News & Politics - Bush:Men on the Moon 2015, foothold for space exploration

SuperDeluxe · 01-09-2004, 08:48 AM

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush will announce plans next week to send Americans to Mars and establish a permanent human presence on the moon, senior administration officials said Thursday night.

click below for the rest of the story
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040109/D7VV5E0O0.html

This is great news, finally something that all americans can appreciate.

I am sure some will have problems with this, that is to be expected. But for me I am totally pysched [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[img]smilies/biggrin.gif[/img]

[ 01-14-2004: Message edited SuperDeluxe ]

Raonaild · 01-09-2004, 09:26 AM

I think it's great, NASA really needs inspiring, long term goals to get anything useful done. I'm worried though that with the price tag being so high and past experience with the way the ISS program has gone, there's a good chance that such ambitious goals are not realistic, and will end up being empty promises.

[ 01-09-2004: Message edited Raonaild ]

SuperDeluxe · 01-09-2004, 09:54 AM

Correct.

I know its going to cost alot of money. But if there is one thing that Americans can get excited about, is dreaming about mars.

Just for example today's USA TODAY cover story is about spirit the mars lander..and the little pictures it is taking.

It is HUGE right now, everyone is fasicinated with Mars...because its like..the next frontier.

If they find some lifeforms on there..maybe single cell lifeforms..and water..on mars. Man, the public will want them to go.

We need a new space ship, the shuttle needs to be retired..I mean heck its 25 years old!

I know its going to cost money. But I remember how excited my dad was when we landed on the moon. I think mars would have that same effect. The spirit rover is already getting huge buzz.!

Enigma, I.C. · 01-09-2004, 04:09 PM

Bush I said that we should put a man on Mars by 2019, the 50th anniversary of the landing on the moon. I think that's very optimistic. The technology simply does not exist for a manned trip to Mars AND back. The complications are enormous. Such as a human being living in a zero-gravity environment for months. Your muscles atrophy without gravity.
As SD pointed out, it would be enormously expensive. I hate to say it, because I'm a dreamer too, but I don't feel we should spend enormous amounts of money for a really great photo op.
All of these goals are perhaps 50-100+ years in the future. The technology needs to be developed and then to mature. Hopefully as the technology becomes more attainable the price will decline (relatively).
As the Apollo 13 crew learned, traveling in space is dangerous and nothing is fool-proof. It'd be really bad for something to happen in transit to Mars, because you just can't call them back and expect them home by 5. As the destroyed probes have shown, Mars is not a fun place to land on.
A moon base, like a trip to mars, is not feasible at this time. Besides, what would the advantage to a moon base anyway? We already know pretty much all there is to know about the moon (besides its definitive origins).

Citizen Sarah · 01-09-2004, 05:09 PM

Its all very exciting and I'm sure they'll make some amazing discoveries....
BUT (there always is a but with me [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img] ) shouldnt we use our finances to sort out all the problems in this world, before we go off trying to conquour other worlds??

Timeo · 01-09-2004, 11:11 PM

The more I think about it these days, the more ridiculous the idea of space exploration seems. That and it's grossly expensive. That money could be spent on things that need to be patched up (ie debt, social programs in...every department), but hey, it's the American taxpayer who's going to be footing the bill, so if they don't mind...

ceilirose · 01-10-2004, 05:45 AM

In another day and time when the US wasn't so cash-strapped these missions might be a positive thing. Right now with the deficit in the billions I can't see the Congress passing this through the budget. There's talk from the Administration of cutting military veteran's medical benefits next year..politically you can't have a mission to Mars while our military has to make sacrifices. It's politically and morally wrong.

*Lauren · 01-10-2004, 08:41 AM

Will Bush next be asking what you can do for your country? This is screaming of JFK, with the unrealistic time span.

I'm actully going to say something positive about Bush's idea. When JFK did it back in the early 60s, the same reaction happened. No way were they going to be able to put a man on the moon by the end of the 60s, not feasible. Yet having a goal to work towards, can do wonders. When JFK made the goal public, all they could do was send tin cans up into space, with a human squashed into them.

The only thing I would be worried about is the person going. As someone pointed out, if there was a problem there is no way to get to them in time. Once they are out of the atomsphere it would be impossible. I also don't know if they can get back IN the atomsphere.

I also fail to see the point. Then again I didn't see the point of going to the moon. Surely they could find a way to get a machine to do the work, instead of risking lives?

SuperDeluxe · 01-10-2004, 08:51 AM

Actually we do have the technology if we wanted to get to mars..by 2017? EASY.

The Russians have the hardware, Nasa has the money, if they both got together, we could be on mars in 10 years.

I believe that there might be commerical rewards for going to mars..not only that but scientific rewards. You always have to try and reach the frontier. We will ALWAYS have issues that needs to be solved here, we will never be perfect. So does that mean we dont explore?

No, and we will keep on going

Thank goodness Bush will president for another 4 years, by that time, we should have some serious workings going on the moon and mars.

~* Blue Angel *~ · 01-10-2004, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Citizen Sarah:
<STRONG> shouldnt we use our finances to sort out all the problems in this world, before we go off trying to conquour other worlds??</STRONG>

Couldn't have put it better myself [img]smilies/clap.gif[/img]

Jen [img]smilies/angel.gif[/img]

AlexEvans · 01-10-2004, 05:05 PM

It's a big idea, and it's inspirational.

We didn't seem close to being able to go to the moon... but we did. And the space program generated enormous benefits in, for example, medical technology.

It's a good idea. I'm not sure whether the time is right, but last time we were in a war too, and we did it.

