Giant leap II: Bush to announce plan for Mars, Moon missions

Houston Chronicle ^ | January 9, 2004 | JOHN C. HENRY with Mark Carreau in California and Patty Reinert

[Cincinatus' Wife]

WASHINGTON -- President Bush will outline a plan for returning humans to the moon as preparation for exploring deeper space destinations, including Mars, administration sources said late Thursday.

The president's plan will call for phasing out the U.S. role in the international space station and abandoning the beleaguered space shuttle program, according to sources who spoke on condition of anonymity.

At the same time, the president is not expected to call for sending a human to Mars anytime soon, but instead will lay out a series of goals aimed at helping NASA recover from the Columbia disaster and build on the success of the recent landing of a robotic rock hound on the Red Planet.

Unclear late Thursday was whether the president will set out any proposed changes in the hierarchy for space exploration -- a shift that some are pushing within the administration -- to allow NASA and the Defense Department to swap more information and technology.

Sources familiar with the policy, which is similar to a proposal made by Bush's father almost 15 years ago, was developed by a team overseen by Vice President Dick Cheney. Administration officials see the initiative as a vital national security measure that would lead to development of new technologies and potential new sources of energy.

The president's announcement, which is tentatively scheduled for the middle of next week after his return from the Summit of the Americas in Mexico, will call for exploring multiple destinations, with the lunar outpost being a possible first step.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters traveling with Bush in Florida that the president would make an announcement about space next week, but he declined to give details.

Last summer, the president ordered a top-to-bottom "review of our space policy, including our priorities and the future direction of the program, and the president will have more to say on it next week," McClellan said.

Bush has been expected to announce a major space initiative, and some had speculated that he would do so at the 100th-anniversary celebration of the Wright brothers' first flight last month in North Carolina. Instead, he only pledged to keep the United States at the forefront of world aviation.

Under Bush's proposal, astronauts would return to the moon by 2013 to test spacecraft and equipment for further exploration in deep space, including manned missions to initially orbit Mars, land and be able to return.

The last manned mission to the moon was in 1972. A total of 12 Americans walked on the moon between 1969 and 1972.

The nation's space shuttle fleet, the backbone of NASA's manned space program, is designed only for near-Earth orbit and for ferrying equipment, supplies and crew members between Earth and the space station.

When NASA's shuttle fleet resumes missions, possibly as soon as September, the three remaining orbiters would be used to finish station assembly. By 2016, after finishing research on the human response to long-duration spaceflight, NASA's role in the station would diminish, shifting the burden for maintaining the orbiting space lab to the Russians, Europeans and Japanese.

According to an account that will be published in Aviation Week & Space Technology, the White House will drop plans for a reusable orbital space plane. Congress has failed to embrace the space plane, which NASA began to pursue about three years ago.

The nation's space agency already has plans on the books for sending unmanned missions from Earth to the icy moons of Jupiter and to return to Mars with another robotic mission capable of returning to Earth with soil and rock samples.

Last Saturday, a six-wheeled robot developed by NASA landed on Mars and began sending back images of the planet.

The vehicle, called the Spirit, eventually is to begin moving about the planet, sampling the soil and rocks. A second rover is due to land on Mars on Jan. 24.

The last president to propose a manned mission to Mars was Bush's father, former President Bush, who in 1989 said Americans should lead the way "back to the moon, back to the future, and this time to stay."

When he outlined his proposal on the 20th anniversary of the first manned moon landing, then-President Bush said the next step would be "a journey to another planet: a manned mission to Mars."

At the time, the estimated cost was between $400 billion and $500 billion, a price tag too high for Congress, which scuttled the proposal.

Similar obstacles confront any plan that the current president might propose. Faced with a budget deficit that is expected to top $500 billion this year alone.

Bush's proposal, if it wins support in Congress, will be a significant realignment of the nation's space program, which for the last decade has seen no growth in its budget at a time when it has been trying to keep the aging shuttle fleet aloft and build a space station that has consistently run over budget.

