Bush sets course for 2015 moon landing.

[coloradodem2005]

WASHINGTON - President Bush proposed on Wednesday to develop a new spacecraft to carry Americans back to the moon by 2015, and to establish a long-term base there as an eventual springboard to Mars and beyond.

<snip>

Bush would withdraw the United States from the international space station by 2010 and retire the space shuttle fleet at about the same time. Details of his proposal were released by the White House in advance of a speech by the president at NASA Headquarters in Washington.
<snip>

An extended human presence on the moon “will enable astronauts to develop new technologies and harness the moon’s abundant resources to allow manned exploration of more challenging environments,” the White House said in a prepared statement.

“The experience and knowledge gained on the moon will serve as a foundation for human missions beyond the moon, beginning with Mars,” the statement said.

<snip>

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3950099/


I don't know about you but I do have my doubts about his intentions. I think he wants to exploit resources. I am all for space exploration, but it seems like less about exploring the wonders of space and exploiting the resources of space. One question I would like to pose. Do you think that we should go back to space with a new class of space craft to Mars and beyond in the next 20 years, assuming we have our economic situation fixed?

[joshdawg]

1. yes, but....

ONLY IF our economy has improved and those 3 million folks who have lost their jobs are back on the job. To go back into space now is completely irresponsible. But then, this p.o.s. in the White House is anything but responsible.

[coloradodem2005]

6. Agreed.

THough, I think that it may be 9 Million.

[judy]

2. Space exploration is great, but not at the expense of

Universal Health Care, and Social Security, and Peace on Earth (i.e cannot coexist with Iraq occupation).
Otherwise, it might be interesting to go up there. I can't help but be fascinated by it, but robots are fine with me for now, and much cheaper than people.

As for Bushco, I heard somewhere (on DU, I think) that the Conquest of Space was part of PNAC. The Almighty US of A, would militarize the moon and space and secure resources, etc.

So all the puppet is doing, is as O'Neil says "following principle".
And all we can do is oppose any plan made by this nefarious administration.

[afraid_of_the_dark]

5. But what if those WMD's show up

headed straight for us? We have to have somewhere to go - why not the moon? or Mars?

[pmbryant]

3. Political stunt. Nothing more; nothing less.

There are no resources in space to exploit... at least not on the Moon or on Mars. It is just incomprehensibly expensive to go there and back, so even if there is anything valuable up there (unlikely), it is not worth the price. Not even close.

As usual, Bush almost certainly has no intention on following this through. Perhaps a bit of increased pork will be funneled to the aerospace contractors, but this project will never amount to anything under his 'leadership', because he simply doesn't care about anything except (1) getting re-elected, and (2) pleasing his corporate backers.

--Peter

[Dudley_DUright]

9. I am getting a strong sense of deja vu here

"LIKE COLUMBUS, WE DREAM OF SHORES WE’VE NOT YET SEEN." -- George H. W. Bush at the National Air and Space Museum, July 24, 1989 proposing a manned mission to Mars.

Bush Sr. proposed this same idea (bases on Moon and maned mission to Mars) 15 years ago. It came to nothing due to the enormous price tag then, and it will come to nothing due to the even more enormous price tag now. Don't these idiots know that the real science is being done today as we speak on Mars by robots like the Spirit rover at a very small fraction of the cost of a manned mission? There is no scientific reason to send people to Mars. Any scientist (including me) would tell you that robotic planetary missions are the way to go. Of course, Bush never listens to us.

[pmbryant]

15. Another purpose of this is to drain funds from real science

Watch as what little gets actually spent on the manned Moon/Mars stuff is taken from the actual science projects that NASA funds.

I read in a wire service article a few days ago that any NASA programs that do not contribute to this new goal will be dropped or scaled back.

:argh:

--Peter

[Dudley_DUright]

18. You are correct

I read the same reports this last weekend. JPL will be starved of funds to go look for life on Europa (which has a liquid water ocean) and important scientific projects like the next generation space telescope or the gravity wave interferometer (LISA) will be cut drastically. I can't imagine worse news for science (but the engineers {and CEOs} at the aerospace contractors will be set for life).

