I agree with Bush on space exploration

[funkyflathead]

Does that make me bad?

No.

Going to Mars would be awesome and the Moon should be declared an International Peace Zone- no military stuff whatsoever.

Just peaceful research.

[Salviati]

1. I am all for space exploration...

But given bushs track record so far, I think I can say I'm against any proposal of his. Either he'll promise the moon and deliver nothing in terms of funding, or if it is funded it will be as a vehicle for funneling money to his corporate cronies in the MIC...

[Media_Lies_Daily]

2. How do you plan to pay for it?...

You do understand that the NeoCons have already drained us dry, don't you?

[brainshrub]

3. A new tax that would work as follows:

Every time Bush says something stupid, everyone making more than $1 billion a year would have to pay $1 dollar.

With that kind of tax, we'd be able to fund a colony on the surface of the sun.

[oostevo]

4. Sure, but ...

Space exploration always brings with it technological advances, and it usually benefits the economy, so I agree with you, but ...

- Bush is doing this as a campaign move to demonstrate that he has 'vision'. There's no way he plans on implementing this.
- This would cost us waaay too much money (the price he quoted was kinda' high, too). An international effort (like the one seen on the space station) would be far better and more economical.
- There's no way Bush is going to leave the military out of this. He loves the military, and favors the idea of militarization of space.

[Webster Green]

9. You got it!

Rove IS a genius. This is another PR stunt & part of the re-selection strategy. I am fanatical for space exploration. I love to tour the Kennedy Space Center. I've driven to the space coast to watch shuttles take off. Normally I would be very excited about this announcement, but considering the source, I am skeptical, to say the least. This is a no lose strategy for the chimp. Even if he gets elected, he will never have to deliver on this bold plan to return to the moon and put men on mars. He will have long since been back in Crawford pretending to clear brush before any of this even begins to be implemented. In the meantime he can appear to be a leader with this great vision for the future. If it is for real, then its about weapons, his buddies getting rich, you know, the usual stuff.

[LeighAnn]

11. Sickening article from last month's Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A36960-2003Dec4

Friday, December 5, 2003; Page A01


President Bush's aides are considering a new lunar exploration program and other unifying national goals, including a campaign to promote longevity or fight childhood illness or hunger, as they sift ideas for a fresh agenda for the final year of his term, administration officials said yesterday.
(snip)
One person consulted by the White House said some aides appear to relish the idea of a "Kennedy moment" for Bush, referring to the 1962 call by President John F. Kennedy for the nation to land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth by the end of the decade

[Webster Green]

12. On CNN last nite they were showing Kennedy's picture as....

they talked about our leader's bold new plan for the future. I found it very insulting.

:eyes: :puke:

[bigtree]

5. Where does the fuel come from?

A trip to Mars will require a new (unproven) nuclear propulsion system which intends to utilize a new generation of blended, reconstituted nuclear fuels. These fuels will have to be produced somewhere. New nuclear plants are envisioned which will produce these new generation fuels. Not coincidently they will be dual-use facilities which will also produce the next generation of tactical, mini-nukes. Coincidence?

The push by this White House is intended to usher in a new militization of space. The technologies employed in the Mars mission and later in the Jupiter Icy Moons project are intended to prove the technology for the next-generation space arms race: Space-based platforms with nuclear powered lasers.

http://www.space4peace.org/ (Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space)

[i_am_not_john_galt]

13. "mini-nukes" - the iNuke!

Coming soon...

[corporatewhore]

6. its not rocket sciennce to fund programs here on earth that are failing

like schools veterans benefits health care etc before going to the final frontier

[TexasMexican]

21. Exploring Space is more important than healthcare and veterans benefits...

althought its not more important than education.

[camero]

7. It would be nice

If people didn't have to go without for us to go there. Let's stay on earth until we get that straigthened out at least in a minimal way.

[CHIMO]

8. Agree

And we should establish a star wars environment around the moon to protect it from itself.

You have my vote. FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH>

[burrowowl]

10. I agree with space exploration

but not with Bu$h, he and his cohorts want to militarize space.

[Norquist Nemesis]

16. EXACTLY!!!

I must be having a PNAC attack tonight...I posted the link on another thread but PNAC wants him to
"calls for the creation of 'US Space Forces', to dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to prevent 'enemies' using the internet against the US;"

http://democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=308607#308859

[Dookus]

14. I agree with you, funky...

but you won't find too much agreement here. It seems even a good idea becomes a bad idea when it comes out of Bush's mouth.

