The President's Space Initiative Speech

If the Apollo program cost 100B 35 yrs ago it would easily cost over 1
Trillion today. It could easily be ten times that much (or more). Last
time (apollo) the technology was already there (chemical rockets for ICBMs).
We need to fix the national balance sheet over the next 20 yrs before
embarking on this adventure.

Mike
MU-2


"plumb bob" wrote in message
news:4RnNb.70198$na.40677@attbi_s04...
"Morgans" wrote in message
...

So how much per person per year is it going to cost? Pass the plate.
I'll
pay my share.

I'm guessing a minimum of $1 Trillion over 20 years. The Apollo project
cost
$100 billion as far as I recall. The Bush I project, which was nixed, had
a
cost estimate of $500 billion. Therefore, I do not believe $1 Trillion is
unrealistic.

There are 130 million individual tax returns filed every year. Individual
tax revenue trumps corporate tax revenue 5:1 (go find the IRS tax stats).
In
other words, corporations don't pay much tax at all. It's basically going
to
be all on us to foot the bill.

$1 Trillion / 130 million = $7,700 per taxpayer.

Over 20 years = $7,700 / 20 = $385 every year, MINIMUM. And that is
assuming
that NASA sticks to budget (this would be a government programme so that
is
quite unrealistic)

I do not want to pay that money until

a) terrorism is defeated
b) we can get health care coverage at least as good as any other 3rd world
country
c) we are running a surplus
d) a balanced budget is guaranteed

Not to mention that Bush does not have a clue how much it will really
cost.
He does not care - it's not his money. He just needs this to win an
election.

-- Plumb Bob

Since the cost can't be divided evenly (some can't pay), I'll start your
share at $5,000 for the first year. After the first five years we will
decide that it is too expensive (chemically fueled rockets) or dangerous
(nuclear fueled rockets) and scrap the program.

Mike
MU-2

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote

Yes, the real question is: What do we have to give up to get this new
space
program? How about Medicare? The cost if about the same. Lets have a
vote! Do you want Medicare or a Mars program. It is foolish to ask
someone whether or not they want something unless you tell them what it
will
cost. Several years ago it was decided that technology wasn't ready for
the
Nationaly Aerospace Plane. I guess that since it is an election year,
all
that must have changed. Too bad Teddy Roosevelt isn't running this
time.

Mike

So how much per person per year is it going to cost? Pass the plate.
I'll
pay my share.
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote

Yes, the real question is: What do we have to give up to get this new
space
program? How about Medicare? The cost if about the same. Lets have
a
vote! Do you want Medicare or a Mars program. It is foolish to ask
someone whether or not they want something unless you tell them what
it
will
cost. Several years ago it was decided that technology wasn't ready
for
the
Nationaly Aerospace Plane. I guess that since it is an election year,
all
that must have changed. Too bad Teddy Roosevelt isn't running this
time.

Mike

So how much per person per year is it going to cost? Pass the plate.
I'll
pay my share.

How about you start a company and sell stock to investors...I'm sure you
could convince a thousand billionaires to put up a billion (their entire
worth) each ($1T = $1B x 1000)

In article , "Dan Luke"
writes:


No, we simply came to understand (some of us) that manned space travel
is unconscionably wasteful until we get past rocket ship technology,
which may take decades.
--

It will never happen if we do not create the need for it by reaching the limits
of rocket technology.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Wdtabor" wrote:
No, we simply came to understand (some of us) that manned
space travel is unconscionably wasteful until we get past
rocket ship technology, which may take decades.
--

It will never happen if we do not create the need for it by reaching
the limits of rocket technology.

I submit that we are already at the practical limits. One of the things
that make a manned trip to Mars so expensive is the long exposure of
astronauts to conditions in space. Tremendous amounts of r&d will be
required to protect them from the physiological effects of zero gravity
and radiation.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

In article , "Dan Luke"
writes:


It will never happen if we do not create the need for it by reaching
the limits of rocket technology.

I submit that we are already at the practical limits. One of the things
that make a manned trip to Mars so expensive is the long exposure of
astronauts to conditions in space. Tremendous amounts of r&d will be
required to protect them from the physiological effects of zero gravity
and radiation.
--

Then we better get started.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

"Wdtabor" wrote:
Then we better get started.

Yes, basic research on new space propulsion technologies is a good idea,
but manned space travel should be an afterthought.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 21:49:01 GMT "Jay Honeck" wrote:

I caught most of it -- and it was fantastic! To hear a president actually
promoting manned space travel, and laying out a plausible, doable plan to
get our space program back on track, was a breath of fresh air on a bleak
and dreary January day.

Hell, maybe we'll set foot on Mars before I die after all?

Maybe Bush will find the WMDs there.


R. Hubbell


I often tell my children how the U.S. once led the world in space travel,
and of how my generation grew up with the excitement and national pride of
putting a man on the moon. Until today, I would also sadly explain to them
how we had squandered our future, and abandoned the dream...

Well, President Bush has today put us back on track. As pilots (I like to
call what we do "extremely low earth orbit... :-) let's get the phone calls
and emails rolling to our elected representatives, and tell 'em to get on
board this new initiative!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

This thread is incredibly funny.

We got the Dems worrying about the deficit and saying that a big government
program is bad.

We got the Republicans saying that the deficit is not so bad and that big
government is the answer to space travel.

Next thing you know Senator Boxer will want to put handguns on airliners and
the Bush administration will oppose it. Oh, wait........

Well then, next thing you know Dean and Gephardt will say a little drug use
is not so bad, maybe even a badge of honor. Oh, too late for that one,
too.......

Maybe what we will get is Republicans saying that a senator's sexual
activity is nobody's business but his own. Oh, hell, I give
up................................

"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
This thread is incredibly funny.

We got the Dems worrying about the deficit and saying that a big government
program is bad.

We got the Republicans saying that the deficit is not so bad and that big
government is the answer to space travel.

OK, let me throw in a third alternative - chuck the government altogether,
and let Burt Rutan come up with a way to do it backed by private investors
and some corporate sponsorship logos on the side of the spacecraft!