Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

USA To Return To Moon By 2015, Then Mars

simoniker posted more than 10 years ago | from the privacy-of-mooninites-violated-yet-again dept.

Space 1480

securitas writes "This afternoon George Bush announced space exploration plans for the USA to return to the Moon by 2015, the design and construction of a new space vehicle fleet by 2014 (called the Crew Exploration Vehicle) to replace the aging space shuttles which will be retired in 2010, and the construction of a permanent Moon base, followed by manned missions to Mars. The initiative begins with a $1 billion increase to NASA's budget and $12 billion in new space exploration money over next five years. However Congress is concerned about how to pay for the new space policy initiative in the face of a $500 billion national budget deficit. AP via Yahoo has a Moon/Mars/space policy FAQ, and there's more at NASA and the New York Times among others."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Don't forget... (-1)

SCO$699FeeTroll (695565) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980027)

...to pay your $699 licensing fee you cock-smoking teabaggers.

Re:Don't forget... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980141)

Yes, you are right Gottfried, Bill Gates did invent the Monkey-dance, but Linus Torvalds created the Macarena.

GNAA Ported to XBOX (port to Mars planned soon) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980029)

GNAA Ported to XBOX
By GNAA staff
New York, NY - GNAA (Gay Nigger Association of America) this afternoon announced completion of a project started almost 6 months ago, porting of Windows CE.NET environment to Microsoft's XBOX gaming platform.

In a shocking announcement this afternoon, GNAA representative lysol demonstrated the XBOX running Microsoft's own Windows CE.NET 4.2 operating system.
"This is quite an important achievement," lysol began. "By porting Windows CE to XBOX, GNAA will be able to create a beowulf cluster of all XBOXes and use them to recruit more gay niggers. Next step will naturally be porting our GNAAOS framework to the new system, which will allow us to highly increase our gay nigger membership.
Unlike the Microsoft's custom OS, based on Windows 2000 kernel currently running on the XBOX, with a custom (and somewhat limited API), Windows CE.NET will allow running a whole range of Win32 applications on the XBOX by simply recompiling them. Because the differences between Windows CE.NET Win32 API are minimal, any type of gay nigger software can be easily ported to run on the new platform. GNAA is expecting to begin work on porting GNAAOS framework "real soon now", according to GNAA representative goat-see.

For more details, please visit GNAA official website at http://pepper.idge.net/gnaa/ [idge.net] .

About GNAA
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which
gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?
Are you a NIGGER [mugshots.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

First, you have to obtain a copy of GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] and watch it.

Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA "first post" on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website

Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on EFNet, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet, and you can connect to irc.secsup.org or irc.isprime.com as one of the EFNet servers.
If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the GNAA Java IRC client by clicking here [nero-online.org] .

About Xbox
Xbox (http://www.xbox.com/) is Microsoft's future-generation video game system that delivers the most powerful games experiences ever. Xbox empowers game artists by giving them the technology to fulfill their creative visions as never before, creating games that blur the lines between fantasy and reality. Xbox is now available in the continents of North America, Europe, Asia and Australia.

About Microsoft
Founded in 1975, Microsoft (Nasdaq "MSFT") is the worldwide leader in software, services and Internet technologies for personal and business computing. The company offers a wide range of products and services designed to empower people through great software -- any time, any place and on any device.
Microsoft and Xbox are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Microsoft Corp. in the United States and/or other countries.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.
By moderating this post as "Underrated", you cannot be Meta-Moderated! Please consider this.

.________________________________________________. fucking
| ______________________________________._a,____ | CmdrTaco
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ | will
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ | he ever learn that
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ | GNAA is totally
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ | unstoppable? Teamed
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ | up with the other troll groups,
| _________#1__________?________________________ | GNAA will absolutely own
| _________j1___________________________________ | the shitty place that is slashdot.
| ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Just remember, the longer the lines are,
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ | the smaller CmdrTaco's penis.
| ______-"!^____________________________________ | This logo is (C) 2003, 2004 GNAA
` _______________________________________________' [1] [idge.net]

(C) GNAA 2004

Now wouldn't that be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980059)

a backport? :-)

Re:Now wouldn't that be... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980185)

hehe a backport ... i dont get it but i use linus so hehe.


and bush says... (5, Funny)

holzp (87423) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980030)

And if a married couple goes up together NASA gets $1.5 billion more [nytimes.com] !

