Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

smurf975 · 2004-06-04 14:32:02

However, this was not done, partly because of ignorance, partly because the French were regarded as such 'goodies' having fought Hitler and all, and, after all, France was an important ally against Communism in Europe.

I never knew the French were so 'goodies' against the Nazies!? I mean they surrended and afterwards they worked together with the Nazies. And the war effort against the Nazies by those that opposed the Vichy government is nothing if you compare it to Russian, English, American, Canadian, Australian, Indian and colonies of the countries mentioned.

However they may have helped against the commies but that's just also in their own self interenst so not really out the good out of their hearts.

Gennaro · 2004-06-04 15:28:10

I never knew the French were so 'goodies' against the Nazies!? I mean they surrended and afterwards they worked together with the Nazies. And the war effort against the Nazies by those that opposed the Vichy government is nothing if you compare it to Russian, English, American, Canadian, Australian, Indian and colonies of the countries mentioned.

Well, you're absolutely right of course (hope I'm not offending any Frenchman... hello Dicktice, where are you???).

It's only that in the decades after the war, in France and abroad, everyone pretended as if nearly every Frenchman made a valiant contribution to "la resistance" and were ardent anti-Nazis, somehow forgetting that Vichy France was actually the legal continuation of the third republic. The Germans accepted the erection of that state mostly I guess because they wanted peace with Britain as soon as possible.
When Churchill wanted the fighting to go on and the war all of a sudden became more serious for the Nazis, they began treating it like your regular puppet.

Anyhow, the hard issue after the war was France as a member of the western alliance against the Soviet Union. There were widespread fears at that time of a Communist take-over in both France and Italy. Treating France disrespectfully in regards to its colonial empire wouldn't have helped.

A note about French conduct in WWII. In 1940, they were simply overrun and gave up amidst the greatest confusion. We'd done exactly the same if we were in their shoes.
It has nothing to do with being dishonourable or such, at least not in my eyes (which I'm not saying you were implying).

smurf975 · 2004-06-04 16:32:38

A note about French conduct in WWII. In 1940, they were simply overrun and gave up amidst the greatest confusion. We'd done exactly the same if we were in their shoes.
It has nothing to do with being dishonourable or such, at least not in my eyes (which I'm not saying you were implying).

You are right about this as many other european countries can confirm. However they could also have fought their asses off like the Russians and English did. However the Russians had no choice as Hitler wasn't to fond of Russians and English had an advantage of being an island. So I understand the French's actions.

Gennaro · 2004-06-04 17:25:01

You are right about this as many other european countries can confirm. However they could also have fought their asses off like the Russians and English did. However the Russians had no choice as Hitler wasn't to fond of Russians and English had an advantage of being an island. So I understand the French's actions.

Yep, but if you compare the developments on the eastern front until about the fall of '42 with France, the Soviet conduct was perhaps even more catastrophical than the French was. Heck, the Russians suffered 4.5 million casualties (the majority prisoners) in the first six months alone and gave up an area several times the size of France against a hotchpotch of Axis nations never comprising more than 3 million men. The Russians only possessed a huge land mass and nearly inexhaustible supplies of men.

It took time to adjust to the new forms of warfare the Germans introduced for everyone. Even in Normandy, the relative combat efficiency of troops has been regarded as somewhat in Germany's favour. They just couldn't hold since they were fairly at the end of the line by then and faced with such an overwhelming quantitative superiority in equipment (artillery, tanks, airpower).

Allright, need to sign off now and stop straying off topic like this. There have already been complaints from the moderators about it, so this will be the last post of its kind from me, I'm afraid.

After all, this isn't a WWII forum, I guess.

Vir Stellae · 2004-06-04 20:26:26

"Democrats want to pour money into social programs? Is that so terrible? I mean, we only spend 1/6 of the budget, our tax dollars, on domestic programs maybe it could use a little more. "

1/6th??? BWAHAAHAAA
http://www.singmind.com/singleminded/da … getout.gif

Are you living in 1923?

