Moon mission - any comments?

I don't think this administration can do anything right.
Here I see NASA is still misrepresenting the failure rate of the shuttle. I have a bad feeling about the new moon mission.

"NASA estimates the failure rate for the space shuttle program is 1 in 220. Of the 114 shuttle flights launched since 1981, two shuttles have been destroyed and 14 astronauts have perished."
http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-09-20-voa43.cfm

why not shoot for the moon too?

Thank's for nothing Bush.

robotic probes can do the job more cheaply, and get just as much information.

Sending robots to Europa to drill into the ocean under the ice would be a much more interesting use of the money.

Nonetheless, I think the shuttle concept is sound, and perhaps even best. The CEV is a giant step backwards in many ways-- most especially in that it is designed as a dual use vehicle, i.e. to perform space missions and to shuttle between the surface and space. I really believe that a multi-vehicle approach would be better, i.e. mission vehicles left in permanent orbit and a shuttle fleet that did little more than ferry crew and cargo between the surface and orbit. Such a scheme would require assembly and service infrastructure in orbit-- a big investment, but one that will be necessary if we EVER want to realize any material gains from space exploitation. And like the shipyards of the last several centuries, such a facility would not only improve future flights, it would STIMULATE further development in space.

It seems like a step backwards.
The space station was supposed to be what you described,
shuttles would ferry people up and down from earth.
Other craft would have been used to go between the space station and the moon or Mars.

The CEV is purely a means of getting off the earth and back to it. Each mission will require a manned craft specially designed for the task at hand. The lunar missions will require a lunar landing craft and trans-lunar rocket that is launched separately. This craft and the CEV will rendezvous in earth orbit and the trans-lunar rocket will propel the combined craft to the moon. Following lunar operations the CEV will devliver the crew to earth. The CEV is a means of getting out of and back into the Earth's atmosphere safely.

It's tiny and aerodynamic,
neither of which are needed for going from earth orbit to the moon.
I thought they would park the CEV at the ISS,
then go in a roomier vehicle to the moon.
The roomier vehicle wouldn't have to withstand the launch from earth,
or the re-entry to earth, so it could be designed quite differently.

The launch to the moon from low earth orbit was (in those days) and will be (in the future) designed to place the crew on a free-return trajectory to Earth. This means that the crew will be able, even if all else fails on the way to the moon, to enter the Earth's atmosphere after passing around the moon. It's best to have a craft capable of an atmospheric entry if this is ever needed. Apollo 13 is the best example of how this plan was used.

If the crew launched to the moon from ISS in just the lunar landing craft, and something happened on the way out, or on the way back and couldn't rendezvous with the CEV docked at ISS, what would happen?

Simplicity in times of need is the key to crew survival. The principles were worked out in the 1960s.

As for the CEV being a sardine can - every craft that has carried crews to and from earth orbit have been sardine cans - even the space shuttle. The crew compartment of the shuttle is quite cramped with a full crew of 7. That's the nature of those beasts.

As for the CEV being aerodynamic - it's aerodynamic only because it has a heat shield and a center of mass that is off center. The same was true for the Apollo command modules. That's not very aerodynamic when compared to the shuttle.

program is so far behind what our expectations were only thirty years ago, but we're in financial ruin.I wanted to be visiting the moon on vacations by this decade, and I do believe a robust space program leads to all sorts of technological as well as scientific advances, but we gotta start feeding people first.

First I want to address this-
"It is very Apollo-like,” said Mr. Griffin. ”It may have a different heat shield. It may have a different surface contact system, But the outer mold line is very Apollo like, except larger. Think of it as Apollo on steroids."

Okay, Apollo was nice but this is 2005. By the time this thing gets into outer space, at earliest it will be 2018. That's a 13 year technology difference from today. Yes, Apollo... nostalgia... blah, blah, blah... don't be stupid. Use the resources to envision the future, not recreate the past. Be more ambitious, damn it.

Second, I want to address the whole deal with people going into outer space. It's dangerous. People died trying. People will die in the future trying. Get over it. It is a dangerous thing, these are smart folks and they know that they are putting their lives in harms way for science (very courageous). A few hundred years ago sailing across the ocean was a dangerous thing. Lots of people died. This is no different. Death is always tragic, but it is inevitable - the world needs to get over it and move on. Else we will constantly be delayed and will accomplish less.

