How do you feel about the space program?

[BurtWorm]

Poll question: How do you feel about the space program?

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Exploration is innevitable

That is OUR NATURE

No, not American, HUMANITY

But Dubya and rummy are looking into militarizing space...

[Syrinx]

2. I've always been a fan of space, BUT

Now ain't the time! Could've been if Gore was installed!

[lostnfound]

16. Ditto - especially since PNAC power-grabbers would militarize it nt

[Dookus]

3. Inevitable.

absolutely, utterly, undeniably inevitable.

Money spent on space exploration is money very well spent - the rewards come back to us many times over.

[Syrinx]

6. I agree generally

But not under the current regime... it's a giveaway to the aerodefense-militaryindustrial complex. At least until the next election we geeks gotta chill! :)

[ldf]

19. i agree with syrinx9999

but not right now, because there are so many things that are going to have to be fixed, after we hose out the whitehouse.

* is doing this now, purely as a political ploy.

let a democrat do it for real, after the purge.

[Yupster]

24. Agree with you Dook

Inevitable that we expand throughout the solar systems. Giddyup.

While we're dithering, there are Romulans somewhere mining out dilithium.

[Punkingal]

4. I think it's great....

I want to be a Star Trek captain in my next life.

[Dookus]

5. heheh...

Captain Punkingal - to the bridge!

[Punkingal]

11. Okay, Dookus

that's two spankings in one evening.:spank:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

7. other

Put everyone in Washington DC in the next space capsule...banish them up there permanently, and it will have my complete unabridged support.

[Wonk]

8. The first manned mission to Mars will be a one way trip.

Either that or we'll have to wait until a new propulsion system is developed for spacecraft where the fuel weighs (on edit: masses) a whole lot less for the amount of thrust it provides. Some (many?) qualified crew will likely still be willing to go, though, just to be first. When will or should it be? I don't know.

[Beaker]

12. protecting the crew from radiation on an extended trip-

is another biggie that has yet to be solved before heading over to meet the neighbors.

[fortyfeetunder]

29. Astronaut loss

If they think losing the 14 astronauts on Challenger and Columbia --which IMHO was completely avoidable in both cases, the next phase is inherently more risky for manned missions.

NASA knows the trip will be at least six months out. And that some type of human hibernation would be necessary to conserve resources...NASA has been studying bear hibernation to see if aspects of it can be replicated in humans.

Personally I don't see manned missions to Mars happening until the end of this century.

[booley]

9. not inevitable but it is necessary

All the talk about resources needign to stay on earth..well, peopel keep forgetting all the resources are in space. and without the environmental devestation our consumer lifestyle demands.

Asteroid Mining, solar power stations beaming energy to earth, terraforming...

Of course, there is a catch...
For one, Shrub is SOOOOO no the one to lead such a cause. Even if he was seriouse, the neocon vision fo our future would see space as just another battlefield to be fought over until it was a wasteland devoid of value.

No to mention, 2 out of three Mars missions have failed. and thats all for one way trips with robots I don't see even the most ardent astronaught going on a suicide mission just to satisfy curiosity.

we need to go into space but we need to do it smartly.

[punpirate]

10. I suppose this is a classic response...

... in many respects, but I'll try to elaborate along the route of explanation.

Exploration has, often in the history of man, been a means to profit by exploitation.

We wanted to think of the race to the moon of the `60s as somehow pure and altruistic, and yet, it was still largely a political exercise--after a series of missile launch failures in the very early `60s and the successes of the Russians in the late `50s, Kennedy had no choice but to embark on a grand plan to save face.

There was adequate tax base and investment in place at that time to go ahead with that grand plan. We succeeded in hitting, with little more than a tin can, a half-million gallons of hydrazine and an analog computer with 32 Kb of memory for guidance, a big rock in orbit 238,000 miles away. And then we repeated the task many times in the few years afterwards.

What did we find? Very little that we did not already know. The moon was a giant hunk of basaltic rock that was very hot on the side facing the sun, and horribly cold on the side that was not. There was oxygen trapped in the rock on the moon, roughly to the extent that it was on earth. Ilmenite represented about 6% of the basalt on the moon, as on earth.

We exercised a lot of technology in the process--some of it absorbed and disguised in military budgets, because that was part of the race to the moon--establishing military supremacy.

After we'd gone to the moon, we realized how much it had cost us. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty. Poverty is as big, or bigger, a problem today as it was then. Plunking a lander down on the moon didn't solve the problem of poverty.

I feel quite certain that if anyone were to ask either Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin if the trip were worth it, they'd say, "hell, yes." If one were to ask them if it were still worth it if it were on their own dime, they'd say, "hell, no."

In that sense, manned spaceflight provides a very few exceptionally talented and privileged individuals billion-dollar opportunities to experience what virtually none of us will ever experience. The only way we can experience what they do is vicariously through a few pictures and their words.

For that reason, we crave the experience of exploration of others, even if vicariously. That creates a desire in us for more. George H.W. Bush tried to exploit that desire in us during his only term, for political purposes, and his son is doing the same to us today.

George W.'s father discovered that the $400 billion cumulative cost of heading for the moon again was an affront to the public in a time of lost jobs and a recessive economy. The plan was quickly abandoned.

George W. may be using this for political purposes, and his minions may be using it as yet another cynical means of breaking the budget and ruining the government's ability to fulfill the social contract, while fulfilling private campaign obligations to the aerospace industry.

Moreover, this latest proposal of Dubya's is not about the pure desire to explore. The proposed moon base will ultimately be used for military purposes (few in the country realize, for example, that a portion of the shuttle budget is paid for by the military budget and is therefore reserved for military use).

NASA's work has persisted, without manned flights to the moon and Mars. Work proceeds on the Cassini probe and its launcher. Most of those probes to Mars and beyond advance the technology, but without the monetary and emotional commitment of human beings at their helms, which greatly lowers the cost, at little expense of the scientific knowledge derived.

We lose the vicarious experience, but still manage a few billion in the budget for food stamps and housing vouchers and educational programs, while the corporations expecting both profits and spinoffs from these government expenditures find newer and better ways to avoid paying the taxes required to fund such adventures.

Before the US can put men into space again, it must fix its very bad system of funding such projects. It must be able to feed and house and educate all its citizens, not only because it's a moral imperative to do so for all, but also because some of the children of those citizens, who might become the engineers and pilots and explorers of our future, will never achieve their potential without the necessary nurturing that comes from a full belly, a warm home, bright teachers and a social environment that invites their questions and strives to answer them honestly.

Cheers.

[BurtWorm]

40. Very well stated. I agree completely.

WIth one exception: Unmanned missions do, in fact, provide vicarious experience of extraterrestrial exploration. This past week, huge numbers of people with no connection to NASA were able to contemplate the barren face of Mars just by staring at photographs the rover took and sent back to earth.

I think putting humans on rockets to Mars is completely unecessary, unless the romance of humans in space is really as important to us as the science of interplanetary exploration.

[creativelcro]

13. I hate colonization all over again

if they ever get to that point...

[creativelcro]

18. space exploration is similar to kid generation

psychologically. You see, people know they are doomed individually, because they die. The main ways out of desperation are: 1) in time, to have kids, so your genes go on, and one day.... 2) in space, to explore new lands and worlds, and one day... In either case it attenuates the feeling of being so finite, and opens up some type of hope of new things to come. Note, the feeling of hope COULD be generated, say, by huge progress in stem-cell research. If they were able to prolong life substantially, that would do as well (it takes care of the core of it).
Just a thought.

[Speed8098]

14. I'm with punpirate on this one

I think someday it will happen, but not until we are financially ready.

With a $500+Billion deficit, I hardly think we are ready.

This, like everything else with this misadministration, is all show and no substance. He is bringing it out now just to try and garner some votes.

I'm all for space exploration, but not now.

[cryofan]

15. still no cure for cancer, heart disease, obesity, etc etc etc

scale the space program way back, and use the money for basic biological research

[TexasMexican]

23. Space program is more important than a cure for cancer...

Even with the best health care everyone will still eventually die, unless we find the secret to immortality.

If humans stay on earth as a species will die off eventually.

We need to leave this planet.

[Yupster]

25. Agree Tex-Mex

Your name wasn't even necessary.

Anyone reading such a well reasoned and consice post would know you're from Texas. :toast:

[alarimer]

17. other

I really think space exploration has the potential to be very valuable. We habe learned a lot from it; we have gained a lot in technology. However, I really despise the militarization of space, which I think is what Bush's plans are. Space should be free for all peoples (like the open ocean and Antarctica). It belongs to no one in particular or, rather, it belongs to all of us. The first astronauts were military people; now a lot of them are civilians (in my opinions all should be civilians now). I think unmanned missions are much better at this point; we learn a lot without exposing humans to the dangers of space travel. Someday though we should send people to Mars and beyond. But only after we have used other options to the fullest.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

20. Love it, you pay for it - Bush is using this money to pay off his cronies

and put weapons in space. He's already threatened to attack our ALLIES communication sattelites if they don't do what we want.

I love the idea of space exploration, and I'm very pro-technology. But this new "space initiative" is just a distraction because Bush has screwed everything up so badly that the jig is UP and everyone knows it.

[corporatewhore]

21. good we can send another chimp into outer space

where no one can hear his insane rantings

[corporatewhore]

22. we can send a man to space but ......

we dont have enough money to fix school healthcare etc keep them money on earth!!!

[AG78]

26. I love space

There's no bigger fan than me. I love to wonder about the unthinkable vastness of space. I love the idea of space exploration. But it's a tough one to get done.

Our minds may want to leave this planet, but our bodies are a different story.

I hope they keep sending robots. Send them anywhere you want. There are two of them at the edge of our solar system as we speak. Robots don't need food. They don't need exercise. They don't need time(to a certain extent).

If people far smarter than I can find a way to travel the distances in space quicker, then you might have something. And maybe it can be done. Nothing is impossible(almost nothing anyway). But as far as I know, we're not close to that point just yet.

I know nothing easy is worth investing that much time and money in. But we are human. Again, there may not be a limit to what our minds wish to accomplish, but as long as our consciousness is trapped in these bodies, human beings may never be able to do everything we want.

[scottcsmith]

27. Wow, did we fix all of society's problems?

Now that we've eliminated poverty, shored up Social Security and Medicare for future generations, paid down the debt, instituted a health plan to cover all Americans, immunized all children and introduced a living minimum-wage, I say, go for it!

Oh wait, we haven't done any of those things.

We're spending billions in Iraq...billions more for Nasa...and not funding "No Child Left Behind" or providing money to VA hospitals. Hmm. But billions for space, huh?

Our priorities are really screwed up.

[corporatewhore]

28. totally agree its not rocket science that

our nation here on earth needs some attention

[Wonk]

30. kick (there's a dupe)

[Jawja]

31. I voted "other"

Don't need to go back to the moon.

We are already on Mars with fantastic robotics. We should pursue the exploration of Mars and study Europa of Jupiter. Those hold the clues to to the formation of life as we know it.

[ldoolin]

32. Very mixed feelings

On the one hand, I'm a big fan of the old Apollo missions. "The Right Stuff" has a prominent place in my DVD collection and a number of books about the space program are on my bookshelf. The whole thing had a certain spirit about it that fit with the New Frontier of JFK. I was also a Space Shuttle fan - at first.

On the other hand, I also recognize that my being a fan of NASA and the Apollo program is naive. After all, the space program has been at least as much a military program as a scientific one, and I suspect that a lot of rather suspect interests, from the Pentagon to Repuke-aligned corporations, have their eye on space, with militarization and resource extraction in mind. I also recognize that NASA itself is not a particularly benign agency. At the very best, it probably qualifies as a wasteful government pork program that continues to eat up dollars that should better be spent on health care and education.

So my feelings are very mixed. I guess you could say my views on space are unabashedly partisan. I look fondly back on the space program, warts and all, from back when it was liberal Democrats running the country (JFK and LBJ). Today, B*s* is not to be trusted and neither are his motives for wanting to go back to the moon, the Space Shuttle was obsolete by the late 1980s and should have been scrapped long ago, and NASA itself needs to go on the chopping block. We've already been to the moon and the old space program of the 1960s served its purpose. What's the purpose today?

[alarimer]

33. I also feel

That there is a great deal we don't know about this planet. We know more about outer space than we do about the deepest parts of the oceans.
I think we need to concentrate on this planet and funding earth sciences and oceanography to try and solve the environmental problems we have created here, like global warming or the fact that most fisheries are in the process of crashing to the point where they might not recover. There are thousands of species on this planet that have not been discovered yet and may become extinct if we don't clean up our act and slow human population growth and development everywhere. So I am not in favor of our going to another planet to mess it up as badly as we have messes this one. Let the robots do it; they will have much less impact.

[bigtree]

37. Thanks for this

"We know more about outer space than we do about the deepest parts of the oceans."

[alarimer]

43. well

Marine biology has always been my first interest so I am a little biased I suppose. LOL. I think it is not far from the truth though.

[MrPrax]

34. Boondoogle!

Other than the occasional 'gee-whiz' picture or 'insight', there is not a lot gained from all this exploration from a average person standpoint...

Imagine a clean up of the oceans or revoluntionary public transportation system inspiring the same 'lofty' idealism as the language of the 'supporters of the MIC' here in this thread...

[Darranar]

35. The way it is happening...

it is a waste of money.

Eventually, humankind will have to expand beyond Earth, if it wishes to survive. But the current time is not right for a return to the moon. Research can be conducted with robots - the only reason for a manned flight is publicity and ego-gratification.

[bigtree]

36. Manned space exploration is too expensive.

But unmanned flights should continue.

The support and maintainence of our nation's satellite system would mandate some manned missions.

We should thoroughly examine the military's ambitions in space, however. I suggest moves towards an new international summit on the militarization of space. Then a new treaty.

[kayell]

38. Space exploration is a great idea, but this is a horrible time

to be spending money we need here. Put those dollars into a WPA style program focused on developing alternative energy and a decent public transportation system. That will do a lot more for energy sources and for national security than a military style mars shoot.

[Snow]

39. Space is highly miltarized....

and ignores enormous potential in other areas. We're spending all our resources looking at weapons and defenses, yet there sits ideas like O'Neill LaGrange colonies, going nowhere. Did you know there's an ion drive, been around for decades, that can achieve something like 90% light speed/ It takes a while to accelerate, but hey - isn't that cool?

[are_we_united_yet]

41. Any decent paying jobs on Mars?

[flaminbats]

42. We need the proper balance of spending for future space flights.

This means increasing funding used in expanding our knowledge of deep space..by replacing the Hubble Telescope with modern technology, developing a new launch vehicle to replace the space shuttle while making the fullest possible use of the International Space Station, and providing three times the dollars for unmanned missions to study Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and their moons.

We must cut every dollar used for classified or unclassified military spending in space, and use all of this money for reaching peaceful goals in our civilian space program. Finally we must realize that landing humans on Mars, and returning to the moon are pipe-dreams only to be accomplished in the long-term future. But reaching these expensive goals now will not help us unless we first begin to reduce the national debt, and provide universal health-care for people on our own planet.

Let us never forget that in 1969, the year we landed men on the moon, the federal government actually had a budget surplus.