PDA

View Full Version : Discussion: Bush Set to Announce a Return to ...



Fraser
2004-Jan-09, 03:29 PM
SUMMARY: President Bush is set to announce next week that the United States will return to a bold human space exploration program. The proposed plan will see the completion of the International Space Station as soon as possible, humans returning to the Moon by 2013, the construction of a base on the Moon. The long term plan will see astronauts visit asteroids, and eventually, a human journey to Mars. As part of this plan, the US will need to develop a whole new group of spacecraft, but they'll use European rockets in the interim. The President will ask Congress for an additional $800 million for NASA in 2005, and then increase NASA's budget by 5% over the next five years.

What do you think about this story? Post your comments below.

thomastech
2004-Jan-09, 03:39 PM
As you can tell...

I am jumping with Joy!

tycho1981
2004-Jan-09, 05:53 PM
me too!
i've questions
1 will it be cooperative mission ex: with russia and ESA or so?

2 they all talk about when then it's about mars(about 2015), when is the moon base and completeing ISS station?all of this sure be first then manned mars.

3 there is a lot desings for moonbases, which will Bush plan to use it?

For me it must be cooperative mission of whole world. example as russia very exprienced in rockets(thousands succesful launchs) deliver different rockets. NASA do vechiles/modules that assemble at rockets, etcetera
its a cheaper way

Bannon
2004-Jan-09, 05:55 PM
Enthusiastic and invigorated are words that do not begin to define how I'm feeling when I heard the news. This will certainly boost our space exploration effort… However, I'm concerned that a NASA budget increase of only 5% a year will do little more than stop them from falling farther behind, it won't allow for much new work to get off the drawing board.

Personally, I'd love to see a fund raising campaign in the U.S. similar to the congressional fundraising campaign where there is a box on our W2 forms that says "Check this box to contribute $3 dollars to the US Space effort". If we only got half the people in the US to pitch in on a yearly basis, the funding challenges will become much more achievable.
:D

Guest_Nick
2004-Jan-09, 08:09 PM
<_< Sounds great but Im wondering why this sudden announcement. Why has it taken this long to get things going? Why are we going to have bases on the Moon? To what end? Please explain. Where can I get more information of these decisions?

Littlemews
2004-Jan-09, 08:13 PM
Maybe Bush is jealous about China sending another 2 astronauts to Space in 2005, so he rushs NASA.....

Guest
2004-Jan-09, 08:24 PM
This is STARSALOR...I have waited for over 30 years &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;Can&#39;t describe the feeling &#33;&#33;&#33; Maybe its like when I watched the old Saturn 5 launch from 3 miles away&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; Like Kennedy,Bush is a doer,a risk taker and an all-around American...Lets all vote to keep this man in the driver seat and then elect Cheney to carry on after that..WAY TO GO>>>>&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; ;) ;)

Bannon
2004-Jan-09, 08:29 PM
I think "concerned" is a better word than "jealous". I&#39;m sure that the Chinese achievements of manned space flight, and their speculative announcements of building a space station and moon base had a major influence on this decision (as well as 2004 election politics). These types of efforts have significant military technology spin-offs (better propulsion for missiles, intelligence gathering, etc.). Even if the efforts themselves fail, the technologies that come out of these efforts can have a big impact on not just the military equipment, but also on economic development (Teflon, microwaves, etc.)

I think that if the US wishes to maintain it&#39;s "Superpower" status, it needs to do these types of missions to maintain, or at lease equal, the technical development of other world powers. As for bases on the moon, with the proper mining technology, the moon can be turned into a fuel farm for future expeditions, which makes it essential for more rapid solar system exploration. I&#39;m sure we will all learn the "generic" explanation of why we are doing it next week, I doubt many of us will ever learn all the "other" reasons for this effort.

