Guess who said this today:

"Instead of spending enormous sums of money on an unimaginative and retread effort to make a tiny portion of the moon habitable for a handful of people, we should focus instead on a massive effort to ensure that the Earth is habitable for future generations."

Yup, it was the guy who was in charge of space policy for much of the 1990s.

And here's a quote from Clinton's former science advisor:

I'm sad about the focus on human space flight when we're doing so well with robotics which extend human presence. This refocus on human flight is something that worries me greatly.

Actually, to be fair, it's what I'd expect a science advisor to say, since manned spaceflight, including the president's new proposal, has little to do with science per se. What's frustrating is the ongoing implicit assumption that science is the reason we have a civil space program, an assumption which few ever question, which is why we continue to have these arguments and cognitive dissonance.

Anyway, I'm very happy that neither of them is in a policy-making position any more.

[via Keith Cowing]

I think this is a case of vision-envy.

Let's see now, which Vice-President was it that wanted to spend enormous sums of money to put the Triana satellite in space so we could all have a live picture of Earth as our computer screen saver?

It has been nice to discover Transterrestrial Musings today as a result of Fox news posting of 'A Space Program For the Rest of Us? ? and nice to discover your common sense views (a rarity these days) on our national efforts in space.

Though it took a long time to be seen at the consumer level, the earthly benefits of our efforts to land on the moon ultimately brought support from skeptics like myself. But since then numerous idiotic failures caused support for NASA to decline sharply.

As lamented on these pages, the ?science? being promoted by NASA is virtually nonexistent. To me, the science currently touted in the MER saga is worthless propaganda ? of no value to anyone other than religious Darwinists that populate too many universities.

Frankly, if NASA had to sell Bush?s plan in the open marketplace, it wouldn?t get off the ground. But, since the US flag sits on the moon, and the US government wants to see more men on the moon ? they should try offering land on the moon (and Mars) as reward. Allowing homesteading of a sort, and mineral rights, to commercial interests would probably engender a ?space rush? that would far exceed NASA efforts.

WHAT'D'YA MEAN NOT SCIENCE???
ifen we don't go, who's gonna do the prospectin', and drillin', and all the leg work that HAS to be done. to expand our horizons, and provide GOD KNOWS WHAT.
remember reagan doing SDI, and all of the technological wonders that have arisen scince??
at that time, all i had to do with space was SATCOM for the army.
i've seen newer stuff that makes the old helium-cooled paramps look silly!!
think of the demands on solar cells, and the potential for even more current-efficient microdevices alone, and you've got a bonus bonanza.
i'm with ya on the NASA wizzards, though. But visionnaries like goddard are decried as "cooks", and the u.s. would NEVER have attempted what NAZI Germany did in investing in VON BRAUN. let alone the local victims of public education, who's sole (haha) claim to faim is relative wealth, and pivalidge(sp??) or sufficient ethnicity to begin the funding. or cripling debt, piled on top of demands that make the whole experience a nightmarish hell that leads to stupefaction and buck-grabbin'!!
anyway, the man is right.. we stay here squandering resources fighting over them, and we might as well do as einstein said and start ww4 right now!! give me the biggest rock i can heft to pitch at the jerks who keep sayin' it's stoopid to try!!!

Im all for the lunar landrush idea, the primary problem is that pesky little thing called the Outer Space treaty. According to how you interpret it, the OST sets up some pretty hefty barriers to national recognition of property rights. As I said in an earlier comment, one of the greatest things about the Bush plan is that it sneaks up on these issues in such a way that it might slip under the international radar and set a precedent that would allow more explicit recognition of property rights in the future. On the other hand, if the US were to just come right out and declare that it would recognize private property rights according to its role as a sovereign, we would be thumbing our nose at the body of space law and the nations with whom we negotiated, thereby risking our cooperation in other ventures such as the ISS (It seems quite unlikely Russia would be comfortable with giving the US its pick of choice lunar property while shouldering the burden for maintaining the ISS).

I can remember when Al Gore was supposed to be the "Space Candidate". I guess he's only in favor of space exploration if it's a Democrat pushing the idea.

I'm not surprised at the hostility towards the manned program by the various scientists involved in robotic missions. The name of the game in space science is funding, and right now NASA is the only game in town. More money for manned flights means less money for "pure science" missions...but this has *always* been the case.

These scientists also need to ask what we are doing science *for*, if not to eventually get people up there. If we're not doing science in the service of eventualy colonization of the planets, then what's the point?

Treaties are made to be broken or renegotiated or withdrawn from. The Outer Space Treaty is a red herring. Every rule, every law, every treaty depends upon the cooperation of all parties to it. When cooperation fails, ultimately, it depends upon the use of force for enforcement. I ask who is in a position to bring force to bare on any violator of the Outer Space Treaty? Maybe the same group of nations that so effectively enforced sanctions against Iraq for the last ten years. Yeah, they will settle the score with any violators.

Funny, I'm not very happy with this plan, but seeing that Al Gore bit sure makes me happy I'm not facing the alternative. I have my concerns with Bush, but every time Gore opens his mouth I just can't UNDERSTAND how anyone could possibly want that ... creature.

sad sad sad

What a sad demonstration of just how far the Democratic party has strayed since 1961. Nothing left now but luddites and peaceniks.

Some of the Idiotarian DU types think this is a ploy by Bush to shoot some sweet contracts to 'Haliburton'.

Guys, I swear I am not making this up!

Whilst arguing with some people who are supposedly disgruntled former Bush supporters, I have coined a new term, the DUck!

Cause by Occam and Haliburton, if they walk like a DUck and quack like a DUck......

http://pub111.ezboard.com/fmeetupcommunitydiscussionfrm11.showMessage?topicID=182.topic

Not D.U. types, but Joe Conason, of all people, in Salon Magazine (subscription) who actually seems to believe that Haliburton wishes to drill for oil on Mars and the Moon!! I am not making this up, I don't write material this good. I guess he failed physics, or forgot to factor in the cost of transportation.

He surely failed Petrology as well. What a wast of carbon!

Sorry this space initiative by Bush could be titled 'Space ..... The Final Insult'.

If you actually read some of the recent stuff coming out about this 'Moon/Mars' plan, you will see the incredible amount of graft that surrounds this project.

First, there is no oil on the moon or on Mars. However, there is helium-3 isotope. This is the ultimate fuel for fusion reactors. A ton of helium-3 would be worth about 50 billion dollars in today's markets (and this is under conditions in which fusion reactors have not been completely successful).

Beginning in 1996, Haliburton started to buy companies that held patents on helium-3 related items. Currently, Haliburton owns most if not all the relative patents for helium-3. Under the Patriot Act 2, these patents (which would be critical for national defense) would not expire like normal patents.

In 2001, Haliburton entered into space development. Given that Bush's (his puppeteers') plan would eliminate the shuttle and cause the Hubble to degrade earlier, this would open the way for new contracts to be given. According to MSNBC, the big 3 of space researcher are already complaining that these future contracts will go to Haliburton.