Obama Space Plan = WOW!

I have to admit I was skeptical at first, and this from me who as a child dreamed of becoming an astronaut and astronomer. The details are in the speech he is currently delivering at Cape Canavrel, FL. Budgeting an additional $6 billion, development of commercial booster technology and services, and the development of a manned deep space system and the booster technology to carry the constituent parts of said manned system for assembly in orbit and begin building it in 2015. Will send astronauts to an asteroids and to see the first humans to Mars by the mid '30s.

This program offers the resources and ideas that will save jobs and create thousands of new ones.

"We've been there before," says Obama, referring to the moon. "There are other places to explore."

UPDATE: "My plan will add 2500 jobs here along the Space Coast."

UDATING TO ADD LINKS:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/04/15/future-us-leadership-human-space-flight

Whatch for video/transcript here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/president-obama-orders-review-mine-safety

Also look for more at Nasa.gov: http://www.nasa.gov/home/index.html

colonization, transportation, crop growth, water systems on the Moom is a practical thing to do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=268097

Obama Is Giving NASA A Green Makeover


snip//

But as the agency's rocket engineers are fretting, its earth scientists are prepping. NASA's earth science team would receive an extra $2.4 billion -- a 62 percent increase -- through 2015 to study changing temperatures, ice coverage, ozone depletion, and atmospheric carbon dioxide. Rather than launching new projects, NASA would revive missions that the Bush administration either stalled or canceled.

This focus on climate change would mark a decided shift in NASA's mission and serve as a reminder of the influence that each administration has on the nation's scientific direction. At the same time, Obama may face a tough crowd speaking at Cape Canaveral on Thursday, given that the base will shed about 9,000 jobs when the Constellation program ends.

Plus: the Moon is the logical launch point for Mars missions.

Is equivalent to spending an afternoon in the Bonneville salt flats, and thinking you know everything about the Earth.

If you want to talk about what a human being has seen up close with his own eyes, fine. But we've studied the moon extensively for over 50 years using all kinds of telescopic and imaging toys. We know a lot more about the moon than you might think.

That being said, I agree that mankind's future is in the stars, and it's only a question of will we realize that and be able to successfully act upon it before we've made this planet entirely unlivable? I'm betting no.

thought the money could be better spent here where it's desperately needed. But the moon walk was cool.

They won't take the money from the space program and help the poor or anyone else, and I suspect you know that. The money to do all these things is already there...we're just spending it on war. Why not use THAT money to spend where it's desperately needed?

Your argument is one I've heard for years, and it's a false choice. Want money to help people...end the war.

So sue me.

I've always thought the money could be better spent here where it's desperately needed.

And I addressed that point that YOU made. So sue me. :shrug:

don't share it, but it's mine, MINE, I tell ya. And nah, sorry about the snark. :hi:

;)

Besides, suing me would only yield 28 Godzilla movies and a puking cat.

:hug:

spend the money on useful space science. I think Obama's plan does this. It focuses the budget on studying Earth and the same time developing the next generation of heavy lift vehicles. These vehicles could be of use even if future manned flights never occur. In the meantime we spend the NASA budget on missions that in general produce a lot of science and have a lot of benefits for Americans and the world. It seems like a good short and long term plan. I'm waiting to see what the rest of the industry thinks. But I'm guessing people will be higher on it than Bushes under budgeted moon base waste of time.

giving NASA a 'green' makeover. Sounds like that would be more beneficial for us here.

thing a Mars expedition does is to fly around it and come home. And if that is all they intend to do, it would be cheaper and easier to do it unmanned.

A moon base will give practical experience at constructing shelters, digging subterranian habitats, developing self-sustaining food production, etc., in a locale three days from earth, rather than several months from earth - if something goes wrong (and it undoubtedly WILL - that is the nature of exploration) we can reach the colony and fix it or rescue the colonists. That would not be an option with Mars.

There is no way that we will EVER colonize Mars unless we first have a successful, self-sustaining colony on the moon.

