him in the hole. That's what this is like. The deficit has reached a record level and they keep charging more and more extravagant purchases. They even started a war as a corporate welfare project. We have the mob answering the phone.
Yeah, there's a lot of us "South Park Republicans" who aren't happy with lots of Bush's policies, like huge spending increases, blatant pandering with steel tariffs, and corporate welfare in the energy bill. But as long as all the Democrats have to offer is "Bush is a Nazi", they're going to continue to get their asses kicked.
I don't even care if Bush is a Nazi. Did the Nazis overspend this much? He is running this country into the hole and nobody cares! We have been in uncharted territory for a long time. The deficit has never been this high. How are we ever going to pay for all this shit? Doesn't anybody care about the future anymore? Do you need some sort of song and dance to convince you that the country can't survive four more years of looting on this scale?
Every president since JFK has promised new directions in the space program, but none has delivered the money. I'll believe GWB when he doubles NASA's budget (and the NSF's, for good measure). The sad thing is how little this would cost us.
In 1965 and 1966, the height of the build-up to Apollo, we spent about one-half of one percent of GDP on NASA - about $4.5billion in a $700B economy. How big would NASA's budget be today if we still spent 0.5% of GDP on it? $70B. What is it, actually? About $12B. NSF gets only a few billion a year for basic research in the physical sciences. We could double both for the cost of about two months worth of Iraq occupation. NASA is a rounding error in the DoD's budget. Unless that changes, grand plans for space are just hot air - ain't gonna make it to orbit.
Show me the money.
You mean your one-time "benefit" of somewhere in the vicinity of $300? Real big help there.. Just in time to help boost Christmas spending so he can claim a "recovery" and a "robust, booming economy". Bzzzt.
Don't forget, while people got that $300 back because of federal tax cuts, how much did state taxes go up? What services are being cut because they can no longer be funded? How much was your school taxes raised? Property tax?
While Bush made out like the good guy for giving people a few bucks, many are too uninformed or don't want to like to the fact that they are still getting taxed almost as much to even more because the states are now having to cover what the federal government cannot.
"Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
No, you'd still have bombed Afghanistan. Those plans were well in place well before september 2001. At last count the number of Afghans flying planes into american buildings was zero.
A permanent base on the moon is of significant military improtance however. easy to launch nukes from, easy to hide what you aare doing, not a bad spot to keep 'enemy combatants' out of amnesty's sight. the moon will be used as a prison colony and bio-weapons factory before anything else.
I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
According to the Stanford-Binet scale, the average IQ is between 85-110. An 85 IQ is almost retarded (it's actually 75 or less to be considered mentally handicapped) and 110 isn't that brilliant.
85-110 probably contains several standard deviations from the norm in the real distribution. That's like saying, yes, there is this pot of gold, and its 3-5 miles from here and then expecting someone to find it.
100 was not arbitrarily picked, that was supposed to the average person's intelligence.
So, if the average person is stupid, then half the population is dumber than that. Its funny when Carlin says it, but its not true. If the population of some country is 2 million. And 55 people have 1 arm, that means the average person has less than one arm. So if you has a distribution 140, 110, 110, 100, 100, 100, 100, 105, 105, 75 , 75, 60 the average is much lower than he median or the mode. The median in this case would be 100. The modal value would be 100 - the most by number in the distribution would have this. On a large population size, you would see that the further you go from the largest distribution under the curve (this is not the average) the less likely these data points are do exist. The way of quantifying the next order of less-likelihood is a deviation from the center. How many deviations is the stratification of this curve. I would guess 85 is probably 1-2 deviations from the center. The numerical average [mean] of that number set I gave is 98 and change. Notice its lower than the modal value.
Which means a democracy is lead by a bunch of idiots. I know I am smarter than the majority, and I'd wager you probably are too. If you're so damn smart, and they are so damn dumb, don't fucking complain. Sell them shit. Rip them off. Scam them. Markup cheap things. Sell cigarettes and beer. A fool and his money shall soon part. You know, if Mister Brilliant Super Star that you are complains that the US is filled with "idiots" who "vote wrong" you would think he would be able to make major bucks!
I know you have heard the saying "What is right isn't always popular, and what is popular isn't always right" This is a republic. The US and most advanced forms of government avoid voter referendums and administer society in an abstract manner. Consider the electoral college one of those abstractions (that directly reflects the number of Federal Senators (2)+ Number of Congressman (at least 1) per state.
