*HTML is ON *UBB Code is ON Smilies Legend
Smilies Legend
If you have previously registered, but forgotten your password, click here.
T O P I C R E V I E WRick BoosDid anyone read the story on the "CNN Science and Space" website about Gleen's stinging rebuke of Bush's plan? Just as I said in earlier posts! Politics is going do do us in again!Robert PearlmanGlenn cautioned against abandoning the science experiments that have already been designed and planned for the ISS that do not deal with life sciences.He was testifying before a committee that cannot change the space policy but could recommend restoring funding for other areas of interest.While he didn't grab similar headlines, Dr. Lennard A. Fisk, chairman of the Space Studies Board of the National Academy of Sciences expressed similar concerns to Glenn's. "You need a healthy science program because the science program produces results for NASA that people want to see," Fisk testified. "The broader science program is what creates in people's minds the idea that things are happening in NASA that are good things. If you want to wait for 30 years for things to happen on the moon, no one may notice." (quote courtesy the Houston Chronicle)While Glenn is certainly an outspoken Democrat and therefore some politics may be at play, it is also a valid concern that science disciplines outside life studies are being left behind in the wake of pushing towards the Moon. Similar objections have been raised elsewhere about the cancellation of the next Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission, as it is seen that astronomical research is also taking a back seat to the new initiative.Personally, I think many of these concerns could be answered by opening the ISS to more commercial activities -- allowing scientists to partner with corporations and/or universities to buy space aboard the station for their own science experiments, but that is a separate debate. Further, I think that the short term sacrifice of some science is justified if it means a stronger foothold can be established in the solar system via the Moon. Glenn reportedly also addressed the concern about spending money going to the Moon to establish a launch base for continuing to Mars, as was suggested in the President's vision. There are many reasons to go the Moon now, but if you are looking for a less expensive launch base for trips outward, several of the Lagrange Points might be better justified. Or as the Mars Society and others have advocated, a direct mission from Earth to Mars might also be more economical.If the Commission continues as they did from the first hearing, then the transcript of Glenn's testimony and video of the entire event will be posted soon to their website at: http://www.moontomars.org/ Rob JoynerIt's a shame that politics have to play such a big part in scientific funding and agendas. But I think as long as the Chinese have the Moon in their sights, the U.S. will also.We Americans seem to love a good race... Fra MauroI couldn't beleive Glenn when I heard him a few weeks ago on the news really coming out against the space intiaitve. I guess being a politician is more importan to him than NASA.Too bad, he could have been a cheerkeader for extra fundinf in the Senate and to the public.Orthon quote:Originally posted by Fra Mauro:I couldn't beleive Glenn when I heard him a few weeks ago on the news really coming out against the space intiaitve. I guess being a politician is more importan to him than NASA.Too bad, he could have been a cheerkeader for extra fundinf in the Senate and to the public.ejectrI guess you told him Orthon..... Glint quote:Originally posted by Rob Joyner:It's a shame that politics have to play such a big part in scientific funding and agendas....Unfortunately, politics have to play a part since it is the tax payer that pays for these programs and the legislators elected by these same tax payers who approve the budgets set forth by the president.Just a fact of life. But in order to get willing support from the public P.R. & politics is important. Taxpayers need to be included in the project and convinced of its worth. Ignoring or talking down to the tax payer risks offendnig them and turning them against the idea of exploration.And it looks as though Kerry/Glenn are already engaged in the debate in a negative way with regard to the new exploration initiative. quote:...But I think as long as the Chinese have the Moon in their sights, the U.S. will also.We Americans seem to love a good race... [/B]This may have something to do with it, but I'm not convinced that it really does. Since its a race we've already won, why should repeat it saying, "o.k. best 2 out of 3 really wins this time?"I think it should have a new thrust. For the sake of exploration and increasing the human presence in the universe, albeit by a simple toe hold.I will agree that the attention given to the Moon by China certainly helps to open the door to this disucssion.By the way, it's not just China and the U.S. who have their eyes set on the moon, by the way: http://www.space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_040301.html India has been considering an unmanned mission to the moon for the past several years.chetIt's a small wonder Glenn is blasting a Republican President's space initiative, while advocating continued support for the ISS; isn't that basically all Dems do these days - - attack Republicans, and continue support for pouring taxpayer money down ratholes?-chet[This message has been edited by chet (edited March 08, 2004).]Robert PearlmanAs has been demonstrated here in the past, we have readers who are Republicans, Democrats, independents and internationals who have no party affiliation but do have valid opinions about the future of manned space exploration. Instead of flinging political stereotypes that intentionally or unintentionally insult other members, perhaps we should focus our attentions on the policy itself and not the motivations behind who is advocating for what. There are plenty of political websites where forums such as this one exist for debating the party lines -- collectSPACE need not be one of them.Research is continuing on the ISS, regardless of whether you support the new policy or disagree. The debate is whether U.S. science should be limited only to the life sciences. Likewise, we may all agree that going to the Moon is a good idea, yet still disagree as to what we should do once we get there. Let's discuss this issues based on their merits instead of pandering to the political distractions.ejectrAnyone who has ever gone to a lecture by Dr. Harrison Schmidt would understand the importance of going back to the moon and it has nothing to do with going to Mars, beating the Chinese or a cold war. It has everything to do with fossil fuel energy use here on earth and what it would mean to our Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil dependancy. Fussion reactors my friends...and the moon has an abundance of what they use. Hydrogen 3.ScottWell said Robert. It's difficult enough to bear the idiological crap at work and get-togethers. I don't want to have to listen to it here.Carrie quote:Originally posted by ejectr: Fussion reactors my friends...and the moon has an abundance of what they use. Hydrogen 3. I thought it was Helium-3, am I wrong? -CejectrYES..........Helium 3!I had hydrogen powered autos on my mind as I wrote that....Thanks for the correction, Carrie.chetAfter re-reading what I previously posted here it's obvious I went overboard with my political outburst, and some may have rightly found it offensive, so I apologize.To make amends in a small way, I'll say this: Republicans are pretty good at pouring taxpayer money down ratholes too.(My little contribution to bi-partisanship)!-chet
He was testifying before a committee that cannot change the space policy but could recommend restoring funding for other areas of interest.
