Bush Space Plan

Just a couple of numbers that I'm sure your not aware of, the US Army stands at a magnificant 250,000(approx.) with nuclear weapons etc. The Korean Army stands at over 1 MILLION troops etc. seems to me that the US Army would be out numbered if they decided to take on Korea (though I doubt Bush would take on Korea since they supposedly have nuclear weapons)
Click to expand...

And that might have mattered in 1940... (G) War isn't won through amount of soldiers anymore - the United States outclasses North Korea technologically by several orders of magnitude. Look at the first Gulf War - Iraq was supposed to have the third largest army in the world... and the war ended very quickly with very limited American casualties because 'largest army in the world' meant they'd given everyone a stick and told them to sit in holes in the desert (G)

(From a straight out war sense, Korean nuclear weapons do not threaten the United States - Korea does not have ICBMs capable of firing nuclear weapons at the US. They can attack South Korea or Japan - which is why theoretical US/N. Korean conflicts generally involve a pre-emptive strike on the part of the Japanese...)
 
Do you mean a pre-emptive stike on Japan, or by Japan, because the last time I checked, I didn't think Japan had much of a military to begin with.

Also, from a few messages back, what was that about N. Korea selling China fissile material? Why would they need it, they already have there own nukes?
 
TC said:
This time you can go beat China instead of the USSR... it'll be fun
Click to expand...

I'm curious who's going to get to Mars first. China has expressed a serious interest in landing a man on the moon within the next 10-15 years, and a man on Mars by 2030. Their space program has caught up to an extremely advanced level within a short amount of time and China is much more motivated to get into space than the US seems to be.
 
I'm curious who's going to get to Mars first. China has expressed a serious interest in landing a man on the moon within the next 10-15 years, and a man on Mars by 2030. Their space program has caught up to an extremely advanced level within a short amount of time and China is much more motivated to get into space than the US seems to be.
Click to expand...

The prevailing opinion seems to be that the Chinese program has some serious issues to deal with - they were happy to promote a very impossible space program before Shenzou 5... and now they don't plan to try and put another man in space until 2005 or 2006.
 
Never under estimate the japanese. back in WWII before parl harbor we thought that they were not a serious enough threat, and were inferior to us in the technology department. When they invaded china they used outdated biplanes and other various WWI aircraft so when we heard those reports we ASSUMED the japanese a weaker military.

I could see a new space race with the chinese happening and for the same reason why it happened with the ussr. tactical superiority
 
The Japanese maintain a military - they just have a self-imposed legal mandate not to use it for anything but their own defense. They're *very* cautious about the North Korea situation, though, and if a major war were to develop there you can bet they'd be the first to respond.
 
although it is a self imposed mandate for self defence purposes that can change, at one time battleships were supposed to be built within certain size & specs. and if I recall correctly I remember 2 countries that ignored those requirements. not to mention both conuntries violated human rights, and performed genocide on a grand scale, but one is in denial of its actions and is trying to forget that it ever happened... guess whos in denial?

Of corse they would be the first to respond. expecially if its Korea, they both are also competitors in electronic technology exportation, abd if times were real tough or just to be bad sports either side could start a conflict
 
There exists an often-quoted figure that states that the USA spends as much money on its military as the rest of the "developed" nations combined. One must ask the question of why, then, the US military's combat power does not scale in proportion to its funding. Why, with such a vastly expensive military, do we have far less combat power per dollar than other nations have achieved, and what can we do to narrow this gap? I do not argue that the USA needs to reduce its combat power, but rather that there exists gross inefficiency (e.g. pork barrel industrial contracts) in the allocation of funds within the Department of Defense.
 
Back to the topic at hand (the proposed space plan): where are they (US government) going to get the money from? I read the speech, but pardon me for saying this...$11 billion does not make a lunar staging base. Heck, it's going to take more than $80 billion to rebuild one country! The US is severely in debt, there have been several tax cuts which doesn't help the debt all that much, and Bush is planning for a lunar base in 16 years? Getting to the moon is one thing (and I don't think that researching the technologies, producing the technologies, testing the new technologies would take more than 2 presidential terms)...but setting up a lunar base that would take 4 presidential terms to complete (replete with policy changes) has about the same chance as humans settling their differences with just an apology.

I hate to be the nay-sayer here, I mean, I would love it if space exploration were a high priority in the government, but there are more important matters to attend to Earth-bound. 16 years is not that long a time...but when you factor in president changes, cabinet changes, policy shifts, and the like, then the endeavor becomes a herculean feat. If the US government can maintain its position on this, it might have a chance of working (let's just assume that they find the money to fund this whole thing to simplify this)...but such cohesion in policies rarely occurs after a change in the power-structure of a nation.

But, we can only hope.
 
Ein-7919 said:
I hate to be the nay-sayer here, I mean, I would love it if space exploration were a high priority in the government, but there are more important matters to attend to Earth-bound.
Click to expand...

Like . . . slave reparations? :(
 
psych said:
Like . . . slave reparations? :(
Click to expand...