Also, if we ever go to Mars there is a good chance that the men and women who go will end up getting stuck and dying there. It is a high probability. You have a good 20 years or so to digest that fact and get over it.

The reason the new craft won't get to the moon until 2018 is because of the shuttle and ISS. These projects, for good or bad, will be sucking up the budget until at least 2010, if not beyond that. Only then can we begin thinking beyond low-earth orbit. Get rid of the shuttle and ISS and we can be on the moon in 6 years.

The craft being proposed by NASA for the CEV and the associated launchers are based on the best designs of the past 40 years. The physics of space travel don't change much. The blunt-face re-entry vehicles designed 40 years ago by Max Faget and his team are still the most reliable means of getting people into and back from earth orbit.

Yes, it's so retro and so sixties ... but those craft worked very well indeed, and space hasn't changed much since then.

What do you recommend as a substitute for these retro designs?

First the tired argument that we have to fix things here first are never going to go away, because the problems are never going to go away...we can't stop progress until we solve every problem, because these problems are essentially unsolvable.

By this logic, every government program not directly involved with solving these problems ought to be cut. So do away with the NEA, the NEH, and all pure (as opposed to applied) research for starters.


Robotics are wonderful, but they are not intuitive, they cannot easily respond to unexpected situations. In short, they can get us started, but it will take human beings to get the job done.

Space is the next step in our exploration ..and in order for that exploration to be fulfilling and inspiring, men (and women), have to do it.

As to this proposal, it looks pretty good to me. Apollo got alot of things right and there is no use changing it for change sake. They are using the most reliable components of the shuttle program which will reduce cost. The shuttle boosters are excellent at launching enormous payloads into low earth orbit. I hope they can get the Russians and Europeans involved in this in a meangingful way

We need to be building a space infrastructure, where one step supports the next...and these need to be permanent. The space station is the jump off for the moon base, and the moon base for mars exploration. And at each of these steps, there ought to be a permanent human presence

The exploration of the moon this time will involve longer stays by more people, but this should lead to a permanent presence. There is an enourmous amount of science and astronomy that could be done on the moon. Imagine an array of hubble strength telescopes on the dark side of the moon to name one exciting prospect!!!

is much more political.

Isn't it interesting that Dubya's "bold, new vision" for a lunar base came a short time after China announced it would be sending a man to the moon. China also plans a lunar base. Sure, they're behind us technologically....but not for long.

Who owns the moon?

Is it who builds the first base?

Is it who plants the first flag?

I aknowledge that robots can get the data....The moon is a rock devoid of life with little atmosphere. How much data can you get?

But I think the bigger issue is political. I'm not sure if it's because of some strategic view, where the US is afraid of a Communist base on the moon...or perhaps weaponizing it in some fashion. Or maybe its just good old fashioned American pride. We're the leaders...follow where we go first with our "bold new visions." I'm sure of one thing. We want to build a base before anyone else...and like Iraq....this idea came out of nowhere and is suddenly a priority.

In any event, I've always thought there was something a little fishy about the timing on this lunar base issue....and THIS President's "bold, new vision." From what I've seen, his vision is neither bold, nor new...and there has got to be a political power angle in there somewhere just for the idea to have fallen out of his head.

Maybe you guys can help me flesh it out.1

and then planted a U.S. flag on it.

By treaty no nation can claim territory on the moon. Yes, six United States flags were planted in lunar soil. The flags were not specially made. They were purchased over-the-counter from Houston area hardware stores. Most were blown over by the blast from the LEM ascent stages and all by now have been turned to dust by the intense solar ultraviolet radiation.

political, too. He wants to be John Kennedy, remembered for initiating the drive to space. He's missing the basic concept that one can't just say that we're going to do something, we have to actually do it.

It's easy to "weaponize the moon" - it's at the top of a big gravity well, and the Earth is at the bottom. It's easy to "throw rocks" from the moon to Earth, and pretty easy to aim them if you've got a basic background in ballistics and gravitational mathematics. As far as I can tell, someone has been reading "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" around * and now he wants to be Manuel. (What he totally misses is that he is Lunar Authority.) It could go both ways - he wants to prevent China et al from having access to the top of the G-well, or he wants the well for himself so he can threaten others. Either way, he'd be in violation of about a billion treaties, and that might be the key for the UN to jump down his throat.

