Moon...Mars

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » January 9, 2004, 1:12 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/0 ... index.html

moon base base and mars mission!

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » January 9, 2004, 1:16 pm

Voronwë wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/0 ... index.html

moon base base and mars mission!

yeah lets spend billions more. I don't think we'll be in the financial shape to do anything like this.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » January 9, 2004, 1:30 pm

Skogen wrote:
Voronwë wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/0 ... index.html

moon base base and mars mission!
yeah lets spend billions more. I don't think we'll be in the financial shape to do anything like this.

I assume that you have done the research on all of the jobs, scientific breakthroughs, etc that came as a direct result of the Apollo missions before you made this comment?

It has been a while since I looked it up, but here are a few things I found

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/apollo.htm wrote:Every day, in a variety of ways, American lives are touched by space technology. Since 1976, about 1,300 documented NASA technologies have benefited U.S. industry, improved the quality of life and created jobs for Americans. The Apollo program is responsible for changing the way of life in America, especially in health care. Here are some of the contributions of the Apollo program:

ï CAT Scanners and MRI technology (Computer-Aided Tomography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging) used in hospitals worldwide, came from technology developed to computer-enhance pictures of the moon for the Apollo program.

ï As a medical CAT scanner searches the human body for tumors or other abnormalities, the industrial version, or advanced computed tomography inspection system, finds imperfections in aerospace structures and components, such as castings, rocket motors and nozzles.

ï Cool suits, which kept Apollo astronauts comfortable during moon walks, are today worn by race car drivers, nuclear reactor technicians, shipyard workers, people with multiple sclerosis and kids with a congenital disorder known as hypohidrotic ectodermal displasia.

ï Kidney dialysis machines were developed as a result of a NASA developed chemical process that could remove toxic waste from used dialysis fluid.

ï A cardiovascular conditioner developed for astronauts in space led to the development of a physical therapy and athletic development machine used by football teams, sports clinics and medical rehabilitation centers.

ï Cordless power tools and appliances are one of the most successful commercial spin-offs of space-based technology.

ï Athletic shoe design and manufacture also benefited from Apollo. Space suit technology is incorporated into a shoeís external shell. A stress free "blow molding" process adapted from NASA space suit design is also used in the shoeís manufacture.

ï Insulation barriers made of aluminum foil laid over a core of propylene or mylar, which protected astronauts and their spacecraft's delicate instruments from radiation, is used to protect cars and trucks and dampen engine and exhaust noise.

Or look at World Book

Or this Random Company

or from this page

Out of a $1.5 trillion budget, less than 1% is spent on the entire space program! It has been conservatively estimated by U.S. space experts that for every dollar the U.S. spends on the space program, it receives $7 back in the form of corporate and personal income taxes from increased jobs and economic growth. Besides the obvious jobs created in the aerospace industry, thousands more are created by many other companies applying NASA technology in nonspace related areas that affect us daily. One cannot even begin to place a dollar value on the lives saved and improved lifestyles of the less fortunate. Space technology benefits everyone and a rising technological tide does raise all boats.

One small example is the Hubble Space Telescope. Much maligned at first because of its flawed optics, it still produced better photographs than anything here on Earth. Once fixed, it has produced even more startling scientific data which we have only begun to understand and apply. One of the many spinoffs from the Hubble telescope is the use of its Charge Coupled Device (CCD) chips for digital imaging breast biopsies. The resulting device images breast tissue more clearly and efficiently than other existing technologies. The CCD chips are so advanced that they can detect the minute differences between a malignant or benign tumor without the need for a surgical biopsy. This saves the patient weeks of recovery time and the cost for this procedure is hundreds of dollars vs. thousands for a surgical biopsy. With over 500,000 women needing biopsies a year the economic benefit, per year, is tremendous and it greatly reduces the pain, scarring, radiation exposure, time, and money associated with surgical biopsies.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » January 9, 2004, 1:35 pm

As much as I dislike Bush, and as worried as I am about the economy with him as the leader, this is something I like.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » January 9, 2004, 1:36 pm

Maybe there is Oil in them craters

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 9, 2004, 1:56 pm

He's throwing out all the re-election kicks, and this is probably the biggest one so far. I'm really looking forward to seeing if a moon-base actually happens.