Think about that the next time you decide to defend the majority. I, myself, am always suspicous[SIC suspicious ] of them.
You seem to think that smart people like you should only be allowed to vote. Typically genuinely intelligent people are never as presumptuous as this. Part of being smart and getting smarter is that you learn, the higher up the ladder you climb, the more rungs you become aware of. (The curve of ultimate knowledge / omniscience is effectively asymptotic.)
"Actually, Bush inherited a nicely balanced budget (indeed, in the surplus)"
Bush is an idiot, but your very first sentence demonstrates that you have no clue either. The budget was never "balanced" while Clinton was in office: every single year that national debt was at least hundred billion dollars higher at the end of the year than the start. As with pretty much everything else Clinton did, he "balanaced the budget" not by actually, really, spending no more than he took in, but by redefining what "balanced" meant.
"But the fact is that by this time 2001 (2002 at the latest) the economy should have corrected and been back to a more stable state."
ROTFLMAO. You don't correct nearly a decade of economic mismanagement by Clinton in a year or two. Bush's policies have been insane, but the recession was an inevitable result of Clinton's perpetual low-interest-rate policies and the dot bomb speculative bubble they created.
Please describe the world situation where it would be in Japan's interest for the USA to collapse overnight. Or Germany's interest, or the UK's interest. If the USA 'collapsed' the entire world would plunge into economic ruin and chaos. It ain't going to happen.
As for going back to the moon, I had a feeling we'd be hearing something like this since China announced their desire to land there by 2020. I've always felt it was crazy that the Americans just stopped going after all their success there. To me, Man's greatest technological achievement is the ability to leave his planet. I'd say it's more important than the computer. And yes, we couldn't have done it without computers but one could argue that the ultimate application of the computer is space flight and in fact, it was nearly the original application as well. The Mark I was built to calculate artillery trajectories.
At any rate, I'd love for Bush to announce that the US is going back ASAP. I'd want them to be there by 2010 at the latest and this time I want a promise that they're not leaving. Ever.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
Ya know...
It seems to me that there are certain people that would hate Bush even if he figured a way to eliminate 100% of poverty. Not that he will, but my point is that some of the posts I have been reading have the tone that "it doesn't matter what he does, I hate Bush".
I have the unprovable itch that some of these same people who are bashing his as-yet unanounced plans for moonbase 1 would have rooted and cheered if certain other presidents had made this same decision.
I have also seen numerous comments regarding Bushing fouling up the economy. I won't argue whether or not his plans to help the economy will work--that remains to be seen. Ask me again in 4 years, which is about how long it takes for a president's policies take to be felt (sometimes longer). If, even for a moment, you think that something Bush does today will affect the economy tommorrow, you are sadly mistaken.
Let me make this clear: I DON'T support everything Bush does. I don't like the Patriot act, and I certainly don't care for the way he has handled Iraq (if he wants to go around removing dictators, be up front about it, and be consistent). I do think Saddam needed to be removed. Yes I am aware that the US helped him gain power, but that was not GWB's decision (altough it may have been his dad's, which is NOT the same thing at all, no matter what anyone thinks).
I AM however, willing to let him try somthing different. So, what the hey, let's go to the moon. Just one thing. Before you blast Bush for this, think about whether or not you would have supported this idea if Clinton had been pushing it. If so, then don't rant and rave about how evil Bush is. Not that I expect everyone will be honest about this, but come on, give it a shot.
Now, having defended Bush, even a little bit, I am ready for the flame war. I expect that I have offended a good number of you, and that's okay--I expect to. But let's make one thing clear--I am not trolling, and this is not flame bait. I want to hear honest and considered opinions.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
OK, we get it. You hate George Bush. When I click on "Read More..." I had hoped to see discussion about returning to the moon. However, 90% of the posts are off topic (arguably) and redundant (definitely) about politics. The topic was not about the effect on the national budget of going to the moon, or the job Bush is doing in office. How about a compromise where you post on-topic and just end with something like BTWIRRRHGWBFMOVSR (BTW I really really really hate GWB for my own very specific reasons). Or go start your own Demdot ~Politics for Nerds. Democrats that matter. Have a nice day.
Going to the moon the first time was a ridiculous waste or money. Something like a trillion dollars in today's money. And what did we get from it? a warm fuzzy feeling by beating the Soviets and some moon rocks. Now Bush wants to throw away countless billions more to go there again? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. It's just another way for Bush to shovel billions of dollars in taxpayer money to favored companies. Let's invest a trillion in developing solar power or perhaps rebuilding the crumbling parts of the US. This is a complete waste of money and effort.