Re:and bush says... (2, Funny)

ejdmoo (193585) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980097)

And there's even more money comming for the first couple to concieve and give birth in space!

On a serious note, I wonder if I'll live to see the first conception on the moon/in space.

(Yes, I meant both on CNN and in low quality bootleg form from BitTorrent)

slashbot response (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980167)

I really hope that the Mars mission is powered by Linux. Imagine the publicity! I'd hate to see the mission undermined by low quality Micro$oft products.

How will we fund it? Spend it elsewhere! (5, Insightful)

kippy (416183) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980036)

This argument never fails to frustrate me and I'm sure it's going to come up in this discussion.

Here's the thing, the federal budget [whitehouse.gov] is well over a trillion dollars. NASA's budget is around 17 billion. It's roughly 1 percent of the national budget. People get so scared about the word billion that they forget the scale of cash that the US has to allocate.

Does anyone honestly think that putting that bit of money elsewhere would solve whatever domestic problems you want fixed? Have we yet cured hunger, poverty, or undereducation? No? Well, we've been throwing billions at them so far. If you're looking for funds to cut and inefficiencies to uproot, look in defense and welfare. Diverting funds from NASA to domestic programs will not change anything except to kneecap our development as a multi-planet species.

Another misassumption is that if money is cut from one department, it automatically gets redistributed to others. That's not the way it works. And yes, I know we're running a deficit but a 1 billion increase over the next 5 years isn't going to contribute significantly to it. And IIRC, every administration except for 1 (maybe 2) has run a deficit and the country has not yet fallen.

But won't this cost a trillion dollars? No, not if done right. Father Bush's plan was scrapped because the estimate he was given was based on an outmoded model for Mars exploration. On top of that, it was subjected to a committee that took it as a chance to write themselves a blank check with their 90-day report [pescu.net] . Bust the first was ignorant to any alternatives so he abandoned it. Read up on Mars Direct [nw.net] . It's a plan to do Mars missions on the same budgetary scale as the Apollo missions. Those were done for about the same budget that NASA currently gets. NASA doesn't need more money, just proper direction and it looks like they're finally getting some of that.

See my other post [slashdot.org] for more on the case for Mars and space exploration.

Re:How will we fund it? Spend it elsewhere! (0, Troll)

Branc0 (580914) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980122)

Does anyone honestly think that putting that bit of money elsewhere would solve whatever domestic problems you want fixed?

Yes... but will it help NASA to estabelish a base on the Moon or the budget will still be too short?

Re:How will we fund it? Spend it elsewhere! (1, Interesting)

Best ID Ever! (712255) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980133)

That's a poor justification. The same could be claimed of a great deal many pork barrel projects and useless programs. "Look! We're a miniscule fraction of the trillion dollar budget."

The truth is, on an absolute scale, 17 billion is a lot of money, and you could do a lot with it. So the question is, is it worth it?

Re:How will we fund it? Spend it elsewhere! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980135)

Good point. We have some many inefficiencies in government right now that it totally boggles my mind when people make the argument that we should redistribute a measly (yes, measly) 15 billion dollars to everywhere else. Hell, I bet we oculd save that much by just cutting some bureaucracy in defense, education or welfare.

That's also why I don't like tax increases eventhough we're well below the rest of the world. The money is there damn it, it just has to be used properly!

Budget (5, Insightful)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980137)

Now, I'm strongly in favor of the program. However, about your statement " NASA's budget is around 17 billion. It's roughly 1 percent of the national budget."

The entire budget, and debt and defecit mess is made up of nothing but "oh, it's only a few billion. It won't matter." That's what everyone says about their favorite pet spending program.

It does make a difference.

Re:How will we fund it? Spend it elsewhere! (1, Flamebait)

garcia (6573) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980145)

Diverting funds from NASA to domestic programs will not change anything except to kneecap our development as a multi-planet species.

Yup, while what you say about it not solving the countries social issues is probably over half true, there is the simple fact that most of us in the country don't have any desire to become a multi-planet species...

