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."

Comments

I couldn't agree more

[ChaoticLimbs]

A moon base would be so much better than the ISS.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[ChaoticLimbs]

Empty space has no materials to build with and nothing to tunnel into. The moon has both. It would be a better platform for construction of hugely expensive wastes of resorces and time than empty space.
If we gotta go to space at all, lets build a city on the fricking moon. Why not, budget's shot to hell anyway.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[Anonymous Coward]

"Why not, budget's shot to hell anyway"

I've recently decided that large sums of money are simply imaginary. The united states owes hundreds of billions of dollars(trillions?). To whom? When does it have to be paid back? Imaginary. Keep on spending.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Watch out! More Bush-shit ahead! There is a reason folks in Texas called him "All hat, no cattle".

If he appears to support the space programme, it will be to shuffle a few Billion$ into industries located in states that are expected to support him in 2004. Plus, he can't let the Chinese steal all the "Moonshot headlines".

This administration has done more to undermine resarch, exploration and sound scientific inquiry than any more than 200 years of the Republic. Look what's happening to funds in NIH and NSF!

If Bush praises your programme, lookout for the axe! I will quote from Molly Ivins' latest here:

But then, in what is becoming a recurring, almost nightmare-type scenario, the minute he visits some constructive program and praises it (AmeriCorps, the Boys and Girls Club, job training), he turns around and cuts the budget for it. It's the kiss of death if the president comes to praise your program. During the presidential debate in Boston in 2000, Bush said, "First and foremost, we've got to make sure we fully fund LIHEAP [the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program], which is a way to help low-income folks, particularly here in the East, pay their high fuel bills." 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.

Don't be fooled.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[DavesWorld334]

This would be the first thing Bush has done I would agree with. If he's serious, I could almost forgive him. If he *means* it, and we go, and we establish and maintain a manned lunar base ... I just might.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the national debt is actually owed to the American people.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[fatboy]

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.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[Mr. Troll]

Umm, the Fed is most certainly NOT owned by private banks. See, thats why private banks BORROW from the fed, and the interest rate the fed charges these banks is the basis for the intrest rates charged to consumers.

And reading the rest of your comment, it is clear that you have no idea how the Federal Reserve System works.....or really anything financial. I'm glad to see your ignorance has led to an unhealthy fear of monetary systems and of, well, logic.

Please take a basic Econ course at your local college.....for your own benefit and for that of people around you.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[Adam_Weishaupt]

And I thought congress held the purse.

You mean the Republican controled congress ?

Re:I couldn't agree more

[buffer-overflowed]

And in inverse: The same could be said for Ann Coulter.

Only Coulter is a lot younger and more attractive than Molly Ivins.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[Penguinshit]

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....

Re:I couldn't agree more

[the argonaut]

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.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[strokah]

Trillions ...

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 04 Dec 2003 at 05:40:09 AM GMT is: $6,920,018,770,791.33

Re:I couldn't agree more

[blair1q]

Empty space isn't made of lunar regolith.

Lunar regolith isn't weathered like the surface debris on Earth. Consequently, it's got sharp edges. It's less like play-sand and more like crushed glass.

The astronauts reported that the stuff got into their suits between the hermetic joints, grinding into their skin. It also chewed up the lunar rovers.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[demaria]

"You mean your one-time "benefit" of somewhere in the vicinity of $300?"

In 2000 my tax rate was 28%. This year it is 25%. Next year it will be 25%. The year after it will be 25%. When did one time mean more than once?

Or are you suggesting my federal tax rate in 2004 be the same as in 2000? Because (unless congress decides to pass a few laws) it won't.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[wmspringer]

Because, as the 2000 elections clearly showed, being competant isn't the most important quality when running for office. Gore was obviously the one who knew what he was doing, but Bush got almost as many votes simply because he's more likeable. Heck, I think Bush is totally incompetant, but I'm happy to admit that he seems to be a nice enough guy.

Anyway, Bush takes office and everything the Democrats predicted comes true. So what happens in 2002? The Republicans have massive wins across the country. Obviously being right isn't as important as being popular.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[saden1]

The Feds borrows against itself and the taxpayer.

Banks are middle man that simply takes a cut by facilitating you, the taxpayer, borrowing from Feds.

I wonder if we can cut the banks our of the loop and have a nonprofit organizations facilitate taxpayer borrowing from the government.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[Dr. Zoidburg]

Debt? there ain't no debt. Look at this example:

Bunch of people end up on a deserted island without any money (which would be useless cause there aren't any stores). Say Joe Banks is one of them. He happens to have some gold nuggets, which he lends to everyone else for a year for use as a monetary system. After the year, he demands all of his property back plus 1% interest. In one sense you could say "well he was without his gold for a year, so he deserves something in return"....but where are the people going to get the additional 1% of gold (assuming there was absolutely none on the island)? They don't have it, so now they're in debt.

If by some miracle some gold is found by one of these folks in debt, they owe some back to Joe Banks...but Joe Banks didn't do an ounce of work to deserve it! It's slightly exagerated I know, but the point is this: if you can convince someone they are in debt to you even though they weren't, then they are now in debt to you.

Here's another absurd thing about debt: if A owes B $10, and B owes C $10, and C owes A $10, is anyone really in debt?

What's really funny is how the U.S. ditched the sole backing for it's monetary system (gold, something physical) for just T-bills (not really physical, just a printed image). Years ago, a sale involving cash transaction says "this $1 bill I'm handing you is a representation of the gold I personally own...being physically held in the fed". Now it just means "the fed says this $1 I'm handing you is worth something...or so they tell me...not sure what it really represents".

What's even more funny is that the U.S. convinced a lot of other countries to buy into the "world bank"....which happens to be backed by...get this: U.S. T-bills! Every country that put its "money" into the world bank effectively "paid off" that much of the U.S. debt! As long as those countries don't pull out their money, the U.S. is not currently in as much debt as you think.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[Anonymous Coward]

"rubust, booming economy"
You hate the fact that the economy is getting better don't you? The truth is you have such hatred for bush that you hope with every bone in your body that the recession inherited from the Clinton administration lives on until the 2004 elections. You actually hope for a bad US economy. That's funny considering what the principles of being liberal are SUSPOSE to be. But that's the problem, being liberal isn't what it was. Being liberal is now just hating Bush and hoping for another disaster so liberals can be in power. Now let's look at some FACTS; the economy is out of recession, and it is growing at rate of which we haven't seen in over twenty years.

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?
Yeah, the AARP, a truly conservative special interest group, supported passing of that bill. Funny how Clinton made promises of prescription drug benefits during both of his campaigns and yet it took Bush to get it done.

War on Terrorism
Are you even still in the room?
What do you think this is, AOL? I'm not sharing a room with you. This is a forum.

We totally forgot about Osama (a real live admitted terrorist)
Would you like to ask the troops currently stationed in Afghanistan if we have forgotten about Al Qaeda or bin laden? How about the office of homeland security, I'm sure they don't give two shits about bin laden right? Of course the CIA and FBI could care less about him too.

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]).
I guess the dead Jews who were killed by Palestinian terrorists publicly bankrolled by Saddam don't count in your eyes. The hundreds of Kurds killed by chemical weapons and the recently discovered mass graves don't make you a terrorist.

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.
There hasn't been another September 11th yet has there? the terrorists have never been such a target before, Have you seen the AC-130 gunship video? the terrorists looked to be a little terrorized themselves. Also, for you to compare a conflict where the largest casualties occurred on September 11th, to a war which 58,000 Americans gave their lives, is a stretch at best, and an insult at worst.

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.
I didn't know the whole world consisted of the US, France, Germany, and Russia. We have more support with the war on terror than any previous War in WORLD HISTORY.

Oh, and did I forget squandering what was a budgetary surplus, creating the fastest-growing budget deficit this country has ever seen?
Reagan ran deficits with big defense spending and look where that lead us, The fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war. Now your children won't have to learn "Duck and Cover!". I bet the fall of the Soviet Union really chapped your ass.

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).
Bush has brought this country out of recession, and stood up to terrorism where pink panty wearing pussies like yourself would of stated "I for one, welcome our new terrorist overlords".

Re:I couldn't agree more

[WaxParadigm]

"Well, by my calculations, assuming the reason for your tax rate reduction was soley due to the 'rebate' of $300, your income is only $10,000 dollars a year."