Glenn Mahone, a spokesman for NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe, said the president "is certainly committed to America's space program and to the cause of exploration." Mahone declined to discuss details of Bush's plan.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, among others in Congress, has called for an expansion of the U.S. space program, including a return to the moon.

Apollo 11, which landed on the moon in July 1969, was the first of six to successfully make lunar landings. The others were missions 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17, which made the last landing in December 1972.

[biblewonk]

The politicians are first in line to make a buck off of it.

[RightWhale]

I had thought about citing the neo-trogs, but there is so much to do we shouldn't waste our precious resources over such trivia. We have work to do, fresh tin to bend and launch.

[Jotmo]

It saddens me to think of the pioneering adventurous spirit that has be allowed to languish and fade to near non-existence in our population.

Where would we be if people (And governments) did only things that would bring an immediate and foreseeable profit or benefit? We'd be living in caves and knocking rabbits over the head for supper.

Do you really think we should only do things that produce proven benefit? To be consistent, you'd have to be in favor of de-funding all scientific research because there's never any guarantee that the benefit will be worth the cost.

So heres the question.

Should the government be spending money on things that have a purely scientific benefit, with no KNOWN AND PREDICTABLE return either monetarily or in direct improvement the security the nation or to the improvement of peoples lives?

My answer is that I believe it won't get done otherwise.

Corporations expect to see, and rightfully so, a return on their investment in some time less that a generation or two. So they won't undertake huge programs like that.

At the same time, while we can't guarantee benefits resulting from a space program, we can look in to the past and see that there defiantly have been benefits in many areas, some quite dramatic. I'm not just talking about actual products as benefits. I'm also talking about things you can't touch, like national pride, and inspiration to the younger generations. You don't seem to see any of that. You can deny it all you want, but they are there.

I prefer to have a longer vision, and more hope for the future than that.

Disclaimer: Some portions of this post were copied from a previous post of mine on another thread because I didn't feel like typing them all over again.

[repentant_pundit]

Go ahead and suit up for any space mission you want. Maybe you can get funding from universities, industry groups, or ambitious tour companies. Just don't use any of my tax money to do it.

Scientific research and space exploration are NOT proper roles of the United States government. And don't give me any BS about "spinoffs" for defense. National defense development, including satellites, missiles, and possible space-based weapons, will receive more focus, and more funding, without some contrived dependency on make-work civilian space pork programs.

[chimera]

No need to cite them, they're right here on FR (re: #54). Let the neo-trogs rot in the muck and lichens and be content with an atmosphere-bound history. Better to reach for the stars and ascend the pillars of sunlight than slink about in the darkness and gloom. Reaching out to touch that which seems unattainable, striving to know what seems to be unknowable has always been the hallmark of a great and noble people. That is the true spirit of Western culture. Those left behind can devolve back to the primordial slime, all the while fretting over petty and unimportant matters seemingly made large by the smallness of their minds.

[RightWhale]

No doubt they are descended from those who doubted the wisdom of the Declaration of Independence. No, King George III didn't seem to be a tyrant as far as they were concerned.

[repentant_pundit]

So in your world, the only 2 choices are:

1. Tax-funded exploration.

2. No exploration.

Read my post #54 again. Go for it - reach for the stars !! Climb every mountain, ford every stream; follow every rainbow, til you find your dream ! Please share your discoveries with the rest of us - we'd love to hear the stories and see the photos!

Did Galileo have federal funding ?

Did the Wright Brothers have federal funding ?

Ever heard of venture capital ? How about university grants ?

Now, who is small-minded ?

[chimera]

Please don't put words in my mouth. Nothing I or anyone else posted here precludes those things. It's just that I don't think we should foreclose our options for making a unified, national effort in these areas.

Use of public funds for various endeavors is fair game for debate among fair-minded people. You disagree with use of those funds for exploration and that's fair enough. There are any number of things the government spends our collective tax dollars on that I disagree with. We are free to work through our elected representatives to effect changes to those spending decisions. In the end, the representatives of the people will make those decisions. I see no need to make it a Constitutional issue.

