The "lunacy" of Bush's Mars and Moon ideas exposed...

[pmbryant]

by Gregg Easterbrook of TNR of all people. Read it anyway. It's excellent and pretty much right on the mark.

http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=1166

OVER THE MOON PART III: Are there senior citizens who need prescription drugs on the Moon? Does the religious right favor a Moon base? How about illegal immigrants, would they be willing to take Moon jobs that Americans don't want?

I'm sitting here trying to figure out what possible reason--other than science illiteracy at the White House--there could be for George W. Bush to announce a plan to build a Moon base. Manned exploration of Mars is even crazier.

(snip)

What would astronauts at a Moon base do? I haven't the foggiest notion. Note that NASA has not so much as sent a robot probe to the Moon in 30 years, because as far as space-exploration advocates can tell, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, of value to do on the Moon. Geologists are interested in the Moon's formation. If there is ever a fusion reactor to meet the world's energy needs, the "helium three" on the Moon might prove useful, but fusion reactors are decades away from practicality, assuming they ever work. Spending $200 billion on a Moon base that does nothing would be pure, undiluted government waste.

(snip)

<On the Mars mission proposal...>

Now we're up to an 1,125-ton spacecraft and a $28 billion launch cost. (Probably a Mars mission would operate in segments, with several robot supply ships departing long before the manned craft; but for the cost calculation, the driving factor is total weight.) Twenty-eight billion is twice NASA's budget and, again, that is just the cost to launch the thing, not to build the ship, staff it and support it. When Bush's father asked NASA in 1989 about a Mars mission, the agency shot back a total program cost of $400 billion. That's $600 billion in today's money, and sounds about right as a Mars mission estimate. This is assuming no pointless stopover at the Moon; add a Moon base and the price zooms toward $1 trillion! We're getting into the range here of the national debt.

(snip)

What NASA needs right now is not an absurd, bank-breaking grand mission: It needs to spend a decade researching a safer lower-cost alternative to the space shuttle.

And why might George W. Bush endorse a Moon base or Mars mission? Either he's a science illiterate surrounded by advisors who are science illiterates, or it's a blank check for aerospace contractors.

[gristy]

1. Yes, yes, and yes. A Trifecta!

he's a science illiterate surrounded by advisors who are science illiterates, or it's a blank check for aerospace contractors.

[wtmusic]

2. Here's the reason

The Mars Rover made a successful landing, and * is trying to jump on the bandwagon.

Pure and simple.

[stevedeshazer]

22. Nope

If only it were that simple....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=998949&mesg_id=998949

[acmavm]

3. He's looking for a safe place to live once he's been kicked out of

OUR White House.

[napkinz]

to the moon Alice

http://www.liberaloasis.com/bushin41point2.htm

http://www.airfarceone.net/loamranger.html

[DrWeird]

4. These projects would certainly be feasible

If we hadn't wasted hundreds of billions of dollars in phony wars.

A mission to Mars has incredible scientific value. Although I think lots of unmanned probes would be better than a manned mission. That said a base on the moon would be just the kind of thing to help get a manned mission to mars.

If people are serious about saving money they'd scrap the shuttle program. It's more expensive to refit an inspect that thing everytime we send it up then it takes to build a new one.

[pmbryant]

9. We're already doing lots of unmanned probes

Seems like there's a couple launched at every launch window, which comes every couple of years, when Earth and Mars line up in their orbits properly. There is nothing a manned mission could do that couldn't be done about 100 times cheaper by robots. (Yeah, I just guessed at that number, but its probably in the ballpark.)

I still think this whole proposal is just a cover to (1) politically blind the space fanatics and (2) kill the Shuttle program without bothering to find and fund a replacement.

Of course, the gargantually huge amounts of money required to actually do this manned Moon and Mars stuff will never be forthcoming, but meanwhile, both (1) and (2) will have happened.

That said a base on the moon would be just the kind of thing to help get a manned mission to mars.

I really recommend reading the entire article. It points out quite well why a Moon base is absolutely no help --- in fact, it would be a huge hindrance -- to getting a manned mission to Mars.

--Peter

[DrWeird]

20. That's what I'm saying.

Send robots. Only instead of sending a two or three every few years send a fleet of hundreds of them. To Olympus Mons, to the Great Rift, send them everywhere. And send them to Europa.

I'd like to see somebody on Mars but and elsewhere. I don't think there's a good reason for not doing it.

But with the way the government's running the space program now if we send a crew off to mars and they die half way there it's going to set things back fifty years.

[Dudley_DUright]

16. You are half right

Missions to Mars have scientific value, but can be done hundreds to thousands of times cheaper the way were are doing them right now, with expendable robotic missions. A manned mission to Mars would be a colossal waste of money from a scientific point of view.

