Back To The Moon, And On To Mars
MonsieurEvil
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Join Date: 2002-01-22 Member: 4Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">The next giant leap for mankind?</div> <a href='http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/newswire/2004/01/14/rtr1210009.html' target='_blank'>http://www.forbes.com/home_europe/newswire...rtr1210009.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush to outline plans for moon, Mars exploration
Reuters, 01.14.04, 1:18 AM ET
By Randall Mikkelsen
WASHINGTON, Jan 14 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush on Wednesday is to outline a dramatic shift in U.S. space policy targeting a return to the moon and eventual manned mission to Mars, even as critics say a soaring deficit makes the goal unrealistic.
The proposal to replace aging U.S. space shuttles with a new generation spacecraft could give Bush a big-picture issue for his gathering re-election campaign and a theme for a potential second term.
Supporters and critics alike say Bush's proposal would also help extend U.S. military supremacy further into space, at a time China, a growing strategic power, is planning a series of lunar exploration missions.
"You always want the (strategic) high ground," U.S. Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, chairman Senate commerce subcommittee on science, technology and space, told Reuters. He said he was "excited" about Bush's proposal.
Bush is scheduled to speak at 3:15 p.m. EST (2015 GMT) at NASA headquarters in Washington. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was shaken by the loss of the space shuttle Columbia on Feb. 1 last year and has been seeking a way forward since.
Administration officials say Bush will propose landing an unmanned spacecraft on the moon this decade. Humans would return to the moon's surface in the middle of the next decade, after an absence since December 1972.
The United States would establish a presence on the moon as a stepping stone to an eventual manned mission to Mars. The United States is the only country to land humans on the moon, beginning in 1969.
Bush is to propose an increase in NASA's budget, now about $15 billion, by 5 percent a year over the next three years, officials said. Other resources would be reallocated, including $3.5 billion a year for the space shuttle once it is retired on completion of the International Space Station.
"The spirit is going to be one of continued exploration (and) seeking new horizons," Bush said on Tuesday at a two-day summit in Monterrey, Mexico.
'FISCAL ABSURDITY'
He said the effort would be affordable. But critics, including conservatives, blasted the idea as irresponsible at a time the federal budget deficit is expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone.
"I think it's just a total fiscal absurdity. Bush has been spending money like we've got money to burn, and we don't," said Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, a politically powerful conservative group that supports Bush.
Democratic presidential candidates have said the federal government should spend more on education and health, rather than space.
Robert Greenstein, executive director of the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the Bush space initiative will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, possibly as much as $1 trillion.
Brookings Institution analyst Stephen Hess said Congress was unlikely to pass Bush's proposals this year. But the initiative lets Bush campaign for re-election with a big-concept "vision" his father was accused of lacking, and outline a theme that could energize his administration in a second term if he is re-elected, Hess said.
U.S. security officials have stressed a need to ensure U.S. military dominance in space, especially in the wake of China's first manned space flight last year.
"It will not be long before space becomes a battleground," Lt. Gen. Edward Anderson, the deputy commander of U.S. Northern Command, was quoted in media reports as telling an intelligence conference last year.
Copyright 2004, Reuters News Service<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your thoughts? I'll weigh in later, Active Directory summons me back to the grindstone... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bush to outline plans for moon, Mars exploration
Reuters, 01.14.04, 1:18 AM ET
By Randall Mikkelsen
WASHINGTON, Jan 14 (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush on Wednesday is to outline a dramatic shift in U.S. space policy targeting a return to the moon and eventual manned mission to Mars, even as critics say a soaring deficit makes the goal unrealistic.
The proposal to replace aging U.S. space shuttles with a new generation spacecraft could give Bush a big-picture issue for his gathering re-election campaign and a theme for a potential second term.
Supporters and critics alike say Bush's proposal would also help extend U.S. military supremacy further into space, at a time China, a growing strategic power, is planning a series of lunar exploration missions.
"You always want the (strategic) high ground," U.S. Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, chairman Senate commerce subcommittee on science, technology and space, told Reuters. He said he was "excited" about Bush's proposal.
