Bang Zoom... TO THE MOON!

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Wasn't Bush's speech on going to the moon & mars wonderful. He outlined a few things that anyone who has heard of the solar system could have come up with. He gave it virtually no financing. He set the projected dates well after he'll be out of office even if he gets re-selected. In other words, he reached out for the sci-fi vote without ever having to deliver on a damn thing.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by BigJohn&TheLions

Wasn't Bush's speech on going to the moon & mars wonderful. He outlined a few things that anyone who has heard of the solar system could have come up with. He gave it virtually no financing. He set the projected dates well after he'll be out of office even if he gets re-selected. In other words, he reached out for the sci-fi vote without ever having to deliver on a damn thing.

What did you think he was going to tell you? That they had been secretly working on a warp drive? Of course his to the moon message is going to send like every other moon message delivered in the last 50 years.

He can't give it financing. That's Congress's job. He provides direction, but if you follow Washington at all, you know Congress will do what Congress wants to do.

The anti-Bush orator will focus ont he lateness of the dates. The realists among us, like myself, will note that doing so is no cheap thing, not in this climate, and coming off of the shuttle disaster last year, NASA is in no position currently to even begin such a project. This is going to take a long time.

Last I checked, the "scifi" vote wasn't all that big. It's significantly smaller than the "why not spend money on us" crowd that otherwise would be pissed off about money going to a space program.

CR

[NoMyths]

It's the "vision" vote, but no biggie. Saw this on an old episode of The West Wing and was amused when our current President trotted it out.

The big question: is he completely unaware that we're running a massive deficit? Or that the IMF is cautioning the country on its fiscal irresponsibility? Because rocket ships don't just pay for themselves. Especially when we're busy getting our war on.

(All of this said: I think space exploration is a noble idea. Funding NASA? Good deal. Down the road a trip to Mars sounds peachy. But the timing on this is asinine, esp. in light of the fact that we don't have any money. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the Iowa caucuses are just around the corner)

[BigJohn&TheLions]

I just find it amusing that nobody would bring anything like this up, unless there was an election coming up...

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

It's the "vision" vote, but no biggie. Saw this on an old episode of The West Wing and was amused when our current President trotted it out.

The big question: is he completely unaware that we're running a massive deficit? Or that the IMF is cautioning the country on its fiscal irresponsibility? Because rocket ships don't just pay for themselves. Especially when we're busy getting our war on.

(All of this said: I think space exploration is a noble idea. Funding NASA? Good deal. Down the road a trip to Mars sounds peachy. But the timing on this is asinine, esp. in light of the fact that we don't have any money. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the Iowa caucuses are just around the corner)

What about all of the campaign promises and loads of govt programs that the 9 (now 8) dwarves are shrilling about in Iowa and NH?


We just landed an explorer on Mars and space images are all over the news. So why would you call the timing asinine unless it is clearly political extremism as usual from you? Credibility. Lost.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

We just landed an explorer on Mars and space images are all over the news. So why would you call the timing asinine unless it is clearly political extremism as usual from you? Credibility. Lost.

lol...um, I can't say that I'm really noted for political extremism. I do criticize the current administration's policies on a number of issues, but I don't think I've taken an extremist angle on any of them. I think I just differ from your viewpoint, and you've decided that anyone who does so is an "extremist."

Nevertheless, something tells me that you really didn't think I had much credibility way before my questioning of whether a 20-year away trip to Mars being announced four days before the Iowa caucuses might have been politically motivated. Not to mention my questioning of the financial responsibility of pledging such a program considering our deficit status. But I guess preaching financial responsibility is "extremist" in your world, Bucc.

P.S. I'd sure be interested to see some other examples of my "political extremism." If you'd be so kind as to supply them, so I can see if the jacket fits, I'd be grateful.

[Buccaneer]

You want political extremism? Try promoting libertarian values among those that see solutions and greater value in federal govt mandates, legislations, regulations and bureaucracies. Lol.