The Moon is all wrong as a trail for visiting Mars. It has no atmosphere, no water and carbon dioxide from which to make oxygen and fuel for the return trip, huge extremes of temperature not found on Mars, a radically long say and night and many other problems. Bob Zubrin ("Mars Direct") says we can go directly to Mars right now with existing technology and relatively cheaply instead of the huge wild goose chase of first going to the Moon. Going to the Moon as a stepping stone to Mars was dreamed up under the Cheney study which was a fantasy. That study, headed by Dick Cheney, said that we would actually build Mars rockets on the Moon so that takeoff would require less fuel than takeoff from the Earth. This is a colossal Rube Goldberg machine, a complicated way of doing something simple, a huge detour to an achievable goal. Suppose they build a Mars rocket on the Moon. But then they realize that to make it work they need a screw they don't happen to have. If that Mars rocket were built on the Earth it would be no sweat to pick up that screw. If that rocket were built on the Moon picking up that screw would require going back to the Earth and then back to the Moon. And then installing the screw in an airless environment, every engineer's dream come true - not. The Moon as a stepping stone to Mars is a total fantasy and pipe-dream.

...would provide us with a good staging point for further exploration. Imagine if we could design space craft without worrying about the limitations of earth's gravity and atmosphere?

This is some star trek shit right here.

and we learn so much more from them. It's a really hard sell with science. Technology wise a moon mission verse a near Earth Object are different enough that no extra benefit is made designing for moon first manned missions. It was thought to be counter productive. The only sell for manned space flight is the challenge and the since that humans have that experiencing things "in" person carry more weight than 2nd hand. People feel this is worth the cost/risk. Even if pure science wise it is a hard argument. In theory designing and creating future heavy lift vehicles have benefits even if the deep space manned missions never pan out.

We didn't have that data last time we were physically on the moon.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/space/11/13/water.moon.nasa/index.html

And that's an argument for probes, not manned space flight.

:hi:

Crystals can be grown without gravity induced imperfections.

They've made spheres in space that are used to calibrate equipment. They are far rounder that those produced on earth, if you want to talk microns and nanometers.

Right now our options are limited, but a permanent facility for low/zero gravity production lead to better stuff. There is also the whole "the Earth shakes" thing. It's less than one one-hundred thousandth of an inch most of the time, but when you're talking nanometers and microns, it's a roller-coaster ride. We could make things flatter, rounder, smoother, squarer and just plain truer in space.

into building a base or bases on the moon, forget it.

Right now, we've managed to cooperate on the ISS. That's it for now, especially with the world in financial chaos caused by the bankers.

Sending people back to the moon now under present conditions would be mere hotdogging and headline grabbing.

Obama's ideas are more sound.

it will make sense to invite international partners to join us in landing on the Moon and Mars. First things first. When we learn one or more ways for people to make big money in space, that's when prices will come down and activity will really accelerate.

If we go without solving the radiation, water and supply issues, it'll just be a repeat of 1969. Mars is off limits for the same reasons. These problems aren't even close to being solved.

Personally I would rather have a working space elevator first. That would truly open up space exploration, and make future Moon missions very cheap.

From HuffPo:

Obama's initial space program intended to cancel the Orion crew capsule, but the president revised the plan and plans to rescue the Orion capsule. The yet-to-be built spacecraft will not be used for its original purpose (a moon landing); instead, the revived Orion capsule will be "slimmed down and used as an emergency escape pod on the space station," the AP explains. The move promises to save jobs, particularly in Colorado, and make the US less reliant on Russian space facilities, officials say.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/15/obama-nasa-space-program_n_539290.html#slide_image

The real cost issue isn't how far away something is; it's how much energy it takes and many new systems you have to develop to get there. Once you get to low Earth orbit (LEO) you are half way to anywhere in terms of energy. Once you have a beyond Earth orbit (BEO) transportation system, you can go anywhere that doesn't have a lot of gravity. So you can go to Lagrange points, asteroids, and small moons without developing whole new systems.

