Bush comments on the New Vision

[radarredux]

I am not sure President Bush understands his new vision:<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I think that NASA needed to become relevant in order to be -- to justify the spending of your money, and therefore, I helped changed the mission from one of orbiting in a space shuttle -- in a space station to one of becoming a different kind of group of explorers. And therefore, we set a new mission, which is to go to the moon and set up a launching there from which to further explore space.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Apparently he expects NASA to be launching rockets from the Moon to go to Mars and Beyond??<br /><br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=24749

 

[MeteorWayne]

sigh....<br /><br />No one is driving the bus.... <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[rybanis]

"a launching"<br /><br /><br />Huh. Well, I guess that must be something like a launch pad. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacenate]

Well, it's nice to have someone talking about it at least.....I guess.<br /><br />I really hope that folks aren't under the impression that we are launching from the moon. That idea died a long time ago when congress saw the $450 Billion budget that it would require to do that and the rest of that ill-fated plan.<br /><br />I thought NASA's "design reference mission" which was derived from Robert Zubrin's "Mars Direct" plan was the idea now. I hope that hasn't changed.<br /><br />Of course, our president isn't exactly known for his competence when speaking.

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>And therefore, we set a new mission, which is to go to the moon and set up a launching there from which to further explore space<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I think its a Texan/redneck comment. <br />"yeah like set up a launching there, over there yonder...."<br /><br />I'm sure its a mistake. <br /><br />Like he said its an awkward question to be asking a Texan, so I guess you get an awkward answer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

He may mean it in a metaphorical sense. That is, that missions to Mars will grow out of missions to the Moon, regardless of the actual mechanics involved or where the launchpads are situated.<br /><br />His grammar, however, is as atrocious as usual. ". . . set up a launching there from which to further explore space."<br /><br />*yaggeddaggeddaggedda* <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[3488]

I agree CalliArcale.<br /><br />That is atrocious.<br /><br />I wonder if Bush really understands the Vision, or if he is getting his information from<br />his advisors?<br /><br />Andrew Brown. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[racer7]

Cheney just proved once again that while he may be running things, he's not very good at making Bush's lips move.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I wonder if Bush really understands the Vision,</font>/i><br /><br />I fear (1) he doesn't understand it, and (2) he doesn't care.<br /><br />When Congress cut his requested budget amount for NASA, he didn't say anything. When members of Congress requested a summit with the Administration to discuss NASA's funding, the White House was silent. When President Bush went to Huntsville recently (during a shuttle mission no less), he didn't bother to stop at Marshall Space Flight Center.</i>

 

[nec208]

Apparently he expects NASA to be launching rockets from the Moon to go to Mars and Beyond?? <br />========================================<br /><br /><br />And what is wrong with that?It is like launching from the US or China.They will have to build the building and launching pad.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

A lot is wrong with it. There will be no technology available in the forseeable future to build rockets and generate rocket fuel out of stuff found on the Moon. Ergo, anything launched from the Moon must first be launched from Earth. This basically means that you are wasting a heck of a lot of effort to launch from the Moon if you're going to Mars; you're much better off just going straight from Earth.<br /><br />Now, in a century (hopefully) that may no longer be the case. But within the timeframe specified in the Vision for Space Exploration, that ain't gonna happen. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> Of course, our president isn't exactly known for his competence when speaking.</i><br /><br />Very, very few people can actually speak coherently about space, whether science, ops or other activity. Listen to any space news report. It's hard enough to find print journalists that know their science. The truth is that these are hard ideas to convey, especially from the technically-shaky to other technically-shaky people. No, this isn't a dig against anyone, it's simply<br /><br />At least someone is talking about space and getting it in the mainstream press! You have to admit that to the layman "Launching rockets from the moon" is easier to convey than "We're going to employ a one-and-half launch, EOR opposition class mission based on previous Mars Design Reference Missions." Try saying it out loud yourself, it's hard.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[scottb50]

I don't think it's even a time thing. It takes pretty close to the same acceleration to get to the moon as it does to get to Mars. Then you have to land on the moon and depart to Mars.<br /><br />I would definitely refer the Bush plan to the Department of redundant redundancy.<br /><br />I also don't think it will be much different in a century, natural laws don't change that fast, or at all for that matter. <br /><br />Now if Bush has developed a new physics, in all this time he has appeared to be totally out of touch it's great. It seems more he continues to be out of touch though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dreada5]

I think CalliArcale is right.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>He may mean it in a metaphorical sense. That is, that missions to Mars will grow out of missions to the Moon, regardless of the actual mechanics involved or where the launchpads are situated. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />And his technical advisors will have known that launching from the moon to mars isn't viable as he put it.<br /><br />But IMO, that really doesn't matter - the fact that he's still talking about <b><i>HIS</i></b> "Vision for Space Exploration" is a good thing and space folks should be happy regardless of his bad grammar etc.<br /><br />Because if he's not talking about it and others that follow don't either... then gee whiz, kiss VSE goodbye!<br /><br />So I have no issues with Bush on this one.