My point was that there may be legitimate reasons for expending tax dollars that go beyond just the mundane, unimaginative, everyday issues of bean counting. And no, I'm not talking about "Piss Christ" or any NEA-sponsored nonsense. Let's not even go there. No, I'm talking about things that awaken and empower our national spirit, a longing and sense of reaching beyond ourselves, a way to realize and understand in an intimate and lasting way who we are as a people, and where we may be going as an intelligent species. I know, I know, it costs too much, don't use my tax dollars, blah blah blah. But you know, there are some things that we can't put a price tag on, nor should we try. Because if we do, it becomes yet another commodity to be bought and sold in the marketplace. And I don't want to see our national spirit on sale there.

[RightWhale]

Ever heard of venture capital ?

How about private property rights in outer space? See about that, then the rest would be possible.

[repentant_pundit]

Not necessary. Write a business plan and submit it to venture capitalists and university grant officers. And maybe Ted Turner and George Soros. Get them to underwrite your mission. Then you and your buddies go exploring; take notes, videos, and photographs.

Upon your return, publish your books and DVDs detailing your discoveries...and sell them. Maybe Hollywood or IMAX will put your footage on the big screen. You'll have offers pouring in. Maybe National Geographic (a privately-funded organization, despite its name) will commission you for a series of big adventures, like they did with Cousteau.

It's the American way.

[RightWhale]

Investors want some guarantee of return. They expect something to be put up to match their investment--collateral. What are you going to offer, your reputation in space mining?

How about a deed to the carbonacious chondritic asteroid? Ownership of the resource comes first, then we'll see if there is some possible interest in resource extraction.

[repentant_pundit]

What did Cousteau have as collateral before he had his ship ?

Since the Apollo days, I recall, there have been international agreements against claiming territory on the moon or elsewhere. Again, raw materials and real estate are not the only marketable products, here or up there. Scientific data and entertaining multimedia presentations are valuable commodities as well.

There is such thing as High-Risk Venture capital. Get an eccentric billionaire on board. Literally. Remember that rich old guy who paid millions to the Russians for flying him into space ?

[MeanWestTexan]

Big risk exploration has historically always been funded by government.

For example, without the Spanish Government's $$$$, Columbus would not have sailed the ocean blue.

That said, once the way is barely paved, I am all for private property in space.

[RightWhale]

Thinking too small. It's a matter of scale. $200,000 to get Cousteau started. $20 billion to get space exploitation started. Tourism is nothing to start, not much return. Hollywood the same. Subdivision lots?

Look at the size of the world steel industry. That's the scale space operations will need. Eccentric billionaires don't have that kind of cash. Neither Las Vegas nor San Diego has that kind of cash.

[repentant_pundit]

Such pessimism. American steel and film industries were not built on the backs of the taxpayer...at least not originally. These ventures take time to grow. What's your hurry ?

Spain funded Columbus 500+ years ago, probably because it was in their defense interests to do so. That doesn't make it right. North America had already been discovered thousands of years prior, by unfunded primitive peoples with a BIG spirit for adventure (and a taste for wild game which they followed across Alaska from Siberia)

I agree about private property in space. Squatter's Rights !

[RightWhale]

Space steel will take $20 billion and 20 years. That's the first step. It can be small baby steps or go for the whole thing from the beginning. Same price, same time lag. You can't ease into space exploitation, that ought to be obvious.

[Stew Padasso]

Proof positive that everyone has a pet government program. If you feel so inspired, why don't you pick up the cost for those who could care less?

[newgeezer]

Please don't put words in my mouth. ... You disagree with use of those funds for exploration and that's fair enough.

That's funny! Because, just a moment ago, you cited repentant_pundit's post while declaring him and the rest of us who dare not buy into your ideas regarding the public funding of space exploration to be "neo-trogs [who] rot in the muck and lichens," who will (if left to themselves, I guess) "devolve back to the primordial slime, all the while fretting over petty and unimportant matters seemingly made large by the smallness of their minds." That, along with a good dose of other such vitriolic bile.