Tinaa
2004-Jan-09, 10:54 PM
I was happy to hear the news. It was really big on the radio talk shows. Anything done on the moon or other celestial bodies is supposed to benefit all mankind. (http://www.greaterearth.org/laws/outers_t.htm) I am wondering who&#39;s going to benefit from the mining colonies. I hope that NASA gets the money, although &#036;800 million doesn&#39;t really sound like all that much.

om@umr.edu
2004-Jan-10, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by fraser@Jan 9 2004, 03:29 PM
SUMMARY: President Bush is set to announce next week that the United States will return to a bold human space exploration program. The proposed plan will see the completion of the International Space Station as soon as possible, humans returning to the Moon by 2013, the construction of a base on the Moon. The long term plan will see astronauts visit asteroids, and eventually, a human journey to Mars. As part of this plan, the US will need to develop a whole new group of spacecraft, but they&#39;ll use European rockets in the interim. The President will ask Congress for an additional &#036;800 million for NASA in 2005, and then increase NASA&#39;s budget by 5% over the next five years.

What do you think about this story? Post your comments below.
Dear Fraser,

This could be good news :D , if NASA would first put its house in order.

Otherwise :( , this action may further weaken public support for space exploration :angry: for these reasons:

1. The Apollo program landed men on the Moon six times from 1969 to 1972 and returned lunar samples for laboratory analysis at a total cost of &#036;150 billion to &#036;175 billion US dollars [See news report by T. Watson in USA Today, 9 Dec 2003, p. 4A]. Material implanted in the surfaces of lunar samples by the solar wind revealed clear evidence of severe mass-separation (MS) that enriches lighter mass (L) elements and isotopes over heavier mass (H) ones at the solar surface by a common power law [Meteoritics 18: 209-222 (1983)], where the mass-separation is:

log (MS) = 4.56 log (H/L)

When the composition of the solar photosphere is corrected for this empirical mass-separation, the most abundant elements in the interior of the Sun are found to be Fe, Ni, O, Si, S, Mg and Ca. These are the same elements Prof. Harkins reported in 1917 to comprise 99% of the material in ordinary meteorites. The probability (P) is essentially zero that this agreement is fortuitous,
P < 0.000000000000000000000000000000002.

2. The less-expensive Galileo mission reached Jupiter in 1996 and confirmed a prediction on page 220 [Meteoritics 18: 209-222 (1983)] that the helium-rich atmosphere of Jupiter would contain "strange" xenon, unlike that in the Sun. Xenon isotope data from the Galileo mission to Jupiter are available on the web at http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windl...leranalysis.pdf (http://web.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2001/windleranalysis.pdf)

3. Without addressing the observations from NASA missions, NASA launched a personal attack against the idea that the Sun is iron-rich. See UPI news story at

http://web.umr.edu/~om/upinewsstory.html

The question, Fraser, is whether a space agency with this track record should be entrusted with another large bag of public funds <_< ? I think not, but I would like to hear other opinions.

With kind regards,

Oliver :D
om@umr.edu
http://www.umr.edu/~om
http://www.ballofiron.com
http://www.chem.umr.edu/web/facres/manuel.html

PS - A concise summary of evidence for an iron-rich Sun is on the web at
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.pdf
http://www.umr.edu/~om/abstracts2002/soho-gong2002.ps

Al in Virginia
2004-Jan-10, 01:23 AM
Frasier, you mentioned the rumor a while back that Bush was considering something big in space. Good reporting&#33; Apparently he has been toying with this idea since the challenger disaster report. It seems to me he must have decided skipped the anniversary of the Wright brothers flight as an announcement date because he wanted to be sure that Spirit would not fail on arrival at mars like so many others before it. At least that&#39;s what I think is partly responsible for his timing. Of course, there is now a lot more riding on Opportunity&#39;s arrival later this month. If it should have problems he will probably not put any more capitol, (political or greenbacks) where is mouth is now.

I was 9 when we landed on the moon and at that time I thought I might actually get a trip into space before I died. At this point I would settle for living long enough to see us go back again. President Bush, make me believe in a manned mars landing before I die. I want to believe. I really do.

imported_Nick
2004-Jan-10, 08:46 AM
This truly is fantastic news. I&#39;ve been hoping that this rumoured announcement would come soon and actually deliver, while it is all words at the moment, I do have a certain amount of hope that this mission will go, once again where no man has gone before and go further than we have ever gone before (ok, that was a little too Star Treky :D )

The only problem I can see is that this is all NASA (not that I have a problem with that at all &#33;&#33;). I would just like to see a united effort between all the space capable nations on earth to get us out there. Pool their resources and brains and theories, instead of acting like it&#39;s a race between each other. We need to work together if we are ever to get anywhere. The US should not be the only country footing the bill for such a huge undertaking as putting people temporarily or even permanently in space, on the Moon or on Mars etc, etc, etc.