 

[dreada5]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>At least someone is talking about space and getting it in the mainstream press! You have to admit that to the layman "Launching rockets from the moon" is easier to convey....<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Agree 100% J05H.

 

[josh_simonson]

Obtaining lunar oxygen is possible with current technology. LL1/2 are also potential starting points for Mars expeditions. There are several ways in which the moon can be instrumental in a Mars mission short of building a mars rocket on the moon's surface.<br /><br />He also may have meant launch in a metaphorical sense, as in a product or campaign launch.

 

[comga]

Mr Bush does not speak often in metaphors.<br /><br />Once upon a time, I also worked to find the wisdom behind the simplistic talk, imagining it to be shorthand for mass consumption. It was an unsuccessful effort, and I reverted to the simpler theory that there is no great wisdom to be found.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Once upon a time, I also worked to find the wisdom behind the simplistic talk, imagining it to be shorthand for mass consumption ...</font>/i><br /><br />My wife recently read/heard of a study performed by a doctor of Bush's speaking skills from the time he was initially running for governor in Texas until now, and his conclusion was that his skills have deteriorated over that time. A similar pattern can be shown in Ronald Reagan towards the end of his Presidency, and, as we now know, Reagan was probably already in the early stages of alzheimer's disease.<br /><br />It is possible that Bush is also showing early stages of alzheimer's.</i>

 

[ua_vt_ae]

I had to comment on the post about Ronald Reagan. <br /><br />I'm in the process of reading "The Reagan Diaries"--I'm not quite half way through at this point. I will just say that my admiration for him has gone up through experiencing what he went through on a daily basis. I'm only in my thirties and I can't imagine having his schedule day after day after day and still handling the variety of things thrown at him with such wisdom, patience and humility. Yes, perhaps near the end of his presidency his speaking skills may have deteriorated somewhat, but how many people do you know in their late seventies that still possess the same abilities they had when they were forty.<br /><br />

 

[vulture2]

Bush does not make a convincing case for the VSE. He does not provide any rationale for terminating the shuttle and station after so many years of effort to perfect them. He gives no explanation of why going to Mars is more "relevant" than aeronautics or environmental science, and shows no understanding of how the Mars mission can actually be accomplished or what it will cost. A promoter of tax cuts, he provides no indication of where the money will come from. Without far more effective support than this, the VSE is unlikely to continue in its current form.<br /><br /><br /> />>I think that NASA needed to become relevant in order to be -- to justify the spending of your money, and therefore, I helped changed the mission from one of orbiting in a space shuttle -- in a space station to one of becoming a different kind of group of explorers. And therefore, we set a new mission, which is to go to the moon and set up a launching there from which to further explore space.

 

[j05h]

<i>> Bush does not make a convincing case for the VSE. </i><br /><br />Two points to consider on other's making of 'the case for space' in the recent past. During the 2004 campaign the only time I recall a politician mentioning space was Teresa Heinz Kerry calling for full cancellation of VSE and continued use of robotic probes only. In the 90s, NASA's policy was "Shuttle-station forever" - they were planning on flying STS through the 2020s and do nothing more than LEO missions with the occasional probe. Which is more exciting? A multi-planet, human strategy conveyed in halting words or more of the same LEO circles spoken of eloquently?<br /><br /><i>> He does not provide any rationale for terminating the shuttle and station after so many years of effort to perfect them. </i><br /><br />Shuttle is only flying to complete the station. There is no "perfection" involved, it is a fairly old, experimental spacecraft that never lived up to it's potential, despite the amazing things that have happened with it. Station has changed so many that they just want to get what they have finished. ISS is not going to be terminated, it is being brought to a state of usability so that NASA isn't the only US group supporting it. Congress recently voted to make it into a National Lab and encourage other uses. <br /><br /><i>>He gives no explanation of why going to Mars is more "relevant" than aeronautics or environmental science, and shows no understanding of how the Mars mission can actually be accomplished or what it will cost. </i><br /><br />The president's science adviser, Dr. Marburger, has spelled this out in more detail. The goal isn't Mars, it's to bring the Inner Solar System into the human economic sphere. That is something far larger than NASA or the whole Federal government, is capable of. Opening space up will take a level playing field among corporate, public and academic interests, luck and determination from all involved. Mars is a good mid-term goal (Moon, then Mars, <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>