TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bush to Announce Mission to Mars, Moon
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I don't believe so. Everybody stole from the Germans who were years ahead...

The truth is stranger than fiction. The chief architect of NASA's drive to the moon was one Wernher von Braun. Inventor of the V2 rocket that smacked London so unexpectedly that many thought the explosions were gas leaks.

So the first nation on the moon was the USA, courtesy of the Third Reich.

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academ...n/vonBraun.html is NASA's page, and it's quite a read.

I wonder if Bush will use Iraqi 'WMD scientists' to get us to Mars? I wonder if we'll find those Iraqi WMDs there into the bargain?

We can talk about the Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Americans whomever else your fancy may choose but the bottom line is that any space research requires money and lots of it. I hope America cuts back on military spending that way there will be plenty to go to Nasa without a sweat being broken. I have seen people refer to Nasa's space program as stagnated well last time I checked Nasa has one Rover on Mars and another will hopefully touch down in a few weeks, is anyone else doing this that I don't know about. Getting back to that money thing the Beagle hasn't been seen or heard since Christmas and many lament that extensive testing may not have been performed by the ESA in order to save money. The space game is one that requires expensive, extensive commitment without necessarily being rewarded, not too many can afford that gamble ask the ESA about Beagle.

Personally I believe that NASA should ditch the Space Shuttle program in favor of a Moon/Mars program.

I believe the key to space exploration today is in giving government incentives for private space research and development. If the government were to give tax breaks or rewards for certain "mile stones" or promise the use of resources found either in space development or in space itself, the private sector could fuel America's next space "adventure." Call me a pessimist, but I am not a strong believer in the current state of government and its overwhelming beaurocracy and inefficiencies in being able to conduct space research and development in a speedy and cost effective way. So, I say let capitalism fuel our explorations. NASA's budget will have to be increased, but with private companies doing the bulk of the work at their own cost and expense, it will not have to be set as high as many people would find unacceptable.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono If the government were to give tax breaks or rewards for certain "mile stones" or promise the use of resources found either in space development or in space itself, the private sector could fuel America's next space "adventure." Call me a pessimist, but I am not a strong believer in the current state of government and its overwhelming beaurocracy and inefficiencies in being able to conduct space research and development in a speedy and cost effective way. So, I say let capitalism fuel our explorations. NASA's budget will have to be increased, but with private companies doing the bulk of the work at their own cost and expense, it will not have to be set as high as many people would find unacceptable.

Capitalism is already on the case with the X Prize. http://www.xprize.org/ is their website, and they'll pay US$10 million to the first team that:

* Privately finances, builds & launches a vehicle, able to carry three people to an altitude of 100 kilometers (62.5 miles)

* Returns safely to Earth

* Repeats the launch with the same ship within 2 weeks.

Time to get cracking... there are 26 teams working on it and one team recently achieved Mach 1... the first manned supersonic flight by an aircraft developed by a small company's private, non-government effort.

I'm starting to like Bush's proposal more and more. Key points:

- an increase in Nasa's budget by $1 billion over 5 years. That seems quite feasible to me, hopefully it can come out of defense spending or something of the sort.

- A shift of over $11 billion dollars from other Nasa programs to extra-orbital efforts.

- Use the existing shuttles to finish work on the ISS then retire them in favor of more effecient space vehicles.

quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush spurred Americans to "continue the journey" Wednesday, proposing a new spacecraft to return to the moon by 2015, and to eventually use a base there to send a manned mission to Mars. "The desire to explore and understand is part of our character and that quest has brought tangible benefits that have improved our lives in countless ways," Bush said, during his speech at NASA headquarters, a few blocks from the White House. "Much remains for us to explore and to learn. ... It is time for America to take the next steps." Bush asked Congress to increase funding for NASA by $1 billion over five years, while radically transforming the space agency's manned space flight goals -- from low-Earth orbit to audacious missions to the moon and, ultimately, Mars. Bush also asked NASA to shift an additional $11 billion from other programs to focus on his proposal. The White House's nine-page executive policy directive offered a detailed blueprint to lead NASA from its focus on the space shuttle and the International Space Station to a new class of rockets and spacecraft that will carry humans on exploratory journeys much longer and farther than the shuttle can travel. "I think what the president has touched on is an important aspect of what is part of our human makeup -- which is to be explorers," said NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe in an exclusive interview with CNN. Space shuttles are limited to low Earth orbit -- no higher than about 300 miles above the surface -- and can stay in space for slightly longer than two weeks. The International Space Station orbits the Earth at an altitude of about 240 miles. The space agency will use its first injection of new funding to begin work immediately on a "Crew Exploration Vehicle" designed to carry small crews of people -- not cargo -- into deep space. The CEV may or may not be a reusable craft as the shuttle is. "It is going to look totally different than what the space shuttle looks like today," said O'Keefe. "So we have to get about the business of developing that capability right away." The Bush plan calls for NASA to fulfill its obligation to 15 other partner nations to complete the International Space Station in the next five to six years. As it turns out, those station assembly and resupply sorties will be the final missions for the space shuttle fleet, which first flew in 1981 and is currently grounded in the wake of the Columbia tragedy a year ago. As part of its investigation into that accident, which killed the seven-member crew, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board has told NASA it must re-certify the space shuttle fleet for flight if it wishes to continue using the fleet beyond 2010. The Bush administration has decided not to initiate this onerous, expensive task, thus sealing the fate for the remaining shuttles -- Atlantis, Discovery and Endeavour. NASA projects a new CEV might be ready for a mission to the moon between 2015 and 2020. The space agency would like to establish a base on the surface of the moon -- as a test bed and way station for a manned Mars expedition. "The human thirst for knowledge ultimately cannot be satisfied by even the most vivid pictures or the most detailed measurements," Bush said. "We need to see and examine and touch for ourselves. And only human beings are capable of adapting to the inevitable uncertainties posed by space travel." There is congressional concern that the lofty goals in the Bush initiative may far exceed the proposed budget. "The first year after [President John] Kennedy announced the Apollo program, the NASA budget was doubled," said Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Florida, the only current member of Congress who has flown in space. "And in the second year it was doubled again. That's not realistic today. But five percent a year increases are not going to get us to the moon." NASA administrator O'Keefe said the funding requested by the Bush administration is more akin to seed money for development, which will more precisely frame the debate for more funding in the future. O'Keefe hopes NASA can develop a robust, modular system for space travel that will allow policy makers to make "a la carte" decisions on destinations. "Each of the individual milestones or objectives is to be priced out," said O'Keefe. "It depends on which option you choose. But between now and then, the objective is to try to find the means to make any of those debates possible." NASA said it will use money from the space shuttle and space station programs' budgets as they wind down to further fund the new space effort as it progresses. If all goes according to plan, it appears likely there will be at least a three-year period beginning in 2010 when the United States will not have a vehicle capable of carrying humans to space. While not unprecedented -- nearly six years elapsed between the last Apollo mission in 1975 and the first space shuttle flight in 1981-- it is an issue that is causing some concern among space advocates. "There's going to be great concern in Congress and in NASA that you're going to have that period of time with no human space flight actual, no humans actually flying from the United States. We'll be dependent on the Russians for Soyuz," said Marc Schlather, president of ProSpace, a grass-roots space lobbying group. The seed of this bold idea was planted in the summer of 2002, during O'Keefe's first months as NASA administrator. In discussions with President Bush, O'Keefe shared his surprise that the agency had no plans to explore beyond low Earth orbit and began discussing a bolder vision for NASA. The president was immediately supportive, according to O'Keefe. The idea was percolating within the administration when Columbia disintegrated over Texas on February 1. In a tragic twist of irony, the loss of the orbiter and crew added new urgency and focus to the administration's big plans for NASA. "Columbia's crew did not turn away from the challenge, and neither will we," Bush said. http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/...pace/index.html

I'm actually a fan of his proposal. He pretty much adopted the strategies proposed by the senior science writer of space magazine.

Today seems to be a good day for NASA

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/...reut/index.html

Now all they need is for opportunity to make a good landing to pick up the hat trick.

I'm almost starting to like Bush when I saw him announce this plan.

