Most want money spent on Earth, not space (Barf Alert)

Houston Comical (AP) ^ | 1/13/04 | WILL LESTER

[The_Victor]

WASHINGTON -- President Bush's plan to build a space station on the moon and eventually send astronauts to Mars hasn't grabbed the public's imagination, an Associated Press poll suggests.

More than half in the poll said it would be better to spend the money on domestic programs rather than on space research.

Asked whether they favored the United States expanding the space program the way Bush proposes, people were evenly split, with 48 percent favoring the idea and the same number opposing it, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs.

Most respondents said they generally support continuing to send humans into space.

However, given the choice of spending money on programs like education and health care or on space research, 55 percent said they wanted domestic programs. Based on previous estimates for a moon-Mars initiative, the space cost would run in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

"You can't have a war, cut taxes, have the economy in a garbage pail and spend billions going into space," said Dallas Hodgins, a 76-year-old retired University of Michigan researcher from Flint, Mich. "How are they going to pay for all this? I don't see how it's morally justifiable. In Flint, there isn't a school roof that doesn't leak."

On Wednesday, Bush is scheduled to spell out details of his proposal to use an outpost on the moon as a jumping-off point for more remote destinations such as Mars or asteroids.

Those most likely to favor the plan to expand space exploration were men, young adults, people with more education and those with higher incomes.

It made a difference who was said to be behind the plan. When half the poll sample was asked about a "Bush administration" plan to expand space exploration instead of the "United States" plan, opposition increased.

Just over half of Democrats opposed the plan by "the United States." Once it was identified as a "Bush administration" plan, Democrats opposed it by a 2-1 margin.

Some have suggested that space exploration could be expanded more inexpensively using robots instead of humans to explore the moon or other planets. The AP-Ipsos poll indicated that option was popular, with 57 percent favoring exploring the moon and Mars with robots and 38 percent saying humans.

[Cubs Fan]

The best choices in order

1)Give money back to tax payers
2)Spend it on the space program

And in a distant third

3)Give more money to welfare bums.

[dead]

When China has bases on the moon and is readying ships for interplanetary travel, will you still consider the space program a wasteful social program?

Will you feel safer when the last great communist regime control space?

[duk]

How do you spend money in space?

Every penny is spent on earth and benifits earthlings! I'm against government leading the way on this because they have proven themselves incompetent. They are almost always over budget, behind scheldule, and to complicated. If you want a moon base, (AMERICAN owned, and operated) let private industry finance. Nothing like private ownership and PROFIT to drive an industry, even on the moon.

The AMERICAN gov't can provide some of the equipment,training and facilities untill privatly "owned" businesses can be established. Going to the moon with uncle sam at the helm will never work! That's why we are not there now.

[Land of the Free 04]

Will you feel safer when the last great communist regime control space?

Never happen. If they remain communist they simply won't have the needed resources.

[chimera]

More than half in the poll said it would be better to spend the money on domestic programs rather than on space research.

More money on domestic programs? How much more do they want? We've been spending amounts vastly greater than what has been spent on space exploration, and doing so for the last fifty years, and what has come of it? Kids who can't read or do simple math. More and more people on welfare having more and more kids out of wedlock. Larger and larger subsidies for farmers to produce nothing. Better to spend money, if you want to spend, on something productive, with long-term, lasting value.

[JohnGalt]

The Soviets beat the US into space, look where they ended up? Hell, look how we've ended up?

If the space welfare constituency demanded that NASA be disbanded, pensions stripped for the incompetents, I would listen to arguments on the merits of state funded space programs-- though I think offering a bounty to a corporation who would get a space craft to Mars, would ensure a better and safer trip. Let Pepsi or Wal-Mart fund the damn thing.

[TigerTale]

"The Lousiana Purchase was viewed as un-Constitutional almost universally in my native land"

Is the United States your native land?

One sovereign nation purchasing land from another sovereign nation is not socialism. It can only be done by the equivalent of a treaty, something expressly prohibited to the States. Are you prepared to declare unconstitutional all U.S. territorial acquisitions beyond the original 13 colonies?

