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 Trancer-X "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

Hehe ever the conspiracy theorist trancer-x

But I think you have it slightly wrong. I think it's more like this:

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Hehe ever the conspiracy theorist trancer-x But I think you have it slightly wrong.

Perhaps I'm just more abreast of the facts. How come you're not disputing my sources?

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr...98_9804131.html

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/doc...pac/lrp/toc.htm

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Perhaps I'm just more abreast of the facts. How come you're not disputing my sources? http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr...98_9804131.html http://www.fas.org/spp/military/doc...pac/lrp/toc.htm

Hmmm perhaps I'm not quite understanding the nature of your argument. Are you saying that the new NASA initiative is a cover for spaced based weapons programs? Or are you saying that the government has been actively exploring that technology?

I don't doubt that the military has been researching space based weaponry. I simply doubt that the new nasa initiative is associated with those programs for a few reasons. Dammit my picture didn't work. It was such a good picture of a death star

- What ever happened to that initiative that Bush wanted.. that missil protection thing that he proposed and wanted built in space, that hasent been done.. could this be somewhat what he's looking for?

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX - What ever happened to that initiative that Bush wanted.. that missil protection thing that he proposed and wanted built in space, that hasent been done.. could this be somewhat what he's looking for?

No that was Reagan's idea that never really took off. The missile defense shield is composed of multiple components acting in cooperation with one another. One component is a ground/ship launched 3 stage missile system SM-3. It's a modification of the Patriot system.
http://www.defenselink.mil/releases...31211-0757.html

The second component that is still in development is the airforce airborne laser system that is carried on a 747. It's still in development as we speak. A space based laser system seems impractical with the amount of energy needed to power the laser and costs associated with putting it in space. Solar collectors are fairly inefficient.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/abl/

quote:

Originally posted by occrider No that was Reagan's idea that never really took off. The missile defense shield is composed of multiple components acting in cooperation with one another. One component is a ground/ship launched 3 stage missile system SM-3. It's a modification of the Patriot system. http://www.defenselink.mil/releases...31211-0757.html The second component that is still in development is the airforce airborne laser system that is carried on a 747. It's still in development as we speak. A space based laser system seems impractical with the amount of energy needed to power the laser and costs associated with putting it in space. Solar collectors are fairly inefficient. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/abl/

Okay great, thanks for the info. Thought it was Bush who was really pushing it at the beginning of his presidency. I dont quite remember if the money was ever granted or if this was accepted.

Star Wars Spending Spree
Billions for Missile Defense, peanuts for anti-terrorism.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Thursday, Nov. 7, 2002, at 2:58 PM PT


With all the concern about dirty bombs, bioterrorism, and suicide bombers smashing airplanes into power plants, the public has pretty much forgotten about the Pentagon's ballistic-missile-defense program. (Wasn't that some nutty dream of Ronald Reagan's?) So, it may come as a shock to learn that President Bush will spend $7.4 billion on R&D for missile defenses next year. That's twice the sum that Reagan spent on "star wars" in his final year of office�and for a system that remains sketchily defined and technologically dubious, against an unlikely threat that lies years, if not decades, off. Meanwhile, to defend against "weapons of mass destruction" that we all fear might blow up on American streets next week, the administration is spending�well, not quite zip, but far, far less than would be needed for a minimally serious effort, on technology that exists right now.

What's more, Congress has approved this $7.4 billion, for what is now simply called the Missile Defense Agency, without knowing where the money is going. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, who has been an avid MD supporter from way back, restructured the program into five budget categories, responding to the program's broad missions. These are, along with the amount appropriated in the Fiscal Year 2003 budget:

-Boost Defense Segment (space-based weapons to destroy enemy missiles just after they've been launched, or "boosted"), $800 million;


-Midcourse Defense Segment (weapons based on the ground, ships, and airplanes to attack enemy missiles in the arc of their trajectory), $3.2 billion;


-Terminal Defense Segment (ground- and ship-based weapons to shoot down enemy warheads as they plunge to their targets), $1.1 billion;


-Sensors Segment (the radar and other systems that warn of, and track, a missile attack), $400 million;


-Ballistic Missile Defense System Segment (the testing and communications networks that tie the other segments into a system), $1.1 billion.