Does anyone else see the problem for itself? Does anyone see that Bush tries to divert the American peoples' mindsets with these things whenever something is wrong with the country?

quote:

Originally posted by Galapidate Does anyone else see the problem for itself? Does anyone see that Bush tries to divert the American peoples' mindsets with these things whenever something is wrong with the country?

hehe it is funny I was just thinking the same thing today,when I saw his speach,I hope see what this guy is doing,he cant fool me with all this space stuff!!

quote:

Originally posted by Galapidate Does anyone else see the problem for itself? Does anyone see that Bush tries to divert the American peoples' mindsets with these things whenever something is wrong with the country?

Well I don't think anybody is going to be disillusioned into forgetting Iraq . And once again, it's far too early for it to be any kind of election bid. It's a good plan that doesn't necessarily have to be associated with anything else other than national pride/scientific endeavor.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well I don't think anybody is going to be disillusioned into forgetting Iraq . And once again, it's far too early for it to be any kind of election bid. It's a good plan that doesn't necessarily have to be associated with anything else other than national pride/scientific endeavor.

While it does seem reasonable, I was not eluding to Iraq when I said something is wrong with this country . I'll give you a hint: deficit.

quote:

Originally posted by Galapidate While it does seem reasonable, I was not eluding to Iraq when I said something is wrong with this country . I'll give you a hint: deficit.

Yes and in the grand scheme of the NASA budget what Bush is proposing is not unreasonable. The majority of the funds directed at this effort will come out of NASA's existing budget. Which is the primary reason why I'm in support of the plan.

And the average American knows peanuts about the ramifications of long term deficits. And those who actually study and are aware of its impact are unlikely swayed by this "disguise", so I sincerely doubt this masterful plan was engineered in an effort to quell those fears.

quote:

Originally posted by Galapidate Does anyone else see the problem for itself? Does anyone see that Bush tries to divert the American peoples' mindsets with these things whenever something is wrong with the country?

- I see it, and it came out of nowhere. All of the sudden, he remembers he has a friend called Mexico, he remembers that inmigrants help this countries economy, and he dreamed of making a mission to mars.. all on 2004, election year.. hehe.. but yeah, this is another subject. Lets see if he will throw this project onto his speeches to be reelected... ( Sees Occrider getting and ready to kill me ). Like I said, I love this NASA stuff, I just dont find the moment apropriate.

Ummm...really, when is the appropriate moment for you guys? Because there's an election coming up in 11 MONTHS, does that mean he can't do anything as President? He should just sit on his hands? Please... It was like Cong. Jim McDermott who said that Saddam's capture was political exploitation for the election. What should the US have done? Hold him for a year?

The fact of the matter is that Bush is President and has a job to do, while the Democrats are trying to get that job. They can campaign all they want, but Bush still has a country to run. The term of an American President is 4 years, not 3.

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX - I see it, and it came out of nowhere. All of the sudden, he remembers he has a friend called Mexico, he remembers that inmigrants help this countries economy, and he dreamed of making a mission to mars.. all on 2004, election year.. hehe.. but yeah, this is another subject. Lets see if he will throw this project onto his speeches to be reelected... ( Sees Occrider getting and ready to kill me ). Like I said, I love this NASA stuff, I just dont find the moment apropriate.

Haha we're all entitled to our opinions . I only get upset at conspiracy theories ... and not at the person, just the conspiracy

There's always a margin of unknown in every matter of debate. So for instances such as this, yes it could be an election ploy. However, taking everything in consideration, I would disagree, however, I'm not absolutely certain. The only times I get upset is when a person is clinging to a theory to the point of irrationality

First let me say this is perfect timing! Bush proposed NASA after NASA made a success! What a better time to support NASA and get people behind NASA then when NASA has just completed/begun an excellent mission on mars, which attracted and got the attention and support of millions the world over all by itself. Why not back that institution at that time?? I also belive had NASA failed with its Mars probe like the British beagle, Bush would not have made this policy change in support of NASA at all. It would have been put a pipe dream. The successful NASA rover gave Bush this opprotunity and he took it.

Bush, and his father have always wanted a bigger space program. The Sr. was denied his request in congress... namely because he didn't time it so well.

