Bush to announce US moon mission (seriously)

[underpants]

Just broke on Today and teaser on FoxNews. I couldn’t find the actual National Review article. The author (name?) stated on the Today Show that a moon base could be used to a build nuclear reactor and launch site for a manned Mars mission.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/04/1070351713928.html

December 4, 2003 - 5:05PM

US president George W. Bush is to announce a new space program which could include missions to the moon and possibly even to Mars, reports
say.

According to National Review magazine, Mr Bush is expected to make the announcement in a speech on December 17, the 100th anniversary of manned flight by the Wright Brothers.

The plans go beyond just a single mission to the moon and could even involve the establishment of a permanent base there, the magazine said.

Mr Bush may also outline general plans for a mission to Mars, it was reported.

The magazine said there was still a question over the timing of the announcement, and the details might be saved for the State of the Union Address in January.

[greatauntoftriplets]

1. Where is the money for all of this going to come?

He is already bankrupting the nation for generations with his tax cuts, wars and spending (to quote John McCain) like a drunken sailor.

[underpants]

15. Indeed that was the first thing my wife said this morning

Let's see list of things we don't need:

-War on Iraq
-Misdirected taxcutS
-New mission to the freakin' Moon

[girl gone mad]

25. add..

Missile Defense to that list.

[MUAD_DIB]

19. Don't worry. This is just more Chimp BS.

Remember *'s lipservice about spearheading a hydrogen fuel cell initiative (which just incidentally for the freeps and lurkers has been in development long before crotchsock road into town)? This moon mission smells like it has about the same quantity of BS.

You can't go to the moon until the space station is complete. You can't complete the space station or go to the moon if the shuttle fleet is grounded. You can't make new shuttles (or space planes) or do any of the others if you are out of money.

There is no way that we can pay for a moon base (ROFL) with a reator while the repugs attempt to gut the treasury, medicare and social security.

Remeber this is the guy who said "we can have it all": a tax cut, defense, pay down the national debt, shore up SS, ect., and on and on.

The only thing that this clown's clown has any abundance of is hot air and shit for brains.

[lumpy]

56. Why worry

The Madmen have stirred up enough trouble to last a lifetime. Of course the moon is unattainable, maybe even invading the axises of evil countries won't come off. Before this administration is through you can be damn sure there are plans to cause more grief. Since Bushco has laid down the new ground rules for preemption we will get a bomb up our butts.

[ithacan]

30. this is part of GOP strategy to destroy government

by squandering current and future revenues on anything that is NOT about helping this country meet its obligations towards its citizens.

This is coming straight out of the "Christian" right's playbook. They believe the Bible says governmetn should not be helping people, because it's churches' role.

What better way to ensure government CAN'T help people than by earmarking future income to boondoggles like a larger military, missions to the moon, etc.

This is exactly what Reagan tried to do. Remember David Stockman, his budget director. He quit and revealed that this was the GOP strategy.

This time thought the repubs are going for the gold, trying to ensure that the federal government is totally disabled.

This moon thing is one more part of that strategy.

[kcwayne]

39. Its easy for Republicans to get the money to fund this

<sarcasm on>They will cut taxes. Its obvious isn't it? </sarcasm off>

[Frodo]

59. I LIKE the idea. I just wish it weren't Bush doing it.

Kennedy made the announcement right after the Bay of Pigs embarrasment and paid for it during the Vietnam War. Unemployment and inflation were right about where they are today and Kennedy was right in the heat of the hottest point in the Cold War. Talking about today as if it were worse than the early 60's is lacking a proper perspective of history.

There is NEVER a time when you can "afford" to do something like this. But it's still a good idea. And, like the first moon shot, is likely to more than pay for itself in technology advances.

It's a visionary thing to do. Of course... it's KENNEDY's vision, not Bush's.

[ChickMagic]

62. I'm sure that's why the evil chimp is doing it

I can just hear KKKarl saying, "JFK inspired an entire generation by challenging them to go to the moon. You can inspire people the same way! You don't have to do it, just say it!"

The only thing he inspires me to do is :puke:

[Cronus Protagonist]

61. Borrow and Spend Republicans don't care about that

They need somewhere to put their loot that's got the best guarantee of safety and that's lending it to the US government. So they have to take the loot from the Federal coffers, spread it among themselves and then, since there's no loot left in the Treasury, lend it back to the government at a profitable interest rate.