There's a treaty from the late 60s that basically says that no space object can be claimed as the sole property of any nation. In theory (what a nice place to live, Theory), an individual can claim use rights of a specific area or mass, but that's not ownership, and it must be an individual. (The text is here: http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/5181.htm) The theory is that Neil Armstrong could lay claim to the mining rights of the moon, but only if he'd hung around long enough to actually mine something.

Personally, I'm for a real space program, one aimed at creating colonies on Luna and Mars, because we have got to get our industry, our energy production and our populations off this fragile rock. I'd move to Luna in a heartbeat and would never regret for a day if I had to stay there for the rest of my life. (I've often said that the only reason I'm keeping my fertility and the only reason I'd even consider bearing a child is if those were entrance conditions for a space colony or the requirement for a generations ship. )

I think a real space program would create jobs and a new life for a lot of people around the world. But It can't be a chump change project. It's got to be basically a mass refocusing of the world's military budgets or of all of the loan payments.

Disposable Rockets are not the answer... maybe rebuilding the shuttle with modern materials (because material science has come along significantly since 1979) and the best practices we learned from the Shuttle and the X-prize would be the way to go. It's definitely time to get a solar power station and microwave transmission stations into orbit. Maybe we need to be talking about a beanstalk. I can't say for certain what specifics we have to pursue because I'm just a buff. But trying to pull a Kennedy... no. That's the last thing we need.

because we are on a space colony,
"Spaceship Earth" as they used to say.

Another first world child that will consume twenty-five times more resources than her developing world contemporary? No thanks.

This ship can't handle it.

It is far too expensive to take seriously. The pollution alone would be enormous.

The fact is that we should take care of the earth, not fantasize about sending a few people over a figurative Niagara Falls barrel.

The earth is what we have.

We can take care of the earth and colonize space at the same time.

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/advanced_civilization_become.html
http://www.bis-spaceflight.com/
http://www.marssociety.org/

The numbers have been run by a whole hell of a lot of people over a long time. The estimates range from wildly optimistic to wildly pessimistic, but I don't recall seeing a "the pollution will wreck earth" argument anywhere in even the most pessimistic arguments.

Or is this a smear-by-association argument against the previous poster? I are confused.

He's convinced himself that our only energy source should be nuclear power. We don't have nuclear-powered rockets, therefore he's against it.

In my reading on space exploration, there isn't a single advocate who doesn't appreciate the use of nuclear power. Hell, for compact power generation there isn't anything better. We couldn't have pulled off the Voyager, Galileo and Cassini missions without their RTGs.

Personally, I don't have any problems with nuclear-powered rockets, provided they stay the hell away from the troposphere. But that's a side issue.

He is a strong advocate of "nuclear power" as in San Onofre, Diablo Canyon, etc. He deprecates all other energy sources as either insufficient for our needs, or too polluting. His vision seems to be a world running entirely on electicity from nuclear power plants.
Because rockets burn chemical fuels in getting to orbit, he thinks they are bad and should not be used.
He'd probably be ok with an electric rail-gun launch system, as long as the electricity came from a nuclear power plant like San Onofre or Diablo Canyon.

Still, I'd rather hear this from himself, insteasd of having you put words in his mouth. And for the record, I actually agree with him on a number of points about nuclear power. JSYK, HAND.

launched by hydrogen which is readily available from nuclear power. So if the issue were purely the FACT that nuclear energy is cleanest form of continuously available (on demand) energy, I would support it.

I do not "deprecate" all other forms of energy, and have notably supported wind energy. All other forms of energy are more polluting than nuclear, with the exception of hydroelectric power under rare circumstances.

www.externe.info

That said, I do NOT support launching human beings into space for cheap parlor, and my concern for the environment is a big part of that.

The other big part of my energy program is something with which some people with elaborate ruses about energy totally ignore. Let me spell it for you. It's called C-O-N-S-E-R-V-A-T-I-O-N.

Here is what that big word "conservation" means: Doing the job one desires to do with the most energy efficiency possible. This means you don't drive a Hummer when you can get to work in a Prius.

