TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bush to Announce Mission to Mars, Moon
Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »
Bush to Announce Mission to Mars, Moon
Finally! Federal spending I can get behind! 
| quote: |
Bush to Announce Missions to Mars, Moon By SCOTT LINDLAW Associated Press Writer PALM BEACH GARDENS, Fla. (AP) -- President Bush will announce plans next week to send Americans to Mars and back to the moon and to establish a long-term human presence on the moon, senior administration officials said Thursday night. Bush doesn't plan to send Americans to Mars anytime soon; rather, he envisions preparing for the mission more than a decade from now, one official said. The president also wants to build a permanent space station on the moon. The initiatives are part of a broad, new commitment to manned space flight, three officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity. They said Bush wants to aggressively reinvigorate the space program, which has been demoralized by a series of setbacks, including the space shuttle disaster last February that killed seven astronauts. The officials said Bush's announcement would come in the middle of next week. Bush has been expected to announce a major space initiative, and some thought he do so at the 100th-anniversary celebration of the Wright brother's first flight last month in North Carolina. Instead, he only pledged the United States would continue to lead the world in aviation. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, has called for an expansion of the U.S. space program, including a return to the moon. McClellan spoke with reporters accompanying Bush on a trip to Tennessee and Florida. Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. |
Yeah, we found signs of life on Mars...
{{{smoke}}}
Two words...bad ass!!! I wanna live on the moon!
I hope Bush will appropriate enough funds for a "giant laser" for the moon base... it just won't be a real moon base without one..
Hey Yoepus, there are two flags on Mars. One is yours. 
Actually, there are Russian and European flags on Mars. They're just a little scratched up and burnt.
anyone ever see that movie with eddie murphy where he gets a whole whack of money and has to spend it all in a very short period of time? I think dubya must have seen that one too. I think he's living it right now. A mission to mars has to be the quickest way to raise the already staggering deficit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer
| quote: |
AP Poll: U.S. Tepid on Bush's Space Plans By WILL LESTER The Associated Press Monday, January 12, 2004; 2:50 PM WASHINGTON - President Bush's plan to build a space station on the moon and eventually send astronauts to Mars hasn't grabbed the public's imagination, an Associated Press poll suggests. More than half in the poll said it would be better to spend the money on domestic programs rather than on space research. Asked whether they favored the United States expanding the space program the way Bush proposes, people were evenly split, with 48 percent favoring the idea and the same number opposing it, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs. Most respondents said they generally support continuing to send humans into space. However, given the choice of spending money on programs like education and health care or on space research, 55 percent said they wanted domestic programs. Based on previous estimates for a moon-Mars initiative, the space cost would run in the hundreds of billions of dollars. "You can't have a war, cut taxes, have the economy in a garbage pail and spend billions going into space," said Dallas Hodgins, a 76-year-old retired University of Michigan researcher from Flint, Mich. "How are they going to pay for all this? I don't see how it's morally justifiable. In Flint, there isn't a school roof that doesn't leak." On Wednesday, Bush is scheduled to spell out details of his proposal to use an outpost on the moon as a jumping off point for more remote destinations such as Mars or asteroids. Those most likely to favor the plan to expand space exploration were men, young adults, people with more education and those with higher incomes. It made a difference who was said to be behind the plan. When half the poll sample was asked about a "Bush administration" plan to expand space exploration instead of the "United States" plan, opposition increased. Just over half of Democrats' opposed the plan by "the United States." Once it was identified as a "Bush administration" plan, Democrats opposed it by a 2-to-1 margin. Some have suggested that space exploration could be expanded more inexpensively using robots instead of human astronauts to explore the moon or other planets. The AP-Ipsos poll indicated that option was popular, with 57 percent favoring exploring the moon and Mars with robots and 38 percent saying humans. Despite the mixed response about the moon-Mars proposal, general support for space exploration remains strong. Even after people were reminded of a shuttle accident that killed seven astronauts last February, three-fourths said the United States should continue to send humans into space. Administration officials say the president will call for the retirement of the space shuttles by the end of this decade to make way for the next generation of spacecraft. For many people, the proposal to go back to the moon and beyond arouses the same sense of exploration and adventure the space program captured in its earliest days. "I think it's a great idea," said Paula Steiner, 52 of Jacksonville, Fla. "It's human nature. There's always been an instinct in human beings to explore to see what's going on elsewhere." She said she thinks it's "very important" for the United States to be an international leader in space exploration. "Part of it's mindless patriotism, I suppose," she said, chuckling. "I remember in the early days when we were racing with the Russians. I'd still prefer that we be first." Steiner's view is shared by most Americans. Three-fourths in the poll said they thought it was important for the United States to be the leading country in the world in the exploration of space. Still, only 29 percent of those polled said it was "very important." The AP-Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults was taken Friday through Sunday and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. --- |
Yea fuck domestic spending. Cut the deficits below 2% of GDP (I'm too cynical to assume a surplus), finish this whole Iraq thingy, keep the economy moving, and then I'll give my stamp of approval for the war on mars. Unless of course ... the money is going to come out of defense spending or something of the sort.