Going to the moon, however, requires whole new systems to get you down and get you back up again. Landing on Mars requires a completely different bunch of new systems because Mars is much bigger and has an atmosphere. So we'll develop the BEO transportation system first and start exploring the low gravity areas of the solar system. We can take on international partners to build the landing systems for each large moon or planet we want to visit.

The best and most important part of Obama's plan is that it begins supporting commercial development of space. Only if we can sometime generate wealth out there will we ever do more than visit.

the reaction to this announcemnt has been, well, mixed at DU. But count me in your camp on this one.

Sid

I wish there was going to be a base on the moon first since there is easier lift-off from there, but whatever keeps the space program going is great!

Armstrong and a bunch of others spouted off before Obama presented his plan, so we don't know what Armstrong thinks now. That's why Buzz asked all his old friends to take a second look.

And I am all in support of adding good paying jobs in my state.

Like you, I was a little skeptical (even worried) about past Obama statements on the future of the space program. Recommended!

Artificial gravity so that men can live there without suffering from prolonged weightlessness...

We built this space station we have now without it and the reason was said to be to study the effects of weightlessness....and we have studied that enough now to know that it is harmful for long durations.
I have long felt that this was done to slow us down not to learn anything.

A ship under accelleration does provide G-forces, and of course so does rotating a ship around its axis. Just because we set the space station up as "weightless" laboratory doesn't mean that that is the only way we can set up an orbital station. A spinning station actually can provide varying levels of force depending on how far from the center (weightless) you move.

It is actually more difficult to maintain a weightless platform that one that has the force of gravity.
And this is nothing new....most scientist thought that the first space station would be a rotation one providing gravity so people could actually live there for extended periods of time....and could actually grow their own food.
But instead we spent 40 years studying weightlessness instead of moving forward to explore the planets.

The US version finale.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cak2_m_9i8M&feature=fvsr

"By the way Colonel, President Obama really wanted to be in the control room when you landed, but her father is seriously ill, so she and her sister went to Chicago to be by his side".

Thanks for the thread, Subdivisions.

We are so blessed to have such an extraordinary President with vision AND smarts.

to dump all over the speech. Both of them searching out "skeptical" and "worried" and "critical" spokespeople to broadcast . . ANYTHING to try and keep this really remarkable man from looking good.

Money well spent

Now it's genius!!

The only thing in life this man finds difficult is bowel movements

Now, we at least have a reasonable way forward with the money to support it.

I know, the people who were getting all warm and fuzzy in their undies at the thought of Obama dismantling NASA -the tiny slice of discretionary spending we put towards space, of course, being the only thing keeping us from ending shit like homelessness :eyes:- are really pissed off at him now.

But, then, most of them were pissed off at him before, too.

Stopped clocks and such.

And to think-- before 1957, we had no hunger, poverty and homelessness.


Fie on you, wantonly cash wasting Space Explorers! :eyes:

It's getting pathetic. Really.

I'm in a dark closet crying right now. Yeah, real broke up about it


:rofl:

It's got to be miserable in there.

Well then, here is my two cents. Yay third grade.

Does anyone have a link to the video that doesn't require Windows Media Player?

I looked on Youtube but did not find it.

From what I have heard about Obama's space plan so far, basically, it sounds to me like we are going to stop actually doing space flight and going back to just thinking about maybe doing it again some day. That is very depressing.

I'm all for R&D, and we should be thinking about future space flight programs. But we should also be doing them right now.

Obama has NO WAY to promise what NASA will or will not be doing TWENTY YEARS FROM NOW.

What I want to know is what will NASA be doing in the next 3 years Obama has left in office. The answer, apparently, is "not much".

time to invest in Martian real estate!

:P

That's what we really need.

Someone'll start talking about it, the media will slam it as science fiction, constituents will howl in outrage about Star Trek, and that'd be that.

. . . funny that we'll also be racing to best them in our new space race.

jobs by NASA workers.

Why the false reporting?????????

Obama is also going to pay out as per our Fla news tonight nearly 50 million $$ for displaced workers.

so why is there such bullshit reporting and spin?????

Do you and those writing this really think Americans are that stupid???????