I guess more answers will come, but is there any speculation as to the size of the team that will go to the Moon ? Obviously to set up a permanent base, it will require a large team. What sort of spacecraft will be developed to ship building materials and resources needed to the moon ? Will this new initiative once again push for development of new propulsion systems and a revitalisation of the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project, or atleast push for more development into Antimatter or Fusion propulsion ? Probably not, but it&#39;s worth asking. :D

I have more questions as always :D , but will keep them at bay until an official announcement is made.

menkalinan
2004-Jan-10, 01:20 PM
Well, let&#39;s assume, this announcement is more than a propaganda strategy to give Mr. Bush a kind of Kennedy-charisma and to take peoples worries of Iraq (how much credibility has the president, as he stopped funds for the ISS back in 2001 to save &#036; 4 Billion needed to develop the habitat module and the Crew Return Vehicle, limiting a-to-date more than &#036; 60 Billion investment to a crew of max. three people and so to the half of the nominal capacity?):

Back in 1989, Bush sr. made a similar announcement&#33; During the following years, the costs for a manned mission to Mars have been estimated to &#036; 400 Billion. We should calculate with at least a similar amount this time, as there are more projects announced (Moon base, ISS-completion). The funding of NASA during recent years have been about &#036; 15 Billion per annum. 5% more budget would increase this sum by about &#036; 800 Million, which make an additional &#036; 8.8 Billion until 2015 (not taking into account the effects of inflation). This amount would right be sufficient to some preliminary concept studies.

As last year showed, mankind is barely able to put men safely into orbit and bring them back. And now we are talking about humans on Mars? Beginning today with annual funding of about 5% (about &#036; 25 Billion) of the US Military budget, it could be realised to develop a safe Mars transfer and habitat technology no earlier than 2020. Not included are efforts for completion of ISS and development of a new STS.

It&#39;s ridiculous to postulate a "space-race" with the Chinese&#33; Bringing some men in a capsule to an orbit is a technology of the Sixties&#33; Landing Spirit on Mars is a far more sophisticated achievement&#33; And even in comparison with ESA (Beagle2) and Japan (Nozomi) NASA is setting standards. There is no competition&#33;

Manned missions are fascinating adventures&#33; But that&#39;s it&#33; Scientifically they&#39;re a waste of money, as robotic probes can achieve the same output for about a 10th of the cost. And concerning technology: It&#39;s also developed more efficient at places, where the so called spin-offs would come to use. You can talk about patriotic issues, about mankind finding itself when it stares at planet earth from martian soil etc. - but don&#39;t talk about science and technology, its self-deception.

Yes, I&#39;m a space enthusiast&#33; I&#39;d like to see dozens of more Mars probes, including rover journeys of several hundred kilometres, sample return missions, airplanes, balloons and drilling machines. Let&#39;s send more high-end probes to Jupiter and other planets. I want to know what the ocean under Europa&#39;s ice sheet is like and like to see pictures from Pluto and Charon. What about telescopes of the dimension of Keck Observatory in space? I doubt that there would be any money left for ambitious scientific projects if we&#39;re going to put some people on mars. But for &#036; 400 Billion, we can realise at least 200 sophisticated Science missions.

Greetings from Germany,

Erik

tycho1981
2004-Jan-10, 01:39 PM
they do maybe for a new fusion-fuel on the moon (helium3) then USA can forget about oil in iraq.

damienpaul
2004-Jan-10, 02:55 PM
the potential is enourmous for when the moon base is established then eventually the mars base, travelling from there onwards would be a greater ease.

Kethryn
2004-Jan-10, 03:42 PM
I think this will, of course, be good for the space program, but you have to wonder if President Bush will let it take a last priority, like his father apparently did. I hope not, this could be a great opportunity.