The vast most important science done in the space program - with the obvious exception of the Hubble mission - has been done without human participation in Space. The necessity for the human intervention in a future space telescope could easily be designed away; indeed one of the most important interventions occurred merely because of poor ground based quality control.

To me the "men and women in space" crowd are driving Hummers when Priuses will do. Life support costs weight, and weight costs energy, lots of energy. Just look at the fuel tank hanging off the side of the shuttle. Just think of the number of metric tons of powdered aluminum in those boosters, and then tell me that space travel should or could be low energy.

On some level, the mission-to-mars or "mission-to-the-moon" people are very much the same as the "solar energy will save us" crowd. They elevate pet fantasies over glaring realities. It's all about "some day." Stanley Kubrick's been dead for years, and 2001 passed 4 years ago, with no sign of the technology in his film.

I am passionate about energy because I'm terrified for my children. I'm not a school kid anymore dreaming about "some day." The emergency is NOW. Maybe you didn't notice, but there is an extraordinarily powerful hurricane just outside of the Johnson Space Center. I think it's there because of something called global climate change.

If we have two hundred billion bucks to spend a few people to stand around on the surface of Mars for a few hours for a photo op - at a time when our climate is collapsing and our energy infrastructure is in need of immediate, emergency conversion repair, we are psychically and morally deprived. Such an adventure doesn't speak well of humanity. Rather it implies that humanity is doomed.

I had genuinely misunderstood your position, it's much more reasonable than I thought.

You mentioned the Hubble and said "one of the most important interventions occurred merely because of poor ground based quality control."
It's an open secret that two mirrors were made, one of them went through greater quality control and went into a keyhole satellite. The cost of the Moon-Mars missions is peanuts compared to what they're going to spend on Star Wars.

atmosphere, don't you? The atmosphere insulates out all but a tiny fraction of the energy the sun produces, and solar sails and solar stations would be much more practical (and in the case of the former, only possible) in space or on the moon.

There's also a lot of fuel for nuclear fusion reactors (i.e. deutrium and H3) passing from the sun that we never see because again, the atmosphere insulates us. A practical fusion reactor with proper fuel would be far more functional if the fuel was more accessible.

Between solar power and pebble bed fission reactors, power is not the problem. Building materials on the moon would primarily have to be Lunar soil excavate because no one can live on the surface.

The problem for a non-earth colony is water. Water is not abundant on the other planets and moons in this solar system (save for Europa, Titan, Mars and Enceladus (Moon of Saturn) )so any water the colony will have will have to be recycled and very carefully kept. Ultrasonic cleaning and freeze vacuum cleaning would have to take the place of water cleaning. Organic sludge may be a problem if it is not composted correctly. One of the things that Biosphere II taught us is that we have to have tons more plants in an ecosystem than we previously thought - so space colonies will have to raise grasses (the most efficient oxygen and water producers) and trees (the most efficient carbon sinks).

Most of the industrial pollutants that we associate with heavy industry on earth come about in the process of keeping the product clean and uncontaminated -- but in an environment where keeping things clean means opening the vacuum hatch and repressurizing, a lot of the solvent waste and cleaning waste isn't needed. Think about cleaning an operating room and how much more easier it would be if all you have to do is vent it.

And we have learned from our mistakes to an extent. It's highly unlikely that anyone, knowing what we know now about Niaclor and dioxin and PCBs, would find it necessary to replicate the industries elsewhere. I don't have perfect faith in business, but I do have faith in self-preservation. That instinct is hard-wired.

Irrespective of the abundance of solar energy in outer space, which by the way is only really usuable out to the orbit of Mars - getting to outer space is a rather energy intensive exercise. I doubt that humanity can afford - on environmental grounds - to ever send more than token colonies into space. It is certainly not an endeavor worth proceeding with in this century.

I note that fusion power is not a reality, nor do I expect it to be so in my lifetime, or even my sons' lifetimes. Even were it more than a pipe dream, the world supply of tritium - which took decades to accumulate - is less than 100 kg. This isn't going to be powering 5 guys and gals, never mind 50 guys and gals on a trip to Europa.

Mostly the concept of space colonization is just sci-fi kind of stuff. Given the magnitude of earth bound problems - which are fast approaching a critical state of irreversibility if they have not done so already - this is a good thing. It is too expensive and the potential for benefit and long term success is exceedingly low.