[Leilani]

19. he wants to get a Space Suit

to add to his collection of Brave costumes..

[mouse7]

23. It's a stunt, but you're wrong on space.

A space program is a fantastic economic investment. The techical achivements get moved over into the civilian economy and spur a lot of growth. Space is one of the best economic development programs a country can make in itself.

As far as resources, you are wrong as well. Lots of metals. On the moon there is a hydrogen isotope that is very rare on Earth that will be the primary fuel of fusion reactors once that gets going.

[pmbryant]

28. I've heard the spinoff argument too many times to count

I find it, to put it much more mildly than I actually feel, not convincing. :-)

Mere hype. I've heard it all. Once upon a time, when I was much younger, I tried to push this argument myself. But even then only half-heartedly, as I must have known in the back of my head that this was just trying to rationalize my fanatical interest in manned spaceflight.

As for metals on the Moon... who cares? We've got lots of metals on Earth. Going to the Moon for metals strikes me as lunacy. (Pun intended.)

And I've also heard all the hype about fusion for at least a couple decades now. It always seems to be 20-30 years away. At least. And if fusion is going to require going to the Moon and back just to acquire the fuel for it, then we might as well just give up on it now. Because there is no way that is going to produce more energy than it uses up.

--Peter

[Tactical Progressive]

41. This is like Led Zeppelin car commercials

Can't we just get that feeling back from the turbulent and exhilirating challenges and cultural changes of the 1960's?

Only while maintaining our shallow, callow, mindlessly voracious, apathetic, selfish, meaningless culture of today just the way it is?

[Individualist]

27. Absolutely political

While listening to chimpy speak (can't stand to watch him because it makes me want to throw things at the TV), the song "Razzle dazzle 'em" from Chicago kept going through my mind.

[tinrobot]

4. What?

We spend about 70 gazillion dollars on the space station just to abandon it? Sounds like what my son does with his toys.

I guess * needs a new shiny toy...

[StClone]

7. Fantastic

All media is on-board for the fantastic out of this world flight of fancy distraction. Jeez if this isn't patently obvious even to Free Republic Space Cadets, I don't know what would be.


1) Fifteen years into future, ShrubCo's Jenna will be in her first term and will not have a passion for it.

2) Budget overruns are for certain and there is no money.

3) We are killing our schools so whom shall be flying these manned missions.

4) America seems jaded by everything, I don't know where the incentive will come except by Cons for last pennies out of the U.S. Treasury by no bid contracts of Jovian proportions.

[terryg11]

8. I'm with you on the space exploration thing

I would like to see us turn our attention to the stars too. No one here is going to like it but this could really jump start R&D and manufacturing sectors if done correctly. This is going to benefit the large contractors such as Lockheed-Martin and the like but I'll take it if it gets a new space age going.

What we as voters and members of a society can do to help ensure Bush doesn't twist this into some evil scheme is work to make this an international effort. Keep the military out, put pressure on lawmakers to ensure that space is a military free zone (minus the spy satellites) and see if the UN or some similar group can impose harsh penalties for introducing weapons above the atmosphere.

I think there are some real positives to establishing a base on the moon and heading fr other planets, would just like to see it done for the right reasons

[pmbryant]

12. Proof that this isn't serious:Only $1B in new spending in next 5 years

From the MSNBC article:

Bush proposed a modest increase in spending for the new venture — $1 billion in new spending over five years. Bush would also shift $11 billion in federal money from other NASA programs to make way for the program.

<editorial note by pmbryant: this "shift" is prusumably from killing the shuttle and ISS, but that won't happen until 2010 at the earliest apparently>

(snip)

The spending plan for the next five years merely sets the stage for an initiative that, if followed to its conclusion, could cost tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. Speaking with reporters before Bush's speech, White House spokesman Scott McClellan declined to provide a total price tag for the venture.

The Space Station has cost tens of billions, so I think it's safe to say that this manned Moon/Mars stuff will cost hundred of billions, and I've seen estimates of up to 1000 billion (1 Trillion!) dollars.

