Why?

Posted by: Mark Buehner at December 5, 2003 09:37 AM

Why Not !

Posted by: AJ at December 5, 2003 10:26 AM

Half a trillion bucks is why not. Isnt this a bit like making ‘Casablanca II’? What was left undone the first time around? Whats the point?

Posted by: Mark Buehner at December 5, 2003 10:28 AM

Actually, Mark, I initially agreed with you, but after thinking about it, it may not be a bad idea. Politically, its a terrible idea, with the deficit, etc but after thinking about several things, I reconsidered.

Consider this:

1) We learned in WWII that air superiority was paramount to winning wars and American Security. In the Cold War, we realized the importance of being able to monitor the enemy (spy satellites, etc) Now, it wouldn’t take much for a Chinese anti-satellite missile (which they are feverishly working on) to take out much of the monitoring capability we take for granted. An American or multinational permanent moonbase with high-res telescopes pointed at the Earth might circumvent that. In addition, a permanent moonbase will severely decrease the cost of space exploration, as the primary cost is currently getting into orbit.

2) For anything to happen 15 years from now, it needs to be started now.

3) Significant increases in our economic and military base occurred because of the space program. I’ve heard that for every dollar spent on the space program in the sixties, seven dollars went into our economy. If I can find the reference, I will. And considering that the computers used for the Apollo missions were 256K (if you can believe it-yikes! that’s not even enough to open Windows) the cost would be likely to be far less than the 500 billion you’re suggesting.

Also, I’ve heard that besides a moonbase, he might suggest a manned mission to Mars. Anyway, I think there actually is some merit in this. The timing, however, I would agree is quite poor. I’ll be interested to hear what he has to say.

Posted by: johnnymozart at December 5, 2003 11:28 AM

I bet half a trillion is about right. Sure, in theory we could use Saturn V rockets updated with all kinds of new technology and do this thing quite reasonably. There is no way in hell that is going to happen. Government just dont work that way. Its going to take a whole new series of spacecraft, invented, tested, built, ect to make this happen. Moreso, to do anything more than play golf on the moon is going to take far more equipment than Apollo ever brought so this is going to be a far more ambitious project from that end. I think this is just a bad decision. Creating a high orbit ‘construction’ site for future missions to the moon or mars would be more useful in the long run. This will eat nasa budget whole for the next twenty years. We could build thousands of spy sats for the cost.

Posted by: Mark Buehner at December 5, 2003 12:04 PM

Right, Mark, I agree. But in order to make space exploration profitable and affordable, we have to do it. We made the same mistake in the Cold War. We had an achievement, and so we considered the game over; rather than aggressively approach diplomacy with the new Russian Federation. By the same token, the space race isn’t technically over, either.

The major economic magazines have been saying for years that one of the biggest businesses of the the next century will be the taking advantage of space (ie mining asteroids, tourism, military and commercial satellites) by private industry while the big things are undertaken by the governnment or governments. I agree with you that the idea may need refinement, such as with your last suggestion. But I think it needs to be done. Let’s not forget that we don’t know what he’s going to say yet. While the timing may not be ideal, I have to give him credit for having vision.

Posted by: johnnymozart at December 5, 2003 01:05 PM

Mark, two things:

1) Not only don’t we have any more Saturn V’s lying around waiting for action, we don’t even have the plans anymore. We can’t take the files to the manufacturer and say, “Build that,” because there are no files. We’d have to reverse-engineer the museum piece on display outside Johnson Space Center, which has been exposed to the elements for decades, and likely detriorated in ways that boggle the mind.

2) There have been so many advances in materials science, miniaturization, computers, sensors, organic chemistry, and everything else that it would be foolhardy to try to use a Saturn V even if we could. Better to build a rocket with the exact same thrust, based on a new design that will allow for 50% more mass-to-orbit, to use a number I pulled out of the air.

Here’s the best reason in the world to go back to space and stay there: If things go badly here and we wind up nuking large portions of Earth’s surface, or poisoning the food chain, or destroying the ecology in some other clever fashion, there will be somebody left to remember and start over.

Posted by: David at December 5, 2003 05:27 PM

Bush has no sense of himself. Does he think he is JFK on Friday, Regan on Tuesday and FDR on Wednesday?

