| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
U.S. eyes return to the moon | |
|
||
| Time: 15:47 EST/20:47 GMT | News Source: CNN | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
It has been 31 years since a U.S. astronaut last walked on the moon, but China's space ambitions have signaled a possible American return to the lunar surface as part of a renewed space program. Aides to U.S. President George W. Bush say he is on the verge of calling for a return to the moon as part of a dramatic new mission for NASA. Sources tell CNN the target for returning to the moon is about 15 years from now. But a lunar date is not yet embraced by a White House still debating key policy and multibillion dollar budget questions. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 159 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:58:16 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 12/6/2003 4:15:03 PM |
|
We don't want the Chinese to beat us to the moon!!!!
This President sure does have a preoccupation with frivously spending my money. |
| #2 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 12/6/2003 10:27:46 PM |
|
Ok, this one had me scratching my head as well. I'm still not sure what the exact motiviation is, but I've come up with a few. Not all of these are mutually exclusive and may be stacked:
1.) Beat the Chi-Coms... just because they're commies. If they beat us, then their government will be emboldened and the gradual shift away from Communism and towards Democracy and Capitalism may be reversed. Also, it'll keep them busy and not using all that missle technology that Bill Clinton sold them (see: Chinagate and Misslegate) against us and hopefully burn out their economy, forcing a collapse of the Party and a turn towards Democracy. It's a last-ditch dying effort for the Chi-Coms, it seems, and if we invest some money and help take it to the hole faster and harder, we'll be that much better off in a couple years. 2.) Make or break for NASA. NASA is a failure. It's too weak, too timid and blows whatever little chances it gets to redeem itself. So, NASA is soon scheduled for the scrap heap and all space aspirations the US had with it. So we either let it die painfully and quietly, or we give it a swift kick in the ass and give it a ridiculous goal so that maybe they'll return to greatness. It'll be interesting to see how well it does in our post-Liberalism world with ultra PC, super-powerful Unions, Mega-lawyer lawsuits, and, of course, whiney Democrats who'd rather be throwing our money away on enslaving more minorities with entitlements and buying more votes. 3.) Happy ending for Bush Administration '04. It'll be a good, happy, up-beat note to end his 2nd term on. While we wouldn't have reached the moon by '08, we would be pretty far along the road towards that goal. If Hillary runs in '08, then she can foobar it and all the blame will land on her. Or, it'll be a good running point for a Republican to actually get the job done right. (yes, I know JFK was a Democrat, but ont like the ones today. The Democrats of his time are more like the Republicans of our time. The Republican-style from back then is gone today) 4.) Another point to keep the Democrats off their guard. I mean, let's face it, the Democrat party is imploding. You have ultra liberals taking over the party and forcing out the good Democrats like Lieberman. If Dean takes over, Terry McCauliffe and therefore the Clinton Aristocracy is gone (as the Primary, Dean picks the DNC chair). If that happens, then most likely the Hollywood Liberals and more mainstream Democrats will probably side with Clinton and they may actually form a new party when Dean fails miserably in '04 just like McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis before him. So, if you were Bush, why not just do everything you can as a conserative to it's fullest and greatest potential and really show the company what worthless whining, unproductive fools the Liberals are and show how great this country and the world can be when you have a competent conservative running the show. The Democrats will no doubt launch a full-on barrage against the President for this which will most likely piss of the country even more than they have by their bashing of Bush on Iraq (note: Bush's approval rating is closing in on a high at 69%). Alternative, Bush could lose the gamble and the Democrats could support him on this like crazy (very unlikely, they're not that smart). Then, if it succeeds, they take all the credit, but if it fails, Bush gets to take all the blame. Likewise, Democrats get to capitalize on their support of the program and try to take steam away from the Republicans. That's what Clinton would do because he knew how to play the game. Unfortunately, none of the 10 Darwves knows how to play the game and they'll manage to bungle it. |
| #3 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 12/6/2003 10:32:19 PM |
|
#7: #1, you're exactly right. whatever happened to conservatives and fear of big government...
heh, there haven't been any true-blood conservatives in office since at least Reagan and you could argue he was the last one and even he was compromised in his limited government principles because of the soviet arms race. Conservatives do, however, make exceptions to limited government, as per the Constitution, that in matters of defense and national security, it's sometimes OK to spend lots of money. But the Constitution is no longer an active document. It's an ancient reference guide for the form of Socialist Republic we have today where the Founders' ideals of limited government and STRICTLY ENUMERATED POWERS are long gone and the Congress is free to just vote themselves and the people all the money out of the treasury. Bush is a mostly willing accomplice on this, however, his tactic is to risk and join the enemy and do big pieces of their agenda in order to take away their steam and expose them for the un-American partisan hacks that they are (voting against their own main platform agenda items just because a Republican proposed the bill, etc). If it ends up weakening the liberal attack on our country and ideals, then perhaps some larger entitlement programs are worth it. That's the thought, anyhow. |
| #4 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 12/7/2003 2:10:51 AM |
|
Perhaps the scientists, not the politicians, should be the ones chosing where we should go in space?