I reacted to your word "asinine" because it is wrong, imo. Iowa has nothing to do with it because it wouldn't have any effect on how or whom Iowa Democrats vote for. Like any causes (such as space endeavors), you wait for a good time to bring it up. With space on many's minds, why is this such an asinine time to do it? Would last week or next month be better, if you want to promote something like this (which benefits many special interest groups, federal programs and political districts)? I'm not wild about the idea but 1) you cannot predict economic trends for the future (with any business plan, you start with an idea and then formulate a plan before anything is committed) and 2) there have been quite a bit of political pressure (from both sides and internally) to replace the shuttle program with something new. So how is this different than what any of the Democratic candidates, Congressional leadership or many, many of any of the special interest group leaders do? All we have been hearing from you and will continue to hear all year is a reason to attack any position, regardless if it the exact same position others (esp. opponents) take. The Iraqi War, which you are so fond of bringing up, had many of the same positions uttered by Democratic congressmen and candidates as well as Clinton but when they are repeated by Bush, some folks conveniently have short-term memories. It is "extremism" when the all positions are attacked solely for the basis of getting rid of said President.

But don't accuse me of being a Bush supporter because I will not be voting for Bush, I'll be voting Libertarian. Since you brought up preaching fiscal responsibility and lack of extremism, I'll make these challenges to you. Promote the anti-socialistic agendas against the Democrats (and Republicans) where instead of more, there should be less - much less (including eliminating whole bureaucratic departments). There is no better way to be fiscal responsible than to drastically cut spending, right? Here's the other one to prove you (or others) are not extremists. Promote the growth of the economy (and jobs) here in the US. This will likely lead to an easy Bush victory but isn't the economy and jobs more important than that? Or will you be one of those that will wish for a stagnate economy and/or a terrorist attack just so Bush won't get re-elected?

[JPhillips]

Buc: I'll step up for a little of this.

First to address your last point, let me say that I would love the job growth to pick up right now. Having a wife that is temping while trying to find work has left us tight, and I'm all for job growth beginning tomorrow. That being said, while I'll agree that it would help Bush in the election, it still wouldn't be enough to get me to vote for him. Honestly the state of the economy is not a key in my voting habits. I don't tend to give much credence to short term ups and downs that I believe are primarily cyclical.

As to whether this moon/Mars thing is mostly politics, I have to think it is. I love the idea of focusing on a big goal like Mars, but without a real push to secure funding this has zero chance of happening. If Bush would spend some political capitol on this I'd be in favor, but he has made no indications that he will actually fight to see this happen. Like so many Bush proposals I don't see this as being anything more than a bunch of nice words. And when you add in quotes from staff talking about, "the vision thing" it just rings hollow.

[sabotai]

I have been accused of bashing Bush whenever the chance came up in the past. I have been accused of bashing the republicans whenever the chance has come up. To those people I say "Watch this."

I do not think this announcement is politically motivated, in the he planned this as a responce to political pressure or democratic (the party) events. I think this speech was given, as Bucc said, because of the recent Mars missions. Why would he give the speech a year ago when no one cared or talked about space, or a year from now when it'll be in the back of most people's minds? It is, imo, just a coincedence that this happened at the time of the Iowa Caucus (sp?).

I support this plan. I would prefer that our space exploration not be handled by the government, but, it is for now and I have to deal with it. Therefore, I do support this "goal" of going back to the moon and one day to Mars (although I don't think it'll happen within the next 20 years).
Whenever NASA has a huge goal like this one, countless amounts of new discoveries and technologies come out of it that benefit everyone in most parts of their lives. I'll bet that everyone has several things in their homes that are in someway derived from NASA discoveries and technologies (and I'm not talking just Tang here. )

So there. I said it. No Bush bashing. Thumbs up to George W. Bush on this one. (EDIT: But just like JPhillips said, we'll see if it actually happens. But from when he gave his speech to now, Thumbs up Mr. President. The second you pull back on this if you do, Thumbs Down, Thumbs way down.)

[Buccaneer]

Bush proposed spending $12 billion over the next five years on the effort. About $1 billion of that will come from an increase in NASA's budget, while the other $11 billion would come from shifting funds from existing programs within NASA's current $86 billion budget.

But wait till Congress gets ahold of this. They are the ones that can turn any idea into a pork-laden, political-favoritism bureaucratic and legalistic mess.

I recognize in the past the return on investment in the space program, but seeing how the politicians and bureaucrats turned NASA into a joke, I don't see this being a big deal unless we are in a race.

[dawgfan]

I love the idea of renewing our space program, building a moon base and exploring Mars. That said, given our current economic climate I just don't see how we can justify spending that kind of money on that right now when we still have a massive debt and under Bush we've renewed big budget deficits.

