New Space Initiative

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

nbcrusader

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Aug 18, 2002
Messages
22,071
Location
Southern California
Bush Plans To Call for Settlement On Moon

President Bush will announce plans next week to establish a permanent human settlement on the moon and to set a goal of eventually sending Americans to Mars, administration sources said last night.

The sources said Bush will announce a new "human exploration" agenda in Washington on Wednesday, six days ahead of the final State of the Union address of his term and just as his reelection campaign moves from the planning stage to its public phase.

The plans grew out of a White House group that was assigned to examine the mission of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration after the space shuttle Columbia disintegrated on Feb. 1, throwing the future of the space program into doubt.

Officials were unwilling to provide cost figures or details and would say only that Bush will direct the government to immediately begin research and development to establish a human presence or base on the moon, with the goal of having that lead to a manned mission to Mars. That endeavor could be a decade or more away, the officials said.

The last humans on the moon, the crew of Apollo 17, landed in 1972.

Now, I know many of you would rather send GWB to the moon, but the benefits of such an initiative are far beyond what we can imagine today.
 
I hope he volunteers to go to the moon. I would immediately send a donation cheque.
 
nbcrusader said:
Now, I know many of you would rather send GWB to the moon, but the benefits of such an initiative are far beyond what we can imagine today.

:lol: What a fantastic idea! :) Exactly what benefits were you thinking of though? (I'm not being sarcastic, I honestly want to know what benefits will be so great as to justify the massive investment of money this will require.)

I know all you Republicans will start yelling at me for being so sceptical, but I can't help thinking this is something which has been thought up at least partly for political purposes. What a dream of a speech to write..."we're going to colonise the moon"...that speech writes itself! I think that the people who decided the President should pursue this were probably somewhat influenced by how well this idea will do in the opinion polls.

It's like the discussion we had about Mars a few days back: I can think of better uses for the money, like providing clean water to every person on the planet, like researching a cure for cancer, like helping some of the millions of people living on less than a dollar a day...
 
Re: Re: New Space Initiative

FizzingWhizzbees said:


:lol: What a fantastic idea! :) Exactly what benefits were you thinking of though? (I'm not being sarcastic, I honestly want to know what benefits will be so great as to justify the massive investment of money this will require.)

I know all you Republicans will start yelling at me for being so sceptical, but I can't help thinking this is something which has been thought up at least partly for political purposes. What a dream of a speech to write..."we're going to colonise the moon"...that speech writes itself! I think that the people who decided the President should pursue this were probably somewhat influenced by how well this idea will do in the opinion polls.

It's like the discussion we had about Mars a few days back: I can think of better uses for the money, like providing clean water to every person on the planet, like researching a cure for cancer, like helping some of the millions of people living on less than a dollar a day...

I was thinking the same thing, but just didn't feel like feeding to the fire of "why must liberals attack everything Bush does" debate. But honestly I can't think of anything that this does except provide some nice banter for his campaign.

We're not even close to having the technology or being ready for this type of advancement. It just seems way too premature and this makes me question it's purpose.

We're fighting his war on terrorism, we're dealing with one of the largest defecits in recent history, our environment is becoming less and less protected by our government and he wants to make this a priority?!

With a race to get back to the moon and his wanting to start nuclear testing again almost feels like the Cold War again:wink:
 
Re: Re: New Space Initiative

FizzingWhizzbees said:


:lol: What a fantastic idea! :) Exactly what benefits were you thinking of though? (I'm not being sarcastic, I honestly want to know what benefits will be so great as to justify the massive investment of money this will require.)

I know all you Republicans will start yelling at me for being so sceptical, but I can't help thinking this is something which has been thought up at least partly for political purposes. What a dream of a speech to write..."we're going to colonise the moon"...that speech writes itself! I think that the people who decided the President should pursue this were probably somewhat influenced by how well this idea will do in the opinion polls.

It's like the discussion we had about Mars a few days back: I can think of better uses for the money, like providing clean water to every person on the planet, like researching a cure for cancer, like helping some of the millions of people living on less than a dollar a day...

