If you have a different viewpoint other than the poll options, please post it too. :wink:

5) A transparent election year ploy with absolutely zero intent to follow through. :wink:

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

6. A cynical ploy to deflect attention from the fact that he hasn't found any weapons of mass destruction - only a lot of increasing angry Iraqis. :roll:

7.) An insidious plot to get political discussion into the BABB

Given how little it received mention at the State of the Union address, I don't see much resolve.

I'd like to vote for alternatives 3 through 7 but can't figure out how to do so before BA locks this thread. :wink:

Frankly, if we actually do go, I don't care WHY we go, just so long as we do.

__________________
But he that sows lies in the end shall not lack of a harvest, and soon he may rest from toil indeed while others reap and sow in his stead. -J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion

Bush's motivations don't stop us from liking the idea, but they do stop us from getting too enthusiastic, because we fear if he isn't sincere, it won't come to anything.

Bush not sincere? [-X

__________________
"If lightspeed has something to do with speed.
how come things can move fast in the dark?"
-James Driscoll (Spaceman), kook, imbecile, idiot.

I think that has more to do with the fact that the idea has gone over like a lead balloon with the public. Overwhelmingly, the public is dead-set against the idea right now, saying we don't have the money to do it. Yet, at the same time, the public still wants manned space flight.

So, I guess flying the "old-and-busted" Shuttle to the ISS is fine, but the "new-hotness" CEV isn't. *shrug* ](*,)

__________________
Sleep? Isn't that that totally inadaquate substitute for caffeine I've heard so much about?

Quantumfoamy.com, my astronomy/astrophotography blog.

Yeah, what the Public wants is a Booster that weighs an Ounce, but can lift a Ton.

It won't happen, but hey, I don't think the President knows that ...

:roll:

__________________
If you Ignore YOUR Rights, they Will go away.

I'm disagreeing with you on both counts, actually.

I think what the public wants is a booster that doesn't cost anything and can lift whatever they want it to.

As for Bush, note that his plan sticks with existing Delta and Atlas boosters. Methinks you're selling the President and his advisors short on this issue.

__________________
Sleep? Isn't that that totally inadaquate substitute for caffeine I've heard so much about?

Quantumfoamy.com, my astronomy/astrophotography blog.

oh sure, when I talk politics, I get a banning warning, :roll: but when you guys do it, everything is ok




(and yes, you may all reply with this)

:-({|=

__________________
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
--Bertrand Russell

We're discussing space policy.

My vote would probably be for no. 5.

I strongly support Bush's bold, new plan for manned & unmanned space exploration. I'm not that cynical enough to believe that it was just an "election year" ploy.
Just be thankful that Bush has "got the ball rolling". Clinton, for sure, didn't.
The new technological & energy sources developed for this project will be amazing.
I have a feeling that most of the grumbling over whether Bush is sincere about pushing this project is because of the negative, anti-Bush feelings that some of you have. That clouds your judgement.
Whether a Republican or Democratic President pushes this program shouldn't matter. Just get onboard and enjoy the ride!

__________________
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice." -Albert Einstein

Naturalistic Macro-Evolution is an unsound theory.

Since this is something that won't happen before the end of even his 2nd term, if he gets one, the next president, even if it's a Republican, will not be obligated to continue his policy. And a Democrat may wreck it just because it was Bushs idea. Then we will be back to square one, trying to get another rover to Mars.

__________________
I'm not a scientist, but I play one on the internet.
http://www.rrac.org

It's too bad we don't have any scientists running for president -- we might actually get a decent space policy if we did. I note, along with everyone else, that Bush's announcement has dropped from sight faster than a shuttle on landing approach...

__________________
Starry, starry night...

My site TheSpacewriter.com
and my blog: TheSpaceWriter's Ramblings

What, Bush was the first one to support a plan for space exploration? What do you think has been going on for the past 40 years?
Everyone's entitled to his own opinion, but....
Uh, like I said, the ball's been rolling for 40 years.
Excuse me? Did you do your research on this? Are you saying there were no scientific advances from 1992 through 2000? Are you saying that the rovers that are rolling around on Mars as we speak were not the result of Clinton's stated policy? I think you'd better check out this 1996 article that clarifies Clinton's position on manned vs. unmanned space exploration.

From the article, it appears that the current President Bush is just once again aping one of his daddy's unfulfilled dreams, this time of sending humans to Mars. Whether this dream makes scientific sense is, of course, highly questionable and a matter of considerable debate.

Do you think all the negative, anti-Bush feelings that people have just come to them out of the blue? I think there's ample evidence that there are very real, rational, and defensible reasons for these negative, anti-Bush feelings. Rather than clouding one's judgment, such reasons provide well-ground lenses to bring appropriate judgment into focus.

I agree with Spacewriter - it's a pity we don't have any scientists running for president. It's too bad we don't have more scientist politicians at any level. If we continue to make political decisions and policies based on emotional response, religious dogma, and pure profit motive, I'm afraid our progress is going to be severely slowed....