I don't care if we find intelligent life anywhere, if we do, I certainly don't want to threaten our way of life by inviting them back to see what we have over here, and my biggest complaint is that I just don't give a fuck. If you are going to waste $820 million dollars why not build shit right here in our deserts on THIS country? Let's see if we can get life to survive in the harshest areas RIGHT the fuck here.

Ever thought of that? Apparently not.

Re:How will we fund it? Spend it elsewhere! (3, Funny)

FooGoo (98336) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980200)

We can it's just that people don't want to live in the desert...no Starbucks or burger joints.

Re:How will we fund it? Spend it elsewhere! (1)

lukior (727393) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980151)

I definitely feel that NASA needs some vary lofty long term goals. In my opinion scientific research in zero-g is not enough to justify the cost of NASA. We need some long term goal like the Apollo missions once were. Whether it's the colonization of the moon or a visit Mars i'm excited.

Re:How will we fund it? Spend it elsewhere! (3, Insightful)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980166)

And people need to remeber how big the American economy is, even during a dip in the economy.

$10.45 trillion (2002 est.)
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factboo k/geos/ us.html#Econ

The money Bush is proposing, even if the amount goes up is minute compared to the Federal Budget and the GDP of the US.

Re:How will we fund it? Spend it elsewhere! (3, Insightful)

mooredav (101800) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980175)

Diverting funds from NASA to domestic programs will not change anything except to kneecap our development as a multi-planet species.

"multi-planet" species? We can't handle one planet.

Shuttle replacements (1, Insightful)

PatrickThomson (712694) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980041)

It's about time too. The current shuttle fleet has computers less powerful than the modern car and structural materials about as sophisticated as a shopping trolley.

Re:Shuttle replacements (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980114)

It's about time too. The current shuttle fleet has computers less powerful than the modern car and structural materials about as sophisticated as a shopping trolley.

And this is a bad thing? Older computers are more resistant to radiation, and any quirks are very well-known. Steel and aluminum may be "primitive", but once again, it is well-known how they behave under almost any conditions.


Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980043)

However I am confused as to what I should do next. Please advise!

Mars (3, Interesting)

EinarH (583836) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980048)

Strange. He did not mention what this would cost. Yes, he mentioned an initial $12 billion investment, but 11 of those are in the budgets already as far as I know.
I have seen price tags from NASA people and other space scientists for the whole expedition fluctating from $60-175 billion.
It's probably difficult or impossible to make an accurate estimate of total cost this early in the process but nevertheless the current estimates deviates much from each other.
$60 billion is one thing, but $175 billion?

Yes I know going to Mars might create some jobs and promote technology and development but I would like to know the price tag anyway.
And with a $450 Billion budget deficit already I'm not so sure that this is a good idea.

fiiirst (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980051)


first bush (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980052)

to all my bush

2015?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980055)

2015!? Can't someone just leap outta damn shuttle as it flies by?

Re:2015?! (0, Flamebait)

macdaddy357 (582412) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980112)

2015? Bushy won't be in charge any more in January of 2005, unless the next election is rigged like rasslin'.

Re:2015?! (1)

volkris (694) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980202)

Ha, of course all of the current polling data would tend to indicate otherwise...

yippee (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980057)

first post hahahahha

Many /.'ers wanted to see a new space program... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980063)

Until Bush announced it.

It's funny (0, Troll)

Hangin10 (704729) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980065)

how Congress will aprove huge sums of money
the second anyone has Weapons of Mass Destruction,
but when it comes to creation or anything interesting, they don't care...

We could take that $87 bil. and build 10 perfectly
good NCC 1701s, except with M2P2 propulsion
instead of warp...

Re:It's funny (1)

seanthenerd (678349) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980156)

Of course, some people will already be thinking of the political/military ramifications of having the only moon base. Sad, indeed... why does world domination always outweigh global scientific co-operation? (Like the ISS, for example, which Bush just decided to opt out of!)

Re:It's funny (1)

Hangin10 (704729) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980176)

Hopefully the moon will end up with a similar
status to Antartica, except with considerably
more people living there.

Re:It's funny (1)

ebrandsberg (75344) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980205)

At least we won't have to pay for guards to keep suicide bombers from attacking the base with a truck full of explosives!