Yah I agree, you can only have on major thing going on. Finish your daddys war. Then blast off to mars, unless there's come country that Jeb doesn't like. If so then attack them with no cause first, then go to mars.
(WHAT THE FUCK kind of name is Jeb anyway?)
WTF is running around Bush's brain. Ok.. I find astronomical things very interesting, I would love to see this mission to mars and the moon happen on my lifetime, perhaps .. NOW!!.. but, COME UP! wake the heck up! ( Im been agressive sorry ). How much money have we spend on sending those robots that have failed allready. The technology is not there yet, not until a brilliang and very secure project is reached id probably agree, but not now. Not when there are plenty of other important things to do. It would have sounded nicer on the Clinton era, when this country had a surplus++. Now we dont really have that much of a luxury, but yeah.. the US can give itself that luxury, but when it comes to just puking money like that, I just wont agree. First things first. Improve the technology, fixe the Iraq problem, give the US back to the golden times ( try at least ), lower unemployment, fix the social security/health care issues/and retirement. Until then, its not appropiatte to commit to something of this caliber.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LiquidX WTF is running around Bush's brain. Ok.. I find astronomical things very interesting, I would love to see this mission to mars and the moon happen on my lifetime, perhaps .. NOW!!.. but, COME UP! wake the heck up! ( Im been agressive sorry ). How much money have we spend on sending those robots that have failed allready. The technology is not there yet, not until a brilliang and very secure project is reached id probably agree, but not now. Not when there are plenty of other important things to do. It would have sounded nicer on the Clinton era, when this country had a surplus++. Now we dont really have that much of a luxury, but yeah.. the US can give itself that luxury, but when it comes to just puking money like that, I just wont agree. First things first. Improve the technology, fixe the Iraq problem, give the US back to the golden times ( try at least ), lower unemployment, fix the social security/health care issues/and retirement. Until then, its not appropiatte to commit to something of this caliber. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LiquidX WTF is running around Bush's brain. Ok.. I find astronomical things very interesting, I would love to see this mission to mars and the moon happen on my lifetime, perhaps .. NOW!!.. but, COME UP! wake the heck up! ( Im been agressive sorry ). How much money have we spend on sending those robots that have failed allready. The technology is not there yet, not until a brilliang and very secure project is reached id probably agree, but not now. Not when there are plenty of other important things to do. It would have sounded nicer on the Clinton era, when this country had a surplus++. Now we dont really have that much of a luxury, but yeah.. the US can give itself that luxury, but when it comes to just puking money like that, I just wont agree. First things first. Improve the technology, fixe the Iraq problem, give the US back to the golden times ( try at least ), lower unemployment, fix the social security/health care issues/and retirement. Until then, its not appropiatte to commit to something of this caliber. |
Well, regardless of the american financial problems, you better hurry up unless you want to see the chinese get there first.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, regardless of the american financial problems, you better hurry up unless you want to see the chinese get there first. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Sorry DrUg_Tit0 do you mean to imply before or after they copy our designs to get there, knowing how the Chinese are masters at ripping off the primo technological accomplishments from others. From TV's, VCR's, DVD's Operating System piracy, you name it and you will find it being bootlegged in China. Too bad the Chinese will have to wait for us to get there before they can copy it as well, they just launched their first man into space a couple of months ago |
It's going to be ages before anyone sees the face of mars. A lot of things could and will change from then. Just because the chinese have pirated software, and rip off clothing doesn't mean they ripped off space shuttle design. By that logic the russians were the first up there so the yanks must have copied?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Sorry DrUg_Tit0 do you mean to imply before or after they copy our designs to get there, knowing how the Chinese are masters at ripping off the primo technological accomplishments from others. From TV's, VCR's, DVD's Operating System piracy, you name it and you will find it being bootlegged in China. Too bad the Chinese will have to wait for us to get there before they can copy it as well, they just launched their first man into space a couple of months ago |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, considering the fact that the technology is already existant, and that the US space program is stagnating, I wouldn't be surprised if the chinese beat you to it. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Except they stole our rocket technology to put a man into space |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by St_Andrew sorry i can be terribly wrong here, but didn't the americans steal sovjets rocket technology in the very first place? |
| quote: |
