Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Bush unveils vision for moon and beyond

POST REPLY
Soviet cogitations: 342
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 25 Mar 2005, 23:42
Komsomol
Post 14 Jul 2005, 16:41
Quote:
President seeks $1 billion more in NASA funding

WASHINGTON (CNN) --Saying "the desire to explore and understand is part of our character," President Bush Wednesday unveiled an ambitious plan to return Americans to the moon by 2020 and use the mission as a steppingstone for future manned trips to Mars and beyond.

"We do not know where this journey will end, yet we know this -- human beings are headed into the cosmos," Bush said. "Mankind is drawn to the heavens for the same reason we were once drawn into unknown lands and across the open sea. We choose to explore space because doing so improves our lives and lifts our national spirit."

The president unveiled what he billed as a "new course" for the nation's space program in a speech at NASA headquarters, shifting the long-term focus from the space shuttle and the international space station to the creation of a new manned space vehicle that will be flying with a crew in 10 years and will return humans to the moon within 16 years.

Bush proposed spending $12 billion over the next five years on the effort. About $1 billion of that will come from an increase in NASA's budget, while the other $11 billion would come from shifting funds from existing programs within NASA's current $86 billion budget. The overall NASA budget would stay at about 1 percent of the federal budget, according to White House figures.

But some in Congress questioned whether the funding would be enough to achieve the president's ambitious goals. And the project drew criticism from groups who say the money would be better spent on domestic programs. (Full story)

However, Bush conceded the initial funding for the space exploration plan would be "only a beginning" and that future funding decisions "will be guided by the progress we make in achieving these goals."

The idea behind returning to the moon will be to develop the capability to use it as a launch pad for deeper space exploration, as well as tapping resources on the lunar surface that could be used in those missions, Bush said.

"Establishing an extended human presence on the moon could vastly reduce the cost of further space exploration, making possible ever more ambitious missions," he said. "Lifting heavy spacecraft and fuel out of the Earth's gravity is expensive. Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon could escape its far lower gravity using far less energy and thus far less cost."

Bush also said the soil of the moon "contains raw materials that might be harvested and processed into rocket fuel or breathable air."

"With the experience and knowledge gained on the moon, we will then be ready to take the next steps of space exploration -- human missions to Mars and to worlds beyond," he said.

The president did not announce a date for a Mars mission, but administration sources said the earliest date for a journey to the red planet would be 2030.

NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said that "each of the individual milestones and objectives is to be priced out. ... [The cost] depends on which option you choose. But between now and then, the objective is to try to find the means to make any of those debates possible."

Bush pledged that unlike the Apollo effort, which was a race with the Soviet Union, the United States would welcome international participation in the project.

"We'll invite other nations to share the challenges and opportunities of this new era of discovery," he said. "The vision I've outlined today is a journey, not a race, and I call on other nations to join us on this journey, in the spirit of cooperation and friendship."

However, as part of the shift in focus, the United States will wrap up its current obligations on building the international space station by 2010, after which it will retire the remaining three space shuttles used to build and service the station, Bush said. Russia and 14 other countries are partners with the United States in the ISS.

The shuttles have been grounded since Columbia broke up while returning to Earth last February. The president said NASA will return the shuttles to flight for the remainder of the decade, based upon recommendations from the Columbia Accident Investigation Board.

The board has told NASA that it would have to re-certify the space shuttles if it wanted to fly them beyond 2010 -- an onerous and expensive task the Bush administration opted to forgo.

The initial spurt of new funding will be used to begin work on what a "crew exploration vehicle," which O'Keefe said will "look totally different" from the space shuttle. It will be developed and tested by 2008 and will conduct its first manned mission no later than 2014. Lunar missions will begin between 2015 and 2020.

The new vehicle will be capable of traveling to the space station. It has not been determined whether the craft will be reusable, like the space shuttle, or a spacecraft like those on the Apollo missions, which were used just once.

Also, NASA will begin sending a series of robotic missions to the moon beginning in 2008 to conduct research and prepare for future missions, and research will be conducted on the space station on the long-term effects of extended space travel on human physiology.

