Bush May Announce Return To Moon At Kitty Hawk

[Shyriath]

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/beyondleo-03a.html

Bush May Announce Return To Moon At Kitty Hawk

A report by Space Lift Washington and published by NASA Watch suggests a major new space policy initiative is under consideration and may be announced by US President George Bush at celebrations planned for the centenary of flight at Kitty Hawk in North Carolina December 17th.

As the full implications sinks in of funding three decades of a space program with no serious long term policy planning, Congress has become increasingly hesitant to offer NASA a blank check anymore.

From a variety of backgrounds and constituencies, pressure is being placed on Congress and the Bush Administration to get serious about space.

Which I certainly hope they do. Space is the future, and we've been avoiding most of it for too long.

Though it does put me in a personal dilemma... if * DOES announce a return to the moon, I'll feel compelled to applaud him. :scared: :puke: Can I get a volunteer to smack me unconscious if I ever do that?

Edit: screwed up the code for italics to put around the article... now fixed.

[Parche]

1. bushy

I thought he wanted to land a man on the SUN in the year 2010

[OldSoldier]

8. Just so long as it's Bush

"Mister Bush! It's too hot to land on the sun! You'll burn to a crisp!"

"No problem. We're going to do it at night."

[dave29]

2. I will applaud anyone willing to get us back to the moon

but I will still support Democrats - who made it happen first :)

[alwynsw]

20. Not to rain on our collective parade...

but the initial space program was started at Ike's direction.

[Occulus]

3. Just going there isn't enough.

There are resources there, yes there are, and unlike the earth, there's no environment to damage.

Then, for the headline fifty years from now:

"Tides Weaken as Moon Materials are Removed"

Crap.

[pmbryant]

4. I'll volunteer for that

I seriously doubt Bush will propose anything of the sort. But if he ever does, I will definitely volunteer to help you out. ;-)

I used to be a space program junky (back in the 1980s). It somewhat blinded me to the reality of the Reagan administration. Fortunately, I was too young to vote.

Also fortunately, I grew out of it. And then a friend of mine gave me some books by Ed Abbey, and the rest is history. :D

--Peter

[pmbryant]

10. Note the article says that Bush *won't* propose to fund this initiative

So even if he the words do come out of his mouth, they will, as usual, mean absolutely nothing.

How typical of him.

--Peter

[Shyriath]

15. You're a lifesaver!

:thumbsup:

...As for me, I prefer not to call myself a space program junkie, because I have little faith in what is typically called "the space program". NASA is doing very little in the way of getting humanity into space for good, and has been doing as poorly for a long time now.
And, of course, when it comes to true motive behind any announcements, I don't trust Bush as far as I could throw him, or even as far as all DUers could throw him (a pleasant mental image, though, if you think about it).

What I WOULD call myself is something in the range of "space exploration enthusiast", because even though the means have been fairly ineffectual, I consider the goal to be an important thing. (Occasionally, depending on my mood, even THE important thing, to the exclusion of all else, with a near-religious intensity.)

[pmbryant]

16. Yes, little faith

I, too, have little faith in the current "space program". It's a bit disillusioning to see us doing the same thing in space that has been done since the 1970s.

Quite stagnant and uninspiring. Long ago, it began to seem quite pointless to me.

:-(

Alas, thanks to Bush, there is no longer enough money to seriously consider doing anything more inspiring with manned spaceflight. There are far more pressing issues that will need to be addressed in the aftermath of Bush.

--Peter

[madrchsod]

5. sounds good ,but georgie

there`s no money is there.

[number six]

6. Why would we go back?

Just to remind the Chinese who's boss?

[rooboy]

7. Considering that the PNAC agenda involves controlling space...

don't be surprised if this has more to do with military supremacy than anything else.

[arcane1]

9. exactly.... if Bush wants to return to the moon, count me OUT

missile-launchers and spy sattellites are not what I have in mond :grr:

and besides, are we billions of dollars in deficit right now? Where does this idiot think the money is coming from? Will the average American dumbass give up his Social Security for a military base on the moon?

[ima_sinnic]

14. took the words right out of my mouth

going to the moon is NOT a priority when people on Earth are starving. And I don't care if those people are Americans or not. BushCo can't handle the long list of problems right here, let alone out in space. Screw them and their stinking hidden agenda.