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of health care services, paying the nation's bills for the recent war, paying the bills for national security programs, education programs, and rebuilding the economy. Those are just a few things that should be resolved before looking to further explore space with manned missions to mars or setting up a lunar base. On the other hand, if the US government were to actually fix all of those things before looking towards manned space exploration, then we'd never get to mars or put a base on the moon. All I'm saying is that there will be a cabinet (or cabinets) that will feel that manned space exploration (Mars missions) is either unfeasible (with the technology that we have/will have in the next 16 years) or just impractical.

And slave reparations do not factor into what I would consider the national debt (I haven't even heard of such a thing until I read your first post on this thread psych).
 
I see your understanding, but your main point is that you do not support going to space.

Roger that.
 
Yeah, the one billion USD coming from outside of NASA is going to make soooo much of a difference in a national budget running at well over one and a half trillion USD, at least a third of which is spent on social programs (IIRC on the values)...
 
Ideally, space exploration would be privately funded. But that's simply not possible right now, for several reasons. For once, it's not profitable. Another thing is that the technology involved is restricted and highly secret because has non-civil uses.

It’s bad to spend a lot of public money. But even tough it’s expensive, it’s less likely to make the government much bigger. Besides, relatively speaking, it shouldn't be that much.
 
Actually Death, to quote myself here:

Ein-7919 said:
I read the speech, but pardon me for saying this...$11 billion does not make a lunar staging base. Heck, it's going to take more than $80 billion to rebuild one country!
Click to expand...

Something tells me that a lunar base will cost a whole lot more than just $11 billion ($12 billion including the amount not being re-allocated from within the NASA 5-year budget). Whenever the government gives a quote as to how much project 'x' is going to cost, they always always always start to blossom out of control. If somebody can pinpoint a government project that has been completed on time AND within the initial allocated budget I will recant my 2 posts nay-saying the US's ability to building a staging facility on the moon in 16 years...but until then, I do not think that it will be done. I would like it to be so, but I'm just too much of a cynic to believe otherwise at this time.

And Psych, my other 2 posts do not indicate that I am opposed to the exploration of space...I'm somewhat opposed to the manned exploration of space in that it detracts from more immediate issues.

-----Moving over to a somewhat different branch here------

I just took a slightly more careful look at that original article. I seem to have been under the impression that the US would construct a lunar base by 2020. But, I was mistaken. In the speech Bush states that we (the US space program) will make a return to the moon by 2020...but not necessarily in the form of a lunar base. Shame on you all for letting me get away with my original statements (which based on wrong assumptions and interpretations) for so long. :D

So as of right now, I will retract all my nay-saying about how puting a base on the moon will take $12+ billion because that is not even the issue. $12 billion for finishing the ISS, R&D for the CEV, and returning to the moon are completely feasible (especially if it's going to be within the next 16 years). So, HOORAY! I was wrong, and we're going back to the moon! Cheese and crackers for everybody!
 
Well, these dollar figures are just starting funding. One of two things will happen. Either this whole idea will be quietly dropped come November 10, 2004, or else we'll make so much progress that Congress will throw more money at it, like they do for all those other projects that never come in under budget.

I think the most exciting thing about this whole effort is that it will apparently pull in the contributions of the Defense Department. It seems pretty clear to me that Rummy wants to preemptively conquer the Moon before the Chinese get a chance. That will justify any expenditure necessary. They're just keeping it small until after Election Day.

The alternative is that this is just a cynical electioneering ploy. For that reason, it's not going to affect my vote, but it'd be nice if it comes true.
 
Delance said:
Ideally, space exploration would be privately funded.
Click to expand...

Totally. That is the ideal situation. However, I don't see it as being so non-profitable. I mean, if Dr. Peter Diamandis is willing to toss $10 million to the first team of people to send a manned ship 62.5 miles above the surface, I'm sure there's plenty more money to throw around. Once private industries start building space craft capable of orbit and prolonged space flight, the money will come pouring in.

Speaking of Dr. Diamandis and the X Prize, did you guys know that one of the guys who created Doom is heading up one of the teams competing for the ten mil? He's working on a space rocket/capsule called "Armadillo."

It's pretty interesting, although it seems everyone's money is on White Knight + Spaceship One.

As far as a lot the technology being super-secret and the such... true. A lot of the tech that send our stuff into space is from defense initiatives. However, I don't see any reason the top thinkers at aerospace companies can't come up with their own technologies.

I think the largest contributor to the stagnation in space travel and exploration is that nobody wants to take the risks involved. It is a huge gamble but one I'd be willing to make. If I had the millions to throw around, I would definitely spend every bit of it getting myself into space!
 
Ein-7919 said:
And Psych, my other 2 posts do not indicate that I am opposed to the exploration of space...I'm somewhat opposed to the manned exploration of space in that it detracts from more immediate issues.
Click to expand...

That is what is referred to as a "politicians nay-say". The usual "I really want to support it but I can't". I see it all the time in political statements.

But while the space funding continues, I would suggest you check out a Reparations site , I'm sure you'll find yet another reason to not support the NASA space budget :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top