It's so simple I don't know why no one seems to notice that's what they're up to.

FUCK BUSH Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[Snivi Yllom]

68. Are there WMD on the moon?

That could be a reason to go.

[NoPasaran]

85. Not yet

But we can fix that.

[alexwcovington]

2. Sorry, wrong man for the job

Remember when his Daddy tried something similar? When Raygun tried?

They could never get the budgets passed.

And furthermore I don't want the Moon to be owned by Halliburton by the time I get there.

[Sagan]

3. misdirection about the steel tariff revocation

They are trying to drown that out today.

[mbperrin]

4. Gee, I didn't realize that Carlyle was about to go into

the moon-going business!!!

[kysrsoze]

51. Seems strange....I didn't think there was any oil on the moon

This is absolutely stupid. We ought to be shooting for Mars at this point. What is this - the 60's?

[hobbes159]

55. Has Halliburton found oil on the moon?

n/t

[Mari333]

5. He doesnt even know where the Moon is for gods sake

.

[drscm]

6. May I suggest an astronaut for this mission...

and I would like for him to be made a permanent resident of either the moon or Mars.

[underpants]

14. Mooooonraker_______or maybe Dr.Evil

I think both of those cinematic classic involve a GIANT LASER GUN on the moon.

[Bozola]

7. It's the Chinese. They've already stated their intention

Dubya's trying to play "keep up".

[MUAD_DIB]

20. We can't play "keep up" with an empty bank account.

How I hate president fucker!

[Roon]

83. Now that I think about it..

I remember reading an article after the Columbia disater that we were considering going back to using Saturn type rockets because they were more safe. This same article also told of testing of "space tugboats" in the future to nudge asteriods out of Earth's path.

Anyway, maybe this plan to use Saturns again has something to do with a possible trip back to the moon.

All you naysayers out there:Shuttle trips, the INS, meteor showers, comets, and eclipses have all gotten really boring. I think returning to the moon would be the most exciting space event since the first time we went there. I suspected that we were going to return when I first heard that the chinese wanted to go over a year ago. Too bad asshole is going to use it for his legacy.

[JM]

8. Lol! A letter to Cafferty on CNN

"They must think there is oil on the moon"

Later,
JM

[VolcanoJen]

42. LOL!! That's a great one!

Cafferty's letters can be hilarious sometimes... :-)

[Cooley Hurd]

48. Jack said he's received literally hundreds of letters...

...suggesting that Bush gets a one-way ticket to the moon. For a crusty old dude, Jack sometimes surprises me with his candor...

[JM]

9. This will only go on until...

...Santorum reports to Bush that the Man in the Moon is gay.

Later,
JM

[Drifter]

10. When does he leave ? ...

Zoom, Pow, to the moon.

My apologies to Ralph Cramdon

Cheers
Drifter

[Loonman]

11. Moron thinks he's JFK

;)

[underpants]

13. I hate to direct this this way but....PNAC's space & military uses

I don't have a link to the PNAC site but if I remember correctly they mention that our advantage in space could be used for military advantage. I believe they detail tying StarWars missile defense in with satellites and such.

[soothsayer]

100% chance this is about the militarization of space

I'm sure we're worried about China doing it first, so we're gonna' beat 'em to the punch. I think ideally we want to hid lasers just along the rim of the moon (towards the dark side---how appropriate) that could pop up and fire at targets on the earth, and then hide again, making 'em harder to hit.

It would be neat (moon/mars missions) if it weren't so creepy.

[ithacan]

33. "Iraq War Emboldens Bush Space Plans" from August 2003:

August 8, 2003

Space Warriors

Iraq War Emboldens Bush Space Plans

By BRUCE GAGNON

Military victory in the Iraq war has emboldened the Pentagon in their claims that space technology gives the U.S. total advantage in time of war. According to Peter Teets, undersecretary of the Air Force and director of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), American capability in space, "must remain ahead of our adversaries' capabilities, and our doctrine and capabilities must keep pace to meet that challenge."