(The remaining $800 million is for Army surface-to-air missiles, most notably an upgraded version of the Patriot, that the Pentagon hopes to use in the system.)
However, beyond some vague sub-categorizations, the Pentagon does not break these dollar figures down in any detail�not even in the "R-2 Budget Justification Book" that it provides to the congressional armed services committees. One congressional staff member told me, "The administration has done a masterful job of not providing real detail, not explaining what the money is for. We say, '$3.2 billion for midcourse defense�what does this mean? How much for developing this widget? How much for testing that?' They don't know, or they don't tell us."

Instead, for Missile Defense, the Pentagon has created a "National Team" concept. The team consists of MDA officials and the MD contractors (mainly Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and TRW). The idea is: Congress gives us a chunk of money; we'll figure out how to spend it once we have a better idea what we're doing. It would be as if the Navy presented a budget item called "Defense of Indian Ocean�$35 billion." A footnote might mention that the task involves aircraft, carriers, cruisers, frigates, missiles, radar, pilots, and sailors, but that the precise details�how many of these things, at what price per item�are still to be worked out. This is not the way the program was managed under Reagan, Bush I, or Clinton. Nor is it the way any other military program is managed, even now.

A little scrutiny of the program would suggest that, despite the accelerated spending, things are not going very well. The Pentagon has boasted of tests in which an interceptor missile has knocked down a mock warhead ("a bullet hitting a bullet"). For example, on July 14, 2001, one of the first of these bull's-eyes, a 55-foot-long "kill vehicle," fired from Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, soared to 140 miles above the Earth, homed in on a mock warhead that had been launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, and slammed into it at 15,000 mph, smashing it to smithereens.

However, in that test, by the MDA's admission, the mock warhead had been fitted with a beacon that transmitted a radio signal, making the target much "brighter" for the radar-guided kill-vehicle. The MDA defended this practice, noting that the test was not a simulation but rather a demonstration of principle. Such demonstrations are common in early-stage testing programs. But that's the point. After 18 years and $65 billion, this is still an early-stage program. And nobody knows when it will reach its late stage. The Justification Book runs budget estimates for Missile Defense, as it does for all other Department of Defense programs, out to Fiscal Year 2007. The final column is labeled "Cost to Completion"�in other words, how much more needs to be spent, after 2007, to complete the program. Usually there are numbers under that heading. For each segment of the Missile Defense program, the last column reads "CONT"�short for "continuing." Nobody knows when the program will be completed, or how much completion will cost. And this document is just talking about research, development, and testing. There's no pretense of making estimates for procurement or deployment.

Ever since Sept. 11, few in Congress have felt like scrutinizing a program billed as the ultimate in homeland security�especially since the president has deemed it his No. 1 defense priority. But what makes the monumental vagueness of the administration's Missile Defense budget especially glaring is the contrast with comparable programs in the civil, domestic branches of Homeland Defense�programs designed to detect, track, and intercept chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons brought into this country, or transported to our cities, by car, truck, train, plane, or boat (all easier and cheaper means than launching them on the tips of ballistic missiles).

Such programs do exist, but their funding is miserly. The Department of Energy has a division called the Nuclear Emergency Support Team, which is equipped with sensors�some on vans, a few on helicopters, most handheld�that can detect radiological emissions. But the personnel who staff this team are not permanent; they are on revolving, part-time loan from the DOE's national weapons labs. Before 9/11, these scientists participated in annual exercises. Now they are stretched beyond their limits.

Several of these labs�Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, Sandia, and Brookhaven�have developed prototypes of more sophisticated sensors. One of them was deployed in Salt Lake City during the Olympic Games to sniff out biological agents in the atmosphere. A few radiological monitors have been set up, randomly and briefly, at key bridges and facilities in other cities, including New York. But no agency has allocated money to evaluate or coordinate these efforts, much less purchase the sensors in any quantity. The entire budget for radiological detection in the region from New York to Boston totals $400,000�barely enough to do a study of the requirements for a system (which, by the way, nobody has commissioned).