Who is this guy?

Yes lets spend on space, this guy has no freakin clue what the concept of money is. Daddy needs to backhand him before he says more stupid crap….

Does he have any clue that we are so entrenched in Iraq we will be in debt for years already? God Help us all….:(

Posted by: what2 at December 5, 2003 07:35 PM

What2, ive come to the conclusion that the thing the left hates most about Bush is that they are having so much trouble pigeon-holing him. Is he just stupid? Or is he an evil tyrant genius? Is Cheney pulling his puppet strings? Or is it Rumsfeld? Or Rice?
Get over it, the thing the left will never comprehend about Bush, just like Reagan, is the fact that he is genuine, that he actually believes what he says. Thats why he will always be underestimated.

Posted by: Mark Buehner at December 5, 2003 11:12 PM

David, the Saturn 5 reference was just a jibe. But the principle is true. If NASA decided to build the identical rocket, even with all the technological advances that you mentioned, the program would cost at a minimum 10 times what it did in the 60s (in 60s dollars of course). That is simply the nature of procurement. As it stands, there is no question in my mind that something much more ‘ambitious’ will be spec’d and the cost will be orders of magnitude greater. Again, the nature of government. Got to employ people, got to use the highest tech gizmos, got to make it flashy.
It’s not even so much that im deadset against the idea, its more that we could be spending the money so much more usefully in the long term space program. We could be building a real space station, designed for construction of a mars mission for instance. Or better yet coming up with a realistic reusable launch/orbit vehicle (I guarantee you private industry will produce one before NASA, its profitable now). Or even better yet, figuring out a space elevator so we can really start moving stuff into orbit (NYC dumps more trash into landfills in a day then all the mass humans have launched into space in 40 years). Going back to the moon advances none of this. In fact, funding will be sapped from programs like these.

Posted by: Mark Buehner at December 5, 2003 11:21 PM

There would be enough changes to the Saturn V design that it effectively would be a brand new design anyway.

If the American people wanted, NASA could have a fully functional base on Mars by 2015, with private sector colonization on the rise. Here’s how:

1) Give them all the money they ask for.

2) Stay out of the way.

NASA is full of people who dreamed of exactly that sort of thing when they were kids. It’s the bureaucracy and politics and unreasonable expectations that are killing them.

Engineers living their dreams don’t pork-barrel. It only slows the dream.

The only thing Mark said that I actually disagree with is the idea of a space elevator. Last I heard, it was physically impossible to build because it’s unstable in all but the final configuration. Also, it’s way too sweet a target for the world’s gratuitous assholes.

Posted by: David at December 6, 2003 12:21 AM

What wrong with a little more debt ? Don’t want
people to pay any taxes and have to shrink the
govt. Cuting out the IRS is one way… I say we
come up with a Bunch more projects and put mor
chinese to work. they can build everything cheaper
Bush will go down in history as Brain Dead as
well as all the fools that followed him into
Bankrupting the US.. How’s Star Wars doing and
the new fighter planes. We could use a bunch
more ships. They work Great agaist terrorists…
LOLOLOL FOOLS…

Posted by: VF at December 6, 2003 01:15 AM

VF, thanks for stoppin in. Can always use a crackpots view of ‘reality’.

David, there has been a ton of new thought pouring into the space elevator idea in the past couple years. The major stumbling block was the material issue, and apparently it is practically solved, carbon nanotubes being the solution. So the technology is like 95% there, its just the engineering that needs to be worked out. The terrorism aspect is probably overstated, space elevators by definition will have to be on the equator, probably in the ocean, and hence in the middle of nowhere. The only viable attack would be via aircraft, which the US Navy has spent the last 40 years wargaming against enemy attack aircraft. Even if one came down, chances are there would be 0 fatalities, albeit billions of dollars worth of damage. So what space elevators will bring in billions worth of revenue in satellite launches alone!