I also think there is a more sinister side too - he (well, the powers
behind him) want to "weaponize the moon" and hold the high ground.

Shades of "The Long Watch" by Robert Heinlein ... I just hope that there
would be a hero on Moonbase Bush too ...

Robots are wonderful tools...I mean look at what they are doing on Mars and around Saturn right now!!!

But, they are robots, and as such are extremely limited as to what they can do. They cannot respond in really meaningful ways to unexpected finds, do not have intuition, and cannot analyze and act upon what they find. If something unexpected is found, something they were not prepared to analyze, we need to build and launch another robot to explore that. If we can get human beings on site to make these explorations, the human capacity to reason, and to analyze will be put to use right away.

Obviously we can't launch a man to mars tomorrow, but we can get men to the moon fairly quickly. The potential scientific and astronomical benefit to having men on the moon is enormous. Imagine a permanently manned base to do earth observation on climate change for example. Or, imagine an array of Hubble strength telescopes on the dark side of the moon, permanently manned and operated. The discoveries would be unbelievable.

Second, nobody owns the moon. All the space powers in the world signed a treaty in the 60's that treats the moon like the antarctic. It is there for the benefit and exploration of all.

One of the big problems NASA has run into over the last 20 years is the pretty blatant need for a serious Shuttle replacement. The orbiters were never intended to last forever, after all. Sadly, every attempt to come up with a functional replacement has bogged down in budget cuts or a lack of focus before the design gets much past the viewgraph stage.

I think Griffin might be running a game here; going along with the whole Bush Moon Plan to get funding, and then using the funding to create a fleet of simple modular crew vehicles and a production line for Shuttle-derived BDBs. All the hardware proposals seem to bear that out, and it's not a bad idea to put together a fleet that can be configured for any mission. That way, once the dust settles and the administration has gone the way of all administrations before it, NASA has the hardware in place to do just about anything it needs to. It's a gamble, but if Griffin can pull it off it'd be a hell of a coup.

I'm starting to see the wisdom in this thing. It looks like it's designed to be able to go the moon or Mars and back without stopping at the ISS. I wondered why, now I realize that if there's a problem at the ISS (political or physical) they can just go around it.
It's amazing how much mileage the Russians got out of the Soyuz capsules.

It's pretty much universally acknowledged that ISS exists mainly as a symbol instead of a proper research station. If Columbia hadn't crashed, it might not've been so bad, but without guaranteed shuttle missions for construction/resupply ISS can't even manage to fulfill its limited science goals.

The main reasons we hang onto the damn thing are:

a) its value as a symbol, Man's Only Outpost Among The Stars, etc.
b) institutional paranoia in NASA about losing the station causing the end of manned spaceflight altogether (I'd say this is about 50% justified, judging by public mood here)
c) pure, unadulterated Russian stubbornness. The Russians had almost signed an agreement to hand Mir over to private industry when NASA bullied them into junking it. As a result, they're not going to let go of this one anytime soon.

The Griffin fleet proposal could be used for ISS support duties (crew rotation, delivering experiments or whatever) but it's also designed to be independent of the station, since it obviously has such limited use as to be mostly worthless for exploration purposes.

days spacelifted unmanned.

That might well be a pretty cost efficient way of going about the whole thing rather than lifting all that dead weight at once. Piss ant the hardware up.

And yes, we need a new generation shuttle.

if it's up to the neocons - and is sure looks like it is up to them.

The problem really isn't cost - you can do several moon missions for the price of one Gulf war.

========

Forward, march ... into space
Pentagon has big plans for combat in the cosmos
By Jonathan Broder
MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.com/news/546843.asp?0sp=n5b6&cp1=1

WASHINGTON, April 27, 2001 — In the foothills of the Colorado Rockies earlier this year, a group of Air Force officers gathered at a highly secure military base for five days of unprecedented war games. The scenario was familiar enough — the growing tension between the United States and a fictitious country that resembled China. But the battlefield was out of this world: a simulated war raging for the first time in space.

