Three-fifths of Americans oppose Bush's mission to moon, Mars

[Barrett808]

More than three-fifths of Americans oppose President George W. Bush's proposal to return to the moon and eventually put a human on Mars, according to a poll released Sunday.

His plan to spend billions of dollars to manned mission to the moon and eventually to Mars drew opposition from 61 percent of the 1,003 adults surveyed January 14-15.

Bush called late Wednesday for a new space vessel capable of traveling to the moon as early as 2015. He would give the US space agency NASA an additional billion dollars over five years, in addition to its annual budget of 15.4 billion dollars.

Even among members of Bush's own Republican party, 48 percent opposed the plan against the 42 percent who supported it.

About nine percent of the people questioned in the Time/CNN poll said they would spend billions of dollars on space exploration. Some 40 percent they would rather improve education, 27 percent would balance the federal budget, and 13 percent would clean up the environment. Only seven percent said they would enlarge the military.

The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.

http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/040118163258.v6170upz.html

[sendero]

1. Bush...

... couldn't plan a successful trip to the bathroom, much less the moon. I'm happy that the masses see this horseshit for what it is.

[raifield]

2. Alternate Headline : Three Fifths want money for education, healthcare...

One fifth also wonder where their job went, while two fifths are puzzled about their decreased benefits and paycheck.

But then again...

"Who cares what you think?" - George W. Bush

[DisgustedDemocrat]

6. My sentiments exactly

What was he thinking anyway?? The national debt is already in red ink as far as the eye can see and the whole idea of this is just to starve the treasury even worse.

This is the dumbest idea I have ever heard of, and I'll bet he follows through with it anyway.

[auntpattywatty]

3. Bush doesn't care how people feel or think - unless it has to do with his

re-election.

[joefree1]

4. that's too bad

As a descendant of a long line of pioneers I'm sad to hear that our long history of exploring new frontiers is not popular anymore. All great societies have stagnated once they stop exploring and expanding.

I also fear for the safety of earth's last remaining wilderness including the forests, jungles, and the oceans.


http://www.marssociety.org/

[raifield]

7. Oh, me too

Well, I don't think I'm a descendent of any pioneers, but I am all for space exploration. However, there's a time for space exploration, such as a stable economy, for one, and I don't believe this is a good time to be funding space programs right now. We already have a huge deficiet(sp) and this will only serve to make problems in that area worse in the long run.

[Shadder]

11. I'm all for it

Always have been, always will be. But not at this moment in times, under these conditions and under this administration. There's an old saying, "Timing is everything". I could not agree more with the idea, but the timing is just not right for it.

Plus I realy don't think that this is anything but yet another play to grab votes from those that do support space exploration. If the Rover had crashed into Mars rather than landing safe would he still have gone ahead with this? I seriously doubt it.

[joefree1]

15. Bush couldn't do it, but we Dem must

Like the British, the French, the Spanish, the Dutch, and the Romans, the American spirit will start to deteriorate. The rise of fundamentalism is a sign of this stagnation.

As Roosevelt contributed massive spending into public works our next Democratic President may will kick start the economy by massive spending on Space Exploration.

Trying to create a utopia here on earth before we expand into space is nonsense. We will always have problems waiting to be solved.


http://www.marssociety.org/

[patcox2]

18. So your saying that conquering, colonizing, and enslaving are good?

You speak of "exploring," but then you specifically name history's most brutal conquerors and empires. How, umm, I don't know what to say, its strange, how you seem to have so bought into the 5th grade civics text view of history, that western europe bravely "explored and dicovered" Africa, the far east, and the new world out of some lofty, noble goal of furthering and bettering mankind.

Even calling these european pirates and brigands "explorers" is buying into a pollyanna-ish eurocentrism that boggles the mind. Rome, Holland, Spain, England, they were all in it for one thing, money, gold, land, filthy lucre. And they consistently either slaughtered or enslaved (depending which option made the most financial sense to them) the people they "discovered" in these lands they so boldly "explored."

Here in America, we had a unique method, we went so far as to commit genocide against the native americans (the basis of wealth for the british colonists was land, we had to kill them to steal the land) then we went to another continent and enslaved its inhabitants and brought them here to work the land we got by killing the native americans.

