Bush Sets America's Sights on the Moon, Mars

  • Thread starter Thread starter TurboSmoke
  • 86 comments
  • 2,363 views
Messages
2,281
"We will build new ships to carry man forward into the universe, to gain a new foothold on the moon and prepare for new journeys to the worlds beyond our own," Bush said at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=570&ncid=753&e=2&u=/nm/20040115/sc_nm/bush_space_dc

or in plain English "please re-elect me because we still have some middle-east countries to bomb"

is it just me or has this git lost his marbles to an extent that we are questioning whether or not he is confused between reality and fantasy....has he simply been watching too much Star Trek?

perhaps he is genuinely serious but i suspect its an election ploy.

when recorded, this speech sent laughs around the world....not at the idea...its the wording...who writes this tripe?
 
I wont mind if he sets aside more dosh for NASA. Largely cos it isnt my dosh to begin with. Men on the moon would be good from the exploration of space point of view. There is a bad side, but I cant formulate it in my head at the mo'.
 
Originally posted by Mike Rotch
There is a bad side, but I cant formulate it in my head at the mo'.

the bad side is that BUSH will be still on earth and astronauts will be on the moon....why does this anus plan a manned mission to the sun (i bet thats his next big speech) with only him aboard...the world will be a safer place to live and the average intellegence of the world will go up (slightly)
 
Despicable. Using this news story to cover up your Bush Bashing.

NASA definitely needs a boost and this will do it. NASA should get away from circling the planet with the aging Shuttle and move on to Mars and new spacecraft to replace the Shuttle.
 
Much as I'd love to see the space program get a boost, the US is already running large Govt budget and current account deficits - and these are threats to the US and global economic recovery. One would have thought these might have been a priority - it's easy to see how people might be cynical about this announcement.

NASA does need an orbiter replacement, though - in fact, they needed it ten years ago.
 
Some interesting stuff there.
Seems recently that there has been alot of interest in Mars and the Moon. One comment that interests me in that Yahoo report

The initiative would slake a human "thirst for knowledge" and yield technological breakthroughs, he said. The moon also has "abundant resources" that could be exploited for potential uses such as rocket fuel, added Bush, a former oilman.
 
Originally posted by Viper Zero
Despicable. Using this news story to cover up your Bush Bashing.


what script are you reading..?

i raised this issue in order to point out what politicians will do in order to get re-elected....its the american taxpayer that i feel sorry for...

Bush see american taxes in the same way he sees middle east oil...a resouce to be expoited for his own ends..

i wont apologise for my dislike of Bush..it's an opinion that we are all entitled to...

pimpin_t made an excellent point...the thirst for knowledge is a masquerade for the thirst for exploitable resources...
 
I just feel that the government knows alot more about these planets than we think. They have the capabilities to be able to scan a planet to see what the planet is made up of. They have said that there are traces of water on these planets so I'm sure they can see if there are any "oil like" substances located under the surface. When you consider the size of these planets and the quantity of resources they can hold, I cant help but think there going to Mars and the Moon to stake a claim for the resources on that Planet.
 
We would learn a lot more about the moon if we went back. Just 30 years foward of technology will come a long ways.
 
Originally posted by TurboSmoke
what script are you reading..?

i raised this issue in order to point out what politicians will do in order to get re-elected....its the american taxpayer that i feel sorry for...

Bush see american taxes in the same way he sees middle east oil...a resouce to be expoited for his own ends..

i wont apologise for my dislike of Bush..it's an opinion that we are all entitled to...

pimpin_t made an excellent point...the thirst for knowledge is a masquerade for the thirst for exploitable resources...
Yes, it's an opinion you're entitled to. But you claim Bush is using all this stuff as a masquerade for his own agenda... When you're doing the exact same thing. You opened a topic about space exploration just so you could bash Bush, not so you could talk about space exploration.

So you're a hypocrite. And a shortsighted one at that.

It's not that we should start exploring space NOW so Bush gets reelected this fall. It's that we should never have stopped exploring space in the first place. It needs to happen. For the first 100 years there may not be much direct benefit no matter when we start. But there has already been a HUGE amount of indirect benefit in the form of technology.

And pimpin T, let me ask you this: WHAT THE HELL IS THE POINT OF EXPLORING ANYTHING IF IT IS NOT TO EXPLOIT THE RESOURCES? If people didn't explore new things and exploit the resources they find, right now you'd be living in a twig hut somewhere in central Africa.

Sound good? Stay home and don't use any resources at all then. Enjoy your life.
:dunce:
 
Originally posted by Captain Coffee
[B You opened a topic about space exploration just so you could bash Bush, not so you could talk about space exploration.
[/B]

WRRONGG!!

i opened a thread about hidden agendas, space exploration has been discussed on this forum a short while a go and i dont want to cover it again....take the time and search for it, i'm sure you'll find it very interesting...