[TomNickell]

37. Yes, about the Shuttle.

I agree the Shuttle needs to go, quickly. It's a dumb and dangerous design and ridiculously expensive to operate.

The money spent on shuttle launches would build whole fleets of robot craft for exploration of the planets. And, it's completely unclear what purpose the International Space Station serves. Two guys trying to fix leaks.

The Russians have done VERY well with their old Soyuz capsules and disposable rockets. And haven't got any body killed.

[TexasEditor]

5. Just another distraction

Cooked up by Karl Rove.

[brokensymmetry]

6. There's a saying that comes to mind.

Despite his lack of vision and ability, despite his staff, I believe the pResident got this one right. We need to go back to the Moon, and then to Mars.

Oh, the saying? "A Frenchman with only two pennies will spend one on bread for the body, and the other on violets for the soul." Exploration is, I think, nourishment for the soul.

[Beaker]

57. not if we can't afford it-

and to what end?
if it's exploration we need, there's plenty of it left in the oceans...closer tohome, MUCH cheaper.

[brokensymmetry]

58. You say "not if we can't afford it-"

But then I look at certain corporate tax breaks (ala Enron), and tax breaks for buyers of SUV's, and good-buddy deals for certain individuals and corporations - and I think that IF we had good, clean government we could afford it.

And the oceans are an interesting area - well worth exploring, BTW - but suppose we could find the fossil remains of bacterial life on Mars. Might we not be closer to a true understanding of life? And with that, maybe a bit closer to understanding what makes life on Earth function? That, my friend, implies cures for many ills!

And what of the weather on Mars? Thirty or so years ago, people thought clouds didn't make much difference in Earth's weather...now, of course, we realize they're a central issue. There's so much we don't know about weather...would the comparison of Mars help us understand Earth's weather better?

[pmbryant]

59. That's a pretty big 'if' ;-)

How I wish we had good clean government! :-)

You're right on the general principle that understanding how other planets work can lead to a greater understanding of Earth, though I'm not sure that Mars' weather is very relevant to Earth's, as the atmospheres are dramatically different.

But we can learn all that neat stuff by sending relatively cheap, unmanned probes. For more science bang for the buck, that way.

--Peter

[Baclava]

7. More importantly...

Are they hiring on Mars? How does Mars feel about Americans coming to take jobs from hard-working Martians? Will we have to get fingerprinted before stepping on the Martian soil? How do we get social security on Mars? Is abortion legal on Mars? Can we get high on Mars? Where is the best place to get porn on Mars? Are Martian women easy?

[parasim]

14. Maybe...

Bush is gonna liberate them Martians!

[economic justice]

8. STRONGLY DISAGREE!!!!

There are too many reasons to support space missions than I can state here. Naysayers said the same on those wacky sailings from Europe to look for a "new" land. Space is the new frontier!!

Let's keep it in an economic perspective for those who don't appreciate the science involved....

Bottom line is this:

The SAME companies that can produce weaponry can kick out space vehicles, robot arms, new communications technology....the list is long. The same job explosion we saw in the eighties when Reagan handed out money to defense contractors could possibly happen in America within the next ten years if the space program of today is treated like the Pentagon yesterday. Keep in mind, the companies making the toys of war don't care if they're making new stealth bombers or if they're making new sub-orbital rocket planes to launch new science experiments into space. Spend the money on SPACE! The economy will boom because a grand space plan can equal and replace the economic boom of war.
Dare to dream!!

[pmbryant]

13. Minor detail

I highly doubt (highly!!) the Bushies will be taking money from the Pentagon's budget to fund this.

If they did, I'd be all for it.

But no doubt, they will continue to push for massive increases in the Pentagon's budget. And that means this manned Moon/Mars stuff is patently unaffordable.

--Peter

[joefree1]

15. We would have a place to send Neo-cons

All kidding aside without frontiers we humans will soon be gone. Space exploration means innovation, jobs, hope, discovery, and yes a place to send neo-cons.

Or we could just sit here on earth and stew while we wait for the Apocalypse.

[stevedeshazer]

28. This is me, dreaming

Dreaming that putting nuclear weapons and sophisticated surveillance technology in the hands of the Project for a New American Century at the expense of my Social Security, Medicare, and a chance for a better life for my kids and grandkids will pay off.

I'm all for exploration, but come on.

[SaveElmer]

39. AMEN to that

Those against space travel always present the same tired old arguments about how we have to take care of everyone here on earth before we go into space. It's like saying the head of the dog can't move forward until the tail catches up. That will never happen, and presents a false choice. As a species we have to have someplace to go. It is in our nature to explore, and out of that exploration comes wondrous advancements that cannot be anticipated, and that will benefit everyone. NASA's budget is chump change compared to the rest of the federal budget. The pentagon spends in a week what NASA gets for an entire year. I think it is sad that the dream John Kennedy had is now being appropriated by Republicans, and we are too short sighted to see it.

