USA To Return To Moon By 2015, Then Mars

securitas writes "This afternoon George Bush announced space exploration plans for the USA to return to the Moon by 2015, the design and construction of a new space vehicle fleet by 2014 (called the Crew Exploration Vehicle) to replace the aging space shuttles which will be retired in 2010, and the construction of a permanent Moon base, followed by manned missions to Mars. The initiative begins with a $1 billion increase to NASA's budget and $12 billion in new space exploration money over next five years. However Congress is concerned about how to pay for the new space policy initiative in the face of a $500 billion national budget deficit. AP via Yahoo has a Moon/Mars/space policy FAQ, and there's more at NASA and the New York Times among others."

Comments

It's funny

[Hangin10]

how Congress will aprove huge sums of money
the second anyone has Weapons of Mass Destruction,
but when it comes to creation or anything interesting, they don't care...

We could take that $87 bil. and build 10 perfectly
good NCC 1701s, except with M2P2 propulsion
instead of warp...

Bush

[Whatanut]

The master of financial strategery

Re:How will we fund it? Spend it elsewhere!

[Branc0]

Does anyone honestly think that putting that bit of money elsewhere would solve whatever domestic problems you want fixed?

Yes... but will it help NASA to estabelish a base on the Moon or the budget will still be too short?

Re:George Bush == Tax and Spend RINO

[volkris]

...except that his handling of economic matters has arguably already fit a significant portion of the bill...

Re:Bush's Space Smokescreen

[FooGoo]

If the gov isn't taking your money for one thing they'll take it for another.

There's no point to it

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no point to manned space exploration.

All of the science and all of the exploring that can be done by manned (peopled) mission can be done more easily and cheaply by unmanned missions. Witness all of the exploration we've done on Mars, Jupiter, Jupiter's moons, near the Heliopause, etc.

The only extra bonus to manned missions is national prestige and the added thrill of having a person to empathize with. (And of course it's fun for the actual explorer and the mission support people.) But can't we get thrills and employ the ground-support scientists some other (read: cheaper and more productive) way?

Re:How will we fund it? Spend it elsewhere!

[DoraLives]

So the question is, is it worth it?

AbsoFUCKINGlutely!

Re: get life to survive in the harshest

[wampus]

Just like the science that was left over from Rome? The years following weren't called the dark ages for nothing.

One word:

[smoondog]

Who is going to pay for all of this?

I'm not sure. But I know one thing for sure. Halliburton's going to get it.

-Sean

Re:Bzzzzzt, but thank you for playing.

[jasonditz]

Can we really justify the theft of billions of dollars in the name of maybe defending against some improbable cosmological what-if?

Re:Budget

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

One billion won't do dink for going to Mars. But it will serve nicely as a BOONDOGGLE to funnel cash at Halliburton - who have been cozied-up with NASA for Martian drilling...

"Yeah, a billion will do. To start. Then we can figure out this special Mars-drill thing, or whatever..."

Don't believe me? Here's linkage at PETROLEUM NEWS

Who's gonna' be drilled? Just you and me, again...

Re:and bush says...

[Uma Thurman]

It was the Republicans such as your ignorant self that liked to say "Wag the Dog". Pig fucker.