Bush Space Plan
- Thread starter GeeBot
- Start date
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
I thought it was quite a speech. There's no more worthwhile goal than the manned exploration of space, and it's wonderful to finally have a president who's behind it (like him or lump him).
I thought it was a good speech, but the devil's in the execution. For one thing, Bush stills wants to finish the ISS, so that tarnishes some of the credibility of the "master plan" to me. If he were really so serious about real exploration, it seems to me he'd ditch that boondoggle and focus the money on the CEV. Still, it's good for NASA to at least have human exploration as it's primary mission, rather than having to juggle it with the pure science aspect and shuttle missions.
Jason_Ryock
Vice Admiral
He wants to put a man on the moon in less than five years...is that even possible?
I remember reading History books about World War II (My favorite subject) and they talk about how when American Concentrates it resources and really pushes to get something done, they do it, and they do it well.
Frankly, I don't think Bush can Motivate Americans enough to get them excited about Space like they were during the Apollo programs. There was a real Motivation behind getting to the moon then, and right now there's just...not.
Politics has taken over everything in America, and that's what's going to happen to Bush's Space Plan. Politics will get in the way of progress once again.
But that's my pessimistic opinion. I'm as excited as anyone else here about it. I think it's a great thing to finally have a President in America who is interested in exploring Space. I just hope it gets followed through. Presidents especially are fond of empty promises.
I remember reading History books about World War II (My favorite subject) and they talk about how when American Concentrates it resources and really pushes to get something done, they do it, and they do it well.
Frankly, I don't think Bush can Motivate Americans enough to get them excited about Space like they were during the Apollo programs. There was a real Motivation behind getting to the moon then, and right now there's just...not.
Politics has taken over everything in America, and that's what's going to happen to Bush's Space Plan. Politics will get in the way of progress once again.
But that's my pessimistic opinion. I'm as excited as anyone else here about it. I think it's a great thing to finally have a President in America who is interested in exploring Space. I just hope it gets followed through. Presidents especially are fond of empty promises.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
That's interesting - I took it the absolute other way when it came to the ISS. His comments were "we'll do as much as we have to, and nothing else". It's politically impossible to just tell the other countries involved to screw off, we want to go to the moon. 
(It was odd that they had Mike Foale introduce it, given the absolute lack of interest shown in the ISS under this new plan...).
(It was odd that they had Mike Foale introduce it, given the absolute lack of interest shown in the ISS under this new plan...).
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
He specified a return to the moon within 2015 and 2020... that's between eleven and sixteen years from now, not five.
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Heh, well, cancelling America's commitment to the ISS, even if it really was a sensible move (which I don't think it would be - the ISS isn't a complete joke, and it certainly is a useful project, both as a stopgap location for space-based experiments and as a crew training location), would look bad at a moment like this. Withdrawing from the only space station project currently happening would be a pretty lousy way of demonstrating your commitment to space 
.
.
Jason_Ryock
Vice Admiral
The Taliban we blasted back into the stoneage?
And sorry, Loaf, I was reading an obviously mis-informed news post that said five years.
And sorry, Loaf, I was reading an obviously mis-informed news post that said five years.
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Mmm, I don't think the Chinese program figured very largely into any of this - politically, refocusing NAsA is a direct result of the Columbia accident.
It would be *nice* to have another "space race" with the Chinese - but I don't think anyone sees that happening any time soon.
It would be *nice* to have another "space race" with the Chinese - but I don't think anyone sees that happening any time soon.
psych
Destroyer of assclowns
Hmm, this is a step in the right direction I think.
My main worry is what will happen when the Democrats win office in the next 10-15 years. The 12 billion allocated for the space program, they'll want to take it and use it towards the 1.4 trillion we allegedly owe for slave reparations. And that's when they'll become stereotypical Forstchen villians.
My main worry is what will happen when the Democrats win office in the next 10-15 years. The 12 billion allocated for the space program, they'll want to take it and use it towards the 1.4 trillion we allegedly owe for slave reparations. And that's when they'll become stereotypical Forstchen villians.
One of the big problems behind motivating the USA towards space goals is that we're driven by a big sense of "we're better"... and we dont have any serious competitors to become better than. That alone may well kill public opinion of the space race.
I havent had a chance to read transcripts of Bush's speech yet, but refocusing a good % of our airforce and military towards space-based goals would be a great thing (something tells me this didnt come up). Sure, we can kick every non-American ass on the globe at once... how feasible would it be to take a small amount of that power away and redirect the funding towards decent orbital/postorbital systems (and as a totally unprecedented side benefit gain the ability to kick every other ass on the globe much much faster...)
I havent had a chance to read transcripts of Bush's speech yet, but refocusing a good % of our airforce and military towards space-based goals would be a great thing (something tells me this didnt come up). Sure, we can kick every non-American ass on the globe at once... how feasible would it be to take a small amount of that power away and redirect the funding towards decent orbital/postorbital systems (and as a totally unprecedented side benefit gain the ability to kick every other ass on the globe much much faster...)