I dislike this President as much as anyone, but ON THIS ISSUE, if he is sincere, and not hiding some alternate agenda(which I agree is possible), I wholeheartedly support him.

[0007]

43. Dear citizen of the world - Dreaming is beautiful on a full stomach

I say that you may have a point, but I believe it should only be realistic after nations quite exploiting other nations. Then perhaps a space project should be a world effort by every country participating

[sendero]

44. I'd agree with you...

... except as long as there is a Repug president and congress, space money will be spent like defense money, with no accountability, and simply to "pick winners".

The aerospace industry is just as corrupt and prone to wasting money to line pockets as the defense industry.

We just cannot afford it right now.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

10. Wes Clark had it right..

It's a gimmick. It's another election year gimmick, much like the Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants plan. He'll spin the whole issue to the moon (pun intended), and when sensible Democrats oppose the plan (for obvious reasons), the pundits will accuse the Dems of lacking vision, and opposing the President on a big issue. Just like the Medicare plan, and the education plan. Pass a flawed bill by bullying Dems to support it, by threatening their bipartisanship, and the bad bill passes. The Dems still get the heat for opposing it, and the Repubs get the PR bonus.

P.S. Not that I'm against going to the Moon, or the Amnesty plan for illegals.

[Cleita]

11. Have you ever noticed

how Bush comes from left field, pushes the pitcher out of the way and pitches a ball directly to the batter's groin? He did this with Iraq. Remember, he suddenly came out of nowhere and announced that we had to invade Iraq because they had WMDs. When the batter, the American people, was able to finally sit up and figure out what happened to him, the team had already walked off the field claiming victory.

He's doing it again with this moon thing. I say we put on a cup and demand that Congress doesn't go for this. If they sell us out again, we would be justified in starting a revolution.

[pmbryant]

17. There's a big difference here, I think

Bush was serious about Iraq.

He is not serious about this. It is, as another poster pointed out, just an election year gimmick.

I wouldn't worry about pushing Congress on this.

--Peter

[Cleita]

21. You think? I think he's deadly serious.

Someone has convinced him that we need to go beyond Reagans star wars missile defense shield. Now we need to aim them at countries like North Korea to keep them docile. This is what's behind this I believe. Devilya doesn't give a shit about exploring space.

[pmbryant]

26. He already has his missile defense program etc

Their ploy to militarize space is already underway. The Pentagon already has many times more money to spend than does NASA. And the only part of space that is militarily valuable is Earth orbit.

They don't need a civilian-based Moon and Mars program to do this. Those places, are extremely far away, and would be useless militarily.

This is just a political stunt. Like so many Bush has done before. Like Bush showing up for a PR gig at a Head Start program, but then quietly slashing funds for that very program a few weeks or months later.

--Peter

[Cleita]

29. I hope you are right but

I always look for the sinister with these vampire bats.

[pmbryant]

30. Never trust what they say

You really think my theory isn't sinister? ;-)

--Peter

[parasim]

12. Hey, I'm all for it.

I say let them go to mars.

Every last of 'em. All of the Shrubster's minions. Then we can get back to trying the fix this planet.

Anyway, if Bush does does send up a Mars exploration team, you can be sure they won't find anything! He sure couldn't find oil in Texas, WMDs in Iraq, OBL or the CIA leaker!

[neebob]

18. My first thought

was he wants to put weapons up there. Okay, so my first thoughts don't have to be practical or even too logical, but neither do his. I'm just sayin' that was my first thought.

[lazarus]

19. Easterbrook, of course, missed the third option

The real option. This is a gambit to realign NASA, strip it down, and move most of it to the Defense Department or privatise it. Then they militarise space.

That's all this is about. A mission to Mars and a base on the Moon sound great, and I'm all for it. But it needs to be done right, and I don't trust these people.

[pmbryant]

23. Stripping down NASA

I don't think the Bushies need to strip down NASA in order to militarize space. The Pentagon already has their own launch center (Vandenberg) and their own rockets. And they already have the 'Star Wars' research and the missile defense funding. And, as icing on the cake, the Pentagon has a hell of a lot more money at its disposal than does NASA.

But stripping down NASA does seem to be the inevitable result of this.

As I stated above, I think part of the motivation here is just a cover to allow the Bushies to kill the Shuttle program and not provide a replacement. (The money can then be diverted to things they prefer to spend money on: wars, corporate subsidies, etc.) With the Shuttle gone and no replacement in sight, NASA's role will be greatly reduced.

I don't dispute that some in the administration may have ideas about the Pentagon stepping into that eventual vacuum in manned space travel.

--Peter

[DBoon]

24. He obviously took too many drugs in his life

and it is catching up to him.

His "man on mars" program is as real as Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program.

