I don't understand why we are going back to the moon

[ringmastery]

We've been there done that. Is there a reason?

If we want to go to Mars in 20-30 years, great, spend the money on research and developing the technologies to get us to Mars.

Spending money on the moon is a waste. Is the reason just because the Chinese are going? That's really lame.

[Frangible]

Science and progress is never a waste

Just cause Bush supports it doesn't automatically make it bad. I'm all for space exploration. After all, it *is* the final frontier. A moon base would be a launching point for many other missions. We can learn so much and work together with other nations in peace to achieve our goals.

[stevedeshazer]

22. This is why

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=998949

[Dookus]

27. So you believe

that as long as the US refuses to fund space exploration, that space will never be militarized?

I disagree.

We have treaties already on that subject. If they're not good enough, we need better ones.

But SOMEBODY is going to explore space. Why not us?

[stevedeshazer]

32. Where did I say that?

No, I don't believe that. I'm not sure why you would think that.

I'm all for exploration. Do you think that's why Bush is making this proposal? They don't give a damn about the moon or Mars, unless they've found oil there.

It's politics and militarization, not exploration. You can take that to the bank.

[Dookus]

33. And Mercury and Apollo

had essentially the same motivation. Nonetheless, the payoffs were enormous.

I've said repeatedly that if the existing treaties covering the militarization of space are inadequate, then we need to strengthen them.

But I'm not going to reject a great idea because a republican proposed it.

[stevedeshazer]

34. Did you even read the post?

Your response has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted, so I have no idea why you are taking this approach.

But while you bring up treaties, what does history tell us about Bush and treaties?

[Dookus]

36. Yes, of course I read your post.

I apologize for pissing you off. It was unintentional, I assure you.

I think we have to weigh two major issues: the militarization of space vs. the benefits of space exploration.

I think we agree that militarizing space is a bad idea, and is something we should work against. It is my understanding that we already have treaties addressing the issue, and if they're not strong enough, we need more. I am just as opposed to the mlitarization of space as you are, I assure you.

That said, I don't want to reject any chance to advance exploration because we fear militarization. Personally, I would prefer that all exploration be done under the auspices of the United Nations. I'd like to see us decide NOW that we will explore space as EARTHLINGS, not as Americans or Chinese, or Russians.

But I'm not going to reject any real chance to resume a serious space program. I think it's long overdue.

[stevedeshazer]

37. Wasn't pissed

Just didn't understand. I see we are mostly in agreement.

[Occulus]

47. Since when have the peopl currently in charge

held themselves to an agreement when it ceases to act in their interests?

[Dookus]

48. *shrug*

I don't reject every idea that comes from republicans.

I can guarantee you I hate Bush as much as you do. But in this case, he's right. Space exploration needn't be a partisan issue.

[sendero]

57. Because...

... we have a 500 billion dollar deficit, a 5 trillion dollar debt, and this program will cost a trillion dollars.

We have a NASA that cannot even successfully manage a shuttle program.

We have a president with delusions of JFK-hood.

Sorry, Earth is fucked up enough, we are in no position to do this at the present time.

[Dookus]

60. we'll just have to disagree on this...

Every dollar spent on space exploration comes back to us many times over.

There is so much we can learn about physics, chemistry, physiology, biology, and even anatomy, via the space program.'

Every dollar spent there-in is well-spent.

[wegottem]

59. the moon and green cheese

we need lots of exploration here on earth, medicine at a cost that is reasonable. Roads, schools,jobs. Not shoot money into space. I would agree to it if Bush was going, but no other way until other things are taken care of.

[are_we_united_yet]

74. Uhhhhh...

Nice try.

[maggrwaggr]

1. ??? It's a freaking photo op

that's all. He can have his photo taken at NASA shaking hands with scientists and engineers with a big ol' banner behind him that says "BACK TO THE MOON" or some kind of bullshit.

Bush does things for two reasons only.

1. Photo ops.

2. To help corporations, even when they don't want the help.

That's it.

[GregW]

2. The reason is because Kennedy did it ...

... and somehow Bush equates his pig farm with Camelot.

[Dookus]

3. We're not getting to Mars...

until we get back to the moon.

Plus, there's still literally a world of information to be learned on the moon.

We never should've STOPPED going to the moon. This is just righting something that went wrong 30 years ago.

Few of your federal tax dollars are better spent than on those spent on the space program. It has the biggest bang for the buck than almost anything else.

The SHUTTLE program was the biggest waste. It was only marginally useful.

To infinity and beyond!