Begin Bush bashing..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980066)

wait for it

wait for it


Re:Begin Bush bashing..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980173)


Wow Li'l George... (0, Flamebait)

Penguinshit (591885) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980067)

...you could have spent $100B on NASA, getting people back to the moon and to Mars and been remembered forever.

Instead you chose to spend $100B on bombing Iraq, to be reviled forever.

Nice going, twit.

Re:Wow Li'l George... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980160)

You're the twit. Listen, can you Saddam loyalists stay out of the threads? This is a joke right? This world is so much better than it was 3 years ago because of people like Bush and our service men and women. It is well apparent that if people like you were running this country in the 40's you'd be allying with Hitler, or even worse you would close your ears to the situation and worry more about domestic issues. You've got to understand that we share this world together an as human beings, we have to stand up for justice for those who are not as strong as we are. It's your indifference that made us the targets we were for the past 3 decades. We would let anyone stick it to us, and the tree hugging, 401king, pro-legalisation types would have a hissy fit if we even tried to retaliate.

4 years? (3, Interesting)

EvanED (569694) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980068)

"the design and construction of a new space vehicle fleet by 2014 (called the Crew Exploration Vehicle) to replace the aging space shuttles which will be retired in 2010"

Anyone else concerned about the 4 year break from the retirement of the shuttle to the *planned* launch of the new craft? The last time we'll have stayed out of space for so long is before the shuttle launch (assuming we get back there following Columbia anywhere near NASA's schedule). There are already problems with the ISS given the shuttle's current grounding...

Re:4 years? (1)

kippy (416183) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980111)

The point of space exploration isn't just to get into space for the sake of being in an airtight container. It seemed like it was for the past 20 or 30 years but being out of space for 4 years in the interest of going out and exploring for theright reasons is well justified.

Re:4 years? (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980161)

I'll agree with that, but as I said, we're already running into some problems with the ISS sitting up there with a decaying orbit and being less productive than it would be if we could take stuff up. Unless the shuttles are or become rediculuously unsafe, I see little reason to retire them before the replacement is ready. Especially when you consider that it'll probably be a year or two late at least.

Soyuz. (1)

jabberjaw (683624) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980144)

How about a soyuz [russianspaceweb.com] ? They are tried, true, and tough as nails.

Re:Soyuz. (1)

EvanED (569694) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980189)

Soyuz are amazingly good for taking crew and supplies, but they don't even begin to compare to the shuttle's lifting power. The crew on the station is currently two instead of three. Why? The shuttle can't go up. There's (currently) no way to boost the ISS without the shuttle. There's no way to take up new components without the shuttle. It's up there, but it's being less productive than it could be.

Re:4 years? (1)

ebrandsberg (75344) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980154)

I believe that this push to the moon is because the shuttle is not even going to last till 2010-it will last till 2003, oh wait, it's already 2004! The shuttle is dead, this move is a politically sound way of justifying killing it off sooner rather then later.

Re:4 years? (2, Interesting)

sharrestom (531929) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980193)

That's how long that it will take to copy the design in China, and put it on the shelves in WalMart. "Always low price. Always"

Money Better Spent (2, Insightful)

lukior (727393) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980072)

I am a big proponent of the space program but i think money would be much better spent developing resources on the moon as opposed to going to mars. I am not saying mars should not be an eventual goal but im much more interested in the moon as a future energy resource.

Re:Money Better Spent (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980164)

The Moon is noticeably lacking in one critical ingredient for long-term occupation: water. Mars, on the other hand, has plenty of water.

Yay Bush! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980073)

Insert Bush gives money and it's Wednesday so he must be good here. Tomorrow I expect everybody to hate him for being in Iraq again.

bush? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980078)

Off the FAQ:

Q: What is the president proposing?
A: To send astronauts back to the moon and establish an "extended presence" there. Later in this century, astronauts would be sent on to Mars.

Mokey see, mokey do.

Sorry, couldn't resist :)

New funding source (1)

pavon (30274) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980085)

The astronauts should do what the rest of do when we need money for long road trips - donate plasma.

A lot more money are needed than this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980087)

A lot more money are needed than this.

Mayby 10 times the money.

