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."
A moon base would be so much better than the ISS.
The article says nothing about the method, the cheapest way (just off the top of my head) would be to update the Saturn 5, but (I think) the best solution would be to leverage a Space Station (one in the "right" orbit) and use that as a way station. That way you could reuse a moon obiter lander repeatedly.
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
Earlier this year, the Space Exploration Act of 2003 was introduced into congress. It laid out a long-term, logical, realistic timeline for space exploration in a schedule that called for manufacturing facilities at the lagrange points and establishing permanent research bases on the moon and mars within 20 years. It was designed with an eye to what could best further the understanding and goals of science, and described oversight procedures to ensure that NASA actually kept to its schedule. It was about everything you could ask of a proposed revamping of the space program. The bill got almost no attention in the mainstream press, it was referred to a house subcommittee on 9/16/2003, and that was the last that was heard of it. I don't know if that means it's still alive or not, but either way, it's chances don't look good now.
Maybe I'm just being pessimistic, but I suspect that by the time we actually figure out what this new plan is, it will turn out to be utterly unambitious, re-doing what we've already done (um.. let's go to the moon! yeah!) for the sole sake that we feel like we have to one-up the Chinese. I hope I'm wrong, but this appears it is going to be politics driving science, not the other way around, and I question its usefulness if it is going to be implemented in the same closed and uninclusive manner it's being planned.
I mean, the direction of these plans look like they're being guided directly by NASA. I want to say that's a good thing. But NASA lately has shown a distinct lack of vision. NASA as of late has almost been more about lip service than anything-- being able to say, "Yup! We can get into low earth orbit!" or "We've got a space station!", but then not not actually caring what interesting or forward-looking things we can do as a result. This leads me to worry that if NASA is deciding what we do next, it will be the same sort of lip service-- just going to the moon for the sake of going to the moon, and not exploring what revolutionary or groundbreaking things that we could do in the process.
On the other hand, this looks like it would involve an increase in NASA's budget. I've heard it charged the problem with NASA's lack of ambition of late is not the leadership, but just that they don't have enough money to do anything more than the bare minimum. An increase in funds might mean they would have breathing room to do great things again. And most of NASA's such problems-- the aimless floundering that's characterized the attempts to replace the Shuttle, for example-- have been due to a lack of direction. A clear set of direction and goals, any of them, no matter now small, could once again cause NASA to streamline and orient itself toward getting positive work done. Bush's plan would very likely provide that sort of orientation.
Anyway, I just don't know what to think here. Am I being too pessimistic?
There will never be a permanent settlement on the moon. It's pretty well known by now that there is not enough water there to sustain any kind of colony of any sort (that ice cap turned out to be way too thin).
Didn't Slashdot say Bush was going to announce Project Prometheus(go to Mars) in his last State of the Union? I think I'll just wait and see what he actually says in his speach before I get too excited.
Jesus saves souls and redeems them for valuable cash prizes
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
Bush sure has his priorities straight - conquer the world, first Iraq, then the Moon and then maybe even Cuba. But seriously - can the States afford anything right now that has nothing to do with their social programs? I normally would never question the necessity for the space programs etc., I am all for the further development of science and progress of humans into the space, but I don't see how US can pay for this right now, whith the kind of spendings they have in Iraq....
One thing for sure: if there is any life on the Moon, they better pray that there is no oil there, or they will have to be 'liberated'.
You can't handle the truth.
When I look at his record for the promises he made about things I was in favor of... I'll believe him after he delivers. Even then I'll check to make sure he didn't sabotage the project, so that it will fold immediately after he leaves office.
OTOH, Texas has this big space center, so this might be a way to spread some cash around back home. So it's possible he doesn't have any motives other than the obvious ones. O, and he has this brother who's governor of Florida. They might be in for a cash infusion too. OK. He has "legitimate" reasons. But the first paragraph stands. (He's so far welched on most of the promises that I thought important.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The cheapest way with current technology might well be to use Russian rockets. 'Course that puts a big ding in the presidential pride, right? A bit like the way the last series of American rockets using Russian engines only worse.
:v)
International organisations such as The Artemis Society know a lot more about this kind of thing than you realise. I work for TransOrbital, so I know what I'm on about. I speak here in an unofficial capacity, by the way.
Resurrecting Saturn V won't work. The teams are disbanded or dead of old age, the buildings re-used, the launchpads were demolished for the shuttles, and they don't make the tools to make the bits anymore.
Personally, I'd be a lot happier if it was an international effort. That way when the US Government gets cold feet again, or is unable to meet its end of the bargain again, the mission will continue and mankind as a whole gets something out of it.