"I think the recent military conflict has shown us, without a doubt, how important the use of space is to national security and military operations," Teets, a former Lockheed Martin executive recently said.
<snip>
According to James Roche, the U.S.A.F. Secretary, America's allies would have "no veto power" over projects like the military space plane that are designed to give the U.S. military control of space.
<more>

http://www.counterpunch.org/gagnon08082003.html

Also check out the website of Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space at http://www.space4peace.org

[underpants]

46. Another MUST READ

Thanks

[54anickel]

54. Wow! Great links thanks for posting. Love this pic from the

2nd link.

[ithacan]

73. yeah, it's an EXCELLENT site

run by Bruce Gagnon, author of the piece I posted. I've seen him speak, he's a vet who served in Vietnam and does a great job on presentations about this topic.

[JHB]

12. NASA's getting the kiss of death...

In this (mal)Administration, there's no surer indicator of forthcoming budget cuts than Bush announcing a bold new initiative :grr: :cry: :grr:

[underpants]

17. But but the money we spend with contractors will CREATE jobs

Yes indeed this doesn't look good for NASA of course the National Review reporter spun this as W trying to "reinvigorate" the spce program.........through private contractors........

[JHB]

31. With any NORMAL administration, that would be true...

...but with Bush? Expect new lows in the jobs created:contract dollars awarded ratios, as the pot gets skimmed from top down.

[BJ]

16. Consider the source. The National Review?

Leading right wing rag. Dubya can announce we're going back to the moon but that doesn't make it so. Another bait and switch to throw
the "Librule" media off sent of any big unemployment stories.

I also heard something about it on the Today Show but I couldn't stomach Laura Bush showing-off the White House Xmas tree.

[underpants]

18. Moon-umental

was the Fox teaser (didn't see that report) surely they will say this is a BOLD NEW INITIATIVE blah blah blah.

Laura was almost like a statue as she sort of gave a tour of the White House complete with a GASP Harry Potter display. Did you know that she is a "lifelong reader"?

[9215]

21. Own a piece of the Moon

This guy owns the Moon and has sold over 430 million acres.

http://www.newsday.com/business/realestate/ny-recol3478329oct03,0,5736293.column?coll=ny-realestate-headlines

[markses]

22. It's morning in America again

And the Preznit's a fucking nitwit again...

More symbolism, as the ground crumbles in all directions. Moon mission. Watta Skoon-jeel!

[Zech Marquis]

23. yeah, uh huh

and :wtf: will they use to get into orbit? I bet Darth Rummy has his own Star Destroyer or something all warmed up :evilgrin:

somebody tell * that unless Unca Dick's pals at Halliburton coughs up some of their free money, there's no fucking way to pay for that shit--he spent it all blowing Iraq up already!

[leesa]

24. This is to put nuclear weapons in space and on moon. These people are

extremely whacked! All this horrific bullshit and it would be so cheap and easy to just get along with the fellow humans on this planet.

[snippy]

28. You are correct that this is about the militarization of space.

That has been a long held goal of both Rumsfeld and Dick Myers. There was some mention of this in the media when Myers was named Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

Mr. Bush chose him for the post in part because he was know for being a staunch advocate of the military use of space and the building of a national missile defense shield.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/iraq/postwar/player_6.html

With his confirmation in mid-September, he became the first Air Force officer to chair the Joint Chiefs in nearly 20 years.

An advocate of space-based operations and strong US defence links to the Asia-Pacific region, his thinking is very much in keeping with that of the Bush administration.

He has been Defence Secretary Rumsfeld's chief military adviser as the military carries out a comprehensive review of its goals and priorities.

Mr Rumsfeld made clear when he took office earlier in the year that he favoured an increased role for space-based operations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1560777.stm

[underpants]

45. Wow great links (must read)

:thumbsup:

[DemonFighterLives]

26. I was only joking about it yesterday

And here it is. Forget the mission. It will be much cheaper to stage it. Only a few billion. See George run. See China take flag down. George takes flag back and slaps them silly. See Georges new space suit.

[TheLastMohican]

37. LOL, I would like to see that

George in an astronaut suit on the moon, fighting with chinese astronaut or (taikonaut in chinese) for the possession of the flag.
And the commentary: "This is a live broadcast from the moon. We have two contenders battling for the possession of the moon. In the blue corner it is George Walker Bush jr. in the red commie corner it is Mao Tse-Tung of China".
Meanwhile, while they fight, the spectators could see in the background, a russian "Lunokhod" vehicle quietly crawling down the sand dunes of the moon.