George Bush == Tax and Spend RINO (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980088)

George Bush never heard of a spending increase he didn't like. Maybe you heard about his latest -- one billion dollars to promote "marriage". No kidding. Add in drug entitlements, the "education" slop trough, amnesty for criminals, campaign finance "reform", pie in the sky "space exploration" tax payer sinkholes, add it all up and you see that Al Gore really is sitting in the White House.

Lunacy and how to fix it (5, Interesting)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980090)

First lunacy: waste money bringing the space station up to snuff, then abandon our part in. That's one hell of a message to send to future prospective partners.

Second lunacy: only add $1B to NASA's budget. They will have to gut every other program to fund this return to the moon, and they appear to be eager to do so.

Third lunacy: nothing in this proposal has anything to do with making access to space cheaper.

What ought to happen is tell NASA to get out of the way of independent private companies who are trying to get into space for much less money than NASA spends just thinking about it. That's the key. Let NASA build satellites and telescopes and whatnot, but make it law that NASA has to go with the cheapest launcher of reasonable reliablity, and if that means going with some private company who can do it for 1/10th the cost of Lockheed or Boeing or Ariane, so be it.

Was it just me... (5, Funny)

josefcub (212738) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980092)

Or did President Bush say "Crew Expiration Vehicle" three times during his speech, and made reference to "expiration that will inspire today's students"?

I've been around Texas, and I tell you I've never heard a native Texan mispronounce a word like "exploration" so obviously, repeatedly, and to me, ominously.

Timeline hole (5, Insightful)

doorman (61472) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980094)

IF we retire the shuttle fleet by 2010 and bring the new vehicle on by 2014, what exactly do we do for the grounded four year? Don't see any other option offered, and hitching a ride with the Russians only goes so far.

How to pay for it? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980095)

Well, stop bombing people would be a good start.

2015 seems a little late (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980096)

In 1961, Kennedy said that we would land on the Moon by the end of the decade. Eight years later we did it, and we had to develop the technology along the way. Now, in 2004, Bush says that we will be back on the Moon by 2015, and we have the technology already. Is it really going to take us eleven years to get back to where we were in 1969?

Re:2015 seems a little late (2, Interesting)

Jubedgy (319420) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980184)

IMHO the first attempt was just a 'hey! let's do this quick and dirty' kinda thing. This time, with the moon being only a rest stop, there'll probably be much more testing and thought going into everything (assuming all of this gets off the ground....).

I see a bit of a problem... (0, Redundant)

rewt66 (738525) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980098)

If the shuttle is retired in 2010, and the new vehicle is available in 2014 (later, if it's delayed), then this leaves nothing for four years. Not good.

Bush's Space Smokescreen (5, Insightful)

hirschma (187820) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980102)

Let us not forget that the first President Bush suggested much the same thing: let's go back to the Moon, let's get ourselves to Mars, etc. He did it in the waning days of his presidency, to help boost his decreasing popularity, and to take attention away from the declining state of the economy.

Now, Bush II does the same thing. First, he tried the immigration proposal, and that went over like a lead balloon. Now, he's throwing the next shiny toy in front of us, hoping that we'll forget the issues that his administration are glossing over.

This is not a Kennedy-type announcement. We are not going back to the Moon, we will not be going to Mars, and more than likely, we will not be replacing the space shuttles.

Headline from 2012: President Jeb Bush announces that we're going back to Moon, and then on to Mars...

Reflecting on the prior article (5, Insightful)

Dirtside (91468) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980104)

Hooray, if it happens. As many people pointed out when this announcement was, er, announced a couple weeks ago, this is basically a no-lose proposition for Dubya. Even if he actually does approve a massive increase in NASA's budget this term, and even if he does win a second term as President, there's no guarantee that the subsequent administrations (or Congresses) won't reduce NASA's budget or otherwise do something to kill the project.

So Bush gets to look good to everyone who like space exploration -- which is most people -- without having to necessarily live up to his promise. Given Bush's track record as president and as a human being, I'm inclined to believe that he doesn't personally give a rat's ass whether we get back to the moon or Mars -- he knows that this is a simple campaigning trick (make a fantastic promise that you can't be held accountable for).

Yeah, I hope it does happen -- but I'm still not voting for the guy.

RE: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980106)

does US have the right to do that on the moon?