NASA isn't very interested in returning to the moon. They're recent focus has been on the International Space Station, whose entire purpose, at least internally at NASA, is to serve as both a training and launching point for Mars. Now, there are indeed some good reasons to return to the moon. It could host incredible long range telescopes that would make the Hubble look like a fancy pair eye glasses. (These telescopes would benefit from people being on the ground to set them up.) It could also serve as a fairly good training ground for the long term habitation of low gravity worlds. But the later of these two purposes is something that becomes interesting not for at least 100 years, if not more. For now, I would rather see NASA get funding for serious research and development for a manned mission to Mars. Why manned? Why risk people? Carl Sagan explains why manned space exploration is vital to humanity in his book, Pale Blue Dot. I highly recommend you all read it. While you're at it, read some of his other 27 books. (I've read 14... and every one of them has been wonderful.) |
| #5 By 8062 (68.107.9.245) at 12/7/2003 11:12:30 AM |
| This is nothing more than Carl Rove's politically redefining "Manifest Destiny", a term btw that Bush has no idea of its meaning. |
| #6 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 12/7/2003 11:53:49 AM |
|
#12 By Halcyon-X12
"China's space ambitions have signaled a possible American return to the lunar surface" China made their first moon landing and now USA is getting all antsy? Give me a break. It's not a race.... Oh wait (space race of the 50's :P) Grow up. Um... China hasn't yet landed on the moon, you know :) I forgot one other reason why we might be going: 5.) Huge boost in the arm for technology. Technology gains in many industries are slow-going right now. As in the 50's and 60's, a space race yeilds huge technology gains in a short period of time for relatively less dollars considering the amount put in and all the gains received. Spending billions and billions of dollars on research for space planes or elevators or even fighter jets or biotechnology just isn't feasible anymore. Spending billions and billions on a collection of technologies to reinviggorate the space race does, however. So it's a win-win for the most part. We know we can go to the moon, it's not an impossible challenge, so there's basically nothing to loose, and everything to gain. |
| #7 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 12/7/2003 11:57:22 AM |
|
#13 RMD:
For now, I would rather see NASA get funding for serious research and development for a manned mission to Mars. RMD, yeah, I mostly agree with your premise (that NASA should be thinking this stuff, not the White House or Congress or whatever), but the problem is is that NASA has become a political dumping ground for President after President. That's where they pull political favors for their less-favored friends... they just stick them in a high-level position in NASA. NASA is not anywhere near it's former greatness. So in that thought, there needs to be a complete redux of NASA. A huge enema to get it back on track and an agressive goal to keep it focused. I think the moon is probably the most achievable of these goals and Mars the most daring. If all these people are slamming on Bush for going to the moon again, think about them slamming on him for going to Mars :) Also, when is the 50th anniversary of the moon? Perhaps he's thinking of going back before or on that date to prove we're still at the same greatness we were in 1968 or 1969. |
| #8 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 12/7/2003 12:02:24 PM |
|
#11 Locke
According to you, the Democrats enact costly and destructive social programs to gain votes, and yet you've just said the Republicans are willing to support similar programs in order to gain a political advantage (which would no doubt lead to more votes). What's the difference and why is one better than the other? Very good questions. As I said before, the Republicans and Democrats are essentially shell parties that wrap around the same philosophy: Vote as much money from the treasury in return for votes as possible. They just have different tacts. The real debate is between conservatives and liberals. So conservatives like me aren't terribly happy with Bush, especially considering the medicare reforms and a few of his previous policies related to taking steam from the Democrats. Unfortunately, it's very seductive to think about the further weakening of Democrat power, so many conservatives, myself included at times, are lulled into the thought that "if we just do this one more thing, and sacrifice ourselves for this, we'll win and then we can undo it all". But any logical conservative knows that the size of government NEVER goes down, always up. So the real battle is just preventing the size from growing. We're horribly losing on this. It's a Clinton tactic to take away the thunder of your enemies. He did this with Welfare reform, and the joke that was Middle-class tax reform/cuts. But in the end, who really wins? If you try to subvert your enemy by giving them what they want, all you really do is give them what they want. While yes, the Democrats are severely weakened and they look like stupid clowns arguing against the policies they've been running on for 3 elections now, but still... |
| #9 By 143 (199.183.50.59) at 12/7/2003 12:23:29 PM |
|
Maybe they'll store nuclear waste on the moon instead of back yard???