Well, by my calculations you're an idiot. The "rebate" was a one-time deal to get SOME of the tax cut into people's pockets before the next April when they filed their returns. The tax cuts were not $300 for everyone, but percentage cuts (and yes, the cuts effected all income levels).

So, the guy who said it changed his rate from 28% to 25% is not making $10k as you calculate...and will definately recieve more than $300/year from these tax cuts. He was also correct at the rates, where you were way off. The previous tax rates of 15, 28, 31, 36, and 39.6 percent were replaced by a simplified rate structure of 10, 15, 25, and 33 percent.

Instead of mocking people who are happy about the much-needed reduction in tax rates who might have voted for Bush, and using your own ignorance to back it up...you might want to actually educate yourself on the matter.

It's amazing what information and simple logic can produce (understanding maybe?). You should try it sometime.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[danheskett]

I was going to college in NH during the last election.. I met *every* single candidate for President on the primary ballots in NH at least *two* times, including G.W. Bush three times, including a sitdown-meal, a five-person roundtable, and a 35-person private reception.

I can say this clearly: by far, he was *the* most likeable, *the* most personable, *the* most appealing candidate on the surface. We talked about lots of things, including politics, policies, big issues, local issues, etc. He was literate, considerate, and lucid at all times.

Gore, whom I met twice (one sit down meal, one private reception of about 50, total time spent was probably 2 hrs), was stiff, unfunny, whiny, condescending, and came off as overplanned. He called over the photographer several times for "candid" photo-ops. He gesticulated wildly hoping to get caught on camera in a typical political moment - you know, mouth open, looking smart, hands waving, looking concerned but involved in a pro-active way - and often succeeding.

Bradely was brillant. McCain was fun and witty and likeable. But Bush shone.

Was the election a popularity content? Who knows. But Bush definately can win a room.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[demachina]

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.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[Penguinshit]

recession inherited from the Clinton administration lives on until the 2004 elections.

Actually, Bush inherited a nicely balanced budget (indeed, in the surplus) and an economy so hopeful that one of Bush's campaign ideas (thankfully swept under the rug) was to make Social Security based on the stock market (incidentally an idea that Clinton, Gore, and anyone with a fiscal brain said was a *BAD* idea). In fact, as late as last year Bush still floated that Social-Security-based-on-stock-market balloon during a speech. There's a real fiscal genius running the White House... The bubble was sure to burst at some point. But the fact is that by this time 2001 (2002 at the latest) the economy should have corrected and been back to a more stable state. Instead, because Junior wants to run apeshit through the world like some coked up playboy, we are grasping for economic straws during a time of incredible unemployment. Instead of paying attention to the problems at home, Junior wanted to go create problems in the world so he could show how just like his daddy he could be (and I voted for Bush Sr.). Junior can't hold daddy's jock.

Yeah, the AARP, a truly conservative special interest group, supported passing of that bill. Funny how Clinton made promises of prescription drug benefits during both of his campaigns and yet it took Bush to get it done.

But what you conveniently left out was that the AARP "supported" this legislation because, in their words, it was "better than nothing". In fact, they were pushing all the way for it to be brought back to the original proposal before the Republicans destroyed it in committee. In fact, in the AARP commercials their "support" is explained in this light.

Would you like to ask the troops currently stationed in Afghanistan if we have forgotten about Al Qaeda or bin laden? How about the office of homeland security, I'm sure they don't give two shits about bin laden right? Of course the CIA and FBI could care less about him too.

How about asking the troops in Afghanistan if there are enough of them to do the job required of them? How about asking if they really were thrilled about their numbers being diverted to Iraq? How about asking how busy the CIA is trying to track down the Fedayeen leaders so our troops stop getting cut down a couple of soldiers at a time on an almost daily basis? How about asking why, after a campaign promise of "smaller government", the government was almost doubled in size by the addition of a single (IMHO unecessary) Cabinet (your "Homeland 'Security'")?

I guess the dead Jews who were killed by Palestinian terrorists publicly bankrolled by Saddam don't count in your eyes. The hundreds of Kurds killed by chemical weapons and the recently discovered mass graves don't make you a terrorist.

Here's where you can really get yourself in trouble. Let's keep this simple. Saddam, in his effort to maintain his self-image as a big player in the Arab world, made a large public speech where he promised payments for Palestinian "martyrs". In fact, such payment has *YET* to be made (even well before Gulf-II). Saddam was a tempest in a teapot, easily contained by the UN actions post-Gulf-I. As for your point regarding the Kurds... well...:
1. Bush Sr. urged the Kurds to rise up against Saddam post-Gulf-I. They did, expecting US support. US support did not come, they got slaughtered by an injured and vengeful Saddam.
2. Iraq is not a "country". It is a confederation of disparate ethnic and religious parties who are quite frequently at bitter odds with each other, where the word "compromise" is not in their mutual vocabularies. A strong brutal leader is sometimes the only way to make all those parties behave. Is that a nice picture? Hell no. But it does accurately describe the shitstorm that is now present-day Iraq and why Western-style democracy probably won't work so well there. The biggest part of what makes our democracy work here is that the St

Re:I couldn't agree more

[mabhatter654]

Prescription Drugs
you mean the plans the Reps kept shooting down when Clinton proposed them at the start of both terms?

Saddam
Really, GBI did encourage the Kurds to rebel against their rightful, recoginzed govt...notice Turkey refused to deal with them too...even with US occupation of Iraq. The Chemical weapons came from US-USSR cold war policies of selling "surplus" arms to higest-bidder dictators for quick cash. We are directly to blame for their deaths just as much as Saddam is.

desert-style Vietnam situation
This is more-or-less how vietnam started. That conflict [never actually a declared war...hun?] started as a knee-jerk reaction to commies. It was supposed to be a "quick" clean up to keep the French "serfs" down. But, The commies correctly avoided direct confrontation of superior force and dragged the war for years by "camping" for the US troops we kept sending [sotra like right now]...It's only a matter of time before the whole region is openly against us...at that point the UN will simply turn it's back and let us take it!

more support with the war on terror
funny how people "support" you at the business end of a fleet of B-52's! Bush has openly theatened/extorted/bribed many countries into compliance...that's nearly the same as support. They WILL knife us in the back for this when the time is right!

Regan's defense spending also lead to the expectations of the wild profits that created the careless dot com boom/bust cycle, and set the stage for the business practices that Enron enbraced. As far as helping the economy, I don't really see how? We're still loosing GOOD jobs in most of the country at an alarming rate. Remember unemployment only counts those who GET it, not who it's run out for...the numbers are really MUCH higher, and the new jobs aren't as good as the old ones. He's only created larger, and more Orwellian government...the very kind Regan tried to put down in Cold war Russia. I was a kid when Regan was president, in high school when the "wall" fell...Bush has copied every, single thing I was told by the govt was WRONG with the commies in all but name. This is a very, very dark time for the US!

Re:I couldn't agree more

[MegaHamsterX]

Or so you think......

We have never, in the history of the United States, allowed a citizen to vote for the President, the populous only voices their opinion.

The elctoral college for better or worse is the body responsible for electing the president,
while many states have laws deigning that their representitives must vote with the popular vote, many do not.

The election went fine, it didn't turn out the way you wanted, too bad, the election before Bush didn't turn out the way I wanted, didn't cry, just moved on.

Anything to keep the man out of office whose wife banned 2Live Crew albums for sale down here, and arrested people for selling them.

Art is free speech, your dislike of it does not give you the right to censor it, bible bangers, they're all alike, trust none of them, your party or not.

I see them for what they are elected con-men

Re:I couldn't agree more

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

I'm not sure if that is a joke or not... the debt is very real all right. You are not feeling the impact now because it is not "out of control" yet. But you WILL feel the impact. If the US govt "defaults" on the debt (not possible under capitalism), they will get cut off from the world money supply. The currency will plummet.... you just need to look at other countries like Argentina, Ecuador, etc.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:I couldn't agree more

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

(Quoted in reverse order--don't ask :) )

As long as those countries don't pull out their money, the U.S. is not currently in as much debt as you think.

