Celestia Forums

If you haven't seen the speech on tv, the main points are here: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0401/14whitehouse/

I'm very impressed with the plans- although we already had a general idea what would be announced. I'm still not certain about whether or not the ISS is worth the money spent on it- but it is good to see that it'll be finished by 2010, and the proposed crew exploration vehicle will be used to ferry crew to it by the time its completed.

The shuttle definitely needs to be retired by 2010 also!

So... Anyone else have any thoughts? This announcement is much more important than GB senior's speech in '89 where he wanted to put people on mars- that was much too ambitious, this one seems more structured & realistic.

Wow...I am simply amazed. After all this time of doubting Bush...I do believe he has done something right.

Let's just hope he follows along with this plan...

I have to wonder what programs are going to be terminated in order to "reallocate" the $11Billion ($1.1e10, that is) that's supposed to be coming out of the current budget...

selden wrote:I have to wonder what programs are going to be terminated in order to "reallocate" the $11Billion ($1.1e10, that is) that's supposed to be coming out of the current budget...

That's the only problem. Bush knows that spending money to send people out to space is important, but he's cannibalizing other things.

Now if only he could cannibalize the war on drugs, the war on terrorism, and welfare...the space program would have all it needs to make a base on the Moon(which would definately make it easier to send a mission to Mars)...but that's not a topic for this site...

NASA spends, and will continue to spend, less than 1 percent of the Federal budget.

Does anyone know how much was being spent at the the peak of the Apollo program?

marc wrote:

NASA spends, and will continue to spend, less than 1 percent of the Federal budget.

Does anyone know how much was being spent at the the peak of the Apollo program?

Around 5-10 percent, if memory serves me correctly.

Wow, quite a difference. I'm looking forward to the next space race. (perhaps to Mars with China). I just hope there is not another weapons race to go along with it.

Another great plan!Congratulations US friends.

Wow, quite a difference. I'm looking forward to the next space race. (perhaps to Mars with China).

My country isn't rich yet. but of course we'll go to moon and visit Mars,too.
a race with US? Probably not,we 'll achive these goal in our pace.accoding to Chinese press,within 3 years we'll sent satelite to moon.a maned flight to moon will carry out around 2020.to mars ? perhaps 2030?I don't know .
but we did have a plan now.

marc wrote:Wow, quite a difference. I'm looking forward to the next space race. (perhaps to Mars with China). I just hope there is not another weapons race to go along with it.

Not to incite any flaming or anything, but it seems as if war makes a great technological leap each time. Look at WW2...we harnessed the power of the atom...all to blow others up. The Cold War? We made the Apollo program to beat Russia to the moon.

Not to say war is a good thing at all...just pointing out a curious coincidence...

Like Divine implied, I am putting all my bets on China to be the first to return to the moon, since they really seem to be making the most progress. Hopefully the US does try to compete with China, as competition can only lead to better things most of the time technologically.

After all this time of doubting Bush...I do believe he has done something right.

Just surfing on the MER wave... He made a nice speech, alright. But every politician does this when faced with internal and international problems. So, for some time, people will look elsewhere...
Although I'm a die-hard believer in the manned exploration of space, I really don't buy this.Perhaps the Chinese are more serious, considering that their leaders don't have any serious (re)election problem. After all, in ancient times, the chinese where the most technologically advanced. It's time for them to give up their isolationism.

At present time, western countries are to obsessed with their petty problems to consider big idealistic long-term plans.

Like Divine implied, I am putting all my bets on China to be the first to return to the moon

I don't mean that China will surpass US in space exploration.A race with US is neither affordable nor practical to us.We have many promble, too.We can't spend large portion of budget on space exploration while somewhere,children still too poor to get educated.The purpose of our space program at present ,in your goverment office's words,is to show we're there,too. or in our words is to take a seat in this field (like in a conference,if I had a seat by the table,then I can speak out my opinion,and you must listen.In Chinese this is "占有一席之地").The most important thing to us now ,is not to unite TaiWan,is not to explore mars.It is to develop.If we became much stronger and much richer,all the promble could get a much easier solution.Thank you for paying attention to my nation's space program,I'm feeling proud.