I'd like to see things like space exploration taken out of the partisan political realm. There's nothing inherently Republican or Democratic about it. I think it's something we should all be able to get behind.

[pmbryant]

17. So why do you believe him?

We know his modus operandi policy-wise is to say something that the public likes, and then do his own thing behind-the-scenes.

I've already read (in wire service articles) that the plan is to get NASA to drop or scale back all its activities that are not supportive of this ridiculous Moon/Mars stunt.

That would decimate a huge amount of real, fascinating science being done by NASA.

And that would happen right away.

:grr:

--Peter

[Dookus]

18. I'm not saying I believe him...

I'm saying the idea itself is something we should all support.

And I think we SHOULD reduce funding on the shuttle and ISS missions - they're not terribly productive.

I believe we've failed to stretch ourselves for the last 30 years. We never should've cut back on exploration. Now China has given us a kick in the ass.

I don't support George W. Bush. But I support this idea. The Democrats should make SURE he funds it. It's the right thing to do, regardless of who proposes it.

These missions can take decades. We can't have stop-and-go support of them depending on who's residing in the White House. This is bigger than today's partisan politics.

[pmbryant]

19. Science, not the shuttle

Cutting all NASA programs that do not support a manned trip to the Moon and/or Mars would kill far more than just the shuttle and ISS, which, I agree, are near worthless. I don't think those would be killed anyway (At least not for a few years) under this guideline, as they will be the only vehicles for manned flight anytime in the foreseeable future.

This guideline, instead, would cripple or kill virtually all the science programs NASA is doing. That is the real valuable, inspiring work that is being done by NASA these days.

Why is this the right thing to do? Do you realize how much it will cost? Up to a Trillion dollars, apparently! Unless that money is taken from somewhere else, it will further bankrupt this country. And if the money is taken from somewhere else, you can bet it won't be from the Pentagon or corporate subsidies as long as the GOP controls Congress.

You can also bet with the GOP running things that whatever money does get spent on this will be turned into pork and little else. Remember how the Space Station project has turned out: about 5-10 times over Reagan's original cost estimate, and over 12 years late, despite being scaled back from a large, ambitious space base, to a mere cramped, leaky box.

This is the reality of "ambitious" space programs under GOP leadership.

--Peter

[Malva Zebrina]

22. A Republican caller on C-Span yesterday had the answer

he suggested privatizing the venture and having people buy stocks or bonds in the company doing the space trip. :eyes:

This was in response to a previous caller from Pennsyvania who went berserk over the costs of Bush's preposterous bloviating.

[Printer70]

15. I'm willing to "break the surly bonds" of partisanship

...and second that motion. This is visionary and something future generations will remember ours by.

[Lexingtonian]

20. You're bad!

Going to Mars would be awesome and the Moon should be declared an International Peace Zone- no military stuff whatsoever.

Actually, the Earth is a pretty nice planet. Easily the nicest one in the solar system. At least that's what the astronauts who came back from the Moon all said.

I think you found exactly the right word in "awesome". But the deal is that I don't think we really care about any other piece of rock orbiting the sun at all: we want to be awed, feel awe, and that's about the real extent of it. We generated a perceived need to go to the Moon as an excuse to indulge in the same in 1960- but the space historians I have read say it wouldn't have happened, except that competitiveness with the Russians provided a political excuse to spend that hugh amount of money and effort on it.

The Moon was studied as a place to locate a military base in the 1960s. It turns out to not have any meaningful advantages- it will always be at least 10x farther away from 'targets' than any stationing of equipment or men in low Earth orbit or anywhere on the Earth's surface will ever be. It is poor for reconnaissance purposes and bad for weapons stationing. A single ICBM strike could easily wipe out all functioning of any colony on it.

I've wondered for a long time whether rocket launches might not be the true reason for the problems with the ozone layer. It seems worth considering.

Going to Mars seems somehow inevitable. It's out there and almost within grasp, it taunts us enough that someone is going to go eventually. I'm just not convinced that the best time to try is right away. If we don't go during the next century, is that some kind of profound failure or loss? Or will the first guy climbing out of the spacecraft look around and say "%$#&, this is just like southern Nevada without the sagebrush and it's 40 million miles to the next resort casino"?