Post by **Xouqoa** » January 9, 2004, 2:13 pm

i hope the crab people don't take it over

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 9, 2004, 2:33 pm

OMG they've found artifacts on Mars!

http://www.enterprisemission.com/

We need some conspiracy talk with the Rover egress delayed a few days. Word is they are trying to decide what to do about all of these artifacts. The high gain antenna can transmit 40MB of data per pass yet we see the same few pictures over and over!

Stay tuned for Planet X talk

-------------------

NASA's target for a moon mission is 2018, an official said.

14 years. Almost 50 years after we first landed on the moon. Wow. Things take time. I bet no one back in 1969 thought we wouldnt be returning to space until 2018. (well after the last Apollo 17 lunar landing in December 1972)

Trias · Post by **Trias** » January 9, 2004, 2:42 pm

KAK TAAAAH NIBIRU!!!! LOOK DEEP INTO THE KAHLEYBAAAHHH

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » January 9, 2004, 3:31 pm

That's all very fun and nice arch. Seriosuly, a valid point...but all of these rewards are not reaped immediately. A serious chunk of change has to be thrown down to get something like this even remotely off the ground.

Homercles · Post by **Homercles** » January 9, 2004, 3:35 pm

You gotta spend money to make money.

In my opinion, the space program is the best thing the government can invest money in. The potential rewards for exceeds the price tag.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » January 9, 2004, 4:15 pm

Homercles wrote:You gotta spend money to make money.

In my opinion, the space program is the best thing the government can invest money in. The potential rewards for exceeds the price tag.

Thats my point...we don't have OMGIAMRETARDEDCAUSEALOTISTWOWORDS of cash to throw around to make the money. We have debt. HUGE debt. Are we going to go even further into debt (like A LOT) further in hopes of getting out? Well, maybe...

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » January 9, 2004, 4:20 pm

Skogen wrote:That's all very fun and nice arch. Seriosuly, a valid point...but all of these rewards are not reaped immediately. A serious chunk of change has to be thrown down to get something like this even remotely off the ground.

Is an investment with instant gratification the only valid investment for government to make?

Allow me to apply Reductio ad Absurdum to your statement.

The government should not invest a large amount of money on any area that does not have an immediate return on investment or substantial short term gain.

Therefore, the government should not in any way fund education because the public education system does not provide any short term return on investment to counterbalance the heavy costs.

I agree that some of the rewards are less tangible or more long term than many people will think about, but there is nothing wrong with that. Our government should be making plans for long term sustanable growth on many fronts. This should include economics, education, social welfare, tranportation, etc. I believe that it should also include technological development and space technologies.

Spankes · Post by **Spankes** » January 9, 2004, 4:31 pm

I think all these missions are cool as hell.

That is all.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » January 9, 2004, 4:38 pm

One big reason we haven't gone back to the moon is that there hasn't been much point in doing so. Nearly anything useful that you'd do on the moon, you can do cheaper in orbit.

Instant gratification? That's most of the problem in the US right now. No one looks beyond 5 years it seems, and usually not that far.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » January 9, 2004, 4:40 pm

A hard goal that challenges a nation, (and maybe the world) improves us all. It makes us strive together towards something. It appeals to our dreams, and serves to give us as a society meaning. It is a unifying factor.

In 2020 we colonized Mars. Things such as this are marked with large bullets on the history's timeline.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 9, 2004, 4:48 pm

Whatever they decide the budget is for the new Moon Mission, it should be doubled. Quadruple our budget for unmanned probes while we're at it.

NASA will never be the reason people are starving. Don't be an idiot. Manage the money well but give them as much as they want. People that don't have the foresight to realize exploration and science are in our best interest need to be bitchslapped.

Give all the starving people in the world 100 pounds of Tang mix. That came from the space program!

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » January 9, 2004, 5:42 pm

Another major part of all this is that it is something that spreads excitement and optimism in the population. A rallying point for nationalism (not like Americans need any help with that..).

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » January 9, 2004, 7:31 pm

Winnow wrote:Whatever they decide the budget is for the new Moon Mission, it should be doubled. Quadruple our budget for unmanned probes while we're at it.

NASA will never be the reason people are starving. Don't be an idiot. Manage the money well but give them as much as they want. People that don't have the foresight to realize exploration and science are in our best interest need to be bitchslapped.

