No less an expert on fiscal responsibility than Treasury Secretary (and former railroad baron) John Snow did the chat shows on Sunday to push the notion that a new, bold moon and Mars initiative would not be too expensive of an undertaking. The story notes that a similar plan proposed by G.H.W. Bush (but without a moon base) would have cost $400-500 billion in 1989 dollars.

Is this a good idea? I've always been a sucker for space -- I still remember writing away to NASA when I was in grade school in order to get the plans and documents about what was then the upcoming "reusable supersonic transport vehicle" shuttle program. (The shuttle "Enterprise" had successfully landed as a glider at that point, but Columbia had yet to lift off.) I did my independent project that year -- a slideshow, I think -- on the futuristic shuttle program.

Dennis Kucinch had the best laugh line on the matter during Sunday's otherwise forgettable Democratic debate, in which he said that perhaps Bush wanted to go to the moon to look for WMD.

As much as it pains me, my thought is that the space money might just be more effectively...and still interestingly...spent on some high-tech iniatives that will do people here on Earth some good. Why not get excited about a new generation of local transportation -- high-speed rail, regional hubs, light-rail for urban traffic control? Why not subsidize hybrid-electric vehicle development or large-scale solar power? Not to mention money for medical research, prosthetics breakthroughs, computer modeling, port security, worker retraining and perhaps a few bucks for additional meat inspectors.

Oh...and flying cars. Where are the flying cars?!

Isn't another moon shot the disposable-income equivalent of a plasma TV -- something you treat yourself to when you've got money in the bank after you've paid the car note, mortgage and your IRA contributions?

Previous Comments

ID

136953

Comment

I too am a HUGE Space/NASA Fan.. People have forgotten how many daily miracles have trickled down from the race to the moonÖ From your laptop to medical machines to sneakers.. ñ NASA is damn worth the investmentÖ What a WONDERFUL source of national pride! True & magical & innocentÖ & better to fire moon rockets than bombs, yes? &, it will, one day ñ be humanityís only place left to go. UP. And NASA Badly needs the direction.. I keep hearing ìHow are we going to pay for this?î Who Cares. But again, - the pay off is incalculable. BUT, - How boutí we cut off the BILLIONS we give Isreal every year? ìooooooooh but theyíre Godís children! We have to help them. Theyíre our Ally!î Yeah, and thatís paid off real well hasnít it? Whatever. OK, Egypt. We give them just about as much aid as we do IsraelÖ We give out how much foreign aid every day? And yet NASA is under funded? Iíve never gotten that. And unlike most our foreign aid, - NASA ñ Pays back in FULL, & then some. & thatís my 2 cents Philip Scarborough Jackson, MS

Author

phsjr1

Date

2004-01-14T18:39:14-06:00

ID

136954

Comment

Philip, I think you may have misunderstood Todd's original post. It was more of a criticism of the current space initiative and potential alternatives for the proposed budget buster. I too love the satellite photos from deep space and of deep space. I enjoy the newest photos from Mars as well. It's nice having electronic confirmation that other worlds (not inhabited) exist beyond our wildest imaginations... But... I'd personally like to see the money devoted to NASA spent in a better manner on Earth. I don't see what a trip to the moon will benefit me or our civilization (especially if it's more of a pissing contest among nations). I can, however, see where a technology development center (devoted to expanding our technological horizons) would benefit our society... I can also see where using that same moon money could benefit preserving our endangered park system and natural resources... As well, I can see where spending billions more on prevention and cures for cancer, AIDS/HIV, diabetes, sickle cell, and so forth would benefit my society. As Todd noted, I'd love to see efficient and Earth-friendly automobiles and mass transit especially in cities like Los Angeles, NYC, Seattle, Chicago, Atlanta, Miami and San Francisco. On a side note, I think most of the technological advances you've noted probably came more from military funding and the war machne in general than moon trips or buckets of steel being sent into outer space; but, I could be wrong... Further, most scientists and probably many more NASA employees might suggest most "space" research can be duplicated here on Earth. It might not be the same costly venture but the results yielded are often the same.