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast07sep_1.htm

http://drs.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=space+elevator/v=2/TID=DF4H_3/SID=w/l=WS1/R=1/H=0/*-http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html

http://www.howstuffworks.com/space-elevator.htm

Posted by: Mark Buehner at December 6, 2003 02:50 AM

I saw something in Popular Mechanics one time. I don’t see any way it could possible work. So from a pea brain standpoint…….let’s focus on other methods to enter space. :) I just can’t see the possibility of riding an elevator to the moon. Heck, if there was a fire on the moon……you wouldn’t be able to get home. :) (I know…no O, no fire)

There is/was a contest going on to see who would be the first individuals to build a workable space ship. I think the criteria was that it had to be able to leave and then re-enter the atmosphere. There were several people around the world participating. Some actually had some pretty good theories. Haven’t heard much about it lately.

I definitely believe we have to stay ahead in the space and technology race. It is most important to nat’l security.

BTW...just like past explorers……..shouldn’t’ we ‘claim’ the moon???????

Posted by: Jeff B at December 6, 2003 01:48 PM

One other thing……how much did the computers in the 60s cost in 60s money…….compared to todays high speed computers in todays money? Some things don’t follow the cost formula mentioned in one of the above comments.

Posted by: Jeff B at December 6, 2003 01:52 PM

Some URL’s:

1. The Mars Society — http://www.marssociety.org/

Robert Zubrin published his concept called “Mars Direct” about 10 years ago. Bottom line: Send an unfueled return craft, a nuclear reactor, and methane fuel to Mars. Use the nuclear reactor to strip oxygen from Mars’ CO2 atmosphere to provide oxidizer for the return rocket. When that process is complete, launch the base element, rover and crew, land as close to your return craft as feasible. Use the rover to get to the return craft when it is time to go home.

Zubrin estimated 15 billion for the first round trip, and another 5-10 for each successive round trip (occurring ever 26 months). That is much less than (say) agricultural subsidies to industrial food producers. I suspect that if it is a government run program (vs. a government purchase of services), that the cost / schedule would be far higher.

2. X-Prize — http://www.xprize.org/

To win 10 mill-ion dollars (Dr. Evil laugh sold separately), a suborbital flight carring three people must get above 100 kilometers altitude, land safely, and do it again with the same ship within two weeks.

The team closest to success is a design by Burt Rutan, a noted experimental aircraft designer. The rocket powered element has successfully completed substantial portions of its unpowered test flights. Suborbital flights may, in my speculation, be only weeks away.

Grist for the mill, and all that.

MG

Posted by: MG at December 6, 2003 02:31 PM

Wow… I am actually pro-bush on this one… This kind of makes me feel weird. Well i hope we do return to the moon. Nasa hasn’t done shit since the 60’s, nobody cares about the NASA anymore. The best thing to do right now to get people back into the space program is to return to the moon, i also read a popular science artical about a year ago stating the same thing. Bush actually has a good idea for once.

Paulie

Posted by: Paulie at December 6, 2003 03:30 PM

Actually, one half trillion is cheap (if that is the
price). Space research spawned over 100
commonly used products for homes and
businesses the last time……from multiple
plastics to new types of beds and bed pillows
to ceramic cookware to improved valves for
pumping oil and water, to better fuses and
electrical relay switches for power connections
for telecomunications and the Internet, to
better chips for computers, etc., etc., etc.

Think Sysco, Intel, and many others who
are using space research based technology
today!

Posted by: leaddog2 at December 6, 2003 08:31 PM

Repeat after me: Nuclear Fusion & Helium 3

Posted by: CERDIP at December 7, 2003 12:46 AM

Dont get me wrong, I’m all for space exploration. My only gripe is I dont see any point in going back to the moon being the #1 mission. If it is part of some long term plan thats fine, but Id like to hear about it.

Posted by: Mark Buehner at December 7, 2003 11:19 PM

You gotta start somewhere, and most people can see the moon. It’s real. Mars is a dot in the sky. It takes effort to make a planet out of it.

But the moon. A person can lie in his hammock in the back yard, stare up at it, and dream about jumping from this crater to that one. It lends itself to imagination.

Posted by: David at December 8, 2003 03:06 PM

So does having a three-way with twin Swedish stewardesses, but I’m not going to mortgage my house for it.