Give all the starving people in the world 100 pounds of Tang mix. That came from the space program!

Anyone else remember Space Food Sticks?...heh...lil tubular chocolate, peanut butter etc flavoured goodies...

We really shoulda done something about Proxmire in the 70's...:/...be a lot further along now...

I think we should try and make this a rallying point for the race...Of course we'll have to fingerprint verify any foreign astronauts and we won't allow any brown folks along!...

And no way in Hell does this change my opinion of Bush or most of the politicos out there...His abyssmal policy towards the environment, the Bill of Rights and Humans in general guarantees my ongoing loathing...

Mplor · Post by **Mplor** » January 10, 2004, 1:06 am

Ogbar · Post by **Ogbar** » January 10, 2004, 2:31 am

Here's a picture of what the lunar lander and the moon base port may look like:

In all seriousness, I think this is great news.

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » January 10, 2004, 5:23 am

Homercles wrote:In my opinion, the space program is the best thing the government can invest money in.

I dunno. A little stem-cell research would be nice. What, new lines are banned? Well, who would do a thing like that?

In all seriousness, though, I do think this is cool as hell. Our space program has been suffering - they are one of the first programs to get cut when the boys in green need more cash. I'm glad to see them finally get their due - and maybe we will learn some neat things about life outside our little microcosm.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » January 10, 2004, 11:16 am

Election flap. Just like dad, literally.

Boogahz · Post by **Boogahz** » January 10, 2004, 4:14 pm

Wasn't this one of the points in building the International Space Station? Basically a stopping point for refueling etc. before heading elsewhere, as well as scientific experiments until our technology has reached a point where it is feasible. Right now, well when they were used, the amount of fuel used by the Shuttle would prevent it from doing most of what we want to do. The drives as well would prevent it, hence more spending and testing. This is also going on in the private sector (the spending) by people hoping to get contracts with the gov't to make money.

Deward · Post by **Deward** » January 12, 2004, 11:24 am

The space agency gets a nice chunk of change every year already. The problem is that they (like most of teh government) mismanages it. I would love to see a Mars and/or moon mission in my lifetime but I just don't see it happening. The government needs to get its spending hemmorhage sewed up before it can think about spending even more money.

If teh US would stop wasting money in Israel, Africa and half the other countries in the world then we could not only have the best education system but also add a lot more money to the space program. As it is I think there will be a private company trip to the moon before the government returns.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » January 12, 2004, 1:44 pm

Forthe wrote:Election flap. Just like dad, literally.

Yes, pretty much exactly. Except nobody listened to him back then. Bush is piggybacking on the recent 'Mars Mania' to try and get a few more votes.

I'm a big space supporter. I think it's contributes to society and advances life down on earth in a way that's hard to put a pricetag on. However, with our economy how it is, the huge deficit, along with the added cost of the Iraq war... This just isn't the right time to spend that kind of money.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » January 12, 2004, 1:59 pm

Aslanna wrote:
Forthe wrote:Election flap. Just like dad, literally.
Yes, pretty much exactly. Except nobody listened to him back then. Bush is piggybacking on the recent 'Mars Mania' to try and get a few more votes.

I'm a big space supporter. I think it's contributes to society and advances life down on earth in a way that's hard to put a pricetag on. However, with our economy how it is, the huge deficit, along with the added cost of the Iraq war... This just isn't the right time to spend that kind of money.

Exactly. All of this talk from him is just more bullshit. The only thing that Bush is hoping will materialize from this is more votes.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » January 12, 2004, 2:06 pm

To summarize this thread: YES to space exploration unless Bush is in some form connected, then NO. Gotcha.

EDIT: ... or should we just wait until a Dem is in the Oval Office again? Since that changes everything...

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » January 12, 2004, 2:12 pm

Ashur [FoH] wrote:To summarize this thread: YES to space exploration unless Bush is in some form connected, then NO. Gotcha.

EDIT: ... or should we just wait until a Dem is in the Oval Office again? Since that changes everything...

It has nothing to do with partisan issues. Democrat or Republican it doesn't matter to me.. This isn't the right time for those missions. If it was pre-9/11 and these were proposed I'd be giving them my full support.