In his speech, Bush touted the new space exploration effort as an investment that "will be repaid many times over" in technological advancements.

Past space exploration "has brought tangible benefits that improve our lives in countless ways," he said.

"Along this journey, we'll make many technological breakthroughs. We don't know yet what those breakthroughs will be, but we can be certain they'll come."

The president also said that "the fascination generated by further exploration will inspire our young people to study math and science and engineering and create a new generation of innovators and pioneers."

Bush also made his case for why manned exploration is needed, rather than sending unmanned missions, such as the Mars rover, Spirit, currently sending information back from the red planet.

"The human thirst for knowledge ultimately cannot be satisfied by even the most vivid pictures or the most detailed measurements," he said. "We need to see and examine and touch for ourselves, and only human beings are capable of adapting to the inevitable uncertainties posed by space travel."


http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/14/bush.space/
Please give aid to the victims in Cuba and Haiti do to the Hurricane and be true communist.

Over 600,00 Cubas do not have homes and in shouters
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 662
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 05 Feb 2005, 01:51
Komsomol
Post 14 Jul 2005, 18:42
Quote:
President Bush Wednesday unveiled an ambitious plan to return Americans to the moon by 2020


doesn't anyone find it odd, that it took the US only months to reach the moon in the late sixties and now in the future, its take 20 years?
Image

"I envy you. North Americans are very luckey. You are fighting the most important fight of all- you all live in the heart of the Beast."
-Che Guevera.
Soviet cogitations: 1204
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 03 Jan 2005, 23:18
Party Member
Post 14 Jul 2005, 19:22
Not really, especially using a design like this:

Image


Hopefully, Bush has something rather '21st Century' planned.
EQUALITY! The first wish of nature, the first need of man, the first knot of all legitimate association!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 178
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 13 Aug 2004, 00:54
Pioneer
Post 05 Nov 2005, 18:11
George Bush couldn’t run a space agency if he had a valid Ph.D. in anything. The bureaucratic nature of NASA strangles human development. Why spend $86 billion on a return to the moon when people like Dr. Zubrin have come up with methods to go to Mars at a cost a little higher than the space shuttle program?

This is the nature of capitalist development, if it isn’t very useful to the capitalist then make it look wasteful to the working class.
Image

Fanon - Freire - Luxemburg - Sartre
Soviet cogitations: 132
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Dec 2005, 17:31
Pioneer
Post 26 Dec 2005, 01:24
I think Bush is already "out there". What’s the significance of going to or constructing bases on the moon? Tactically warfare? They find oil there? Give a place for the Chinese to live? Sorry for the cruel jokes but seriously, what is the point?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4177
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Sep 2004, 16:21
Politburo
Post 26 Dec 2005, 02:08
Quote:
Not really, especially using a design like this:

Exactly. It's a miracle the astronauts got back alive from the Moon. Neil Armstrong later admitted that when they were being strapped in for the Apollo 11 moonshot, the astronauts believed they had only a 50-50 chance of making it back alive to Earth. The technology back in the 60s was unbelievably primitive, and the whole space program was incredibly dangerous. Nowadays, that level of risk is no longer acceptable, and the sophistication (and therefore cost) of the technology has increased enormously.
"Comrade Lenin left us a great legacy, and we fucкed it up." - Josef Stalin
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4177
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Sep 2004, 16:21
Politburo
Post 26 Dec 2005, 02:13
Quote:
I think Bush is already "out there". What’s the significance of going to or constructing bases on the moon? Tactically warfare? They find oil there? Give a place for the Chinese to live? Sorry for the cruel jokes but seriously, what is the point?

Actually, if the Moon is used as a stopping-off point for the exploitation of the mineral resources of the asteroid belt, it makes perfect sense. The Earth's mineral resources are not infinite, and are expected to run out in a few centuries' time. If we want to sustain a technologically sophisticated society, we need to find alternative sources of these minerals. The low gravity of the Moon would make it an inexpensive base from which to exploit the mineral resources of the Solar System.
"Comrade Lenin left us a great legacy, and we fucкed it up." - Josef Stalin
Image
Pat
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 5520
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Jun 2004, 21:22
Embalmed
Post 04 Jan 2006, 10:20
Quote:
What’s the significance of going to or constructing bases on the moon? Tactically warfare? They find oil there? Give a place for the Chinese to live?