<snip>

But critics warn that if President Bush and Rumsfeld seriously try to seize the high ground in space, the fallout will be severe. Some analysts fear a unilateral U.S. militarization of space would only lead to a new arms race and closer military cooperation between China and Russia, which would join forces to develop their own anti-satellite programs, rather than cede the high ground to Washington. This, in turn would hasten the demise of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and various non-proliferation accords, these analysts say.

<more>

Sorry trekkies, but that is just the plain truth. Unless they expect too find something that will save humanity from itself I simply cannot endorse going to the moon. I am sure that there is knowledge to be gained scientificly either from the moon itself or from new advances in engineering or technology that the mission may use. Let's take care of what's down here on earth first.

I cordially invite you to go fuck yourself with the horse you rode in on.

Ass.

I don't think it is fair to smear anyone who supports space exploration a "trekkie". It's a gross over generalization and undermines the fact that there are scientific advances and achievements to be made. It's just wrong. It would be like me calling you and people like you "short-sited, space hating, Neanderthals". Certainly, some might be but are you?

It's called space.

We're crowded on this rock. We are killing each other over resources that are more and more scarce every year. We are at the peak of production now as it is.

We either have to move out of this house grown too small to contain us all or we will end up hurting each other and continuing to kill each other.

Not to mention the millions of species we kill because we're too crowded and bent on survival for ourselves to think about other life.

Yes, for the first few years, it's the domain of talented specialists, but it doesn't stay that way. Yes, it means a brain-drain for earth, leaving earth to those who refuse to see that their presence is not helping matters here. But eventually, space is the hope - the only hope - of humanity.

So, no, you Soap Opera devotee, it's not the truth. We can't take care of the ignorant and unwilling to understand science without advance in science and engineering, and we won't get that here, with people like you telling us to stop working on science all the time.

(I resent being called such a slur as trekkie, so if you don't like being called a Soap watching bon-bon eater, you'll understand the feeling.)

Still, I am of the mind that the country can't afford this moon mission right now. I also have doubts about the NASA leadership. Let's face it gone are the days of Gene Krantz, John Glenn, and Neil Armstrong. Perhaps one day we will, and even should return to the moon or set off for Mars but now is not the time.

That the government should not be spending money on superfluous programs that do not directly address the needs of the poor, the homeless the elderly etc?

So I assume you will endorse the call to eliminate funding for the NEA next time the Republicans propose it? Or the NEH? Or funding for public TV and Radio? Or non-applied research funded by the government? Or the National Parks?

Why is it that the space program is always singled out by liberals for these comments? At a budget of 16B per year, NASA spends in a year as much as the defense department spends in 2 weeks!

And I would argue that with NASA, even with the trouble they have had in some areas, trouble caused btw by vacillating and weak politicians, that we get more for our money than most of the $ sunk down the DOD sinkhole.

A very persuasive argument for the space program can be made based on the ancillary benefits that always accrue do to discovery. MRI, Cat Scan, advance in computers, weather forecasting etc can all be attributed to research done for the space program.

Leaving that aside however, I believe the main argument for these programs is how it affects us as a people. The frontier mentality many argue (and I agree), has helped define the AMerican spirit and led to the leadership we have enjoyed in many fields of endeavor. Space really is the next frontier. It is where kids seeking a goal, seeking something exciting to pursue will look. We are already reaping the rewards from kids who grew up with the space program in the 60's. A renewed interest in science and mathematics and an adventure to apply it too has given us wondrous things that have improved our quality of life.

In science and knowledge too these programs could reap enormous benefits. Imagine a permanently manned Earth observation base on the moon, measuring climate change for example. Or imagine an array of Hubble strength telescopes, permanently manned, on the dark side of the moon!!!

If you ask me 16B a year is well worth the investment!!!