The fact that Bush is playing it as a vote-getting card only goes to seal my vote. Which isn't for him.

(Edit.. To clarify: I'm not saying NO to space exploration. I am saying NO to these particular missions at this particular time. )

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » January 12, 2004, 2:28 pm

Ashur [FoH] wrote:To summarize this thread: YES to space exploration unless Bush is in some form connected, then NO. Gotcha.

EDIT: ... or should we just wait until a Dem is in the Oval Office again? Since that changes everything...

Well, no. Now isn't the time because of our deficiet issue. A lot of you argue that the benifit of researching & executing a space program like this would create thousands of jobs, new, promising technologies, and fundamental changes to our lives. I totally agree howver comma like the old saying goes it takes money to make money....and money we don't have right now.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » January 12, 2004, 2:51 pm

So we should not explore space until we have no deficit?

EDIT: I understand you hate Bush, not the issue. I am just curious if people will rally against something they support if it has the potential to hurt thier political stance.

Skogen · Post by **Skogen** » January 12, 2004, 2:55 pm

Ashur [FoH] wrote:So we should not explore space until we have no deficit?

EDIT: I understand you hate Bush, not the issue. I am just curious if people will rally against something they support if it has the potential to hurt thier political stance.

No, I'm not saying that. Our deficiet is HUGE right now. Christ, its way worse than what Reagon left us! (Not to bag on Reagan, he did outspend the USSR & send em down)

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » January 12, 2004, 5:56 pm

Ashur [FoH] wrote:So we should not explore space until we have no deficit?

Why do I get the sense you're only reading what you want to read.

Krurk · Post by **Krurk** » January 12, 2004, 6:23 pm

Winnow wrote:NASA's target for a moon mission is 2018, an official said.

14 years. Almost 50 years after we first landed on the moon. Wow. Things take time. I bet no one back in 1969 thought we wouldnt be returning to space until 2018. (well after the last Apollo 17 lunar landing in December 1972)

The Apollo program relied upon the Saturn booster to get to the moon, but the rocket has since been retired, plans lost and the people who designed and built these are likely dead or senile. Since it's use, no booster made by the US has rivaled it's power.

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap950829.html

To go back, a new system needs to be designed to get to the moon, and it would make sense for them to go with a multi-mission booster capable of sending a payload to Mars as well.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/0 ... index.html

Deward wrote:
If teh US would stop wasting money in Israel, Africa and half the other countries in the world then we could not only have the best education system but also add a lot more money to the space program. As it is I think there will be a private company trip to the moon before the government returns.

"Public Continues to Overestimate Amount of Aid

Even though a majority of the public no longer wants to cut foreign aid, Americans continue to vastly overestimate how much of the federal budget goes to aid. And the public still proposes as appropriate an amount that is much larger than the actual US expenditure. PIPA asked respondents to estimate how much of the federal budget goes to foreign aid, and told them they could answer in terms of fractions of percentage points if they wished, to make them feel comfortable giving a low answer. Nonetheless, the median estimate was 20% of the budget-more than 20 times the actual amount (a bit less than 1%). The mean estimate was even higher, at 24%. Only 5% of respondents estimated an amount of 1% or less. This extreme misperception appeared in all demographic groups. Even among those with post graduate education the median estimate was 8%."

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/BFW/finding1.html

Five minutes with Google.

I'd rather send my money to NASA then to some fat lazy bitch who thinks her job is cranking out kids to get more welfare.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 12, 2004, 6:43 pm

I don't think a whole lot of US aid money to foreign countries goes towards cash payments to single mothers on welfare.

Krurk · Post by **Krurk** » January 12, 2004, 6:49 pm

Actually that was a comment in regards to social welfare within the US, not foreign aid.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » January 12, 2004, 6:49 pm

Funding for NASA has always been political. Take the funding whenever you can get it. Deficits, etc are all smoke an mirrors...we could all give back our extra refund checks we got last year!

You need to ask for a trillion dollars to get about 100 billion the way politics work.

I think most people are wise enough to understand that setting a goal focuses people. We could set a goal to create the largest man made ball of shit by 2018 or we could set a goal to go to Moon/Mars. Either way, it's a goal!