I think all of these may come up, in the future. Of course now, its a shaky investment for the nex decades, but eventually we may require another home, or need more resources, or to create an amazing moon weapon.

Right now, is a bad idea, since the country is in debt.

Right now analytic studies are the only things that can come out from a moon trip, which aren't worth the billions of dollars and not to mention, the lives of the astronauts. They need a sophisticated plan to quickly make a profit and sustainable base.

Quote:
This is the nature of capitalist development, if it isn’t very useful to the capitalist then make it look wasteful to the working class.

How is it not useful to the capitalist? insurance danger? I'm sure they'd have everything covered...

I thought I'd get a little more traffic in here
*
Image


I hope this doesn't get me banned again-Fontis
Soviet cogitations: 4394
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jun 2004, 17:30
Politburo
Post 04 Jan 2006, 12:02
I think it's a great idea - though I don't think he sincerely beleives in it as much as he alludes to.

Part of it also, I would say, is that Japan and especially China have decalred their intention to go t the moon and then Mars in the next few decades.

Now, the last thing I'll ever be accused of being is a jingoist - but for some reason, I get all riled up about the Space Race.

I want to get out there and get moving.

-TIG
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh Ar La; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1702
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Oct 2004, 21:15
Party Member
Post 05 Jan 2006, 05:08
I've seen a presentation and heard a bit through the grapevine at Georgia Tech. Here's the skinny:

The moon program vehicle will look much the same as the one from the Apollo program. However the insides will be entirely different, with new computers and considerations for safety that Potemkin alluded to.

Basically the justification for the mission is that we've squandered our gains from the space race. After the Apollo program, we lost all experience with human exploration. Essentially everyone at NASA from the Cold War has retired, so we have to create a pet project in order to remember how to do all these things and regain the expertise.

It's really quite pathetic, to my mind. At this rate, some commercial venture will settle Mars before a NASA astronaut sets foot there.
"Shake your chains to earth, like dew / Which in sleep had fall'n on you: / YE ARE MANY-THEY ARE FEW." - Percy Bysshe Shelley, 'The Masque of Anarchy'
Soviet cogitations: 388
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 17 Apr 2006, 17:14
Komsomol
Post 19 Apr 2006, 17:34
Quote:
doesn't anyone find it odd, that it took the US only months to reach the moon in the late sixties and now in the future, its take 20 years

Yeah thats because the moon landing was faked.
Soviet cogitations: 18
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Sep 2006, 12:22
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 26 Sep 2006, 03:51
Quote:
Exactly. It's a miracle the astronauts got back alive from the Moon. Neil Armstrong later admitted that when they were being strapped in for the Apollo 11 moonshot, the astronauts believed they had only a 50-50 chance of making it back alive to Earth. The technology back in the 60s was unbelievably primitive, and the whole space program was incredibly dangerous. Nowadays, that level of risk is no longer acceptable, and the sophistication (and therefore cost) of the technology has increased enormously.


50/50 odds are not supported by the number of casualties in the program.

What if it simply isn't as difficult as it seems? After all, the risks are well understood, the physics (purely Newtonian unless something goes wrong) *less* complicated than onplanet... Plus Moore's law states (if I recall) that as technology bifurcates, price drops.
"rabble rabble rabble!"
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4177
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Sep 2004, 16:21
Politburo
Post 26 Sep 2006, 04:04
Quote:
50/50 odds are not supported by the number of casualties in the program.