Yet the only funding going towards this in the foreseeable future is a measly $1 billion. That's just enough to enrich the aerospace contractors a bit more, while leaving the rest of us without anything to show for it.

:grr:

--Peter

[terryg11]

13. true that

so is he just starting up his reelection campaign talk then?

if so, then this couldn't be a gift to his military industry buddies at the same time, no?

[bobbieinok]

24. NOTE: shift $11billion from other NASA programs

doesn't say 'to' this new project.

It will 'disappear' like the pentagon $$$$$.....How much was that again?

[freethought]

10. What abundant resources?

There sure as hell isn't any oil there! Even the the ice that NASA thought was there didn't materialize!

This is bulls**t!

IMHO, I think that NASA should stick to the rover missions for the forseable future. Maybe even a next-generation Hubble Telescope. But a new a moon intitiative? Now is is not the time. And a Mars mission?! It is just too dangerous.

[JHB]

11. What's the problem with exploiting resources in space?

On the Moon or on asteroids, you're not disrupting (or outright poisoning) and ecosystem or indigenous peoples.

What has me worried is who is proposing it, and their track record. All they're interested in is handing out bloated contracts on the taxpayers tab, not actually doing what they claim.

[kcwayne]

14. This is purely political and not scientific

You will use more energy landing on the moon and then taking back off to head on to Mars than you would simply bypassing the moon and heading to Mars. This proposal is being put forth by ignorant politicians not scientists.

The money would be much better spent on researching an energy source and technologies for exploiting new energy sources than this boondoggle. If we are ever going to explore space seriously, we have to get away from rocket propellants as the means to do this anyway, so more R&D in energy is a far more appropriate step at this stage of our technological development.

And in the near term, if we could drop our dependence on fossil fuels, we could let Osama have the Middle East and get out of this ridiculous war on terror nonsense.

[Dudley_DUright]

20. Bingo

I could not agree more, which means that Bush would never even consider it, since he always does exactly the opposite of what I think would be the rational course.

[mouse7]

25. You're wrong. Most energy is wasted getting to orbit.

The VAST majority of energy in a spaceflight is used getting from the surface of the earth to orbit. Once you're in orbit, it's a piece of cake. That's why the space elevator could be such a big deal.

[Dudley_DUright]

31. Not really a "piece of cake"

If we want to get astronauts to Mars with the ability to walk when they get back to earth and to minimize the exposure to cosmic rays in space, we need to decrease the transit time from the 9 months (one way) implied by the minimum energy Hohmann orbit. This takes large amount of fuel with current rocket technology. See this article for details:

http://www.esa.int/export/esaHS/ESA5361VMOC_future_0.html

[pmbryant]

37. He is right

kcwayne wrote:

You will use more energy landing on the moon and then taking back off to head on to Mars than you would simply bypassing the moon and heading to Mars.

This is absolutely correct. Either way you go, you pay the big price of launching from Earth surface to Earth orbit.

But if you use the Moon as a 'detour', you pay the extra price of landing and taking off again. Much more efficient to just go directly from Earth orbit to Mars.

--Peter

[aeon flux]

16. Just what we needed

another grandiose "Star Wars"-type scheme to rip off the taxpayers.

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. Besides not having the money

where the fuck does W think he's going to get the fuel to fly all these missions?

Instead of going to the moon, W should take this money and start a serious alternative energy project. One that would end our dependence on oil. One that would give Americans real national security. One that would create 1000's of high paying jobs in R&D. Then we might have enough money to spend on such an ambitious project.

Too bad, we don't have a real president with a working brain to really do what's best for the country, rather than what he thinks will get him reelected and a step closer to implementing the PNAC agenda.

[mouse7]

21. I'm for space exploration with another President managing it

I think think we need to boost to the technical research base. I think we could use the economic boost the new tech would bring. I'd love kids to have something to dream about other than managing stock portfolios.

I don't trust Dumbya to manage that effort further than I can throw him.