Benefits, you say? Previous flights into space have yielded some amazing new technologies which have been incorporated into some of the most startling inventions mankind has ever known. For example:

sppen1.jpg


This pen can write upside-down!
I'm sure someone can come into this thread and list all of the real accomplisments NASA has made over the years since I'm too lazy/sarcastic to do it myself.

In all seriousness part of me is happy to see steps being taken to ensure that we will keep exploring our universe. Still won't sway me to vote for GWB, though.
 
Yes, but what if they have to sign a contract in space? Or give autographs? A lot of good some lousy pencil is going to do them then.
 
Re: Re: New Space Initiative

FizzingWhizzbees said:

I know all you Republicans will start yelling at me for being so sceptical

Who was lecturing about sweeping generalizations in the other thread......:eyebrow:

Tsk tsk.....and I was about to support your position.

Instead, I will remain silent...rethink my position...because clearly....I must not be thinking straight.:wink:
 
Funny how NASA was considered "wasteful spending" when Democrats were at the helm.

Regardless, I think that it is a good idea.

Melon
 
Who are you going to sign an autograph for in space? It's not like you're going to come across a hoard of screaming fans. :rolleyes:

Dread,
Okay...some Republicans will accuse me of being overly sceptical and just hating whatever Bush proposes. Others, perhaps like your good self, will agree with me. :)
 
Re: Re: Re: New Space Initiative

Dreadsox said:


Who was lecturing about sweeping generalizations in the other thread......:eyebrow:

Tsk tsk.....and I was about to support your position.

Instead, I will remain silent...rethink my position...because clearly....I must not be thinking straight.:wink:

Since when did you start calling yourself a Republican again?
 
FizzingWhizzbees said:
Who are you going to sign an autograph for in space? It's not like you're going to come across a hoard of screaming fans. :rolleyes:

Maybe I shoule use more of these: :wink: I thought the silliness of both of my posts in this thread was obvious.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: New Space Initiative

BonoVoxSupastar said:


Since when did you start calling yourself a Republican again?

I can't escape the label...in two threads in the past week people have put that label on me, I figure why fight it.....So I guess for FYM purposes...I am a republican.:wink:
 
New Space Initiative is good, but now is not the time to do so.

How can Bush spend hundreds of billions for a scifi pipe dream, when he can't even afford to give a fraction for Africa's Debt/AIDS Relief as he promised?
 
Last edited:
theSoulfulMofo said:
New Space Initiative is good, but now is not the time to do so.

How can Bush spend hundreds of billions for a scifi pipe dream, when he can't even afford to give a fraction for Africa's Debt/AIDS Relief as he promised?
sounds logical to me
 
Great. Once we're done screwing up the earth, the moon will be ready for all of us to migrate over there and fuck that up instead!
Brilliant!

/sarcasm


We don't need more teflon. What on earth is beneficial about this? Help is needed here on Earth. Lets not ruin any more of this solar system, eh?
:huh:
 
So, Iraq is not enough. Lets take the moon and make it ours,...there are a lot of natural recourses to be found on the moon.
 
There are a lot of natural resources to be found on Earth as well. We should learn to not deplete them entirely, instead of foraging on other pristine places.
Humans cannot leave well enough alone.
 
at first i was sooo happy to see the news about the space program. i'm the first one to say yes, we need to do more about the space program, etc. i'm involved in the local astronomy club here, and well, i just love everything related to space. i am skeptical tho.

i do not want to get my hopes up here. as much as i loathe bush this could be the one good thing he does, but sadly i just see it as another ploy to get the popularity vote to get re-elected.

bush :down: :angry:
 
meegannie said:
I hope he's discussed this with Dennis Hope, the man who OWNS the moon. http://www.lunarembassy.com/lunar/index2.lasso :grumpy:

no one can own the moon or other celestial body :tsk: :rolleyes:

Can any State claim a part of outer space as its own?
No. The Outer Space Treaty states that outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means. The Treaty establishes the exploration and use of outer space as the "province of all mankind". The Moon Agreement expands on these provisions by stating that neither the surface nor the subsurface of the Moon (or other celestial bodies in the solar system), nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non-governmental organization, national organization or non- governmental entity or of any natural person.

http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/FAQ/splawfaq.htm#Q6
 
Last edited:
melon said:
Funny how NASA was considered "wasteful spending" when Democrats were at the helm.