Euler · 2004-06-04 21:44:36

Civillian government purchases are only about 1/6 of the government budget, so the statement is true as long as you don't count transfer payments as part of "domestic programs."

deagleninja · 2004-06-05 06:40:06

"Democrats want to pour money into social programs? Is that so terrible? I mean, we only spend 1/6 of the budget, our tax dollars, on domestic programs maybe it could use a little more. "

1/6th??? BWAHAAHAAA
http://www.singmind.com/singleminded/da … getout.gif

Are you living in 1923?"

2005's budget allocates some ~380 billion out of 2.4 Trillion
Did I stutter?

Cobra- I think we agree more than we disagree. Throwing more money at programs that aren't working or are just plain out-dated does nothing to help. We can begin fixing our education system by making sure that everyone can get a college level education for free. Our public education system needs to be expanded to include an optional four additional years at college levels. Education is too valuable an asset to restict to those with wealthy or influential parents.

Truman was a weak-willed man and a poor Democrat. He let the powers that be convince him to drop two A bombs on Japanesse cities. I make no excuses for him.
Johnson should have never been president and his administration seems to show what would have happened had Bush Sr been assasinated and left Quayle to be president. I make no excuses for him either.
However, Wilson was one of our great presidents and was right to wait years for US entry into WWI and right to do it. WWI was a justifiable war. Long time allies were being invaded by a hostile force.
Same with FDR. WWII was the last justifiable war in my humble opinion. Since then we have waged wars where we have had no buisness going.
What about Bosnia and Iraq? What about people slaughtering their own kind and committing genocide? Okay, I won't lie and say I could sleep well at night know we have the power to help those that can't help themselves and are not doing it. BUT, war is not the answer. If a leader of a country is killing their own people, they should be killed themselves. We train the baddest mutha funkers in the world. Had we not opted for an all out campaign against Iraq we could have flown in our Navy Seals into Bagdad and slaughtered Saddam and his regime without angering the population. Then we could have started relief efforts immediately and any resistance fighters would have found themselves under attack by the Iraqi people instead of being habored by them.

In matters of civil war like Vietnam, it is always best to leave their fate to themselves. People must be allowed to determine their own fate. We should ONLY intervene when people have no means to win against an oppressive ruler.

When I run for president in 2020 I want you as my VP Cobra to get the conservative vote

Vir Stellae · 2004-06-05 11:57:47

"2005's budget allocates some ~380 billion out of 2.4 Trillion"

Did you even look at the graph I posted?
Am I going to need to summon the US federal budget?

Welfare+SS+Medicaid+other entitlement go to more like 1.2 trillion, NOT including state programs.

Cobra Commander · 2004-06-05 15:27:26

When I run for president in 2020 I want you as my VP Cobra to get the conservative vote

And here I was planning on running.

Vote Federal Imperialist in 2020... and you'll never have to do it again.

Perhaps we should start an adjunct thread in Free Chat to cover the non-space related spill from this topic.

Josh Cryer · 2004-06-06 07:06:03

It wouldn't hurt. I contemplated moving this to Free Chat, but admittedly Bush does have a space initiative, and it does include manned exploration aspects, so I can't do that to you guys. (Plus, someone would start another Bush thread in here anyway.)

So, to try to suck this back on topic (c'mon guys, we can do it), clark, are you suggesting that the Shuttle will never fly? That it's being snowballed, essentially, and the monies will be funneled elsewhere?

MarsDog · 2004-06-06 10:05:05

There is the need for US military to control space. The trip to Mars is good public relations, allowing for for technological development while not being seen as belligerent.
-
In addition, US pride would not allow second place. So Bush cannot leave Mars to the opposition and be seen as abandoning humanity's (US) future.

smurf975 · 2004-06-06 11:19:40

There is the need for US military to control space. The trip to Mars is good public relations, allowing for for technological development while not being seen as belligerent.
-
In addition, US pride would not allow second place. So Bush cannot leave Mars to the opposition and be seen as abandoning humanity's (US) future.

