Space Shuttle a mistake ...

[newfant]

... but sending people to the moon again is not.

[ QUOTE ]
The shuttle has cost the lives of 14 astronauts since the first flight in 1982. Roger Pielke Jr., a space policy expert at the University of Colorado, estimates that NASA has spent about $150 billion on the program since its inception in 1971. The total cost of the space station by the time it's finished — in 2010 or later — may exceed $100 billion, though other nations will bear some of that.

Only now is the nation's space program getting back on track, Griffin said. He announced last week that NASA aims to send astronauts back to the moon in 2018 in a spacecraft that would look like the Apollo capsule.

The goal of returning Americans to the moon was laid out by President Bush in 2004, before Griffin took the top job at NASA. Bush also said the shuttle would be retired in 2010.


[/ QUOTE ]

Bush thinks he's Kennedy

Thank God Bush doesn't try to micromanage very often, because he makes ridiculous, non-sensical decisions when he does.

[bobman0330]

Umm, do you have an argument, or evidence, or anything?

Your points:
-NASA feels SS path was a mistake.
-Bush feels SS path was a mistake.
-Bush launches initiative to move away from SS path.

Your conclusion:
-Bush is bad.

[newfant]

[ QUOTE ]
Umm, do you have an argument, or evidence, or anything?

Your points:
-NASA feels SS path was a mistake.
-Bush feels SS path was a mistake.
-Bush launches initiative to move away from SS path.

Your conclusion:
-Bush is bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll ... try ... to ... speak ...slowly ...so ... that ... you ... will ... understand:

Bush thinks the space shuttle program is bad because too many people died in space. His solution: send more people into space, but this time send them to the moon. Classic Smirky logic.

My argument doesn't even touch on the fact that Bush has given no reason why we should spend money to go to the moon again.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Bush thinks the space shuttle program is bad because too many people died in space. His solution: send more people into space, but this time send them to the moon. Classic Smirky logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Too many" is a concept that only has meaning in relation to a goal. "Too many people to thoroughly explore low-earth orbit" is different from "too many people to send human beings to other planets."

This may be the time for you to start touching on those other points...

[newfant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Bush thinks the space shuttle program is bad because too many people died in space. His solution: send more people into space, but this time send them to the moon. Classic Smirky logic.

[/ QUOTE ]


"Too many" is a concept that only has meaning in relation to a goal. "Too many people to thoroughly explore low-earth orbit" is different from "too many people to send human beings to other planets."

This may be the time for you to start touching on those other points

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, I know you are a Republican, but the moon is not a "planet."

Second of all, even though Bush doesn't care about costs, most Americans do. I'd like to see a cost-benefit analyis. What benefits are we going to gain from further manned moon exploration and what are we going to pay for those benefits? Also, why are we sending people (which increases costs and results in American deaths) when we could be sending unmanned explorers? Maybe Chimpy thinks there are terrorists on the moon.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Umm, do you have an argument, or evidence, or anything?

Your points:
-NASA feels SS path was a mistake.
-Bush feels SS path was a mistake.
-Bush launches initiative to move away from SS path.

Your conclusion:
-Bush is bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll ... try ... to ... speak ...slowly ...so ... that ... you ... will ... understand:

Bush thinks the space shuttle program is bad because too many people died in space. His solution: send more people into space, but this time send them to the moon. Classic Smirky logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the goal is only to minimize casualties due to space exploration, then obviously the best solution is not to send people into space at all. Bush is working under the assumption that we will continue manned space exploration, which is, of course, a debatable policy. Given that assumption, however, canning the SS is the right decision, based in part that the SS is too complicated and unreliable. There is nothing illogical about that.

[ QUOTE ]

My argument doesn't even touch on the fact that Bush has given no reason why we should spend money to go to the moon again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. You can criticize Bush for supporting manned space exploration in the first place. If we are going to put people into space, getting rid of the Space Shuttle and developing a new launch vehicle optimized for that purpose is the right thing to do.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, I know you are a Republican, but the moon is not a "planet."

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought about putting an explanatory parenthetical in there, but I just assumed you'd realize that I was talking about Bush's long-term plan to send people to Mars and beyond. Oops.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see a cost-benefit analyis. What benefits are we going to gain from further manned moon exploration and what are we going to pay for those benefits? Also, why are we sending people (which increases costs and results in American deaths) when we could be sending unmanned explorers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh, I see you're taking my suggestion to develop this argument. Good choice. I'd like to see some numbers too. Certainly there's some value in developing the capability to send people to the moon and beyond in a more systematic method than we employed in Apollo. Sending actual people to Mars will allow us to do a lot more substantive science than taking pictures, which is more or less where we're stuck now.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe Chimpy thinks there are terrorists on the moon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, drop your pretentions and just start calling him "Doo-doo Head."

[Meech]

I think space exploration, return visits to the moon and real "hard science" are very worthy endeavours.

We got a lot more benefit from the space program than we have from the War on Drugs, The War on Iraq, and Homeland security combined.

[theweatherman]

last time i checked the moon was found to be a dead, dry waste land. Why go back? to collect more moon rocks? Going to the moon is pointless, unless it is a smaller goal on the way to mars. Then it might be worth some time and money. But just to go so Bush can say he did it is sooooooooooooo dumb words can barely describe.

[mmbt0ne]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
last time i checked the moon was found to be a dead, dry waste land. Why go back? to collect more moon rocks? Going to the moon is pointless, unless it is a smaller goal on the way to mars. Then it might be worth some time and money. But just to go so Bush can say he did it is sooooooooooooo dumb words can barely describe.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Last time we checked Mars was more or less a dry, dead land other than fossils and ancient water markings.