[Melsky]

27. I'm speechless!

The guy who brought a rubber turkey to the troops just outdid himself again. Every time I ask if this could get any stupider, the answer is a resounding yes.

[sistersofmercy]

29. Boy, these slanted idealogues really do want to create 3rd world

conditions in the US, wipe out the entire middle class with only keeping a few small business owners middle class that the administration seeks to keep loyal through tax incentives. It's the only reason I can find for the looting of our treasury and the continuation of deficit spending along with the outsourcing of jobs overseas.

[smirkymonkey]

32. Of course, because he and all his Neo-Con

buddies are going to need a new planet to live on after they have destroyed this one! (I know, the moon is a satellite, but planet sounds better)

[bif]

34. These will be military bases

And the budget will come out of defense spending--which will probably increase to close to a trillion dollars by the time he's through. And of course, Halliburton will get the entire no-bid contract.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

40. I think you're 100% correct that this will be a Defense initiative...

...which will probably involve the creation of an entirely new department within the DoD. I'm also thinking that NASA will either be absorbed by the new department, or will be allowed to slowly whither as the new department takes over more functions.

[kysrsoze]

52. More likely the ultimate undisclosed location to whoosh Cheney away

That way if the whole world is decimated, they can live indefinitely on the U.S. Moon.

[SteveG]

35. Here's a link to the NRO article

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/powell200312030858.asp

[ElsewheresDaughter]

36. bush* wants to established a permanent base on the moon...good...

let him go and be its first permanent inhabitant!

[sleepyhead]

90. But we don't want him to be lonely

Let him take all his friends with him!

[Rebel_with_a_cause]

38. The man has serious illusions of grandeur

I'd be happy if he could utter an understandable sentence.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

41. Understandable or not, the NeoCons are all about global dominance...

...if you control space, you control the world. They want to cut out any potential competitors like Russia, China, and any other country that has the potential to put people in space.

[pinto]

43. Precisely, PNAC

outlined the dominance of space in it's September 2000 manifesto.

see http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

[underpants]

44. Thank you that was the link I was looking for

above

Welcome to DU :hi: if'n I haven't before.

[Stephanie]

78. Thanks, I just excerpted the relevant PNAC paragraphs in a post below

Here they are again:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

pp. 56-57

To ensure America's control of space in the near term, the minimum requirements are to develop a robust capability to transport systems to space, carry on operations once there, and service and recover space systems as needed. As outlined by Space Command, carrying out this program would include a mix of reuseable and expendable launch vehicles and vehicles that can operate within space, including “space tugs to deploy, reconstitute, replenish, refurbish, augment, and sustain" space systems. But, over the longer term, maintaining control of space will inevitably require the application of force both in space and from space, including but not limited to antimissile defenses and defensive systems capable of protecting U.S. and allied satellites; space control cannot be sustained in any other fashion, with conventional land, sea, or airforce, or by electronic warfare. This eventuality is already recognized by official U.S. national space policy, which states that the “Department of Defense shall maintain a capability to execute the mission areas of space support, force enhancement, space control and force application.” (Emphasis added.)

In sum, the ability to preserve American military preeminence in the future will rest in increasing measure on the ability to operate in space militarily; both the requirements for effective global missile defenses and projecting global conventional military power demand it. Unfortunately, neither the Clinton Administration nor past U.S. defense reviews have established a coherent policy and program for achieving this goal.

<snip>

Therefore, over the long haul, it will be necessary to unite the essential elements of the current SPACECOM vision to the resource-allocation and institution-building responsibilities of a military service. In addition, it is almost certain that the conduct of warfare in outer space will differ as much from traditional air warfare as air warfare has from warfare at sea or on land; space warfare will demand new organizations, operational strategies, doctrines and training schemes. Thus, the argument to replace U.S. Space Command with U.S. Space Forces – a separate service under the Defense Department – is compelling. While it is conceivable that, as military space capabilities develop, a transitory “Space Corps” under the Department of the Air Force might make sense, it ought to be regarded as an intermediary step, analogous to the World War II-era Army Air Corps, not to the Marine Corps, which remains a part of the Navy Department. If space control is an essential element for maintaining American military preeminence in the decades to come, then it will be imperative to reorganize the Department of Defense to ensure that its institutional structure reflects new military realities. commerce, politics and power. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new “global commons.”