[bowens43]

25. Bush has taken a lesson from Clark's playbook book...

get out their and tell the rabble what they want to hear, that you are going to give them something wonderful knowing all the time that you will never be able to deliver. And when it doesn't happen , you can blame congress.

[Cleita]

27. Actually, it's more out of Adolf's playbook.

eom

[Nikia]

31. He's trying to distract us from the real issues

He's hoping that everyone will be so excited about space that they'll forget that there is no good reason that he sent the military to Iraq (no WMD and no Al-Quaida link) and that the economy for the average working (or non working at this point) American really is in the toilet.
It's either that or there is a really good reason that we should be very concerned about (Earth will be destroyed in a couple of decades or a plan to spy on everyone and a death beam will automatically kill those doing something un American like posting on DU.).
I really hope that he's just trying to distract everyone, but I hope that it doesn't work.

[Trajan]

32. Could it be ...

That our President Codpiece wants a JFK feather in his cap ??? ...

Could it be that he desires historical greatness, even at the expense of BREAKING the bank of the US of A ??? ...

EVEN as a big fan of the space race of the 60's and 70's ...

EVEN as a laid off aerospace technician who has RUED the loss of Manned Space programs as a source of employment ...

EVEN as a person who has enjoyed his own experiences working on the Space Shuttle/ISS programs, and would love to continue such experiences ....

Even then: .... HOW will this be paid for ??? ....

What priority should such programs receive when citizens are suffering from the LACK of proper medical care, decent housing, decent schooling, and the refusal of polluting corporations to foot the bill for their effluent and refuse ???? ...

This is what I think drives this idea: ...

IF the treasure of the american people is used to PAY for the development of the technologies needed to implement such goals: ... then the multinational corporations can gain the benefits of these technological developments WITHOUT spending a dime .....

They can let US .. the US taxpayer, pay for those as yet under-developed technologies needed for further weapons development that THEY intend to sell to the government for THEIR personal gain, using taxes that THEY DONT PAY THEMSELVES ....

This is what the GOP vision of america is all about ...

WE pay: They dont ... WE Toil: THEY enjoy ... WE eat shit: THEY eat caviar ...

Nah ...... this stuff will NOT happen .....

Even though I admire the goals of Science ..... THIS pResident cannot sell these programs to THIS nation with THIS deficit at THIS time ....

The Bushies have tossed us a grapefruit ....

Let's hit this one outta the park ...

It is an IRRESPONSIBLE proposal .....

[Astarho]

33. I'll sum up Bush's reasoning

with a quote from the Simpsons (from a filmstrip Lisa's class watched):

The moon belongs to America, and anxiously awaits the arrival of our astro-men.

http://www.snpp.com/episodes/4F21

[Junkdrawer]

34. You guys know China has announced it's going to the moon, right?

China Outlines its Lunar Ambitions
By Leonard David
Senior Space Writer


A top official in China's blossoming space program has detailed that nation's plans for lunar exploration. China this year kicks off an intensive study on technologies required for exploring the Moon, eyeing future use of lunar resources, such as Helium-3, as a power source for Earth.

Chinese space officials view the Moon as a milestone effort in a multi-step space program, not only useful in strengthening its technological muscle, but also to out-distance other countries in utilizing the Moon in the 21st century.

Luan Enjie, vice-minister of the Commission of Science, Technology and Industry for National Defense and director of the China National Aerospace Administration (CNAA), blueprinted his country's lunar plans in an interview published March 3 by the People's Daily news outlet.

More...

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/china_moon_030304.html

[bigtree]

35. More boondogles

Nasa's Jupiter mission, the Prometheus Project is based on an archaic notion that began in the '50's with a space project named Orion.

Project Orion was a propulsion system that depended on exploding atomic bombs roughly two hundred feet behind the space vehicle.

Orion was developed at the old General Dynamics Corporation, under the guidance of several former Manhattan Project scientists.

In the late 1950's, Freeman Dyson, physicist, educator, and author, joined the Orion Project research team. The project's participants proposed exploding atomic bombs at regular intervals at very short distances behind a specially designed space ship in order to propel it to the Moon and other planets in the Solar System far more quickly and cheaply than with chemical-fuel rockets.

The motto for Orion was, 'Mars by 1965, Saturn by 1970'; hauntingly reminiscent of the administration's line about Project Prometheus exploring Mars and Europa's moons.

Orion ran out of money and needed the government's help. The military agreed to take up the project, but only on the condition that it adapt itself to a military purpose. The project was later abandoned because of uncertainty about the safety and efficacy of nuclear energy, and the high cost of the speculative program. Also, because the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963 outlawed it.

"Technology must be guided and driven by ethics if it is to do more than provide new toys for the rich," Dyson, 76, said, as he received the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion 2000.

Dyson once commented that, "Project Orion is a monument to those who once believed, or still believe, in turning the power of these weapons into something else."