Now, you say he put words in your mouth, and our point of public funding is "fair enough"? Very funny, indeed. A regular Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

[ambrose]

See Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which empowers Congress "To promote the progress of science and useful arts"... and "To provide and maintain a navy"

We will eventually need to militarize space travel, and that would most certainly be under the auspices of the navy.

[chimera]

Wrong as usual. Post 57 asserted that I had a particular position that only two viewpoints were possible. I disputed that. No where did I oppose or preclude privately-funded ventures. At the same time, a national priority in exploration and development should also remain an option, although certainly a debatable one, as all publically-funded ventures should be. The neo-trog characterization was offered in opposition to the viewpoint that such publicly funded ventures should be excluded, because it narrows our options and limits our possibilities when we might otherwise be free to collectively apply our resources to a national policy or goal. You're free to object to such characterization on personal grounds, but doing so indicates casts the objection into more of a "protesting too much" form.

[Stew Padasso]

So this will come out of the defense budget?

[RightWhale]

that would most certainly be under the auspices of the navy

Right. Air Force gets most of the funding. Navy gets GPS and radar.

[newgeezer]

Read what the Constitution authorizes Congress to do "to promote the progress of science and useful arts," and you'll see it in no way grants any power to fund space exploration or any other endeavor in the name of science.

[ambrose]

does that also mean that only militias can have guns?

[Stew Padasso]

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts"

Fair enough. Anytime a liberal is looking to promote and fund a huge bureaucracy or a new spending program under these terms we'll consider it a done deal with no complaints.

[ambrose]

Why not... all the conspiracy people claim that NASA is nothing more than tool of the militaty anyway.

I really don't understand people who don't support space travel. Hell, I don't understand the people who didn't want to be bothered exploring the New World.

[repentant_pundit]

That's a stretch.

I think we need to learn more about the bottom of the sea. I will do a 2-year scientific voyage to the bottom of the sea in exchange for 45 billion dollars pre-paid.

What do you mean, that's too much money ? Where's your spirit of adventure ? Don't you want knowledge that might help save the whales ? What have you got against whales ? We as a nation will stagnate without such voyages; we must maintain a sense of reaching beyond ourselves. There are some things you shouldn't put a price tag on, although I'm happy to send you the bill for it.

[ambrose]

No, we can still complain about the merits of what is being proposed. I submit that space travel is, next to national defense, these most useful thing the federales can be spending money on.

Let's prove that we're more than just highly intelligent apes.

[RightWhale]

Forget it. The deep sea is closed to entry and mining.

[ambrose]

So do you propose that the space program be scrapped? Because without a mission to Mars, we may as well do just that. Klintoon's International Space Station is a waste of time and resources.

Face it, our space program has been pathetic these past 30 years. In reality, we should have been to Mars by the mid-80s, and maybe working on a manned mission to Titan (Saturn's moon) right about now. Sadly, we became incredibly small-minded during the 1970s.

As President Kennedy said, we do these things not because they're easy... we do them because they're hard!

[Stew Padasso]

So you don't have answer other than its for the children:

"Just think of the new generation of youngsters..."

---

"I really don't understand people who don't support space travel."

So there is no private enterprise that would have an interest?

"Hell, I don't understand the people who didn't want to be bothered exploring the New World."

What was stopping someone with a boat, compass and a few hands on deck?

[Hank Rearden]

Is this guy ever going to stop spending huge clumps of our money (taken by force) to buy more votes?

[chimera]

Go for it. Lobby your elected representatives to support the effort. See how much support you can garner. Make your case. If it makes sense, you may find some support. Your legally elected representatives will make the decision. You can complain about taxes all you want, but you aren't being taxed without representation. If your dream is undersea exploration, make it a multipathed approach. Support not only your sacred and beloved private ventures, but try to gather public support as well. Something good may come of it. Who knows, you may rediscover in yourself some spark of adventure and creativity that may lead you, and the rest of us, to better things. I hope so, because evidently for many here, that spirit has died and is long gone.

