3 ms·

Well, as others have pointed out you're wrong on it having no scientific value. But you're also wrong in a more significant way. Remember two things. First,

Well, as others have pointed out you're wrong on it having no scientific value. But you're also wrong in a more significant way. Remember two things. First, the Bush administration was all about privatization. It was practically a mantra for them. Second President Bush announced the plan right after the Columbia disaster. When you put things in that context you realize the Bush administration was actually using the moon mission as marketing for other private space endeavors. It's primary purpose was to inspire the public not necessarily to send people to the moon. If successful the end result of the program should be to create a whole new industry of space entrepreneurs spending all kinds of private capital to service the space fascination that the moon mission inspired. Also keep in mind NASA was spending $4 billion on manned space flight. That's $4 billion out of $3.55 trillion in expenditures or around 1/6th of 1% of the U.S. budget. It's still a lot of money but not that much in the scheme of things and I can think of things that I'd cut first (http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/releases/2009/earmarks-rise-to-196.html http://www.cagw.org/newsroom/releases/2009/earmarks-rise-to-...). I was no fan of President Bush but on this he did the right thing.

gamble 17y ago
I disagree. It's well-documented that Bush's advisors wanted a "Kennedy moment", and felt that a big announcement that Americans were returning to the moon would be good PR, even if it never panned out. Constellation was an incredibly cynical marriage of political hacks in the administration and NASA administrators desperate to preserve the glory of Apollo. Constellation was dead in the water when public reaction turned negative, even if no one in NASA was willing to admit it. Also, I hold to my opinion that manned spaceflight has produced nothing of scientific value. I'm sure you could come up with the odd technology here or there, but after fifty years it's hard to point to any significant technologies that came out of human spaceflight, much less advances in science. All human spaceflight teaches us is how to put men in space. I'm not suggesting that NASA's budget should be cut, but they should be spending that money on missions that produce real results, like the Mars rovers.
mturmon 17y ago
The Bush VSE (Vision for Space Exploration) was actually about directing money to Texas (JSC) and Florida (KSC), two key electoral states. (Ex-Majority Leader Tom Delay's home district in Texas includes JSC, e.g. http://www.spacepolitics.com/2004/11/23/delay-at-jsc-and-other-budget-news/ http://www.spacepolitics.com/2004/11/23/delay-at-jsc-and-oth...). This calculus explains why, as I think you note, they didn't care about actually getting to the moon. ;-) In particular, the VSE was not about using upstart private launch companies (such as SpaceX). It was about JSC, KSC, and the large prime contractors (USA aka United Space Alliance, and ULA = United Launch Alliance, both Boeing/LockMart joint ventures) that are associated with them and that together employ over 10K people. I believe SpaceX employs substantially less than 1000, even today. In typical Bush fashion, the VSE was all slogans and no substance. The officials involved believed in what they were doing, but there was not a coherent plan (actually there have been at least two phases of the VSE, with distinct strategies). And of course, as others above have noted, not enough money. The slogan for that approach was "go as you pay". (I.e., we will do the best we can with what you give us.) Sounds cute, but does not get you into orbit.

gamble 17y ago

I disagree. It's well-documented that Bush's advisors wanted a "Kennedy moment", and felt that a big announcement that Americans were returning to the moon would be good PR, even if it never panned out. Constellation was an incredibly cynical marriage of political hacks in the administration and NASA administrators desperate to preserve the glory of Apollo. Constellation was dead in the water when public reaction turned negative, even if no one in NASA was willing to admit it. Also, I hold to my opinion that manned spaceflight has produced nothing of scientific value. I'm sure you could come up with the odd technology here or there, but after fifty years it's hard to point to any significant technologies that came out of human spaceflight, much less advances in science. All human spaceflight teaches us is how to put men in space. I'm not suggesting that NASA's budget should be cut, but they should be spending that money on missions that produce real results, like the Mars rovers.

mturmon 17y ago

The Bush VSE (Vision for Space Exploration) was actually about directing money to Texas (JSC) and Florida (KSC), two key electoral states. (Ex-Majority Leader Tom Delay's home district in Texas includes JSC, e.g. http://www.spacepolitics.com/2004/11/23/delay-at-jsc-and-other-budget-news/ http://www.spacepolitics.com/2004/11/23/delay-at-jsc-and-oth...). This calculus explains why, as I think you note, they didn't care about actually getting to the moon. ;-) In particular, the VSE was not about using upstart private launch companies (such as SpaceX). It was about JSC, KSC, and the large prime contractors (USA aka United Space Alliance, and ULA = United Launch Alliance, both Boeing/LockMart joint ventures) that are associated with them and that together employ over 10K people. I believe SpaceX employs substantially less than 1000, even today. In typical Bush fashion, the VSE was all slogans and no substance. The officials involved believed in what they were doing, but there was not a coherent plan (actually there have been at least two phases of the VSE, with distinct strategies). And of course, as others above have noted, not enough money. The slogan for that approach was "go as you pay". (I.e., we will do the best we can with what you give us.) Sounds cute, but does not get you into orbit.