Even if you're willing to shell out the kind of money that would be needed to fund this, wouldn't there be better things to spend that money on?

I think this series of cartoons says it best:

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war30.html

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

It's the "vision" vote, but no biggie. Saw this on an old episode of The West Wing and was amused when our current President trotted it out.

You know, this was the first thing I thought of, as well

Originally Posted by sabotai

I support this plan. I would prefer that our space exploration not be handled by the government, but, it is for now and I have to deal with it. Therefore, I do support this "goal" of going back to the moon and one day to Mars (although I don't think it'll happen within the next 20 years). Whenever NASA has a huge goal like this one, countless amounts of new discoveries and technologies come out of it that benefit everyone in most parts of their lives. I'll bet that everyone has several things in their homes that are in someway derived from NASA discoveries and technologies (and I'm not talking just Tang here. )

Unfortunately, that's not going to happen for a long, long time. There's no way corporations are going to handle going into space right now- it's not at all profitable and I'm not sure it will be for quite a while. At least not until NASA bridges some of the technological gaps there with government funding. It costs billions of dollars to go into space and there's no way they could make that money back so no company is going to do it.

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

But wait till Congress gets ahold of this. They are the ones that can turn any idea into a pork-laden, political-favoritism bureaucratic and legalistic mess.

To be fair, can't you say that about anything. And there are a lot of things that the government does that can be done by others but this isn't one of them (see above).

SI

[Taur]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Unfortunately, that's not going to happen for a long, long time. There's no way corporations are going to handle going into space right now- it's not at all profitable and I'm not sure it will be for quite a while. At least not until NASA bridges some of the technological gaps there with government funding. It costs billions of dollars to go into space and there's no way they could make that money back so no company is going to do it.

I willhave to disagree with this statement. It is called a goverment subsidy. Let big business build and Design the next space vehicle offering Govermental subsidies along the way so that there space programs run in the black.

My biggest laugh was the fact that Bush is not addressing the ancient shuttle program. I wouldn't drive my 20+ year old car outside the county let alone on a cross-country trip. We need to put the shuttles on the back shelf and start using regular rockets for the frequent flyer trips.(a cost savings of 25%). I look for 1 shuttle to go down about every 3 years, or 2 flying years and 1 grounding year. They are just too old.

Remember Bob Dole promissed to put a man on Mars if he was elected too.

[sabotai]

Unfortunately, that's not going to happen for a long, long time. There's no way corporations are going to handle going into space right now- it's not at all profitable and I'm not sure it will be for quite a while.

Well, that's the thing with business. They find ways to make it profitable.

It costs billions of dollars to go into space and there's no way they could make that money back so no company is going to do it.

It costs billions of dollars for the government to do it. There are people working on a way to send rockets into space, and they're doing it far less than "billions of dollars". It's only a matter fo time before someone finds a way to do it (cheaper and better than the government ever could).

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by sabotai

Well, that's the thing with business. They find ways to make it profitable.


It costs billions of dollars for the government to do it. There are people working on a way to send rockets into space, and they're doing it far less than "billions of dollars". It's only a matter fo time before someone finds a way to do it (cheaper and better than the government ever could).

The current Mars missions is 800 million...back in the 70s the US was spending the equilavent of billions on the space program...

[pskov]

If the government does all the R&D guess who gets the patents....

[Castlerock]

For a very interesting read, check out The Case For Mars by Robert Zubrin.

From the book description:
The Case for Mars is not a vision for the far future or one that will cost us impossible billions. It explains step-by-step how we can use present-day technology to send humans to Mars within ten years and actually produce fuel and oxygen on the planet's surface with Martian natural resources.

[Maple Leafs]

Interesting piece in the NY Times on the problem of "How do you send people to Mars in a ship with enough fuel to bring them back". One possible answer: "You don't. You make it a one way trip."

I'm curious how folks would feel about that. I doubt there'd be a shortage of volunteers, but you have to wonder if America would really go for the idea of manned travel to Mars if they knew there'd be no "welcome back" party at the end of it.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by Maple Leafs

Interesting piece in the NY Times on the problem of "How do you send people to Mars in a ship with enough fuel to bring them back". One possible answer: "You don't. You make it a one way trip."

I'm curious how folks would feel about that. I doubt there'd be a shortage of volunteers, but you have to wonder if America would really go for the idea of manned travel to Mars if they knew there'd be no "welcome back" party at the end of it.