Regardless, I think that it is a good idea.

Melon


That's the only thing I have against Bush's idea. I see no problem with space exploration, there are many good things that could come out of that. I DO have a problem with the suspicion that Bush is using the announcement in the same way he is most likely using the "guest worker" idea of his, to get votes.
 
U2luv said:
I DO have a problem with the suspicion that Bush is using the announcement in the same way he is most likely using the "guest worker" idea of his, to get votes.

isnt that why everything is done by an elected politician, to get votes? cases of 'doing the right thing' are few and far between.

regardless, a decisive and concise editorial from todays
globe and mail

How high the moon, how deep the debt

Monday, January 12, 2004 - Page A12

So here's U.S. President George W. Bush, overseeing the most dramatic escalation in U.S. state and federal indebtedness in a generation, and he's promising his country the moon -- and Mars, too. "The President is strongly committed to the exploration of space," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Friday. Could election-year politicking be the reason?

The International Monetary Fund recently took a close, hard look at the United States' finances. The IMF study, called U.S. Fiscal Policies and Priorities for Long-Run Sustainability, was released last week. The picture it paints is dire.

This year, according to most estimates, the United States will post a deficit of between $450-billion (U.S.) and $500-billion -- about 4.5 per cent of gross domestic product. That's not such a big deal, Mr. Bush's economic advisers have argued. It's nowhere near the crippling 6 per cent of GDP that U.S. deficits reached in the mid-1980s under Ronald Reagan.

There are a couple of holes in that argument, however, The first is that U.S. state finances are in even worse shape than those at the federal level. State and federal deficits combined total 6 per cent of GDP. Total U.S. government debt is now 50 per cent of GDP and climbing.

Looking a few years out, moreover, the picture darkens considerably. Mr. Bush has promised to deliver a plan in his February budget that will cut the deficit in half within five years. But even if he can deliver -- five-year economic projections are notoriously unreliable -- that still would leave the U.S. with an annual deficit of $340-billion in 2009. If we set $400-billion as an average deficit for each of the years between now and then, we're still talking about $2-trillion in new debt before 2010.

When economists talk about the dangers of deficits, they typically talk about interest rates. It's supply and demand: As the government borrows more money by issuing more bonds, demand for them naturally slackens. Investors then require a higher return on their investment, which forces interest rates higher. This in turn feeds a vicious circle in which an ever-greater portion of government spending goes toward interest payments on the debt, as opposed to program spending. Remember the early 1990s? Canadians have seen this movie before.

But in the United States the problem is even deeper than that. The U.S. government's so-called entitlement programs -- Medicare and Social Security (pensions) -- are still in surplus. But within 10 years, the IMF report suggests, those surpluses will have vanished. The baby boom will have reached peak retirement age. That's not even considering the astronomical cost of maintaining forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as a permanently alert security posture at home.

Coincidentally, a decade from now is considered a likely target date for Mr. Bush's proposed moon landing. But it won't be any old moon landing. The President reportedly envisions a permanent manned base, which would then be used to launch human exploration of Mars.

In July of 1989, on the 20th anniversary of Neil Armstrong's Giant Leap, president George Bush Sr. made his own plea for more lunar missions and a Mars landing. That idea was scrapped because of the projected cost -- about $500-billion. Current estimates put the price tag of a mission to Mars at a cool trillion.

Earth to Mr. Bush: This is lunacy.

while it says nothing of the percieved scientific and medical benefits we might expect (including those we cannot imagine), it is difficult to imagine the costs, as they are laid out in this article, being outweighed by the benefits.

though it would obviously never happen, imagine what a trillion could do for all sorts of programs of domestic and international importance.
 
What per cent of shuttle flights? or experiments on them have been classified for military use? More than you think.


The defense contrators believe space is the last frontier for control, and dominance.


They will go full on nuclear for power. There is no other economical way to have a moon base.
 
Back
Top Bottom