Well you can have all the pride that you want but who is going to pay for it? Remember the US has huge government and private debts. Also a lot of those depts are funded by other countries. In the future they may loose confidents in the US government and stop loaning money.

I say go to Mars if you can afford it without getting bigger debts. It aint going anywhere so no rush and the Chinese are not able to go there any time soon.

dicktice · 2004-06-06 13:09:45

deagleninja; You wrote "Truman was a weak-willed man and a poor Democrat. He let the powers that be convince him to drop two A bombs on Japanesse cities. I make no excuses for him."
I wish you hadn't done that, because but for him I wouldn't be here to dispute you. I want to know our age, name, rank and serial number, sir!

deagleninja · 2004-06-06 15:36:52

deagleninja; You wrote "Truman was a weak-willed man and a poor Democrat. He let the powers that be convince him to drop two A bombs on Japanesse cities. I make no excuses for him."
I wish you hadn't done that, because but for him I wouldn't be here to dispute you. I want to know our age, name, rank and serial number, sir!

I'm assuming you intended to say 'your' instead of 'our'. I am going to try and avoid being political on this thread from now on since it is suppossed to be about human missions to Mars. If you care to have a political debate about the flaws of Truman's actions, please post your thoughts on the 'free space' thread and I will respond. Sorry if I offended you, but my opinion remains the same.

MarsDog, there is, and never will, be a need for the US military to 'control' space. The military can easily protect their assets by including avoidance ability in their next generation satellites. So there's really no need for a permanent presence in LEO (what could an USAF space station do anyway besides be another target?).

Smurf975, the sooner we go to Mars the better. I could make dozens of arguements for why it is better to go now, rather than later. Suffice it to say, the sooner we get there, the sooner we begin reaping the benefits.

Josh and Cobra, thank you. As I have said, I will try to keep politcal partisan comments to a bare minimum.

clark · 2004-06-06 15:56:20

clark, are you suggesting that the Shuttle will never fly? That it's being snowballed, essentially, and the monies will be funneled elsewhere?

I'll do my part. Didn't notice the comment in this morass. :laugh:

I am not suggesting that the Shuttle will never fly, but I am pointing out that the Shuttle is being used as a gun to the head of Congress to ensure funding for the Vision for Space Exploration. I am sure that the Shuttle will fly again, and as such, Congress will have to give the budget request for NASA or else risk being blamed for the next Shuttle disaster, or for the immediate retirement of the Shuttle (since without the money, it can't be made safe).

Either option is not palatable. Now, let's say that Congress only gives the Shuttle funds, and not the extra 100-200 million to start off the CEV. Well, NASA can either cut back some other programs anyway (which some people in Congress won't like because they have their pet projects) to secure the funds. Congress knows this, and there isn't much they can do about it. The only way to save those other programs is to give NASA all the money so it dosen't raid the science budgets immediately. Giving O'Keefe the power to close centers gives him another big stick by which to get congressional support.

That's right dude, you're buying me some champaigne.

If Shuttle is retired now, ISS can't be built. If NASA dosen't get its money, it can't fly the Shuttle. That pretty much means NASA will be free to divert all that money immediately for the CEV. This is true for any year until the Shuttle is retired. That's what we are waiting for, and that's what's being used to get this through.

smurf975 · 2004-06-06 16:26:19

Smurf975, the sooner we go to Mars the better. I could make dozens of arguements for why it is better to go now, rather than later. Suffice it to say, the sooner we get there, the sooner we begin reaping the benefits.

Yeah you are correct but wish I knew how you are going to pay for it.

Josh Cryer · 2004-06-06 17:24:15

clark, NASA has historically gotten its funding, regardless. NASA doesn't have to use the Shuttle as a hostage. NASA could just as easily scrap the Shuttle and work on an SDV that would not only allow the construction of the ISS at a later date, but would fit the requirements of Bush's plans. I don't see how it's bad to be "blamed" for the retirement of the Shuttle if you're creating an SDV in its place, saving all that money, and pulling off your plan 10 years sooner than if you kept the Shuttle in place. Creating not only a moon base, but a potential window for Mars Direct, etc. It's the safest way to go with current technology.