I still think that this is an attempted backdoor (2, Interesting)

Darth23 (720385) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980108)

to try to (further) militarize space. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the actual proposed funding was much more linked to the Back From the Dead SDI 'peace sheild' Death Star that the Republicans have been creaming for ever since they first saw Star Wars.

A Second Golden Age for NASA (3, Interesting)

Omega1045 (584264) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980110)

Whatever you may say Bush's motivation is or what you think of Bush, this is a great announcement! I don't care if we are in a deficit. I don't care how much this costs. We MUST boldly go where no one has gone before, for the rest of the time our species exists.

How many technologies we are using toady are based (somewhere in their roots) on the Apollo missions or shuttle missions? What a great advancement for mankind!

Long Shot.... (2, Funny)

telstar (236404) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980117)

Jeez, just yesterday I read about how they were searching for water on Mars, now we're looking for Bushes on the Moon? They aughta start with that young one ... I bet Jenna's fallen over and seen stars a bunch of times...

better ways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980118)

There are better ways to spend that money on science. Space travel is just the most dramatic and campain friendly.

So long as... (1)

JoeyLemur (10451) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980119)

...when they decide to try a Mars shot, they do it on a true interplanetary craft (i.e. something built in and made for nothing but interplanetary space) instead of trying to cram it into a shuttle-alike (i.e. something built for ground to orbit transfer).

Going to the moon first and setting up permanent residence there, and setting up mining and construction facilities, would certainly make it a lot more feasible.

That's silly (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980121)

However Congress is concerned about how to pay for the new space policy, initiative in the face of a $500 billion national budget deficit.

Who cares? I think we've proven at this point that the national deficit doesn't matter and we've got a lot more debt to accumulate and other countries have a lot more arsenal building before it becomes a real problem. The nice thing is, if it looks like it will become a problem, you can just leave the country. A similar strategy worked well for Dubya back in his oil days.

Preying on Emotions (5, Insightful)

ParadoxicalPostulate (729766) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980125)

Eh, in my opinion its all a ploy to get people hyped up for the elections. Sure, you may argue its a little early but I will just say "NO."

I'd say its pretty damn obvious he has no interest in the space program itself. Besides, it seems like a really bad time considering the economy + iraq + afghanistan. Then again, since most of the Iraq/Afghanistan money was conveniently left out of the budget, I could see how Bush plans to pay for this.

What saddens me is that, even though the majority of informed individuals can see right through this, there's not a damn thing we can do. There's no powerful candidate to oppose him. Odds are that he will win, and that'll serve as a pat on the back for all the stuff he's done since he entered office (in his mind and that of his administration).

Anyway, I would welcome a space program if it was sincerely intended. But I don't think this particular thing will amount to much - its very easy to plan something that'll cost hundreds of billions of dollars in the future, because you're not the one who's gonna be in office when the time comes to commit resources!

You are not among the informed. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980188)

What saddens me is that, even though the majority of informed individuals can see right through this

There is nothing to see through, so if you see through it you are mistaken.

Eh, in my opinion its all a ploy to get people hyped up for the elections

Few care about Mars, actually. If he really was doing what you claimed, he'd come up with a real example of it.

Priorities. (0)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980126)

It might have been nice if they'd used to $80 billion or so that went to the war on Iraq for this instead. I suspect that we'd have a permanent moon base before 2015 with an $80 billion dollar increase into NASA spending.

Well, maybe, presuming inept bureaucracy didn't manage to create a black hole for the cash. At this stage I'd rather see them hand a mere $100 million into the X-Prize kitty. That seems a more productive use of funds at this stage.

Who wants to bet the X-prize gets claimed this year? Odds are looking pretty good considering Scaled Composties latest rounds of testing [scaled.com] .


Karl Rove doesn't understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980127)

If Rove thinks Americans give a flying fuck about Moon missions amidst our mounting national debt, 1 trilion deficit, unprovoked wars in foreign lands, and all the jobs lost under Bush's administration, he's sorely mistaken.

This pipe-dream initiative is not going to influence people to vote for Bush. I would be inclined to believe he announced this to secure a legacy, but after all the disasterous policies by this administration, not even discovery of alien life in a neighboring solar system will save Bush from being remembered as the worst President America has ever had.