[pinto]

84. Y'know I think they purposely used "Space Command"

for its Gee whiz! Buck Rogers in Space appeal.

(Comic book format to be released shortly)

[pippin]

47. send him with a turkey

next thanksgiving.

[Raenelle]

49. Well, apparently, the deficit isn't high enough yet

[kskiska]

50. He'll proclaim the moon as our 51st state

and he'll ship all the guys at Guantanamo there.

[camero]

60. I think he'll take his rich friends there

Then decide that it's time for the apocolypse.

[lumpy]

53. The SOB wants to take over the

whole GD solar system. Weapons of MD on the moon. Is this madness or what?

[hatrack]

57. "Mr. President, we cannot allow a moon base gap!"

"We're talking about two admittedly regrettable but very different post-solvency environments - one where you've got 20 million people without jobs and one where you've got 150 million people without jobs!!"

[Sven77]

58. china will get there first

it would be nice to have the country in a space race instead of arms race. the military wants to take over space. China plans to have a moon base in the next 10 years, maybe Bush wants to cover up the fact that the original moon mission was a scam.

[mikehiggins]

63. I'm all for a return to outer space, but this is crazy.

I'm beginning to think Bush has lost his mind.

Maybe he sobered up a few brain cells too late.

[Ratty]

72. Agreed

Returning to the moon is crazy. There's absolutely no reason to go there again. I knew Bush wasn't serious, at least at first. Just another grandstanding moment to impress this country's morons and distract attention away from the international mess he's created, Halliburton, his attacks on the environment, ad nauseum. But all of this talk here about militarizing the moon makes me think that perhaps he is serious. You can't harden orbital weapons against attack. They're sitting ducks up there. Maybe he really does want to extend his psychotic war mongering into space. Cut his buddies at Halliburton and in aerospace some sweet deals while he's at it.

The talk about using the moon as a springboard to Mars is idiotic. Wasn't that one of the chief purposes of the ISS? Does any scientist without an agenda really subscribe to that notion?

I'm all for a trip to Mars, but the moon? Been there, done that. Let the Chinese have at it. They are nowhere NEAR being able to put weapons there, but in a couple of decades it would certainly do well to keep an eye on them.

[BootinUp]

64. Seems like "Space stuff" is :Edited

being pushed quite a bit. There's been two articles on MSNBC front page in two days. Smells funny to me.

Edit:
And to add I am for space exploration that makes sense and we can afford.

[zbdent]

65. Oh, crap. Heinlein moment - "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"

I can just see. Future Repug pResident George Bush X (if not doing a Castro in "pResident for life") declaring war on France.

As the computer said, "We'll win this war by throwing rocks." Magnetic launcher pushes huge moon rocks toward Earth. Rocks hit targets with the force of nukes, but no resulting radiation.

I'm ill.

[Shakespeare]

66. Bush modus operandi: announce it, then refuse to fund it

And it'll die quietly, just like all the other programs he's "supported."

Dishonest, machiavellian piece of shit.

[Capt_Nemo]

67. Moon mission has almost no military significance

The only military spin-off from a manned Moon flights is
having a production line open for a Very Heavy Expendable Booster.

Now reality check for stressed out DUers:

- There is no absolutely no advantage to station any weapon
or surveilance system at the distance of the moon orbit, on the contrary there are many disadvantages:
1. You're only able the observe targets during cycles of
12 Hours. Beam weapons can only be targgeted during
those periods. Projectiles would take days to arrive
here and by that time things could have changed
DRASTICALY, if you know what I mean...
2. Fuel expenditure required to build/maintain/operate
is unbelievably high.
3. By the time such a thing would be completed most likely
the US is not a superpower anymore.

- The only resource that I know about that could be explored in the
moon is Helium 3 for He3 - Hidrogen fusion.
By the time a mining project is achieved we'll be very happy
already using Tritium-Deuterium or Deuterium-Deuterium reactors,
thank you!

- May I remind you that
Currently the US has no reliable crew transport system to get
people to Low Earth Orbit. You will need one operating before
you even think about going to the moon. that (having an operational
vehicle) won't happen before 2008-2010 in the best scenario.