Do you think it would be unconstitutional to withdraw from the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (which prohibits national territorial claims in space) and annex the Moon? If so, was it also unconstitutional to annex Texas and Hawaii?

If territorial acquisition is constitutional, then what sense is there in prohibiting the exploration of such territory. It would be a strange argument to say the United States has the authority to acquire territory, but no authority to examine and explore it before or after the acquisition.

Not everything the government does is socialism.

May I assume that you believe it would be better if France still owned most of the land between the Mississippi and the Rocky mountains? Does your ideology supercede practicality?

[dead]

Communist at home, capitalist in the global marketplace. It's a new plan that nobody's tried before, so nobody can guarantee its failure.

Besides, my point is that control of space is absolutely necessary for maintaining our military dominance in the century. Dressing it up as "exploration" merely reduces the resistance from liberals at home and the screeching from other countries who hope to see our dominance fade.

[JohnGalt]

New England is my native land.

Everything the government has done in my lifetime has been either socialism or some compromise with socialists, so color me a little cynical.

[dead]

It's defence spending, in sheep's clothing.

I do agree that advancement would be speedier if we offered prize money to individual corporations, but Coke and Pepsi are not going to spend the billions necessary to achieve American superiority in space.

I'd sell them ads on the equipment for a few tens of millions though. The moon's pretty colorless and ugly, and could use a little decoration.

[hopespringseternal]

The Lousiana Purchase was viewed as un-Constitutional

Oh, for the days when unconstitutional acts of treason looked like this.

Actually, the military has done quite a bit of exploration, and probably should be answering China's space initiatives. Except that we are far too squeemish for that sort of open competition. NASA was created so that we could stress our peaceful nature in contrast to the Soviets' militaristic endeavors.

[The_Victor]

We've been spending amounts vastly greater than what has been spent on space exploration, and doing so for the last fifty years, and what has come of it?

That chaps me as well. We spent nearly two orders of magnitude more money on "social programs" than NASA's entire budget. For all its faults, NASA has at least produced tangible products/benefits for its money.

[TigerTale]

though I think offering a bounty to a corporation who would get a space craft to Mars, would ensure a better and safer trip.

I agree with you on this. Robert Zubrin's "Mars Direct" proposal estimates it would be possible to establish permanent human presence on Mars for $50 billion. A government bounty of $100 billion would be a baragain for Uncle Sam, and a 100% profit margin for the company which succeeded. In addition, the economy would reap the rewards of the competition. Win-win-win.

[JohnGalt]

I guess I find a certain humor in the NASA dead enders who are angling for a handout on this forum.

And if it is for defense purposes, the advocators should make it clear what the intention is so that the people can react and debate the subject...otherwise, it smells like another circus put on by a declining and bankrupt tax regime.

[JohnGalt]

Do you see how contrived an argument it is to say the choice is between more money to NASA or money for domestic spending when the real debate should be along the lines of what you are talking about?

[Land of the Free 04]

Dressing it up as "exploration"

I don't support government lying to the citizens it serves. If W wants a military space program he should say so; I don't believe that's his reason.

[dead]

There's plenty of people at NASA in need of a firing.

I agree with your complaints about its management over the last few decades.

[Wright is right!]

"What most people fail to realize about Bush's spending programs is that they all have the seeds to destroy socialism within them."

I wrote on this forum some time ago that the real purpose of the so-called Mediscare Prescrition Drug Benny was to offer it, but in such a fashion as to encourage almost everyone to take a private plan. I said at the time that, in reality, it wouldn't cost much at all because not very many pipple would be in the position of preferring it to a private offering. As you said, the seed is in there...

Michael

[dead]

I don't support government lying to the citizens it serves.

I hate to sound Clintonian, but its not lying. Going back to the moon and then to Mars is exploration and that is valuable in its own right.

But the military implications are obvious to anybody who’s thinking, and shouldn’t have to be spelled out.

In military and foreign intelligence matters, it is not necessary for the government to broadcast every ulterior motive to our adversaries. Do you think China is building a space program for the pure joy of scientific discovery?

[JohnGalt]

China's space program, like ours, is just an effort to glorify a failed ruling class of Commies. It reminds me of the Olympics in the 70s and 80s which were pure political agenda backed crapola.