Vik
I believe President Bush was the managing general partner of the Texas Rangers - not the Houston Astros. He actually did quite well turning a large profit when he sold the team. In fact, he made the most of money of all his relatives - simply by buying and selling the Texas Rangers. The Rangers were bought in 1989 for 86 million dollars and sold in 1998 for 250 million dollars.
This is all off topic - but then again you received moderation to "insightful" and I disagree, your incorrect.
Technology is the core "product" of the United States. The United States businesses (yes, the top ten) are mainly technology based and we make a large amount of money trading this technology. Therefore I believe pushing space flight can bring nothing but good things to the United States.
Did you know that the oil business in this US is not getting oil but rather producing technology for finding and refining oil?
Interesting. Sure enough, the first link when you search Google for "miserable failure" is www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html... a page which certainly does not contain the terms "miserable failure".
This can't possibly be a coincidence; it doesn't seem likely to be a bug; and it damned sure isn't a legitimate search result. What it is, is the first instance of overt politicization I've seen in Google's ranking system.
I'm not a Bush defender, but this deliberate bogus query shows a lack of professionalism on Google's part that isn't the least bit cool. Google does not represent itself as a subjective editorial site. Search engines, like armies, are valuable public resources with the potential to do a lot of good or a lot of harm. They both work best when they keep their politics to themselves.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Until Bush grants NASA a good chunk of cash (35 - 45 billion sounds about right) and somehow passes a law preventing the next administration from rolling back the grant, I won't be convinced. What if he just spouts rhetoric, then never funds it fully (remember fuel cell cars in the state of the union)? It's just a load of hyperbole until that time.
NASA needs to *know* that the cash will be available to fund crazy stuff, stuff that's way out there. We'll have to rebuild/repair quite a bit, launch facilities, bigger rockets, a massive hiring spree (NASA's hemorrhaged quite a few talented people in the last decade).
If this is for real, perhaps I'll switch my major (from cs, of course) to someone more related to space....
All materials required for the survival of men living on the moon would have to come from Earth.
If men can live on the ISS for many months at a time, I am sure they could at least do the same on the moon. Basically, you need food, water, and air. Two of those can be recycled. Food would be the only issue, but I imagine it would not be tough to find room to build a big enough kitchen on the moon ;-)
I agree that a Mars mission is far more promising in terms of advancing our species and science. But the moon has advantages. Like I said, its proximity makes travel easier, especially in an emergency. I forget the mission number but one of the Apollos had a ruptured oxygen tank and barely made it back to Earth safely. On a Mars mission, with a year or two travel time, they would have died for certain. Refilling supplies is a much shorter trip. This means it is cheaper and emergencies are easier to handle.
The government will find ways to screw this up. By going to the moon first they can make their mistakes and learn from them before going to Mars. Mars is for sure a much more important goal. My point is just that the moon is a step along the way.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
So, what rocket can be used instead?
Probably one that is launched from space, possibly the ISS. In the past there has been talk about a space launch platform in orbit. It is potentially much cheaper and easier to go from Earth to orbit to the moon than straight from Earth to the moon. Of course, this depends on us developing better propulsion systems.
The basic idea is that we can use existing technology to get into orbit, then have a new spacecraft that does not need to be able to enter the atmosphere and land -- it only "flies" in space. This allows extreme flexibility in design and mission capability since it doesn't need wings, those pesky tiles, huge engines, etc.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
"considering that the US economy was up 8.2% last quarter, which is the highest growth since 1984 -- when Ronald Reagan was president, i'd say it's becoming a lot less of a problem. "
What's puzzling is that there is no rational reason for that kind of growth. The deficit is getting bigger, the trade deficit is getting bigger, the dollar is getting weaker, and the stock market is limping along. I for one am not convinced that those number are for real nor am I convinced that this kind of growth has any legs at all.
Time will tell.
"Bush's approval ratings are still extremely high-- and as long as the democrats can't figure out what their agenda is, none of the nine dwarves are going to beat him."
Approval ratings or not slightly more then half of this country are democrats. He may get re-elected but like the last time it will be by the skin of his teeth.
War is necrophilia.
I agree. It's high time the Republicans lived up to their campaign promises and started cutting back federal programs. Welfare, medicare, and social security are all due for a checkup and rewrite.
However, space exploration falls under the constitutionally duty of the federal government to fund science. Bush is perfectly within his party's vision and the bounds of the constitution in proposing this. I want my tax dollars to fund this.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
This is all about the militarization of space. You can read their plans from the new american century website.
r ic asDefenses.pdf
i nc iples.htm
Quote: To increase their
effectiveness,
ground-based
interceptors like the
Armys Theater
High-Altitude Area
Defense System
must be networked
to space-based
systems. pg. 64
as will be discussed below, space dominance
may become so essential to the preservation
of American military preeminence that it
may require a separate service.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAme
If you've never heard of the NAC website, it's a think tank with all the leading NeoCons behind it. Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfield...etc..