So why do they come up now with this BS
This is purely for internal consumption. Their motives are the
Following:
- China's manned program success.
- Make believe that the US #1 position in this field as in many
others is still not threatened.
- Nationalist ego-boosting.
- Did I mention China's manned program success?

[underpants]

69. Top 10

Capt. that has to be in the top ten DU posts I have ever read on any subject. On the "Tritium-Deuterium or Deuterium-Deuterium" thing, who didn't know THAT?

[pinto]

80. Good points, great post...unfortunately PNAC plan is not reality based

their plan:

"If it fits Ideology, Do It!"

Reality is just a bump in the road....check out Iraq.

[Stephanie]

88. Welcome to DU, pinto!

You're right on the money. The saddest delusion of the PNAC crew is their overestimation of their own intelligence.

This may be of interest to you: PNAC Links Archive

[Ratty]

81. This He3 thing

Yes, He3 is a far superior fuel source for nuclear fusion. Compared to DT reactions it produces little to no nuclear waste, since it relies on proton production reactors could theoretically be much much smaller than "conventional" fusion reactors (Mr. Fusion anyone?) But any talk of He3 fusion is ludicrously premature. Because of that second proton sitting there in the He3 nucleus (and other issues), it's much harder to fuse than plain old D. Hey, we haven't even been able to build a plain old DT reactor after 40 or 50 years of trying. Let's get the basics down first why don't we? Figure out how to build the easy kind of reactor first and then we'll talk about He3. We can certainly create sufficient research quantities of He3 without spending 100s of billions trying to get it from the moon (if it's even really there in the first place!)

When we actually know how to build one of these magical devices then I'll be one of the first to step forward and say "go for it!"

[banana republican]

70. I can moon him cheaper

[radfringe]

71. if it's a one-way flight

and Baghdad Bush & co. are on it - then I'll donate all my money to see that this project goes through

[this_side_up]

74. Years ago, didn't the world agree

that the moon was owned by and its resources
to be shared by all countries?

China is mapping the moon's resources so they
can plan their mining operations. Military also?


Republicans with their beautiful minds *must*
get their first and have 100% control.

[davhill]

75. He keeps finding better and better ways

To provide a substantial rate of return to enrich each of his campaign contributors. He will keep on spending and borrowing against the good faith and credit of the United States Government until it is gone too.

[Stephanie]

76. Star Wars - SDI. I guarantee you.

That's what this is about. Read the PNAC docs. If it's a plan by BushCO then it is DECEITFUL by definition. This is just another LUNATIC plan by the neo-cons.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

p. 56-57

To ensure America's control of space in the near term, the minimum requirements are to develop a robust capability to transport systems to space, carry on operations once there, and service and recover space systems as needed. As outlined by Space Command, carrying out this program would include a mix of reuseable and expendable launch vehicles and vehicles that can operate within space, including “space tugs to deploy, reconstitute, replenish, refurbish, augment, and sustain" space systems. But, over the longer term, maintaining control of space will inevitably require the application of force both in space and from space, including but not limited to antimissile defenses and defensive systems capable of protecting U.S. and allied satellites; space control cannot be sustained in any other fashion, with conventional land, sea, or airforce, or by electronic warfare. This eventuality is already recognized by official U.S. national space policy, which states that the “Department of Defense shall maintain a capability to execute the mission areas of space support, force enhancement, space control and force application.” (Emphasis added.)

In sum, the ability to preserve American military preeminence in the future will rest in increasing measure on the ability to operate in space militarily; both the requirements for effective global missile defenses and projecting global conventional military power demand it. Unfortunately, neither the Clinton Administration nor past U.S. defense reviews have established a coherent policy and program for achieving this goal.

<snip>

Therefore, over the long haul, it will be necessary to unite the essential elements of the current SPACECOM vision to the resource-allocation and institution-building responsibilities of a military service. In addition, it is almost certain that the conduct of warfare in outer space will differ as much from traditional air warfare as air warfare has from warfare at sea or on land; space warfare will demand new organizations, operational strategies, doctrines and training schemes. Thus, the argument to replace U.S. Space Command with U.S. Space Forces – a separate service under the Defense Department – is compelling. While it is conceivable that, as military space capabilities develop, a transitory “Space Corps” under the Department of the Air Force might make sense, it ought to be regarded as an intermediary step, analogous to the World War II-era Army Air Corps, not to the Marine Corps, which remains a part of the Navy Department. If space control is an essential element for maintaining American military preeminence in the decades to come, then it will be imperative to reorganize the Department of Defense to ensure that its institutional structure reflects new military realities. commerce, politics and power. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new “global commons.”