While he didn't grab similar headlines, Dr. Lennard A. Fisk, chairman of the Space Studies Board of the National Academy of Sciences expressed similar concerns to Glenn's. "You need a healthy science program because the science program produces results for NASA that people want to see," Fisk testified. "The broader science program is what creates in people's minds the idea that things are happening in NASA that are good things. If you want to wait for 30 years for things to happen on the moon, no one may notice." (quote courtesy the Houston Chronicle)
While Glenn is certainly an outspoken Democrat and therefore some politics may be at play, it is also a valid concern that science disciplines outside life studies are being left behind in the wake of pushing towards the Moon. Similar objections have been raised elsewhere about the cancellation of the next Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission, as it is seen that astronomical research is also taking a back seat to the new initiative.
Personally, I think many of these concerns could be answered by opening the ISS to more commercial activities -- allowing scientists to partner with corporations and/or universities to buy space aboard the station for their own science experiments, but that is a separate debate.
Further, I think that the short term sacrifice of some science is justified if it means a stronger foothold can be established in the solar system via the Moon.
Glenn reportedly also addressed the concern about spending money going to the Moon to establish a launch base for continuing to Mars, as was suggested in the President's vision. There are many reasons to go the Moon now, but if you are looking for a less expensive launch base for trips outward, several of the Lagrange Points might be better justified. Or as the Mars Society and others have advocated, a direct mission from Earth to Mars might also be more economical.
If the Commission continues as they did from the first hearing, then the transcript of Glenn's testimony and video of the entire event will be posted soon to their website at: http://www.moontomars.org/
quote:Originally posted by Fra Mauro:I couldn't beleive Glenn when I heard him a few weeks ago on the news really coming out against the space intiaitve. I guess being a politician is more importan to him than NASA.Too bad, he could have been a cheerkeader for extra fundinf in the Senate and to the public.
quote:Originally posted by Rob Joyner:It's a shame that politics have to play such a big part in scientific funding and agendas....
Unfortunately, politics have to play a part since it is the tax payer that pays for these programs and the legislators elected by these same tax payers who approve the budgets set forth by the president.
Just a fact of life. But in order to get willing support from the public P.R. & politics is important. Taxpayers need to be included in the project and convinced of its worth. Ignoring or talking down to the tax payer risks offendnig them and turning them against the idea of exploration.
And it looks as though Kerry/Glenn are already engaged in the debate in a negative way with regard to the new exploration initiative.
quote:...But I think as long as the Chinese have the Moon in their sights, the U.S. will also.We Americans seem to love a good race... [/B]
This may have something to do with it, but I'm not convinced that it really does. Since its a race we've already won, why should repeat it saying, "o.k. best 2 out of 3 really wins this time?"
I think it should have a new thrust. For the sake of exploration and increasing the human presence in the universe, albeit by a simple toe hold.
I will agree that the attention given to the Moon by China certainly helps to open the door to this disucssion.
By the way, it's not just China and the U.S. who have their eyes set on the moon, by the way: http://www.space.com/spacenews/businessmonday_040301.html
India has been considering an unmanned mission to the moon for the past several years.
-chet
[This message has been edited by chet (edited March 08, 2004).]
There are plenty of political websites where forums such as this one exist for debating the party lines -- collectSPACE need not be one of them.
Research is continuing on the ISS, regardless of whether you support the new policy or disagree. The debate is whether U.S. science should be limited only to the life sciences.
Likewise, we may all agree that going to the Moon is a good idea, yet still disagree as to what we should do once we get there.
Let's discuss this issues based on their merits instead of pandering to the political distractions.
quote:Originally posted by ejectr: Fussion reactors my friends...and the moon has an abundance of what they use. Hydrogen 3.
I thought it was Helium-3, am I wrong? -C
I had hydrogen powered autos on my mind as I wrote that....
Thanks for the correction, Carrie.
To make amends in a small way, I'll say this: Republicans are pretty good at pouring taxpayer money down ratholes too.(My little contribution to bi-partisanship)!
Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts
Copyright 1999-2024 collectSPACE. All rights reserved.