A big IF there. Not likely in the near term but it's a dangerous game the capitalists are playing with USA (or for that matter any other country). If Japanese (who is the largest majority foreign owner of US debt), and a bunch of other foreign investors asked for their money back, USA will collapse overnight.

What's really funny is how the U.S. ditched the sole backing for it's monetary system (gold, something physical) for just T-bills (not really physical, just a printed image). Years ago, a sale involving cash transaction says "this $1 bill I'm handing you is a representation of the gold I personally own...being physically held in the fed". Now it just means "the fed says this $1 I'm handing you is worth something...or so they tell me...not sure what it really represents".

That's why, when capitalism collapses (which I think it will--probably within 50 years), make sure you convert all your assets into something tangible (eg. gold, house, buildings, etc). THe US dollar, as well as other currencies, are not backed by anything (other than trust). Unlike the olden (is this even a word? :) ) days, the govt cannot give you anything of value for your money. Modern currencies are nothing more than paper with some trust attached to it. Once you lose the trust, it is worth nothing.

Here's another absurd thing about debt: if A owes B $10, and B owes C $10, and C owes A $10, is anyone really in debt?

I think the individual IS in debt. However, the whole society has a net zero debt. For example, USA is in debt but the world as a whole is not.

After the year, he demands all of his property back plus 1% interest. In one sense you could say "well he was without his gold for a year, so he deserves something in return"....but where are the people going to get the additional 1% of gold (assuming there was absolutely none on the island)? They don't have it, so now they're in debt.

Under capitalism, you are allowed to default. A loan is a risky proposition. So if no one can pay it, thenthey will all default and the original guy "understands" that :)

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:I couldn't agree more

[chillmost]

Only Coulter is a lot younger and more attractive than Molly Ivins

Yeah but Coulter is really a man so it doesn't count

Re:I couldn't agree more

[BigDork1001]

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.

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.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[Glock27]

Empty space isn't made of lunar regolith.

Lunar regolith isn't weathered like the surface debris on Earth. Consequently, it's got sharp edges. It's less like play-sand and more like crushed glass.

The astronauts reported that the stuff got into their suits between the hermetic joints, grinding into their skin. It also chewed up the lunar rovers.

Of course, what's on the surface of the moon is much less interesting than what's underneath, since thats where humans will spend 95%+ of their time. It will take at least a few meters of lunar surface to protect them from radiation. Also, thermal issues are much easier a ways underground.

I'm pretty sure "regolith resistant" spacesuits aren't a big problem, regardless.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[0123456]

"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.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[Darby]

I wonder if we can cut the banks our of the loop and have a nonprofit organizations facilitate taxpayer borrowing from the government.

We already have. They're called Credit Unions.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[Chess_the_cat]

If Japanese (who is the largest majority foreign owner of US debt), and a bunch of other foreign investors asked for their money back, USA will collapse overnight.

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.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[F34nor]

Did you read the report on Slashdot a few weeks ago? It said that solar farms on the moon could increase the average income of a U.S. Citizen form ~$30,000 to ~130,000. So if they are right this could be VERY good for the poor and middle class. We just better make sure that its power AND its money flow down to Earth.

Never forget the lessons Gundam has taught us. Don't try and take advantage of people living in space, its easy to drop stuff from up there.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[F34nor]

Funny, sounds like your talking about the Space Elevator or the LEO Crane!

If we want to get off this friken rock the Space Elevator is the only choice. 2 ton payloads, 8 climbers per ribbon 2 ribbons. A DEAL at 15 billion. So like I've said before...

HEY NANOFIBER ENGINEERS, STOP READING SLASHDOT AND GET BACK TO WORK!!!

Re:I couldn't agree more

[OOGG_THE_CAVEMAN]

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.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[tommy_teardrop]

While I agree with you that the next big target should be Mars, since that is the more interesting place in terms of scientific questions like the origins of life, but the Moon has a lot going for it too.

The Moon would make a perfect base for a suite of telescopes. The dark side is the best location in the solar system (planet-side or in orbit) for radar telescopes. Both optical and infrared telescopes would also be well served by the location, with a combination of both very clear conditions, and a solid structure from which to build. The very low gravity means that you can build structures that would be completely unstable on either Earth or Mars. Mars has massive dust storms that makes the planet a far less useful observing platform.

There is also a significant advantage in travelling to both Mars and the Moon for geological investigation. Mars has lost of erosion and possible life, but the Moon is a pure surface, recording the past right back to the earliest history.

Not only does this give you a lot of information on the Earth-Moon system, but it also means you could use the subsurface in the same way that the ice cores from Arctic are used to measure the atmosphere back into the past, to record the history of the Solar wind back billions of years.

There are lots of reasons to send people to the Moon, and to establish a permanent base there; it needn't be Mars or nothing.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[ajax0187]

When the stock exchange crashed in 1929, the United States' economy collapsed. It also dragged down with it the rest of the world, plunging most countries into a decade-long depression. Yes, the US only has a small percentage of the world's population, but we have a MASSIVE influence on world trade, world production and world consumption. If we go into a depression, we stop buying other countries' products. Sure, they can sell their stuff to other countries, but they sure as hell won't make as much money doing it. And if the countries need that level of money, they're going to be in trouble. Yes, they may just get off with a really tight budget, but there will be a few countries that will go down with us. And those countries will take down other countries, which will take down other countries, etc.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[drakaan]

Maybe "ruin and chaos" is a bit exagerrated (maybe not), but you're missing the point...the US's population is not the factor that makes the impact. What would make the impact is the rate of consumption here, and many countries know this...it's the reason that the WTO recently had to rule against US steel tarrifs...they were hurting other countries.

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.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[willtsmith]

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.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[jafac]

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.

Re:I couldn't agree more

[Bob Vila's Hammer]

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.

Thank you China!

[ericspinder]

Nothing gets America going more than a little competition.

The article says nothing about the method, the cheapest way (just off the top of my head) would be to update the Saturn 5, but (I think) the best solution would be to leverage a Space Station (one in the "right" orbit) and use that as a way station. That way you could reuse a moon obiter lander repeatedly.

Re:Thank you China!

[Slack3r78]

While that's a nice idea, the problem lays in the simple physics of it. It takes an enormous amount of energy to break the earth's gravitational pull, and once you've expended that much energy(read:fuel) you're just as well off coasting the rest of the way to the moon until you get picked up by the moon's gravity, rather than stop along the way.

Re:Thank you China!

[Sosarian]

Going directly from Earth may be cheaper than going from the space station.

Rockets will have to carry fuel for the lunar trips to the space station, and also fueling and other maintenance modules/bays will need to be constructed and lifted to the space station. Which is big dollars, dollars which probably wouldn't result in a pay off.

Here are some good papers that talk about many of these issues, be sure to have a look at the Mars Direct PDF, it discusses methods of going from Earth from Orbit and from the Moon (if a source of water could be found there)

http://www.nw.net/mars/
http://www.nw.net/mars/docs/md_reno.pdf

Re:Thank you China!

[TedCheshireAcad]

If the moon flew planes into our skyscrapers, we would have people on it inside of a week. :)

Re:Thank you China!

[Floody]

While that's a nice idea, the problem lays in the simple physics of it. It takes an enormous amount of energy to break the earth's gravitational pull, and once you've expended that much energy(read:fuel) you're just as well off coasting the rest of the way to the moon until you get picked up by the moon's gravity, rather than stop along the way.

This is true, but there are other benefits to TLI (trans-lunar-injection) orbits that are based on an existing LEO (low earth orbit) station, rather than an earth-based launch:

1. Orbital inclination. If the station is at the same inclination (which a station used exclusively for TLI would be) as the moon's orbit, it's a very very easy shot. No inclination burns/azimuth adjustments at launch.

2. Orbital windows. TLI windows based on LEO are "wider" and there is no chance of atmospheric/meterological conditions screwing the window up.

3. Large payloads. As you indicated, the bulk of spent energy is to get into LEO. However, for large mass projects, they can be ferried to an LEO station, assembled, and then (relatively) cheaply injected to the moon. Currently, delivering large-mass to a lunar orbit is impossible, we don't have a rocket or "space transport system" large enough to deliver both payload and TLI/Lunar Orbit/Descent propellent from an earth based launch site in one go.

Re:Thank you China!