Mum to all of that, the White House wants you to know that the nuclear space project will prove new technologies for future NASA missions. Like space-based weaponry.
The decision by U.S. President George W. Bush to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty allows research beneficial to orbiting space-based lasers as part of a global missile defense shield to resume; orbiting space lasers on permanent space platforms.

Despite the administration and industry talk of Europa's moons, the Prometheus Project will pave the way for the original Pentagon plan to mount nuclear reactors on space-based platforms to power their nuclear lasers. And of course, as the Space Command also asserts, ". . . the United States must also have the capability to deny America's adversaries the use of commercial space platforms, for military purposes"

This Promethus project is a cynical attempt to commit the nation to Rumsfeld's Star War's nonsense.

A space-based laser system would only encourage other nations to build space-nukes to counter ours. The move to expand this type of weaponry will almost certainly provoke a space-based weapon war.

Maybe we can shoot this crazy laser down before then.

At the military industry conference hosted by the American Enterprise Institute, defense policy advisor Richard Perle mused that, "It would be better if we simply handed the money to the defense industry and let them invest it themselves, . . . but Congress likes to control that . . . , but it gives the impression that the merchants of death are unduly licenced."

Perle then made a weak plea for less regulation of arms exports ($140 + billion since 1992), and suggested that export licencing be consolidated into one agency. I wonder who the administration executives will suggest to head that office.

Industry lawyers; resumes at the ready!

You can hear the regret in his statement. If we would only just give the industry the money they want, no strings attached; they would provide for the nation's defense needs.

The industry wants us to believe that they are the best judges of what the next generation's needs are in terms of weaponry.

But the existence of these corporations and their new hi-tech boondoggles will not make us anymore secure than the existence of these same executives in our government have kept our sons and daughters from dying in senseless wars.

[pmbryant]

36. Confusing post

Not sure why you bring up Orion, which was a long time ago, and never got very far, and doesn't appear relevant to either the proposed Moon/Mars stuff, or this Prometheus project you brought up.

Prometheus doesn't look anything like Orion to me, except that it also involves the word "nuclear". Orion would have used nuclear bombs, but the modern-day Prometheus project is supposed to find ways to use nuclear energy (via fission reactors or radio-isotope based systems) to power spacecraft.

It's not even clear to me that Prometheus is a funded project. The info on NASA's web site about it says "pending approval by Congress".

And it's quite a stretch to think that the Pentagon needs to use a NASA project to accomplish its goals in space. The Pentagon has a lot more money than NASA does, has its own launch center (Vandenberg Air Force Base) and has its own rockets. So I'm rather baffled why so many here think that the Pentagon is trying to infiltrate NASA projects. It's not like they are hurting for money over there under Bush/GOP control!

And the stuff about space-based lasers and Richard Perle doesn't appear to me to be connected to NASA at all.

:shrug:

--Peter

[bigtree]

46. What did you miss?

What's actually behind the White House's hawking of this space mission is their desire to promote and legitimize the industry's new nuclear propulsion technology needed to support such a mission. That would be another in a long list of moneymaking boondoggles for the aerospace industry.

To develop and demonstrate these new nuclear power and propulsion technologies, President Bush's budget proposes $279 million; ($3 billion over five years) for Project Prometheus, which builds on the Nuclear Systems Initiative started last year.

Project Prometheus includes the development of the first nuclear-electric space mission, called the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter. 135 This mission will conduct extensive, in-depth studies of the moons of Jupiter that may harbor subsurface oceans. Only advanced nuclear reactors could provide the hundreds of kilowatts of power the craft would need.

Included in NASA plans for the nuclear rocket to Mars; a new generation of Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) for interplanetary missions; nuclear-powered robotic Mars rovers to be launched in 2003 and 2009. 136 NASA touts future mining colonies on the Moon, Mars, and asteroids that would be powered by nuclear reactors.

The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a division of the California Institute of Technology, manages the Mars Odyssey mission for NASA's Office of Space Science. Additional science partners are located at the Russian Aviation and Space Agency and at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Lockheed Martin Astronautics, Denver, is the prime contractor for the project to develop and build the orbiter. Mission operations are conducted jointly from Lockheed Martin and JPL.

Dyson once commented that, "Project Orion is a monument to those who once believed, or still believe, in turning the power of these weapons into something else."

Orion ran out of money and needed the government's help. The military agreed to take up the project, but only on the condition that it adapt itself to a military purpose. The project was later abandoned because of uncertainty about the safety and efficacy of nuclear energy, and the high cost of the speculative program. Also, because the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963 outlawed it.

The motto for Orion was, 'Mars by 1965, Saturn by 1970'; hauntingly reminiscent of the administration's line about Project Prometheus exploring Mars and Europa's moons

Promethus is the project which NASA intends to follow the Mars mission.

This notion of NASA's money being separate from the military is nonsense: Check out this site and do some digging.
http://www1.nasa.gov/about/highlights/AN_Structure_OtherAgencies.html

You can easily find the military with its fingers in the NASA pie. I believe that this is the reason the NASA program gets its funding. Their work is in direct support of the Pentagon's ambitions. This is painfully evident by the associations that senior Air Force officials have with the aerospace industry which stands to recieve the bulk of the space dollars.

If you take the time to read the rhetoric from Perle and the rest of PNAC you will see why this administration is so interested in space and new nuclear propulsion sysyems. Space buffs say that these systems are benign, and will be used for exploration. Pentagon officials make it clear that they intend for these new technologies to prove the efficacy of their notions for space-based platforms and space-based nuclear lasers which will presumably defend the vast array of satellites which the military relies on. There will certainly be some offensive capability to these lasers. This will, in my opinion, start a new space weapon's race.


DARPA site:
http://www.arpa.mil/tto/programs/astro.html

The goal of the Orbital Express Space Operations Architecture program is to validate the technical feasibility of robotic, autonomous on-orbit refueling and reconfiguration of satellites to support a broad range of future U.S. national security and commercial space programs. To design, fabricate, and test on orbit a modular micro-satellite for protection of stationary satellites.

Also from DARPA: Space Applications and Opportunities:
http://www.arpa.mil/dso/thrust/matdev/chap/briefings/timchap2000day2/denoyer_afrl.pdf


NASA SPACE SCIENCE REQUEST 2003: Up 19.1 percent to $3,414.3 million
http://www.aip.org/enews/fyi/2002/015.html

While the requested increase for Space Science may look large, much of it is due to a transfer of programs from elsewhere within the NASA budget. In fact, a NASA budget documents states, "a large part (over $200 million) of the apparent increase...is not an increase at all, but is due to the transfer of funding and responsibility for two critical components of Space Science spacecraft operations (the Deep Space Network, and Mission Services for Space Science missions) from the Office of Space Flight."

A new item in the FY 2003 request (within Technology Programs) is the Nuclear Systems Initiative, intended to reduce spacecraft travel time and make possible new planetary exploration initiatives. The request includes $46.5 million for nuclear electric propulsion and $79.0 million for nuclear electrical power-generation systems.

Another new program, the New Frontiers program, according to NASA, "is a revamping of the Outer Planets missions program" to support frequent, mid-sized planetary missions, at an FY 2003 request of $15.0 million.

Major ongoing programs that would receive increases include the Mars Exploration Program (to $453.6 million), the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA) (to $46.9 million), and the Explorer Program (to $135.1 million). Also receiving increases would be Mission Operations (to $385.2 million), Technology Programs (to $703.9 million), and Research Programs (to $709.6 million).


FY 2004 Budget Request: NASA
http://www.aip.org/enews/fyi/2003/019.html

Highlighted initiatives include "breakthrough nuclear propulsion and power systems that will be demonstrated on an ambitious mission to Jupiter's moons;


There's more if you dig pmbryant. I have presented a fragmented view of the Pentagon's ambitions in space. It is incredibly naive to view NASA and the Pentagon as seperate entities. Indeed, without the support of the military industrial warriors in this administration, from PNAC's ambitions, from DARPA's, the money that funds the space program would evaporate.

The nuclear hawks are stepping out from behind their Trojan Horses of nuclear space travel and ‘safe', new nuclear fuels and are revealing a frightening ambition to yoke the nation to a new legacy of imperialism: From new generation nuclear, blended fuels, to new generation mini-nukes, to space-based lasers. Nothing happens in a vacumn. The space community lost control over NASA long ago when it let the military fund its projects. Now the missions and the funding are inseperable. Time to look again at their ambitions with a jaundiced eye towards this reckless cabal of industry hacks assembled in the highest offices of our government by Bush.

Of course pmbryant, there exists the possibility that President Bush actually assembled the Pentagon's recent pack of aerospace executives to run his foreign policy in his own anticipation of a credible 'space threat', to deter a future assault on our nation's security.

What foresight he must have had from his Texas ranch. What of it, if executives and shareholders in the space industry happen to rape of our treasury to fulfill their own hunger to dominate military and commercial space?

There seems to be no limit to aerospace ambitions. The administration is pushing ahead with the expansion of the military space program, despite the limitations of the nation's weak economy and the adoption of many other costly ‘priorities' for the armed forces.

Ron

[pmbryant]

48. I am not disputing the Pentagon's ambitions

And the fact that NASA is, to a large extent, pork for the aerospace industry.

What I disagree with is the idea that the Pentagon needs to put up some sort of false front NASA project in order to achieve its goals. This makes no sense.

You've presented a lot of info here but none of it indicates any connection, much less a deep connection, between the Pentagon and NASA. You've got a lot of NASA-specific info, and a lot of Pentagon-specific info.