Bush is in the firing line because he is so high profile, that's all.

I am not American so i cant comment on what you should do with your tax dollars but if i were American i can think of a few areas i would spend it on...

its shocking what some people will say in order to get re-elected...thats all..

and i fundamentally disagree with your point captain coffee that all natural and non-natural resources are there to be plundered...or used as political propaganda in order to get the vote with no real intentions of carrying out thier original promises.
 
Much as I'd love to see the space program get a boost, the US is already running large Govt budget and current account deficits - and these are threats to the US and global economic recovery.

NASA's budget is 84 billion. The spending increase is a proposed 1 billion each year over the next 5 years and a reallocation of 11 billion of NASA's current budget.

Small beans in terms of the current budget and in light of the amount of social spending already going on. And what's the benefit? Exploration of the solar system, unknown technological development, more firsts for humanity.

I can see why you're concerned about this "spending spree". When you read between the lines, Bush basically told NASA to change its focus and that its budget would increase at a rate less than inflation.
 
So what will they use to travel to the Moon? Long range shuttle type things or disposables?
In a way i hope there aren't any aliens in space. They would no doubt be accused of supporting Al Qaeda, and that they're lasers are illegal WMD.
And before you say, I am a British citizen who isn't against the war, but the excuses used by Bush/Blair.
 
So what will they use to travel to the Moon? Long range shuttle type things or disposables?

It will be a new vehicle which I think will be reusable, but I'm not sure that has been ironed out yet. I think it's up to NASA to decide exactly how to solve the problem. Whatever it is that they use to go to the moon is supposed to be the same (or a similar)design to the one they will use to go to Mars. The moon would be a sort of test run.


In a way i hope there aren't any aliens in space. They would no doubt be accused of supporting Al Qaeda, and that they're lasers are illegal WMD.
And before you say, I am a British citizen who isn't against the war, but the excuses used by Bush/Blair.

Take it to a different thread.
 
Originally posted by danoff
NASA's budget is 84 billion. The spending increase is a proposed 1 billion each year over the next 5 years and a reallocation of 11 billion of NASA's current budget.
.

i suspect its going to rise in the future

there has been no figures released by NASA for this venture to Mars but a leading space expert suggested a figure of 8,000 billion dollars spread over 25 years....

thats a staggering amount of money....i think you could probably build a brigde to Mars for that price...with air conditioning..
 
Let's see, 25 years x (we'll estimate) 100 billion dollars is 2.5 trillion dollars.

That's roughly what it would cost us to fund NASA for a quarter century at about it's current rate (accounting for some inflation).

Your 8 trillion number there is meaningless. You total up the cost of any thing over a quarter century and it's bound to sound high. Bush's proposal is to increase NASA's budget by less than inflation over what it is now (meaning that the government is actually reducing NASA's budget). So if you want to get upset with a president for spending on NASA, get upset with whatever president decides to enact your 8 trillion dollar plan - it isn't Bush.
 
and i fundamentally disagree with your point captain coffee that all natural and non-natural resources are there to be plundered

I suppose if you were stranded on an island you would not build a fire. Perhaps you would not eat fish or turtles or crabs or birds. Perhaps you would simply allow yourself to die, helpless before the natural reasources around you that you couldn't touch because they're not there to be plundered.

Oil, coal, steel, salt, rainforests, cows... perhaps theses are different in your mind. I would ask you though, if you didn't take advantage of your oil coal or steel in your country (on a regular basis), where would you be before a hostile nation? What would your military consist of at the moment you realized a nation was about to go to war with you? A bunch of hippies telling that other nation that they shouldn't be using up the world's oil coal and steel. I'll borrow from a recent blockbuster movie here... "those without swords can still die upon them."

Natural resources are there to be plundered. One should think carefully before one plunders them about how to go about it, but one should still make the best of the situation.


That being said, I believe that there has been a pact signed by the US and other nations saying that no nation will claim any land on any other planet, and Antarctica is considered another planet.

And oh yea, Bush isn't hiding his intention to use the natural resources on the moon. He talked about using the materials on the moon to make rocket fuel. Which would in turn enable missions of exploration that aren't currently possible (he said something about making missions cheaper but that isn't what he should have said).
 
Originally posted by danoff


Your 8 trillion number there is meaningless.

i was a figure put forward by an ex NASA scientist on the CNN channel the other day...not mine...

and also, natural resources arent there to be plundered, perhaps we should concentrate on renewable enegries and i hope not all americans have your cut down the rain forests, drain the lakes attitute to the earths ecosystem....
 
i was a figure put forward by an ex NASA scientist on the CNN channel the other day...not mine...

Ok, their figure. My argument still stands. Their figure is meaningless.


and also, natural resources arent there to be plundered, perhaps we should concentrate on renewable enegries and i hope not all americans have your cut down the rain forests, drain the lakes attitute to the earths ecosystem....