Author

kaust

Date

2004-01-14T19:48:12-06:00

ID

136955

Comment

you're uniformed about the trickle down advance from NASA. My grandfather worked for NASA, I grew up hearing it... all the things you want to see - will come from discoveries we make from space travel. again though. why can't we have both? end all foriegn aid. spend our monte on americans

Author

phsjr1

Date

2004-01-14T20:05:44-06:00

ID

136956

Comment

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/technologies/spinoffs.html

Author

phsjr1

Date

2004-01-15T01:00:24-06:00

ID

136957

Comment

I'm a big fan of the space programs. I think we should always have some big project going on at NASA. My daughters are fascinated by the Mars landing that's happening now, and if that leads them to careers in science or engineering or philosophy, that'd be way cool. The space projects really do inspire generations of kids to dream about adventure and exploration and to ponder their place in the universe. Think tanks are all well and good, but you gotta have a goal. I'd rather spend a few billon on NASA than on certain other projects - and I bet more than 6 senators would show up for the vote.

Author

kate

Date

2004-01-15T13:06:19-06:00

ID

136958

Comment

Amen Kate. I get goose bumps thinking about the technology that will be developed in the next 30 years because if this - will change the world. Better solar panel technology. (Solar cars that actually work) Alternative flues. Medical discoveries, Communications, - bla bla bla The list is infinite.. I don't care what people say, - I'm very excited about it ...

Author

phsjr1

Date

2004-01-15T13:51:35-06:00

ID

136959

Comment

I love space stuff like you all do (EAGERLY I await the latest news of extrasolar planets that are to be discovered, and i even made up an artificial Jupiter-like system that can harbor life --- space geek to the core ) Even though in the VERY VERY long term humanity MUST move on to the Mars, and even the stars, I still have some serious reservations about these ambitious plans. Firstly, it should be an international effort like the space station, not an "America Only" effort. Not the least of the reasons is that spreading the expenses among other nations relieves us of the burdens. Secondly, the technology phsjr refered to was developed on earth for the space program...note well that ON EARTH is the operative phrase. That means a space effort is not necessary to develop this technology - it can very likely be done on earth. Even if by chance it cannot be done on earth, why can't we simply manufacture those panels on a beefed up version of the Int'l Space Station? Thirdly are the expenses involved. How is the program going to pay for itself? If you really want to go all out and colonize the moon and Mars, there has to be some semblance of a functioning ecosystem , which involves bringing in far too many biological forms to mention in this post. Suffice to say that we will need this AND a manufacturing base for all kinds of things we take for granted if we want to have healthy colonists (unless you are prepared to see them living under what are effectively 19th century medical technology). Me? I say we probably need lots of advances in artificial intelligence before we can really make colonization practical, since they don't require a healthy ecosystem to function and can likely produce most of the things we take for granted here on earth.

Author

Philip

Date

2004-01-17T18:22:16-06:00

ID

136960

Comment

>Firstly, it should be an international effort like the space station, >not an "America Only" effort. >Not the least of the reasons is that spreading the expenses among other nations relieves us of the burdens. I think it should most definitely be ONLY AMERICAN - We give enough away as it is. For instance - China now has a space program because of Clinton sharing with them so many secrets. >Secondly, the technology phsjr refered to was developed on earth for the space program... >note well that ON EARTH is the operative phrase. That means a space effort is not necessary >to develop this technology - it can very likely be done on earth. Even if by chance it cannot be >done on earth, why can't we simply manufacture those panels on a beefed up version of the Int'l Space Station? Dude, WE HAVE TO EXPLORE. - HUMANS *HAVE* TO GO. And that's all there is to it. >Thirdly are the expenses involved. How is the program going to pay for itself? How can they not. To ask that question is asinine. Think of all the ways America WASTE it's money... and yet most of the pansies complaining about the space initiative (mainly because, I feel, - they just don't want to support Bush) don't care how much America waste in other areas, - like say - Supporting Israel.... - though i'm sure there allot of other even wasteful areas of spending out there... If there's any thing that is NOT getting enough funding - It's NASA. You can spend your life making up excuses as to why you can't & shouldn't do it - Or you can just do it they went to the freakin moon 30 years ago! and look at the technology they had to work with compared to now, & we have 30 years of more experience. We should go, as soon as possible. & ONLY Americans. (Americans of all nationalities of course)