Futhermore..

Obama supposedly came to speak with NASA workers..but he did not speak to NASA workers!

It was all a con job!




Per MSNBC:

"Tamron Hall, anchorette, says to reporter Jay Barbree, "In just about 45 minutes Obama will speak to NASA workers to explain why he's deciding to end plans for America's return to the moon, at least for now. The administration feels there's a time to reassess and reset the situation. It is not his quest to end our attempts to go to the moon, correct?"

BARBREE: He's messing up the sandbox if you will. But you said there in the introduction that he's coming here to speak to the workers. And what I've just been told, he's going to speak before about 200 select people in the building where they will build the Orion and not a single worker, I'm told, has been invited.

HALL: Wow.

BARBREE: I wonder if the President knows that. Maybe he'll be told that when he gets over to the building and maybe we'll find him pulling in some workers because, after all, that was the purpose of his trip, as you said."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

and the spin continues ............

but lets remember what Obama promised when he was running for our white house..and this is nit the first set of lies he told in Florida..we Floridians have long memories..the guy who said no drilling now says..drill baby drill..

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

The WhiteHouse billed this as a speech to NASA workers, and was *interrupted repeatedly with rousing applause*. Only problem, as leaked on MSNBC (wooops), NO NASA workers were in fact there.

A visibly perturbed Jay Barbree, during MSNBC live coverage on Thursday, called out Barack Obama for making cuts in NASA that could result, as he claimed, in 9,000 employees losing their jobs even though during the campaign, as the long time NBC correspondent reported, the President "told 15,000 workers here at the Space Center that if they would vote for him, that he would protect their jobs." This sent MSNBC live anchor Alex Witt immediately into administration defense mode as she asserted: "I will say on behalf of the Obama administration, they contend that 2500 new jobs will be created."

The following exchange was aired during MSNBC's live April 15 coverage at around 12pm Eastern:

ALEX WITT: Right now on MSNBC, President Obama gets ready to head to NASA to try to build support for his efforts to revamp the nation's space program. Although the international space station will remain active, plans to send astronauts back to the moon are being scrubbed for now and that is dividing, not only Congress, but also some of the few people who have actually stepped foot on the lunar surface. Let's bring in NBC's Jay Barbree who's live for us at the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Florida. Jay, good day to you.



JAY BARBREE: Good day to you Alex.

WITT: Okay so this is really, there's a dividing line here between these very few elite men.

BARBREE: It sure is. Well I'll tell you it's really not. You have, you have Buzz Aldrin, who is - has his oldest son Andrew Aldrin is a, is the chief planner of the Launch Alliance Group, the Delta 4 rocket and the Atlas 5 rocket and they are the people who are trying to get the job of hauling the Orion spacecraft into space and they're going to downsize it so they can put them on these rockets. So what - they're trying to do that. Neil Armstrong and all the rest of the guys, they see what's happening here. We do not have a conceivable...I can't get the word out. They do not have continuation of the space program.

WITT: Okay.

BARBREE: But I'm a little disturbed right now, Alex. I just found out some very disturbing news. The President came down here in his campaign and told these 15,000 workers here at the Space Center that if they would vote for him, that he would protect their jobs. 9,000 of them are about to lose their job. He is speaking before 200, extra hundred people here today only. It's invitation only. He has not invited a single space worker from this space port to attend. It's only academics and other high officials from outside of the country. Not one of them is invited to hear the President of the United States, on their own space port, speak today. Back to you Alex.



Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2010/04/15/msnbc-anchor-spins-obama-after-nbc-reporter-slams-obama-nasa-cuts#ixzz0lEJJRml3


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Neil Armstrong
America’s only path to low Earth orbit and the International Space Station will now be subject to an agreement with Russia to purchase space on their Soyuz – at a price of over 50 million dollars per seat with significant increases expected in the near future .

This is where you look for objective analysis?
:spray:
Do you KNOW what their motto is?

yes MSNBC interview..but why bother reading anything..right..just keep up the spin!!

so is MSNBCon your shit list too???????