Puppets or not, Morocco and Algeria were defended by French forces not German. You can google for Operation Torch or read a description on the DTIC site: Joint Power Projection: Operation Torch
I could have...and think I did make damn near this same speech about Clinton.
Yes, some people hate Bush. Some people hate Clinton. That's okay, get over it.
The idea of going to the moon again and eventually going to Mars and beyond is an idea of value, regardless of who says it.
OOGG want correct your misinformed view of financial system. Government borrow funds by selling Treasury bonds. Holders of bonds expect paid interest, not imaginary money.
Also, banks, holders of money oppose inflation. OOGG have misfortune of holding caveman stone money, US Confederate currency, many old German marks. (OOGG learn hard way to avoid sovereign credit risk.) Inflation wipe out value of currency. Even US nickel once buy large candy bar. Now, same nickel buy 1/10 candy bar. OOGG need diet, but 1/10 candy bar less value than 1 candy bar. Bank with nickel in reserve lose value just as much as OOGG.
Federal reserve notes are printed by Bureau of Engraving and Printing. Issued in exchange for funds held by Federal reserve. That is, Federal Reserve exchange real electronic money for real paper money.
Summary: every thing you say completely wrong. Even stone age caveman have better understanding of money than a whoabot. Thank you.
If, in response to the destruction of the south end of Manhatten, he had used a dozen or so Cruise Missles to destroy another asprin factory, or an abandon terrorist training camp, like Clinton did, you'd be happy as clams.... until the center of your town got destroyed. Then, you'd be screaming your rear-end off, which is where most of your noise comes from anyway, claiming Bush is a coward or he doesn't care about the 'poor' or the 'inner city' folk.
The arrogance of the Left is an amazing thing to watch. It is almost as astounding as their 'research' or their 'collective' memories, but not nearly as brazen as their re-writes of history.
knock, knock.... does anyone in the class remember what this discussion topic was about?
Going back to the Moon.
The first Moon program, begun by JFK, was an absolute boon to the economy, returning about 7 times to the economy what was spent on the program. Most tech jobs today, and their subsidiary jobs, are a direct spin-off of the Moon program... transistors, plastics, ceramics, biology, medicine, miniturization of computers, software technology (and perhaps Slashdot itself)
If a return to the Moon has the same effect this time as it did last time the gains will create employement for a LOT of people and be a boon to the economy.
However, there is one thing we should do first: move our energy base from Carbon to Hydrogen. A Hydrogen Project similar to the "Manhatten Project", sans the secrecy, should be initiated to complete the necessary research, if it needs completion, and begin the transfer of our power generation and transportation industries. Solar Power Tower II is a very good start. Forward thinking communities could divert resources from dead-end Windmill plans to SPT2 sites and get a better return on their investment.
There is less than two decades of Carbon reserves remaining. We've got to get moving...
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Oh puh-lease! Get over yourself. The US is roughly 5% of the world's population. I think the world would manage without you. You grossly overestimate your own importance on the world economic scale.
I think you underestimate the connectedness of the world economy. Any time even slightly negative news comes out of an industrial power shockwaves are felt throughout the world economic system. If *any* major economic power (US, Japan, Germany, UK, etc.) collapsed overnight there would be *dire* circumstances for the world economy. If 33% (the US) 10% (Japan) or 5% (Germany/UK) of the world's GDP disappeared overnight you would see a dramatic shift in the outlook of the world economy very quickly.
The US carries a net trade deficit, meaning you consume more than you produce. You import more than you export. Meaning if you disappeared, it's not like the rest of the world would have to do without your excess production - rather, there'd simply be a few less guys consuming everyone else's products. Prices would drop a little worldwide, then settle again. Life would go on.
This is an exremely gross over simplification of a very complex economy and also extremely wrong. Because a country is a net importer of goods does not mean that they aren't a net exporter in other important areas?
Also, by the very definition of being such a large net importer the US consumes goods that others produce (at the rate of $450B USD/year). This means that if any large net importer of good disappeared overnight the exporting countries would be forced do decrease production. Employers would be forced to lay off some of their workforce increasing unemployment, decreasing demand for goods in their own country.
I'm not even getting into all the foreign capital invested in the US that would disappear if the US were to go away as some would wish.
It's comments like yours that are the reason the world calls the US "arrogant."
