Posted on 01/18/2004 2:04:26 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Most Americans had long since stopped paying attention to manned space flight. The shuttle? So what (except during some stunt like the John Glenn flight)? The moon? Been there, done that. Four years ago, I wrote an article advocating phasing out the space shuttle, abandoning the space station, establishing a moon base, and then eventually going on to Mars. It was greeted with yawns by those who noticed it at all. Things have gotten worse. Last week, when President Bush proposed to phase out the space shuttle, phase down the space station, establish a moon base and then eventually go on to Mars, he was met not with yawns, but with ridicule. "He wants to build like a space station on the moon, and then from the moon, he wants to launch people to Mars," said a positively gleeful David Letterman. "You know what this means, ladies and gentlemen? He's been drinking again." Part of the reason for the unfriendly reception was the way the proposal was rolled out. It was pre-spun as a great new goal to unify the nation — a Kennedy moment to kick off an election year. This was as clumsy as President Bush 41 saying, "Message: I care" or Howard Dean discovering Jesus as he heads South. If you are going to do something blatantly political, don't telegraph it. This presentation was particularly stupid because I believe this plan would have been proposed exactly as is, with or without an election year, with or without the phony Kennedy overlay. In fact, there is not an ounce of political advantage in this proposal. An AP poll found that a majority of Americans would rather spend money on domestic needs. As for the Kennedy stuff, the Bush proposal has less to do with a vision of man's destiny than with a totally dysfunctional government agency. NASA gave us the glory of Apollo, then spent the next three decades twirling around in space in low Earth orbit studying zero-G nausea. It might have gone on forever had it not been for the Columbia tragedy. Columbia made painfully clear what some of us have been saying for years: It is not only pointless to continue orbiting endlessly around the Earth, it is ridiculously expensive and indefensibly risky. The President's proposal is a reasonable, measured reconfiguration of the manned space program. He couldn't go all the way. Binding agreements with other nations made it impossible for him to scrap the space station - a financial sinkhole whose only purpose is its own existence. But he is for phasing it down, and for retiring the shuttle within six years. That frees up huge amounts of NASA money to do what is useful and exciting: going to other worlds. For this generation, the only alternative to wandering about in low Earth orbit - other than the Luddite alternative of giving up manned flight completely - is to return to the moon. And this time, stay there. Establishing the first human habitation on a celestial body would not just allow for extraordinarily interesting science and be the locus for extraterrestrial manufacture. It would be - those without an ounce of romance in their souls are advised to skip the rest of this sentence — the most glorious human adventure since the Age of Exploration five centuries ago. As for Mars, there is nothing Buck Rogers in Bush's proposal. It will take decades to work out how to get there safely. There is no Apollo crash program. There is simply an annual 5% increase in the NASA budget - which itself is now less than 1% of the whole federal budget. Those who want to divert even these paltry sums to domestic spending would undoubtedly have objected to Magellan's costly plans, too. Look. We can stay on Earth. We can keep tumbling about in orbiting Tinkertoys. Or we can walk the moon again and prepare for Mars. I can't imagine an easier choice.
Should NASA go on like before? Should its management not be restructured? It is sound and well considered judgment and bold leadership. Are these things "pandering for unity?" And in any event if this cannot "unify us" can there be much hope for us? If we are too weak and too effeminate for the major and essential tasks and duties of civilization then let us know now and proclaim our weakness and foolishness to the world so that others may take the lead. Let us cancel all Science and Technology programs (NASA, BTW is dwarfed by other S&T initiatives in other areas such as the DoE and in the Health/Medical area.)
This "unify the country" business was put forward as "speculation" by the media - there was no reference to it in the speech. The truth is the only was to unify the country is to have a clear party winner sustained over time. The various elites of created by the New Deal have to be replaced and that takes time; this is one beginning, one openning to the renewal of America that must come if we are to remain a truly free people. The reactions to this proposals are telling to me, and most of them are at best very immature. People are not bothering to understand the plan from any point of view - politically, technically, commercially or even spiritually.
One gets the idea that people think we all marched down to Flordia the day after Kennedy made his speech. We did not, only in hindsight is that speech seen as epochal. And more to the point, the approach NASA used ignored all the vital X program research that went on prior to that. What we need is a paced, comprehensive approach to a workaday infrastructure that allows us to be a true space-faring nation; the first in history. Kennedy would have done better if he had atriculated such a plan. It is a masterful vision and if a Dem proclaimed it he would be herald as a visionary. But a Dem cannot proclaim it because the last thing they want is for this country to be is the greatest country in the world. AN outbreak of excellence makes socialism quite problematic.
Better to set a path and boldly go down it. The mediocre will follow bye and bye
I don't agree much with Charlie Reese, but he was spot-on recently when he pointed out that spending billions of dollars on what amounts to a rock-collecting hobby for some people is not a good use of public money at a time when the budget is already a-busting.
If there's a value in going into space, let the private sector fund it. Then maybe the value will be realized. The only thing NASA has proven in the last thirty years is that if there is a way to screw up the Right Stuff, government will do it.
Uh, Nasa doesn't have any money...That's MY money you're talking about...And I don't want Nasa OR George B wasting it on some dead rock with no air around it...
luddite n 1: any opponent of technological progress [syn: Luddite] 2: one of the 19th century English workman who destroyed labor-saving machinery that they thought would cause unemployment [syn: Luddite]
Spoken like somebody who read too many history books extolling the "Age of Exploration" as some sort of noble endeavor to expand human knowledge. Crap. Magellan and the explorers of the 15th and 16th Centuries were financed by kings who wanted goods from the Far East.
What are we going to do with rocks and dust, the only things the moon and Mars have to offer us?
Hey man, whadda ya tryin to say???
Maybe yer saying we can save the manufacturing and construction industry by building cities on the Moon...Look at the mining opportunities...What, with the shortage of "moondust" on the earth, the possibilities are endless...Yep, there's moondust in them thar craters...
And then there's Mars...Wonder what it would cost to heat a house at night on Mars...If only there was some water there, you could at least build some bricks...
Okay, the Palis can trade the Gaza Strip for a canal on Mars!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.