Oh yes, god forbid we should stagnate and stop conquering and enslaving.

Our pionees forbears were, like all humans everywhere, just looking to get ahead, of course, just trying to make a better life for their children. But they sure didn't care if that meant that any native americans who got in the way had to be killed and the ragged remnants herded into reservations.

[Shadder]

28. Wow

Where did all that come from? I don't much care if it's a D or a R that restarts the space exploration program. the simple fact is that it thake a great deal of money to do and quite frankly we do not have the money for that or any other things thanks to Bush. It's gonna take a hell of a long time to recover from the mess that he has put us in. But thats not to say that we can't do it. We have done it before. We can and will do it again.

[Terran]

30. No one's talking about creating utopia

I am very pro-space, but in this era, it would be a criminal waste of money and resources. We have extremely pressing problems here on Earth that threaten our civilization's survival. Establishing bases on the moon and Mars will do nothing to alleviate those problems, they'll only divert money from where it's needed.

And anyway, we barely have a working space station yet; shouldn't we concentrate more on near-Earth orbital development rather than galvanting off to another planet? Cheaper, and much more practical.

[T Bone]

40. The only way it will ever happen is if Bush is DONE this fall

The only way it can happen is if Democrats are balanicing the budget and putting first things first, then it will be a natural thing to do next. But it will never happen under this alcoholic, cokehead, fratboy.

[rogerashton]

5. I, for one, would favor a very much renewed space program.

If I thought it were possible to trust the thief of Baghdad (and elections), this is the one thing that might make a Bushevik of me. (And my wife even moreso.) BUT --

It isn't a very good plan. (Neither was Kennedy's moon or bust plan!) Our space program ought to be devoted to technology development, not to "going places" and goshwow. Learning how people can live in space with some degree of independence will "get us places" sooner than crash programs will, for the most part, and will provide the technological spinoffs that made the sixties program worthwhile from the most terrestrial of cost-benefit points of view, and will get our species the universe in the long run of a few hundred years. L2 should be the next step.

Anyway, it won't happen. Bush* lies. All hat, no cattle. Bush is once again doing whatever (he thinks) his father did not do: didn't cut taxes, didn't invade Baghdad, admitted he was weak on "the vision thing." So, if Bush Senior didn't have a "vision," Bush* Jr. will have a "vision," even if he has to steal it from John Kennedy.

But -- damn I wish liberal democrats were smart and hip enough to support a good space program, rather than blithering about "giving the 'money' to the poor instead" as if there were a pot of money to be divided up. If we don't put our hotshot engineers to work, then they won't work. That won't get anything for the poor.

[Dr.Phool]

9. I'm all for space exploration

But it's much better, and easier to do it with robotics. Not to mention cheaper.

They've already signed the death warrant for the Hubble Space Telescope, but they already have it's replacement under construction.

I say keep Hubble, and robot probes, and let Bush probe his own Uranus.

[joefree1]

13. Well let robots support robots in space then

Even less people care about what machines well do in space.

If we're not expanding into space then we will stagnate like any other the society that stopped exploring.

[Blue_Roses]

29. Got news for ya

we already are stagnating. With our dependence on foreign oil and what sounds like an "oil peak" coming, there is no doubt we are stagnate and will be regressing. We need that money to go to finding renewalble forms of energy and improving our environment.

I care what happens to my kids. I'm all for exploring the "new frontiers," but not at the expense of new programs here--on earth.

[rogerashton]

14. Tell me,

how can robots in space help us learn how humans can live in space? The one thing worth doing in space is the one thing robots can't do.

I don't think you read the post, right? Just the headline?

[sendero]

17. why do humans

need to live in space?

I agree completely that robotics it the practical answer to space exploration.

[rogerashton]

25. Humans need to live in space in order to go to the stars.

Damn Mars!

And, OK, you don't care. I do, and others like me do. Tell you what: put our taxes toward space, and you put yours toward what you believe in, OK?

Well, we don't do business that way, though Kenneth Boulding once proposed that we might -- but my point is: there's got to be something in the social contract for everybody, including us space crazies.