Kethryn

om@umr.edu
2004-Jan-10, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by Nick@Jan 10 2004, 08:46 AM
This truly is fantastic news. I&#39;ve been hoping that this rumoured announcement would come soon and actually deliver, while it is all words at the moment, I do have a certain amount of hope that this mission will go, once again where no man has gone before and go further than we have ever gone before (ok, that was a little too Star Treky :D )

The only problem I can see is that this is all NASA (not that I have a problem with that at all &#33;&#33;). I would just like to see a united effort between all the space capable nations on earth to get us out there. Pool their resources and brains and theories, instead of acting like it&#39;s a race between each other. We need to work together if we are ever to get anywhere. The US should not be the only country footing the bill for such a huge undertaking as putting people temporarily or even permanently in space, on the Moon or on Mars etc, etc, etc.

I guess more answers will come, but is there any speculation as to the size of the team that will go to the Moon ? Obviously to set up a permanent base, it will require a large team. What sort of spacecraft will be developed to ship building materials and resources needed to the moon ? Will this new initiative once again push for development of new propulsion systems and a revitalisation of the Breakthrough Propulsion Physics (BPP) Project, or atleast push for more development into Antimatter or Fusion propulsion ? Probably not, but it&#39;s worth asking. :D

I have more questions as always :D , but will keep them at bay until an official announcement is made.
Nick is right on target :D&#33;

There is no scientific reason why Bush&#39;s proposal should be limited to NASA , <_< instead of involving a united effort between all space-capable nations on earth. :rolleyes:

We will all win if nations pool their resources, brains, expertise, and theories, and work together to put people in space ..... on the Moon, on Mars, etc. :D

Long-term, space science would surely benefit from such an international space effort because this would reduce:
1. The costs to American taxpayers :D, and
2. The damage caused by NASA&#39;s dogmatic and provincial views. :D

However, the scientific merits of an international effort will not carry the day if this is simply a propaganda strategy for the upcoming election or a ploy to help U.S. energy companies. :(

Garry Murphy
2004-Jan-10, 11:11 PM
A few years ago there was a programme on TV with some of the people who were involved in the Moon project . One man said that it similar to " A cat pissing and then coming back" .A good description . I thought.
We must not forget that a lot of the people in the world are starving , and maybe it is not necessary for us to go to the moon as I is costing a lot .

DippyHippy
2004-Jan-10, 11:42 PM
Garry, are you in the UK? I have that programme on tape and that quote has always stuck in my mind&#33;&#33;&#33; It was on a programme that aired in 1994 as part of the 25th anniversary of the first moon landing. Come to think of it, I guess it was one of those joint UK / US productions... memorable as well because Neil Armstrong himself introduced each of the two parts.

Anyway... it was a journalist (based in Florida I think) who made the remark. I never liked the guy anyway because although he was a Science correspondent for his paper, he seemed to hate the idea of the Apollo space program. Miserable bugger. He said he was driving home one day and he saw a dog chasing a car - the car stopped and the dog weed on it, effectively marking it&#39;s terriority. And the journalist said, that&#39;s what we did, we went to the Moon and we p*ssed on it and marked our terriority.

Like I said, I never liked the man&#33; :angry:

Chook
2004-Jan-11, 02:00 AM
DippyHippy, my winging pommy friend: You won&#39;t like ME after this ...

Z Z zzzz… dream away …. MARS - here we come&#33; Weee&#33;&#33;

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the International Monitary Fund is warning the USA that - because of unrestrained spending, tax cuts, the fight against terrorism and its continuing massive trade and budget deficits, each of the order of &#036;500,000,000,000 per year - the world&#39;s economy is being threatened and higher interest rates can be expected resulting in a plunge in the value of the US dollar, lower private investments and global productivity.

The American Taxpayer has a right to ask why it is important to shell out US&#036;800,000,000 to send a pair of cybernetic skateboards to another world.

Surely, in a world full of inhumanity, epidemics, suffering and poverty, curiosity is a dispensable luxury.

After all - it may be found that "life" is no more sophisticated than bread yeast.

I would strongly suggest to you blokes and ladies to think about your families, get out of debt at all cost, and to live somewhere where you can grow your own vegetables.

A global depression COULD hit us - with dire results to all - particularly borrowers.

You read it here first.

