Posted on 01/23/2004 11:15:13 AM PST by presidio9
Last week, President Bush proposed an extra $1 billion dollars in spending for NASA over the next five years as part of his plan to put a permanent base on the moon and land astronauts on Mars.
In a speech prepared for delivery Wednesday, Bush is calling for a lunar base to be established within two decades and a manned landing on Mars sometime after 2030, an official said. The proposal comes after members of Congress and others have called for a new national vision for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, urging a human space initiative that would reinvigorate an agency wounded by last year's loss of space shuttle Columbia and trapped by expensive projects that limit manned spaceflight to low Earth orbit. Bush, speaking with reporters Tuesday on a trip to Mexico, said his plan centers on human exploration of space. "The spirit is going to be one of continued exploration ... seeking new horizons and investing in a program that ... meets that objective," he said. His proposal for $1 billion over five years, in effect, would provide startup funds for highly complex projects that could take decades and may require hundreds of billions of additional dollars to complete. [AP]
The space program is funded by tax dollars—the redistribution of wealth from one person to another. While space research is perhaps the least offensive recipient of government funding, the fundamental problem remains: space research has nothing to do with the legitimate function of government. And while it is often argued that the value of technological spin-offs justifies government involvement in space, it must not be forgotten that those spin-offs are the fruit of a poisonous tree.
Cartoon by Cox and Forkum
It’s also interesting that for all the prattling about competition being so important and antitrust being the Magna Charta of free enterprise, few take issue with the government’s monopoly in space. What businessman could hope to compete with the government lifting payloads into space? How high is the regulatory burden placed on vehicles built and launched by private enterprise? Where the justice in a tax-fed government agency deciding what is to be the priority in mankind’s development of space?
But perhaps the cruelest aspect of the government’s involvement in space is the fate of the scientists and engineers who do produce incredible technological achievements. The men and women who make spaceflight possible are heroic. Yet as the Apollo space program showed, when these engineers and scientists achieve all that is asked of them, they will see their budgets slashed and their achievements ignored. I say the work of these heroes ought not to hinge on the political whims of the day.
And today’s space program does look like an exercise in whim worship. What value comes from re-landing men on the moon, or landing men on Mars, when robotic probes can more efficiently carry out the mission? Why do we have a space station that is more a platform for giving idle ex-Soviet space engineers something to do with themselves than a means for engaging in groundbreaking scientific research? Freedom in space—freedom from government funding, control and prioritization—would put the best minds where they would bring the most value, and not subject these minds to the misbegotten whims of their political masters.
The pioneering of space is an incredible achievement of mankind and of the United States in particular. It is said that this renewed interest in space comes off the heels of the Columbia disaster, and is meant to serve as a tribute to their memory. Perhaps, but I say the best tribute to the heroes of space exploration, both living and dead, would be bring to wilds of space the same level of freedom that once made it possible for men to settle the wilds of the American continent.
That statement is ridiculous. Space program money is just like defense money (except for the constitutional justification). The money is spent on hardware and the people to operate it. It is not "transfered" i.e. with no discernible benefit to the giver, from one person to another.
Exactly.
Bright science and math whiz types like to play with space and quantum mechanics, etc. If they have jobs waiting for them, they study and learn advanced math and physics. Then on their 'gee-whiz' space job, they practice and innovate skills while we are "at peace" that we will need when we need military upgrades.
Aside from the fact that we get terrific spin-offs from the space program that help people in medicine and life, the cold hard fact is that we need to keep these brains occupied and happy so they are there to step in and help when we really, really need them.
I cribbed this idea from someone else, but it makes a lot of sense to me.
Besides, one shipment of H3 from the moon a year can power our whole country for a year. We don't want a Chinese or a French flag sitting on top of the motherload on the moon.
Yep, tax money gets taken from the citizens and goes right into the pockets of the government contractors. Now I wonder who's friends and family and large political contributors are in the defense and space exploration business? Humm
Richard W.
And Bush's proposal is less ambitious (25 years) and more practical (it's not just setting foot on Mars, there is an actual plan for a base).
The contractors and their employees pay into the system, and as long as it is not foreign products or services, the money pretty much stays here.
Who knows, they might strike gold on Mars, or new technology.
One thing that sticks in my mind, though, we are but an atom in this universe, and three light years to the next nearest solar system will be a form of space travel that is beyond our comprehension.
Ah, but we will.
Didn't use to know how to build gasoline refineries either. Not to be glib by that remark, as I have been following the difficulties over the last couple decades of research into fusion, but I believe the human race will eventually figure this out.
The liberals now all tout Robert Kennedy as one of their heroes, but I was there.
Liberals mostly supported Gene McCarthy in 1968, and they would heckle the Bobby Kennedy rallies with accusations about wire tapping from when he was Attorney General and accusations about witch hunting McCarthyism from his days an a legal aide to Sen. Joe McCarthy fighting communists in government positions (as distinquished from the House UnAmerican Activities Committee in the House of Representatives which was fighting communist propaganda in Hollywood).
I think Bobby Kennedy would have a hard time adjusting to the Democrat Party of today.
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.