A few specialists, who ask not to be identified, suggest some relatively cheap ideas. For $9 million, 100 officials in each of the 30 largest cities could be investigated for security clearances so they could sit down with DOE scientists and work out the most effective local measures. For $20 million per city, in many cases much less, emergency-management officials and scientists could set up a formal testing program. For $100 million, top weapons-lab scientists�who are currently competing for crumbs�could be brought together for a two-year project to look at existing projects in high-energy physics (say, those involving detection and measurement of very faint chemical and radiological signals) and figure out how to apply the technology to practical, deployable sensors. Many lab scientists are eager to do this work, but nobody's given them the money, much less a plan and certainly not a free pass.



http://slate.msn.com/id/2073642/

I don't know why they still call it "star wars" since it's all primarily based on the ground/air now (The airforce ABL has been slated to take over boost phase defense) .

But at any rate, it has it's own agency with its own budgets. So Nasa initiatives are independant.

http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd67/67op2.htm

http://www.g2mil.com/June2001.htm

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Hmmm perhaps I'm not quite understanding the nature of your argument. Are you saying that the new NASA initiative is a cover for spaced based weapons programs? Or are you saying that the government has been actively exploring that technology?

I'm not arguing, I'm just stating a few facts. Read into it however you want.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd67/67op2.htm http://www.g2mil.com/June2001.htm

The first article was interesting. But it revealed in the article itself why space based "negation" systems are inefficient compared to ground based systems. Why field a billion dollar system that is succeptible to ASATs? At any rate, the MD program is focusing most of its efforts on the two ground based systems since those are the most feasible technologies.

/my opinion

I didn't read the entire thread, but NPR has reported that Bush has only pledged another 1 billion dollars to NASA's already shoestring budget in order to reach the goals in his proposal. So basically it's a bunch of lofty goals that will not receive proper funding; not unlike "No Child Left Behind."

Occrider, I also agree with you about obtaining economic stability before taking on such ambitious projects. I do support NASA, and my uncle even helps design parts for the space station.

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz I didn't read the entire thread, but NPR has reported that Bush has only pledged another 1 billion dollars to NASA's already shoestring budget in order to reach the goals in his proposal. So basically it's a bunch of lofty goals that will not receive proper funding; not unlike "No Child Left Behind." Occrider, I also agree with you about obtaining economic stability before taking on such ambitious projects. I do support NASA, and my uncle even helps design parts for the space station.

Read my first post on page 3 . The majority of Nasa's budget for this proposal comes from an $11 Billion shift from Nasa's existing budget on top of the additional money supplied.

edit: by the way, this is $11 billion per year

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Read my first post on page 3 . The majority of Nasa's budget for this proposal comes from an $11 Billion shift from Nasa's existing budget on top of the additional money supplied. edit: by the way, this is $11 billion per year

I was just repeating what NPR reported. They archive all of their broadcasts no?

I think this is the correct broadcast:

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1599039

quote:

Originally posted by occrider 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

So you're saying I'm irrational?

Here's my view: I'd have rather seen the money spent on the Iraq war go either to NASA, to removing our country's status as a provider of Third World healthcare to those who cannot afford it, to hunt down Bin Laden and other radical Islamists in the real "war on terror," or a combo of those three.

Happy?

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz I was just repeating what NPR reported. They archive all of their broadcasts no? I think this is the correct broadcast: http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1599039 So you're saying I'm irrational? Here's my view: I'd have rather seen the money spent on the Iraq war go either to NASA, to removing our country's status as a provider of Third World healthcare to those who cannot afford it, to hunt down Bin Laden and other radical Islamists in the real "war on terror," or a combo of those three. Happy?