If NASA doesn't get the CEV money, the Shuttle can still be flown, if all of Bush's extended budget was denied, then no, you're right, it wouldn't fly (and that would be a good thing). The CEV budget is a very small portion of the overall budget. What would happen is that CEV wouldn't go, Bush's plan will be seen as Bush Sr.'s plan was, and everyone will toss their hands up and say "oh well." (The scientific community will rejoice though, since that means money for probes, etc, will become available.)

Bush has to put in his plan the immediate retirement of the Shuttle if he's going to show any initiative. This is a reelection year, he should've done it 3 months ago rather than waiting this long.

Of course, I reckon it will pass since he has control of the legislature for all intents, I simply don't see it achieving anything useful (especially if he doesn't get reelected).

MarsDog · 2004-06-06 18:20:37

Who is going to pay for it ?
We are all part of the Global Economy, greatly influenced by the US. The cost will be passed around. US cannot afford anything but first place. Both international image and military industrial capability relate to the upcoming space race.

smurf975 · 2004-06-07 09:07:58

We are all part of the Global Economy, greatly influenced by the US.

From your post I gather I have the wrong idea of the Global Economy as I don't see India, Russia and Brazil ready to pay for the US's cocky goal for being the first on Mars. Hey they are in it for the money not the ideals. So is the US but you think the rest of the world will pay its bills? I think you are dreaming.

For me Global Economy just means free trade and perhaps cultural exchange. But not paying someone elses bills.

clark · 2004-06-07 09:35:05

clark, NASA has historically gotten its funding, regardless.

Histoically when?! Apollo. Okay. How about the last decade? Not even close. It's precisely because NASA's budget has reached such lows that we're in the state we are now with the Shuttle.

NASA doesn't have to use the Shuttle as a hostage. NASA could just as easily scrap the Shuttle and work on an SDV that would not only allow the construction of the ISS at a later date, but would fit the requirements of Bush's plans.

NASA may not need to, but it is rather effective. If NASA tries to retire the Shuttle in lieu of the SDV now, they have to go through congressional hearings like they did with the Shuttle (when they wanted to build it). They have to fight Congress, who might decide to make the Shuttle an election year ploy (save the Shuttle, save the Shuttle... oh, i can see it now) in retiring it. Then, they have to get the ISS partners to agree to a delay in ISS construction until the SDV is built- something that does not endear us to friends or win the hearts and minds of allies. It also means that US of A has no means to get into space until 2014- starting, now. That isn't 4 years without the capability, that's nearly a decade.

What's the saying? "No Buck Rogers, no Bucks." Killing the Shuttle, which kills ISS, pretty much negates the need for an astronauts corps, and aeronautical engineers too. NASA suddenly ends up doing nothing in space, and hoping to god it can build an SDV on an artifical timeline (assuming we sway the ISS partners) to finish the ISS.

The CEV budget is a very small portion of the overall budget. What would happen is that CEV wouldn't go, Bush's plan will be seen as Bush Sr.'s plan was, and everyone will toss their hands up and say "oh well."

The CEV is a small portion, so it will happen. The Shuttle is going away after 2010- so we either have NASA give that money back to Congress, or we have NASA use that money to do something else. Bush pointed the way.

Bush has to put in his plan the immediate retirement of the Shuttle if he's going to show any initiative.

I want it all now too. But it makes more sense to go slower. We tie our hands and give up too much if we get rid of the Shuttle right now.

Bill White · 2004-06-07 09:40:26

Shuttle to shuttle derived immediately is a good idea, IMHO.

