Bush to announce new moon mission

drudge ^ | 12/3/3 | unknown

[LandofLincoln]

Let me guess, my fellow conservatives who seem to be on a slippery slope to the right will not consider this bigger government/bigger taxes. And I am somehow UNPATRIOTIC to even question this quest.

[narby]

How about we dream about high-speed rail and Maglev instead?

Nah. All the jobs would be union.

[LandofLincoln]

COME ON! We got all that stuff from one CRASHED space saucer in Roswell, 1948.

[Archangelsk]

I'll stick with what that dirty neocon Teddy Roosevelt said:

Teddy Rex was no neocon. He was a true conservative.

[LandofLincoln]

Here is a goal ... Balance the budget, and get the country out of debt.

[somemoreequalthanothers]

And, there are those among us who think the moon may harbor further interest. www.lunaranomalies.com

[somemoreequalthanothers]

You've read his posts, obviously.

[LandofLincoln]

Much BETTER idea than the MEDICARE give away that was just signed into LAW.

much WORSE idea than spending no money at all, and passing NO NEW laws.

[My2Cents]

I'm a limited government type too, but I do think there is a role and often an exclusive role for government to play in some endeavors. I think space exploration is one of these. While the concept of a "privatized" space program is appealing, philosophically, I've yet to see any viable proposal for such. I'm afraid that a "private" space program would look too much like Burt Rutan's "SpaceShipOne" project, or would be limited in scope to only the commercial interests of the companies involved.

There's also an unconscious assumption that government investment in space is like throwing our money into space itself. The liberals make the same assumption. The truth is that every cent spent on space ends up being plowed into the national economy. This isn't like the old Soviet space program, where the means of manufacture and research and development are not only directed by the government, but are also owned by the government. Who benefits from a robust space program? It would benefit existing centers of aerospace manufacturing, the stockholders of those companies, and would spur the creation of new industries in probably every state in the nation.

Reading the posts of the naysayers, what I see isn't so much an appeal to fiscal responsibility and conservative governmental policy, but a lack of imagination and vision.

[LandofLincoln]

Don't forget "Tang." ;-)

Best response yet, thanks for the laugh.

[My2Cents]

In this regard, perhaps NASA or a public space program should be engaged in pressing into "newer frontier" and regarding follow-up to what the trails NASA has blazed (developing the technology and techniques for getting to the moon, launching and servicing satellites, and so forth), these should be purely private endeavors. A mission to Mars, or developing new and exotic powerplant systems for space travel should be the focus of NASA.

[LandofLincoln]

Thank you for being honest. There are very few on the inside who ever tell us what is inside. Not that we don't know.

[My2Cents]

Who killed the program?

Sad to say, I think it was Nixon.

[Howlin]

I'm a limited government type too, but I do think there is a role and often an exclusive role for government to play in some endeavors.

Well, you'll be damned to hell for that around here! :-)

[My2Cents]

No, from the Roswell crash we got velcro and the compact disk.

[My2Cents]

So, you're not a "limited government" guy...you're a "NO government" guy. Is that a fair statement?

[TomB]

And you seriously believe we wouldn't have smoke detectors without the space program?

It seems that you are confusing the point here. I don't think anybody is saying that we should support the space program primarily as a source of technological improvement. What they are saying is that there are tangible benefits to an investment in space, not including the exploration itself.

There are many situations that occur that spur technological advancements, there was a great leap in powered flight in WWI and WWII. It would be silly to say that the things pioneered during that time would never have come about, but those situations did cause them to come about at a much accelerated rate.

[TomB]

Teddy Rex was no neocon. He was a true conservative.

SHHHH! Don't say that too loud, or the "real" conservatives might get after you. ;-)

[narby]

I'm afraid that a "private" space program would look too much like Burt Rutan's "SpaceShipOne" project, or would be limited in scope to only the commercial interests of the companies involved.

I think Rutan's project is brilliant. It's along the path that will get us into the space economy for real. NASA's problem is that, being a government monopoly, designs systems that can only be operated by a government monopoly. Therefore, some of the truely ingenious ideas for getting into space are going ignored.

I still think loan guarantees to the winning bidder for a viable space transportation system, and title to moon and mars property is the only way to go.

For certian, the "Antartica" technique, of reserving space to scientists sponsored by governments IS NOT the way to do it.

[MyOptic]

Thanks, but I'm no longer on the inside. My frustration with the situation led me to make comments in front of the “wrong” people. Our shop was losing funding because the managers were turning down research projects from industry that would have kept the shop afloat many times over because the people getting the projects were not liked by the managers. and my previous years of excellent and outstanding performance reviews turned into sorry, we don’t have the funding to keep the shop going at full staff. DOH!!

[Moonman62]

There's also an unconscious assumption that government investment in space is like throwing our money into space itself. The liberals make the same assumption. The truth is that every cent spent on space ends up being plowed into the national economy. This isn't like the old Soviet space program, where the means of manufacture and research and development are not only directed by the government, but are also owned by the government. Who benefits from a robust space program? It would benefit existing centers of aerospace manufacturing, the stockholders of those companies, and would spur the creation of new industries in probably every state in the nation.

Let's see. The government should run the economy, but businesses should be privately owned. There's a name for that -- fascism. There are worthwhile government projects, but they involve areas where there is already a commercial interest or a military need. One day that will involve space. Today, it's just a road to nowhere.

Reading the posts of the naysayers, what I see isn't so much an appeal to fiscal responsibility and conservative governmental policy, but a lack of imagination and vision.

Please understand what we are naysaying, government growth in an area where it's shown gross incompetence. We are all for dreams, vision, imagination, and innovation, but the government has never been good at those things, individuals have. Examples are Thomas Edison, the Wright brothers, Robert Goddard, Charles Lindbergh, and the Rutans.