Bush's plans for space

Remove all ads!

Thought I would start with the front cover from the paper first before posting the article in question:

http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00236/p1-191006_236600a.jpg

im wondering if the article is a nice way of saying that the US is basically claiming space, as we know from hte EU's development of 'Galileo' the resistence from the US for the launch of these satellites was strong and only wavered when the EU would convince the US that these sattelites would never have any millitary implications.

 

That man always seems to come up with new ways to make himself unpopular.

 

It definitely feels like it.

I agree with HB, no wonder the rest of the world dislike this government.

 

Don't worry, Bush will never approve funding for something like space research - unless his cronies have already figured out how to make a few $$$ in the process.

 

*sighs*

Before we get all giddy over a new Bush hate-on at the prompting of a poorly written article...

...why not read the actual speech from 2004 that the article misquotes...

...and then the actual policy as written and defined on August 31 of this year...

Everything therein is entirely reasonable, and would be echoed by any other sovreign nation that had aspirations toward space...but...because it's "W"...

 

He's doing something nice now, be kind to the guy

(My anti-Bush side was reminded of dave chapelle's black bush "Write this down. M.A.R.S. Mars, b!tches! That's right! Red rocks yeh yeh!" )

[ October 20, 2006, 14:09: Message edited by: Trellheim ]

 

Pffft...big deal, beats me why someone would wanna claim a place where there's no beer at all to be found in the first place.

 

It's about damn time in my opinion. The study of military hardware is often the first step to creating a public type of technology.

I'm all for space exploration and any attempt to challenge human scientists to developing new system to deal with issues in space, be they military or otherwise.

 

So Bush is bragging about putting a man on the moon again? Big deal. Why after decades of technological advancements could this not have been done sooner, if it even happened in the first place.

 

This man is... All I can say is he is Bush. And calling a man Bush is one of the worst insults in the whole world( and in the whole space as he interferes )

 

Bush Derangement Syndrome apparantly has no known cure.

 

Once the aliens arrive, Bush might not be so quick to claim space.

 

Disagree. Read The original (Clinton) version . Then read the new one again. Carefully. It's not because it's W; it's because some of the stuff included in it is, um, disagreeable for a lot of other nations.

You'll notice that, among other things, the first version (verbatim) "rejects any limitation on the fundamental right of sovereign nation to acquire data from space". The new version "rejects any limitations on the fundamental rights of the United States to acquire data from space"

In the second version, (verbatim) "peaceful purposes allow U.S. defense and intelligence-related activities in pursuit of national interests", versus "...national security" (emphasis mine in both cases) in the first version.

In the first version, there is no aggressive language of any sort; the national security stuff speaks of (again, verbatim) "deterring, warning, and if necessary defending against enemy attack," "assuring that hostile forces cannot prevent our use of space," and "countering, if necessary, space systems and services used for hostile purposes"

Now let's look at what the new one says. Among other things (verbatim), "deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so [emphasis mine], respond to interference, and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilites hostile to U.S national interets"

And that's the tip of the iceburg--read both of the papers carefully for more (space nuclear power, for instance). Really interesting changes, there. It's certainly not unreasonable to view the new plans unfavorably.

Especially considering the new language about national interests rather than national security; considering that there's a fair bit of continuity (same language and all) between the two papers, it stands to reason that the changes actually mean something. And not, IMO, something good.

 

Well essentially both papers mean the same thing the latter just being somewhat more aggressive. I don't really see the big deal in this since it's just stating the obvious. I think this latter one is given more as a warning for those who are willing to exploit space in order to launch hostile actions against US or its allies. This is quite an obvious remark towards North Korea and Iran of which Iran allready has an sattelite in space and is hoping to become a sattelite launching nation.

 

I could say several bad things about US, but among these numerous negative points is at least one *positive* thing to mention; space-conquest is good and finally someone is taking the iniative. No, I don't mean star wars, but space-colonization. Moon isn't that far off and it could be worth sniffing a little in case there are some valuable minerals. Satellites could be launched from there too, at a fraction of the costs of Earth.

 

I could agree with you, Wordplay, but since it's the same administration that cut funding for the Hubble I wonder if anything good will come from this statement. At the moment, to be honest, I don't expect it to be followed by any particular programs, as NASA's budget has been a bit low from what I know, and it's unlikely that the agency will be completely sidestepped in any space-related project. That, and I suppose it'd take the agreement of the legislative to allow funding for the programs. This document could mean that the US stakes a claim, but at the moment neither it nor anyone else seems to be in position to enforce or challenge it.

Now, if that was 2 years ago, I'd expect Hallyburton to cash in another good bundle of money . Perhaps it's still not too late?

 

The only space he need concern himself with is the space between his ears

 

Didn't you know that aliens have low resistance to shotgun shells? Ask anyone in rural PA...

 

@ The Shaman

Actually, it's good that they make budget cuts in certain areas to focus the freed resources to where it counts. Less faraway rocks and more shuttles and space-stations, thank you. The way I see it, it will be far more beneficial to have space/moon-stations rather than Always Bigger Telescopes.

Unless, of course, the astronomists are suffering from the size-syndrome. The resources on Earth are getting thin, so getting something out-of-Earth should be the priority.

 

Quote:
"Why after decades of technological advancements could this not have been done sooner, if it even happened in the first place."

Here,here!