|
| #10 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 12/7/2003 1:57:57 PM |
|
#21 - Why bother storing it on the moon when you could send it toward the Sun and forget about it?
We can't send nuclear waste into space for two reasons. First, it would be cost prohibitive. (Nuclear waste is really, really heavy... especially because of all the lead you need to incase it in.) Second, can you imagine a shuttle disaster when there is 5 tons of nuclear waste on board? It's just not an option. Don't get me wrong, transporting the waste all over the country and dumping it at Yucca mountain is also very dangerous, but it's the best option we have. You can read my analysis of the Yucca mountain project here: http://www.robertdowney.com/athought_yuccamoutain.html #17 - which Sagan books would you recommend first? Oh boy... you had to ask me that! :-) Some of my favorites include (in no particular order): 1.) The Demon Haunted World 2.) Dragons of Eden 3.) Broca's Brain 4.) Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors 5.) Pale Blue Dot 6.) Billions and Billions 7.) Cosmos 8.) Visions for the 21st Century 9.) Intelligent Life in the Universe 10.) The Cosmic Connection You really can't go wrong with a Sagan book. I guess it depends on what you're interested in. If you're interesting in evolution and biology, start with Dragons of Eden. If you're into space exploration, go for Pale Blue Dot. If you want an incredible summary of human knowledge, try Cosmos. (Or, even better, grab the DVDs... which rock.) If you hate superstition and "paranormal" baloney as much as I do, read The Demon Haunted World. In case you're interested, I wrote a short biography of Sagan a while back. Unfourtunalty, I didn't become interested in his life or his work until after he had died, which is too bad because I went to college less than 45 minutes from where he lived/worked. The bio can be found here: http://www.robertdowney.com/athought_carlsagan.html |
| #11 By 6859 (12.219.23.70) at 12/7/2003 4:38:05 PM |
| I cringe at the thought that you think Lieberman is 'good' Democrat, he's not. Although, you are correct that the Dems need to wake up and stop the insane ultra-lib slide, which I think will happen in a year or so--it's a pendulum swing kind of thing and it's due to return to center any time now (thankfully.) |
| #12 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 12/7/2003 7:02:59 PM |
|
Locke - Using the moon as a launching point to Mars was a trial balloon floated by Bush I. It failed to gain support in Congress because of the $400 billion price tag. (I regard any govt cost guess as being at least half the cost of the real price tag... figure $1 trillion minimum if we attempted this same program today. That cost probably also included the Mars mission, I'd have to look it up.
The International Space Station was the counter alternative, assuming that other countries like Russia, Japan, etc. would help pay for part of the cost. Part of the problem with using the moon is that there is a tremendous amount of energy required to land and relaunch... Using the space station as a stopping point saves a bit. Also, it's harder to land supply ships to the moon. Now using the moon would be a good idea, if there is some way we can pull energy from it. If we could harvest Hydrogen, Oxygen and other gases out of the soil. I've seen that suggested by some NASA scientists in the past. Another possibility comes up from beaming energy... i.e. big solar cells on the moon surface redirecting back to Earth the collected energy. Possible, but is it more cost effective than a space station platform? diapheneim - "I think spending money on the moon is of a lot more benefit to me than the socialist programs the democrats would have us spend it on." Yeah, it costs society less if we just let people die. Maybe we should bring back debtors prisons for people who have been laid off from work or can't afford to pay their bills. |
| #13 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 12/7/2003 7:18:13 PM |
|
daz - "It's a Clinton tactic to take away the thunder of your enemies. He did this with Welfare reform, and the joke that was Middle-class tax reform/cuts. But in the end, who really wins? If you try to subvert your enemy by giving them what they want, all you really do is give them what they want. While yes, the Democrats are severely weakened and they look like stupid clowns arguing against the policies they've been running on for 3 elections now, but still... "
I think it's funny to watch daz argue Politics. He doesn't have any understanding of the history, he doesn't even have a firm understanding of his own value system, or of the value system of those he claims to oppose. I keep wondering what purpose does he hope to gain by discrediting himself continuously with these long diatribes. Thanks for the laugh, daz! :) P.S. Look up Richard Nixon, 1972, Social Security on google. |
| #14 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 12/7/2003 8:03:26 PM |
|
Now my opinion...
