Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

jmknapp · 2003-11-06 10:44:11

Presidential candidate Gov. Howard Dean (D-VT) is currently answering questions online at WashingtonPost.com. http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv....103.htm

Here's one of interest to this group:

Dallas, Tex.: If elected President, what are your plans for NASA and the Space Program? Do you think it's time to retire the Shuttle and move on to bigger and better things, such as a human mission to Mars, or returning to the moon?

Howard Dean: I am a strong supporter of NASA and every government program that furthers scientific research. I don?t think we should close the shuttle program but I do believe that we should aggressively begin a program to have manned flights to Mars. this of course assumes that we can change presidents so we can have a balanced budget again.

Palomar · 2003-11-06 11:25:04

*This is good news. Dean has been generating a bit of controversy and attention quite recently -- just in the past 2 days, in fact -- so his pro-space exploration comments should definitely be garnering attention.

I'm voting for the Democratic nominee for President in next year's election, so I'm keeping (or TRYING to keep, I should say...all the static and noise pollution in the media these days, geez) an ear out for who is saying what, relative to space exploration, Mars.

Thanks for this "heads up," jmknapp.

--Cindy

P.S.: Does anyone have a web site to recommend which gives a run-down of all Presidential hopefuls, their official stances on various issues, etc.?

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-06 11:36:48

Now see, that I wouldn't mind seeing at all.

Ad Astra · 2003-11-06 11:58:27

Has Howard Dean said anything about his feelings on commercial space? This is predominantly viewed as more of a "Republican idea" versus a "Democratic idea," but it would not be impossible for Dean or some other Democrat to support it. And space is likely to become a hot-button issue during the campaign, especially if President Bush announces some grand new goal for NASA.

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-06 12:49:48

Heh, I think the quote is worth repeating:

Dallas, Tex.: If elected President, what are your plans for NASA and the Space Program? Do you think it's time to retire the Shuttle and move on to bigger and better things, such as a human mission to Mars, or returning to the moon?

Howard Dean: I am a strong supporter of NASA and every government program that furthers scientific research. I don't think we should close the shuttle program but I do believe that we should aggressively begin a program to have manned flights to Mars. This of course assumes that we can change Presidents so we can have a balanced budget again.

---
I like that last statement the most, heheh.

clark · 2003-11-06 12:52:22

As do I, but for entirely different reasons. :;): :laugh:

Cobra Commander · 2003-11-07 15:18:45

Hmm, a number of things strike me here. Josh, the self-proclaimed anarchist, supporting a candidate from the party of big government ??? interesting.

Cindy, you mean to say you've already decided to vote for the Democrat even without knowing who the candidate will be? That doesn't sound very reasonable to me. So much could happen before the election, some loon could get the Democratic nomination. Oh, right, redundant

But really, who thinks Dean has a chance of winning the election? If so, who believes he'll actually fight for the Mars mission? We need healthcare, welfare, money for education blah blah blah; not some grandiose program to send a man to Mars, that's the attitude I usually get from Democrat politicians. The space program is usually one of the first things they cut! If, by some fluke, Dean is elected I think you'll be disappointed.

Besides, what's this buzz about Bush maybe announcing a Mars plan for NASA? Maybe this time it will actually happen, without a Democratic Congress to muck with it. Who was it that called for that not so long ago? Ah, yes. Bush 41.

Sorry to go ranting from the Right on you, but it was needed in here

Palomar · 2003-11-07 15:29:25

Cindy, you mean to say you've already decided to vote for the Democrat even without knowing who the candidate will be? That doesn't sound very reasonable to me. So much could happen before the election, some loon could get the Democratic nomination. Oh, right, redundant

*Teehee. You're cute, CC.

The only chance of unseating Dubya at the next election is via the Democratic nominee.

...and we've already got a loon in the White House...

Seriously, though, I've been watching the Democratic candidates. I think we've got a good "crop" to pick from, for the nominee.

I wouldn't be surprised at all, however, if Dubya gets re-elected, on the basis of his Oil Friend$ buying him the Oval Office (again). But by golly, if he wins the -popular election-, I will become convinced that America suffers from a severe masochistic streak (at best; of outright stupidity at worst).