DOD sink hole. You've got that one nailed. The GAO recently stated that the Pentagon does not even know how much it is spending in the Iraq fiasco.
But let's get back to NASA. I did not endorse dismantling NASA nor will I, but NASA is not a institution create to help the poor, elderly, or homeless. You could combine all of those such programs along with NEA, NEH, National Parks, public TV and Radio and not make a dent in what Chimp and his cronies have squandered on defense, Iraq, Homeland Security or Iraq. In federal govt terms $16 billion/year is not a huge amount of money.
One should also remember that the first programs, Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, were not pursued to 'explore the new frontier'. Any thought to the expansion of scientific knowledge or exploration was secondary to beating the Soviet Union to the Moon.
I am still a great admirer of the space shuttle. I was in high school when Young and Crippen made the first launch. I was in college when the Challenger exploded after launch. I still admire the pictures that the Hubble brings back. I sent letters to my Congressmen when I read a story posted here at DU, that Christian conservatives were lobbying for cutting Hubble's funding. I would defenitely endorse more missions like Pathfinder, Spirit, and Opputurnity. These were worth every f_____g penny! I am even more excited to see what the next generation space telescope may uncover.
But what Bush is looking at is a manned mission to the moon at a cost of probably $100 billion plus, all of it defecit spending. My statement was "We can't afford this right now." I did not say "We can't afford this ever." And I have to ask the same questions that Phantom Power made in their post "What are the goals of these manned missions? What is the true level of commitment?" That is where my doubt starts creeping in. Phantom Power made a point, it has the feel of Chimp's handlers behind the scenes.
With regard to spin-off technologies I really don't have a good argument. Guess you have me on that one.

In the wake of 5 years of defecit spending, hundreds of billions squandered in Iraq, the Katrina disaster, and our Frat Boy president who thinks tax cuts for those in Bill Gate's same tax bracket are the solution to life, the universe and everything, I just do not see a manned moon mission in the cards. Let's take some time, get Bush out of the White House, and get our fiscal house in order, or at least in better order than it is now, then we'll talk about going to the moon and maybe Mars. But until that happens I do believe that NASA missions should be more on the scale of the current rover missions. Big manned missions I believe should wait.

They are more well reasoned than the usually, in my opinion mindless mantra that we have to "fix all of our problems here on earth first."

That of course is a cop out as there is no chance of that ever happening. The reasons for poverty and homelessness etc on earth or so varied that there is no way the government can account for them all. We have an obligation to assist the most needy of use, and to provide everyone with a fallback should hard times occur, and we also have an obligation to insure that everyone gets the education and healthcare they need. These are not really problems of cost so much as will. If the government had the will to do what was necessary in these areas, they may actually save money in the long run. Healthy happy citizens require less in the way of emergency services etc.

As to the reasons for the original space race, you are absolutely correct that the driving motivation of the government was the competition with the Soviets. And I think defeating the Soviets at the time was important. The competition for the hearts and minds of the world was being fought on every front, the most visible of which was the space program. However, the men and women, and particularly the astronauts, while they recognized the importance of defeating the Soviets, viewed this as an exciting and important adventure. One that would extend human kinds horizons, and reap important scientific and educational benefits. The fact that the driving motivation was the competition, does not negate the importance of it in these other contexts.

The price tag of 100 billion for this initiative is of course spread over 20 or so years, and in reality will not increase NASA's budget much over the annual increases it already gets. Of course I am not naive to believe there won't be cost overruns, there always are, but NASA is being smart with this. No use reinventing the wheel. Apollo did alot of things right. No use changing things for change sake. And they are taking the most efficient and reliable portions of the shuttle fleet and adapting them for this use. I think to make this even more cost effective we should be looking at a true partnership with Russia, Europe, Japan, and even China in this effort.

As to the administrations motivations, your point is well taken. With this guy in office the true motivatiosn are never what they seem. And I am worried that this is just his way of distracting attention off his incredible failure as President. Having said that however, I think NASA has done an admirable job so far on these plans, and I think the space program is too important to let this opportunity go by.

This was fun! I should do this more often.

Much more fun really than some of tussles elsewhere on this board (although they can be enjoyable too sometime :) )

It all has the feel of Bush's handlers saying "Let's have NASA do something so that Bush can act all visionary in a few speeches"

What are the goals of these manned missions? What is the true level of committment?

And why is it now going to take us *longer* to get there than it did the first time, with all of our modern advantages in materials science, computers, etc?

I think we should just stick to missions like the Mars landers, Cassini mission, etc... look at the science we are getting returned from those missions! Does manned spaceflight = more and better science?

Back in 1986, I recall a NASA spokesperson in some article (real specific, I know) observing that the projected failure rate had always been 1 in 70, which at the time was pretty much right on the money.

It's interesting that in the two subsequent decades the projected failure rate has dropped substantially, while the actual failure rate has increased.