I believe the exploration of space is vitally important. However I also think we have a large number of things to learn about how the universe operates before we can adequately explore our solar system. So this is all good, I think it's important, but I think it's a collosal waste of money which we can barely afford at this point in our history, and as such it gains us nothing. In 1962 when Kennedy announced that we would land a man on the moon and return him to Earth by the end of the decade, it was audacious. It gave a kickstart to our electronics industry, allowed for the creation of small computers, transformed into communication satellites and was a tremendous boost to our economy over the long term. The purpose of that audacious goal was not to create an economy. The audacious goal was suggested in part to halt the threat the Soviet Union was advancing of outdoing us in scientific endeavor. But it also had to do with National Pride. The US had come out of WW II smelling like a rose, we had the industrial capacity, we had the wealth, we had the opportunity to create a brighter future. The economy came as a side benefit of the mission. Kennedy had this to say at Rice University in 1962, "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." We choose to do this because it was hard. We choose to do this because we wanted to be better. It is for National Pride that China(and Japan, India, etc.) now focus on space. They have not been there, it is new territory for their scientists. They do this because they wish to be part of the club. Well why fight them on this? Why rub it in their faces? How does this benefit us? It's reactionary, it's the thinking of a coward showing fear who overreacts to an imagined threat. Let them do this, encourage them in their endeavors and ask them to be part of the International Space Station. Let them do their thing, let us do ours. I look at the US and the problems that we face today. Environmental pollution, middle-east turmoil, the emergence of technology as a predominant factor, and I say that what will benefit this nation and this world far more, is not a race to the moon, but a race to find a cheaper, cleaner source of energy. Whatever it is, it needs to be cheap, it needs to be clean, and it needs to be easily reproduceable so as to be transported to areas of this world who do not have access to electrical power today. I saw a recent article about a Japanese group, I believe it was led by Toshiba who had a Nuclear reactor design that they believed could be built for $20 million, would provide enough power to support a population of around 100,000, and would last for 20-30 years without much maintenance. It was also safe, in the event of a mechanical failure the whole system would shutdown. http://www.you.com.au/news/2200.htm What other answers are out there? What other solutions might there be? Why did a solution like this come from Japan and not the United States? If we're going to spend $1 trillion on an audacious goal, that is where the money should be directed. It has been the Democratic candidates who have talked about this issue. Do I bring up this issue because I support Democratic candidates? No. I support Democratic candidates because they bring up this issue. That is the difference between daz and I. I will be pleasantly surprised to see our Democratic plan for creating energy indepdence announced in Bush's State of the Union address in January, and I will work to hold him to it. |
| #15 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 12/7/2003 8:09:13 PM |
|
stubear - The problem of a Mars launch is one of the energy needed to exit the gravitational forces of Earth... that energy requirement impacts what the ship can carry on board for the journey.
I agree that the Moon would provide a better launching point as it doesn't take as much energy to leave it's gravitational field, and it would certainly be easier to build storage containment buildings there than on a station. But the problem there is bringing the supplies from the Earth to the Moon. Alternatively a better opportunity would be derived from being able to create the supplies that we need on the Moon. i.e. a moonbase which was self reliant. I've seen proposals for gas harvesters, solar collectors, etc. and yes, I agree if that can be made to work. That's what I was alluding to. Now if we could launch a vehicle into space without rocket fuel... i.e. an energy source which required low mass or did not deplete itself so rapidly, now that would be something. |
| #16 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 12/7/2003 9:01:24 PM |
|
The ISS is a great launching platform for a mission to Mars. The gravitational forces from Earth are not of concern once you get into orbit. No more than they are a concern as far as keeping IIS in orbit. A nudge every once in a while keeps us in place. You can also use Earth's gravity as an excellent slingshot to get a good boost on our way to Mars.
As far as getting to Mars, the most likely candidate at this point is a combination of an ion drive, fission reactor, and fuel cells. The ion drive is used for propulsion, where as the fission reactor and fuel cells are used for all other energy needs. Hopefully we'll have fusion working before we make the trek, because it will be far safer and more powerful. At any rate, the technology is available right now to go to Mars. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 159 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:58:16 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