Jason_Ryock
Vice Admiral
I would like to point out right now that MUCH of the power has been taken away and redirected in other areas, largely because of Clinton, AND I might add, we CAN kick any non-American ass on the Globe, so long as we do it one at a time.
The functionality of the United States Military has always been to fight several small scale conflicts and at least two Regional Conflicts at the same time, as well as maintaining Peace Keeping forces as the UN requires them.
(I apologize for my crudity on this information, there are exact established numbers somewhere, I've merely forgotten them as of late, if anyone knows how many conflicts of which scale the US wants to be able to fight, please, enlighten me)
To be short, we no longer maintain this ability. If we went to war today with another nation, or group of nations, we would win, eventually, but it would be costly. Also, we could not fulfill our peace-keeping and military obligations that have our forces commited global and fight another large scale war at the same time.
I'm not a war-hawk, which I've been deemed at places where I advocate increased military spending, but I am a tax-payer, and I've read the Constitution. The Government is required to "Provide for the Common Defense." It's supposed to uphold our laws and protect our rights, and it can't do that if it's always been forced to shut down bases and send carriers to dock at the end of a deployment because there isn't enough fuel to fly planes off them anymore.
I love peace, and would love to see peace, but there will always been a need for a standing military, and I think we need to make sure it's one that get's the job done.
The functionality of the United States Military has always been to fight several small scale conflicts and at least two Regional Conflicts at the same time, as well as maintaining Peace Keeping forces as the UN requires them.
(I apologize for my crudity on this information, there are exact established numbers somewhere, I've merely forgotten them as of late, if anyone knows how many conflicts of which scale the US wants to be able to fight, please, enlighten me)
To be short, we no longer maintain this ability. If we went to war today with another nation, or group of nations, we would win, eventually, but it would be costly. Also, we could not fulfill our peace-keeping and military obligations that have our forces commited global and fight another large scale war at the same time.
I'm not a war-hawk, which I've been deemed at places where I advocate increased military spending, but I am a tax-payer, and I've read the Constitution. The Government is required to "Provide for the Common Defense." It's supposed to uphold our laws and protect our rights, and it can't do that if it's always been forced to shut down bases and send carriers to dock at the end of a deployment because there isn't enough fuel to fly planes off them anymore.
I love peace, and would love to see peace, but there will always been a need for a standing military, and I think we need to make sure it's one that get's the job done.
Chernikov said:
Just a couple of numbers that I'm sure your not aware of, the US Army stands at a magnificant 250,000(approx.) with nuclear weapons etc. The Korean Army stands at over 1 MILLION troops etc. seems to me that the US Army would be out numbered if they decided to take on Korea (though I doubt Bush would take on Korea since they supposedly have nuclear weapons)
Jason_Ryock
Vice Admiral
First you didn't count the Marines, they're crazy enough to count for two each. Second the United States has the Second Best Air Power in the world (Israel is the first, or so I choose to believe, that can be hotly debated but it's not the topic of this thread) and the "most powerful Navy" if you can still call it that.
Even with that, though, you raise a two very valid concerns. First, American Forces have been so scaled back we have to consider first weather or not we have the manpower and monetary funds to fight a war with Korea, and Secondly, that Korea has admitted to having a Nuclear Weapons program (Iraq never went that far) and we're virtually ignoring them.
Out of curosity, does anyone remember who helped the North Koreans fight the Korean War? It was the Chinese, who we've mentioned on this thread as being a possible competitor (If there is such a thing for the US) in a spa race.
Smells fishy to me. Wouldn't take much for the Koreans to sell the Chinese some tech data, or Nuclear Material...or for the Chinese to sell the Koreans some rockets.
Even with that, though, you raise a two very valid concerns. First, American Forces have been so scaled back we have to consider first weather or not we have the manpower and monetary funds to fight a war with Korea, and Secondly, that Korea has admitted to having a Nuclear Weapons program (Iraq never went that far) and we're virtually ignoring them.
Out of curosity, does anyone remember who helped the North Koreans fight the Korean War? It was the Chinese, who we've mentioned on this thread as being a possible competitor (If there is such a thing for the US) in a spa race.
Smells fishy to me. Wouldn't take much for the Koreans to sell the Chinese some tech data, or Nuclear Material...or for the Chinese to sell the Koreans some rockets.
Jason_Ryock
Vice Admiral
I never really understood why Scientists would work for a dictatorship at all.
It seems to me that people smart enough to do the things they do for Foreign Governments could make five times a much money legally doing them for some American Coporation.
It seems to me that people smart enough to do the things they do for Foreign Governments could make five times a much money legally doing them for some American Coporation.