The President's Space Initiative Speech

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.

In a thousand years America will be remembered for just two things: The
first to use nuclear weapons, and the space program. I would like to build
on the only positive thing we've ever done, thank you very much.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:hPiNb.67808$na.39439@attbi_s04...
I caught most of it -- and it was fantastic!

Really, I head it and thought most of it was absolute drivel. Not only
is the
planned direction change stupid in my mind, it was delivered with all the
incomprehension inherent in most of W's speeches. Space buses to
nowhere is stupid. Finishing the ISS is a good idea however. To
paraphrase
his father's terminology, the trickle down theory of technology
development
is voodoo science.


Agreed. Unmanned space programs accomplish much more at a fraction of the
cost.

Mike
MU-2

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................................

Unmanned space programs accomplish much more at a fraction of the
cost.

Everyone seems to think of this as a zero-sum game, that we can EITHER spend
it on manned exploration, OR on un-manned exploration.

Trouble is, NASA's budget is controlled by politicians who respond to their
constituents. Unmanned exploration is about as exciting as studying for the
instrument written, and excites precisely ZERO enthusiasm (the current,
rare -- and extraordinary -- Mars lander notwithstanding.).

Witness the failed "faster, cheaper, better" strategy that was forced upon
NASA by continual budget cut-backs -- cut-backs that were forced upon them
because their programs were lifeless, computerized, and boring. Without
"man" in the equation, NASA is just another yawn.

I submit that if we don't give NASA the mission of manned space exploration,
their budget will continue to be whittled away, and even LESS will be
accomplished in the long run. Man belongs in space.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"Jay Honeck" wrote:
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.

To hear a president actually promoting manned
space travel, and laying out a plausible, doable plan

Just about anything is doable with enough money. Do we have it to spare?
Much more science could be done for much less with robots.

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.

It was a cold war propaganda campaign. It was very successful in that
respect.

Until today, I would also sadly explain to them
how we had squandered our future, and abandoned the dream...

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.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)



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
MU-2

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:HMmNb.69238$xy6.127599@attbi_s02...

Trouble is, NASA's budget is controlled by politicians who respond to
their
constituents. Unmanned exploration is about as exciting as studying for
the

I agree. It is a major screwup when politicians respond to the wishes of
their constituents. The George Bush "****-you" budget policy where he runs
up our credit card by giving handouts to special interests and major
contributors is the way to go. It costs alot more in the long run and I like
that.

Besides, it is the honorable thing to do and results in "small and
temporary" deficits. Where "small" is a few trillion dollars and "temporary"
is a few generations.

In article SAnNb.69490$xy6.129217@attbi_s02, "plumb bob"
wrote:

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:HMmNb.69238$xy6.127599@attbi_s02...

Trouble is, NASA's budget is controlled by politicians who respond to
their
constituents. Unmanned exploration is about as exciting as studying
for
the

I agree. It is a major screwup when politicians respond to the wishes of
their constituents. The George Bush "****-you" budget policy where he
runs
up our credit card by giving handouts to special interests and major
contributors is the way to go. It costs alot more in the long run and I
like
that.

Besides, it is the honorable thing to do and results in "small and
temporary" deficits. Where "small" is a few trillion dollars and
"temporary"
is a few generations.



and while we are at it, let's all remember that the executive
branch is responsible for budget appropriations.

--
Bob Noel

"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

Jay, you have to weigh the cost and the benefits. It doesn't make any sense
to go now, the technology is not ready. The whole idea is election year
politics, its pathetic.

Mike
MU-2


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:HMmNb.69238$xy6.127599@attbi_s02...
Unmanned space programs accomplish much more at a fraction of the
cost.

Everyone seems to think of this as a zero-sum game, that we can EITHER
spend
it on manned exploration, OR on un-manned exploration.

Trouble is, NASA's budget is controlled by politicians who respond to
their
constituents. Unmanned exploration is about as exciting as studying for
the
instrument written, and excites precisely ZERO enthusiasm (the current,
rare -- and extraordinary -- Mars lander notwithstanding.).

Witness the failed "faster, cheaper, better" strategy that was forced upon
NASA by continual budget cut-backs -- cut-backs that were forced upon them
because their programs were lifeless, computerized, and boring. Without
"man" in the equation, NASA is just another yawn.

I submit that if we don't give NASA the mission of manned space
exploration,
their budget will continue to be whittled away, and even LESS will be
accomplished in the long run. Man belongs in space.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"