Please do try to look at things a little more balanced. If any major power collapsed rapdily it would be utter chaos for the rest of the world's economies.
I'm old enough to remember the Johnson administration, and the phrase "guns and butter" to describe gov't spending back then. You know: guns for the Cold War (and the hot war in Vietnam) and butter for the domestic spending.
It seems today that "compassionate conservatism" is increasing spending, but not for the masses as in days of yore. (That Medicare reform bill that was passed a few weeks ago? The only winner was Big Pharma; it was an early Xmas present to Glaxo et. al.)
So, average Americans get fake benefits from the outrageous spending, while we funnel money into Iraq. (Iraq won't be another Vietnam, by the way. It will be worse: the US now has its own version of the Gaza Strip, only one about the size of California.)
Folks, this is "guns and margarine": real defense spending; tax breaks, patronage, and corporate gifts masquerading as domestic spending; and a lot of red ink that our grandchildren will never be able to mop up.
Don't get excited about the plans for NASA. The only thing you should consider is that somebody is trying to buy you.. with your grandchildren's money.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
First he goes to Iraq long enough for a photo op, now he is going thru NATO for military support (something his opponents have said he should have done in the first place), now we have a JFK-esque drive to space.
One good thing about Bush: you can always count on him to distract people while he plunders the USA!
Manipulate the moderator system! Mod someone as "overrated" today.
To say "if you disappeared...there'd simply be a few less guys consuming everyone else's products." is quite possibly the largest world-economics-related understatement I've ever heard. Most Americans are workaholics and rampant conspicuous consumers, and as such get advertised to and marketed to by companies from every corner of the world. This, among other things, generates the huge trade defecits you refer to.
We (the US) *are* arrogant, the issue is whether (for a given issue) we are deservedly so.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Just hope it is prize or incentive based, not another multi-billion dollar political/NASA debacle.
i lloaerospace.com
There's already an alternate space program underway that is more likely to provide affordable long term viable space capability, rather than yet another "disposable with no remaining infrastructure left after the fact" multi-billion dollar political/NASA one-shot space spectacular (Apollo, Shuttle, ISS).
See:
www.xprize.org
www.scaled.com
www.armad
etc
Of course, the politicians and big aerospace corporations are going to have absolutely no interest in anything so affordable and viable.
No doubt, a renewed space program - such as the one envisioned in this article - would be a big boon for my hometown. (Huntsville, Alabama is home to the Marshall Space Flight Center, a major NASA center primarily responsible for the development of propulsion systems and launch vehicles.) However, I really doubt if any of this will happen. President Bush may propose, but the Congress will (quickly) dispose ...
...)
The primary reason? As mentioned in the article, personal relationships between members of Congress and high-level NASA officials are abysmal. There is a feeling (a strong belief) in Congress that NASA has lied to the Congress. There is deep mistrust and suspicion, and these feelings are longstanding. (A lot of this came out during the investigation of the space shuttle Columbia accident.) Also, NASA doesn't have a PAC and is not generally known for contributing to political parties. (Most of the time, when NASA goes up to Capitol Hill, it's with their hand out.) For politicians, (most politicians), the unspoken question is: "OK NASA, what's in this for me?"
As an example of what I'm talking about, consider the following. Going back to the moon (and beyond) will cost a LOT of money - at least in the tens (if not the hundreds) of BILLIONs of dollars. How would Donna's Congressman, Representative Howard Koble, explain a vote for that kind of expenditure to his constituents? I suspect his answer would be "I voted against it." (If there were a major NASA center, or a major NASA contractor, in Donna's district; Representative Koble might vote differently. All politics is local
For the majority of elected public officials, there is no political payoff in supporting the space program. The 1960's (and the race to the moon) was a fluke based totally on geopolitical considerations. My prediction is that this proposal will go nowhere.
We could build wind farms in the middle of Great Lakes and generate a LOT of power. We could build them off our coasts. The return on investment and time to return would outstrip anything that you could generate in the next 100 years for lunar energy production.
;-)
Why don't we do this. Because there are large petro-gas energy concerns that don't want it done.
Why would Bush go to the Moon for energy unless he was going to immediately privatize it for his buddies
If there is money to made in space, private industry will go there all by themselves. The real welfare whores are giant corporations who want citizens to finance their operations for "our" good.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
We're currently doing great things in space. This month and next, a flotilla of space craft will approach Mars. These are projects that are objective driven. They cost a minor fraction of what ISS or the space shuttle cost.
