Asteroid Missions May Replace Lunar Base Plans

An anonymous reader alerts us to a story about efforts to modify the United States' space exploration plans to focus on asteroid missions rather than a lunar base. Scientists, astronauts, and former NASA division directors will be meeting next month to develop an alternative to the Bush administration's Vision for Space Exploration. We have previously discussed the possibility of a manned asteroid mission. Quoting: "Numerous planetary managers told Aviation Week & Space Technology they now fear a manned Moon base and even shorter sorties to the Moon will bog down the space program for decades and inhibit, rather than facilitate, manned Mars operations--the ultimate goal of both the Bush and alternative visions. The first lunar sortie would be flown by about 2020 under the Bush plan. If alternative-vision planners have their way, the mission could instead be flown to an asteroid in about 2025."

Comments

Re:So...

[NeverVotedBush]

There is a show on one of the cable channels called "Gangland". One of their recent episodes discussed how the lowered requirements for "volunteers" entering the military has led to widespread infiltration by gangs. They showed lots of tagging over in Iraq and related it back to gangs in American cities. They also showed a German nightclub packed with "soldiers" bouncing up and down and flashing gang signs.

They were talking with military people who were outlining what this is doing to our military, to the cities where these people are deployed and the attitudes towards the USA because of the new levels of crime, and how this is putting our National security at risk as well as our relationships with the countries that allow us to have bases there.

All thanks to a war that never had to happen, was pushed for by a corrupt president and vice president, and was cheered by the republicans.

Admit it or not, but the USA is becoming a worldwide pariah. And it can virtually all be laid at the feet of little "dubya".

Re:So...

[vtcodger]

***Bush is a decently intelligent man.***

There is no evidence whatsoever for that. I thought his dad was reasonably OK. But the kid is a disaster. I thought that long before Katrina and before the Main Stream Media media started grumbling. Look at his record. With the exception of Tsunami relief he has done not one single significant thing right. Not One. It's a remarkable record of duplicity, incompetence and stupidity. (To be fair, he did manage to get reasonably honest elections conducted in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine, but I don't think he would have done that had he been smart enough to forsee the consequences. Certainly not in Palestine. Probably not the other two either.)

I'm not wild about John McCain, but had he been elected in 2000, he'd probably have been an OK president and the country would be far better off today.

There are many things that Bush says he believes in that I agree with. I thought when he said them that he was lying. The record shows that I was right. When he said them he was in fact lying.

Let's look at the record:

• Tax Cuts for the wealthy that would pay for themselves: They haven't
• No Child Left Behind: Probably well-intended, but unworkable. Destined to be duct taped again and again into just another huge dysfunctional government program like farm supports.
• Iraq: An utter debacle.
• North Korea: Six years to get back to where he was when he started.
• Iran: When he took office, Iran had a moderate government that was trying to reach to the US. Bush has done every conceivable thing to alienate the country, undermine the moderates, and sow the seeds of even more discord in Southwest Asia. In Don Henley's words "Beating plowshares into swords".
• Medicare Prescription drugs: Probably the best of a rum lot. But not funded. Put_It_On_Someone's_Tab economics.
• Economic Policy. You probably aren't fully aware of the situation that is unfolding. Most people aren't. But we have a three headed crisis -- currency, the banking system, commodities. Bush-Greenspan-(Bernanke) are responsible for the first two and could have hedged against the third. This is going to be a lot clearer to you by November. Check http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/. I don't think things are as bad as many there would portray them, but they are bad and getting worse.
• Civil Liberties: Worst record of any American leader ruler since George III

These are the works of an intelligent man? You sir, have a really strange idea of intelligence.

Let me sum up the virtues I have observed in George W Bush. He's not a racist. That's the only positive quality I see in the man. Our dog isn't a racist either (she loves everyone even the mailman). She is very likely smarter than Bush. And she'd probably have made a better president.

BTW, I'm actually fairly conservative. But my party -- the Republicans -- has been hijacked by 'f***king crazies'. (the phrase attributed, possibly incorrectly, to Colin Powell)

Re:free speech?

[lxw56]

McCain-Feingold kept me from publishing an advertisement about an issue, during a certain time window, unless I refuse to mention political candidates in the ad. This was determined to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, meaning that the McCain was willing to write a bill that violated of the constitution. The act, and other campaign finance restrictions, also give big boosts to incumbents by limiting fundraising and advertisements that result in increased candidate awareness. Voters are more likely to vote for candidates they know about, and limiting funds - essentially limiting peoples' ability to disseminate information - makes it more likely they will default to incumbents with their natural name recognition advantage.