[lazarus]

4. It's very simple

They could care less about the moon. Remember, these people will never, ever, ever tell you the real goal up front. You have to dig just a little bit to find it.

In this case, here's the real goal, from the article originally posted in LBN:

"Congressional sources said the administration was also considering setting up a more streamlined hierarchy for guiding the government's wide-ranging space programs and coordinating its research and development.

Under this scenario, there could be more exchanges of technology between NASA and the Defense Department. "

PNAC has been advocating the militarisation of space for years.

[TexasPatriot]

5. HE-3 for fusion

its the only reason worth going...

but as i understand it, shrub wants to build a manned base to make a mars shot easier... ambitious - though i think maybe Karl left the Space-1999 reruns on in the Oval Office one too many times.

[ringmastery]

6. manned base is interesting

if they build a lunar telescope, there is the chance for some awesome astronomy without the Earth's atmosphere in the way.

[Dookus]

8. nope...

there are countless reasons for going.

I'm sorry that because a republican president proposes it, it somehow becomes less valuable.

Our future is in space. In my mind, that's not even debatable. We are an exploring species, and everything we learn about our universe is invaluable.

We should've never stopped going to the moon. Had we not walked away from the space program 30 years ago, we'd already have a permanent base there and we'd probably be planning manned missions to Mars.

Disclaiimer: I've read about TWO sci-fi books in my lifetime. I just believe exploration and discovery are some of the greatest attributes of mankind.

[xxqqqzme]

7. squatter needs a distraction

and another venue 2 line the pockets of his corporate contributors. Like his inquiring, scientific mind needs to reach out....Whatever the current spin is...who knows. I just want 2 know where the money is coming from 2 pay 4 this? Like last years SOTU, it gives the whorporate media something 2 rave about (Aids/Africa) but will B yet ANOTHER unfunded throw away. BSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBSBS

[Dookus]

9. You would be very

hard-pressed to find a tax dollar that has a higher return than those spent on the space program.

It's impossible to even list the benefits we've accrued from it. I hope to see someday a worldwide space program that benefits all nations. I'm sorry we took a hiatus from it for this long.

[salin]

10. Three reasons that I can think of:

1. BIG contracts for cronies - corps who will get HUGE windfalls.

2. Back in the space game, it becomes easier to "militarize" space (get more weapons up there) which is a desire of the neocons/pnac-ers.

3. Create such a budget crisis that social funding eventually has to be slashed altogether (close pres advisor grover norquist believes that there should be NO social spending in the budget at all.)

[Dookus]

13. We already

have treaties about the militarization of space. We need to strengthen them to ensure this doesn't happen.

The space program is peanuts compared to the real money being spent. Furthermore, the space program actually PAYS OFF! It's the best example of funding basic research, that is, research that has a payoff we can't predict going into it.

It's not a zero sum game. People act is if we could've canceled the $800 million Mars Spirit rover and used that money to feed the poor.

I believe that's short-sighted. The payoff of the Spirit will be worth a helluva lot more than $800 million.

It's an investment in mankind's future. And it's one that has a really high likelihood of paying off.

[salin]

17. Was responding to why BUSH of the party that oft tries to cut NASA

wants to do this. Be careful of jumping on a program before understanding its real design and motives. I don't disagree with you in an theoretical view. I do caution jumping on this bandwagon. Bush hasn't any track record of doing the right thing for scientific research (or other big toals) - but has a HUGE record of finding ways to give huge $$$ to his buddies.

[wuushew]

23. I support the space program but

I really challange you to make a case for the cost effectiveness of the current manned space program. The shuttle is an expensive piece of junk. The next big leaps in astromony will be made with interferometer telescopes either earthbased or in orbit like hubble. There is no need to build them on the moon. As a base the lack of hydrogen makes it a real chore to haul from Earth for water, fuel and construction. Read Robert Zubrin's "The Case for Mars" going to Mars is actually much easier as a straight shot from Earth as opposed to setting up on the moon first.

[Dookus]

29. I stated elsewhere in this thread

that I was less than enamored with the shuttle program and the ISS.

I think the moon IS potentially a very interesting place, scientifically, to explore more. And naturally, Mars.

I think setting up a (semi) permanent station on the moon would've given us invaluable information and experience for doing the same on mars.

[fabius]

11. To distract our attention from the Earth?

I mean why does Bush* do anything? To divert your attention while he does somethign else abominable.

I'm all for it if he'll cancel the unworkable anti-missile system to pay for it.

[WilliamPitt]

12. Three words

Militarization of space.

Or one word:

China.

[Dookus]

18. I'm sorry you feel that way, Will....

to me, it's self-evident that the space program more than pays for itself in the technological and scientific returns on our investment.

Is militarization of space an important issue? Absolutely. We already have treaties on it. If theyr'e not strong enough, then we need better treaties.

But we will not remain an earth-bound species. We cannot. If we have any dreams of maintaining humanity in the long term, then we will expand outward. It's undeniable.

Plus, in the 60's I was promised a hovercar by the 21st Century and we still don't have one!

[WilliamPitt]

21. I agree with all of that

but if you think these guys are doing this based on the Star Trek ethic, you're dreaming.

[Dookus]

30. heheh...

I stated elsewhere I've read no more than two sci-fi books in my lifetime. I sorta liked the original star trek, but never watched any of the others.

I'm not a space-geek.

But I *AM* a great fan of science, and a great fan of human exploration.


If the treaties active today are inadequate, then let's fix them ASAP. But rejecting an opportunity to really make huge technological and scientific strides because it's posed by a republican is short-sighted.

[Squeegee]

41. Here's some Sci-Fi you should read then...

http://www.crazy-noodle.de/starship_troopers.pdf

;-)

[Dookus]

42. oh, don't YOU start with me...

or I'll spank the hell outta ya :)

*smoooch*

[Squeegee]

43. You're so romantic!

:pals:

[Dookus]

46. You are gonna get SUCH a spanking...

when you get home! :spank:

[newyawker99]

61. Hi Squeegee!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[JHB]

58. The only ethic that has Chim-Chim's mouth flapping on this is

1) the Photo op
2) the contract-handing potential.

Even militarization & china are just excuses for the above two.

Given his track record, cuts for NASA are more likely than expansion.

[rman]

69. If NASA is cut any further, they'll have to start lay off lower management

or maybe offshored or insourced.

[MrBenchley]

62. I'm afraid you're right

Although a civilian moonbase would do a lot of good things for this country...

What also alarms me is that this is going to be additional taxpayer load, instead of replacing some Pentagon boondoggles and suet.

[bigtree]

14. space-based platforms

nuclear lasers

[IndianaGreen]

15. China is going to the Moon

This sudden interest in the Moon is a knee-jerk reaction to China's space program, which has the goal of building a Moon base within the next twenty years.

[Dookus]

20. Good...

it was Sputnik that inspired us to go to the moon in the first place. Scientific competition between nations is a great driving force for discovery. We need more of it.

[IndianaGreen]

26. Unlike President Kennedy, Bush is interested in militarizing space

The Moon as a future weapons platform for a new generation of super lasers and other nasty stuff.

[Dookus]

35. If you think

Kennedy was unconcerned about the military aspects of space exploration, you have a rather small vision of history.

The fact that the Russians were first to space was the driving force of the US space program.

[hellhathnofury]

16. Will there be a space suit Bush doll?

Re-election.

[TexasMexican]

19. I'm all for returning to the Moon.

There are alot of things that we can do there.

IMO it probably would have been alot more simpler to build a moon base than the ISS, althought it probably would have cost more we probably would have gotten more science out of it.

If we ever want to colonize other words we will have to start with our own moon.

Hell I even support whatever militaristic aspects this thing has. Slap a laser on it and call it a "death star," I dont really care, just do something.

[Dookus]

24. LOL...

I agree with you, Tex (obviously).

I remember as an elementary school student in the 60's, having tv's wheeled into our classroom so we could watch every Apollo takeoff. I remember my parents waking me up in the middle of the night to watch the first men walk on the moon. At that time, it felt that anything was possible.

Unfortunately, we walked away from the space program and focused on the stupid shuttle and ISS. They're not BAD ideas, but they don't compensate for real exploration.

[LastDemocratInSC]

25. China, as other have said ...

I have enough national pride to know that whatever those red devils can do, we can do better, or something like that.

Seriously, I do not want our nation to be trumped in space - more than we already have been by everyone else

The Chinese see themselves as an emerging superpower - as if they haven't been a superpower in the distant past. The rest of the world sees this too, as do so many American industries moving their operations there to be close to their customers, who happen to be their producers of choice, as well. I have read that WalMart (puke) has moved their central purchasing operations from San Francisco to China for the same reasons.

I want our nation to be the best at something. If the Chinese say that they are going to the moon, I want a welcoming party of Americans on the moon to greet them. I grew up during the glory days of American space dominance and don't want us to lose that.

I think it's just absurd that we are giving the Chinese so much technology and industry and such a huge portion of our economy when we may well square off against them within 100 years in a war of global domination.

Well, that's what I, and my two best friends, Ernest and Julio Gallo think. Enough said, we all say.

Good night.

[Dookus]

31. heheh...

I agree with your basic premise.

I said before that national competition is a great way to advance science. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, we've become complacent.

I welcome a technological threat - it means we'll do better in the future.

[Leilani]

28. It's to look for the WMD's

Cause we're sure not gonna find them in Iraq.

[Cocoa]

38. this is just material for the State of the Union

what else is he going to talk about? His real agenda?

[Afraid of My Shadow]

39. we are not going back to the moon

It's not going to happen. The country and the world will come to the consensus that this moon s**t of Bush's is a self-aggrandizing boondoggle. It'll help get his ass out of the WH and sent tuck-tailed back to Crawford.

[Dookus]

40. I think... and hope... that you are wrong.

Will Bush use it for political gain? Of course he will. But ya know what? Some Dem should've gotten out in front of him on the issue.

But nobody did. We gave the issue to him, and if it's a good idea, we should be behind it. I'd hate to let partisan politics ruin a good opportunity.

[Afraid of My Shadow]

66. "if it's a good idea, we should be behind it" I agree absolutely:

but it's not a good idea. IMO. Why? A long forgotten rock musician, obscure even in his own time, wrote, "You say, 'we beat the Russians to the moon;' I say, you starved your children to do it."

[wuushew]

67. The Apollo program was a very small piece of the budget

and had a great return on investment. What destroyed Amerika was the Vietnam War, which proved Johnson wrong by increasing the national debt and causing inflation. You could not have "guns and butter".

[Afraid of My Shadow]

70. didn't know this -- a few questions

The Apollo program was part of defense? Were Mercury & Gemini as well? I can see why it would've been in the beginning (the Mercury project) because of the red scare. Was it inertia that kept it in defense? Then NASA is part of the DOD? I admit I don't know and want to learn.

I still think it's a boondoggle but want more information.

[Cat Atomic]

44. I don't care why Bush wants to do it.

I'll be happy to see the space program become a priority again. That stuff is permanently impressive. Bush is a temporary problem.

[Dookus]

45. Thank you Cat....

our nation's long-term obligations have little to do with any current president.

As I said earlier, it's a shame no Democrat got out in front of Bush on this issue. But none did, so he gets to claim it.

I blame the Dems for that, not GWB.

[fujiyama]

63. You're right...

The dems dropped the ball on this. It would be one thing if many of the democratic candidates had said similar things, but the media had simply ignored them (which they usually do), but in this case the democrats have not pushed enough for further space exploration.

Sure, almost all the candidates have proposed a "new manhattan project" or a new "mission to the moon on earth" related to alternative fuels. That's great and everything, and it's absolutely vital for national security, but for many it doesn't have the same resounding impact as manned (and even unmanned) space exploration.

I'm sure Bush is doing this for PR and I don't believe for a second anyone in his administration has any genuine interest in space exploration, but I must say this is a brilliant move by Karl Rove, because if called upon properly in an inspiring way (unlikely to happen from this president, who is VERY uninspiring), I think space exploration will resonate with many Americans.

A moon base, at least in theory, seems like a much more of a permanent installation in space, than the ISS (which has plagued with many problems from the begining). The ISS has been a big dissapointment, and it hasn't proven to be very inspiring or exciting, and I'm not sure, the way it's been run, the scientific knowledge gained is terribly useful.

So, I guess, if Bush* administration actually is serious about this, then it would be the first major policy related issue, I would actually sort of agree with. But I somehow believe that this is one of those things Rove comes up in the back room, even if it may sound sort of farfetched.

[radfringe]

49. Bush* Inc have been reading DU posts?

over the past year, on more than one occassion, I posted comments about the need for a national goal. One of the suggestions was a manned-mars landing.

I pointed out how going to the moon lead to new technologies, and that this helped our economy as well as our lives - additionally it would give us all something to rally around and could be a unifying issue

Seems to me that Bush* Inc. may have been reading these posts -- if so watch for these talking points when Bush* reads his speech and moons America
- new technologies
- national goal
- new jobs
- boosting the economy
- American Pride
- how the world our determination to work towards a peaceful future


(I had also suggested a national goal of breaking the oil habit and developing alternate fuel sources - but that would cut into Bush*'s buddies profits)

[Snappy]

50. The Man In the Moon

Ever notice that just about every program Dubya endorses he
cuts funding on? I strongly suspect that this is merely
another thing that K. Rove told Dubya to jump on. Looks great
for the campaign. 

Sure going to the moon would be cool. We have the money to
spend?
The long term goal is to have a place where the super wealthy
can go when the ruin this planet. 