Shuttle to EELV immediately loses the infrastructure we can fight for after 2008.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-07 11:51:08

Nasa ought to be planning to put JIMO and Lunar missions+CEV on some kind of HLLV by the end of this year, and designate that said vehicle will be launched using VAB/Crawler/Pad39 if its going to be a clean-slate vehicle or SDV and start looking tward after-Shuttle vehicles right now... I agree that too long of a gap between the day Shuttle is gone in 2010-12 and at least unmanned flights of the sucessor HLLV is very bad, especially if there is a change in political winds during.

I am beginning to warm to the idea of a clean-sheet vehicle, a Son of Saturn based on EELV parts, but to see this thing done by the SDV route is probably best. Use Shuttle-C to launch JIMO, mega Mars probes(?), asteroid-pushers, and the first Lunar flights, and when thats going on be planning for Shuttle-Z with its heavy-duty cryogenic upper stage.

Josh Cryer · 2004-06-07 13:57:58

Histoically when?! Apollo. Okay. How about the last decade? Not even close.

Oops, you're right, while NASA's budget has increased, inflation has made it less than it was. Sorry, wasn't thinking.

If NASA tries to retire the Shuttle in lieu of the SDV now, they have to go through congressional hearings like they did with the Shuttle (when they wanted to build it).

NASA has to do that regardless, no? Better sooner than later.

They have to fight Congress, who might decide to make the Shuttle an election year ploy (save the Shuttle, save the Shuttle... oh, i can see it now) in retiring it.

Not NASA, Bush, which is why his plan isn't really ballsy, it's slow paced and won't achieve anything significant in the whole of his tenure.

Then, they have to get the ISS partners to agree to a delay in ISS construction until the SDV is built- something that does not endear us to friends or win the hearts and minds of allies.

Yes, again, Bush is afraid to look bad.

This isn't about "Bush's wonderful vision for space" this is about "Bush playing politics and appeasing his daddy without a definite plan."

SDV could get the ISS built. The argument is simple, "The Shuttle isn't going to fly any time soon, so ISS is delayed either way, we're better working on this new tech that doesn't have such vunerable systems as the Shuttle does, which can get us to the moon and beyond." This is not a major coup here, the partners would shake there heads at most (as if they actually contributed that much anyhow). But the job would get complete. It would maybe be one year behind or so.

It also means that US of A has no means to get into space until 2014- starting, now.

I don't understand this comment, are you saying that it's going to take 10 years to develop SDV?

Killing the Shuttle, which kills ISS, pretty much negates the need for an astronauts corps, and aeronautical engineers too.

Killing the Shuttle doesn't mean killing Shuttle-infrastructure. It means killing the Shuttle and creating something on the tried and true Shuttle tech.

NASA suddenly ends up doing nothing in space, and hoping to god it can build an SDV on an artifical timeline

NASA is already doing less in space, and from what you're saying, the Shuttle is going to get scrapped anyway, it'll be snowballed under the table without anyone really noticing. I don't see that happening. The Shuttle won't get scrapped until someone can say "we can complete the ISS without the Shuttle."

The CEV is a small portion, so it will happen.

We'll see. That's another striking point though, that the CEV is mostly just "will this tech work" studying whilst we are sitting with a Space shuttle that has proved that its technology works. It's just that the carrier is far too dangerous, this was paramount when the thing was designed (the large wingspan proved from the very beginning to be too much of a heat absorber, scaring the living daylights out of many of the designers; it was done for military reasons, of course).

The Shuttle is going away after 2010- so we either have NASA give that money back to Congress, or we have NASA use that money to do something else.

Give that money back? So, you're saying that the Shuttle is going to get scrapped anyway, and the money is going to go back to NASA? Isn't this the bit where we have to sit back and say "um?"

Bush pointed the way.

Nah, he just got people talking, we'll see soon whether or not they'll walk the talk. And whether or not it's actually going to achieve anything remotely useful.

I want it all now too. But it makes more sense to go slower. We tie our hands and give up too much if we get rid of the Shuttle right now.

We tie our hands politically, no more, from what you're saying I gather you think that the Shuttle has become useless except for the political points it can help score.

