If this had been announced in 1999 when the US had a budget surplus and there was some real substance behind the initiative, I'd have been excited about it. But this initiative by President Bush is being used to incite memories of JFK while at the same time, doing nothing significant to help NASA. It's going to cost *much, much more* than an extra $1 Billion over 5 years to rebuild the fleet and get missions going to the Moon and Mars.
Fran are you that young?
Agreed on the PROJECTED budget surplus era (don't forget that P word), that would have been great! No Twin Towers destruction, no Afghan War, no Iraq War....think of the savings. But all that stuff happened...so.
To the Moon? Interesting. To Mars? I still estimate 18 years before that happens (a mega-optimistic prediction, bound to be wrong).
But the thing that gets me, that does sound like Bush-bashing (as you put it) is the fact that you say "and there was some real substance behind the initiative". Edit: The rest of this is based on the assumption you meant that Clinton's proposal (because he was Clinton) would make it substantial...but now I'm thinking you were just saying "if the proposal (regardless of era) had scientific merit" ....I'm thinking that's what you meant.....please read the rest with that grain of salt in mind!
[grain of salt mode]
Don't do that.
Science operates spiritually outside of politics. Politics is a bother, a hindrance to scientists...but it's also the hand that feeds. So science is indeed thrall to politics.
Why would a Clinton-era space initiative be ANY MORE "substantial" than a Bush-era initiative? The only difference would be a more easily paid-for program. Everything else is politics. I sometimes get the feeling that a lot of people are offended if space initiatives are proposed by non-Democrats. President Kennedy fought the Cold War space fight, but the Democratic Party doesn't own the space plank.
Science is always ready to jump at a chance to explore, regardless of the powers-that-be.
[/grain of salt mode]
I think that you're more even-handed than a lot of the people who post in this forum....that's why I'm responding to that quote.
Great but how are we gonna pay for it now? Cut taxes and still have 1 trillion left over, like he said in 2000?
Unfortunately, this is easily attainable, were it not for things like pork spending. Bush isn't tough enough to call the congressional body out on their excessive spending, mainly due in part to his own fiscal policies. This country needs a real ball buster for president who will truly examine what the tax money is spent on and cut out the bullshit. I just don't see that happening in my lifetime though.
To the Moon? Interesting. To Mars? I still estimate 18 years before that happens (a mega-optimistic prediction, bound to be wrong).
My dad said that back when he was 5 years old, the moon seemed impossible, but believe it or not, by the time he was 15, we were there. So don't underestimate what the human race can do.
Comments
If this had been announced in 1999 when the US had a budget surplus and there was some real substance behind the initiative, I'd have been excited about it. But this initiative by President Bush is being used to incite memories of JFK while at the same time, doing nothing significant to help NASA. It's going to cost *much, much more* than an extra $1 Billion over 5 years to rebuild the fleet and get missions going to the Moon and Mars.
Fran are you that young?
Agreed on the PROJECTED budget surplus era (don't forget that P word), that would have been great! No Twin Towers destruction, no Afghan War, no Iraq War....think of the savings. But all that stuff happened...so.
To the Moon? Interesting. To Mars? I still estimate 18 years before that happens (a mega-optimistic prediction, bound to be wrong).
But the thing that gets me, that does sound like Bush-bashing (as you put it) is the fact that you say "and there was some real substance behind the initiative". Edit: The rest of this is based on the assumption you meant that Clinton's proposal (because he was Clinton) would make it substantial...but now I'm thinking you were just saying "if the proposal (regardless of era) had scientific merit" ....I'm thinking that's what you meant.....please read the rest with that grain of salt in mind!
[grain of salt mode]
Don't do that.
Science operates spiritually outside of politics. Politics is a bother, a hindrance to scientists...but it's also the hand that feeds. So science is indeed thrall to politics.
Why would a Clinton-era space initiative be ANY MORE "substantial" than a Bush-era initiative? The only difference would be a more easily paid-for program. Everything else is politics. I sometimes get the feeling that a lot of people are offended if space initiatives are proposed by non-Democrats. President Kennedy fought the Cold War space fight, but the Democratic Party doesn't own the space plank.
Science is always ready to jump at a chance to explore, regardless of the powers-that-be.
[/grain of salt mode]
I think that you're more even-handed than a lot of the people who post in this forum....that's why I'm responding to that quote.
Originally posted by BRussell
Great but how are we gonna pay for it now? Cut taxes and still have 1 trillion left over, like he said in 2000?
Unfortunately, this is easily attainable, were it not for things like pork spending. Bush isn't tough enough to call the congressional body out on their excessive spending, mainly due in part to his own fiscal policies. This country needs a real ball buster for president who will truly examine what the tax money is spent on and cut out the bullshit. I just don't see that happening in my lifetime though.
Originally posted by drewprops
Fran441 wrote:
To the Moon? Interesting. To Mars? I still estimate 18 years before that happens (a mega-optimistic prediction, bound to be wrong).
My dad said that back when he was 5 years old, the moon seemed impossible, but believe it or not, by the time he was 15, we were there. So don't underestimate what the human race can do.
Dang.