Author

phsjr1

Date

2004-01-17T18:41:32-06:00

ID

136961

Comment

phsjr: I think it should most definitely be ONLY AMERICAN - We give enough away as it is. For instance - China now has a space program because of Clinton sharing with them so many secrets. Philip: What does giving away stuff have to do with a Mars mission needing to be an American Only effort? Beyond this, a mission like this is going to take the absolute best that humanity has to offer. Why exclude 95% of the human race from the effort. Seems to me that will severely reduce the pool of people competent to explore. In fact, I think thatís the reason the ìCreative Classî centers (see other posts) are prospering in the first place ñ they donít care how far away from the definition of ìnormal personî a person is; the only thing that matters to such communities is ìcan he or she do the job?î Excluding 95% of the human race from the pool is a pretty good way to reduce the potential of the future mission, I would think. phsjr: Dude, WE HAVE TO EXPLORE. - HUMANS *HAVE* TO GO. And that's all there is to it. Philip: As I said, in the VERY long run we will have to, but that doesnít mean we need to rush it, though I think the 2030 date for the mission is fairly reasonable. The manufacturing of such photoelectric cells in space (if necessary) will be much cheaper than manufacturing them even half way to the moon. Itís just plain economic sense. If space can be used for practical manufacturing (and I believe eventually it will be so, though just when it can be IS debatable), then it has to be economical. All Iím saying is ìdonít manufacture things in space unless you absolutely have toî. As for the mission to Mars, I think the 2030 date for the mission is fairly reasonable but I want it to be as safe as humanly possible. If the astronauts die on the mission, thatís a pretty convincing way to say ìall the space money went down the drainî. Read the Six Sigma book about the quality control program pioneered by Motorola; they say high quality is cheaper in the long run. What that means is that since the potential threats to human lives are high, then we have to ensure the astronauts on the mission lasting at least 2 years will be as safe as possible ñ not the least of which is their physical fitness to return to Earthís gravity after a year or two cooped up in zero Gís, the highest quality of medical care available for them whenever (inevitably) one of them falls ill for one reason or another, the psychologies of isolation far from home (Antarctic stations provide a reasonable proxy) ñ and (which I have yet to hear about in depth) studies of how zero gravity can affect the brain chemistry (which I would say is pretty vital for the operation of a starship). All Iím saying is that we shouldnít rush things too quickly. Thereís still lots we donít know. (continued)

Author

Philip

Date

2004-01-17T19:14:05-06:00

ID

136962

Comment

phsjr: How can they not. To ask that question is asinine. Think of all the ways America WASTE it's money... and yet most of the pansies complaining about the space initiative (mainly because, I feel, - they just don't want to support Bush) don't care how much America waste in other areas, - like say - Supporting Israel.... -though i'm sure there allot of other even wasteful areas of spending out there...If there's any thing that is NOT getting enough funding - It's NASA. You can spend your life making up excuses as to why you can't & shouldn't do it - Or you can just do itî Philip: All I see here is ad hominem attacks against my courage, intelligence, and perhaps my manliness as well. Iím far from a Bush hater, as any regular on this blog can tell you. Thereís a big difference between courage and stupidity. Itís courageous to dare to dream big and act on those dreams in an efficiently technical manner ñ itís foolish to take chances with others lives that donít need to be taken (not that I think we can reduce ALL space travel risk, but even so, we owe it to those astronauts to be as duly diligent as possible about protecting them). phsjr: They went to the freakin moon 30 years ago! and look at the technology they had to work with compared to now, & we have 30 years of more experience.î Philip: Again the technology that took Armstrong, Aldrin, etc. to the moon was developed ON EARTH, not in space. phsjr: We should go, as soon as possible. & ONLY Americans. (Americans of all nationalities of course) Philip: Again, excluding 95% of the worlds population is, I think, needlessly constraining vitally needed talent for the Mars mission, for reasons I gave above.