It is incredibly naive to view NASA and the Pentagon as seperate entities. Indeed, without the support of the military industrial warriors in this administration, from PNAC's ambitions, from DARPA's, the money that funds the space program would evaporate.

No, it is not naive, it is a fact. The Pentagon has its own internal agencies that deal with the space-oriented stuff it does. According to one of the website you link to, these are (1) Advanced Research Projects Agency, and (2) United States Strategic Command.

The space community lost control over NASA long ago when it let the military fund its projects. Now the missions and the funding are inseperable.

This doesn't make sense. NASA has its own funding and does not rely on the military to fund its projects.

Anyway... I agree that Bush, PNAC, et al want to militarize 'space' -- i.e., Earth orbit; not the Moon, Mars, or anything else impractically far away. And I agree that the aerospace contractors (and Bush et al as a result) just love all the money they get via both NASA and Pentagon contracts for space-oriented projects.

But viewing NASA as some integral part of the campaign to militarize space is just not plausible, based both on common sense and my experience. And I haven't seen any significant evidence to change my mind. (A link to a NASA site about "Other Space Agencies" that, not surprisingly, lists a couple Pentagon space agencies does not come close to establishing a connection.)

When Bush et al decide to build space-based weapons, they will do it through the Pentagon directly. That way, they will have much more money, and much more discretion to do whatever they want. (The Pentagon is notorious for not being able to report where there money is spent.) For the Bushies, NASA is much too public (and too small) of an agency to allow to handle that kind of work.

--Peter

[bigtree]

50. we disagree

I'm sorry, though.

I imagine the only way to convince you would be to strip away all of the military ambitions and see what survives.

Take the space station. NASA classifies it as a military project in numerous funding proposals.

And what of the industry that builds the rockets and all of the technology that supports it? What is their priority? They are the heart and soul of the Pentagon's space program. I am certain that they would insist that the seemingly benign applications in space would not survive without the influx of defense dollars. I believe that this is NASA's dirty 'secret'.

The links are more than incidental. NASA exists because the Pentagon has adapted its missions for military use. To deny that plays into the policy planners aim to compartmentalize their ambitions. The ultimate goal of the space program has become a drive for the military domination of space. Plain and simple, notwithstanding the motives of some fine researchers who have their seemingly benign projects. They have to go through the wall of military industry hacks that permeate the government appropriations process. That's why they revert to these covers: Trip to the Moon, Mars, etc.

Their own documents outline their ambitions which just so happen to fall in line with the Pentagon's. You admit the collusion between aerospace industry and its insiders in this administration, but you refuse to acknowledge the collusion that led to Bush's Moon pronouncement. You will possibly deny the collusion that leads to the nuclear Mars mission. But you will be loath to explain how the space industry got so inflated during this Bush term. You will not be able to attribute the inflation (record space CEO salaries also) to any of your seemingly benign projects. You will, on examination, find that the Pentagon has tasked these industries to develop technologies under a false mandate of a missile threat or a domination by rouge states like China in military space.

In other words, the ambitions of the military industry are more prominently on display at NASA than benign applications for space. They are also, more importantly, more prevelant in NASA funding legislation:

NASA SPACE SCIENCE REQUEST 2003: Up 19.1 percent to $3,414.3 million
http://www.aip.org/enews/fyi/2002/015.html

"While the requested increase for Space Science may look large, much of it is due to a transfer of programs from elsewhere within the NASA budget."

I may have not included evey link, but I still maintain that to underestimate the sophistry of these military industrial hawks and their planners in obtaining congressional appropriations(our money) is incredibly naive. Or perhaps we see what we want to see.

I see this administration as thouroughly corrupt and I question their every motivation and action. But don't let me stop you from defending them.

another post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1003536

see my list of Lockheed executives in this administration. lockheed stands to recieve the bulk of the money for these space projects. hard to seperate the ambitions of these executives, along with their statements, from their motivation to hijack our space defense dollars to further their empire. rumsfeld started the ball rolling with his space commission. secretary of the air force roche, and undersecretary teets, both northrup-grumman and Lockheed presidents and vices, respectively, have furthered the assault legislatively and through departmental appropriations.

seperate entities?

[bigtree]

52. don't take my word for it

read this:

The Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space maintains that just like missile defense is a Trojan horse for the Pentagon's real agenda for control and domination of space, NASA's nuclear rocket is a Trojan horse for the militarization of space.

NASA's new chief, former Navy Secretary Sean O'Keefe said soon after Bush appointed him to head the space agency that, "I don't think we have a choice, I think it's imperative that we have a more direct association between the Defense Department and NASA. Technology has taken us to a point where you really can't differentiate between that which is purely military in application and those capabilities which are civil and commercial in nature."