Fore example, the "7000 jobs lost". Know where that came from? Phasing out the Shuttle. That loss of 7000 jobs would have happened anyway under Bush's plan. Considering the extreme cost of operating the Shuttle, that two out of five have killed their entire crew, I don't think clinging to this 1970's launch system would be a a good idea for any administration.

then I looked on the MSNBCweb site..again I could not find it there at all..funny huh????????? Their own interview and they don't have it posted..

so i used google..

now do we have to have a source club at DU now?????

Like Helen Thompson is out..

Glen Greewald is out

depending on the day Krugman is in or out..

firedoglake..nope ..they are out

Huffington post..out too

Daily Kos out until Markos flip flopped and changed his stance on HCR..

please..

Now MSNBC out...

please lets get a list you approve of.ok??

up is down and down is up now at du..

privitizing was bad when Bush was in office..now it is good with Obama

Immunity for FISA illegal wiretapping was bad when Bush was in office ..good now

Renditions were treasonous when Bush did it ..aok when Obama does it..

Habeas Corpus bad to be removed..now Obama doesn't reinstate it ..good now.

Signing statements bad when Bush does it ..good when Obama does it.

Teachers getting fucked and bad with Bush, good with Obama.........

wtfff???????????????

GO LOOK IT UP YOURSELF!

oh and by the way..they showed on my local Fla news who was at the meeting with Obama..and then they had interviews with the NASA scientists and workers..they were pissed to say the least!

And if you understand DU rules ..i could not accroding to the rules post the full interviews or story..try reading it at the links provided.

Nor with the fact that they interviewed a critic of the President's plan. The issue is that Newsbusters (motto: "The leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing liberal media bias") extracted only critical and misleading information from the story about the jobs impact of the plan and ATTACKED MSNBC story as "pro-Obama spin".

Not to be the a professional judge of good and bad news sources, but a shrill anti-Obama blogger on a dedicated right-wing site is not a good place start.

there search takes you to Newsbuster..on MSNBC's web site.

go ahead go to MSNBC and see where a search for their own interview shows up..so your criticism should be addressed to MSNBC because the source for their interview as posted on MSNBC is Newsbuster!!!!!!!!!!

directly from the MSNBC web site..is as follows..go ahead look it up!! do the damn search yourself for the MSNBC interview!!!!!!!!

MSNBCSearch results:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/?id=11881780&q=ALEX%20WITT%20interview%20with%20jay%20barbree&p=1&st=1&sm=user





Web results for “ALEX WITT interview with jay barbree”
View all web results

Sponsored Results

Web results for “ALEX WITT interview with jay barbree”
View all web results

1 - 4 of 65400 results

Alex Witt | NewsBusters.org
Updated April. 10, 2010

And MSNBC's Alex Witt, for one, doesn't think it worth ... option in this bill," Nadler said in a March 18 interview on ... La Shawn Barber Lucianne.com Media Bloggers Associationhttp://newsbusters.org/people/alex-witt

Jay Barbree - NBC - Obama NASA | Video | "Disturbed ...
Updated 1 hour ago

Alex Witt, Jay Barbree, msnbc, NASA, NBC, NBC News, Pres. Barack Obama ... night (more on that below), and one segment featured a somewhat heated interview ...http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nbc-space-correspondent-disturbed-by-pres-obamas-nasa...

MSNBC Dives To Cover For Obama With New 'Special ...
Updated April. 3, 2010

This morning, MSNBC’s Alex Witt was in full damage control ... when he made the following comment in reaction to Jay ... La Shawn Barber Lucianne.com Media Bloggers Associationhttp://newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-sargent/2009/03/20/msnbc-dives-cover-obama-new...