Bush is scheduled to speak at 3:15 p.m. EST (2015 GMT) at NASA headquarters in Washington. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was shaken by the loss of the space shuttle Columbia on Feb. 1 last year and has been seeking a way forward since.
Administration officials say Bush will propose landing an unmanned spacecraft on the moon this decade. Humans would return to the moon's surface in the middle of the next decade, after an absence since December 1972.
The United States would establish a presence on the moon as a stepping stone to an eventual manned mission to Mars. The United States is the only country to land humans on the moon, beginning in 1969.
Bush is to propose an increase in NASA's budget, now about $15 billion, by 5 percent a year over the next three years, officials said. Other resources would be reallocated, including $3.5 billion a year for the space shuttle once it is retired on completion of the International Space Station.
"The spirit is going to be one of continued exploration (and) seeking new horizons," Bush said on Tuesday at a two-day summit in Monterrey, Mexico.
'FISCAL ABSURDITY'
He said the effort would be affordable. But critics, including conservatives, blasted the idea as irresponsible at a time the federal budget deficit is expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone.
"I think it's just a total fiscal absurdity. Bush has been spending money like we've got money to burn, and we don't," said Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, a politically powerful conservative group that supports Bush.
Democratic presidential candidates have said the federal government should spend more on education and health, rather than space.
Robert Greenstein, executive director of the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said the Bush space initiative will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, possibly as much as $1 trillion.
Brookings Institution analyst Stephen Hess said Congress was unlikely to pass Bush's proposals this year. But the initiative lets Bush campaign for re-election with a big-concept "vision" his father was accused of lacking, and outline a theme that could energize his administration in a second term if he is re-elected, Hess said.
U.S. security officials have stressed a need to ensure U.S. military dominance in space, especially in the wake of China's first manned space flight last year.
"It will not be long before space becomes a battleground," Lt. Gen. Edward Anderson, the deputy commander of U.S. Northern Command, was quoted in media reports as telling an intelligence conference last year.
Copyright 2004, Reuters News Service<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your thoughts? I'll weigh in later, Active Directory summons me back to the grindstone... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
Also, I have to say that the claims of a necessity of 'military supremacy' are a <i>little</i> ridiculous. We are just not far enough to make any kind of significant struggle in space (<i>in</i> space, from space to Earth is a different topic entirely) remotely feasible.
i also hope they design better ways of getting out into space.. the old rockets we have now, are really no use
sooner or later were going to eff up the earth so much were going to have to move, and the sooner we work on leaving earth and setting down on mars the better.
People say "OMG fix problems at home first!" But ya know what? They will never, EVER be totally fixed.
I dunno though, I'm worried that
a) bush will force this home and NASA, with what it's come to, will bork something up and thus retard space exploration alltogether (even worse than now). or
b) the next president, if it isn't bush, will just cancel it all, since bush started this so late in his term.
I'm glad though that he is putting money into NASA after columbia. Now we might achieve something in MY lifetime, whereas before, were stuck in low earth orbit with no real plans. As long as nasa reforms back to it's old apollo style of thinking, we should be fine IMO. We're letting things slip.
However saying "Lets go back to the moon, then mars" may be too much for the populace to swallow. He won't have the same backing as kennedy had. It may die before it even gets off the ground. Perhaps the best way he can help is to bring back the saturn program, with plans to possibly go to the moon and mars in the future. Heck, IIRC the saturns ended up being more efficient than the shuttles in the long run. Increase the budget for other research projects, especially in the field of propulsion.
Some things I'd like to see done:
-Bring back the saturn program or other similar heavy lift vehicle
-Push JIMO project forward and launch
-Launch a probe to pluto, and map it's surface in orbit. Emphasis on speed
-Put two probes around Uranus and Neptune to study the planets and their moons
-Put an inferometer into orbit, maybe at the lagrange point
-Bring back the X-38 CRV and employ it on the space station
-Begin a more in depth study on advanced propulsion and cryogenics.
