Bush mulls major new space effort - Page 2

Az · December 5, 2003, 06:48

There are more than enough aerospace engineers. Not enough money to make them work, give them the enviroment and conditions....

Sandman · December 5, 2003, 06:49

Whilst I'd like to think that this is a good idea, I smell a neocon rat. Weapons in space are totally intolerable.

Ted Striker · December 5, 2003, 06:51

Privitization?

Shi Huangdi · December 5, 2003, 06:52

Isn't the deficit large enough now?

Az · December 5, 2003, 06:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Isn't the deficit large enough now?

own goal.

Ted Striker · December 5, 2003, 07:04

What is this own goal and is it homo-gay?

uh Clem · December 5, 2003, 07:44

Somebody must've found oil up there.

Stefu · December 5, 2003, 07:51

Why doesn't Dub just cut out the middle-man and swing his dick around in live television?

Ted Striker · December 5, 2003, 07:52

that was original

Q Classic · December 5, 2003, 07:53

almost as much as you. see cg.

honestly, i don't see anything coming out of this. this is going to be just like bush's other great scientific plan: that of hydrogen fueling the country, or like his statements involving americorps...

a lot of talk to make him seem forward-looking, but then jack ****. he might say something about space, and getting to the moon, but he won't budget enough for it, either in financial or political capital, for it to get anywhere.

when nasa seems to not have a clue...

Boris Godunov · December 5, 2003, 08:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Finally!

I NEVER could understand why we stopped exploring the moon

Can you really not understand this?

Hint: It's a lifeless rock covered in dust. What's to explore?

Dear lord, you'll support anything Bush comes up with, won't you?

PLATO · December 5, 2003, 08:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Can you really not understand this?

Hint: It's a lifeless rock covered in dust. What's to explore?

Dear lord, you'll support anything Bush comes up with, won't you?

Low gravity manufacturing facilities, low gravity hospitals, etc... These things could improve quality of life here. The question is: Cost-Benefit.

It appears that there might be some mining opportunities as well. Better to dig up the moon rather than here, don't you think.

There are legit reasons to go back Boris, but the real question is weather or not we could spend the money better here.

Eli · December 5, 2003, 09:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman
Whilst I'd like to think that this is a good idea, I smell a neocon rat. Weapons in space are totally intolerable.

And why is that?

mrmitchell · December 5, 2003, 09:37

Don't any of you have any pride in being a human? Don't you want to see us spread and survive!??

Geeze, if you guys had been around in 1492, the Americas would be a wildlife preserve.

alva · December 5, 2003, 09:51

Quote:

the Americas would be a wildlife preserve.

Well,for one thing, you could.....

Nah, way too easy.

Hueij · December 5, 2003, 10:52

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Don't any of you have any pride in being a human? Don't you want to see us spread and survive!??

Geeze, if you guys had been around in 1492, the Americas would be a wildlife preserve.

I've always hoped to see a manned Mars landing in my lifetime, but after considering this I'm not so sure anymore...

Whoha · December 5, 2003, 12:53

For all of you people who oppose the sending, please select the largest part of the budget:
a)1.4 TRILLION -> welfare state
b)400 Billion -> Military
c)15 Billion -> current space program

The correct answer is a.

chequita guevara · December 5, 2003, 13:07

Your numbers are wildly wrong.

Whoha · December 5, 2003, 13:16

You are right of course,
Military spending is actually 340 billion not 400 billion, my mistake.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2003/budget.html

DanS · December 5, 2003, 13:29

Part of this is a good idea, part of it is bad. I think setting up an end goal is the most important part, which only the politicians can really do. Mars will do just fine as the end goal. Say we're going to be there in 50 years or whatever and the scientists need to figure out how to do it.

The moon part of it doesn't seem like that useful of a next step, but I'm willing to be convinced. I'm willing to be convinced on L1, L4 or L5 too.

It seems more worthwhile to increase the number and types of things that we send to Mars. An example would include setting up a more permanent Mars communications system. This would make individual probes more robust and/or smaller.

I think NASA needs to live within its means. $2 billion a year + for the space station and $4 billion a year for Space Shuttle are too much for programs that have no bearing to the end goal or for science in general. We might be locked into both programs in some configuration, unfortunately. The space station is important to our international partners, so it's a tough political call to pull the plug on either.