I'm about to hit the sack so I'll check it out tomorrow. I'm just saying that the moon/mars effort isn't exactly peanuts since it's redirected a large acmount of costs that were originally slated for wasteful programs such as shuttle missions. Any my irrationality comment wasn't directed at you . That was specifically in reference to conspiracy theories. At any rate, you should see the other thread that dealt with this topic somewhat (I'm somewhat sure it wasn't this one ... not sure though ). One coudl always make the case for prioritizng social issues and ultimately accomplish nothing. Or, for example, abandoning liberal arts funding in favor of "practical/useful" causes. Neophono put it quite aptly that these causes for concern will always exist and one must learn to evaluate the long term worth/contribution of a project as opposed to its short term benefits.

quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- 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.

Ah, now I see I had heard wrong.

- It's mainly a shift of funding from other programs and priorities.

Well, I've just read that Russia has now announced it too plans to strenghten up it's space program with a possible sending of astronauts to the moon. Viva la new space race! Woohoo!

What's Russia's yearly spending on its space program? Fifty bucks? Seriously, if Americans are upset about a weak economy/budget as well as domestic problems and its space program, the Russians should be furious.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono What's Russia's yearly spending on its space program? Fifty bucks? Seriously, if Americans are upset about a weak economy/budget as well as domestic problems and its space program, the Russians should be furious.

In Soviet Union, space program is furious at YOU!

as long as someone builds a "giant laser" on the moon I'll be happy...

ahhh moonracker

NASA Scraps Future Hubble Telescope Repair Missions

If this had anything to do with Bush's new Mars plan that has diverted funds from other programs, I can't support his new plan:

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/fe...re_1602589.html

To put it bluntly, the Hubble Telescope is far more important to science than a symbolic landing of humans on Mars. I think when its batteries die, and systems fail, it will be an incredible loss for knowledge and for humanity. If it was really about �safety� and not funding, then I can understand. I know the government gives us a-lot of doublespeak though.

Re: NASA Scraps Future Hubble Telescope Repair Missions

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz If this had anything to do with Bush's new Mars plan that has diverted funds from other programs, I can't support his new plan: http://www.npr.org/display_pages/fe...re_1602589.html To put it bluntly, the Hubble Telescope is far more important to science than a symbolic landing of humans on Mars. I think when its batteries die, and systems fail, it will be an incredible loss for knowledge and for humanity. If it was really about �safety� and not funding, then I can understand. I know the government gives us a-lot of doublespeak though.

Gee I guess building a "giant telescope" on the moon really an't worth losing Hubble...

Come on, Hubbles old, I'd rather they put up new and more powerful telescopes... on the moon would be prime.

Re: NASA Scraps Future Hubble Telescope Repair Missions

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz If this had anything to do with Bush's new Mars plan that has diverted funds from other programs, I can't support his new plan: http://www.npr.org/display_pages/fe...re_1602589.html To put it bluntly, the Hubble Telescope is far more important to science than a symbolic landing of humans on Mars. I think when its batteries die, and systems fail, it will be an incredible loss for knowledge and for humanity. If it was really about �safety� and not funding, then I can understand. I know the government gives us a-lot of doublespeak though.

yes, i agree, the Hubble Program cancellation is quite outrageous... yes, it's old, but it's extremely important!

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/2358102



and if i had a reason to be against a manned Mars mission it would because i'm not gonna get to go

You're going to think of me as some ideolistic nut-job, but here's how I see the Hubble situation.

Hubble has done an excellent job of allowing us to see beyond Earth and our own galaxy, allowing us to see a plethora of new things and teaching us a great deal. However, after all the time we have had with Hubble, we are no closer to the places we have seen. The Mars mission may be an infintesimally small step to getting us to the sights seen by Hubble, but it is at least a step. In our lifetimes we will never have the technology to get us to the places that Hubble has shown us, but if we never begin the process, we will never get there in anyone's lifetime. Hubble has taken some wonderful postcards of the great tourist spots of the Universe, now its time to start thinking about making a real visit. It's great to see the Universe through a telescope's lens, but I want to see it through human eyes.