Those are just a few, I could think of dozens more.
Its expensive, yes. But not even close to the 87 billion that was requested for the war on terror. An 800 million dollar probe? The inefficiency of the government means we probably lose more than that in a week and it's never missed. We have the money, it's just not easy to change the status quo of the administration which is inherently wasteful. "Sharpen my pencils. At 7 seconds a pencil, you should be done in 175 seconds. I want a typed report of your progress on my desk by 1600!"
I mean come on....
However IMO his increase isn't that great. A billion over the next 5 years? The hubble space telescope alone was a billion. That's not much if you're serious about a moon base or something like that. You have to design and build a vehicle to get there, the parts, the training, the manpower/hours. I dunno...
With the time it takes to do anything major, I hope we do start now. I don't want to be an old man before we go back to the moon <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
On the one hand, space is cool. There is something innately cool about getting in a big metal object and having that object propelled through a vaccum, probably due to the influence of all these countless billions of sci-fi movies/games/t.v shows/e.t.c.
On the other hand, it really isn't feasable to go to mars with the state of America's economy. Russia has been curiously silent on the shiny-things-in-space front, and China has only just got into space. Europe have seemed content to piggy-back off NASA for the time being, and that looks unlikely to change (correct me if i'm wrong).
I'm sure we WILL see a Mars landing in our lifetimes, I'm just not sure whether or not i'll be taking out my pension by the time it happens.
*edit* Having read that again, it worries me slightly that Bush sees the moon as a military objective, and
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"U.S. security officials have stressed a need to ensure U.S. military dominance in space, especially in the wake of China's first manned space flight last year.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> seems to suggest that China are in some way planning to invade America.
And as for <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"It will not be long before space becomes a battleground," <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->, well that's just <i>silly</i>, although i'm sure Mr Bush could find a reason for invading China if he really wanted to. *edit*
<i>*I realise many of you DO know what ambivalance means, and will no doubt take the oppotunity to prove it</i>
<li>The question of funding (especially given the current economic situation).
<li>The timing of the proposal (an early election ad?).
<li>The vocally military scope of the project.
Ready... Set... Go!
<span style='color:white'>Even more dels. I'll progressively delete any new posts clearly violating rule #6 from now on.</span>
I'm all for my future. Err, I mean the future of the space program <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
My friends(mostly aerospace engineers) and myself were thrilled at this announcement.
The timing of the proposal (an early election ad?).
The vocally military scope of the project.
Ready... Set... Go!<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Funding: Bush isn't spending that much reletive to everything else. Besides, "Who cares if bush screws up the economy, a democrat always gets elected then and spends his whole term fixing it" <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> In the grand scheme of things, it's not that much money. It costs almost as much to keep an aircraft carrier operational each year. We have a dozen or so.... besides, in the end it gets recycled into the economy _eventually_ anyway... it's not like we launch the cash <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> all we end up launching is some metal and insturments built with care. It's like paying a mechanic hundreds to replace a $12 part. Time and effort.
In any case, some much needed reforms in the way we do things would yield incredible savings, but I'm not holding my breath that those reforms will ever take place. As I mentioned, we throw money at education but don't fix the problem. We tie up tons of money in administrative costs that aren't really nessisary. Our procurement policy for the military is LAUGHABLE. Tweaking any one of these programs would yield enough to pay off this NASA budget increase and more. Course we'll do what we've always done- If all else fails, we'll just borrow more.
Timing: Bush is big on the idea that after a tragedy, the company/corporation/industry needs a huge burst of cash to smooth over the bump. Look at the airline industry after 9/11. Now NASA after the Challenger disaster. In addition, if this is successful, much of the costs will come later. When bush isn't in office anymore- it'll be someone elses problem. In which case, Bush is still put in the history books as paving the way. GG publicity. Frankly? I don't give a crap if it's entirely about his image or not. I'm just glad it's happening.
Military Scope: Won't comment at the moment
There will always be those who believe the space program is a waste of time and money. Period.
There will always be those who believe any space endeavor (or scientific for that matter) is a good thing, no matter the cost.
But on the space issue, there don't seem to be that many people in between....
Never mind that neither will come anywhere close to fruition during his term of office, even if he *is* reelected. Bush talks a lot; I keep waiting for him to actually <i>say</i> something. I think a moon base is a fantastic idea... I'd just like to hear or see something a little more concrete than "Bush in 2004 -- I mean let's build a space station on the moon!"
Quote by Dogsbd:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Never happened.
Feel free to check any of these figures:
1993 $14.309 billion, existing NASA budget when Clinton took office
1994 $14.568 billion, $259 million increase, first Clinton budget
1995 $13.853 billion, $715 million decrease
1996 $13.885 billion, $32 million increase
1997 $13.709 billion, $176 million decrease
1998 $13.648 billion, $61 million decrease
1999 $13.654 billion, $6 million increase
2000 $13.601 billion, $53 million decrease
2001 $14.253 billion, $652 million increase
2002 $14.892 billion, $639 million increase, first Bush budget
2003 $15.000 billion, $108 million increase (estimated)
2004 $15.469 billion, $469 million increase (proposed)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh wait, the orbital shuttles has only 2000 places. So long, suckas!
/sarcasm off
I am for space exploration, but there are more pressing matters that we should tackle first, like poverty, pollution, people who eat in garbage dumps, that kind of stuff.
Also, great timing for george to announce grand costly project that appeal to patriotic pride, elections are coming. Just dont mention that huge gaping hole in the US budget that only 2 years of military adventurism has done for american taxpayers and the kind of spending involved to get the space program going again.
Set up a plan, how much would it cost to end all poverty, pollution, and people who eat in garbage dumps. Send said proposal to the white house.
If you think you can come up with a better solution than those who've worked on them their entire lives, have at it.
Bottom line is that if we wait to solve all of that before we go into space, we'll never go into space.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, great timing for george to announce grand costly project that appeal to patriotic pride, elections are coming. Just dont mention that huge gaping hole in the US budget that only 2 years of military adventurism has done for american taxpayers and the kind of spending involved to get the space program going again<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So any proposal any president has near the end of his term that is not a step backwards is _clearly_ an attempt to gain self image for the next election? Or does that only apply to bush? gg.
"So any proposal any president has near the end of his term that is not a step backwards is _clearly_ an attempt to gain self image for the next election? Or does that only apply to bush? gg. "
I cant comment on those because i would get off topic.
but send me a pm and ill gladly tell you the small amount involved and we can talk about if it applies only to bush, or not.
You don't understand do you? The budget increase for NASA that bush is proposing over the next 5 years is a drop in the bucket. A rounding error. Loose change. Such is the efficiency of our buerocracy <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Set up a plan, how much would it cost to end all poverty, pollution, and people who eat in garbage dumps. Send said proposal to the white house.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I agree.
Bush is the big man as war so he has the "war hero" president thing going (so he thinks) he just has to get the space pioneer points. That way he can be the greatest president ever who did everything!
“Manned expeditions to Mars aren't just expensive, they're not necessary at the time. The last (US) expedition to Mars, in which solely robots were used, cost the same amount as to fight the war in Iraq for one day.” -Nightline
Please tell us the amount of time such a price tag will result from. This is a problem that I'm seeing a lot. Everyone quotes a price of some project, but it's lumped together. Any budget increase for NASA will happen over many years... Not only that, but it IS needed regardless of Bush's proposal. Since Bush came to office NASA has been whipped into shape ( sometimes literally ). So I dont see why it is such a surprise that Bush decides to focus on space a little bit more... And saying such things like "There are better things to spend the money on." or "He's only doing it because of the coming elections." are arguments that hold little water and should not be brought up at all in a serious discussion.