In the end hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars will be wasted on plans for the nuclearization and weaponization of space. In order to fund these missions Bush and Congress will have to cut programs like social security, education, health care, child care, public transit and environmental protection. In the name of progress and security the lives of future generations will become more insecure.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclearspace-03b.html

[bigtree]

55. Talkin' bout my (your) generation.

It all starts with a simple trip to the moon. Then Mars . . .

Coincidental:

New (unproven) nuclear propulsion technology which would utilize new generation reconstituted nuclear fuels.

New generation of nuclear weaponry which would utilize a new generation of reconstituted nuclear fuels.

New nuclear plants (your neighborhood?) which will produce the next generation of blended nuclear fuels for the next generation of nuclear weaponry and new (unproven) nuclear propulsion technology.

New nuclear legacy of uncertain risks, possibly catastrophic, to the environment, the workers, and the world community.

To the moon, Alice! Bam, pow, zoom!

[TomNickell]

38. The Moon and Social Security....

There's also a report * will again raise social security privatization in the SOTU.

Unrelated issues, except both involve 'the vision thing'.

Remember last year in SOTU * proposed transition to a hydrogen fuel economy and 'elimination of the internal combustion engine'. Nobody paid attention because of the Iraq war.

So, maybe a (lame) attempt at leadership? Or the appearance of leadership?

[imax2268]

40. And...

Halliburton will get no bid contracts to construct a base on the moon...then they will get a no bid contract to drill for oil on mars...

[0007]

41. Wow! Real reality sets in after reading this article!

[argonne]

42. Tim Robbins in

Mission to Mars (2000)

Nuff said.

[Hubert Flottz]

45. I think it's a GREAT idea, IF

He is the first chimp they send to the Red planet!

[bigtree]

47. Sources said Bush will direct NASA to scale back

or scrap all existing programs that do not support his new (moon) effort.

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040107-123930-1532r

[pmbryant]

64. Everyone should take a note of that

This would be an immediate effect. And thus probably the only aspect of this proposal that will ever get implemented.

Science programs would be devastated by this.

:-(

--Peter

[slater71]

49. He knows congress won`t approve.

He can say he tried but congress won`t do it. Just like the illegels that are here. Congress won`t approve but he can say he tried.

[arewethereyet]

51. sure all that is true but

do you have any idea how great the impact of the original space programs have been on the world ?

Not only did we get some cool rocks, we got computers, telecom advances, manufacturing improvements, agricultural improvements AND Tang.

A huge chunk on our economy came about as a direct result of solving the challenges of the space program. And it created millions of high paying jobs that we're only just beginning to lose to the third world since they have become simple enough and cheap enough for them to do.

Just something to chew on.

[bigtree]

53. tell the hawks to back off

or there will not be a world left.

[rasputin1952]

54. Never gonna happen...

No trees, no oil, nobody to conquer; it's aa junk.

Watch what comes in under the radar while people debate this moon/Mars scenario.

It would be instantly crushed by the new Admin anway.

:bounce:

[Jawja]

56. * is just trying

to steal the headlines from the great accomplishment by JPL and NASA with the Spirit and hopefully, Opportunity.

They are way out of his league.

[Philosophy]

60. NO WAR ON MARS!

This is obviously just a plan by the neocons the PNMC (Project for the New Martian Century) to invade Mars and then give a no bid contract worth trillions of dollars to Halliburton to take over the red planet's production of Mars Bars.

[aeon flux]

61. The mission has no practical value.

Like the first trip to the moon has shown, all you're going to find on mars is endless miles of rock, sand, and no gravity (gee what a surprise!). You might as well be spending a trillion dollars to take a trip to the Sahara desert here on earth. The end result would be the same.

The lunacy of the proposed moon/mars mission, exposed. Dubya has just provided another great blunder for the democratic candidates to attack him with (as if they don't already have more than enough to use against him). Thanks moron!

edit: typo

[aeon flux]

62. To those that argue this would bring jobs

sure it will provide jobs to a few rocket scientists with Ph.D's and an opportunity for defense industry execs to line their pockets. But creating a few jobs for some rocket scientists will hardly put a dent in unemployment. you provide a few jobs, but the practical value of the end product is highly questionable.

I'd rather put the money in building more roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc. Not only do you create much more job opportunites, but the end products that come out of it actually have tangible value.

[ochazuke]

63. It all fits together beautifully

When the history of 2004 is written, this totally absurd and outlandish proposal will serve as a perfect example of the bubble that certain self-absorbed American presidents were living in. It might go something like this:

"Living Large" was the buzz word. It was a time of Hummers and Humvees, talk of boom times and a trip to Mars filled the airwaves. It was the dawn of an American Empire, and the war cry was "Shop! Shop! Shop!" The national obsession was the Atkins diet (obesity was at record levels). That was the state of affairs in early 2004 before an imploding economy and a series of political scandals....

Let's HOPE it happens this year, because it WILL happen, and the sooner the better.