UPI Exclusive: Bush OKs new moon missions

Rand Simberg wrote:

On 22 Jan 2004 17:47:03 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(TKalbfus) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Then by what insane logic do you think that Bush II is doing it to
help him get reelected?


Here's a logical argument:

Axioms:
The public wants a Moon/Mars program.

There's little evidence of that.

Well try a bit of supposition.

1. A segment of the public wants a Moon/Mars program.

2. That segment is very interested in it and whether or not they get
what appears to be a start toward that goal affects their vote.

3. The rest of the public doesn't really care much either way, but
does feel that the money would be better spent on their own
projects.
However, they don't feel strongly about it so it doesn't have a
very
great affect on their vote.

This is not a new situation and does not apply only to a Moon/Mars
program.

However, I don't think it is quite up their with the George Bush
hyping of the economy to try to insure his re-election.

I don't believe that my logic is either insane or incorrect.

That doesn't mean it provides a correct answer. People aren't
always predictable and suppositions about what they really believe
frequently are not good.

Try to get into an argument with me on that kind of
wishy-washy premise.

Mike Walsh

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 02:24:16 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On 22 Jan 2004 17:47:03 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(TKalbfus) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Here's a logical argument:

Axioms:
The public wants a Moon/Mars program.

There's little evidence of that.

"I do" (calls out one little voice from the darkness)

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:49:41 -0600, "Jon Berndt"
wrote:

The American public doesn't seem to know what it wants, as a whole. I'm
beginning to think that, as a country, we are not capable of mounting a
mission of exploration -- even an "affordable" one -- outside of a
fear-driven race.

Maybe the correct answer is for your President to do this for reasons
known to him. When as you have said the collective masses have views
one way or the other, where even the majority view many not be
correct.

The media of course exploits that based upon the story that they are
trying to create.

In past centuries during the discovery of the new world and all that,
then the people (usually the monarchy) who paid for these missions did
not get the public view.

They simply liked the idea and paid for it, when had they asked the
commoners, then they more care about their turnips.

Since exploration is good for society, where the United States would
not exist without it, then having Moon missions sound good to me.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

"TKalbfus" wrote in message
...
Then by what insane logic do you think that Bush II is doing it to
help him get reelected?


Here's a logical argument:

Axioms:
The public wants a Moon/Mars program.

Well, so far that doesn't appear to be all that true.

I've been watching the local newspaper. Every letter to the editor that has
mentioned the new initative has come out against it or mocked it.

Today they ran a poll. Majority was against any plans for Mars or the Moon.
(though a larger majority did favor a continued presence in space.)

Seems the general consensus seemed to be, "we like space, but not that
much."

George Bush wants to be reelected

Conclusion:
Therefore George Bush promises a Moon/Mars mission to get reelected.

Axioms:
The public wants a Moon/Mars program.
George Bush wants to be reelected.

There's little evidence of that.


In that case then Bush doesn't propose a Moon/Mars mission. The initial
assumption is that George Bush did this to get reelected and is then going to
renege.

Now if what your saying is true, then why would George Bush announce it
without intending on fulfiling the promise, when the announcement itself would
not get him any votes? Either the public is for it or it is not.

Tom

What's bad is that, now that it's been said -- i.e. the vision is to go back
to the moon and on to Mars -- those who really have their heart set on this
will have much farther to "fall", should the cynics demolish the plan.

Jon

Whats important is to understand the motives of the cynics, they are not for
the US being first or foremost in space, instead they'd rather have some other
country do it. They are rooting for the other guy!

Tom

Today they ran a poll. Majority was against any plans for Mars or the Moon.
(though a larger majority did favor a continued presence in space.)


What question was asked? Was the question biased such as:

Do you want your government to spend $1 trillion on a manned mission to the
Moon and Mars, or would you rather they spent it on something else?

As often happens, people who conduct polls often have a predetermine outcome
that they prefer, and so construct the polling questions so as to make it more
likely they'll get the answer they want. People who want the Chinese to get to
Mars first will write a polling question as above. Or

Do you want to spend $1 trillion to go to the moon and Mars of continue to
spend $7 billion dollars a year on the Shuttle? Now Joe Shmoe will scratch his
head and conclude that $7 billion is less than $1 Trillion, and although he
might think a Mars mission is interesting, he doesn't want to spend $1 Trillion
on it and would rather spend the lesser amount of $7 billion a year.

Of couse what's left unsaid is the fact that the Moon/Mar Mission would cost $1
Trillion over its 30 year life span.

TKalbfus wrote:

Now if what your saying is true, then why would George Bush announce it
without intending on fulfiling the promise, when the announcement itself would
not get him any votes? Either the public is for it or it is not.

It provides political cover for winding down pork barrel programs
like the shuttle and ISS. This is true even if Bush does not expect
the program to survive after he leaves office.

Paul

TKalbfus wrote:
Whats important is to understand the motives of the cynics, they are not for
the US being first or foremost in space, instead they'd rather have some other
country do it. They are rooting for the other guy!

Yep, that's me. GO CHINA! Better they deny their people basic human
services, healthcare and education, and their science cost-effective
robotic results in favor of non-productive crewed space efforts that
teach us nothing but how to make crews more comfortable in space, than
us. Just my opinion of course.

Joe Strout wrote...
"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote:
But OTOH NASA needs to take a convervative stand on accomplishing these
feats. That means it shouldn't try to invent wholly new technologies, but
merely adapting existing technology to fit the need.

I would argue it shouldn't do either one. Instead, it should act as a
customer, offering to pay $X for the safe delivery and return of three
crew members to a certain point on the Moon, $Y for a subsequent mission
of the same requirements (where Y X), etc. Let the companies trying
for these prizes decide whether it's better to invent new technology, or
use something off the shelf.

I wonder if O'Keefe has considered trying to change the way these
contracts are let. Competitive bid is good, but multiple suppliers
are better. If he didn't want to go all the way to a prize structure,
could he at least get the contracts written so that the risk is assumed
by the contractors? This focus on time & materials is too cushy.

I prefer a structure under which the gov't buys enough of something
that it doesn't wind up in the hands of only one entity. If one went
the prize route, you'd want to structure in a sequence of prizes to
encourage a field of competitors, and for different aspects of the
problem.

On the other hand the problem with gov't prizes seems to be the politics
of awarding them to the winners:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_Prize

- Cris Fitch
San Diego, CA
http://www.orbit6.com/