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Howard Dean has an M.D.. Does that count?

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

"It's too bad we don't have any scientists running for president -- we might actually get a decent space policy if we did. I note, along with everyone else, that Bush's announcement has dropped from sight faster than a shuttle on landing approach..."

Most scientists have better things to do than run for President. But if some scientists found the time, they would lose. The only science types you are going to get are people like Gore- in other words, people doing a very bad job at pretending they have some scientific understanding.

As far as Bush's announcement- anyone who has even slightest interest in space policy, knows it's a significant announcement; and though there is a lot of work yet to be done, so far, it's on track and looks promising.

I think this (very informal) poll has shown so far:

1. No matter whether a citizen is politically liberal, middle, or conservative in American politics, it has nothing to do with one's personal enthusiasm for either astronomy or space exploration.

2. Being as this is an election year in the States, people who post here are: Pro-space exploration but (in most cases) tempered with a reserved judgment and skepticism, as the President has shown no real prior interest in science or space exploration.

It seems that such a massive commitment would entail the follow-up of (at least) a preliminary press conference outlining the basis for such projects and eventually the introduction to the public of a group of experts appointed by science advisors and NASA chief Sean O'Keefe, to simply outline the basis and reasoning for such projects. (O'Keefe recently proposed a budget in January for completion of the ISS.)

Maybe this Moon and Mars press conference will happen, or has happened without much coverage - but I haven't seen it. There have been meetings and conferences about Moon and Mars exploration but not under the auspices of the White House.

"It seems that such a massive commitment would entail the follow-up of (at least) a preliminary press conference outlining the basis for such projects and eventually the introduction to the public of a group of experts appointed by science advisors and NASA chief Sean O'Keefe, to simply outline the basis and reasoning for such projects. (O'Keefe recently proposed a budget in January for completion of the ISS.) "

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=930
[linked from NASAWatch]
"In announcing his new space policy last month, President Bush also announced a commission whose job it was to see the policy through its initial birth pangs.

That committee met for the first time on Thursday. Chaired by former Deputy Defense Secretary Pete Aldridge, the nine member "President's Commission on Implementation of U.S. Space Policy" has 120 days to produce a report for the President."

The problem with scientists is, they talk about facts and tell the truth.


:wink:

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

I'm wondering how the government is going to follow through on this. The motive for Kennedy's announcement that we would put someone on the Moon by the end of the decade was driven by Cold War competition. I don't see a political motive this time, other than to make Dad proud and to boost public opinion, and that doesn't affect Congress (except by party connections). I'm not even sure what the scientific motive behind this would be.

I'm going with:
8. A decision that is not well thought out, based on a personal goal and the hope of boosted political ratings.

__________________
If the math works...Can I borrow your calculator?

I'm still in high school (read: low school). Please translate science stuff.

#5 with shades of #6.

I will agree, though, that if we end up building a moon base and sending a manned mission to Mars as a result, I don't care what the original motives were.

Hey, maybe it could work... Say it becomes an election issue. "Where's your credibility, Mr. President? You promised funds for the moon and Mars. Where are they?" "Yeah, well, I just increased NASA's budget, so there!" "Uh huh, well, if I'm elected, I'll double that amount." "Ha! You can't 'cause, I just did!!"

Could work. (sigh)

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Sort of off topic.. Shouldn't there be a mission to land a man on a near-earth asteroid as a warm up to a Mars landing?

~Bub

Interesting proposal. Not sure if that wouldn't be more problematic though.

I don't think this is a particularly good idea. The problem is with orbits--with a Mars mission, a (relatively) minimum cost orbit comes around every two years and a bit, the stay at Mars for a minimum return cost orbit is maybe 15 months. If you miss one launch window, you wait a couple years for the next one. You also have the advantage of being able to launch your base camp during the previous encounter; the manned launch can be held off until the base camp reports that it has landed and has generated enough fuel for a return mission.

With the NEO the orbits are quite a bit messier. For minimum-cost orbits, you have to wait for near approaches, which could take decades or more. Most likely you'd try to arrange things so that the return flight would be the cheapest leg; the flight out would burn a large amount of fuel (possibly more than one leg of a Mars flight, the details depend on the NEO). There would be no close approaches before the manned flight--most likely the manned flight would need to take everything with it. There is no flexibility in the launch schedule--if you miss your window you need to scrub the entire mission and look for a different NEO to encounter. And, the NEO has no atmosphere--you can't aerobrake to a landing. Because there's likely no chance of an unmanned scout mission, there's no way the base there is going to be able to rely on in situ materials.

9. Same as above but far, far worse: a plan that will be implemented, will be an order of magnitude over budget, will cost many lives, will break NASA and close it down, and will leave the millitary as the only U.S. entity involved in space development.

Those are the long term goals of this proposal as I see them.