[Maurkov]

19. Space exploration should be a top priority...

because people on earth are starving.

The same technologies that will allow us to go up there will help immeasurably down here. Because our energy and resource reserves are dwindling, it will only get harder to reach into space and tap the vast resources there. Internationally, we need goals. I like the idea of competing with China, non-violently.

Cutting off the space program now is like dropping out of high school to get a job. It may help make ends meet, but it will cripple our long term prospects.

There is still the argument that we already produce plenty of food but that it's not getting to the people who need it. Why is it necessary to halt space exploration in order to fix these structural problems? Money is the issue? Maybe we should stop paying people to not farm.

Yeah, more than likely, Bush not going to do it right, but the only real mistake would be not doing it.

[markus]

12. If it wasn't military/industrial, we'd be going to Mars

The only reason to go to the moon is to look for exploitable resources. Or maybe that's where Dr. Strangelove wants to put the bunker.

I've never gotten over my infatuation with space exploration, fostered in the 60s. (I'm about as old as the orbital space program, born in 1957). I think I watched every manned launch through the end of the Apollo program.

I know the world is full of problems that need addressing, but the richest and most powerful nation on earth has and should use the resources necessary to continue the manned and unmanned exploration of space.

[cap]

11. big yawn... yet another unfunded mandate...

another Bush lie... Going to the moon costs billions...
where's the money gonna come from...
Nasa is running on fumes...there is no money from other programs to do this. Unless you want to cut Landsat, weather, earth observation satellites (that provide a lot of info on how Bush is screwing up the environment)

This is No Child Left Behind in another mode. May I suggest No Space Object Left Behind. A whole lot of noise. A photo op. And then a lot of nothing except maybe some big contracts let out to Bush's buddies.

How can you fund a space contract, when you are depriving Medicaid recipients of dentures and cutting schools... Never mind balancing the budget.

If only he were serious, it would be a great thing.

[Goldmund]

13. Please

tell me one single instance in which this administration has acted out of anything other than the desire to make more money, or expand military superiority, or make themselves more electable -- all of which ultimately will bring them more money.

I would put their motives in one or more of these categories again, IF this is true.

[raysr]

17. "If you believe..." REM

I don't.

[unblock]

18. MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY

it's a naked ploy for his cronies to embezzle yet more money.

nasa isn't begging for the moon, again. mars maybe, but not the moon.

nor are we likely to have the myriad of useful inventions that we did while making a rocket that can transort live humans. some, but not so cost effective.

on the other hands, those who win no-bid contracts will make out like the bandits they are....

the treasury is being looted, folks, before our very eyes. are deficit has a $700,000,000,000 swing just for a war against nothing opponents, and the criminal-in-chief wants to spend a ton more DISCRETIONARY money??

[hatrack]

21. More Bush Bullshit

IF he announces any such initiative, it'll be vague, grand, sweeping, dribblingly romantic-sounding - and totally unfunded.

Assuming any such initiative takes shape, it'll be (as earlier posters have noted) all about enhancing space based military capability, with a few sops to science.

And, if anything does come to fruition, it'll be just a big honkin' pork trough for Boeing, Rockwell-Collins, Raytheon and the rest of the tech/defense donor list.

Feh.

[ramapo]

22. Didn't Daddy try this?

Didn't Daddy Bush have a flash in the pan go-to-mars-project announcement?

[hatrack]

23. Yeah, and if I recall my history correctly . . .

DAN QUAYLE was the Bush 1 White House liaison to NASA.

Who better to deal with the hostile vacuum of space than a man who was himself a vacuum?

Of course, this time around, the president himself will make the announcement, it seems . . .

[Shyriath]

26. Yes, but it got quite screwed up

Robert Zubrin's book "The Case for Mars" mentions something like that... think it was called SEI. The people who undertook the study of how much it would cost tried to make it as vast and complicated an undertaking as they could, and produced an estimate of $450 billion... which, for obvious reasons, killed the idea as far as Congress was concerned.

(Zubrin believes it can be done for around $30 billion, and has designed an exploration plan around this.)

[pmbryant]

27. $30B sounds ridiculously low

That's less than what the measly space station cost, I think!

--Peter

[pinkpops]

24. what's the banner going to say

when he lands?

[number6]

25. we could have spent the 87 billion on it, but hey

had to invade Iraq, for some oil ...