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofpr
The PDF was 2000 and if you read it, is become American policy.
If I remember correctly the original 60's moon missions made money. Yep, they were "cash positive". Not directly of course, but all of the spin off technology added more to the economy than the taxes it took to pay for it.
Perhaps it would have been a better investment to take that money and put it in the stock market. I don't have those numbers, and even if it was, who cares? It was a wonderful program because it advanced basic science, created high paying jobs, gave us something positive to look forward to, and "grew" the economy. For a government program, it was a hat trick and then some.
I have no idea if a modern moon or mars program could do that again, but wouldn't it be worth trying? Even if it only broke even economically, wouldn't we be ahead in science and national pride?
Personally I'd like to see more private investment in space, but I think that there is going to have to be a core of federal money to get the ball rolling.
- doug
At a rate of $25,000 per second the cents columns don't mean much.
They tested their moon rocket, the N-1, several times in the 60s and early 70s. Each one blew up, mostly due a combination of bad luck, design bureau infighting, and a design that used 30 engines on the first stage alone. (What are the odds of no problems with that?)
They had better luck in the 80s with the "Energia" core booster for their space shuttle clone, the Buran. It was designed so that it could be launched without the heavy shuttle and with extra booster units to achieve very impressive payloads. It successfully launched their shuttle for one unmanned orbital flight, but IIRC the project was canceled after that.
The moon mas plenty of resources, such as it's LACK of atmosphere. Do you think in any way the air on earth, or it's magnetic field, or it's clounds or airplanes or radio waves bouncing around inside it make it easy to use radio telescopes and such? The moon has little to none of that interference. Much less than low earth orbit, even. Solar power collection? 24-hour free solar energy beamed to earth? Yea, the moon is SO overrated.
And if you think that they're going to cancel space flights and deny someone taking off to return from the moon then you must be trolling. Let's leave them up there to definetly fir as opposed to taking the chance they might survive...good call.
The reason we don't go there now for cheap is we haven't done it in 30 years. Think about 30 years ago: big bulky unefficient cars, clunky appliences, computers the size of your house.
I'd say we're about ready for another wack at it.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
There are some scientists etc, that say that a lot of asteroids deposited OIL to earth, because there are a lot of the major hydrocarbons in the rocks. Now also they have found a lot of oil is real real deep down in the earth near where large asteroid impacts have been found to be after disecting the earth with satelites/remote sensing. I doubt a lot of the oil thats real deep down got there by plants if those rocks themselves have been underground for billions of years. If those rocks never saw the surfaces then how did the oil get there?
l t h/ asteroid_oil_991213.htmlr chives/001857.php
So im not saying its the reason for going there, but imagine if deep test drilling did reveal 'solid' oil or oil mixed in the rock in the form of lots of hydrocarbons.
read some of these
http://earthsci.org/newsop/opinion/asteroid.htm
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetear
http://unxmaal.com/mt/a
interesting though it is.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Woah, stop with the conspiracy theories. This actually all came about as a result of a coordinated effort by one particular blog. They decided to create the "Miserable Failure Project" and asked for their readers to stick in a link to this page to establish a link between Dubya and the term "miserable failure", which has worked out exactly as they hoped. There is more info at that link if you're interested in the juicy details.
I think the best for everyone would be, if Bush announced that all barriers currently hindering private firms in their attempts to launch their vehicles into space (mainly licensing and other bureaucratic nonsense) would be immediately abolished.
Of course, he won't do that. Any government's worst nightmare is about people flying around the space freely, out of their control. After all, the colonization of North America occured due to high taxes (and their consequences) in Europe. Nowadays, the taxes are much higher than then, so there is even more incentive to flee from them. Travelling in space may be dangerous, but at the current level of technology, it is probably not more dangerous, than going from Europe to America on a ship was in the 17th century.
In John McCain's words, Bush is spending like a drunken sailor.
Conservatives are against runaway spending on principle, and because they figure libs won't give them any credit even if they do spend:
Federal spending soars under Bush's watch
According to one recent analysis, the government now spends $20,000 a year for every household in America, the most since World War II
Notice this isn't just on defense and homeland security (you know, the common defense that the Constitution actually calls for), but also for entitlements.
I'm still looking for AmeriCorps, the Boys and Girls Club, or job training expenditures mentioned in the Constitution.
Anyway, Bush is spending a lot. Why bother? He's being attacked by both sides. He might as well cut cut cut.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you