Register to vote. Drive this madman out of the office to salvage this once great nation.

12B is chicken scratch (3, Insightful)

Ryan Stortz (598060) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980129)

$12B is chicken scratch compared to all the revenue NASA's advances will create. If you compared NASA's budget from it's inception until 1980 againist the money made by all their advances. The price would be moot. The companies who NASA outsourced to are now using what they learned and discovered to create newer and better products.

call me paranoid... (1)

cRueLio (679516) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980134)

... but i think bush's sudden interest in space is just campaigning.
if i remember right, he even CUT nasa spending at the beginning of his term. he's trying to create the image of the forward-looking, glorious-American presidential candidate.
by voting for him, he is saying, you will bring the glory of conquering the space frontier to America...

I work as a NASA Contractor... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980139)

and that $1 billion dollars of extra funding over the next five years, will barely cover my salary!

Progress (3, Funny)

kels (9845) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980147)

In the 1960's, it took us under 9 years from Kennedy's pledge to land on the moon.

Now we can do it in 11!

NASA Lottery (2, Interesting)

Mathetes (132911) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980148)

I propose that NASA be authorized to create a lottery for supplemental funding. It could either be a traditional cash lottery, or perhaps they could make the prizes NASA related, such as getting your name on a space probe, or give away some NASA merchandise. The "Big Jackpot" could be a trip to the International Space Station valued at $20 million. If the eligible person can't qualify for health reasons, he/she could sell the spot.

Has it occurred to anyone... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980149)

Has it occurred to anyone that this is just a way of diverting large quantities of money to Bush's corporate friends?

Not that I object to going to Mars, far from it. Just the 1 trillion estimates I see really make me wonder just how much is going directly into people's pockets.

One billion dollars TA NA NA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980150)

Holding my pinky finger to the edge of my mouth

Seriously this is chump change. I hope we can really get private industry on board and make this happen.


Why so long? (2, Insightful)

thesupermikey (220055) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980155)

We got the the moon the first time in less then 10 years. We have much more advanced rockets and computer technology then we did in 1969, so it doesnt make sense that it is going to take that long to work program back up.

DIEBOLD (2, Informative)

SHEENmaster (581283) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980159)

Aparently congress unanimously voted to give the money to DIEBOLD instead.

I guess Europe will beat us to Mars.

Bush misses the point (1)

goMac2500 (741295) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980162)

The reason this worked for Kennedy in relation to the first moon missions was because we had somebody to compete against, the Soivet Union. The Soviets were on the way to the moon and we had to beat them there. Hes sadly mistaken if he thinks this will win him points in the election. But then again, when hasn't he been mistaken?

It sucks. (5, Funny)

TheOnlyCoolTim (264997) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980169)

In 1961, when shit wasn't invented yet and people fought bears for vital food, President Kennedy had the balls to give NASA less than nine years to get to the moon.
In this day and age, when there's metric shitloads of technology all over the place and the internet makes valuable porn as free as air, President Bush gives it twelve years. What a tool.

Now I am reading more, and the deadline is actually 2020. That's seventeen years.

See, Kennedy had the balls to lay a firm deadline down. "You bitches will put a man on the moon before January 1, 1970 or I will come back from the grave and kick your ass," he said. He knew he was going to get shot. That's how hardcore he was. He also got crazy laid by Marilyn Monroe.

President Bush says, "You ought to think about just possibly putting a man on the moon sometime during this five year period."

President Kennedy showed us that you have to slap NASA around a little bit to get them to do anything worthwhile with manned space exploration. You can't be all lovey-dovey and set long gradual timetables.

And Bush mentions "the goal of living and working there for increasingly extended periods." So we'll have another Skylab ISS, but on the moon. The only differences will be that it won't crash into Australia like Skylab (it will crash into the Moon instead - that might sound hard to acheive since it would already be on the surface of the moon, but they will find a way to do that), it will leak more than ISS, and since it won't even be international we won't be able to bum rides from the Russians.

If Kennedy was alive in this day and age he would have said, "Fucking NASA, I am still alive in this day and age so you assholes better have a self-sufficient Mars base by the year 2013. Also make me a space elevator. And resurrect Marilyn Monroe." Then NASA would complain that it is not their job to resurrect people and Kennedy would punch NASA in the eye.

