Bush to announce manned missions to Mars, back to the Moon
 

FOUND ON THE DRUDGE REPORT - www.drudgereport.com
Linked from http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040109/D7VV0JG00.html

Bush to Announce Missions to Mars, Moon



Jan 8, 8:54 PM (ET)

By SCOTT LINDLAW


PALM BEACH GARDENS, Fla. (AP) - President Bush will announce plans next week to send Americans to Mars and back to the moon and to establish a long-term human presence on the moon, senior administration officials said Thursday night.

Bush won't propose sending Americans to Mars anytime soon; rather, he envisions preparing for the mission more than a decade from now, one official said.

The president also wants to build a permanent space station on the moon.

Three senior officials said Bush wants to aggressively reinvigorate the space program, which has been demoralized by a series of setbacks, including the space shuttle disaster last February that killed seven astronauts.

The officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Bush's announcement would come in the middle of next week.

Bush has been expected to propose a bold new space mission in an effort to rally Americans around a unifying theme as he campaigns for re-election.

Many insiders had speculated he might set forth goals at the 100th anniversary of the Wright brothers' famed flight last month in North Carolina. Instead, he said only that America would continue to lead the world in aviation.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, among others, has called for an expansion of the U.S. space program, including a return to the moon. The United States put 12 men on the moon between 1969 through 1972.

An interagency task force led by Vice President Dick Cheney has been considering options for a space mission since summer.

Former Ohio Sen. John Glenn, the first American to orbit the Earth, has said that before deciding to race off to the moon or Mars, the nation needs to complete the international space station and provide the taxi service to accommodate a full crew of six or seven. The station currently houses two.

At the same time, Glenn has said, NASA could be laying out a long-term plan, setting a loose timetable and investing in the engineering challenges of sending people to Mars. The only sensible reason for going to the moon first, he says, would be to test the technology for a Mars trip.

I want to go!!! :cool:

And despite what many people think, that's not where I'm from. :p

If they promise to leave people there, I have a long list of those who really should make the trip...

It'll hafta be with all-new technology, since the Saturn V and Apollo spacecraft tooling jigs were destroyed over thirty years ago near the end of the Apollo program. Likewise, the launch pads have been converted to launch Space Shuttles.

Only three Saturn Vs remain today; all are on display as museum pieces. One is at the U.S. Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama, the second is at Kennedy Space Center at the Apollo-Saturn V Center in Florida, and the third is at Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas. The JSC vehicle is the only Saturn V composed of flight-ready stages; the other two are a mix of static test and flight stages.

I would really hope we wouldn't be using 30-year old technology...

The only logical reason for a return to the moon is to test the equipment that will be capable of sending us to Mars, according to many.

OH WOW, anotehr Pie in the Mars!

Holly Sh*t Bat Man!

How many kazillions of $$$$ will that cost when there is a real problem with the Int. Space Center?:confused:

We as the most powerful country in the world cannot supply the Space Station because our Flyers are grounded because of _____!

Okay, depend on the Cash Strapped Russians who We are subsadising to put their Rockets up to keep the Astronaughts Alive!:(

Considering that the brains of such a behemoth like the Saturn V at the time was considered state-of the art, with computers capable of storing 32K of memory! :)

The Russkies seem to keep flying the same rocket design with changes over the years. Guess you can't go wrong with Semyorka ('Old Number 7') - the Russian nickname for the R-7 rocket. ;)

A lot of experts believe that we will need to build an operational base on the Moon, in order to efficiently begin advanced projects on Mars.

That is so cool. I knew I liked Bush. My family was just talking about putting a perm. station of the moon the other day. They will be thrilled!


Christia

P.S I would love to go to the moon, that was my dream as a little girl, but then I realized I was horrible at math and I would never go. I have another chance!!!

Drudge may be just a tad premature on this one.

According to other news services (is Drudge a news service?), President Bush has asked NASA to publish plans for the future of the organization.

The moon base and possible manned (personed?) Mars exploration are expected to be part of that plan.

According to NPR, though, the President isn't expected to make any specific announcement of either in the near future.

Of course NPR could be wrong -- but so could Drudge.

By the way, AlphaSigOU, a local exhibit's company once built a full size model of the Saturn for Martin Marietta here in Denver. Don't know what happened to it. (Actually, my mind may be playing tricks on me -- it might have been a Titan model)

In any event, if these missions happen, it should give the boys and girls out on Titan Road (Martin's plant) a lot to look forward to and feel good about.

With tax cuts and deficits, though, it will be a struggle to find the funds.

ETA The New York Times is reporting that Bush may make this kind of announcement next week.

I'm all for going back to the moon, and this would be a project from Bush that I could support very readily...in fact, I might actually call the white house and voice my support for such a project...with one caveat: that we not abandon the International Space Station.