We need to move forward with the space program, the moon is backwards. Lets invest in creating the tools that will make a trip to the moon a snap, just like running down to the Walmart. That will change history. Not half a dozen guys countin rocks and playing golf for a year.

Posted by: Mark Buehner at December 8, 2003 04:31 PM

///So does having a three-way with twin Swedish stewardesses, but I’m not going to mortgage my house for it.///

What’s the prime rate again? :)

Posted by: johnnymozart at December 8, 2003 06:05 PM

Keep agreeing with our chimp in chief and keep spending my good Conservative friends…

The word deficit has slipped from the conservative platform? Why? Because it is politically advantageous. GWB is a whore of the Republican party.

Please do not tell me he is in any way conservative. I actually respect the conservative agenda. This man spends until his face is blue with no end in sight. Maybe that is how he managed to implode three businesses in no time flat.

We need Perot to make a guest apperance in 2004 to demonstrate the slippery slope we are on….

Posted by: what2 at December 8, 2003 06:19 PM

The fact that for every dollar spent on the moon
shot came back 7 fold sounds like a good investment. Can we work together with the Chinese and others to spread the cost?

There is a project called the Dead Sea Canal that
would bring water from the Mediterranean Sea
into the Dead Sea creating hydro electric generation
and water for agriculture etc. The cost would be
about 5 billion dollars. For this to happen Jordan
and Israel would need to cooperate. They would
both benefit and the desert would flower a little bit
more. Peace is profitable, and that’s what I ‘m fighting for.

Posted by: augurwell at December 8, 2003 07:11 PM

Augurwell,

I am for peaceful projects too. The
hydro electric generation you mention
might be economical.

However, there is NO way that adding
salty sea water to the highest salt
containing body on earth will make
that water fit for agriculture. We do not
yet have the ability to filter salt in
an economical manner.

On the other hand, in a desert like that
one, cost is realative! So, it might be
possible.

Posted by: leaddog2 at December 9, 2003 10:33 AM

Ooops! A Typo! I meant “relative”

Posted by: leadog2 at December 9, 2003 10:35 AM

No one repeated after me, so I’m forced to make you pay attention: This is http://cerdip.motime.com/1070972092.

Posted by: CERDIP at December 9, 2003 12:34 PM

Argg ggg g gg

Here’s the link

Posted by: CERDIP at December 9, 2003 12:35 PM

I have not yet begun to fight!!!!

LINK!

Posted by: CERDIP at December 9, 2003 12:36 PM

Pant, pant !! stares around wildly…

***Sees cat, runs over to kick it***

**BUT first notices that the blog host—motime—appears to be fartched, and its not the URLs or links that are the problem, thus saving the cat.***

**attempts to calm down, with the occasional residual twitch…***

Posted by: CERDIP at December 9, 2003 12:41 PM

leaddog2

Tired of these forever wars, but the alternative
is worse.

My grandfathers battaion logo was of a guy whose plough was tied onto the back of a tank.

Time for a rest to get back at it again refreshed.

Posted by: augurwell at December 9, 2003 02:51 PM

battalion

Posted by: augurwell at December 9, 2003 02:55 PM

Repeat after me:

Nuclear Fusion & Helium 3

Nuclear Fusion & Helium 3

;-)

Thanks CERDIP. This is definitely a colonization plan I can support. I’ll be interested to hear the President outline the goals. I can see where many areas of national interest and security could be at work here. And Helium 3 might be the way to defray cost in the future. Perhaps, this venture will be funded from several Department budgets, not just NASA’s budget this time. One thing that is correct from that article is that one day, someone will claim the Moon. Sooner or later it will happen. If we don’t make plans to do it, we’ll suffer the consequences of it. Now, how would you like lying in that hammock and looking up at the moon and realizing that someone, who might not have your best interest at heart, is looking back at you?

And another thing is this. The Space Station is pretty much dead from the American standpoint until a new generation of shuttle is in operation. What’s left of the existing fleet is not going to be useful for much longer. Personally, I don’t care for depending on the Russians to get back and forth, not that I don’t like them, it’s just that their technology scares the crap out of me. Maybe exploration of the moon’s resources can help to fund NASA the way NASA should be funded!

Posted by: TexasGal at December 9, 2003 04:49 PM

SMS Logo Dzwonki Gry Java
Bramka SMS Era IDea Plus
Gry Java
dzwonki polifoniczne
Dzwonki
mms
Dzwonki True Tone
Logo, Dzwonki, Gry Java
Sms, Loga, Dzwonki, Polifoniczne, Gry Java
Walentynki
Logo Nokia
Nokia Dzwonki
Nokia Polifonia
Dzwonki True Tone
Nokia Smsy Graficzne
Wygaszacze Ekranu
Animacje
Gry Java Nokia
Kolorowe Animacje
Kolorowe Loga Nokia
Tapety Nokia

Siemens
Siemens Dzwonki
Siemens Polifonia
Grafika EMS
Siemens Dzwonki EMS
Kolorowe Logo Siemens
Siemens Gry Java
Siemens Tapety
Motorola Dzwonki
Motorola Polifonia
Grafika EMS
Motorola Dzwonki EMS
Motorola Gry Java
Kolorowe Animacje
Motorola Tapety
Samsung Logo
Samsung Dzwonki
Samsung Polifonia
Graficzne SMS
Samsung Gry Java
Samsung Tapety
Sonyericsson Polifonia
Graficzny SMS
Grafika EMS
Dzwonki EMS
Gry Java
Sonyericsson Tapety
Logo Alcatel
Alcatel Polifonia
Grafika EMS
Dzwonki EMS
Alcatel Tapety
Sagem Dzwonki
Sagem Tapety
Mitsubishi Dzwonki
Mitsubishi Tapety
Sendo Dzwonki

Posted by: Alex at January 17, 2004 03:55 PM

Klingeltöne
Nokia Logo
Nokia Klingeltöne
Nokia Polyphone Klingeltöne
Nokia Blidmitteilung
Nokia ScreenSaver
animierte screensaver
Nokia Java Spiele
Nokia Hintergrundbilder
Farbiges Logo
Siemens Handypictures
Siemens Klingeltöne
Siemens Polyphone Klingeltöne
Siemens Bildmitteilung
Siemens Ems Klingeltöne
Siemens Java Spiele
Siemens Hintergrundbilder
Samsung Logo
Samsung Klingeltöne

Samsung Bildmitteilung
Ericsson Bildmiteilung
Ericsson Ems Bildmitteilung
Ericsson Ems Klingeltöne
Sonyericsson Polyphone Klingeltöne
Sonyericsson Blidmitteilung
Sonyericsson Ems Bildmitteilung
Sonyericsson Ems Klingeltöne
Sonyericsson Hintergrundbilder
Alcatel Handy Pictures
Alcatel Ems Bildmitteilung
Alcatel Ems Klingeltöne
Alcatel Polyphone Klingeltöne
Motorola Klingeltöne
Motorola Polyphone Klingeltöne
Motorola Ems Bildmitteilung
Motorola Ems Klingeltöne
Motorola Java Spiele
Motorola Hintergrundbilder
Mitsubishi Klingeltone
Panasonic Polyphone Klingeltöne
Sagem Hintergrundbilder
Sendo Klingeltöne

Posted by: Roman at January 17, 2004 03:58 PM

In this grand B movie we call life, there is always a girl.

Posted by: Blackman Mark at January 22, 2004 12:56 AM

Will construction of the “dead sea canal” promote

middle east peace (Iraq peace) and world peace

in general?

please search “dead sea canal” on google

Posted by: bluedragon at September 29, 2004 02:15 PM

A Canal For Peace / Dead Sea Canal

Construction of a proposed canal between the

Meditarranean and the Dead seas could promote

Middle East Peace Iraq peace and world peace

in general.

The “Dead Sea Canal” world take advantage

of a 1200 foot differential between the two seas.

The $5 billion project would be 5 years in the

building and could provide employment for

Palestinians , Israelis and Jordanians. It would

provide power, water, desalination capabilities

aquatic farming and recreational lakes in an arid

desert like envirnment.

The canal could create the groundwork

of cooperation and trust building between warring

parties.

search “dead sea canal” on google click on images

for maps,click on site links for research

Posted by: bluedragon at September 29, 2004 02:42 PM