How bout the new plans for Mars?
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): How bout the new plans for Mars?
I just don't see how the money for Mars is available with our debt. Not to mention the schools/children that suffer w/ low budgets. These will be the kids GOING to Mars, and yet they aren't getting the best education.
And of course the cost of the current war. And where will our nation be by 2013 with our health system. More and more families are not insured.
I don't have much knowledge on this topic, but it just seems like we have more than we can handle right now and Mars (as well as the moon) can wait.
I have no idea where this money is coming from! Seems like we have enough problems on earth without having to pay for that, too.
Do you think Bush is trying to distract us from the real problems?
Did anyone else think of the movie Total Recall when they heard about this? LOL
I don't know if it's feasible or even possible in my lifetime, but I tend to think as Mommmie does. We are in an election year after all.
(Wow, I sound really cynical, don't I?)
I thought it was interesting when they gave the time tables. I know nothing comes quick, but WOW my hubby wants his vaction schedule for the year and I can't get it together yet, but as a nation lets prespend our money to 2030!
I don't have cable yet...what are the plans you all are talking about?
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040115_72.html
I have always had a problem with our spending a lot of money on the space program, but I have friends who strongly disagree with me. They feel that the money spent will be well worth it, but I just can't fathom spending that much money when in my opinion the money could be put to much better use. I personally could come up with a dozen or more ways to spend that amount of money that would make much more sense for our country. I am very concerned with the plight of our health care system, with our educational system, and with our overall economy.
I am a huge supporter of Bush and everything he has done so far, including the war. But I do not understand spending money on going to Mars. Like Gammiejoan said, I could think of a hundred better ways to spend the money. But maybe there is more to it than I know.
My DH and I were talking about this and at first we thought why would we bother going there. But then we thought about all the business it would generate. Think about all the companies that would be contracted by the government to create the parts, etc. needed for the missions and of course the jobs that would be created.
Money can't be "generated". It can be reallocated, but not generated. Yes, it would bring more money into several homes, business and communties, but at what cost? We're not talking about a few million dollars or even a couple billion. Our debt is still there. Until that debt is payed, our country is still at a loss for money....regardless of how many people have money.
Kind of like those family who over extend themselves w/ grand purchases all on credit. Sure their life looks great, but my goodness, they are cash poor.
When I seen Bush telling about this new Mars project I couldn't believe it. With the state of our country at this time I thought there were many more important things to be focused on. Not sure if he's trying to distract us, or if he's trying to gain popularity since election time is near.
I am a major fan of space exploration. However, as a major not-fan of Bush, I have a tremendous distrust of this program. Especially as I read this morning that one of the casualties in this proposal is the Hubble telescope, as cancelling the shuttle will stop the maintenance/servicing missions Hubble needs every 3-4 years. The Hubble telescope has brought us so much knowledge about space and our universe, and will be a great loss.
My take on this is that it will be $2 billion of large R&D contracts to a small handful of corporations with ties to the present administration - much as contracts relating to Iraq have been handed out. And it will mean either $2billion (plus interest) added to the soaring gigantic national debt and/or cuts in other programs, like education, college grants and loans, healthcare for children and the elderly, aid to states for roads, and the like.
Plus, while I am far from knowledgeable about this kind of thing, I have been reading science fiction and fact for 50+ years, and the best minds in the field appear to think that any building of major space exploration vehicles should be done in space from major satellite structures. The Bush proposal is to build a base on the moon and build there.
Finally, I don't see other nations standing by calmly while we build a base, either on the moon or in space, which could be a base for missles. And I strongly doubt there is much faith in Bush's intentions to keep such a location only for "peaceful" purposes - his record on international relationships is hardly stellar.