Author

Philip

Date

2004-01-17T19:26:14-06:00

ID

136963

Comment

Stepping back from the conversation now - I think we agree on allot. ... I was mainly just Ranting & - hadn't had a cigarette all day... In the end, I'm sure NASA will do it the most efficient cost effective, - and most importantly most politically correct there is. The end ;-)

Author

phsjr1

Date

2004-01-17T19:45:05-06:00

ID

136964

Comment

phsjr1, thank you for the well informed posts - I also familiar with NASA and the payback to the public is definitely there - however, while NASA has a long way to go to becoming cost efficient, the politically correct part they have down pat already (let me know if you want a copy of the lastest Spinoff magazine) there will be some disappointments along the way, and probably more tragedies like the two shuttle accidents and Apollo 1 - I would pray otherwise, but the odds are it will happen again - and a large part of it is not due to underfunding the agency (which is sadly true) but more to the sad state of the agency culture - it has largely turned into a political snakepit, the very antithesis of NASA in its glory days during the Apollo program -- decisions are made on the basis of politics as opposed to sound engineering this is not to say that money hasn't been wasted at NASA, millions of federal dollars have been thrown away on different programs, but the idea behind NASA and the drive of people to get out there and explore the unknown is a continuing inspiration - I hope that the moon and Mars programs get some young people excited about space again I hope I haven't said too much, but NASA is in a world of hurt right now and the propects don't look really good - I hope the Bush admin will give some firm guidance and clear solid goals for NASA's future

Author

Fielding

Date

2004-01-18T00:38:11-06:00

ID

136965

Comment

Todd, the local transportation alternatives you mention are great technologies, but no one in Mississippi will be interested in putting up the funding needed for it to happen - as an example, high speed rail costs up to $10 mil per mile for new construction - that's more of a fantasy for this state than moon colonization or a trip to Mars (if you're really interested, I can tell you even more on this issue) - at least the spinoff and tech transfer makes the space trips a better payoff there is funding in the omnibus approps bill for hybrid electric cars and the upcoming highway reauthorization will have authorizations for more studies to make the new transportation technologies closer to reality - but there's no reason why we can't have both more trips into space as well as better transportation - at any rate, I can be hopeful about this

Author

Fielding

Date

2004-01-18T00:49:15-06:00

ID

136966

Comment

Philip wrote: "All I see here is ad hominem attacks against my courage, intelligence, and perhaps my manliness as well." phsjr: Philip is right. Calling him "asinine" and a pansy is certainly ad hominem and inappropriate; thus, it violates our User Agreement. I won't delete this, being that he addressed the personal attacks on here, but I will delete any similar posts in the future.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2004-01-18T01:54:43-06:00

ID

136967

Comment

Now for Todd, " Why not get excited about a new generation of local transportation -- high-speed rail, regional hubs, light-rail for urban traffic control?" As much as I would love to see this, the problem is that no place in Mississippi has the critical mass of population to support it - barring excruciating amounts of taxation and debt. The only place in the metro I think where it would be even remotely profitable is County Line Road (Lord knows THEY need more traffic efficiency). Even then, it would require huge multistory parking garages in North Rankin and west of I-55 to hold the cars while their drivers ride the trains to Northpark and such. Think of it this way. I think a good proxy for measuring what Mississippi is capable of even in theory (and where it ought to be in practice) is to look at Iowa. *Both states have similar population *Both states have similar land area *hence, both states have similar population densities *Both have extensive land areas where primary industries are the lifeblood of their rural counties (farming for Iowa, farming and timber for Mississippi) *Both states have similar levels of urban development (Jackson and the Coast vs. Des Moines and the Quad Cities) *Both state's largest city / state capital are of similar size (both are even located fairly close to the geographic centers of their respective states). Now the question is "Can you see Iowa affording anything like a ligh rail system of any scale?". I truly do not think so. From what I understand, not even Nashville and Charlotte can afford them yet. The smallest city I know of that has one is St. Louis - and its the size of Memphis and New Orleans put together, and has a higher per capita income besides. So while a light rail is something to keep in mind for the very long term, we would do better to have Jackson on a light rail route connecting Texas and the Southeast.