But of course, I would agree with Bill, it would be a really bad disaster to just end the Shuttle without a similarly powerful alternative. Shuttle to SDV is the only way I would find it easy on my stomach.

clark · 2004-06-07 14:30:40

Not NASA, Bush, which is why his plan isn't really ballsy, it's slow paced and won't achieve anything significant in the whole of his tenure.

Well, yeah. Bush isn't Captain Fearless of the USS Mars or Bust. Space community is small. Christrian Right is big. You want a leader when all we have is a politician trying to get reelected. That said, this plan does provide opportunity for the space advocates. It is a begining, the first step back, and then on.

SDV could get the ISS built. The argument is simple, "The Shuttle isn't going to fly any time soon, so ISS is delayed either way, we're better working on this new tech that doesn't have such vunerable systems as the Shuttle does, which can get us to the moon and beyond." This is not a major coup here, the partners would shake there heads at most (as if they actually contributed that much anyhow). But the job would get complete. It would maybe be one year behind or so.

Sheer fantasy. We stop flying the Shuttle, it will be at least 4-5 years before any SDV is developed and vetted for launch. We have paper studies that show we can do it, but no hardware, and no experience in actually doing it. This, coupled with the fact that the ISS stops right where it is in development during this time, and no more than 2 people stay on the station. We get nothing done in terms of research, and we may very well lose the station because we have to depend solely on Russia. We would end up completing the station by 2016, right when we want to get out of it.

Perhaps build SDV in tandem with the use of the Shuttle, but we need to keep the Shuttle going as long as possible to complete the ISS, to get as much research out of it as possible. Retiring the Shuttle takes hardware away in lieu of paper vapor-ware.

GCNRevenger · 2004-06-07 14:42:42

Oh I think its a little worse then that... without Shuttle to go to the ISS, I doubt the ISS would remain useable at all beyond three or perhaps four years. You would have to rely on Progress-B and ATV entirely for reboost, and I don't know if they can do it on their own. The gyros that ISS uses for attitude control won't fit in either ATV or Progress, and must be brought up by Shuttle. And best of all, ISS science racks won't fit through the Russian hatch that Progress and ATV use. The ISS, as an instrument of science, is almost entirely worthless without Shuttle. No objects of size or weight, around which the thing is built, can be brought up any other way.

So, it is somewhat gutsy for Bush to pull the plug on Shuttle at all... I am a little surprised our allies aren't making a stink of it, unless they have realized that ISS is worthless as a science platform to begin with too. I also have doubts that the station will remain in useable condition even if Shuttle's life was extended to the original 2025 date.

The Space Shuttle at SS Freedom, which became ISS+Mir-II, were never really separate projects to begin with after the USAF abandoned Shuttle. Shuttle needed a destination, and the destination was built that needed Shuttle.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-06-04 14:32:02

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#77 2004-06-04 15:28:10

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#78 2004-06-04 16:32:38

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#79 2004-06-04 17:25:01

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#80 2004-06-04 20:26:26

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#81 2004-06-04 21:44:36

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#82 2004-06-05 06:40:06

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#83 2004-06-05 11:57:47

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#84 2004-06-05 15:27:26

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#85 2004-06-06 07:06:03

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#86 2004-06-06 10:05:05

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#87 2004-06-06 11:19:40

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#88 2004-06-06 13:09:45

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#89 2004-06-06 15:36:52

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#90 2004-06-06 15:56:20

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#91 2004-06-06 16:26:19

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#92 2004-06-06 17:24:15

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#93 2004-06-06 18:20:37

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#94 2004-06-07 09:07:58

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#95 2004-06-07 09:35:05

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#96 2004-06-07 09:40:26

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#97 2004-06-07 11:51:08

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#98 2004-06-07 13:57:58

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#99 2004-06-07 14:30:40

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

#100 2004-06-07 14:42:42

Re: Bush and Mars and Re-election - Bush and Mars and Re-election

Board footer