No, I'm not high right now.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider The first article was interesting. But it revealed in the article itself why space based "negation" systems are inefficient compared to ground based systems. Why field a billion dollar system that is succeptible to ASATs? At any rate, the MD program is focusing most of its efforts on the two ground based systems since those are the most feasible technologies. /my opinion

U.S. Eyes Space as Possible Battleground
2 hours, 46 minutes ago

By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush's plan to expand the exploration of space parallels U.S. efforts to control the heavens for military, economic and strategic gain.


Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld long has pushed for technology that could be used to attack or defend orbiting satellites as well as a costly program, heavily reliant on space-based sensors, to thwart incoming warheads.


Under a 1996 space policy adopted by then-President Bill Clinton that remains in effect, the United States is committed to the exploration and use of outer space "by all nations for peaceful purposes for the benefit of all humanity."


"Peaceful purposes allow defense and intelligence-related activities in pursuit of national security and other goals," according to this policy. "Consistent with treaty obligations, the United States will develop, operate and maintain space control capabilities to ensure freedom of action in space, and if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries."


No country depends on space and satellites as its eyes and ears more than the United States, which accounted for as much as 95 percent of global military space spending in 1999, according to the French space agency CNES.


"Yet the threat to the U.S. and its allies in and from space does not command the attention it merits from the departments and agencies of the U.S. government charged with national security responsibilities," a congressionally chartered task force headed by Rumsfeld reported 10 days before Bush and he took office in 2001.


Theresa Hitchens of the private Center for Defense Information said the capabilities to conduct space warfare would move out of the realm of science fiction and into reality over the next 20 years or so.


"At the end of the day it will be political choices by governments, not technology, that determines if the nearly 50- year taboo against arming the heavens remains in place," she concluded in a recent study.


Outlining his election-year vision for space exploration last week, Bush called for a permanent base on the moon by 2020 as a launch pad for piloted missions to Mars and beyond.


One unspoken motivation may have been China's milestone launch in October of its first piloted spaceflight in earth orbit and its announced plan to go to the moon.


"I think the new initiative is driven by a desire to beat the Chinese to the moon," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense and space policy research group.


Among companies that could cash in on Bush's space plans are Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp., which do big business with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as well as with the Pentagon.


The moon, scientists have said, is a source of potentially unlimited energy in the form of the helium 3 isotope -- a near perfect fuel source: potent, nonpolluting and causing virtually no radioactive byproduct in a fusion reactor.


"And if we could get a monopoly on that, we wouldn't have to worry about the Saudis and we could basically tell everybody what the price of energy was going to be," said Pike.


Gerald Kulcinski of the Fusion Technology Institute at the University of Wisconsin at Madison estimated the moon's helium 3 would have a cash value of perhaps $4 billion a ton in terms of its energy equivalent in oil.


Scientists reckon there are about 1 million tons of helium 3 on the moon, enough to power the earth for thousands of years. The equivalent of a single space shuttle load or roughly 30 tons could meet all U.S. electric power needs for a year, Kulcinski said by e-mail.


Bush's schedule for a U.S. return to the moon matches what experts say may be a dramatic militarization of space over the next two decades, even if the current ban on weapons holds.


Among other things, the Pentagon expects to spend at least $50 billion over the next five years to develop and field a multi-layered shield against incoming missiles that could deliver nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

Ultimately, this shield -- first proposed by President Ronald Reagan and dubbed "Star Wars" by critics -- may include space-based interceptors, the first weapons in space, as opposed to sensors that guide weapons.

Last year, the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency obtained $14 million for research on basing three or more missile interceptors in space by the end of the decade for tests.

The plan would field satellites armed with multiple "hit-to-kill" interceptors capable of destroying a ballistic missile through a high-speed collision shortly after its launch, according to Wade Boese, research director of the private Arms Control Association. Such a system could also function as an anti-satellite weapon.

No decision has been made yet to deploy space-based interceptors as part of the U.S. missile defense program "although we are conducting research and development activities in that area," a Defense Department official said Friday.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...pace_weapons_dc

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