Red Rooster

PS Buy a gun.

damienpaul
2004-Jan-11, 03:48 AM
I am compelled to agree with you red rooster&#33; there appears to be a looming economic crisis. However, human curiosity is indeed inherent in all humans. I agree get out of debt, but never lose your curiousity. I firmly believe that the forefront of discovery will be made by individuals and comapnies.

imported_lunatic
2004-Jan-11, 05:33 AM
You make a valid point but that doesn&#39;t mean I have to agree with it. If humans give up their curiosity, then we will be an even more miserable bunch than before. If humans cannot venture outward, explore new frontiers, then we are no longer human (I believe Von Braun said that, or something along those lines). There are problems in the world, and there always will be. Nothing that we can do will turn Earth into a perfect utopia, so what is the use on giving up the very thing that makes us human? Indeed, if we stop looking outward and only look inward, that could in the long run create more problems than it solves.

anewton
2004-Jan-11, 06:24 AM
I posted a reply on the previous forum site on this subject, but let me repeat, since I posted wrong. I&#39;m from Austin, TX, (GWB&#39;s former home). I think he&#39;s just using the timing of a successful space project to announce a nice sound-bite that might gain him votes in the upcoming elections. I hate when politicians take advantage and give false hope for things they know that Congress has no time or money to OK. I hope we will always fund the advancement of all the sciences. It has far reaching effects into every area of our lives. And, it truely is the only way to insure this little "Blue Marble" has a future.

Chook
2004-Jan-11, 07:17 AM
Quote Lunatic:
"You make a valid point but that doesn&#39;t mean I have to agree with it. If humans give up their curiosity, then we will be an even more miserable bunch than before. If humans cannot venture outward, explore new frontiers, then we are no longer human."

Nobody would suggest you give up your "curiosity", Lunatic. (sorry - sounds rude.)

The objective should be to maximise the return on every dollar spent.

Space exploration is VERY expensive, accident-prone and, lets face it, doesn&#39;t return very much value DIRECTLY for each dollar spent.

What about alternatives - under-sea / deep-sea exploration for example? There could be very much to do and discover there. Even build undersea cities, harvest fish, not worry about drought or dust-storms, low-flying aeroplanes, animals on the road etc. (lol)

My point is that, despite what is politically announced, I would bet my left one that you won&#39;t be holidaying in Mars City anytime real soon because you can&#39;t afford it.

Josh
2004-Jan-11, 07:56 AM
My point is that, despite what is politically announced, I would bet my left one that you won&#39;t be holidaying in Mars City anytime real soon because you can&#39;t afford it.

Obviously, Chook. "Luna"tic is obviously a "Moon" holidayer. ;)

Deep sea exploration is being done and in a big way. Just because we don&#39;t hear about it doesn&#39;t mean it isn&#39;t happening. It just isn&#39;t as glamorous (to the media) as is leaving the Earth.

To the other point about space exploration not giving any return ... there are a number of threads posted in here about spin offs from space exploration. Some are damn important ones that keep you alive when you have a heart attack for eg. Not to mention the millions in third world countries who have drinkable water directly because of human space exploration. We only know about the holes in the ozone layer because of humans venturing off planet (whther in person or with robots and satellites). While space exploration isn&#39;t the destructive force that war is, the similarity is that, out of war, human innovation comes to the front and advances humanity. Space exploration is the same in that respect but better in that at the same time we learn more about ourselves and our planet and the universe.

Best value for money? I agree... and that said we need to do all the things you say and all the other things. Getting one out of the other is a damn good way to kill two birds with one stone. saving your money. As one simple example, if we learnt how to set up a city on mars and keep people alive then there will obviously be spin offs that allow us to keep more people alive here in drought ridden or other harsh environments. You think too inflexibly and small. Humanity&#39;s future is here and out there. and the saving of one is directly related to the expanding of the other.

anewton
2004-Jan-11, 08:15 AM
Josh is absolutely right about the advances. I wouldn&#39;t be "dancing" today if it weren&#39;t for titanium hips that came as a result of space exploration. One even has a ceramic ball the doctor said was researched by aeroengineers. The real point is to keep young people involved with the politics of their country. You are the ones who should be directing the course of government expenditures. You really can make a difference.

damienpaul
2004-Jan-11, 11:59 AM
i may not be able to type if it weren&#39;t for the ceramic implants in my left shoulder and for the techniques that astronauts use to train which helped my back after my 12 metre (36 ft) fall off a cliff.

Chook
2004-Jan-11, 12:13 PM
I knew you beggers would give me whipping over the "benefits" of Space Exploration ........ that&#39;s why I emphasised "DIRECT value", rather than the obvious benefits of SPINOFFS.