The thing about space exploration is that it takes so long to do. We've been living with a failed policy on about 1/2 of the space program for 30 years. The other 1/2 of the program does really well, so it sometimes masks the problems.

:) Smiley · December 5, 2003, 14:59

would it be cheaper to shoot people off into space, or to pay their social security and other welfare benefits?

Sandman · December 5, 2003, 16:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Eli
And why is that?

Not only are space-based weapons illegal under international law, but there is no enemy to justify them. They would be built for their own sake, rather than any actual military concern. That's only a small step from waging wars for no reason other than to wage war.

Whoha · December 5, 2003, 16:43

military help doesnt equal weapons though.

Eli · December 5, 2003, 17:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman
Not only are space-based weapons illegal under international law, but there is no enemy to justify them. They would be built for their own sake, rather than any actual military concern. That's only a small step from waging wars for no reason other than to wage war.

This international law denies one of the most effective incentives for space exploration because of some nice-cozy-fluffy dream.

Do you really think that when there will be lots of human presence in space no one will introduce weapons? Violence will go wherever humans go. Space, like everything else, will be weaponized eventualy and such policies only hinder our progress.

Slightly paraphrasing Col. Corazon Santiago (SMAC seems to have a quote for everything

) :
"Man has killed man from the beginning of time, and each new frontier has brought new ways and new places to die. Why would the future be different?"

Tripledoc · December 5, 2003, 17:38

NASA must make an expedition to Europa and see if there is any life in the ocean under the frozen ice surface. If there is anything can happen.

Sinapus · December 5, 2003, 19:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Hint: It's a lifeless rock covered in dust. What's to explore?

Good thing there are people with more imagination than you running around.

Quote:

Dear lord, you'll support anything Bush comes up with, won't you?

Odd, I've been for space travel long before even George Bush Sr. was Vice President.

I wasn't aware one had to be a blind follower of some leader to support something. Perhaps you project a bit too much?

Best you stay here, though. The Earth, after all, is your inheritance, so to speak.

Paul Hanson · December 5, 2003, 19:16

Why not spend the money to explore space? It's like the early European explorers saying "why bother exploring the oceans to see if there's anything out there? we've got everything we need in Europe".

It's human nature to explore. You may as well spend the money sooner rather than later.

Ned · December 5, 2003, 19:40

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
Part of this is a good idea, part of it is bad. I think setting up an end goal is the most important part, which only the politicians can really do. Mars will do just fine as the end goal. Say we're going to be there in 50 years or whatever and the scientists need to figure out how to do it.

The moon part of it doesn't seem like that useful of a next step, but I'm willing to be convinced. I'm willing to be convinced on L1, L4 or L5 too.

It seems more worthwhile to increase the number and types of things that we send to Mars. An example would include setting up a more permanent Mars communications system. This would make individual probes more robust and/or smaller.

I think NASA needs to live within its means. $2 billion a year + for the space station and $4 billion a year for Space Shuttle are too much for programs that have no bearing to the end goal or for science in general. We might be locked into both programs in some configuration, unfortunately. The space station is important to our international partners, so it's a tough political call to pull the plug on either.

The thing about space exploration is that it takes so long to do. We've been living with a failed policy on about 1/2 of the space program for 30 years. The other 1/2 of the program does really well, so it sometimes masks the problems.

DanS, we could sell both the space station and the shuttle to the highest bidder. The problem is, that no one will probably bid anything for them indicating their true value. Pulling the plug now saves enormous amounts of money that can be better used elsewhere.

The manned space program should be directed to EXPLORATION!

Ned · December 5, 2003, 19:42

Azazel, perhaps we could persuade Arafat to blast off to Mars if we tell him that all the territory he personally marks off will become Palestinian!

Kuciwalker · December 5, 2003, 19:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Eli
Ugh.

Just promise a 10 billion dollars prize to the first private company who builds a base on the moon and succesfully mans it with 5 people for 6 months.
It will be 10 times less expensive and more worthwhile than having NASA do it.

Only 10 billion?

EDIT: how about exclusive development rights for, say, the next 50 years?