Surrounded previous poster's remarks with ***
***I am a major fan of space exploration. However, as a major not-fan of Bush, I have a tremendous distrust of this program. Especially as I read this morning that one of the casualties in this proposal is the Hubble telescope, as cancelling the shuttle will stop the maintenance/servicing missions Hubble needs every 3-4 years. The Hubble telescope has brought us so much knowledge about space and our universe, and will be a great loss.***
So should we spend the next 30 years as we have spent the last 30 - twirling around in space in low Earth orbit studying zero-G nausea? I don't think so. The Columbia tragedy made painfully clear what some have been saying for years: It is not only pointless to continue orbiting endlessly around the Earth; it is ridiculously expensive and indefensibly risky. As for the Hubble, it is the crown jewel of NASA. I hardly think it's going to be abandoned. Any launch vehicle capable of taking us to the moon could easily be retasked to provide maintenance to the Hubble.
***My take on this is that it will be $2 billion of large R&D contracts to a small handful of corporations with ties to the present administration - much as contracts relating to Iraq have been handed out. And it will mean either $2billion (plus interest) added to the soaring gigantic national debt and/or cuts in other programs, like education, college grants and loans, healthcare for children and the elderly, aid to states for roads, and the like.***
Ah yes, the widespread canard that Bush gives all the government contracts in Iraq to his buddies. Is there any proof of this? (chanting: Haliburton... Haliburton... Haliburton... doesn't count). For some, there will always be a "better" way to spend tax dollars (my favorite: It's for the children!!!) but if we wait for heaven on earth to happen here, we're never going to go anywhere.
***Plus, while I am far from knowledgeable about this kind of thing, I have been reading science fiction and fact for 50+ years, and the best minds in the field appear to think that any building of major space exploration vehicles should be done in space from major satellite structures. The Bush proposal is to build a base on the moon and build there.***
A defensible argument perhaps, but I'm sure Bush received all kinds of advice from the Scientific community on the new direction NASA should take. Why did he choose Mars from a moon base? Don't exactly know, but I would guess because it provided the best cost/benefit ratio.
***Finally, I don't see other nations standing by calmly while we build a base, either on the moon or in space, which could be a base for missles. And I strongly doubt there is much faith in Bush's intentions to keep such a location only for "peaceful" purposes - his record on international relationships is hardly stellar.***
Hardly stellar? What are you referring to exactly? Maybe it was the elimination of Saddam Hussein, a brutal dictator who has been destabilizing the Middle East for decades? Or perhaps it was Libya's decision to completely renounce weapons of mass destruction and invite international inspectors into the country? Or maybe Iran's decision to allow inspectors to visit its nuclear installations?
Oh that's right... The French are angry. Kinda ruins everything, doesn't it?
Actually, CarolK - Halliburton, Halliburton, Halliburton, with its very close ties to VP Cheney, its no-bid contact to provide gasoline, which, when awarded, produced a price twice that of the next highest (not next lowest) bidder, and which produced a DOD audit. Feel free to frame your arguments as you wish, but I will frame mine as I wish.
And, of course, Bechtel, which was awarded a $1.8 billion no-bid contract, and Worldcom, recently fined $500 million (that's half a billion) by the SEC for investor fraud, awarded another no-bid contract.
As for the Hubble, the briefest article I found was in the New York Daily News:
WASHINGTON - The Hubble Space Telescope will be allowed to degrade and eventually become useless, as NASA changes focus to President Bush's plans to send humans to the moon, Mars and beyond, officials said.
NASA canceled all space shuttle servicing missions to the Hubble, which has revolutionized the study of astronomy with its striking images of the universe.
"This is a sad day," said John Grunsfeld, NASA's chief scientist.
He said NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe made the decision to cancel the fifth space shuttle service mission to the Hubble when it became clear there was not enough time to conduct it before the shuttle is retired.
The Associated Press
It may well be a NASA centerpiece, but it looks like it is not going to be that for much longer.
I also am sure Busch received advice from the scientific community. However, the Bush administration has the habit of listening only to those who agree with it. Many highly respected independent science journals have decried the Bush administration's habit of rewriting reports to produce the results they want (i.e., air pollution, water pollution, support of birth control/AIDS prevention in 3rd world countries), or simply picking advisers who agree, especially those who rely on a religious basis for reaching their conclusions (i.e., stem cell research).