But robots! Robots are a sham so that politicians can say, oh, we're supporting space travel -- without doing anything worth any cost at all.

[wuushew]

27. Mars is a great place to go

It has water, atmosphere, substantial gravity and mineral deposits. The moon and outerspace have limited/no gravity and extreme radiation hazards. Plus Mars is the logical base for exploration to the outer solar system and asteroid belt. Only reason to go to the moon is for Helium-3 for which no practical application exists.

[0rganism]

19. The one thing worth doing in space

> The one thing worth doing in space is the one thing robots can't do.

Zero-G sex? :evilgrin:

[rogerashton]

26. I'll go with that.

We'll need to reproduce a few generations to get to the stars.

[sendero]

34. I didn't have to think...

... very long to decide that zero-G sex would suck. Think about it. :)

[Bill McBlueState]

10. a word of agreement

I like your take on "giving to the poor" versus funding space exploration.

The richest country in the world should have no problem providing a safety net for all its citizens *AND* reaching new technological heights. The problem of poverty isn't a lack of resources, it's the stubborn unwillingness of most Americans to do anything about it.

With a fair structure of taxation in place, we could provide health insurance for everyone and put people on Mars.

I wish progressives would realize this. And I wish scientists could do a better job of explaining *why* space exploration is important, both scientifically and culturally.

[Bill McBlueState]

8. I suspect we won't hear much more about this

If it's that unpopular, expect Rove and the gang to push it to the back burner real fast. But then, it seems uncharacteristically rash of them to bring out such an unpopular idea to begin with. Maybe things *are* falling apart for them.

That aside, it's too bad Bush screwed up the economy so badly. When there's a $100 billion surplus, that's the time to go back to the Moon. Once it's all been blown on a war and tax cuts, it's too late.

[GiovanniC]

12. Trying to Make Daddy Proud

"And next... back to the Moon; back to the future. And this time, back to stay. And then a journey into tomorrow, a journey to another planet: a manned mission to Mars."
-- George H.W. Bush
July 20, 1989 -- National Air & Space Museum, Washington, D.C.

[joefree1]

16. other reasons for space exploration

We would have a place to send all religious extremist (and I mean all) to continue their holy wars while they wait for Armageddon.

We could create fenced communities on other planets for all the rich people who want to salivate over their treasures and avoid us yucky plain folk.

We could send industrialist to their own lifeless worlds where they could live with massive toxic pollution in their republican self righteous glee.


http://www.marssociety.org/

[JohnOneillsMemory]

20. Mars could be the next penal colony. -Daniel Schorr on NPR!

This weekend when NPR senior news analyst Daniel Schorr was asked to comment on *'s Mars idea and motives, Schorr said "Maybe he's run out of room in Gitmo Bay..."

Yeah!

The sound bite of * making his little proposal was unbelievably transparent. He really punched the word 'vision,' which revealed the purpose of the words he was told to read: You need a VISION THING to 'unite' the sheeple.

And of course, help the Rove re-election strategy motto: "No War in '04"

[The_Casual_Observer]

21. Giving the masses false hope

There will be no Moon missions in our lifetime as there really isn't any big profit in it for Halliburton or the others,and costs would be scrutinized.
Really big programs happen because they are driven by "national defense" not because it would be a swell idea that would put people to work.

Bush has set up some old fossil astronaut to head up a "blue ribbon" panel a sure fire recipe for analysis to paralysis. This is all talk to distract the populace from the problems at hand. It seems to be working quite well for them right now, as they are trying to "buy time" till something good happens, like "positive news" from Iraq or the economy, or a Dean victory.

[Baclava]

22. 3/5 ths of Americans?

Shouldn't that read "3/5 ths of the 1003 people polled?"
Big splash from a pretty puny pool...

[sendero]

23. Standard polls...

... in the US poll about 1000 people and have a margin of error of 3-4%. Simple statistics and probability.

So, it could be anywhere from 56% against and 44% for, to 64% against and 36% for.

[patcox2]

24. Assuming a fairly evenly divided issue, of course

The margin of error increases when sampling for less frequent phenomena, even when the sample size remains the same, so the same 1,000 person sample would have a greater than plus or minus 3% margin when measuring something that is 95% to 5%.

