Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bush's Space Panel Seeks Public Input

Posted by timothy on from the earth-tax-dollars-lost-in-space dept.

brandido writes "Space.com is reporting that Bush's space panel is seeking public input on the effort to return to the Moon and then reach Mars. From the article: "President Bush's new space advisory commission for getting humans to the Moon and Mars has launched a web site seeking public input with the promise of reading all comments." The article provides a link to the website for Bush's Space Panel, but it does not provide a direct link to the site for sending comments. I personally think we should use a Martian Space Elevator to further our exploration of Mars."

9 of 566 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Remember by darnok · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You'd almost think this was an election year

  2. More Info by CleverNickedName · · Score: 5, Funny
    The Onion (www.theonion.com) has the full story:

    Majority Of Americans Thought We Already Had A Moon Base WASHINGTON, DC--A

    NASA poll conducted to gauge support for President Bush's space-exploration initiative revealed that a depressing 57 percent of Americans believe that the U.S. already has a research base on the moon. "We put that international space-station thing up there in the '60s," phone-poll respondent Randy Snow said. "It might be on Mars, but I think it's the moon--wherever they have the golf course that President Kennedy played on. Remember, the Cubans tried to take it over?" NASA officials said they hope someday to make Americans' perception a reality.

    --


    Unfortunately, I am not Wil Wheaton
  3. European endeavors by zoney_ie · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wouldn't discount the "major competitor" side of things! The ESA is likely to mount some sort of manned mission series. Europe may be behind in terms of volume of missions mounted to date (they've by and large been quite successful though), but it's sure doing things a lot more cheaply than the U.S. What's more, we have a launch base nearer the Equator, in French Guiana. (As we are reminded each time we look at our banknotes). Hopefully the new Soyuz launcher facility will be up and running there soon - launching stuff from Kazachstan is surely far from ideal! The ESA of course has the benefit of Russian co-operation and the legacy of their space program.

    It all looks like being quite some fun! (Not to mention pushing back the frontiers of knowledge, etc, etc)

    Last one to land people on Mars is a rotten egg!

    --
    -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
  4. Re:My Input = It's the economy stupid by AJC1973 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So spending money on space travel will help.

    After all, that money goes directly on jobs. Everyone who receives the money pays a healthy chunk of it straight back into government coffers. The remainder they spend on, say, cars, computers, clothes, food, ... you name it. So those directly employed by NASA and the contractors aren't the only beneficiaries - the others in the economy benefit.

    What else is there? Well, following large investment in aerospace related technology and computer technology in Apollo, surprisingly enough, the USA dominated those fields afterwards. The economy grew, so those slices handed out in benefits, health care etc grew bigger overall - the "pie" itself grew, so the amount in those "slices" grew.

    So if this causes a doubling in NASAs manned spaceflight budget (at an annual cost equivalent to 3 days welfare spending (2 days, if you take into account the taxes paid directly back), or 6 days DoD spending), it would seem to be worthwhile.

    So, yes. Employing more people (with a major focus on college grads) and expanding the economy (so that extra money would end up rolling into health care and unemployment benefits) would make a lot of sense.

  5. Re:Hey why not go to mars by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    How can privatizing fix anything dealing with the space program? The folks with wads of cash don't invest in anything "new" until they can see a market for it.

    Space travel is monsterously expensive. At least with air travel there was something to see on the other side of the connection. Air was a logical extension to shipping and rail. Space travel isn't really taking you anywhere.

    Until someone finds a pot of gold, space will only operate on the "Christopher Columbus" model. Crazy folks who have adventerous patrons.

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  6. Re:Remember by kinnell · · Score: 5, Insightful
    We don't have a major competitor anymore

    You mean apart from China, India, Europe and Russia. Maybe you mean economically or militarily, but this is likely to change once someone develops the capability to exploit resources in space. Remember the story of the hare and the tortoise?

    --
    If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
  7. Read your 1040 instructions by Gzip+Christ · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'd have more pride in my country if I could afford health care than sending someone to mars.
    You speak as if the government is spending an amount on space exploration that is actually significant compared to what it spends on social programs. Do me a favor and open up your 2003 instructions for form 1040 up to page 76. See the pie chart at the top of the page detailing where federal money goes? Social programs and community development make up 69% of the outlays. Where is space exploration on there, you might ask? I don't know - I don't see it. It's probably in that 3% sliver that says "Law enforcement and general government". The point is that the US government is already spending over two thirds of its money on socialist programs. The rest is on the debt (8%), defense (20%), and that miscellaneous 3% that certainly includes much, much more than space exploration. Even if NASA's money were shifted to social programs, it wouldn't have that big of an impact.

    Personally, I don't think the government should be funding space exploration (or health care, for that matter), so I'm not arguing in defense of NASA, just in defense of actually considering the numbers.

    Also, I have enormous pride in my country. I feel very lucky to have been born in the US.

  8. Re:Remember by delete · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I really cannot understand your attitude, which unfortunately seems to be quite prevalent among the affluent in the US. Many people are unable to "take care of themselves", due to their financial circumstances or the cost of the ridiculously overpriced drugs & treatments that they require. Would you rather have those people who cannot meet these costs die quietly in their own homes, so that your Medicare bills are slightly reduced?

    Health care, just like education, should be a right for all citizens, NOT just a luxury for the rich.

  9. Re:Remember by drooling-dog · · Score: 5, Informative
    Find me a country with so called 'Universal Health Care' with the quality of care that exists in the US. You won't.

    Funny you should ask. Just yesterday I ran into this little story:

    http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/ ar ticles/2004/02/10/why_canadians_are_healthier/

    My favorite quote: "There isn't a single measure in which the US excels in the health arena," said Dr. Stephen Bezruchka, a senior lecturer in the School of Public Health at the University of Washington in Seattle. "We spend half of the world's health care bill and we are less healthy than all the other rich countries.