[shivianzealot]

Nothing gets America going more than a little competition.

Yup.

The article says nothing about the method, the cheapest way (just off the top of my head) would be to update the Saturn 5,

That sounds nice, but practically infeasable. IIRC, there are two Saturn Vs left in the world after Apollo and Skylab. These are in no condition to fly. One is sideways, partially disassembled, exposed to the elements, and "restored," at the Johnson Space Center in Houston (its actually a rather impressive display, if you ever get the chance to see it). I don't rememebr the current location of the other.

More importantly, according to Bill Bryson's book, "A History of Nearly Everything," the bulk of the design notes and "plans" don't even exist any longer, thanks to NASA's thorough house-keeping. We're better off looking elswhere.

but (I think) the best solution would be to leverage a Space Station (one in the "right" orbit) and use that as a way station. That way you could reuse a moon obiter lander repeatedly.

If only to recycle landers, I don't think this would be practical. As far as the Apollo program goes, I believe the actual manafacture of the landers was pretty miniscule. Even if it does make sense as far as cost goes, maintaining a reusable space craft OFF Earth permanently is just asking for trouble. Astronauts can do some pretty impressive tune-ups as it is, but this would be a bit like keeping a destroyer seaworthy with only a mechanic's garage.

But hey, who ever said I know what I'm talking about?

Re:Thank you China!

[njchick]

Also, there is no "stop along the way". The kinetic energy of the spacecraft on the LEO is reused quite effectively.

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.

Re:Thank you China!

[orthogonal]

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.

Re:Thank you China!

[1u3hr]

More importantly, according to Bill Bryson's book, "A History of Nearly Everything," the bulk of the design notes and "plans" don't even exist any longer, thanks to NASA's thorough house-keeping. We're better off looking elswhere.

Bill Bryson is good for a laugh, but according to this Space FAQ:

Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, the Saturn V blueprints have not been lost. They are kept at Marshall Space Flight Center on microfilm. The Federal Archives in East Point, GA also has 2900 cubic feet of Saturn documents. Rocketdyne has in its archives dozens of volumes from its Knowledge Retention Program. This effort was initiated in the late '60s to document every facet of F-1 and J-2 engine production to assist in any future re-start.

Re:Thank you China!

[joggle]

That's not a problem at all. Another word for low earth orbit (LEO) is a parking orbit, a place where satellites can orbit a bit before heading to higher altitudes. You burn X1 amount of fuel to get to the LEO altitude, then burn X2 amount of fuel to cirularize your orbit. Then after doing whatever you feel like (such as docking with an orbiting lunar lander to be reused for this mission) and finally burn X3 amount of fuel to break out of earth's gravity well and get to the moon. An important point here is that you are accelerating on each burn, never slowing down (and thereby wasting energy), so either way you burn the same amount of fuel. The only downside is adding complexity to the mission--another chance for something to go wrong.

To have a reusable lander, though, would require one substantially different than the Apollo mission (half of which was left on the lunar surface). It would need to be substantially heavier for the additional equipment it would need and probably need to be refueled in a way similar to how the ISS is refueled. Or perhaps use a lander similar to the original, simply rebuilding the bottom portion of it (containing the enormous amount of fuel needed for landing on the lunar surface), docking to the reusable upper portion, which would still require refilling for the launch from the lunar surface to lunar orbit.

Re:Thank you China!

[davesag]

If the moon flew planes into our skyscrapers, we would have people on it inside of a week. :)

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.

Re:Thank you China!

[Floody]

Also, there is no "stop along the way". The kinetic energy of the spacecraft on the LEO is reused quite effectively.

True, but just to be fair, the same is true of an earth-based launch. Apollo/Saturn launched into a very low "parking orbit" and then used all the kinetic energy from this to help perform TLI at just the right moment.

Now, the most wasteful would be to attempt to rendezvous at some intermediate station (say in a clarksian geo-sync orbit), because it requires at least four major burns (probably more, with corrections) to get enroute:

Burn #1: Establish nominal eccentricity on initial orbit (so we don't come right back into the atmosphere) [ok, this may not actually be a major burn, depends on launch]

Burn #2: Rendezvous orbit for intersection with geo-sync station.

Burn #3: Apoapsis burn at/near station rendezvous to match station's eccentricity.

(note, now we have significantly less kinetic energy than we had at LEO because geo-sync is such a high orbit)

Burn #4: TLI burn from station.

The whole "stop along the way" bit was pretty amusing, but I originally chose to ignore it, just because space travel is all about orbital mechanics, and there is no "stopping" when you are in orbit: just transfering from one orbit to another.

I'm Moving

[php_pheen]

Finally, an opportunity to live somewhere that doesn't suck... not yet anyway...

Re:I'm Moving

[Kneht]

You'll find nothing sucks so hard as a vacuum though.

Re:I'm Moving

[DarkBlackFox]

It's a partial vacuum. It sucks by default.

And thus....

[bloodrose]

Bush Phones Home

What's the real reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Must ... cover ... up ... economy problems ... iraq problems ... re-election soon ...

Re:What's the real reason

[ergo98]

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.

Re:What's the real reason

[John Miles]

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.

Re:What's the real reason

[cujo_1111]

It is not politicisation of Google. It occurs because more people have 'miserable failure' and 'Bush' on the same page than 'miserable failure' and 'Clinton' or 'Firestone'...

Learn how Google works before accusing them of bias.

Re:What's the real reason

[blamanj]

Actually, it's the second link, not the first, at least when I do the query, YMMV.

And, if you load the (cached version), you'll see that Google doesn't rely entirely on the search term being in the page, it can appear on links pointing to the page.

Thus, we have links with the phrase "miserable failure" pointing to this page, and, not surprisingly, it is a highly rated page, so it show up first or second in the results.

No conspiracy here, move along.

Re:What's the real reason

[fenix down]

God, this has to be like the 6th time I've explained this thing this week.

Go to Advanced Search and check Occurances. Those are all the places Google looks for your search phrase in relation to a page. In the title, the URL, the text, and in links to the page. Thus, every time we say miserable failure W's bio moves up in the ranks.

So, (miserable failure) Google is not (miserable failure) actually (miserable failure) conspiring to overthrow our beloved (miserable failure) leader, (miserable failure) it's just me. (miserable failure)

Re:What's the real reason

[Malcontent]

"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.

Re:What's the real reason

[pediddle]

Are you daft? That unemployment benefits are a good indicator of the actual unemployment rate is a terrible myth.

Did your stats say how many hapless people have been unemployed for so long that they don't even qualify for benefits anymore? Or how many people never qualified in the first place? All your stats mean is that the rate at which jobs are being cut is falling, but it doesn't mean that new jobs are being created any faster in replacement. That 105,000 drop is most telling of the truth, and is least supportive to your argument.

There's a very important difference, especially when considering the poorest of the poor, those who don't have any income now that they've lost both their jobs and thier benefits.

Re:What's the real reason

[tbmaddux]

... this deliberate bogus query shows a lack of professionalism on Google's part ...

This is merely an exploit of Google's PageRank algorithm commonly known as a "googlebomb."

Re:What's the real reason

[epukinsk]

That's what I was thinking too... people must be linking to Bush's bio, with the phrase "miserable failure" as the link text. But strangely, a google query for:

miserable failure link:http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.ht ml

Yields no results. So none of the pages that link to Bush's bio contain the phrase "miserable failure". Hmm... conspiracy theory is looking a little better.

Erik
b

Re:What's the real reason

[JahToasted]

read the fourth link from the search. Interesting the power a few blogs have... kinda like searching for "weapons of mass destruction".

Re:What's the real reason

[admiralh]

the claims of a 'jobless recovery' are pure BS

This so-called recovery has been going on for well over a year, and only now are jobs beginning to be created. That, my friend, is the textbook definition of 'jobless recovery'.

The report also showed the number of unemployed still on the benefit rolls in the Nov. 15 week fell by a sharp 105,000 to 3.37 million, a level not seen since early February -- also from Forbes.

Does that include the number of discourged workers who aren't even counted in the "benefit rolls", because their benefits have run out? No. Unemployment has been understated for a long time because these people aren't counted.

And how does that number of people on the benefit rolls compare what it was at the beginning of George II's reign?

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.