I think there are three major factors in this announcement about Mars. (1) Mars is in the news right now, thanks to projects which began many administrations ago; (2) Kennedy made a big splash and got a huge increase in popularity when he announced a mission to the Moon (but then we were suffering the embarassment of Sputnik and it was a competition, which is not the present case) and (3) any such program will require huge amounts of funds in R&D, and I do believe the contracts will go to those major corporations which have close ties to the administration. But, time will tell.
There are, of course, many "better" ways to spend tax dollars. Spending it on supporting schools rather than supervising mandated tests would be a good place. As would health care for poor children and the families of unemployed and underemployed workers; extending unemployment benefits to those laid off from the air travel and hotel industries, so badly hurt by 9-11 (and, of course, by airline mismanagement and deregulation); infrastructure like roads and bridges and railroads; better pay and better health care for the members of the military, their families, and the retired military; education aid in the forms of grant programs at least on the level they were at (proportionately, not dollars) 10 years ago; the FDA, so we can have better inspection of meats and vegetables and not have to worry so much about hepatitis and mad cow disease; and the IRS, so it can go after major tax cheats instead of focusing most of its efforts on people who file for the Earned Income Credit; job training and jobs for all those people who have been and will be cut off welfare and, since most of them are single mothers, supported child care, pre-school programs and all-day kindergarten and after school programs.
There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was supporting international terroris. Al Queda saw him as an enemy because he was a secular dictator and not a religious dictator. Agreed, he was a terrible man and his government did terrible things. And Gulf War I was a necessary war, as wars go. But since then, as far as there is any evidence (not speculation, evidence) his "evil" deeds were pretty much concentrated in Iraq. And while that in itself is terrible, I believed before the war and continue to believe that for the United States to conduct a pre-emptive war is contrary to the values of the United States as I have always believed them to be.
I'll grant you Libya to a point. They have renounced nuclear weapons and will agree to inspections and this is probably a result of the invasion of Iraq. Iran, on the other hand, whom we defended in Gulf War I, has its own nuclear program and has no intentions of allowing inspectors in. Neither does North Korea, a really serious danger. (Oh, and lest we forget - where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction? Especially Iraq's "imminent" nuclear arms program?)
I have no great love for the French - France is trying to position itself as the new leader of Europe, and probably won't succeed. As allies, they were always a problem and are less so as non-ally - but the French have always been peculiar, even before Napolean. There is a reason chauvinism is a French word.
But who are our allies in Iraq - England (but not Canada), Japan, and a bunch of little nations with no influence who said yeah, sure, we'll support you - let's you and him fight, and some sent in a few troops. Blair has his own problems and faces a no-confidence vote before the end of this month which he may well lose, mostly because of the war. The Japanese are very unhappy about their government's role. Turkey, at serious risk from the Iraqi Kurds, wouldn't let us use their airfields as a staging point, and wanted to send in their troops "in support" into the area where they could control the Iraqi Kurds - thankfully we had the sense to decline that support. But, what about Germany, Spain, most of the rest of the Middle East (including Saudi Arabia, the source of significant political and financial support for Al Queda and other terrorism organizations), most of Northern Europe, Russia and most of the former Soviet Union, Canada, and most of Central and South America and Asia. We can count our allies in this war on two hands. The insulting behavior of our government to the rest of the world is a matter of very well publicized record.
While human (as opposed to robotic) exploration of space beyond earth is exciting, employs thousands, and generates spin-off technologies and business, it has been known for a very long time that the economic and scientific "payoff" is far less (per dollar invested) than basic science and engineering research. If the purposes of going to Mars are human "wanderlust", or simply accomplishing an enormously impressive engineering feat, than I cannot argue that it is not a good choice. But if the purposes are the uncovering of new scientific knowledge (generally or about Mars), new technologies for medicine and other applications, and new industries, than it is a very poor choice. This is largely because most of the cost will go into creating adequate, human-protective and human-friendly living space for the "commute" and "stay" on Mars. Scientists across (almost) all of the disciplines have argued for this point for many years. More recently, economists have studied the manned space program and come to the same conclusions. I am not arguing that it is a bad thing, simply that the economic and technological benefits are far less than a similar investment in basic science and engineering.
|
Members