[Stephanie]

77. Check it out, from PNAC - US military control of space

That's what this is about - see the post above.

[chromotone]

79. Will this be a real moon mission...?

Or a fake one for the purpose of a photo-op?

[Hobarticus]

82. Lovin' it!!!

Folks, this is great. If he goes through with this and asnnounces we're spending money for manned space exploration when we're facing huge defecits and massive unemployment, he's as good as done.

Give 'em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves...

[jokerman93]

86. Dude! We're going to liberate our alien masters!

Bush wants a base on the moon so he can phone home to Beta Reticuli and launch a shock and awe campaign against mars.

We MUST kill or capture the terrorists Islamist dead-ender suicider jihadists who hate our freedoms to shop at Walmart and are now known, using our highly reliable and accurate intelligence, to be establishing training camps for new generations of freedom hating terrorist martians who, unlike all true Murikans, don't know that Jeeezuz is a PNAC world monarchist who loves rich white people and would like very much for everyone to enjoy the freedoms of shopping and oil-dependence.

Hey I've always been a fan of human space exploration. But this isn't a plan. Like someone upthread said. This is just Emperor Punchy making his pitch for some "great visionary idea". He'll be able to brag about it long enough to exploit it in the election.

I'd be flabbergasted if any of this actually happens. At the moment I'm so sure there's a real potential for a low/high intensity world war emerging, and a possibility of martial law here in Amerikaland.

Here's the M.O. Tell bold flat faced laws about your plans. Undermine those intentions secretly in a way that benefits your real agenda. They keep doing it.

I doubt Amerikaland is going anywhere at all, but to more war and the poor house.

[Barrett808]

87. Orlando Sentinel: New NASA looks like the old one

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- The ``bold agenda for space exploration'' that the Bush administration has been crafting since August is expected to be long on rhetoric, but short on new goals and money.

Internal NASA documents obtained by The Orlando Sentinel, and interviews with those close to the policy-making process, indicate the new vision being drafted for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration looks a lot like the old one.

No final decisions have been reached. However, closed-door meetings of administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, appear to be developing plans committed to the status quo, with no major new programs or specific destinations, no timetables and, most importantly, no significant spending increases.

NASA funding is expected to rise slightly in 2004, from just more than $15.4 billion in 2003 to about $15.5 billion. There are no concrete plans to go to Mars, return to the moon or otherwise extend manned space flight beyond low Earth orbit. In fact, NASA may squeeze existing programs to help raise the estimated $280 million needed to return the space shuttle to flight after the Feb. 1 Columbia disaster.

NASA will continue with the same human-spaceflight programs that have been the agency's focus for more than a decade: the shuttle and the international space station. Likewise, incremental research will proceed on projects to develop nuclear rocket propulsion and a small orbital space plane that would ferry people and cargo to the station.

This business-as-usual approach is cloaked in vague, soaring prose, such as the following ``Prospective POTUS (President of the United States) Vision Statement'' from an internal NASA document prepared for the White House:

(more)

http://www.qconline.com/archives/qco/sections.cgi?prcss=display&id=176163

[PurityOfEssence]

89. Yeah, n' we can mine it fer green cheese fer all them welfare losers, too.

Sheer puffery.

[AlFrankenFan]

91. Oh god *smacks hand to forehead*

Publicity publicity publicity. Not for the advancement of the human race at all, just another hair-brained publicity stunt to make him look good.

[Dr Fate]

92. I support this...

...although I dont trust Bush.

I do think it's important to advance space exploration- if I could trust Bush on this issue, I would support this...he is probably just lying again, like he often does.

Link to literally hundreds of Bush lies:
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

[opihimoimoi]

93. Just cause the man has great difficulty finding his courage here on Earth

DON'T YOU THINK IT A BIT ODD FOR HIM TO LOOK FOR IT ON THE FRIGGEN MOON?

Damn, All the Kings Men and all the Kings Horses couldn't find the damn thing.