His ratings have been hovering in the 50's for a while now, well under what Clinton's were on the day of the impeachment vote. And some Democrats (Dean, Kucinich) do have an agenda, you just need to get your news from other places than Fox News to find out what it is.

Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.

Re:What's the real reason

[WaxParadigm]

"This so-called recovery has been going on for well over a year, and only now are jobs beginning to be created. That, my friend, is the textbook definition of 'jobless recovery'."

Actually, If you knew much about economics, you'd know that unemployment is a "lagging economic indicator"...meaning the economy begins to improve before you see a decrease in unemployment. I know it sounds really strange/backward...but that perception can't change this fact.

If this is a jobless recovery? That remains to be seen. I doubt it it is/will be. I think many areas of our economy have corrected themselves, shed waste, made correct steps to increase/sustain productivity, etc...and we'll see non-trivial job creation in this recovery.

One other thing, I think many people are short-sichted...complaining when war takes longer than a month or the economy takes longer than a year to turn. These things take time. An economic recession or boom feeds more of the same. If you're losing your job, you're spending less, people are making less, and they need to lay off more. It takes a bit of time to turn something like that around (especially since while our economy was in this decline we had the added "insult to injury" of the WTC attacks).

Re:What's the real reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yeah miserable loser? You think that's funny you miserable loser? Yeah, ha ha, you miserable loser. Yep that fenix down is a real miserable loser. And guess what, miserable loser, one last time you're a miserable loser!

Wow.. I don't know if I'm happy about this

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

I thought we couldn't stay on the moon

[AndreyF]

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).

Re:I thought we couldn't stay on the moon

[AndreyF]

Well, to establish a permanent moon base, they'll have to do things a little like the way they did on the USS Enterprise. They will have to recycle.

Having abundant supplies of water that dosen't need to be recycled is also very important for a settlement (i.e. for rocket fuel in the form of liquid hydrogen and oxygen).

The possible reasons why:

[Anonymous Coward]

1. There are weapons of mass destruction on the moon.
2. Saddam or Osama, or both, may be hiding in a moon crater.
3. The moon is made of oil.
4. Don't want those pinko commie Chinese taking over our moon.
5. Because the Mooninites are really funny and he wants to meet them.

Re:The possible reasons why:

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear he's going to liberate the moon from Earth's orbit.

Free the moon now!

Re:The possible reasons why:

[GraemeL]

It's part of the missile defense plan. The moon is a great place to throw rocks from. Just ask Mike.

Of course, he may learn that The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

I nominate Bush to be on first flight to the moon

[Anonymous Coward]

We always knew Bush was looney... now he's just plain lunar.

Opiate of the masses

[Sneftel]

Oh jesus. And how about some bread and circuses?

Re:Opiate of the masses

[benzapp]

At least the Romans were able to accomplish more than your pathetic whining.

btw, wheat has opioid peptides in it. It IS an opiate of the masses.

Civilization needs a goal, without a goal, its just endless individualist pricks who all want to be different and be special. Simply existing is not enough. A person can't accomplish a damn thing on their own.

Through unity, there is strength. From strength, comes power. With enough power, anything is possible.

The Romans were able to create an island of civilization out of the natural world. No one was forced to live there. If you wanted to leave, you could. The Bread and Circuses line is a description of what happened when the Empire was collapsing. It doesn't mean anything that unifies a people is bad. When the Roman Empire was conquering the mediterranean, we don't say "That was just a way to control those stupid soldiers, har har". People moved into those conquered regions, civilization began anew into many of the modern countries of Europe.

A large scale space program will employ hundreds of thousands of people, it could bring a minor revival to our industry, and give our people something to live for beyond watching TV and being consumers. This is the next step for humanity. This is our first step in expanding civilization, just as the Romans did 2000 years ago.

btw, I would say we are far worse off than the Romans ever were. The only reason we aren't conquered by some more unified people is because we have nuclear weapons.

Perhaps this is just what the people need.

Re:Opiate of the masses

[geekoid]

All those thing come from having a larger goal.

To continue with the Romans example, in order to accomplish "really big things"(RBT) you must have infrastructure in place. Like Roads, but Roads need people to build, and people can't build roads unles you get them food and water. If you begin having lots of people, you need to govern them, to govern them with a goal of growing your society, you must educate the people, and the must be healthy. Then people see opportunity, with opportunity comes competition, and independent means of making a living.

The same applies to the RBT. you want to go to the moon, you need engineers, you need supplies, you manufactureres you need educated people.

Well, that means you need schools. More kids go to schools, more kids become scientists, your liklyhood of many non RBT thhings take place, like feeding the hungry(crops with higher yields) better medicine, housing techniques.
In order for use to truly become a space faring race, we will need better power, both storage and crating. Better power solutions help move us into new realms of science. A good power solution could actually make electric cars reasonably for the average person, that has a huge benefit enviromentally, thus reducing the amount of crap we breath, thus creating a healthier society.

All these thing are linked.

None of those things you mentioned can be done with just money. For example, the education system will not change unles the right people are in all the right places. I mean people who, above all, want a schools system thats better. Even at the cost of there own future careers.

Re:Opiate of the masses

[Alexei]

what we contribute out strips the rest of the world put together.

This is simply not true. In 2001, the US spent about $10 billion in foreign aid, out of $50b worldwide. However, as a fraction of our GDP, our contributions are the smallest of any of the OECD countries, and as little as a tenth of the northern european countries.

This year, of course, we have an $87b spending spree. Only $20b of that is going towards reconstruction, though (the rest pays for the military). As for whether that's foreign aid or payment for damages is up to you.

Private aid might even score somewhat-- counting foundations, NGOs, private people sending money to their families, etc., the US sends $35b abroad every year. I can't find any equivalent statistics for other countries, though.

About 2% of charitable donations in the US leave the country.

References--
1, 2, 3

Re:Opiate of the masses

[0123456]

"Civilization needs a goal, without a goal, its just endless individualist pricks who all want to be different and be special. Simply existing is not enough. A person can't accomplish a damn thing on their own.

Through unity, there is strength. From strength, comes power. With enough power, anything is possible."

It's so rare to see people openly avowing fascist ideals these days.

Money?

[Squideye]

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.

Re:Money?

[TheCodeFoundry]

This scored a 5: Insightful?

"Bush's government" : Let's stop being so partisan and call it the United States Government, shall we?

"Houston Astros" : Uh, get your facts straight, buddy. Mr. Bush never owned or managed the Houston Astros. He owned (NOT managed) the Texas Rangers.

Slashdot....Stuff people make up.

Re:Money?

[develop]

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?

Re:Money?

[Wes Janson]

Do you know anything about history? For well over a hundred years it has been standard practice to replace the previous administration's people with your own. As we became increasingly political and competitive with the growth of our nation, this practice formed. Appointing friends, donors, and the like-minded to positions of power is the status quo in Washington. So when they refer to Bush's government, in a very real sense it is referring to the people he has chosen to run the country (in part).

Re:Money?

[donutello]

This scored a 5: Insightful?
"Houston Astros" : Uh, get your facts straight, buddy. Mr. Bush never owned or managed the Houston Astros. He owned (NOT managed) the Texas Rangers.

You must be new here.

I like science and all, but...

[rolocroz]

...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.

Here's a first.

[theparanoidcynic]

If Dubby does push for us to get serious about space travel again it would be the fist time I ever agreed with him on something. :p

$500 Billion in debt.

[khasim]

Do we have the money to fund this?

We need to do it but I don't know if we can afford it.

Re:$500 Billion in debt.

[kubrick]

Um, I think you'll find the debt (current account deficit) is $7 trillion. $500 billion is the amount the most recent Budget is in deficit -- i.e. spending more than it brings in.

Re:$500 Billion in debt.

[bigberk]

Um, I think you'll find the debt (current account deficit) is $7 trillion

Actually, it's only $6,918,260,082,500.99 (I love how they throw the .99 in there, like that fools us eh?)

Re:$500 Billion in debt.

[js7a]

At a rate of $25,000 per second the cents columns don't mean much.

Sadly impractical at this point

[Slack3r78]

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.

Baby Steps

[The Snowman]

Going to Mars seems to be a popular idea. Before we try establishing a permanent base on Mars, even unmanned, I think we need to prove ourselves by going back to the moon AND staying there. I.e., establish a moon base, even a small one.