Just surfing on the MER wave... He made a nice speech, alright. But every politician does this when faced with internal and international problems. So, for some time, people will look elsewhere...
Although I'm a die-hard believer in the manned exploration of space, I really don't buy this.

This was suggested in the British media, certainly on a couple of news channels I was watching the (British) morning after Bush's announcement...
...but, how 'popular' has the announcement been in the States? It could do Bush more harm than good if people think he's talking bulls**t ! Or seen to be taking valuable funds out of the budget.
On one of the British 24 hour news channels (ITV NEWS) I was watching, they even had a phone in vote to whether it was right or wrong for the US government to spend money on sending a manned mission to Mars. Unfortunately I didn't see the result. Did anybody else see the outcome?
Seems that our media is very concerned about this.

Has there been anything similar done in the States, to show public opinion ?

My personal opinion is that his announcement is like most politicians words, a half truth! Some of it is realistic, ie the scrapping and replacement of the shuttle, and completion of the ISS, while other parts, such as setting a date for a return to the moon, I'm not too sure about and think is just pure fantasy.

regards
TERRIER

One of the (many) things that distress me about the situation is the apparent assumption that the total cost of the ISS will go to 0 when it has been completed. That'll only happen if it's promptly abandoned.

Like for the Hubble telescope, ongoing maintenance and support flights will still be incredibly expensive, whether they use the shuttle or not. Only the construction costs will be eliminated.

selden wrote:One of the (many) things that distress me about the situation is the apparent assumption that the total cost of the ISS will go to 0 when it has been completed. That'll only happen if it's promptly abandoned.

Like for the Hubble telescope, ongoing maintenance and support flights will still be incredibly expensive, whether they use the shuttle or not. Only the construction costs will be eliminated.

The cost won't drop to 0, obviously, but it will still be far less expensive to launch the new proposed craft, as opposed to the shuttle which currently costs something like $450 million per launch...? Also, a new vehicle will be multipurpose, able to go to both LEO, the moon, etc. (just like Apollo) so you won't need to have multiple launch systems for different kinds of spacecraft...

Anyone know how much it costs to maintain the ISS currently, if you don't include shuttle or construction costs...?

TERRIER wrote:My personal opinion is that his announcement is like most politicians words, a half truth! Some of it is realistic, ie the scrapping and replacement of the shuttle, and completion of the ISS, while other parts, such as setting a date for a return to the moon, I'm not too sure about and think is just pure fantasy.

Clearly some of it is electioneering- Kennedy made his speech the year he was elected, not 10 months before a re-election... But NASA really does need some kind of mission where they're going somewhere- not just the ISS which circles around & around... I just think that a moon base is the next logical step after a base in LEO.

The budget for ISS drops to 0 in 2017, which is probably close to what it would have been anyway. The budget sand-bar chart is available in PDF here

NASA Reorganizes to Address Bush's Moon/Mars Plan Nasa has reorganized some of its top management to focus on President Bush 's newly-announced plan to send humans to the moon and Mars, the U.S. space agency said on Thursday.
The reorganization began more than a year ago, but was made public one day after Bush unveiled his plan to establish a base on the moon by 2020 and eventually send people to Mars.

U.S. Allowing Hubble Telescope to Degrade
The Hubble Space Telescope will be allowed to degrade and eventually become useless, as NASA changes focus to President Bush plans to send humans to the moon, Mars and beyond, officials said

NASA canceled all space shuttle servicing missions to the Hubble

and to the heart of the matter...

U.S. Eyes Space as Possible Battleground
President Bush 's plan to expand the exploration of space parallels U.S. efforts to control the heavens for military, economic and strategic gain.

At the end of the day it will be political choices by governments, not technology, that determines if the nearly 50- year taboo against arming the heavens remains in place,

One unspoken motivation may have been China's milestone launch in October of its first piloted spaceflight in earth orbit and its announced plan to go to the moon.

