History Offers Reasons to Be Cautious on Bush's Space Plan

[kskiska]

The history of bold visions for human spaceflight is littered with more failures, delays and cost overruns than clear successes. The fates have been particularly unkind to Republican presidents, who twice made their ambitious ventures in election years.

It is a legacy that President Bush, who unveiled a plan yesterday to put Americans on the Moon, Mars "and beyond," hopes to overcome. The broad goals are the same as those his father proposed as president in 1989, but the new plan is more hedged, giving no firm date for the Mars venture and deferring the need for big spending increases until after what would be Mr. Bush's second term. In part, it seeks to make vagueness a virtue, which is giving some space experts the jitters.

"People are happy and worried at the same time," said Lawrence H. Kuznetz, a scientist at Baylor College of Medicine who conducts research for NASA. The effort to return to the Moon, instead of going straight to Mars, he added, could become "a bottomless pit of misdirected targets" and "suck up NASA's budget faster than a black hole sucks up light."

The troubles with grand White House plans began in January 1972 when President Richard M. Nixon proposed that the nation embark on a new kind of spaceship, reusable and known as the shuttle. "It will take the astronomical costs out of astronautics," he said, promising that the vehicle would be highly reliable and its expense perhaps one-tenth that of expendable rockets. Instead, the shuttles turned out to be roughly 10 times as costly and prone to catastrophic failure.

more…
http://nytimes.com/2004/01/15/national/15MISS.html?hp

[seasat]

1. I like Jon Stewart's line.

He just said to Carol Mosley Braun, "Bush announced we are going to Mars today...which means he's given up on earth."

I posted this in the environmental forum. Bush is planning on paying for his Mars program by cutting 11 billion dollars from other NASA programs plus adding about a billion dollars over 5 years. The cuts will more than likely kill programs such as the Earth Obsevatory System. These are the programs that are providing evidence of the greenhouse gas theory of global warming. They are providing evidence of mankind's destructive effects on the environment. Shrub and his corporate supporters would benifit by killing these programs. I'd like to suggest to Shrub that we send a program to Uranus to find out if there is any intelligent life there.

[Dirk39]

2. Bush's Moon/Mars Program Is About Space Empire

"Bush's upcoming announcement of a return to the Moon and a trip to Mars is obviously an election PR stunt but it goes much deeper than that.

NASA is not an independent organization devoted to peacefully exploring space; it's a criminal arm of the federal government. Most of the funds don't go into space exploration; they go into warmongering and installing brain-scanners at Boston-Logan airport. This isn't about peaceful exploration of the atmosphere, it's about making it quicker and easier to bomb broken-backed third world nations!

The focus on militarization of and not exploration of space is why the safety record of NASA has been so dismal.

The space shuttle program is 90% controlled by private military contractors and it was Clinton who began this process of privatization back in 1996 when he gave Boeing and Lockheed Martin free reign to spend money without any oversight. These military contractors have been spending that money on classified space warplanes like Aurora."
more:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/WAT401A.html

Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[burrowowl]

4. Right ON!

It is about the militrization of space by the U$A.

[PennyLane]

6. Ahhh, finally somebody else who gets it!

Bush is no lover of science. He is a lover of power and this moon
station falls right in line with the PNAC plan. Build a repeater to bounce off signals for his Star Wars WMD (TBA after re-election!).
Build a presence in the Middle East, and in Asia. His dirty little
plan is falling right in to place. The world is laughing at him right
now, but he couldn't care less. When they are done having a hearty
ha-ha at his expense, the deed will be done and world domination will
be his. He makes Hitler look like Mother Goose. Sound far-fetched?
Only time will tell. Remember Bush,Sr. and his "new world order"
speeches?

[mainer]

10. I think you mis-characterize NASA

I have a number of friends who work for NASA, and they are NOT fans of the military. NASA, remember, has had to compete with money for military space programs, so there's an inherent tension between them. I'm sure many folks in NASA feel just a little bit smug whenever an Air Force launch goes awry.

Scratch a NASA engineer or astronaut, and what you'll find is probably a grown-up Trekkie who really believes in the thrill of space exploration. Remember, these are the guys who wanted to make the space station a cooperative international venture -- sharing technology with the Russkies! You think the military would condone that?

I think many in NASA deplore the militarization of space. And many of them thought it was cool when China had its successful launch. These are space geeks, not sabre rattlers.

The real danger in this initiative is that the Administration might take a Mars project out of the hands of the harmless space geeks and give it to Halliburton instead.

[Dirk39]

12. Hi,

I did find this text at Global Research and I think the writer did make some interesting points. Esp. about the combination of a kind of election-PR campaign and the military interests that might be there. I'm 100% sure, there are "trekkies" working for the NASA and I don't doubt their intentions. If anyone is not a Nasa-expert, I'm the first to admit!
But I'm pretty sure, the guy who did write this article, wouldn't question your statement. A lot of the times, scientists were working for military purposes or their knowledge was simply used for military purposes, which doesn't mean that they wanted it to be this way or were even aware of what was going on.
I still think, his information about the financial background is pretty interesting.
When I did first hear about Bush's Nasa-campaign, I just thought: O Lord, nice PR-trick. Iraq sucks, war on terror sucks....
Let's go to the moon. And I prayed: please little Georgie Boy: go to the moon, go to mars, invade them, liberate them. If only you leave us alone.
Now, don't joke at me and suspect me to be just angry, 'cause our mars-mission failed:-)
Without german technology, your mars-guy would be blind!
Nothing against Trekkies, but who knows...
Dirk

[rocketdem]

15. NASA expert

You say that you are not a NASA expert. Fair enough. I am. And I can say categorically that all of this conspiracy theory stuff is pure goofiness. It is 100% wrong. Does the military have a role in space? Sure. Always has. But they have their own rockets, their own pads, and their own programs. This was mandated in the post-Challenger era. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble (not that I expect anyone to believe me), but most of this doomsday, weapons-on-the-moon stuff is just plain wrong.

[Dirk39]

16. Asking for details:

and please don't get me wrong, I'm really asking:

1)
"The space shuttle program is 90% controlled by private military contractors and it was Clinton who began this process of privatization back in 1996 when he gave Boeing and Lockheed Martin free reign to spend money without any oversight."

Is this wrong or right? If it's wrong, can you somehow validate your opinion?

2)
"Full Spectrum Dominance" in the near-earth atmosphere. Rumsfeld thinks it necessary in order to 'avoid another Pearl Harbor'

Is this wrong or right or is this right considering Rumsfeld's postion, but wrongly associated with the NASA?

3)
"The plan, leaked in June of last year, is to create a military empire in space with the idea of claiming ownership of near-earth space and not allowing any other countries access. In development are a whole fleet of Aurora space planes that will have the mission of destroying any satellites put into orbit by other nations."

Except the somehow polemic use of the word "empire", which is often used as a kind of signal word: Is Aurora about this, does it include possibilities like this or is this just conspiracy-idiotism?

Hi,
Dirk

[rocketdem]

17. Answers

(1) The privatization of Shuttle was with regards to operations and it does not apply to all elements. The individual elements are still managed by civil servants. Much of the processing at the Cape is handled by contractors, as always, but now under a more consolidated contractual agreement. The notion that Boeing and Lockheed Martin can spend money as they see fit is, on the one hand true and on the other ridiculous. Of course they can spend money, any corporation can. But they only spend money in order to make money and they can only do this within the bounds imposed by the civil servant shuttle element and shuttle program managers.

(2) The military has their own pads, their own vehicles, and their own programs, as I said. Look up the Delta III and the Atlas V. Right now NASA is struggling to get back to Shuttle flights to return to station. If the government is planning on dominance via NASA, they've got a long way to go. If what you say is true, and I have no way of knowing personally if it is or is not, then it is being conducted through the military launch programs.

(3) I know nothing about an Aurora vehicle. Again, if it exists, it make no sense to attempt to work it through NASA. The military budget is huge. They have more facilities. They know how to work black projects. Is it possible that the military contracts out research work to NASA? Sure. But as far as running the program, if such a program exists, look to the military, not NASA.

[salin]

22. My guess is that folks concerns are not with NASA

as much with not trusting the ulterior motives... and thus the actual policies pushed by the Administration... and the way that the Administration has pushed programs and policies that undermine all sorts of traditional roles of various government agencies. With this WH - the "Bold Vision" never offers anything but platitudes... real attention should always focus on the details that they will propose. With them - the devil is always in the details.

[Bridget Burke]

21. Indeed, German technology was key....

In starting the US space program. Many of us remember Werner von Braun & his co-workers from Peenemunde. Intelligent fellows, preferring to surrender to American forces rather than wait for the Soviets.

However, the military space effort in the US is now somewhat separated from NASA. The current regime wants to end that separation & will use this "new" program to end more peaceful uses of the technology.

[TheLastMohican]

19. Hey, it is the other way around

Quote:
"Remember, these are the guys who wanted to make the space station a cooperative international venture -- sharing technology with the Russkies! You think the military would condone that?"

There are some flaws in your suggestion, namely:
1.The Russkies are sharing their technology with US. Check on who has got more knowledge on space station building, something like Mir space station, does it ring a bell? And also what engines are employed in US Atlas class rockets. Sounds like russian RD-180, best engines for lift-off so far.

2. US government with all its currently going wars, literally shits on International space station all the time, and it is Russkies who have to run back and forth ferrying astronauts and supplies all the time. Their vehicles are cheap and reliable.

I think mutual space exploration would bring more benefits but it looks like it is not in Bushco's interest to continue this mutual thing. IMHO.

[PATRICK]

18. Tradeoffs

It is actually far worse than that, but so is every Bush policy- fraud followed by fiasco consumed by advantage to the ruling junta.

We always had the scientists' realpolitik justification that they knew it was the military than unleashed the big books so they could piggyback the front window of "Science" onto paranoid defense projects with happy profit overruns to military contractors. Like DaVinci whoring for the rich patrons to get his work done(he had to do military contracting too).