Obviously the moon is much closer. More importantly, we don't need to worry about the synchronization of our orbits. The moon is always roughly the same distance away from us no matter what day of the year it is. This makes it a much easier target to hit than Mars no matter what time it is.

Re:Baby Steps

[Jardine]

Not to mention that the moon people seem a lot less hostile than the martians. Damn martians keep shooting down our probes.

Re:Baby Steps

[The Snowman]

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.

Where are the Slashdot k00ks?

[Rotten168]

You know, the tinfoil hatters who will now claim that we never landed on the moon and this is an attempt by Bush to steal the next election and distract us from Iraq.

A Step In The Right Direction. . .

[MikeDawg]

IF Bush makes this statement during his speech, I will be completely in shock. As much as I dislike Bush, I think the United States definetely needs to reestablish a space presense, and on the moon, that would be great. The ISS is turning up to be more hype than anything else, anything more established.

By creating a real, strong, presence on the moon, we would research and develop much more technology, at a more distinguishable rate, and the rewards would be plentiful enough based on the technology that develops from increased space expenditure. Even if the moon is completely dead, and there are no resources, and no valuable information for us to gather on it, I think we would still come out ahead in this situation.

Yup, Bush calls for return to moon!

[Kirk Troll]

That's the best idea I've ever heard! Lets rocket Bush to the Moon! ;)

Oh no!

[Call Me Black Cloud]

Coincidentally, I just rented a couple of the Space 1999 DVDs from Netflix and all I can say is this is a bad idea. Magnetic fields will hurt the lunarnauts' brains and make them attack the other colonists!

And need I mention the Terrible Space Secret? I think not...

I will say Space 1999 had the coolest looking ships of any series. They actually seemed to be well designed and functional.

Like Mars?

[skydude_20]

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.

Agreed!

[ath0mic]

It is time to liberate the people of the moon!

Well, Duh!

[Rick the Red]

using the moon as a testbed for going to Mars.

Geeze, if we can't establish a base on the Moon, how do they think we can do it on Mars? Since a Mars mission will be several months long I thought it was a no-brainer that we'd first need to prove we can stay on the Moon for more than a few days.

With What Money?

[jIyajbe]

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.

Can he even spell "space"?

[samurairas]

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.

second term

[ruprechtjones]

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..."

First Iraq, now the Moon

[roman_mir]

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'.

Promises trustworthy?

[HiThere]

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.)

Actually

[commodoresloat]

He's just figuring we might find WMD there.

$500 Billion in debt.

[monadicIO]

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.

Don't get me wrong...

[KC7GR]

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.

Re:Don't get me wrong...

[Alaska Jack]

1) So? Come on, get serious.

2) Why we went to war. You've heard the saying that no one is so blind as he who will not see?

3) I assume you're talking about the recession, which started when Clinton was in office, according to official government figures. Well gosh, where to begin.

Service Sector Hiring Hits 3.5-Year High

NASDAQ, Dow Soar on Productivity Gains

For Home Loans, a Steady Market

Two Reports Indicate Recovery Is Taking Hold

Productivity Makes Best Gains in 20 Years

Auto Sales Rise with Economy

Shares Reach 18-Month Highs on Manufacturing News

Holiday Spending Shows Strength

Reports Indicate the Economy is Continuing its Expansion

Economy's Growth Is Revised Upward to 8.2%

U.S. Economic Growth Hits New Records

Number of New Jobless Claims Fell Last Week

Housing Starts In October Near 18-Year High

Economists Expect An Increase of 135,000 Jobs

Consumer Prices Steady After Four-Month Climb

Durable Goods Jump, Jobless Claims Drop

4) Sure. We're going to the moon so Bush can distract us from a bad e-mail bill passed by Congress.

5) Sure. We're going to the moon so Bush can distract us from the RIAA and MPAA.

I could go on ...

I'm sure you could. But I'd rather you didn't. - Alaska Jack

This block of text inserted to overcome Slashdot's stupid average-characters per line rule: WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation. WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, i

Gimme a break.

[Feztaa]

Nothing but more lunacy from the Bush administration.

Re:Gimme a break.

[Lord_Dweomer]

1. Make bad pun
2.?????
3.KARMA!!!!!

Re:Thank you China! (and Russia)

[vik]

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.

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 :v)

Tax and spend Democrats^H^H^H^HRepublicans?

[mooman]

Has this guy got a clue about budgets?

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.cafeprogressiv e.com/4239a600.jpg)

$87 billion for Iraq, tax cuts aplenty, and now he wants space ships too? Oy.

Re:Tax and spend Democrats^H^H^H^HRepublicans?

[mooman]

An AC spaketh: I wonder, though, are you averse to massive government spending in general, or only when it is implemented by Republicans?

No, only when it doesn't directly help the American people.

I'm not inherently opposed to the programs, it's just that *right now* is a bad time to be trying all this stuff. After a recent layoff and several months of unemployment, I'm lucky to have a found a job, despite it being back at about my 1996 salary. Each month I'm continuing to have to tap into more and more of my home equity just to keep the bills paid. There are huge problems with growing poverty in our own country, our education system is slipping through our fingers, healthcare costs are rising at rates triple (or more) than inflation.

I just want to see some of those issues fixed (or at least addressed) before we start more rhetoric about foreign countries to invade and other planets (or satellites) to commandeer.

The sad jest in my original subject line was that it used to be the Democrats with the bad rap for running up big spending tabs and now they are being completely outclassed by this Republican president with a Republican congress. I'm not dissing the Republicans... I'm just afraid of them. I want there to be something left of this country for my daughter to look forward to. Hopefully something worthwhile.

Re:Tax and spend Democrats^H^H^H^HRepublicans?

[jgardn]

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.

Re:hoax or no?

[Rick the Red]

What do you mean, "this time"? We really went there last time, you know. Or are you one of those "Capricorn One" clowns?

Re:It's About Time!

[larry bagina]

for every $1 that the US spent on the Apollo program, $23 went BACK into the economy. This (if done right) will do far more than any phoney tax cuts ever will.

Where does that figure come from? US government programs are horribly inefficient. Like Corn ethanol that midwestern farmers insist is the next big thing... most of the money goes to ADM. For every $1 in revenue ADM has related to corn ethanol, the US gov't spends $30. It would be far cheaper to just pay the corn farmers to pick their pud than to pretend corn ethanol will ever be useful.

Anyhow, tax cuts are just as good for an economy as gov't spending. That tax cut money goes somewhere, maybe it goes into a bank account and the bank can lend the money out for someone to buy a house. Maybe it buys a yacht. Maybe it buys something else. That's better than being in the gov't coffers and ending up paying for a study on some senator's pet project with little or no redeemingvalue.

Let us boldly go...

[slamb]

...where we've been 30 years before.

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:

On July 20, 1989, President George H. W. Bush marked the 20th anniversary of the first Apollo moon landing with a speech at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington in which he called for a permanent American presence on the moon and, ultimately, a mission to Mars.

...but it's been 14 years and his speech is all but forgotten. If Dubya. wants to do better, he'll need a plan to make it happen. And I don't believe he and his administration are capable of that sort of vision.

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.

Deficit

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Permanent moon base

[bender_is_great]

Finally, public transport to my "10 Acre Lifestyle block".

Now, where did I put my deed and lunar map...

December 17th should give you a clue.

[twitter]

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?

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.

Good...

[herrvinny]

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....

I knew Jack Kennedy, and you sir. . .

[kfg]

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

Okay, before you flame people

[Idou]

Just think for a second . . .

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 . . .) remain neglected.

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.

Re:Okay, before you flame people

[orthogonal]

Domestic problems (healthcare, SS, etc . . .) remain neglected.

Now you're just wrong about that!

Reichsminister John Ashcroft will not neglect to secure full funding for his SS.

Of course, to do this, some luxuries will have to be dispensed with, just for the duration of the war. Luxuries like that pesky 4th Amendment. And like "designated free speech zones" for demonstrators. After all, anyone who criticizes the government is supporting terrorism.

But be confident, Citizen! We're doing all of this to keep you safe during the Permanent Crisis. We'll even tell you know what opinions are safe for you to believe!