| NASA has a 50 year history for this sort of thing |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Actually the technology is there. That's the thing ... our capability to go to Mars now is much greater than the capability we had to go to the moon when Kennedy made his promise in early 60's. The thing is is that there hasn't been a national effort and committment to do so. Now is simply not the time to do so due to budgetary constraints. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NYCTrancefan Sorry DrUg_Tit0 do you mean to imply before or after they copy our designs to get there, knowing how the Chinese are masters at ripping off the primo technological accomplishments from others. From TV's, VCR's, DVD's Operating System piracy, you name it and you will find it being bootlegged in China. Too bad the Chinese will have to wait for us to get there before they can copy it as well, they just launched their first man into space a couple of months ago |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by failsafe I'd arge that. In 1954 the space race didn't exist. You're at least a decade off as a minimum figure. |
| quote: |
Man has gone only once to the moon ( supposedly ). |
| quote: |
- Well, some technology might be there, but the technology available, its not good enough.-Take for instance the Space Station. The technology is there right?!?!.. then lets finish that project up. Theres been so many problems with it, and the estimates of its costs have tremendously surpased the amount thought.- Man has gone only once to the moon ( supposedly ).. but like I said, and as you said, theres no luxury now to invest such a humongous amount of money now. I would agree with MrOpous with that this probably IS a distraction thing, and for the president to show the nation that he has a different vision that sounds agressive, and that he wont be that normal president that would take hold of office, but thats another subjet. I would rather stick around sending more robots to mars instead ( even though that too would cost $$$ ).. but that I would agree to some extend instead of just throwing money of on visions that havent been studied. |
| quote: |
Commentary: The Reasonable Cost of Putting Humans on the Moon and Mars By Robert Roy Britt Senior Science Writer posted: 06:00 am ET 13 January 2004 President Bush's trial balloon for sending humans back to the Moon and on to Mars is, naturally, becoming politicized. Critics question whether America can afford a bold new space initiative at a time of fiscal disarray back home. "It is not worth bankrupting the country," said Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean. Of course it isn't. And it need not. Setting up a permanent base on the Moon -- Bush is expected to call for a return in about 10-15 years -- and then reaching for Mars does not require any outlandish hike in NASA's budget. Beyond a modest 5 percent increase that Bush will reportedly announce Wednesday, getting people beyond Earth orbit means shifting the existing budget from arguably ineffective and unpopular programs -- crippled shuttles and a leaking space station -- into building a new generation of space taxis and otherworldly habitats. Severe change needed To be successful, the reorganization plan should be swift and severe. Instead of spending billions each year to circle the Earth, Bush should quickly redirect the same billions to an effort singularly focused on getting to Mars, with the Moon as an important step. Unfounded fears of a money pit abound. An editorial in the Washington Post, for example, faults Bush for thinking of ambitious spaceflight plans at a time when there are serious social and economic concerns. But comparing the value of human spaceflight to the need for jobs or improved healthcare looks at the whole issue of how to spend federal money from an absurd perspective. It's like asking whether schools should offer sports programs or focus entirely on reading, writing and math. The question of whether to put humans on the Moon and Mars should be viewed strictly in terms of how best to spend a reasonable chunk of science and exploration dollars, not in comparison to other important government programs. All the while NASA's budget must remain reasonable -- not much more than the tiny fraction of overall federal spending that it is today. The money is there The 2004 federal budget is $2.2 trillion. NASA's is $15.5 billion. Reasonable estimates suggest the space agency's share of the pie would need to rise gradually to $20 billion within a few years if footprints are to be made in Martian dust within a generation. First, Bush aides say, the plan will call for a return to the Moon, in part so new technology critical to a Mars mission can be tested. In 1995, NASA scientists and engineers developed a plan to put astronauts back on the Moon by 2001 for $3 billion or less. Other estimates nowadays put the cost at around $15 billion over five years. That's $3 billion a year. NASA has the money. About half of the agency's budget is already spent directly on human spaceflight. Nearly $4 billion is earmarked annually for the shuttle program. The cost of the space station is elusive, but it exceeds $1 billion each year. Another $2 billion or more goes to supporting research and maintaining the infrastructure needed for all human spaceflight activity. Drop the ISS Bush's new plan reportedly will phase out the shuttle program in favor of a new Orbital Space Plane over the next decade. The fate of the space station is less clear, but remaining planned components would apparently be delivered before costs would drop. The sooner the better. Like the Edsel, the orbiting outpost might be a technologically wonderful machine, but it is not worth the minor science return or lack of inspiration it provides. How many people can name a single member of the eight crews that have lived there? And who can name a single discovery that's resulted from its science operations? Good science is not necessarily popular science, but NASA knows better than any institution that it doesn't hurt when you are working with public funds. Bush's exact plans aren't known. But many experts hope the space station will ultimately be supplanted by a new one that would sit about 80 percent of the way toward the Moon, in a gravitationally balanced spot called a LaGrangian point. Getting to and from