[number6]

31. I'd be impressed if there was a operable space shuttle

and the ISS got finished.

[kskiska]

32. He's looking for a "legacy"

I guess he doesn't want to be known as the all-war-all-the-time "president." He wants to be another JFK. If * only had a brain (but then again, he might be even more dangerous. I guess if he had a brain he'd be Jeb.)

[snippy]

33. Bush's plan is just a "moondoggle" to weaponize space.

[54anickel]

35. OK, so is it in or out of the SOTU. He doesn't have much rehearsal time

[Mackay]

36. Going to the moon is a necessity

We pretty much don't have a choice... the time is nigh. We are probably already on the downslope of Peak Oil which is exactly why BushCo (and the energy crowd) are desperate to find another energy source. It is estimated that we will run out of oil in about 30-50 years. It is also thought that Helium 3 (found on the moon) is the only possible fuel for realistic fusion. Fusion is not sure... but is really the only hope... and even if we stand a chance of developing it and mining the moon that is 30-50 years down the road.

Why do you think the Chinese have suddenly developed an interest in the moon? All this extra Star Wars talk is because they know there is going to be a showdown over the moon once the Helium 3 resources are proven.

I disagree with Bush's motives: which are to get his friends rich (Both through contracts and ultimately through exclusivity of this energy source). Better gig for them than Iraq even.

However, if 3/5 of Americans are against this, that is because they don't know the real reasons why we are going. To tell the public about Peak Oil (without proof of a solution) would be to invite widespread panic. If they knew that their way of life is going to soon end, 99.9 percent would be for this. Once they prove that Helium 3 is on the moon, Bushco plans on announcing the Peak Oil facts (to drive up prices)... and then they will be able to claim: "But we saved you by going to the moon".

The mars part was to appear visionary (although it failed)... since they knew most people would say, "Been there, done that"... without knowing the real reason.

So... unfortunately, I have to go with the chimp on this one... but fortunately, if we get him out of office, there might still be a way to reduce corruption in the project. I really don't care who gets the credit for it. This happens to be too important

Disagree if you must... but I won't bother responding unless you have at least read some of the documents out there on "Peak Oil" (citing industry and administration insiders) and "lunar Helium 3". And also try to explain why the Chinese are suddenly so interested in the moon.

BTW-- Before you start arguing that returning to the 15th century is a good idea... the estimates are that less than one in ten people will survive... and it will be a long, slow painful decimation. And it will be the freepers with the guns who kill the rest of us for food.

[teknomanzer]

37. Just another step in the PNAC plan...

Go back and read it again.

It's a cheap ploy to militarize space while attempting to sound noble. The money should be spent on an alternative renewable fuel source that we can later use to further our exploration into space.

I too support space exploration, but some very fundamental things must be resolved first, or the only reason we will have for space exploration will be to leave the smoking remnants of our mother earth.

[Endangered Specie]

38. 3/5ths.. That is a painfully ironic number, especially today

[Must_B_Free]

39. Can we say "Out of Touch?"

and "Baby, Baby, Baby you're out of time."

Like Steel Pulse "Earth Crisis" "On the moon in search of aliens"

[NickB79]

41. What does the US HAVE to go it alone all the time?

I would absolutely love to see humans back on the moon, building long-term colonies there and then on Mars. I don't care if a Republican or a Democrat proposes it, as long as he can actually do it. The Mars-series books (Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars) were my all-time favorites growing up. Their stories of the terraforming of Mars and the many underlying stories of politics and human interaction on this new frontier were wonderful. But why is it that the US always has to go it alone? Would it kill us to actually ask for help from Europe, Russia, Canada, Japan and even China? If we don't face up to the fact that even the US, the richest nation in the world, is unable to afford a manned Mars mission, much less a permanent lunar base, then we won't see humans on Mars for the next century. I honestly believe that, if we actually did work peacefully with the rest of the industrialized world, we would be able to see humans walking on Mars by 2030 or so. If we keep up this my-way-or-the-high-way BS that Bush is spewing, I'm afraid I'll never live to see a Mars colony, and I'm only 24.