Slashdot Mirror


President Bush To Call For Return To Moon?

Brian Stretch writes " According to the National Review: 'When President Bush delivers a speech recognizing the centenary of heavier-than-air-powered flight December 17, it is expected that he will proffer a bold vision of renewed space flight, with at its center a return to the moon, perhaps even establishment of a permanent presence there. If he does, it will mean that he has decided the United States should once again become a space-faring nation.' Here's hoping. The article also includes talk of nuclear engines and using the moon as a testbed for going to Mars."

30 of 1,496 comments (clear)

  1. I couldn't agree more by ChaoticLimbs · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    1. Re:I couldn't agree more by ChaoticLimbs · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:I couldn't agree more by Mr.+Troll · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Kiss my shiny metal ass
    3. Re:I couldn't agree more by Adam_Weishaupt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And I thought congress held the purse.

      You mean the Republican controled congress ?

      --
      "You don't need a weatherman/ To know which way the wind blows" -Bob Dylan: Subterranean Homesick Blues
    4. Re:I couldn't agree more by WaxParadigm · · Score: 5, Informative

      "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.

    5. Re:I couldn't agree more by demachina · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not sure what you would really accomplish with a permanent base on the moon. It has very low gravity, no atmosphere and its in doubt if there is water. If you want to do something useful in space put a permenent colony on Mars. Don't waste the time and energy planning another goofy Apollo strategy where astronauts spend huge amounts of time on the round trip to spend very little time there picking up rocks. Send cargo ships followed by a one way trip with colonists who are there to stay. Mars probably has enough resources that a viable, self sustaining colony can be placed there and it will be a nicer place to live than the moon, especially if you start terraforming.

      You've accomplished something if you establish a second home for humanity. You also create a real new frontier which is something this world desperately needs for the adventurous spirits.

      It would be one big positive for Bush in a sea of negatives if he actually made this happen but there are a bunch of doubts that arise:

      - One its become pretty clear he is using the U.S. Treasury's credit card to borrow and spend the U.S. in to an economic boom to insure his reelection. He is spending like a drunk sailor and this may just be more of the same.
      - Boeing is heading for fairly deep trouble. It can't compete with Airbus, its was caught cheating on launch contract bids and was suspended by the Air Force. The air force tanker contract was also designed to pump tax dollars in to Boeing but the deal stunk so bad they haven't been able to get it signed. I wouldn't be suprised if Bush wants a program to pump a whole bunch of tax dollars in to Boeing to keep it afloat.
      - NASA, like the DOD, is one big pork barrel. Politicians pour money in it to get votes and pump up the economy in the large number of places powerful politicians have managed to put NASA centers and contractors. It really isn't about space exploration any more. Its just a jobs program which is why the manned space program hasn't dont anything new in 20 years. A new space initiative will be doomed if it goes down the same path. It will be just like the ISS where vast sums are scattered around the country and squandered to no good effect.

      The only likely way you will be able to have an effective space program in the U.S. again is to gut NASA and start something more closely resembling the Lockheed skunk works in its glory days under Kelly Johnson. You need a lean, mean team of gifted engineers and managers in one place who are devoted to getting a job done and not in building empires and in a contest to see how big and bloated they can make their budgets and staffs. I really think an International Space Agency would be the way to go and pull all the best engineers from the U.S., Canada, China, Russia and Europe together in one place and tell them to get the job done. The down side is the politicians wont support it unless they get a share of the pork and it would be doomed before it started because of politics.

      --
      @de_machina
    6. Re:I couldn't agree more by Penguinshit · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  2. I'm Moving by php_pheen · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  3. What's the real reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:What's the real reason by John+Miles · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Interesting. Sure enough, the first link when you search Google for "miserable failure" is www.whitehouse.gov/president/gwbbio.html... a page which certainly does not contain the terms "miserable failure".

      This can't possibly be a coincidence; it doesn't seem likely to be a bug; and it damned sure isn't a legitimate search result. What it is, is the first instance of overt politicization I've seen in Google's ranking system.

      I'm not a Bush defender, but this deliberate bogus query shows a lack of professionalism on Google's part that isn't the least bit cool. Google does not represent itself as a subjective editorial site. Search engines, like armies, are valuable public resources with the potential to do a lot of good or a lot of harm. They both work best when they keep their politics to themselves.

      --
      Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
    2. Re:What's the real reason by fenix+down · · Score: 5, Funny

      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)

  4. The possible reasons why: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    1. Re:The possible reasons why: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

      Free the moon now!

  5. I nominate Bush to be on first flight to the moon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  6. I like science and all, but... by rolocroz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...is now really the right time to be doing this? There's a lot going on in the US right now (Iraq war, etc.) in the middle of a recession, and going to the moon just doesn't seem like the greatest idea for us right now.

    --

    I meta-mod all positive moderation Unfair, because it's abuse of the system.

  7. $500 Billion in debt. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do we have the money to fund this?

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

  8. Baby Steps by The+Snowman · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

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

    --
    24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
  9. Yup, Bush calls for return to moon! by Kirk+Troll · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  10. With What Money? by jIyajbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bush has done everything he can to give the U.S. a massive $6E12 deficit, and now he calls for this?

    He knows there is no way the congress can, or would, appropriate the money for this, given the deficit, so he's just blowin' smoke for PR (read: election) purposes.

    Sorry, George. Ain't fooled.

    --
    "Don't blame the log for the fire." --Andrew Ratshin
  11. Promises trustworthy? by HiThere · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When I look at his record for the promises he made about things I was in favor of... I'll believe him after he delivers. Even then I'll check to make sure he didn't sabotage the project, so that it will fold immediately after he leaves office.

    OTOH, Texas has this big space center, so this might be a way to spread some cash around back home. So it's possible he doesn't have any motives other than the obvious ones. O, and he has this brother who's governor of Florida. They might be in for a cash infusion too. OK. He has "legitimate" reasons. But the first paragraph stands. (He's so far welched on most of the promises that I thought important.)

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  12. Actually by commodoresloat · · Score: 5, Funny

    He's just figuring we might find WMD there.

  13. Re:Thank you China! (and Russia) by vik · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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)

  14. Let us boldly go... by slamb · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...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.

  15. December 17th should give you a clue. by twitter · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  16. Okay, before you flame people by Idou · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
  17. Re:Thank you China! by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  18. Wasn't the 60's moon program a money maker? by doug · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  19. China, America, and the Moon by DevilsEngine · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  20. Re:Thank you China! by orthogonal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  21. Re:I couldn't agree more defcon4 by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?