And of course, if you disagree, we'll be happy to record your objections. Just let us see your papers, Citizen!

Re:A reply to those who freak out at 'nuclear'

[Anonymous Coward]

We can't allow any possibility of radiation leaking into space.

Won't somebody please think of the children?!

Imminent Threat of Not Going to the Moon

[unamiccia]

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.

Not new, and not necessarily accurate

[jfoust]

While the National Review article might be news to most Slashdotters, this is not news for those who have been following the ongoing space policy review by the Bush Administration. In late October SpaceRef.com first reported that a likely outcome of the policy review would be a call for resuming human flights to the Moon, with a Presidential statement on the issue coming as early as the Wright Brothers centennial speech at Kitty Hawk. On Monday SpaceRef.com followed up that original report with a new one, stating that "the return to the Moon by U.S. astronauts possibly by the end of the next decade" had become the "default" position of those planning the new policy. The National Review article doesn't add anything these two SpaceRef reports already provided.

There is no guarantee, though, that these reports are accurate. On Sunday the Orlando Sentinel reported (alternate link) that any new national space policy would differ little from current plans. This report was based on an analysis of internal NASA documents obtained by the newspaper along with interviews with those in the know. This report is actually not necessarily contradictory with the new SpaceRef report: if you're not planning to send people back to the Moon until the end of the next decade, there's little you need to do differently in the near term.

If you're curious about the current interest (or obsession) some have with crafting a new "vision" for NASA, I recommend the articles "The vision thing" and "Vision revision" at The Space Review. (Disclaimer: I'm the author. :-) This should give you an idea that while many in Washington believe there needs to be a new national space policy or vision, there is little consensus about what that should be. Thus, don't expect any major changes soon.

Re:Saturn V does is no more, what rocket to use?

[The Snowman]

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.

Yeah, that's exactly what I thought...

[WIAKywbfatw]

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.

Won't happen, announced or not.

[EoRaptor]

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.

It's all about the Military

[tbond_trader]

This is all about the militarization of space. You can read their plans from the new american century website.

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/RebuildingAmer ic asDefenses.pdf

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/statementofpri nc iples.htm

The PDF was 2000 and if you read it, is become American policy.

Wasn't the 60's moon program a money maker?

[doug]

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

Re:Thank you China! (and Russia)

[bsharitt]

The Russians are experts at getting and staying in Low Earth Attitude. I might be wrong, but I don't believe that they ever even tested a large booter like the Saturn 5.

Well, they did test one, it just blew up on the launch pad.

C'mon! Support your statements people...

[SoupaFly]

According to this site, Bush's approval ratings are not extremely high. They're actually pretty average, somewhere around 50-60% (which is neither high nor low).

Here's an interesting chart that plots approval ratings for many recent Presidents (Clinton, Reagan, Carter...). I don't know how accurate it is, but it is nice to have some visualization.

Re:Thank you China! (and Russia)

[Waffle Iron]

I might be wrong, but I don't believe that they ever even tested a large booter like the Saturn 5. but...

They tested their moon rocket, the N-1, several times in the 60s and early 70s. Each one blew up, mostly due a combination of bad luck, design bureau infighting, and a design that used 30 engines on the first stage alone. (What are the odds of no problems with that?)

They had better luck in the 80s with the "Energia" core booster for their space shuttle clone, the Buran. It was designed so that it could be launched without the heavy shuttle and with extra booster units to achieve very impressive payloads. It successfully launched their shuttle for one unmanned orbital flight, but IIRC the project was canceled after that.

Re:Why do you want to go to the moon?

[Tokerat]

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.

Re:Why do you want to go to the moon?

[CrowScape]

Short term, you're right, there's no resources that one would want to go to the moon for. Long term, you can chemically extract oxygen and water from lunar rock. Since the moon has 1/6th the gravity of Earth, it becomes a very nice fueling station for longer trips to places where you will find those resources that are worth going into space for. The moon is simply a stepping stone, not an end.

Seriously there might be oil there....

[cheekyboy]

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?

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.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planeteart h/ asteroid_oil_991213.html
http://unxmaal.com/mt/ar chives/001857.php

interesting though it is.

Not a conspiracy, just the power of blogs

[da_anarchist]

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.

How can you tell it's from the National Review?

[ndinsil]

The crack about Congressional Democrats would likely challenge a presidential declaration that the sky is blue.

In the interest of equal time I'd like to point out any such declaration would likely contain amendments authorizing Ashcroft to eat babies of suspected terrorists, promoting Justice Scalia to Pope of the One True Faith, and paying Halliburton $1 billion to stripmine Yellowstone and sell the tailings as a food additive.

Not the first time google has done such a thing...

[ThomasFlip]

Just type in "weapons of mass destruction" and hit "im feeling lucky", a windows error screen pops up with a few funny Bush bashing statements.

I didn't know

[certsoft]

I didn't know Halliburton built space rockets.

Oink, Oink

[Animats]

Sounds like another Bush pork program. Remember Reagan's "National Aerospace Plane"? And the Strategic Defense Initiative? Total flops, but big profits for some contractors.

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.

Re:Oink, Oink

[ocie]

Nasa has had no incentive to build a new launch vehicle. This is just like communism: no incentive leads to no effort. I don't mean to imply that NASA employees are not hard working, or smart, but that the organisation itself had no incentive.

Take this example. Say you have some Engineers and tell them "I want you to design a car. I'll let you decide what size, how many people it will hold, what kind of fuel it will use, etc. I don't care how long it takes, r if you ever come up with anything useful." How realistic is it that they will come up with anything.

On the other hand, if you tell them "I want you to get me to the top of that mountain and back here safely, and I want to leave in the next 5 years." They will have the correct motivation.

NASA thrived under the latter scenario, but has no direction under the former.

Leave it to private enterprise

[ivaradi]

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.

Re:I couldn't agree more defcon4

[fenix down]

Bush didn't steal the election, for Christ's sake, the Supreme Court did. As was befitting the fact that elections are not fucking football games the Florida Supreme Court happilly ignored both Bush and Gore and did what they felt would satisfy them that the law was being upheld. Sadly, the Supreme Court was under the impression that elections are fucking football games in which it is the responsibility of the candidate to fight his side and tough shit for the voters if he doesn't.

Since then, of course, the numbers of conservatives in the country have exploded (I think we're down to 20-something% willing to call themselves "liberal" now) resulting in the 2002 election, and the Democratic party has splintered into Clinton vs. DLC vs. Dean vs. confused conservatives (as much to blame for 2k2 as anything else) while the Republicans have transformed into fucking Voltron or something under DeLay, crushing their enemies and seeing them driven before them to the lamenting of their women.

Ultimately, though, I think that'll be what fucks the Republicans. They aren't made for unity. It burns up all the talk-radio power just holding them together at this point. 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. I just hope somebody's around to slow down the flying monkeys once they shed all those damn rational people that've been holding them down.

Going to the moon? Why?

[fbg111]

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?

Re:I couldn't agree more defcon4

[the_2nd_coming]

actualy the washington post found that Bush would have won.

Re:I couldn't agree more defcon4

[bnenning]

the Florida Supreme Court happilly ignored both Bush and Gore and did what they felt would satisfy them that the law was being upheld

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.

Re:I couldn't agree more defcon4

[wmspringer]

The Denver Post (or maybe the Rocky Mountain News, I forgot which...read both of them) reported that Bush would have won a partial recount, but Gore would have won a full recount.

Although, it was so close there was gonna be doubt either way.

Not only is this off-topic, but it is false

[unassimilatible]

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.

Re:Thank you China! (and Russia)

[Cylix]

The old fashioned way...

Yeah, I was thinking about a large sling shot too. I mean, Wile E. Coyote used several of them and they worked just find. Not counting the several times he maimed himself, but I'm thinking all the bugs should be worked out.

Think about it...

Note, IANAALS (I am not an acme labs salesman)

China, America, and the Moon

[DevilsEngine]

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.

Re:I couldn't agree more defcon4

[spacecowboy420]

so now you are smarter than the majority.

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.

So, if the average person is stupid, then half the population is dumber than that. 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.

I am not the originally poster, but I had to point out that he is probably smarter than average, and thus the majority.

I know you have heard the saying "What is right isn't always popular, and what is popular isn't always right"

Think about that the next time you decide to defend the majority. I, myself, am always suspicous of them.