People will always think there is something better to spend money on... But lack of money is not the real problem with any of those things. To solve such things we need to first whip those programs into shape. Throwing money at any problem will not solve it... It will just create more problems. Not only that, but there are huge benefits that do and will continue to come from space. Many of these benefits are technological. Anyone aware of how much of our technology is, if not in whole, partly a result of space travel?? Or how about the medical research that goes on in space... Or the amount of medical research that could go on if there were a lunar base? There are so many benefits to space travel that cannot be under appreciated.
As to the election coming up... Who cares? Find me one politician that would not do something to increase his re-election chances. Why should he be chastised for such an act? He shouldn't be. Increasing public support for himself is part of the job. We might as well pre-emptively tar and feather Dean if doing something political to increase or favorability is now considered a bad thing.
Then there are those who bring up the military aspects of this. Why should we not improve our situation militarily? Pushing forward and accepting/creating new technology and then using it in the military is one of the big reasons why the US remains the only world super power. Its naive and short-sighted to even suggest that the US should not try to maintain said standing. Slowing down and just sitting back and relaxing while everyone else improves their own militaries is not what we need to do. We have the advantage at this point and we should use it. We shouldn't just sit back and relax while everyone continues to catch up... By the time we realize that we're no longer king of the hill it'll be too late.
And that is really what it comes down to. The US should do everything it can to remain on top. Thinking otherwise will allow some up and coming hot shot to walk all over us. It wont happen tomorrow... And probably not within the foreseeable future... But that is ONLY because we have not decided to sit back and relax. That is not the way to run a country. That is not the way to be prosperous. That is not what the American population expects.
Has anyone really read the article though?? None of this will be happening immediately. There is even a good chance that barely any of it will happen when Bush is in office ( assuming he's re-elected ). The plan is to do this over time properly. The first step is ONLY an unmanned spacecraft on the moon. It is not until the middle of the next decade ( that is at least 10 years from now ) that there is even the idea of putting a man back on the moon. And yet, people are spouting off hundreds of billions of dollars... Or even a trillion dollars. A trillion dollars for over a 10 year period? That really is not THAT much money when you consider the US budget. Lets keep things in perspective here. The proposed program is a great idea. So much could come from it ( even excluding military advances ).... And the idea of it is just really cool.
<i> ... Wherner Von Braun was in the blockhouse at Cape Canaveral, his Jupiter C rocket on the pad. He had become an American citzen more then a year earlier and was dedicated to making the United States preeminent in rocket technology. But now he was a frustrated and angry man. His calculations showed that the Jupiter's fourth stage could reach escape velocity, about 17,500 miles per hour. At that speed, instead of arcing over and slamming it's nose cone back into the atmosphere, it could break the bonds of Earth's gravity and slip into orbit.
Whether Von Braun intended it to happen or not may never be known.</i>
Just something important to explain, at this point, the Americans were a little more dedidcated to getting ballistic missile technology. Eisenhower was very very timid, he wanted the first sattelite to be a scientific endevour such that the russians couldnt accuse the US of warmongering, or claiming the space above their country as soviet territory. Gotta remember, back then in 1956, there was no precedent to this.
Continuing on...
<i> What was known is that somone in the pentagon suspected, or had been tipped off, that the worlds first sattelite might be a military nose cone utterly lacking in scientific instrumentation. It was possible that the army could violate orders, put it's nose cone into orbit, then apologise profusely for the mistake...
Von Brauns Jupiter C lifted away from it's pad on September 20, 1956... <snip>
This Jupiter flew more then 3,300 miles into the South Atlantic. At Apogee, it was 682 miles high, well out into space. But it's speed was only 16,000 miles per hour. Its third stage rocket burned out, it fell into the classic ballistic parabola and reentered the atmosphere. As a test of nose cone technology and of America's ability to launch a precursor to a true ICBM, the mission was a great success... <snip>
What the pentagon did not announce was that the rockets fourth stage was inert. General Medaris had sent technicians to the pad where they disabled the Seargent rockets and filled the stage with sand...
</i>
History bespeaks important events in this case. The US could have launched their first sattelite long before Sputnik 1. They both failed to sieze the opportunity and failed to realise it's importance at the time.