[Stew Padasso]

"Let's prove that we're more than just highly intelligent apes."

A government handout separates us from the apes? If someone can make a legitimate case for weapons on mars, I am all for it. And provided it is funded out of the military, go for it.

If the government wants to explore, with taking into account national security, I would propose making the case and fighting the PR battle to explore for oil and natural resources right here in America. That makes more sense.

[newgeezer]

My copy of the Constitution has those two sentences worded quite differently.

Is yours one of those newfangled "living" copies?

[Stew Padasso]

"Is this guy ever going to stop spending huge clumps of our money (taken by force) to buy more votes?"

He is only triangulating the science geeks.

[ambrose]

No, private enterprise would not be able to fund a mission to Mars. Its benefits are too far out into the future. The full benefits of interplanetary space travel may not be felt for another 80 to 100 years. This is what makes man different from animals. We will do things for the benefit of future generations.

Leave it to the Democrats to say no to space travel because we'd be better off giving food stamps to bums.

[A2J]

President Bush will outline a plan for returning humans to the moon as preparation for exploring deeper space destinations, including Mars, administration sources said late Thursday.

Why not send the 8 - 10 million illegal immigrants to the moon and to Mars where they can resettle it and work instead of giving them amnesty?

[Stew Padasso]

"Leave it to the Democrats to say no to space travel because we'd be better off giving food stamps to bums."

But that is *their* pet government cause and something they promote and feel is justified. They will consider you ape-like for not thinking of your fellow man.

So - weapons makers have no interest in space exploration?

[Mrs.Liberty]

If it is not right for a nation to spend any money on exploration until all of its citizens are properly cared for in every way, then Columbus and Cortez would never have sailed. Lewis & Clark would never have headed west.

There were plenty of people who thought that the money given to those explorers was a waste. The benefits mostly were long term. But the benefits that would result were unimaginable.

[newgeezer]

Wrong as usual.

What a blowhard.

[Stew Padasso]

It is probably a little more important to make the PR case and push for exploring oil right here in the US. I don't see how, in these times, we should be giving these government employees at NASA a blank check to look at and collect rocks.

[repentant_pundit]

Yes, shut down all public federal funding for the space program, and for all other programs that are not related to defense, law enforcement, the judiciary, interstate transportation, elections, and other essential public services.

Put NASA's equipment, and possibly their personnnel's services, up for bids. Let the free market take it wherever it can go. We agree on Klintoon's International space station - it's a waste. But some government employees who are making their living off it would disagree. Let those employees offer their services to private industry - if there's a market for them. They should do that not because it's easy - but because it's hard.

[chimera]

Wrong as usual.

What a blowhard.

Ohhhhh! Ouch! That was just so clever and cutting. I'm so humiliated...

*yawn*

[repentant_pundit]

Maybe you missed the point; I don't believe in taking tax money for my venture. I'm looking for voluntary donors, be they individuals or organizations. I believe that without big government spending, government and taxes will become small enough that individuals will have the money to donate to causes of their choice.

Just because elected representatives keep getting elected after throwing our public money around doesn't make it right.

[chimera]

But you are willing to take tax money for "your" ventures. You dressed them up with the pretty word "essential" services, but that could very well be "essential" as you see it. Or as you are willing to lobby your elected representatives to see it. Or as perhaps they (your representatives) see it themselves. Just because you are willing to throw around taxpayers dollars to fund what are in your opinion essential services, or your representatives are willing to spend money on them because maybe doing so helps them get elected, doesn't make it right.

[repentant_pundit]

No, I am NOT willing to take tax money for my hypothetical voyage to the bottom of the sea, nor did I ever imply it. When I wrote We as a nation will stagnate without such voyages; we must maintain a sense of reaching beyond ourselves. There are some things you shouldn't put a price tag on, although I'm happy to send you the bill for it, I was NOT asking for tax money...I was addressing prospective private donors and private investors.

Examples of essential services are things that only government can handle: defense, law enforcement, the judiciary, interstate highways, elections.