I don't get why there ever has to be a manned mission to Mars at this point. Technology can accomplish the same research sans the human life risk. Send a few rovers, take samples, drive around, measure stuff...

[pskov]

Is the whole point of space exploration not for humans to set foot on new worlds?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Castlerock

For a very interesting read, check out The Case For Mars by Robert Zubrin.

From the book description:
The Case for Mars is not a vision for the far future or one that will cost us impossible billions. It explains step-by-step how we can use present-day technology to send humans to Mars within ten years and actually produce fuel and oxygen on the planet's surface with Martian natural resources.

Yeah, I've actually heard of that book. However, it was when a pair of my friends were discussing it (one a theoretical physics grad student, the other astronomy) and how full of logical fallacies it was. It's interesting- but it's still very much part sci-fi.

If businesses were lining up to take a crack at Mars like people have asserted in this thread (sabotai: "Well, that's the thing with business. They find ways to make it profitable. ")- why haven't they already? Again: it's costs. You don't think if it were profitable, companies sending rockets already or sending lobbyists to Congress to remove any impediments, etc. There's no way it's profitable at the moment, especially considering the risks involved. You can't make a safe cheap rocket yet- the technology just isn't there.

You can't have it both ways- you either have a government based space race or we just wait until other countries do it, making it cheaper and then our corporations will get in on it. Myself, I'd prefer the latter but I can certainly argue both. However, what really gets me is the current Bush mantra of "everything you don't agree with is unpatriotic"- they *are* mutually exclusive: fiscal responsibility and landing on Mars first. Either we spend billions of dollars and be the first ones on Mars or we sit back and wait for someone else to do it and save some cash (well, I suppose there is option 3 of "trying to do both, resulting in a flaming ball of wreckage on the runway").

SI

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by pskov

If the government does all the R&D guess who gets the patents....

If you think the government retains those, you are most certainly mistaken. The government routinely funds research by corporations and then allows the company to retain the patent. It is rampant in the drug industry. Government pays for the research for a drug. The company who does the research is left with the patent and all liscensing rights.

[rkmsuf]

Originally Posted by pskov

Is the whole point of space exploration not for humans to set foot on new worlds?

Not necessarily. The pursuit of knowledge seems like it would be foremost. Back in the 60s and 70s it was a race to prove we could do it(land on the moon) but now finding out stuff is important to pave the way for future expansion.

I see more merit in going to the Moon to establish a base rather than going to Mars which is likely a place they'll find out the same facts as computers and rovers can...

[Glengoyne]

Dola,

with regard to the political commentary above. This announcement had as much to do with the Iowa Caucuses as Bush does. Oh that's right, the president is running unopposed. So he announced this in time for the Iowa Caucuses so that the democrats would vote for him...err...or something like that. Yeah. Completely politically motivated. It's obvious...err... or something like that.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Dola,

with regard to the political commentary above. This announcement had as much to do with the Iowa Caucuses as Bush does. Oh that's right, the president is running unopposed. So he announced this in time for the Iowa Caucuses so that the democrats would vote for him...err...or something like that. Yeah. Completely politically motivated. It's obvious...err... or something like that.

I'm by no means a Bush supporter, but I think the timing is less political than, as stated above, the best time to drum up support to fund it (everyone being starry eyed, looking at Mars, and all). So, the timing is just, well, "good timing"- it's the best time to get it done.

But, if you're saying this isn't political, then you're blind. He's not doing this to drum up support now, of course. He's grabbing the issue so he can have it in September during the debates or during the conventions or, hell, he can now bring this up as a victory anytime the rest of the campaign. But right now, he doesn't have to do a thing- he just sits back and watches the Dems tear each other apart. He will bring this up and quite a bit, provided he can get funding. He'd be stupid not to.

SI

[sabotai]

If businesses were lining up to take a crack at Mars like people have asserted in this thread (sabotai: "Well, that's the thing with business. They find ways to make it profitable. ")- why haven't they already?

Now THAT is one big giant fucking leap.

You: It costs billion of dollars to go into space and it's not profitable.
Me: Businesses find way to make things profitable.
You: If businesses are lining up to take a crack at Mars like you just asserted...