Hi

[mcc]

This is a repost of my comment from earlier today on K5. It would have been nice if the AC had credited me, but I don't mind, because hey, this way it's at Score:5, and it's much higher up chronologically in the discussion than it would have been if I'd posted it.

Anyway, I'm just posting this here now because I want to link to the slashdot story on H.R. 3057, which I would like to suggest you check out.

Re:I couldn't agree more defcon4

[MillionthMonkey]

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?

Google? What the Heck?

[MudDude]

Howdie,

Has anyone recently tried entering "miserable failure" in Google?

Can you tell me what happens?

Regards,

Well, that's the Clangers up the creek...

[Channard]

Presumably they and the Soup Dragon will end up living on reservations soon, while the colonists take over and build cheese-mines to tap its natural resources.

What do you mean, 'not real?'. Next you'll be telling me the Button Moon landing was faked.

Look, it's not a question of physics!

[fireboy1919]

And the more accurate usage is not :
"President Bush to Call for Return TO the moon";
its:
"President Bush to Call for Return OF the moon";

Whoever took the moon had better give it back, soon.

We NEED the moon. We need it for the children. This is a war - a war on terror. A war against whoever took the moon.

President Bush has called for a return of the moon - and with good reason!

How else are we going to govern the tides? I've done it by hand, and let me tell you, this "moon" thing they came up with is a lot better. I, for one, will be glad when it's were it belongs - back in the US, and out of the hands of terrorists.

Where's the funds?

[John Newman]

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.

It's War!

[peterpi]

Bush is expected to declare war on the moon, saying that it has been harbouring terrorists.

For too long, the moon and Mars have been a partnership of evil in today's solar system.

Re:Why do you want to go to the moon?

[madprof]

It isn't?
Damn and I was looking to living in an Arco...

??????Not Funny

[DarkSarin]

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.

Re:??????Not Funny

[soccerisgod]

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.

When being confronted with a statement made by a politician, it is always helpful to ask several questions:

• Who said it?
• What did they say?
• Why did they say it?
• When did they say it?

Who said it? Someone who is in trouble. Someone who is afraid his reelection won't go as smoothly as he'd like. Someone who's actions so far led to two wars, at least one for which the reasons supplied were - if I may say so - at least a little bit shady. Not to mention a couple of interior problems in the US.

What was his statement? Something that can at best be called very populistic. A proposition that wakes feelings of grandeur and national pride in many people, but is far from being of any real use, military, economically or scientifically and will cost an amount of money that would suffice to put an end to world hunger.

Why and when did he make that proposition? Left as an excercise to the reader.

Would I approve of this if Clinton said it? Well. It surely makes a difference in as sofar as the economical and social situation was different (read: better). It's still call it a waste of money though, and that even though I am fond of space travel. But as long as our "domestic" problems aren't solved, we should not waste resources on effords like this. Just my $.02

it'll be $44 TRILLION

[Anonymous Coward]

White House Shelved 44 Trillion Deficit Report?
By Peronet Despeignes of the Financial Times
May 30, 2003, 10:21
Thursday 29 May 2003

Study commissioned by O'Neill sees $44 trillion in red ink

The Bush administration has shelved a report commissioned by the Treasury that shows the U.S. currently faces a future of chronic federal budget deficits totaling at least $44 trillion in current U.S. dollars.

The study, the most comprehensive assessment of how the U.S. government is at risk of being overwhelmed by the "baby boom" generation's future healthcare and retirement costs, was commissioned by then-Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill.

But the Bush administration chose to keep the findings out of the annual budget report for fiscal year 2004, published in February, as the White House campaigned for a tax-cut package that critics claim will expand future deficits.

The study asserts that sharp tax increases, massive spending cuts or a painful mix of both are unavoidable if the U.S. is to meet benefit promises to future generations. It estimates that closing the gap would require the equivalent of an immediate and permanent 66 percent across-the-board income tax increase.

The study was being circulated as an independent working paper among Washington think-tanks as President George W. Bush on Wednesday signed into law a 10-year, $350 billion tax-cut package he welcomed as a victory for hard-working Americans and the economy.

The analysis was spearheaded by Kent Smetters, then-Treasury deputy assistant secretary for economic policy, and Jagdessh Gokhale, then a consultant to the Treasury. Mr. Gokhale, now an economist for the Cleveland Federal Reserve, said: "When we were conducting the study, my impression was that it was slated to appear [in the Budget]. At some point, the momentum builds and you think everything is a go, and then the decision came down that we weren't part of the prospective budget."

Mr. O'Neill, who was fired last December, refused to comment.

The study's analysis of future deficits dwarfs previous estimates of the financial challenge facing Washington. It is roughly equivalent to 10 times the publicly held national debt, four years of U.S. economic output or more than 94 percent of all U.S. household assets. Alan Greenspan, Federal Reserve chairman, last week bemoaned what he called Washington's "deafening" silence about the future crunch.

President Bush signed into law a $350 billion tax-cut package on Wednesday saying:' 'We can say loud and clear to the American people: You got more of your own money to spend so that this economy can get a good wind behind it."

The estimates reflect the extent to which the annual deficit, the national debt and other widely reported, backward-looking data are becoming archaic and misleading as measures of the government's solvency. Mr. Smetters, now a University of Pennsylvania finance professor, said tax cuts were only a fraction of the imbalance, and that the bigger problem "is the whole [budget] language we're using."

Laurence Kotlikoff, an expert on long-term budget accounting, alleged in a recent Boston Globe editorial that the Bush administration suppressed the research to ease passage of the tax-cut plan.

An administration official said the study was designed as a thought-piece for internal discussion -- one among many left every year on the cutting-room floor -- and noted the budget's extensive discussion of projected, 75-year Social Security and Medicare shortfalls.

Redundant and Off Topic

[johnopolis]

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.

I agree

[cpn2000]

President Bush To Call For Return To Moon

I agree, he should really return to the moon ... and stay there for gods sake.

Russian rocket engines

[amightywind]

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.

The successful Atlas V rocket uses a Russian design RD-180 engine. The Russian's have accelled at developing high efficiency Kerosene/Oxygen lower stage engines. Lockheed Martin was smart enough to realise this when they developed the Atlas III/V series. But the key to success of American rockets which, sets them apart from Russia and Europe, is the use of LH2 in the upper stages. The Pratt and Whitney RL-10 engine, the J2, Rocketdyne SSME and RS-68 are all spectacularly successful designs.

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.

One has only to look at the International Space Station as an example to see how an "international effort" might work. The U.S. should go it alone and send back TV pictures for the rest of the world.

Decisions, decisions...

[mjh]

The /. conundrum:

• Hate Bush
• Love space travel

What to do? What to do?

Re:I couldn't agree more defcon4 FUD and LIES

[Uncle Joe Steel]

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

Re:Award for first kneejerk liberal anti-Bush post

[paganizer]

Hey! us right wing nuts bash Bush also!

Ya know....

[S1mon_Jester]

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.

Back to the Topic

[Jerry]

This discussion has deteriorated into the Extreme Left and the Extreme Right bashing each other over comments each make about Bush.

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) ... the list is too lengthy to put here... owe their current advances to gains made under the first Moon program, and space technology in general.

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...

Guns and Margarine

[Anonymous Meoward]

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.

Full court press

[t0ny]

As soon as I say this on Google News, I thought "oh wow, Bush is doing all the election-year politics he can!"

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!

President Bush's Proposal Will Go Nowhere

[Alan_DBA]

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.

It would be MUCH cheaper this time.

[nerdwarrior]

Think about it. We could outsource all the engineering and programming to India. Then, we could ship all the high-tech manufacturing to China. Oh, and while we're at it, Russian cosmonauts work for just hundreds a month, so we wouldn't need to waste our money on overpaid American astronauts. We could even outsource mission control to a call center in India. ("Is the power to the moon base on?" "Have you tried rebooting the moon base?") Imagine the savings!

With all these cost-cutting measures available, we could have an American moonbase for a quarter the price!

From Zurbin's book

[kippy]

to give credit where's it's do, I'm linking to this.

The above post is taken largely from Bob Zubrin's excelent book Entering Space.

efficiency

[suitti]

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.