Second of all I will state my bias: I believe Bush feels VERY secure with his bid at re-election, ESPECIALLY if Dean is the democratic front-runner, and I do not believe Bush is even really considering the campaigning and politiking of the next election to a large degree, I believe it motivates very little of his daily agenda..
maybe a few minutes everyday.

I would say Bush's Space proposal has less to do with politics then the timing of the successful space mission recently completed to mars.

All I have to say is that better the money be spent on the Space Program that needed a second look at anyway as opposed to the negative aspects of Wars, so what's the problem again.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan All I have to say is that better the money be spent on the Space Program that needed a second look at anyway as opposed to the negative aspects of Wars, so what's the problem again.

I agree, better spend money on NASA than social welfare IMO as well. NASA is education, and you are reward with technological developments which all of us can later share.

yah it's best to go to mars when people are living in slums. a massive amount of people are without health care. schools are only for the rich. the deficit is larger than it's ever been. yah it's best to go to mars.

quote:

Originally posted by failsafe yah it's best to go to mars when people are living in slums. a massive amount of people are without health care. schools are only for the rich. the deficit is larger than it's ever been. yah it's best to go to mars.

Then it shall be up to the voters of the United States of America to deterimine that now won't it. I just find it so funny to see so many non-Americans agregiously blast Bush for proposing this as a gimmick. Every taxpaying American citizen has the right to vote and if they don't like the president's policy they can do something in November so I wish people would spare me the usual speeches on Americas domestic problems as though every other nation doesn't have in its own way its own slums, lack of health care, expensive schools and deficit problems. Now multiply that on a larger scale when it comes to a nation the size of America. You would believe that America was Russia when it comes to social problems.

quote:

Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Then it shall be up to the voters of the United States of America to deterimine that now won't it. Every taxpaying American citizen has the right to vote and if they don't like the president's policy they can do something in November (...).

The problem is that only about half of the people exercise their rights, and with that, it seems that they are almost always swayed by the candidate who has the strongest and most heavily financed campaign. It's not like we are given the greatest choices of candidates, either.

http://www.usavotenet.com/images/totalturnout.gif

Add that to the fact that big business is commingling with big government in special-interest politics and you have a system that almost caters to those that are eager to embrace the spoils of corruption.

http://www.delawareonline.com/newsj...a/0312200a.html

http://www.commoncause.org/justwatc...eer&pioneerID=8

If we are expecting all of the worlds problems (or even just those of the United States) to be solved before we venture into space, we will never again leave the confines of earth. Poverty and slums are both subjective terms, and are based soley on your point of view. The poverty level and living conditions of a "poor" American, and I would venture to say a "poor" average earth citizen are higher today than at any other time in our history. Unfortunatly, we will always be battling our own human nature, and with that human nature we will have sickness, poverty and suffering. Even in the face of these "injustices" we must continue to move on. This means socially as well as technologically. We will never solve all of humanities problems on earth, and to put off of the exploration of space and the furthering of humanity in this futile effort is both naive and vain.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono If we are expecting all of the worlds problems (or even just those of the United States) to be solved before we venture into space, we will never again leave the confines of earth. Poverty and slums are both subjective terms, and are based soley on your point of view. The poverty level and living conditions of a "poor" American, and I would venture to say a "poor" average earth citizen are higher today than at any other time in our history. Unfortunatly, we will always be battling our own human nature, and with that human nature we will have sickness, poverty and suffering. Even in the face of these "injustices" we must continue to move on. This means socially as well as technologically. We will never solve all of humanities problems on earth, and to put off of the exploration of space and the furthering of humanity in this futile effort is both naive and vain.

Took the words right out of my mouth. How can we live with ourselves having cable tv, computers, cell phones, etc., when people are hungry? Instead of having the government fund liberal arts programs at schools, and giving grants to museums, artists, etc., why don't we instead spend that money on something useful like peas and carrots?

"Is this it? Is this what it's all about, Manny?"

http://www.tamu.edu/univrel/aggieda.../102903-13.html

http://www.globenet.free-online.co....pacecontrol.htm

http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/bibs/sepsp/sepsp.htm

http://www.towardfreedom.com/1999/sep99/spacewar.htm

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.