All the same - I submit strongly that a hell of a lot of research can be done for the cost of ONE mars landing - US&#036;800,000,000.

Think of what amount of direct research can be done for that amount of money - just a minor part of total cost of Space Exploration.

No&#33; I reject the charge that "You think too inflexibly and small." Just practical.

I&#39;ve got money in my pocket. Do you? B)

Chook
2004-Jan-11, 12:18 PM
Post Script:
It&#39;s easy to advise other people how to spend their money ... (that they really haven&#39;t got). :ph34r:

BRANDO
2004-Jan-11, 02:15 PM
:ph34r: [FONT=Arial][SIZE=1] BUSH on MARS
We need the Moon Base to develope ships to MARS as we have to investigate that pyramid and the face of Jesus.

imported_lunatic
2004-Jan-11, 04:02 PM
Besides, just because we are exploring space does not mean that we will be IGNORING the problems on Earth. Look at the 1960&#39;s. That was the only decade during which the space program prospered, and yet it hardly seems that domestic issues were ignored back then&#33; People went right along helping the poor and fighting against racism, and fighting and protesting their wars, and I might add that they were quite good at it (well, the war thing kind of screwed them, and it may screw us too, though I can at least hope that this time may be different). Space exploration is expensive, but it will help the economy in the long run, IF we let it. It will take a large investment at first, but as long as we stick to it and don&#39;t turn back half way through, then it will be helpful to the world economy as a whole. It just needs that chance.

And as for ocean exploration, it is a noble endeavour indeed. My cousin wants to be a marine biologist, and explore the ocean. I suppose that we are sort of a family of would-be explorers, she has the sea and I have space :P

I guess I can&#39;t argue with you other than I would rather go into space than the bottom of the ocean. Nothing is wrong with the ocean, certainly, I just feel a ... calling, I guess you&#39;d call it ... to go to space. I&#39;ve always had a special liking for the moon (thus the name), but I think my boss would prefer Mars which is fine with me B)

menkalinan
2004-Jan-11, 05:28 PM
Chook, what exactly do you mean with "DIRECT value"? I guess, you think about it economically, lets say: If we put &#036; 800 Million in a project, we should get at least the same amount out of it&#33;

Well, in my opinion, knowing whether life is a single coincidence ore rather common phenomenon and what we can learn about our climate by looking at what happend to the one on Mars is a "direct value" for me. The first gives me an idea about the reason why I&#39;m existing, the latter will help to solve one of the biggest hazards on earth in ths century.

But you&#39;re totally right: We should insist on efficiency. So let&#39;s explore space with robotic probes instead of humans&#33; And if we produce enough of them, tey will be much cheaper than &#036; 800,000,000&#33; :D

I tell you what to do with the money in your pocket: Save 20% for your future, with 75% consume ethically and environmentally sustainable products and spend 5% for Science Foundations, Human Rights and Third World (In that order&#33;)&#33; If we all do, no one will have to turn back to Middle-Age household. B)

imported_lunatic
2004-Jan-11, 06:00 PM
Robots are all well and good, and I do not argue that they are definitely needed for the future of space exploration. However, I am strongly against the idea that robots should be the only things that should be allowed to explore the universe. When I was younger and trhe pathfinder landed, I was excited about it, as I am now with the Spirit lander. However, I was only excited about these things because I thought that they were leading the way so that I, or at least my children, might someday go there too. If it became evident that humans would never go there, and these landers were the ONLY future of space flight we had to look forward to, then it became significantly less interesting.

tycho1981
2004-Jan-11, 06:10 PM
too much money? so then put it away to future? it&#39;s right time now to start. design, plan, test some new vechiles such as ESA ATV for to make a step to the moon. we don&#39;t need direct give a enormous amount dollar but in phases. around 2020 it&#39;s then very good time go walk on the moon. we really need a good direction/mission then we can do it just.

Chook
2004-Jan-11, 08:10 PM
Brando, Luna-tic (love that name), Menkalinan, Tycho 1981:

Fellows - I&#39;m no disagreeing with you&#33; The sky, and space, is the most beautiful and awe-inspiring spectacle imaginable. One that conjures up all sorts of heroic dreams and aspirations. AND spin-off benefits. I love it - that&#39;s why I participate in this forum.