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-07 15:42:00

Hmm, a number of things strike me here. Josh, the self-proclaimed anarchist, supporting a candidate from the party of big government interesting.

Tsk, when anarchy is realized, then I'll be an anarchist.

Until then, I will pride myself on making every waking momment for right-wingers hell. :;):

I honestly don't know if I'll vote this election round, though. Tired of this voting thing. The American plutocracy won long ago, seems almost pointless. BTW, I only learned about anarchism in the past two years or so.

Speaking of future space aspirations. I honestly could give a crap less about Bush or Dean or anyone. Any government funded space initiative is doomed to fail, and will never benefit me, as an individual.

clark · 2003-11-07 15:51:22

Any government funded space initiative is doomed to fail, and will never benefit me, as an individual.

He types out in real time on a microproccessor designed to help man enter space, several decades after man landed on the moon and contemplates yet further aspirations in space on a message board, whose creation is partly the result of yet another government funded intiative (DARPA=INTERNET).

Yeah, no benefit here to see, move along. :laugh:

Doomed? :laugh:

You always make me smile Josh. See

jadeheart · 2003-11-07 15:51:52

who believes he'll actually fight for the Mars mission? We need healthcare, welfare, money for education blah blah blah; not some grandiose program to send a man to Mars, that's the attitude I usually get from Democrat politicians. The space program is usually one of the first things they cut! If, by some fluke, Dean is elected I think you'll be disappointed.

i have to agree w/ cobra here. dean's comments are encouraging, but i have to say i'm skeptical. i think he'll have to sacrifice this positive view of the space program if he wants to get the dem nomination.

i tend to lean a little left, but i've always been disappointed by most lefties' views on space exploration. they pretty much view it as a complete waste of resources and it bums me out. if W. came out in favor of a realistic mars mission i'd (gulp) ALMOST consider voting for him. since he's obviously not the least bit interested in a balanced budget, we may has well go with a petroleum-powered 'battlestar galactica'-style mission. (can we get some cylons with that?) we can have a space program or we can have true democracy-- but not both!

i wonder what wesley thinks?

clark · 2003-11-07 15:57:16

So here is something to ponder, dear friends, a question I believe any who contemplate the beyond of space will have to make rather soon...

Would you vote for a President who would take Man to Mars, but in doing so, would also weaponize space, over a President who will not take Man to Mars, but will also not weaponize space?

A path diverged in the woods, and I took... ???

Palomar · 2003-11-07 16:16:09

*Cobra: I'm hopeful a Democratic President will come through on Mars, space exploration, [NON-militarization basis] and etc., but I'm not holding my breath.

Josh: "Until then, I will pride myself on making every waking momment for right-wingers hell."

*Ha ha! I'm a Moderate (and proud of it).

Josh: "I honestly don't know if I'll vote this election round, though. Tired of this voting thing. The American plutocracy won long ago, seems almost pointless. BTW, I only learned about anarchism in the past two years or so."

*I know the feeling, Josh. I almost didn't vote in the recent mayoral election (big deal, I know, only effects this city) but I think of how rare the opportunity to vote is. Despite the corruption, who's counting the numbers, etc...in no other nation in history has a woman of my class and background been able to cast a vote. Despite my cynicism, I still believe I can make a difference. I at least want to -try- to make a difference. I feel if I don't try, I shouldn't complain.

Please vote. At least to get one more popular vote (at least) away from Bush.

--Cindy

P.S.: The most recent issue of Astronomy magazine is out, and is loaded with "175 Mars Images"...also "Hubble's Top 25 Images."

jadeheart · 2003-11-07 16:16:37

Would you vote for a President who would take Man to Mars, but in doing so, would also weaponize space, over a President who will not take Man to Mars, but will also not weaponize space?
A path diverged in the woods, and I took...

...a knife and slit my wrists!

the ol' faustian bargain. i certainly wouldn't like 'weaponization' of space, esp. if those weapons were there to do harm to earth. if, however, the mars mission came with the thorn of militarization of space (not necessarily weaponization) i'd have to consider it. depending, of course, on said candidate's stance on a few other political issues dear to my heart.

clark · 2003-11-07 16:23:10

The militarization of space has been ongoing since Eisenhower, the last few wars have been proof-of-concept for the integration of space based assessts in fighting a 'modern war'.

The stumbiling block for full fledged weaponization though is power costs and launch costs. Both of these will be remedied by going to Mars.

The people in charge, or the people charged with making the decisions on this stuff have laid out their visison for the last 20 years. The Airforce is in mid stream of creating a full fledged Space Force, eventually to supplant the Airforce itself.

This is the 'next' generation warfare capability that President Bush is reffering to when he sights Donald Rumsfeld desire to skip a generation of technology.

jadeheart · 2003-11-07 16:39:32

you're right, of course. i should've said "accelerated militarization of space" there.

Ad Astra · 2003-11-07 17:00:53

In a nutshell, this is how Washington handles space policy: All politicians will pay lip service to NASA from time to time, but few are willing to take a risk and challenge the NASA status quo. When Bush 41 tried it in 1989, his initiative was squashed and it was a big embarassment. Now you see why the status quo was maintained for the most part (except for the "Faster, cheaper, better" mentality) during the Clinton years.

The current President Bush probably shares the same vision as his dad, but he knew (at least until Feb. 1, 2003,) that there was no Congressional support for changing NASA. The Bush space policy has been laid out piece meal, such as setting aside money for Promethius and JIMO so the nuclear-electric rockets will exist when Congress does adopt the cause of deep space exploration.

The loss of Columbia has made a lot of politicians realize that Americans will support space exploration so long as it's genuine "exploration" and not the banal "science" that has been conducted on the shuttle, Mir, and ISS. It probably doesn't hurt that "The Governator" needs help, and a new direction for the space program will bring jobs to California.

The president will soon reveal the new national space policy. Will it succeed spectacularly like Apollo, or languish like SEI? My guess is that it will survive so long as President Bush remains president and his allies control Congress.

Once a new administration comes in, will they share resident Bush's resolve to see the program through? This is a problem that Zubrin saw with Mars Direct, and that's part of the reason why he and former speaker Gingrich proposed a private initiative to explore Mars.

If some sort of private-public partnership isn't reached, the space program will continue to be the plaything of politicians. It's budget may be raided to pay for new programs, such as Howard Dean's nationalized health care plan. Ambitious projects like Apollo would be killed to finance the Vietnam War and the "Great" Society.

jadeheart · 2003-11-07 17:26:05

where can i get more info on this private initiative thing with zubrin & newt? haven't heard of this. (man, that's a partnership i wouldn't have imagined.) when did it happen? what's it's current status?

Josh Cryer · 2003-11-07 17:51:47

clark, keywords, "partly." The military investment in the internet is extremely small compared to the total assets of the net. The value of the computer chip was already realized before the Apollo landings were thought of (Texas Instruments, anyone?). The so called benefits aren't directly attributable to the government.*

I'm not denying a governments ability to be a good catalyst, but c'mon, let's be realistic. I'm using a dialup modem for crying out loud. It's cheap, sure, but I thought cheap ass fiber to the house was only a few years away? Where is that unlimited broadband people were talking about? Where is the government now?

It's like saying China's space initiatives are going to benefit every Chinese person directly (by allowing them each access to space). Not only is that unrealistic, it's probably not even physically possible.

If you or I are going to get into space, it's not going to be by relying on governments. It's not going to be by waiting for some ad hoc system to be invented because of the next egomaniacal space race. It's not going to happen waiting for some guys with small dicks to build the next orbital nuclear launch platforms. It's going to occur because people are going to figure out the hurdles and get around it themselves. (If they get some free money from government grants, so what.)

One thing I don't like about this militarization concept is simply that it could quite easily lead to there being undesirable levels of control on space assets that are easily obtained once the technology is available; this means that such technology would have to be banned or at least retarded for the concept of a space military to be realistic.

I would vote for a President who wouldn't weaponize space, because such a President might then probably understand the technological requirements for existing in space, and might realize that the whole concept of militarization is pointless, and indeed, at most would be a tiny catalyst to space development.

* note that by government, I'm talking about an over-reaching authority, not a grant-giving benevolent 'government.' When NASA gives a grant out to some crackpot scientist (and there are a lot out there), it's not controlling or otherwise exhibiting authority upon the grantee (of course, the grantee must follow guidelines and so on, but the grantee has complete control over the work within those guidelines; there are no NASA officials, like there would be military officials, coming down to the guys lab telling them how it is).