[chimera]

Going back to your post 54, your objection was the expenditure by the government of your tax dollars to do something you didn't like the government doing. Well, as I've said all along, BFD. Almost anyone can make that argument about almost anything the government does.

You're also being selective and logically inconsistent by insisting that those things you think the government should be doing are perfectly fine for your tax dollars. You listed a few. But, using the same logic (private vs. public expenditures), the same arguments apply. Unhappy with your tax dollars spent on the military? Well, sure, get the government out of that, too. Turn it over to private enterprise. There are mercenaries out there who will fight for you. Free up those tax dollars to contribute to individuals or private militias who will provide you with security for you and your family. Highways? Hell, yes. Grab a shovel and start digging, tough guy. Or save those tax dollars and build your own toll roads. You may have to pay a dozen or so tolls just to get to work everyday, or when you go to the grocery, but, hey, that's private business and the government shouldn't be in it. Flight control? Damn straight. Save those tax dollars going to the FAA. You and your neighbors can set up a radar station in your backyard to guide those planes through your airspace. Hey, it's private business, and I don't seem one damn word in the Constitution about the government's function being to operate radar stations.

Not gonna happen? Unworkable, you say? Very likely correct. Why? Well, you know the answer to that as well as I do. It's because those things either never would get done, or, if they did, they would be incredibly costly, wasteful, and inefficient if attempted in that way. There would be a plethora of agencies and institutions of incredible unwieldiness and complexity, for no good reason. There are somethings that are in the national interest that are best accomplished using a unified approach, wherein resources and capabilities can be pooled and managed to achieve the desired goal. That may require expenditure of taxpayer funds, and objecting to it simply on that basis is an ill-considered and shortsighted approach.

So, a national policy is needed, for these and other things. People have correctly concluded that a long-term program of exploration and development, perhaps having a payoff not realizable for decades or centuries, is something that is unlikely to be pursued strictly by for-profit, private enterprise, where the focus seems to be, more and more, on short-term gain and immediate, complete satisfaction and payoff. Further, those benefits may be of such a broad-based and beneficial nature that they could or should not fall within the exclusive control of private business, but perhaps some public oversight is appropriate and legitimate. Thus, it is correctly considered to fall within the legitimate purview of federal endeavor. The system allows for your input on that, but to dismiss such programs and initiatives on the basis of it involving expenditure of public funds leads you down a path you may not wish to go.

[repentant_pundit]

You're also being selective and logically inconsistent by insisting that those things you think the government should be doing are perfectly fine for your tax dollars.

YES, chimera, I am being selective with the list of essential federal government services - and so should Uncle Sam! It is not an arbitrary (you may want to look that up at Dictionary.com) list.

Defense, law enforcement, the judiciary, and elections are on the list because they must be performed per the Constitution and for obvious public safety reasons. Interstate highways are on the list because they are essential for the transportation of goods and people, essential for economic activity. And as you pointed out, air traffic control is another service that must be performed cooperatively by a single authority for reasons of public safety, so it is naturally a government function.

In contrast, space exploration and yes, even my undersea adventure, are non-essential. NASA may have helped you in your personal quest to ascend the pillars of sunlight, to realize and understand in an intimate and lasting way who we are as a people, and where we may be going as an intelligent species, but still, it is not an essential function of goverment. Maybe space exploration will "never get done" unless a government does it, but that's the breaks.

...a national policy is needed

I agree. The national policy should be to get the federal government out of all nonessential activities not specified in the Constitution.

to dismiss such programs and initiatives on the basis of it involving expenditure of public funds leads you down a path you may not wish to go.

I'm happy to go down this path...you may learn something.

Have you tried meditation ? I hear that it's great for ascending pillars of sunlight, and it costs you nothing but time.

[Kevin Curry]

Mr. Bush...how about you announce a plan to create jobs for Americans, to help us earn enough to actually pay our bills?

Why don't you start a business and create a few jobs yourself? The tax breaks for small businesses are still very decent.

People who are always looking for sugar daddy government to take care of them on the taxpayer dime are Democrats in substance if not in form.