The President's Space Initiative Speech

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Do YOU want to pay for it? How about privatizing all the airports to pay
for it? A $5 gallon tax on fuel? There really is no upside to doing
this.
We are already overspending at a rate that is unsustainable.

Actually, we've been spending that way for over 70 years; this is just the
logical culmination of statism and the welfare state.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:_omNb.68628$I06.309450@attbi_s01...
I caught most of it -- and it was fantastic!

It was appalling, to me. Is the man completely insensible to the federal
deficit? He certainly seems insensible to the impracticalities of manned
travel to Mars. I think people on Mars would be a wonderfully cool
thing, but our national credit card is already maxed out. Sometimes you
have to put "cool" on hold and make sure the rent is paid.

You know what, Dan? I, too, am appalled at the federal deficit, and the
waste, and all the examples of Gubmint crap. It makes me ill to see it.

Still, in my lifetime, I can point to just one real Gubmint success story:
Apollo. Every other government program, from the "Great Society", to the
"War on Poverty," to "No Child Left Behind," has been a dismal, utter
waste
of money and time.

So why are you willing to trust the program to someone with a .013 batting
average? Hell, put Bob Uecker in Gene Krantz's spot and it'll be done for
1/20th the cost with double the results.

"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:


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

In article et, "Steven P.
McNicoll" writes:


"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...

Same place Jefferson found authorization for Lewis and Clark.


What place was that?



Hee Hee.

That is the point. There is no direct reference to space exploration any more
than there was for exploring the West. But Article 1 section 8, in the second
to last paragraph authorizes the erection of forts, magazines, dockyards and
other needful buildings in new territories and earlier for the establishment of
a Navy.

The FAA and ATC are extensions of the authorization to build Postal and other
roads and to regulate interstate commerce. We applied the clear intent of the
Constitution to new technology and situations that were not anticipated at the
time it was written.

Jefferson saw expansion of the US into the west and exploration of and securing
those new territories as essential to the defense and security of the US. I
would agree that holding the "high ground" and strategic advantage in the new
territories outside the atmosphere as essential to our security as well. We
will either lead the world or be lead by it.

I don't trust the rest of the world, and I do not want to surrender the high
ground to the Chinese. If we don't take and hold space, the Chinese certainly
will.

Don

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

In article ,
(ajohnson) writes:


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!




That appeals to my libertarian heart, but history has shown that commerce
follows the military, which follows the explorers, which follow the
prospectors.

The problem is that even if the moon were made of diamonds, it would not be
practical for the prospectors to go there to get them.

Don

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

http://tinyurl.com/26gzu

"All I've got to say is please, for pity's sake, stop worrying about
NASA stealing money from your favorite federal program and adding to
the deficit. Out of a $2 trillion-plus budget in 2004, human resources
programs (Education, Health and Human Services, HUD, Labor, Social
Security, etc.) will get an astounding 34%! In contrast, NASA has the
smallest budget of all the major agencies in the Federal government.
In fact, its budget has represented less than 1% of the total budget
each year since 1977 and it will probably never get more than a
fraction above that, even with this new plan."


"Before they complain about it, I wish the moaners would take the time
to find out a few things about NASA's measly 1%. It has added billions
of dollars back to our economy. It's about the only program in the
Federal budget that has a track record of doing that. When NASA does
cutting-edge work, new products are devised and people, Americans, are
put to work producing them. To keep our economy steaming and pay our
bills, we have to stay ahead in product innovation. That means
inventing and manufacturing new products. One proven way to do that is
to get the space program going with some real work."

http://tinyurl.com/22zpp

"What the plan lacks in momentum and flash, however, it makes up in
political shrewdness, and analysts said that, unlike previous attempts
to get the space program off the dime, it might even survive the
congressional gantlet."

"Wdtabor" wrote in message
...

Hee Hee.

That is the point. There is no direct reference to space exploration any
more
than there was for exploring the West. But Article 1 section 8, in the
second
to last paragraph authorizes the erection of forts, magazines, dockyards
and
other needful buildings in new territories and earlier for the
establishment of
a Navy.

The FAA and ATC are extensions of the authorization to build Postal and
other
roads and to regulate interstate commerce. We applied the clear intent of
the
Constitution to new technology and situations that were not anticipated at
the
time it was written.

Jefferson saw expansion of the US into the west and exploration of and
securing
those new territories as essential to the defense and security of the US.
I
would agree that holding the "high ground" and strategic advantage in the
new
territories outside the atmosphere as essential to our security as well.
We
will either lead the world or be lead by it.

I don't trust the rest of the world, and I do not want to surrender the
high
ground to the Chinese. If we don't take and hold space, the Chinese
certainly
will.


So space is a new US territory, and we're exploring it for the purpose of
erection of forts, magazines, dockyards and other needful buildings?

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/space/2354537

WASHINGTON -- Eugene Cernan, the last man on the moon, said Wednesday
he's more than ready to give up the title.

"I want somebody dearly to take that dubious honor ... off my
shoulder," he said after President Bush announced plans to send
astronauts back to the moon and eventually to Mars.

"There's some young kid, some young boy or girl out there," Cernan
said in the hallway at NASA headquarters after Bush's speech. "God
bless their soul. Give them the courage, give them the opportunity. Go
for it."