[drscm]

51. Easy to answer. It is better to fight the terra-ists there

than in our own country.

Or is it part of the "new" starwars program?

Maybe they're exploring new markets for Enron, or there looking to see if they can find a new labor market in which to export more jobs.

The environment on both of these "planets" is pristine and just begging to be destroyed.

_______
It's hard to be cynical when reality trumps it.

[kcwayne]

52. American corporations need military protection overseas

As corporations move their production assets into whatever farflung corner of the earth that has a labor force ripe for exploitation, the military must be in a position to defend those assets easily.

Americans are becoming far less willing to lose their lives and become impoverished on behalf of a government that is shilling for the interests of the few. The future military must function without dependence on foot soldiers that are costly and unreliable.

The technology spinoffs of space investment in communications, lasers, and surveillance have enormous potential in military systems for monitoring and for force projection from space.

From Gemini to Star Wars, space programs have always been dominated by military planners and the military is the primary justification for the funding behind the programs. This time is no different.

[phillybri]

53. He needs something new in his SOTU to take the focus off Iraq...

The sheeple will eat it up, even though we can't afford it, and there's no real practical purpose for doing so. How about we make this fucking planet safe?

John Glenn said we should fully utilize the int'l space station before we get off on a massive tangent like this...

[blindpig]

55. yup

these idiots never spare a dollar when it comes to Their politics.

[jpgray]

54. Can you say: graft, Star Wars and "Starving the beast"? I knew you could

Anyone who says this has anything to do with science or exploration is experiencing a curious form of delusion.

[Dookus]

56. ya know....

I'm trying to come up with a nice way to say "screw you all" but I'm sorta stuck.

There are ideals that are good and ideals that are bad. You're all twisting yourself into knots to put a bad spin on this. Screw you all.

Yes, it sucks that Bush is proposing this. But it's not HIS fault, it's OUR fault. Clinton should've set a national space-exploration goal. He never did. One of the current candidates could've done it - none of them did.

The dems were cowards on the issue, Bush grabbed it, and Zeus bless him, he may do something about it. And I hope he does. ANY President who supports the space program is doing the right thing, regardless of his party.

[Fleshdancer]

64. I'm less concerned about sending scientists to the moon or to mars...

and more concerned about sending sick Americans to the doctor. The richest nation in the world has absolutely no reason not to insure its citizens.

[TexasMexican]

72. I'm more concerned with sending Americans to the moon.

America definately could use a better healthcare system, but expanding into space is far more important than health care.

Even with some utopian health care system everyone is still going to die eventually (unless we somehow lean the secret to immortality), so for all that money you are still going to end up in the grave.

For that same money and several years you would have a permenant human presence offword which will definately be much more useful if the shit ever hit the fan down here on Earth.

[watercolors]

65. Purely a political move

Would love to see our space program pick up again, hubby spent 30 yrs with the program at KSC. However it is far more important that we get the space station finished! Bush will never follow thru with this, just another empty statement!!!

[rman]

68. "Unilateralism goes to space" :

EE Times
may 19, 2003
http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20030519S0030
Unilateralism goes to space
"Under policy of 'negation', US prepares to keep other nations from
near-Earth orbits, blocking communications, intelligence gathering.

..Rumsfeld Commission Report in national security in space...
..National Reconnaisance Office is talking openly with US Air Force
Space Command about actively denying the use of space for intelligence
purposes to any other nation at any time - not just adversaries, but
even long time allies, according to NRO director Peter Teets"


Otoh if ever we'd ever go to mars, it'd make sense to start with the moon for testing purposes. Also astronomers have plans for huge telescopes on the moon that couldn't be made on earth.
But all that is no reason to push for it now. I'd suggest we wait untill we'r done with all these wars and have put the crooks behind bars.

[KansDem]

71. Perhaps Bush wants to make it into one big 1st Amendment Zone (eom)

[RobinA]

73. We're Not Going Back to the Moon

This is just a campaign stunt to give people the idea that Bush knows there's a sky above. Sounds bold and adventuresome. It also recalls Camelot for those who are old enough to remember. Bush - The New JFK. Yeah, right.

I mean hell, we've got the new Vietnam, right?

[are_we_united_yet]

75. Not being an alarmist

And I don't have any factual evidence to back it up. But perhaps the global warming issue is worse than we thought.

[Silverhair]

76. I am opposed to a manned return to the moon.

The moon isn't going anywhere. Wait about 30 years and we can send an artificial intellegent robot there at no risk and much cheaper. The robot won't need "life support". No need for air, food, water, companionship, sleep, relief of boredom, etc.