Replies

All Eurotrash and Islamotrash aside, Bush's "plan" signifies the end of the once-glorious American Manned Space Program. The man is a PR genius to pass this initiative off as a step forward.

The shuttle program will be ended with no replacement. The ISS will be turned over to the Russians (or anybody else who wants it). The "pie in the sky" is not adequately funded.

I know you are a space supporter, but before flaming me, please sit down with a pot of coffee and read Shuttle Retired As US Heads Back To Moon.

Pay particular attention to the comments from those who have actually worked in the program, at Nasa Watch, linked on that thread, but re-linked here for your convenience.

It will take a while, but if you are interested in the facts, not the spin, you will have to do it.

I've read more on this than you could imagine. And I suggest everyone calm down and listen to people who aren't carping because their program is in question or getting hysterical because the Sagan/Golden/Clinton era is over. Now is the time to get behind Bush and help propel NASA out of the hole it dug. As they say, all ships will rise with this tide.

Bush's "plan" signifies the end of the once-glorious American Manned Space Program.

I have the same concern. Even if this weren't Bush's intention it could be the result as future congresses start putting their stamp on future budgets.

Frankly $200 million is nothing. A billion dollars is nothing if you are serious about doing this. We could be on Mars for the cost of a couple of months in Baghdad, and its not an either-or thing, both are do-able. And its not really optional, in my mind.

The country that masters space technology is the only country that is going to matter in the decades going forward. The primary purpose of going back to the Moon is not moon rocks, although they are missing a good bet if they don't take the opportunity to drill some core samples. The purpose in going is the development of the technology. A three-day voyage is a sea-trial for what it takes to go farther. The development of the technologies of a permanent moon base has direct application to the same technologies for the mobile base that will make the two-year round trip to Mars.

And the purpose in going to Mars is not just to bring back more rocks, it is again to develop the technology to go farther yet. Although again, we would be fools if we didn't do some thorough seismic mapping of the Martian subsoils. And get some more core samples.

The purpose in going is to develop the capacity for going, because the country that does that leads, and the others follow along behind. Its not the rocks, its the skills.

> The shuttle program will be ended with no replacement.

WOO HOO!!!! The Shuttle is a disaster, and needs to be killed dead forever permanently, and take to the grave all similar concepts. A reusable payload shroud? Monstrously silly.

> The ISS will be turned over to the Russians

WOO HOO!!!! The ISS is another disaster. Scientifically useless and in the wrong fargin' orbit. Let the Russians have it.

> The "pie in the sky" is not adequately funded.

Horsepuckey. NASA'a funding level *today* is adequate for a steady manned Moon/Mars program that takes about a decade to get men to the Moon... just cut off the financial sinkhole of Shuttle and ISS. Unlike Apollo, the bulk of expendature - developing the Saturn V and orbital rendezvous techniques - does not need to be done; Shuttle-derived vehicles such as Shuttle-C, Shuttle Z or Magnum could be developed at a small fraction of Saturn's cost... and we already know how to do orbital rendezvous. We could even go back to the Moon with Atlas V's and/or Delta IV's.

Shuttle was going to die relatively soon anyway. The design is already 30 years old, fabulously expensive, and serves no purpose that could not be better served with an orders-of-magnitude cheaper launch system. Better to have a planned end for Shuttle than to continue to run the program until the next one fails catastrophically, and NASA is simply killed.