What is the mission of ISS? One answer has been that it is a necessary step in going to Mars. However, it does not solve problems of weighlessness during the trip, or address radiation shielding, or food growth or recycling.
Much of the science or technology that can be gained from low Earth orbit is better accomplished with untended platforms. For example, crystal growth, and space telescopes require vibration free environments, in addition to microgravity.
And ISS is expensive. The last estimate I heard was $97e9. For what?
The Space Shuttle is a marvel, but also quite expensive. It's primary unique capability - bringing large things back from space - is mostly unusued. It's pretty heavy lift, but despite reuse, it's more expensive than disposable rockets on a per-pound to orbit, even if you ignore original construction costs.
The main problem with the Shuttle and ISS is that they are goals unto themselves, rather than the means to some end. And, the programs are structured so that it seems to make sense to keep spending to keep the project alive.
I don't want to hear that we're going to create a permanant station on the moon. I want to hear about what we're going to do once we're there.
It seems to me that it should be cheaper to go to an asteroid like Eros than to the moon. Eros has little gravity, so launching from it does not require as much fuel. It still costs $10,000 a pound to get to low Earth orbit. The fuel has to get there somehow.
-- Stephen.
Mars' atmosphere has all of the problems and none of the benefits of a REAL atmosphere.
The only thing Mars' atmosphere is good for is saving propellant on aerobraking. Otherwise, it's only a hazard to incoming craft who have to deal with re-entry (or just plain entry). That's one problem that Mars has that the moon does not.
It's not thick enough to be useful for aerodynamic lift for aircraft.
It does not contain the elements necessary to sustain life.
It does not protect against solar radiation.
It does not maintain a temperature range necessary to sustain life.
It gives adverse weather a medium to operate in (ie. massive dust-storms).
It would interfere with the optimal function of an astronomical observatory.
Mars would also not be an efficient location from which to utilize solar-power. It's not known whether Mars has sufficient Uranium deposits to sustain nuclear power, and burning fossil fuels is obviously right-out.
Don't even get me started on the technical hurdles to getting people TO Mars. The best solution to THAT problem I've ever heard was the room full of scientists who all volunteered to happily take a one-way-trip. (hint: that's not a solution. that's a compromise).
Finally - if we go to the Moon, we could always go to Mars later. The Moon is closer, more well-understood, and has clear benefits, both scientific, and economic. I mean, what the hell, why not Titan?
- -
Now, politically speaking, it's always amazed me at how schizophrenic space exploration. As far as political ideology goes.
It always seems like it's the Right who end up giving real support to space exploration. The Left end up ignoring it usually. And apparently, it's the Right's penchant for Jingoism and Pissing Contests that make it happen.
Because ideologically, Space Exploration goes against pretty much everything else the Right stands for:
Religious sucking-up (Bible says the Earth is flat, and the moon is simply a light in the sky, God gave us the Earth, but didn't give us permission to have the Moon, and it's all science anyway, which is just a conspiracy to force our kids to learn about the lie that is Evolution). Fiscal Responsibility/Low Taxes - spending millions on a single-shot rocket that gets burned up, so one guy can come back and tell us how awesome the view was.
And the Left, ideologically, benefits MORE - because from space exploration, we get all these cool Earth-watching satellites and data telling us about global warming and how we're destroying the environment. And it promotes science and learning, which leads our children away from ignorance and barbarism.
You'd think it would be the LEFT that would be funding space exploration more. But the deal is - and here's why it's schizophrenic; the Defense Industry are the ones who make the most money off of space exploration. And they also benefit the most from the technological development. (First, with ballistic missile technology, and now with ballistic missile interception technology). So you've got to look at space exploration as an R&D Tax Boondoggle for the Defense Industry. That's why the Left won't fund it. And why the Right will. Even though that's bass-ackwards for both party ideologies.
That's how we know that ideology really has nothing to do with how both political sides in this country operate. It's all about biting pillows for industry.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
What does this have to do with Bush giving a speech about going back to the moon? This is offtopic.
It would be interesting to read if you actually had an idea on the solution (if there is one) of problems facing the US at this time, instead of perpetuating the useless bickering that occurs here almost every day.
I think that going back to the moon is a good idea regardless of who is president. Maybe it will inspire peace in its wake and a change in the attitudes of both sides beating dead an old argument.
--"The perfect example of the man of action is the suicide." - William Carlos Williams