that station -- and onto the Moon or Mars -- would be cheaper than using bigger rockets to make direct flights. Reasons to go "There's no real rationale for colonization of the Moon, so it's hard not to be cynical and conclude this is the space-age equivalent of bread and circuses," Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a Democratic research group, said in The New York Times the other day. Marshall's criticism is either uninformed or patently political, or both. Scientists and space visionaries can quickly tick off several practical reasons: Solar energy could be collected on the atmosphere-free Moon from properly located sites 24/7, then beamed to Earth. Some advocates say all the world's power needs could be met. Realistically, it could at least augment strained energy resources for many countries, both industrialized and developing. Lunar minerals could be mined and shipped back to Earth or used for Moon-based manufacturing of lunar hotels and science facilities. A whole new economy would support scientists, colonists and lunar tourists. Huge telescopes on the Moon would offer an unprecedented view of the cosmos, unhampered by atmosphere or light pollution. Think Hubble on steroids. The Moon contains rocks that were blasted from Earth billions of years ago by asteroid impacts. Things don't weather much on the Moon, so these rocks hold the only available clues to Earth's earliest geologic history. Share the cost NASA does not have to foot the entire bill for setting up a Moon base. Other nations will want to play, and they will pay. As an additional benefit, some space policy analysts note, such a cooperative international effort could bring nations together as never before. China, with its own lunar ambitions, is an obvious target for cooperation. And it can be a public-private project in which corporations pony up in exchange for access to lunar minerals and the chance to beam power back to Earth, or to build the first extraterrestrial Hilton. Private citizens with the means would pay dearly for tickets to the Moon. Sir Martin Rees, the eminent theoretical astrophysicists and space visionary, recently pointed out that the commercialization of space is already underway. It now needs a governmental nudge to get beyond the realm of satellites. "Space is already commercially exploited for telecommunications and other applications. But the 'glamorous' aspects of space -- science, planetary exploration, and of course astronauts -- have in the U.S. been the prerogative of NASA. It is time for the private sector to expand its role here too." On to Mars Continuing on to Mars will be more dangerous and more costly, with the tangible rewards less evident. Yet in the final cost-benefit analysis, we should not shortchange our souls. "The moment we land on Mars, all the people of the world will weep with joy," science fiction writer Ray Bradbury said last week. He's probably close to being right. But what might worldwide rapture cost? Estimates vary greatly. Many analysts say a manned mission to Mars would cost anywhere from $50 billion to $250 billion. Others, like Robert Zubrin of the Mars Society advocacy group, think it could be done for as little as $30 billion if bureaucracy is limited. If one assumes a NASA-led $100 billion effort and a launch target of 2024, that would be $5 billion per year if we start funding the project now. That's one-third of NASA's present annual budget. Not outlandish, not impossible, and not with any significant impact on other governmental programs. Again, other countries will be willing to share the cost of the grandest mission ever, if we ask them to. Pain for gain Going to Mars, and even getting back to the Moon efficiently, will mean painful reorganization at NASA. Programs will be cut, offices closed. Humans might be completely absent from space for a few years as momentum is built for loftier pursuits -- though there is no indication the White House will suggest this route. Robotic space exploration might see flat budgets. Perhaps some NASA employees will be laid off. Yet others would be hired as goals are radically shifted. Do all this and young, bright minds will view the new NASA as a place where they can do great things. School children would see a reason to study hard, a chance to be the first human to visit and explore another planet. Bush's plan needs to be business-like, rather than business as usual. NASA is steeped in innovation, but its human spaceflight program is as stale as a sweat-stained Apollo suit. Nothing short of a clear, long-term and tremendously challenging goal can give its human spaceflight program the vitality and relevancy obvious in its robotic pursuits. A trip to Mars must also promise practical rewards. These are several to expect. The technology that would be developed over the next 20 years, in preparation, along with the medical knowledge gleaned from long-term low-gravity living and exposure to high levels of radiation, will have unknown but surely significant benefits to those who remain on this planet. In medicine alone, NASA spinoff technology has a solid track record, having given us MRI and CAT scanners, among many other benefits. Finally, putting humans on Mars -- especially geologists and biologists -- could quickly answer the ultimate question in science: Are we alone? If there is or ever was microbial life on Mars -- and many scientists believe only a human mission will determine the answer -- then everything we humans think about ourselves, our world, about science and religion, will be viewed in a new light. No small pursuit. And no small risk. Human spaceflight is very, very dangerous. You don't need to tell that to the current astronaut corps, who recently lost seven of their own. These brave adventurers know that more will die if NASA is given a directive to go to Mars. And they are itching to get in line. http://space.com/news/commentary_bush-plan_040113.html |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.