MSNBC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Updated March. 31, 2010

... Jodi Applegate, broadcast a lineup of news, interviews, and ... Ian Williams; Pete Williams; Alex Witt; Jenna Wolfe; John Yang ... rating-hits-two-decade-low. ^ http://blogs.ajc.com/jay ...http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=MSNBC

See all web results for "ALEX WITT interview with jay barbree"


funny..but when you just plug in Jay Barbee's name you get all hsi other Interviews on MSNBC but on the MSNBC's own web site ..they ..not me..but MSNBC themselves source Newsbuster with their own interview..

so take it up with MSNBC!

in fact it was the #1 source on their own web site source page!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/?id=11881780&q=ALEX%20WITT%20interview%20with%20jay%20barbree&p=1&st=1&sm=user

This is classic.
:rofl:

Democrats laughed their asses off at Bush.

Where the hell will the funding come from? We're BROKE, remember?

First let me say that everything I typed in the OP was true as he was giving his NASA address today. There is nothing false in my reporting. I can't say that about yours though.

I saw the exchange you spoke of between Witt and Barbree and Barbree was visibly angry, so much so that I thought he'd blow a gasket on the spot. What you are not reporting is the way he stood down when Hall went to him AFTER the President's address. His whole demeanor had changed and he conceded that the plan sounded good and that the speech was good. He was still concerned what would happen to the current jobs in the interim preceeding the beginning of the deep space program. President Obama, however, said that this period of time would be used to design Orion for use as a ISS rescue system. Meanwhile, the rest of NASA would begin to design a deep space mission while assisting in the development of commercial space flight systems to boost sattellites and things like a new space telescope.

Your report left off with Barbree still steaming. He was quite a bit calmer and happier after the address, though he made a blatant attempt at saving face for his outburst with Witt earlier.

to the people who want to explore space.

As long as it's a union job.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/going-nowhere


That's by Bob Zubrin, the originator of the "Mars Direct" idea that we could go straight to Mars right now if we wanted, and relatively cheap, without stopping at the space station or a Moon base and without the complex and "mission-critical" events of building vehicles in space which is dangerous and complicated. He says we can get to Mars right now with existing technology relatively cheaply with vehicles built entirely on earth.

Zubrin is a champion of two key ideas. One, that "destinations drive transportation." Knowing where you are going, having a distinct destination and goal greatly clarifies and accelerates the drive to build the vehicles etc.

Second, that going to Mars is much better than going to the Moon because you can "live off the land." Unlike the Moon, Mars has water and carbon dioxide which can provide the materials for breathing and making rocket fuel and oxidizer, which mean that a rocket can go to Mars and pick up THERE many of the key materials needed to get back, making the trip a lot cheaper and easier than it otherwise might be.

As part of this, unmanned rockets would be sent to Mars to begin turning water and carbon dioxide into methane and oxygen. Even much of the Martian surface crew habitat would land there unmanned. This is what is called "forward deployment." You put everything in place so that everything will be ready when the crew arrives. Then, a few months later the crew arrives in a vehicle that doesn't have to carry all that with them. They're only sent after you're sure the equipment sent to Mars is running properly and all got there. Which is much safer than sending everything at once. Thus, the first vehicles there carry all that equipment without having to also carry with them crew habitats and so forth which means they can go at different speeds and other advantages.

While I'm ambivalent about space at all, given the urgent needs of our own planet, if we are going to have space exploration at all, I like Zubrin's approach of Mars Direct (no wild goose chases and dissipation of effort in multiple directions, checking out all sorts of things in the solar system with no real focus) and I like many of the concepts underlying Mars Direct.

What do you think of this and what do you think of Zubrin's critique of Obama's new space plans (above link)?

It can be done and it would f#¤%&£@ rock for those of us not around the first time. I get giddy at the mere thought of another moon landing.

And I suspect it could do wonders for the interest in science as a whole among the younger generations.

"Pretty cool, huh? Do you want to help build the rocket to Mars? www.education.gov"

We landed, we walked around, we collected some rocks, we went home. It was a big let down. Because of the harsh conditions and lack of atmosphere or water (unlike Mars) it will never be a great place to have a colony.

When we landed, the astronaut who first set his foot on the surface said, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." What most people don't know is that his line was written in advance and he screwed it up. He was SUPPOSED to say, "That's one small step for - A - man, one giant leap for mankind." After screwing up his line, NASA told him to repeat it the correct way, which he did but by then the damage was done.

All this underscores that in terms of real vision we had a lot of idiots involved in going to the Moon. Moreover, an early space flight was only supposed to be for a few hours. So they never bothered to provide urination facilities for the astronaut. He had to go and he was in his space suit about to take off and they stupidly ordered him not to urinate as the ship was about to take off. Eventually they said okay, you can urinate in your spacesuit. Electric sensors in the suit went haywire. He wet his pants and that's the condition in which he was launched into space.

These NASA people aren't playing with a full deck. You might argue that this is reason to go to the Moon first, so that we can practice living in space etc. But wasn't that supposed to be the mission of the Space Station? Which incidentally has had many problems. Bob Zubrin, champion of "Mars Direct" or going to Mars directly with no stops either at the Moon or space station (see my posts on Zubrin elsewhere on this thread) says destinations drive transportation. You have to have a goal, a dream, a mission and that motivates all the innovation and quality. Going BACK to the Moon doesn't. It just amounts to shuffling around. What has the space station really accomplished?

Let me put it this way. If you're ever not going anywhere, the space station is one BEAUTIFUL place to stop in the middle.

I have no illusions about the moon being Las Vegas on steroids.
It has nothing to do with the destination and everything to do with the accomplishment.
Yes, it has been done before - but we could use a reminder.

The world would stop if a new moonlanding was televised.

Not saying we should not aim for Mars.

As for the rest of your essay running of on its own tangent:
"All this underscores that in terms of real vision we had a lot of idiots involved in going to the Moon."
Because a line was misread. _All_ of that completely underscores it. Okay.

The Russians recently mentioned the first. Protecting the planet is the first goal of outward bound space programs. Robots, humans, whatever. To date with all the money poured into space engineering not enough is done to spot and track incoming threats, simply observing. Likewise the possibly second greatest priority, equally doable and inexpensive compared to exploring unviable wastelands, are the various SETI endeavors. Mostly scanning and watching. For a long time the obvious has had to stand at the back of the line, underfunded with extreme prejudice, underperforming to our species potential usefulness to the biosphere.

The real priorities seem somewhat fudged by the glamour and pride of getting a few people out there and back again. The highest priorities might not be an emergency but currently the two defined areas are defense and communication satellites. The former is likely the only reason that eventually people were put up there in the first place. The second is now as routine as repairing land lines. Do we want other countries putting up, repairing, either with us out of the game? I hope we can as easily forget the RW push to redefine everything about space as a paranoid Star Wars venture(and never ever consider anything else).

These are for the times we live in. Getting a human and his encapsuled human environment out there may have reached a temporary technological dead end, needing more breakthroughs.

Research. Satellite repairman. Building a better spacecraft. Obama is partly at least taking the thinking man's approach to a vital potential.

Playing to the imagination of the masses by essentially putting Captain Cook on a life raft in the Antarctic is what the MSM considers the A-1 priority, while the economic cost of all endeavors EXCEPT communications and mapping of threats and potential other intelligent civilizations is at the moment ruinously high.

Your first goal of planetary protection is also the top public goal in every survey I've seen. Other top goals are collecting solar power in space, developing technology, and inspiring young people. Moon bases and Mars landings rank pretty far down. Until now, NASA and the MSM have paid no attention to what the voters want, because they've never asked them. Maybe Obama and his people are actually listening, which would be a bigger first for NASA than landing on the Moon.

Until now, NASA managers always decided what they wanted to do and then tried to sell it to the President, the Congress, and the people. When they got orders they didn't like, they just ignored them. They ignored three quarters of Bush's Vision for Space Exploration - the parts that told them to lower the cost of going into space, fully engage private industry, and take on more international partners. Now Obama has a team that may actually follow directions.

we are talking about a 2 year mission. Simply orbiting Mars is insane.

We won't just orbit Mars - we'll explore its two small moons. Who knows what we'll find? And if NASA's research into advanced propulsion succeeds, it won't take 2 years either.