What?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I'm by no means a Bush supporter, but I think the timing is less political than, as stated above, the best time to drum up support to fund it (everyone being starry eyed, looking at Mars, and all). So, the timing is just, well, "good timing"- it's the best time to get it done.

But, if you're saying this isn't political, then you're blind. He's not doing this to drum up support now, of course. He's grabbing the issue so he can have it in September during the debates or during the conventions .... He will bring this up and quite a bit, provided he can get funding. He'd be stupid not to.

SI

I am in complete agreement with you on this SI. Very little, if anything, a president does is apolitical. I am just saying that anyone who thinks he is doing this to have any effect on Iowa, is grasping at straws. There are plenty of reasons his announcement can be attacked, the cost and aggressive(in my mind) timeline to mention two, but saying the timing has anything to do with Iowa is pretty thin.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I am in complete agreement with you on this SI. Very little, if anything, a president does is apolitical. I am just saying that anyone who thinks he is doing this to have any effect on Iowa, is grasping at straws. There are plenty of reasons his announcement can be attacked, the cost and aggressive(in my mind) timeline to mention two, but saying the timing has anything to do with Iowa is pretty thin.

Yeah, you're probably right. I mean, just because the media will be devoting some of its attention to the Presidents space proposal and reaction that it would have been devoting to coverage of the Democratic caucuses probably had no influence whatsoever.

It's called getting in front of a news cycle...drop something into the media pool that you want them to chew on while another story is developing, and you insure that part of the coverage comes your way. One of the nice ways it works in this case is that during the caucuses, undecided voters who get tired of the Democratic back-and-forth will go, "Oh yeah? Well, where's their space proposal?"

But like you said, I guess the whole timing thing is pretty thin.

Edit: Actually, a better example of how it works is shown by this week: an awful lot of coverage that might have gone to the upcoming caucuses went towards space stuff.

[Dutch]

There is not a lot that the President can do right now that won't get him in trouble with the media.

He visited MLK's grave on Friday and the media covered the event basically by saying, "President Bush is trying to make ammends for his terrible civil rights record. Also hundreds of protestors were on site to bash him...blah...blah...blah."

Had he not shown up? "President Bush was bashed by civil rights leaders for failing to show up and give respect to MLK. Meanwhile, in his absense, hundreds of protestors were available for our scheduled camera visit to bash the president...blah...blah...blah."

According to the press. His upcoming State of the Union Address is not something that normally happens. It's President Bush's time to "push his agenda". Thanks, Reuters. Thanks AP. You guys are fair and balanced and just reporting the news.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Dutch

According to the press. His upcoming State of the Union Address is not something that normally happens. It's President Bush's time to "push his agenda". Thanks, Reuters. Thanks AP. You guys are fair and balanced and just reporting the news.

FOX News is going to sue you now.

[Dutch]

I'm pretty sure Fox assumes I am on their payroll....somewhere.

[sabotai]

No argument here...

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Taur

I willhave to disagree with this statement. It is called a goverment subsidy. Let big business build and Design the next space vehicle offering Govermental subsidies along the way so that there space programs run in the black.

My biggest laugh was the fact that Bush is not addressing the ancient shuttle program. I wouldn't drive my 20+ year old car outside the county let alone on a cross-country trip. We need to put the shuttles on the back shelf and start using regular rockets for the frequent flyer trips.(a cost savings of 25%). I look for 1 shuttle to go down about every 3 years, or 2 flying years and 1 grounding year. They are just too old.

Remember Bob Dole promissed to put a man on Mars if he was elected too.

Amen. As long as NASA can underbid satellite contracts at a loss to keep out private companies, we are going to see a stagnate program. A lot of the cost overruns are due to NASA mismanaging its budget horribly (like many government agencies). If it were a private company doing it, they would have been in court years ago for unfair pricing practices (see Microsoft) and the leaders would have been driven out for financial mismanagement. I have no problem with government regulation of a potential national security issue, but it's obvious that the current system is broken, and will stay broken without some sort of incentive to improve it.

What I would have liked to have seen from President Bush is an announcement that, due to the fact that it's not the government's responsibility to explore or "own" space, private companies will now be able to competively bid on satellite and space station contracts. That would provide companies with the financial incentives and backing to land on the Moon and Mars as well. Probably in a 1/4 of the time that it will take NASA.

[Greyroofoo]

Didn't daddy Bush also propose going to Mars?

And why don't we just sell space flights to celebrities like the Russians?