You haven't listend to a word I said. You just restated your position. Open you mind! Listen to someone else and think! Then respond based upon what they said rather than based upon what you thought before they spoke.
 
Originally posted by danoff
You haven't listend to a word I said. You just restated your position. Open you mind! Listen to someone else and think! Then respond based upon what they said rather than based upon what you thought before they spoke.
From what I've seen he doesn't want to do that. He just wants whatever he thinks already to be right.

And Turbosmoke if the thread was about hidden agendas, why did you title it "Bush Sets America's Sights on the Moon, Mars" instead of "Bush's hidden agenda"? You're still a hypocrite.
 
Originally posted by Captain Coffee


And Turbosmoke if the thread was about hidden agendas, why did you title it "Bush Sets America's Sights on the Moon, Mars"

if you had bothered to click on the link i provided, you'll see that the thread is named after the article...

whats so hypocritical about my thread by the way...since you mentioed it twice...?
 
Originally posted by danoff



That being said, I believe that there has been a pact signed by the US and other nations saying that no nation will claim any land on any other planet, and Antarctica is considered another planet.

antartica may be considered my bush as another planet...that doesnt surprise me but tell me, with whom has America signed this pact?...and if this is the case then why are there certain american website that allow you to purchase plots of land on the moon?...and you get a certificate to say so..



And oh yea, Bush isn't hiding his intention to use the natural resources on the moon.

i didnt say that he was...nor did i imply it, so dont know who you are misquoting on that one..
i said he is offering the america public proverbial candies if they re-elect him, that is what he is hiding...its dishonest because he cannot possibly make it happen in his lifetime...

and on the subject of natural resources, i wasnt talking about survival i was aiming more towards spending money on outerspace when renewable energies are still in its infancy starved of research cash...

time for bed, good night..
 
Originally posted by TurboSmoke
antartica may be considered by bush as another planet...that doesnt surprise me but tell me, with whom has America signed this pact?...and if this is the case then why are there certain american website that allow you to purchase plots of land on the moon?...and you get a certificate to say so..

I believe that particular venture is known as a 'scam'.

The Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959 and the details on it can be found here. This shows the signatories.
 
This is the first link that came up on the treaty I was talking about.

http://www.dreamweaverstudios.com/moonbeam/legal.htm

It describes how no nation under UN (which America is a part of) law can claim any of the land on the moon or any other celestial bodies, only the buildings there.

I mentioned Antarctica as a joke because it had a similar treaty. I thought that the parallel between the two treaties was funny so I called Antarctica another planet (so that it would be covered under the same treaty). Oh well, that joke didn't make it.


The link also mentions that one should not pay attention to the scams claiming you can buy land on the moon.
 
Wait, wait, don't bother pointing out where he can find factual information. He'd much rather have knee-jerk opinions that are so set he can mistake them for truths.

Turbosmoke, the Chinese have also made their desire to go to the moon very clear:
Here's an older story on the subject from your precious BBC News.
Here's a slightly newer one.
This one's prett damn new.

I haven't heard you mention China. Do you think the Chinese are just making a desperate, cynical bid for reelection? Pretty funny, since China hasn't HAD a real election since who knows when. Let me quote something from one of those stories:
"China, in the field of spaceflight and exploration of space, hopes to cooperate with other countries on the basis of equality and friendship," Kong told a news conference. "Our attitude on this, in fact, is positive and open. We also hope to make our own contributions toward mankind's better understanding of space."
Yeah, let's all pause and reflect on exactly how POSITIVE AND OPEN China has been since 1949 or so. Here's another good one:
"Our long-term goal is to set up a base on the moon and mine its riches for the benefit of humanity."

- Chinese space official Ouyang Ziyuan
China has done SO MUCH to benefit humanity in the last 50 years, right? I can't WAIT until they start giving me the benefit of all those riches from the Moon! What great guys!

I'm betting you didn't even KNOW that China had a space program. Is that's why you haven't mentioned it? Or is it just because you only want to see things that put Bush in a bad light?
 
Originally posted by TurboSmoke
if this is the case then why are there certain American websites that allow you to purchase plots of land on the moon?...And you get a certificate to say so..

These are not legally recognised. There are three companies on the worldwidesuperinterwabhighway which sell you stars. They all sell the same stars. But they do all carry a disclaimer saying that it does not give you legal ownership of said stellar body.

You can also buy bits of the Moon on http://www.play.com, based in Jersey (UK).


We have the technology NOW to send man to both the Moon and Mars. Why they're jabbering on about "2020" is beyond me.

The Moon is being cited as an "advanced" base - the theory being that once you get all your stuff to the Moon, you can launch missions from there using only 1/6th of the fuel (1/6th of the gravity...). This means that for the same size vessel, only 1/6th of the current fuel capacity is needed, allowing more space for habitation - kind of necessary for a) a manned mission and b) a manned mission taking 8 months to get there and 8 months to get back...
 
Back