Previous to Apollo 11, the astronauts had only circled the Moon. The crew of Apollo 11 were actually going to land on the Moon and (hopefully) take off from it again. This had never been done before. Later Moon landings would employ the experience and techniques learned during the first landing to improve safety margins. And I said that the Apollo 11 astronauts believed they had only a 50-50 chance of getting back alive, not that they actually had only a 50-50 chance of getting back alive..
"Comrade Lenin left us a great legacy, and we fucкed it up." - Josef Stalin
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10461
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Aug 2006, 17:42
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
R.I.P.
Post 26 Sep 2006, 04:22
Quote:
And I said that the Apollo 11 astronauts believed they had only a 50-50 chance of getting back alive, not that they actually had only a 50-50 chance of getting back alive..


in reality if it were one of us on that ship making a never before attempted voyage, saying it's 50/50 would probably be an attempt at optimism.
Soviet cogitations: 18
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Sep 2006, 12:22
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 26 Sep 2006, 04:26
I stand corrected.

I speak of space travel in general... satellite landings are of course a different matter than orbit.
"rabble rabble rabble!"
Soviet cogitations: 467
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Aug 2006, 01:10
Unperson
Post 26 Sep 2006, 05:52
I just mulled over the posts and someone said something about mining and living space.

First, in the year 2030, India will out number China in population.

Second, Russia plans to mine helium-3 on the moon by the year 2020 (or 2015 according to Putin) with a permanent base.

This talk of another mission to the moon maybe nothing more to halt Russian advances. Possibly the US predicted goal of reaching Mars in 2030 may act as a PR counter to Russian bases on the moon or a justification to build up the space program to over take Russia on the Moon (considering the US may have to start contending with China also).

*My God, talks of space colonization is now practicle*
Last edited by adamruscan on 26 Sep 2006, 15:47, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 990
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jan 2006, 03:39
Komsomol
Post 26 Sep 2006, 06:30
Quote:
doesn't anyone find it odd, that it took the US only months to reach the moon in the late sixties and now in the future, its take 20 years?


Its because of the cold war .If the cold war was still here they would be at Mars now.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4177
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Sep 2004, 16:21
Politburo
Post 26 Sep 2006, 14:49
Quote:
Its because of the cold war .If the cold war was still here they would be at Mars now.

I disagree. The Space Race only got started because of Sputnik in '57. It's difficult to remember now just what a shock Sputnik was to the US. To use Lenin's phrase, it illumninated reality like a flash of lightning. It demonstrated the technical superiority of the Soviet Union in certain areas. And if the Commies could put a satellite into orbit, then how long would it be before nuclear missiles were raining down on American cities? This is what led to the breakneck pace of the Space Race, which only lasted for about 15 years. By the early to mid 70s, it was running out of steam. The Moon had been 'conquered' by America, so honours were more or less even - the Soviets had the first satellite and the first man (and woman) in space, while the Americans got to the Moon first. Both sides basically decided to call it a draw, since it was ruinously expensive. And after the Moon landings, there was no obvious place to go which was attainable in a reasonable time frame and at a reasonable budget. Mars was impossible for technical and budgetary reasons at that time; it is only now becoming even a possibility. The spacesuits and rockets used to get to the Moon were useless to get to Mars - America would have had to start from scratch again. And after the Cold War ended, that rivalry was no longer acting as a spur to further exertions, so the Space Race was truly over by then. But even if the Cold War had continued, the Space Race was effectively over by the late 70s, and we would have been no nearer to landing on Mars.
"Comrade Lenin left us a great legacy, and we fucкed it up." - Josef Stalin
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 990
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jan 2006, 03:39
Komsomol
Post 28 Sep 2006, 08:34
Quote:
I disagree. The Space Race only got started because of Sputnik in '57. It's difficult to remember now just what a shock Sputnik was to the US.


Were there not plans to go to the moon and a new space station but because of budget problems they stop this? What happen to the space shuttle the soviets had? Blame it on Gorbachev for stoping this.

Well they where working on new space shuttle to replace old one, the X-33 just do a google search on it. They stop it because of budget problems.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 10461
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 19 Aug 2006, 17:42
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
R.I.P.
Post 28 Sep 2006, 08:42
Quote:
What happen to the space shuttle the soviets had?


a building fell on it.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron