catapult magazine
discussion
Riding on a moonbeam
Jasonvb
Jan 11 2004
11:53 am
I hesitate to say that it is unnecessary for our country to spend money on things some people may consider to be superfluous, like art or education or learning more about our solar system for the sake of learning more about our solar system. But I am very suspicious of an administration that wants to launch a rah-rah America idea like this just in time for election year.
dan
Jan 11 2004
03:34 pm
I like the idea of exploring Mars, but I also like the idea of fiscal responsibility. With an annual deficit of $500 billion and the IMF knocking on the door, it seems a silly time to spend even more money on space exploration. On the other hand, if one were to find intelligent life on Mars, perhaps one could tax them!
laryn
Jan 12 2004
06:39 pm
I’m told (by an astronomer friend) that Bush’s father said the exact same things and nothing came of it. In his opinion, the manned space program is a complete waste because nothing is learned that couldn’t be learned in a robotic mission (which costs much less—and has somewhat less of a “gee whiz” factor).
How about those mars pictures, though? Very cool.
grant
Jan 14 2004
07:04 am
If we don’t go to Mars, the Russians will. And we can’t let that happen.
DvdSchp
Jan 14 2004
09:36 am
That’s right. Those damned Ruskies will have us all for lunch if we don’t watch out, never mind that their country is in shambles.
A few quotes from this article:
““If we don’t do it, somebody else will,” said?U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee, a ranking Democrat on the House Science Committee. “The Chinese, the Europeans and the Japanese all have the goal of going to the moon. Certainly we don’t want to wake up and see that they have a base there before we do.””
If space exploration is for the sake of furthering scientific knowledge, then what do we care if some other country pays the way to send back information for the rest of humanity? Or is the US hoarding everything its learned in its previous missions?
“Congressional sources?told Reuters that?the administration was also considering setting up a more streamlined hierarchy for guiding the government’s wide-ranging space programs and coordinating its research and development. Under this scenario, there could be more exchanges of technology between NASA and the Defense Department.”
Look, if this is a military issue, just tell us. I’m sure the Bush Administration would be able convince America that its necessary for the safety of our nation. Just pump the stupid money into the defense department and stop trying to sugar coat it.
“Vice President Dick Cheney also was involved in the policy development, along with other senior Bush advisers. The administration was said to see the initiative as an important national security measure, and experts said it could lead to new technologies and potential new sources of energy.”
Doesn’t this seem like a rather inefficent and sloppy means by which to research new sources of energy? Excuse me if I am a bit skeptical of Dick Cheney, of all people, to be interested in new sources of energy. I’m sure all those oilmen in the administration are chomping at the bit to ease up on oil production.
laryn
Jan 16 2004
10:54 am
Dare I “drag out” the Rebuilding America’s Defenses document, by the Project for A New American Century, again? Ah, why not. Follow with me on page 51 (63 in the PDF):
“In general, to maintain American
military preeminence that is consistent with
the requirements of a strategy of American
global leadership, tomorrow?s U.S. armed
forces must meet three new missions:
…
?Control of space and cyberspace.
Much as control of the high seas ? and
the protection of international
commerce ? defined global powers in
the past, so will control of the new
?international commons? be a key to
world power in the future.
”
crlynvn
Jan 18 2004
07:49 am
what is that document laryn? someone’s book? a gov’t document covertly released to reveal the imperialistic inclinations of the gov’t? i am curious what you mean by quoting that passage. what is your intention in putting it out there?
dan
Jan 18 2004
11:46 am
Laryn is quoting this document:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
See this earlier cino discussion for background:
http://www.catapultmagazine.com/discussion/index.cfm?frmid=4&tpcid=636&skey=
laryn
Jan 19 2004
09:40 am
PNAC is not a governmental organization, but many of the people influential in it are in the current administration. I quoted it because I found it interesting in light of this discussion: ie. possible reasons why Bush suddenly wants to go to the moon.
Here’s another very interesting article, which includes moon energy information I had no idea about:
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=441140§ion=news
crlynvn
Jan 23 2004
12:53 pm
thanks for the links guys and explaining origin of the document. i try and find some time to read the pnac; it is only the end of 1st week and term is barreling on at full speed. i did read that reuters article laryn and your right it is interesting; do you think that bush is going to try to do something ‘star wars esq’? don’t you think that it would get the same reaction that reagan got in the 80s? he had the political clout of the cold war to justify such a move and it got shot down, wouldn’t the same thing happen if bush tried it?
explore catapult discussions
DvdSchp
Jan 09 2004
12:43 pm
So, we’re going to the moon again…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3910698&p1=0
Is this necessary?