Ad Astra · 2003-11-07 20:12:38

The "Gingrich Model," or Mars Prize, is discussed near the end of "Case For Mars." The government would offer cash prizes and assurances of cooperation for teams competing for the prize. The mission would be broken up into several smaller feats leading up to the mission (building an HLLV, demonstrating a closed loop life support system, etc.) and smaller prizes would be awarded for these milestones. All these events lead to the Mars Mission, with a payout of around $ 20 million when it is successful.

The biggest hurdle to the plan is that the company would have to put up the $20-50 million for the mission upfront and wait nearly three years to see if the mission succeeds and the prize is won. What kind of money lender would loan a company $50 mil to put humans on Mars? The X-Prize had enough trouble getting funded as it is!

sethmckiness · 2003-11-07 21:34:12

The people in charge, or the people charged with making the decisions on this stuff have laid out their visison for the last 20 years. The Airforce is in mid stream of creating a full fledged Space Force, eventually to supplant the Airforce itself.
This is the 'next' generation warfare capability that President Bush is reffering to when he sights Donald Rumsfeld desire to skip a generation of technology.

This has been a stated change with the Modus Operandi(spelling) for the Air Force since Before Dubya. 2035 I believe is the quoted date. I am not quite sure of what the goal is though. I guess something other then the use of satellites.

One thing I don't like about this militarization concept is simply that it could quite easily lead to there being undesirable levels of control on space assets that are easily obtained once the technology is available; this means that such technology would have to be banned or at least retarded for the concept of a space military to be realistic.

Has there yet to be any unreasonable militirization of anything before space? So why should that happen with space. If it was going to happen, ESA wouldn't be allowed to launch their version of GPS. Three things happen in Space, Communications Relay, Navigation(time dissemination of UTC), and detection of various objects,(spy satellites among other things).

Also, why does everyone associate a lack of Space spending with Democrats. If I remember correctly, whoe was in the White house during Gemini and Apollo? And who was in the white house when Apollo was shut down. Just a reminder.

Cobra Commander · 2003-11-07 22:02:59

[color=#000000:post_uid0]

Also, why does everyone associate a lack of Space spending with Democrats. If I remember correctly, whoe was in the White house during Gemini and Apollo? And who was in the white house when Apollo was shut down. Just a reminder.[/quote:post_uid0]

First, the space program started under Eisenhower and continued largely as a competition, a sort of [i:post_uid0]proxy war[/i:post_uid0] with the Soviets. Also worth mentioning is that the Democrats of that period were very different from today's jackasses. Both parties have tended to slide to the left, today's Republicans aren't really all that different from the Democrats of the early Cold War period, while today's Democrats have absorbed and been influenced by the lunatic-left that used to be discounted out of hand.
For example, JFK cut taxes, sent American military advisors to prop up foreign forces, called for a massively expensive space program, increased deployment of nuclear weapons in foreign nations despite the tensions it caused, and stared down a foreign aggressor encroaching on our sphere of influence. Who would do that now?[/color:post_uid0]

Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

Offline

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-11-06 10:44:11

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

#2 2003-11-06 11:25:04

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

#3 2003-11-06 11:36:48

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

#4 2003-11-06 11:58:27

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

#5 2003-11-06 12:49:48

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

#6 2003-11-06 12:52:22

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

#7 2003-11-07 15:18:45

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

#8 2003-11-07 15:29:25

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

#9 2003-11-07 15:42:00

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

#10 2003-11-07 15:51:22

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

#11 2003-11-07 15:51:52

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

#12 2003-11-07 15:57:16

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

#13 2003-11-07 16:16:09

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

#14 2003-11-07 16:16:37

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

#15 2003-11-07 16:23:10

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

#16 2003-11-07 16:39:32

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

#17 2003-11-07 17:00:53

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

#18 2003-11-07 17:26:05

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

#19 2003-11-07 17:51:47

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

#20 2003-11-07 20:12:38

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

#21 2003-11-07 21:34:12

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

#22 2003-11-07 22:02:59

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

#23 2003-11-08 09:28:49

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

#24 2003-11-08 13:59:38

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

#25 2003-11-08 21:55:08

Re: Howard Dean on manned Mars Effort

Board footer