The moon, scientists have said, is a source of potentially unlimited energy in the form of the helium 3 isotope

Personally, I think Agent Smith was right, when talking to Morpheus after capturing him, in the the first Matrix film ... "humans are a virus". We just happen to be the largest (physically) virus currently on the Earth.

Will mankind ever PROVE it's self-claimed "intelligence", by working together and helping one another, on a planet-wide basis, instead of simply doing it for pure greed? I doubt it <frown>, which in my mind makes nearly every other species on Earth MORE intelligent than mankind.

Intelligence is not about thinking up and creating "things". Or about "space exploration" -- which is government funded for nothing more than pure greed and control (occupation, defense, commercialization, testing). So, pretty soon, all of the world's big powers will add yet one more "service" to their military service lists, Space Force, right along with Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and whatever else.

Imagine, for just one moment, what Earth would be like if for the next 100 years:

* ALL governments agreed to a BAN on ALL hostilities against any other nation, under punishment of death for the ENTIRE government.

* ALL governments agreed to convert their military troops to humanitarian services (food and medical supply collection and distribution, building infrastructure, homes, etc.)

* ALL governments agreed to POOL ALL MONEY currently being spent on EVERYTHING to do with military funding (except troops, which are now re-deployed in other jobs), to medical research, with ALL results being SHARED EQUALLY.

* ALL governments agreed to POOL ALL MONEY currently being spent on aerospace programs -- yes, air and space -- on CLEANING UP our air and space, and ground! With ALL results being equally shared.

* ALL governments agreed to put to death, anyone planning or taking part in any act of terrorism or murder.

What do you think would be the results at the end of 100 years?

WHY do this?

Because we spent the last 100 years turning our planet into a JUNK HEAP, on and under the surface, in the air, and in orbit. We have been eating and breathing the results of our LACK of intelligence and have created a SICKLY race of human beings, that are getting worse.

If we keep up the way we've been going, we won't have to worry about being destroyed by an asteroid hitting Earth, or a nuclear war, or terrorism. We are killing ourselves, simply by eating poisoned food and breathing poisoned air. Gee, that's real intelligent, huh? About as intelligent as Lemmings running off a cliff to their death in the sea!

Oh well, it'll never happen, so why bother even dreaming about it? We'll go on killing each other for the fun of it until we're all too sick to kill anymore. Then some other species, (rats and cockroaches?) will eat us and that will be the end <laughing>.

Good plan, but it's our way of thinking that needs to change : if we change that, we won't have to use the death penalties that you propose.

...under punishment of death for the ENTIRE government

A clean and peaceful world where we would have to resort to these measures would be perhaps even more pathologically wrong than our present society. And killing those criminals wouldn't do us any good. It's better to try to heal the gangrene before cutting down the limb, isn't it ?
But this is no political thread... Or is it ?

Political?

Well, when one country says it will go to the moon, then another country says it will go *back* to the moon *before* that time, this seems to make it political <sigh>. It just doesn't make sense, to me, except to DOMINATE SPACE <BIG FROWN>. It's just a waste of money to have every different country on Earth doing the same thing -- the race to dominate space.

My goofy idea was no more than a plan to take what is probably the highest ranking expenditure of most countries (military) and spend it on something a bit more useful and lasting (medical), along with pooling resources to clean up the mess we've already made of this planet and the space surrounding it -- BEFORE doing anything further out in space. Yes, it's a goofy plan, and a drastic one too.

As for gangrene, that's what laws and the world's prison system are all about. Have they worked? NO! Prisons are overflowing, beyond capacity, and nobody wants to build more (takes money) and nobody wants them "in their back yard".

To get the attention of a human being, one needs to threaten their life (death) or their pocketbook (money). Since most people who commit terrorism and/or murder don't have a lot of money, SURE DEATH seems to be the thing that might stop them. Yeah, I know, just another goofy idea.

don wrote:Since most people who commit terrorism and/or murder don't have a lot of money, SURE DEATH seems to be the thing that might stop them.

We are in luck that this stops them - otherwise we would have to deal with a strange phenomenon called 'suizide assault'.

maxim