But I come here with a "financial" background and feel a burden, not to diminish your enthusiasm, but to season our discussions with some caution concerning practical expectations and fiscal common sense.

Believe me - we are living in precarious times as far as the economy (and money) is concerned. And because "CONFIDENCE" is one of the highest-geared investment (and economic) levers that can sway the money-market it is to the advantage of everybody, the US government, its people and the rest of the world, to maintain confidence to the utmost degree.

So we are not being officially informed that we could be heading "over the cliff" if the USA keep on spending to the degree that they are.

You just cannot afford to fight another war, and domestic spending must be stablised. You have to increase your taxes (somehow) to earn more money just to maintain your existing standard of living.

Look at your "Health System"&#33; A total mess. You pay thousands of dollars Health Insurance, go see the doctor, get a bill for &#036;450 and the insurance refunds you &#036;25&#33; :unsure: Bloody joke mate&#33;

I am suggesting to you that you&#39;ll get all the blah blah about Space Exploration from the Government to shut you up - but, in reality, they KNOW that if they are to practice fiscal responsibility (live within the budget) it can&#39;t be done for years to come.

They will have to give you SOME funding - so use your fertile imaginations about that - how to best, and most productively, spend the few bucks you&#39;ll actually get.

Happy thinking :o .

Red Rooster
(regards to Alice)

Earthling
2004-Jan-12, 12:01 AM
It&#39;s obvious that nobody, no matter how cynical, really opposes a return to the Moon, and thence to Mars. And that&#39;s probably because subscribers to this service are all keen space fans, eager to probe further and further into the void. However, my plea to Houston is that they employ some astronauts with personalities, derring-do and artistic ability. Maybe even send some kids. This will help those of us destined never to leave Earth to better appreciate the discoveries. At the very least, give the astrophysicists and rocket scientists some media training so that we get to like them&#33;

Guest
2004-Jan-12, 02:24 AM
I&#39;ve met some astronauts, and I think that they are great people with personalities as they are&#33; Not all astronauts are boring stuffy people with no interests beyond science. :P

tycho1981
2004-Jan-12, 06:10 AM
but the moon can be profitable and healty for earth. there is plenty of minerals for mine that we can really profitable use it but this need a base first of course. the moon can be our main powersource too, heluim3 fusion power is serious good and safe enough to replace the current dangerous fusion power urinanum what is clean&#33;
During the moon race 1960-1970 there came a much spinn-offs from, serious good for
geological, medication, computer, hardware things such as thankfully magnetron what we cannot miss for today&#33;
who know what will come out as a spinn off from moon mission of this century? :rolleyes:

It hurts to pay much money. to build as example Space shuttle were expensive too
design, hardwares, build for first time, first testflights, first manned were very expensive but more next missions/builds is cheaper. this count too for cars, computers and much things beside space.

DisinterestedThirdParty
2004-Jan-12, 12:12 PM
There have been many announcements of missions to Mars, moon, and space exploration over the past decades. None of them has gotten off the ground, and indeed, have resulted in money plowed into the ground as opposed to spent wisely.

Now, having said that, I’ll add that I am a Bush supporter for a lot of reasons, one of them is the questionable quality of his competition.

But, I look at these announcements as nothing more than corporate welfare and vote buying. Should these funds actually be allocated, the majority of the money would be spent in CA, AL, FL, and TX. All four states have large Electoral College votes.

If you check the Columbia Accident board report, you will find several references to this sort of pandering has occurred by nearly every administration since Kennedy. The report specifically mentions Nixon (a favorite whipping-boy of the space program), but also mentions some of the later shuttle replacement fiascoes of the Clinton administration.

So, are we to believe, three years into the Bush presidency, that all of a sudden, it is time for us to make to great steps forward into space? I think not.

But I’ve said this before, and I will repeat it here again. Until we have a cheap, reliable and operational vehicle to get people and equipment into orbit, any further expectations of a manned space program are ill founded. Currently, we do not have this vehicle, and there’s no hope of one arriving on the scene in the immediate future. Until this is operational, the whole thing is a lot of rhetoric.

anewton
2004-Jan-12, 01:56 PM
Ah, but Chook, some "direct research" can only be done past the pull of gravity and the other conditions that Space Exploration offers.