If Einstein was available to knock the technocrats and scientists heads together everytime they thought this was a win for science and humanity our entire aeronautical science establishment would be in a coma.

But with Bush it is a million times worse because it is safe looking at their real outspoken enthusiasms and records that there is only one intention- releasing billions for Bush's agenda, Mars be damned.
We're too busy recreating Mars on earth anyway. Nixon at least had some sincerity partitioned for the prideful advancement of space science. The others all had some of the other motivation as well. Bush is a fixed sign.

That sign reads "Stop me before I destroy everything".
Suckers.

[Barkley]

3. Thanks for this Post!

It has lots of good info

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

5. Note the key words here....

The broad goals are the same as those his father proposed

He does not have a choice, Dad is still running things.

[ConcernedCanuk]

7. I've seen it noted that DUers believe this is a scam for Space Domination

.
.
. AND YOU ARE ALL CORRECT !

The space Program to get a man on the moon in the 60's was a scam to get the taxpayer's dollars to develop superior missile capability after the Cuban Missile crisis. And a superior missile system they did get, so no more "moon-hype" was necessary, and that was the "end" of "man's quest" for the moon.

Heck, the lauch was orchestrated by Hollywood for Pet's sakes ! They even moved the launching pad location(at the Hollywood peoples request) so that the "view" for the television watchers would be "prettier".

If I remeber correctly, the Gov't(ergo taxpayers) hired over FOUR HUNDRED Hollywood techies to make the launch more spectacular.

Well, now the USA is havin' a problem tryna get "permission" for it's Space Wars scenario, so why not "dress it up" as a quest for Mars !! Spirit is just the "commmercial", so they can fill the American livingrooms with pictures of mars, and create another "dream".

Well, geegollyfrigadee, the people "bought" it in the 60's, so why not in the new millenium! Already I hear people saying it'll be a great idea, and even Canada wants to get involved, show off some of our tech sh_t and well, make MONEY !

Sad part is, the world may buy this Mars dream, and then find American missiles conveniently poised in space to maintain Murikkkan Dominance over anyone who don't "tow the line".

GAWWWD, I hope I'm wrong,

But I fear I am right -

(sigh)

[Norquist Nemesis]

8. Glad to see others fnally get it too

The timely PNAC 'demands' tell exactly what this administration is up to. It's been in the works since 1998 when Cheney was CEO of Halliburton. Guess who has contracts all locked in for Mars drilling exploration...Halliburton and Shell.

The Top Secret Corona Project of the 60's gave us sattelite technology to really see what was going on during the cold war. While this was good, I absolutely do not trust Bush and his gang; I think it's about the military power prospects and opportunity. And hey, if a little oil can be found in the process this is "gud fer 'merika". Except American citizens won't own the resources, that's already taken care of. We just pay the bills.

[TheLastMohican]

20. There should be no fear

Bush has yet to show a workable spacecraft engine in his NASA inventory to make this Mars thing work. The best engines he got are russian RD-180 with good lift-off capability but not good enough to travel to Mars.
Right now the Russkies are working on an engine that would really boost the space exploration effort. They will do it and it would cost them 1/10 of what Bush is proposing to spend. I'd say he is robbing US citizens blind with his Mars stunt.

[aeon flux]

9. There's a method to the madness

[MadisonRush]

11. Hasn't anyone told Bush there's no

oil on Mars or the moon? I've been thinking about this since I heard his proposal.....

[Dirk39]

13. We all kept silent. None of us did mention it...

and now you write your first post and reveal it all.
We were sure to get rid of him...
Now we have to start again from zero.
You've made my day, damn:-)
Using the chance to say hello to a new DUer from my spaceship in Germany,
Dirk

[Lisa]

14. I like the "sucking up money like a black hole sucks up light" bit

You've gotta admit, scientists do come up with some way cool analogies.

And I think he's right. If it's one thing researchers get, it's a feeling for which "big-science" projects are likely to become money pits.

Vagueness is NOT a good thing if you're trying to sling an object the size of a car across millions of kilometers of space ...

[Nevernose]

23. What would JFK think of DU?

"If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred. The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space.

Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.

Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation.

We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.

There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency."

"The growth of our science and education will be enriched by new knowledge of our universe and environment, by new techniques of learning and mapping and observation, by new tools and computers for industry, medicine, the home as well as the school. Technical institutions, such as Rice, will reap the harvest of these gains."

"However, I think we're going to do it, and I think that we must pay what needs to be paid. I don't think we ought to waste any money, but I think we ought to do the job. And this will be done in the decade of the sixties. It may be done while some of you are still here at school at this college and university. It will be done during the term of office of some of the people who sit here on this platform. But it will be done. And it will be done before the end of this decade."

"Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. He said, "Because it is there. Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked."

Is Bush and Co. a bunch of evil sons-of-bitches? Yes.

Is Rumsfeld planning on converting the moon into some kind of Death Star, through which the PNAC can better dominate the Earth? Possibly, maybe even probably.

Does their inherent lack of morality invalidate the "greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked?" Not even close.

(of course, actually paying for it is another issue...)