I bet the "Crew Exploration Vehicle" is going to blow the fuck up about twenty times too. You can probably trace the suckiness of manned space exploration to the decision to switch from cool names like "Mercury" and "Apollo" to crappy names like "Skylab" and "STS." When the Apollo blew up they fucking fixed it and came home, but when the Space Shuttle gets fucked up they make Powerpoints about it and ignore the problem.


Cost issues et. al. (5, Insightful)

Leebert (1694) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980170)

OK. So here's the 86 billion dollar question: Who is going to pay for all of this? I'm as much for space exploration as the next guy (Heck, I *work* for NASA), but let's be honest: BUDGET DEFICIT

Here's the scariest part of Bush's speech: "NASA's current five-year budget is $86 billion. Most of the funding we need for the new endeavors will come from re-allocating $11 billion from within that budget." Hey other NASA folks out there, you know what this means: The return of the "ISS Tax".

Developing a new vehicle, returning to the Moon, going to Mars... This is all going to cost a lot of money, will it be fully funded? Part of the reason that the Space Shuttle is such a failure is the fact that it was not adequately funded*. One of the contributing factors to our ability to go to the moon the first time was that NASA had a blank check.

* This is addressed in the CAIB report, if you haven't read the section on the history of the politics of the STS, it's worth a glance.

Asteroid or armageddon (1)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980174)

The more sober scientists tell you that robots can do more in space more cheaply than humans. However, they overlook the fact that sometime within the next million years, something is going to kill 90% of the life on this planet. Or maybe the next hundred million years. It *will* happen.

We have to get off this planet for that reason. Nothing else you spend the money on will be worth anything when that happens.

Why not private funded? (1)

teetam (584150) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980179)

Why should taxpayer money be used for this? I am sure there are millions of citizens who think this is a good idea. Why can't they get together and fund a private expedition?

I am not sure whether any of this will benefit anyone. It is high time we got away from the socialist model of paying high taxes and hoping that the government spends it wisely!

Gah (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7980183)

I sure hope Bush doesn't intend to stay in office through 2015 to see this plan through! What a travesty!!

Why Government? (1)

CyberVenom (697959) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980194)

I think it will be the private sector that will actually accomplish these things. Take a look at the X-Prize [xprize.com] competition for an example. Several teams are ready for suborbital launch this year.
Personally, I can't wait for John Carmack [armadilloaerospace.com] (of id [idsoftware.com] fame) to start working on a moon mission.
Looking at these private people and corporations' budgets, you can see that this sort of thing, if handeled properly, by skilled people, can cost far less than overpriced government programs.
So, I say "Yes, let's go to the moon, but let's fly Jet Blue!"

"Much remains for us to explore..." (1)

akuzi (583164) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980196)


Bush also said the soil of the moon "contains raw materials that might be harvested and processed into rocket fuel or breathable air.". Presumably he thinks we will need some breathable air on Earth after all he's done to lower air cleanliness standards!

The sad thing is that this new space initiative has little to do with the true desire to explore new frontiers and everything to do with maintaining space dominance over China, India and anyone else who wants to challenge the US as the world's sole superpower.

A Cynic might suggest (3, Insightful)

Quirk (36086) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980197)

...Bush's space exploration initiative is a deflection of media attention away from a steady diet of the overall cost of war and occupation.

Finally a worthy cause (1)

bigjnsa500 (575392) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980198)

Finally a worthy cause I support and I am glad my tax dollars will fund it. We should have never stopped going to the Moon. The scientific research alone is worth it. Once we're finally here, some scientist will come up with a way to transform the enormous reserves of Helium3 into a rocket fuel. Launching from the Moon is a whole heck of lot easier as a starting point for a manned Mars mission.

Time for bush to start thinking like a Dem (0)

Chris_Stankowitz (612232) | more than 10 years ago | (#7980199)

Congress is concerned about how to pay for the new space policy

As main stream dems never advocate spending-just "Investing in Americas future", something tells me thats how this reather large nut will be shoved down Americas throat. Not that I don't support the space program, but is there anything G-duya won't throw money at?

I think I'll send him a letter askign him to buy this bridge that I have, its a regular cash cow, it already has a toll booth on it and everything.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account