In order to effectively "test" Mars equipment and procedures we must have long duration microgravity space flight. Going to the moon does not do anything to help us deal with the real issues of long distance space travel...

I would think that we should be able to do this cheaper than we did with Apollo. For one, many of the procedures that were revolutionary just before Apollo started are now normal components of typical missions, notably docking and extravehicular activities. Also we wouldn't have to be using such limited resources. I've read, and AlphaSig OU can probably confirm, that the an entire mission to the moon using Apollo software could be run on a single computer you could buy off the store shelves today. Keep in mind that there were hundreds of computers in Launch control, and mission control during apollo. I might be underestimating and the actual figure may be that all the missions that landed on the moon (6 in all) could all be run simultaneously on one desktop computer. I think that might have come from Gene Kranz's autobiography.



On a side note, does Bush just have some sort of severe aversion to any sort of international cooperative? I mean there is no reason to abandon the ISS half built. And in the past he has backed out of any sort of plan that seems to be best pursued as a collective of nations.

Where is he going to get the money from? Just add to the deficit? Thats good for the economy.

Well surprisingly, NASA has proven to be an excellent investment. I'm not sure the exact figure but when I was a counselor at Space Camp our camp directors routinely said that since the creation of NASA in 1958, for ever dollar put into the agency, about 8 dollars is created in the economy through the development of new products, procedures, and technology. These new things can either lower the costs of existing products or create entirely new industries in and of themselves.

Example, with out the need to miniaturize computers for space craft, we probably wouldn't have reached the small size of computers today. No Palms, no laptops, no cell phones, no game boys, no GPS among other things.

Again, I don't remember the exact figure nor do I have an actual source other than my experiences, but considering the accuracy of everything else I heard during the summer, I have to believe it.

This is actually a good thing. What it costs really shouldn't be much of an issue. Humanity achieving something like this would be nothing less than a milestone in human history. To have this happen in our time would be nothing short of amazing.

I think GWB with this one may be trying to tap into the optimism and feeling that Kennedy created with his space program.

I agree 100%

Am I the only one who thinks this is pointless? How is going to the moon or Mars supposed to help anyone? Don't we have enough to worry about here on Earth? I think we should spend a little more time, effort, and money cleaning up the mess here before we go around screwing things up on the moon and Mars.

I tend to agree.

I think this is kind of not the best time for this. Although if it would help the economy, that would be one thing. But in general I feel like we have way too many complicated things going on in this country to bother with this right now.

Actually, it's probably the perfect time for this. We need something just like this to get folks thinking about the country in terms of "we" again and not just "me". When Armstrong walked on the moon, from what everyone told me, it did exactly that. Now, we're not facing some kind of "evil empire" like the Soviet Union this time around, but I think this is exactly what the doctor ordered for the public morale.

Now to see if this proposal actually goes anywhere.

I wonder if Haliburton builds spaceships? :D

I understand the concern for the economy and the timing of such issues.

However the US budget is over 2 trillion dollars, and NASA gets about 15.5 billion a year. That's less than 1% of the total budget.

A 1995 study by NASA said that to get back to the moon by 2001 would have cost 15 billion dollars over 5 years. You do the math. And that was at a time when construction of many components of the Space Station were being constructed...ie now NASA's budget is free of many of those initial costs of building ISS modules.

Further to say that NASA getting three consecutive years of a 5% budget increase is wasteful, it might help to think of it this way. The US is going to spend money on space exploration and science no matter what, this budget increase is more like a reallocation of other science money, and as I said earlier NASA is a great return for the money.

If you really want to bitch about the deficit look at the real reason we have a deficit, the fact that GW has cut taxes for the rich and many corporations, without simultaneously cutting spending. Blame the fact that the Deapartment of Defense has a budget over 400 billion dollars...They're supposed to spend over a billion dollars a DAY! Blame the fact that we've pumped 87 billion into Iraq, when none of our reasons for going to war have been realized.

Seriously look at the reasons for the situation we are in currently.

totally rhetorical
 

Don't those "Feed the Children" ads say that they can feed a child for less than $.20 a day? If so, then wouldn't 1 billion feed just about everybody?

Dee

Just food for thought.. (sorry for the bad pun)

Well, shit, there goes my job in 2010.

Just kidding. ;) I am very excited about this and I hope I get the chance to work on this project. Free rides to the moon will be accepted in lieu of payment for services. :D

Considering how many improvements in science and research technology and even in consumer products are around now because of space funding, I think it has "use".

-Rudey
--And it's not the job of the US to go and feed the hungry children of the world so let's be somewhat realistic here.

Agree. It's remarkable how many things in medicine and other more mundane areas of our daily lives came as a result of the Space Program.