Today, we stand at a similar crossroads and if we fail to sieze that opportunity as we did in '56 we'll be left behind screaming "OMG H4X!"
In any case, the most that military applications can achivieve from space is taking down enemy comm sattelites and maybe putting up nuke platforms, though that would go against the nukes in space agreement (forget what it was called).
Of course, there are many spinoff techs that the US military could take advantage of. A mission to mars may require ultra light but highly effective radiation shielding, the helium 2 deposited in the moons surface would be ideal for developing fusion technology that could power a more effective laser based "Missile defense shield" not to mention the applications for the civilian sector.
The first space race gave the US a distinct advantage with respect to technology. The weight requirements on rockets in the 50's and 60's forced miniturisation to take place (else the computer sitting next to you might take up a fair bit more space), many synthetic materials developed for space pretty much wouldnt have existed without the space race (Velcro for example) along with other techs (VHS {Or was it VHF?} along with quite a few strong and light metallic alloys etc).
The second space race (and that's what it looks like, the the ESA being more like a neutral benefactor from both schemes) will no doubt push these advances further.
The military aspect of Bushes speech is negligible. Thats just to get the army and co. happy about this latest... stunt.
The timing of this might just be a bit of a stunt but I doubt bush would try something of this length just to get reelected (though I may be dearly wrong).
I'm sorry. I cant keep on topic. I'm too terribly happy about this announcement, I just might get off this mudball yet within my lifetime. My dream of getting into the space program has just progressed into reality, when I've done my uni courses, I'm off to the US for a bit of astronaut training <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
{OT} Monse and Ryo are developing a telepathic link, I've agreed with something Bush wants to do... Thats two of the seven signs D: {/OT}
Exploring space, and colonising it, is, IMHO, a far better usage of government spending than increased military budgets. On a tangent from the SDI thread, a quick <a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/bush/story/0,7369,482009,00.html' target='_blank'>google search</a> proved my earlier estimate of costs to be excessive. My apologies. However, the cost of such a project could easily fund a massive manned space program, and I believe this is a better useage of funds. But I'm not the President nor even a US citizen, so all I can do is stand on the sidelines and shout "To infinity and beyond!" <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Cynic, j00! <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Funding: I think it will be funded by a boom in the industry supporting space travel. If the odds are right, the techology ripe I think we could see a Roosevelt New Deal effect on US economy in general. As Hollywood has shown us, selling dreams can generate humongous profits. Space travel and colonization of foreign planets is just that, but man, we can get filthy rich dreaming that dream. And eventually colonize a planet after, what, 1000 catastrophic setbacks and disasters.
There will be a huge guzzler of money in R&D and deploying stuff into space. But there will be a large sector connected to this, servicing the boffins, building the mad scientist thingamabobs and doodads, as well as the potential for a nice big "space boom" in the media industry.
Now, the real question is if George Bush has the 'nads to pull off such a stunt. Does he carry the fire to lit the wick of a new phase of Space Craziness?
I think it's about damn time we tried for the moon again. In a way, it is like Olympics for technologies and money to nations all over the world. The ones trying to reach the moon are having to make many advances in technology. This is a good thing!
Some people think we ought to pay down the national debt before we do anything else. Well I mean hell, you know how big the national debt is right now? It's a little bit like proposing to fill up the Grand Canyon with a spoon before you go about the rest of your life. Let us go to the moon (and then to Mars)!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On a tangent from the SDI thread, a quick google search proved my earlier estimate of costs to be excessive. My apologies<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And here's a novelty - someone here actually following Rule #1 of the discussion forum. My hat's off to Ryo for being a man. Many of our posters could learn from his example, rather than the usual childish excuses or silence.
Back on topic!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now, the real question is if George Bush has the 'nads to pull off such a stunt. Does he carry the fire to lit the wick of a new phase of Space Craziness? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, the President in the US has no ability to set budgets of any kind. He can only ask Congress to do it - so the real question is, does Capitol Hill have the 'nads?