Author

Philip

Date

2004-01-18T14:28:02-06:00

ID

136968

Comment

From what I gathered, Todd is not necessarily suggesting those initiatives for Jackson or Mississippi but the United States as a whole and I'm sure where needed most. But, I'm not Todd and that's my speculation... Still, if Bush, Inc were to turn those trillions of dollars over to the transit departments, for instance, high-speed or light trains could easily be conceivable as a nationwide or coast-to-coast method of transportation and would immediately start returning the investment. As well, if Bush, Inc were to trade a few trillion from NASA and focus it on the science needed for removing our need for fossil fuels, it would benefit our ecosystem as well as fund earth-based sciences and scientists... and we'd own the patents and gain economically. I still can't help but feel that this is all another distraction from the *REAL* issues such as (potential) global warming, stripped human and civil rights, horrible eco practices, a flaccid ecomomy, the war on terror, and the war in Iraq. Hell, the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism have landed us in a deficit nightmare and we're talking about spending trillions to visit a dusty rock with no visible gains or return investment in the near future? That makes no sense to me! If your stock broker suggested such a venture, would you turn your check over? I wouldn't but don't have a choice in this situation except my vote in 2004. The pictures from Mars are awe-inspiring but not worth a few trillion to me... I see more beauty and inspiration in Maplethorpe's tulips and orchids or Ansel Adams' landscapes -- that cost only a few dollars to produce and a bit of creativity--than any photo from Mars. But that's just me... Everyone has their own individual idea of beauty and purpose.

Author

kaust

Date

2004-01-18T18:50:35-06:00

ID

136969

Comment

Knol, I understand your point re Miss and high speed rail - the fact is that distances in the US are so great that the only place in the US where it comes close to breaking even is in the NE US - there they have the appropriate population density and linear configuration to make it worthwhile - and it isn't breaking even there as it is... there are things such as fuel efficiency and safety (compared to highway travel) that recommend rail, but air travel is cheaper and safer - and a good deal faster - moreover, it will take a tremendous cultural change before the average american gives up his auto - it would be more cost effective to make the auto more efficient and safer in order to be a better investment, I think the space program could use more input and involvement from the private/commercial sector of the economy - that will be a better route to the stars - NASA should be primarily focused more on what is more capable at - a R & D agency that provides the science that will assist the private sector to get into space

Author

Fielding

Date

2004-01-18T21:24:26-06:00

ID

136970

Comment

For those Apple addicts on the blogs, here's an interesting freeware program designed by NASAís Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) that allows end-users to view and process Spirit's images from Mars. If youíre marveling over the incredibly detailed pictures of Mars sent back to Earth by Spirit, the Mars Exploration Rover, prepare to be blown away by what you can do with these images right on your own Mac. All you need is Maestro, a scientific visualization tool created by the scientists at NASAís Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) to work with the rovers Spirit and Opportunity. During the 2004 Mars Exploration Rover Mission, you can download a free copy of Maestro for Mac OS X from NASA JPL that allows you to see Mars in ways youíve never imagined. ìItís actually the same software that the scientists use to view downlink data and to plan Rover activities from day to day,î says Gene Chalfant, technical staff member at NASA JPL. For at least 12 weeks starting in early January, JPL will provide fresh sets of image data once per week that you can download and view using Maestro as your window into a new world. Itís an unprecedented way to track and watch as scientists attempt to unearth (or should that be ìunmarsî?) some of the planetís hidden secrets. ìItís kind of a sandbox for people to play in,î Chalfant says. ìThe visualization builds a 3-D model you can spin around and look at.î Thought I'd share... Not sure if there's a Micro$oft or Linux version. Full story with download info...

Author

kaust

Date

2004-01-19T11:49:33-06:00