[img]smilies/abduct.gif[/img] [img]smilies/read.gif[/img]

Raonaild · 01-10-2004, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Funding, Technical Hurdles Seen for Bush Space Plan

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (Reuters) - President Bush's expected space initiative to send Americans back to the moon and ultimately to Mars may set some spirits soaring but real-life concerns such as money and a more safety-conscious NASA could keep it firmly on the ground.

Bush is expected to propose next week a plan to work toward a permanent American presence on the moon and an eventual manned mission to Mars, officials and congressional aides said on Thursday.

It would be a huge boost to U.S. space exploration after the morale-sapping Columbia space shuttle disaster last year. But some politicians and space experts wondered whether it was mostly about the November presidential election.

A senior Senate Republican aide said the plan gives Bush a "big bold idea" to run on for re-election. But would the Republican-led Congress fund it?

"Unlikely," said the aide, asking not to be identified by name. "But the president doesn't have to get this through Congress this year. He just needs to put it on the table as part of the agenda for his second term."

"The president is now looking for centrist supporters who may be enthralled by big ideas. This has much less to do about legislative reality on Capitol Hill this year than it has to do with political reality in 2004," he said.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan declined to give details ahead of next week's announcement. But, without revealing a price tag, he said the cost had been reviewed in the context of the federal budget for fiscal 2005, to be submitted to Congress on Feb. 2.

Democratic presidential front-runner Howard Dean looked quickly to the bottom line.

"I'm very much in favor of space exploration," Dean said. "Where is the tax increase to pay for it? We already have a half-a-trillion-dollar deficit. It is not worth bankrupting the country if that's what's going to happen. This president needs to be serious about the budget deficit."

Even if the funds appear -- and the big money could be called for after Bush ends the second term he seeks -- the technical hurdles are considerable.

BACK TO THE FUTURE

Bush's vision includes abandoning winged space planes such as the space shuttle in favor of an updated version of the old Apollo capsule that served NASA in the 1960s and 1970s, congressional sources told Reuters.

"There's been a lot of support for the capsule design in the astronaut office," astronaut-commander Scott Altman recently told Reuters. "It's a safer design."

But getting to the moon again, much less landing there, will not necessarily be easier for having done it nine times between 1968 and 1972, space experts say.

The United States no longer has a rocket powerful enough to launch an Apollo-style moon mission. And although the Saturn 5 moon rocket was developed in just five years, it was dropped from production three years after Neil Armstrong's first moon landing in 1969.

The reality is that a rocket like the Saturn 5 is too powerful and too expensive to build for ordinary commercial and military satellites.

The most powerful rocket in the U.S. arsenal today, the Boeing Delta 4-Heavy, could put about 12 tonnes into lunar orbit, a Boeing Co. spokesman said, less than half the lift needed for a human moon mission. That could mean multiple launches for each mission, increasing the risk of failure.

Safety is generally an impediment to progress in space flight, and seat-of-the-pants flying was more acceptable in Cold War space-race days. Today, NASA does not like surprises. Its response after both the 1986 Challenger disaster and last year's Columbia accident was to limit the conditions and opportunities for lift-off.

"I'm not sure you could get the lunar module (of 1969) approved for flight today. The mission would probably be too risky," Milt Heflin, head of NASA's flight director's office, told Reuters.

Roger Handberg, author of "Reinventing NASA" and a public policy expert focused on space matters, argues the Bush administration is working from a position of weakness, convinced that projects like the shuttle program and the International Space Station have not delivered, but worried that pulling the plug would upset international notions of U.S. primacy.

"Bush is committed to space not because he cares but because he cannot afford to be seen as failing," Handberg told Reuters.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...sh_space_dc_15

There's another article with more details here. As the second article points out, there are other rockets that can lift more weight, but they are European and Russian and NASA might not go for that. Also, the European Arianne 5 does not have a great track record, I'm not sure it would be considered safe enough for a manned launch.

One thing everyone should realize about these projects too is that even the smallest space project can take many years to realize, and much longer than the terms of presidents, congress people and senators, and they are at risk to the political whims of the day throughout their lifetime. It's interesting that Bush may make this an issue, but it doesn't mean it will ever happen. And while a moon mission may be feasible with the technology we have in place today, building an actual base there is a whole different story. And for sending people to Mars ... two-thirds of all unmanned missions sent to land on Mars have failed. The safety concerns for such a mission would be enormous, and would make the trip that much more expensive.

[ 01-10-2004: Message edited Raonaild ]

SuperDeluxe · 01-10-2004, 05:46 PM

Space exploration is one of the few things that glavinises americans, like it did in 1969.

People also need to look at the technology that will become commerical use after being used in space. toothpaste, microwaves, dehdrayted meals, all came because of the space program.

More commerical aspects will come out when we go into space. Not to mention the finds in science and other areaas we might find. and that doesnt even include any minerals or other valuable things on the moon or mars itself.

The earth will always have problems. If we use that as our deteminer to when we can explore space, we will always be stuck on this rock. In fact, since we have so many issues with this planet, it makes sense of a backup plan, just in case something happens to earth.

We shouldnt put all our eggs in one basket [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

*Lauren · 01-10-2004, 06:22 PM

No, we should start taking better care of the planet so we don't have to start looking for a new place to live.

SD I hope you're not right about Bush getting four more years.

Elizajoey · 01-11-2004, 06:30 AM

I think there is better ways to spend money then landing on the moon.

Hello, the pictures told me nothing that I didnt already know in science - Mars is red and has craters and rocks..

I think the US could instead be saving the money to reduce the deficit- the largest in US history is I remember rightyly


Fan Forum > Archived General Discussion > News & Politics > Bush:Men on the Moon 2015, foothold for space exploration