[Ksec]

22. This Goon runs the most devisive administration in history and

then he expects us all to forgive and forget when he announces some extremist money pit for his corporate friends. He isnt interested in Space, hes enriching his corporations. Dont let this ahole tell you any different.

[mouse7]

26. Remember, KUCINICH is a big supporter of space

But Kucinich wants peaceful exploration of space after we get our troops out of Iraq and we can cut the defense budget some.

Space is a fantastic economic and technical investment when managed by the good guys.

[DoYouEverWonder]

35. Bu$hCo wants to militarize space

that's a lot difference than wanting to explore space.

If we are to go to space again, it must be an international effort with no MILITARY involvement. There are still laws against the militarization of space and probably a couple of treaties but we all know none of that means anything to Bu$hler.

[markburgess]

29. Yes, I think we should go back to space. We should expand Kennedy's vision

As far as exploiting resources in space... well hell, better than exploiting them on Earth where we live.
I'm an environmentalist and all, but they can drill for oil on the moon all they want. Doesn't this help the environmental cause?

It's all about preserving our environment, right, not anti-progress?

(P.S. yes, I know there is no oil on the moon, it was a joke - unless there were moon dinosaurs of course.)

[Rex]

30. Someone needs to ask Bush if he can locate Uranus on a starchart

hehe

[IkeWarnedUs]

32. Bush is doing PNAC's bidding - to build a space army

Just like everything else Bush has done the past 3 years, this is part of the PNAC plan.

I just posted the sections of the PNAC September 2000 report that talk about the need to control space and establish a new military service - U.S. Space Forces.

Link to the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1017371

[maveric]

33. More manufacturing and engineering jobs for US co.'s to be outsourced.

Major aerospace co.'s here will make billions and jobs will go to Mexico, India, Singapore.... to take advantage of the slave wages.
Eleven years of going over budget and gouging the taxpayer with no economic benefits for the American worker.

[bigtree]

38. More money for defense industry executives

According to the study by United for a Fair Economy, More Bucks for the Bang: ", the median CEO salary at the 37 largest publicly traded defense contractors rose 79% between 2001 and 2002 whereas overall CEO salary increased only 6%. In 2002, defense industry CEOs earned an average of $5.4 million - or 577 times as much as a private in Iraq - while other U.S. CEOs, on average, earned "only" $3.7 million."

[MacCovern]

34. My Nightmare: 2015 Jeb Bush's 2nd term

Please let it just be my imagination run amok, and that it will
never be true, but 2015 could shape up to be during Jebbo's 2nd term in office.

Please, someone reassure me that this won't happen.

[dogman]

36. Bush Lightyear

To insanity and beyond!

[Deja Q]

39. ROTFLMAO!

Bush also says that the moon will be a waystation for Mars missions.

That may be true, but only when the planets are perfectly lined up. More often than not, the moon would be in the wrong direction!

And WHAT "abundant" resources does the moon have? Enough cheese to kill off the cattle industry?! :eyes: It's a big-ass rock, everybody knows this. There is no life. And hydrogen, an abundant element, can surely be collected in space, without the need of a moonbase?!

Will the repukes also chime their claim of being fiscally responsible in the 2004 elections as well?

[bigtree]

40. NASA and Pentagon: really can't differentiate between them

The Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space maintains that just like missile defense is a Trojan horse for the Pentagon's real agenda for control and domination of space, NASA's nuclear rocket is a Trojan horse for the militarization of space.

NASA's new chief, former Navy Secretary Sean O'Keefe said soon after Bush appointed him to head the space agency that,

"I don't think we have a choice, I think it's imperative that we have a more direct association between the Defense Department and NASA. Technology has taken us to a point where you really can't differentiate between that which is purely military in application and those capabilities which are civil and commercial in nature."

In the end hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars will be wasted on plans for the nuclearization and weaponization of space. In order to fund these missions Bush and Congress will have to cut programs like social security, education, health care, child care, public transit and environmental protection. In the name of progress and security the lives of future generations will become more insecure.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclearspace-03b.html