Don't forget our oceans! We still have some exploring to do there and ecosystems to ruin.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » January 12, 2004, 7:09 pm

oh I thought it was in context to the link.

Brotha · Post by **Brotha** » January 12, 2004, 7:49 pm

Skogen wrote:No, I'm not saying that. Our deficiet is HUGE right now. Christ, its way worse than what Reagon left us! (Not to bag on Reagan, he did outspend the USSR & send em down)

Not to nitpick, but at this point in his presidency (1983) the deficit under Reagan was 6 percent of the GDP, compared to 4 percent for Bush this year.

Source: http://www.economist.com/world/na/displ ... id=2335473

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » January 12, 2004, 8:50 pm

Love the Space1999 image Oggie

Seriously though, we all know that you can't "win" the game unless you 1) Conqure all the other nations on the planet or 2) Be the first to Colonize another world...

It's PRETTY obvious (spoken in the tone of Gilderoy Lockhart from Harry Potter) that Bush plays a lot of Civilization in his spare time and reality is becoming a little... fuzzy...

Marb

Krurk · Post by **Krurk** » January 12, 2004, 8:54 pm

Makes sense, at this point in the game the UN condition failed, and it's unlikely he will get a cultural victory. He may try to annex Canada though for domination victory.

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » January 13, 2004, 10:42 am

Skogen wrote:.......(Not to bag on Reagan, he did outspend the USSR & send em down)

You got half of that correct. Reagan had no bearing on the USSR's collapse. That part came about due to Gorby trying to push too many reforms for them to handle all at once (aka perestroika).

Economic ruin isn't enough to topple a government which is backed by a military capable of overwhelming its citzens and squashing any possible rebellion. Case in point : North Korea.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » January 13, 2004, 10:51 am

I remember reading somewhere that at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union their gold reserves amounted to less than $40million.

That's pretty damn near bankrupt IMO

Deward · Post by **Deward** » January 13, 2004, 10:55 am

Krurk wrote:Five minutes with Google.

Here is my five minutes with Google.

http://www.washington-report.org/html/u ... israel.htm

For those that don't want to read the article. It states that we have given 134 BILLION dollars to Israel since 1949 and are currently giving in excess of 3-4 billion in aid every year. This is just Israel. I could dig more to find that we given similar yearly payments to Egypt so they will leave Israel alone.

I do agree though that I would rather see money going to space program than lazy fucks who don't know how to keep their legs closed.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » January 13, 2004, 1:28 pm

134 billion in 55 years... You seem to think that's a completely outrageous number. The only thing I see is that the money should be spread out to different countries, but 134 billion over 55 years is not a lot of money considering we're sitting at a $600 billion deficit accumulated in only 3 years.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » January 14, 2004, 11:57 am

Kelgar wrote:
Skogen wrote:.......(Not to bag on Reagan, he did outspend the USSR & send em down)
You got half of that correct. Reagan had no bearing on the USSR's collapse. That part came about due to Gorby trying to push too many reforms for them to handle all at once (aka perestroika).

Economic ruin isn't enough to topple a government which is backed by a military capable of overwhelming its citzens and squashing any possible rebellion. Case in point : North Korea.

Kelgar you need another edit, because this is dumb as hell. The USSR would have used its military in desperation if they thought they would have a chance, but for all of his bads, Reagan did rebuild our military that was in Canada like shape in 1980 and he had the soviets overall convinced that he wanted a war. It scared them deeply. Read some of the umpteen books written by former Soviet bigwigs in the last 20 years and you can speak logically on the issue.

They would have steamrolled Europe before they would have given in, but they were convinced that we wanted them to so we had a reason to destroy them. Mil Spending, a few bombers on their way jokes, and Levi's brought down the strongest Socialist nation to ever exist.

CalandraWindrose · Post by **CalandraWindrose** » January 15, 2004, 2:04 am

NASA gets something like 15 billion a year - a TINY TINY drop in the bucket compared to other expenditures (approaching 400 billion for defense for one example)

Investment in scientific research has huge mulitplier benefits - more people go into science careers and more basic research occurs - something we have been sorely lacking over the last while imo

If I recall from what I read - the proposals don't really include much in the way of any kind of increase - it proposes to finish the space station, retire the shuttle fleet and reallocate funds already being received into the moon and Mars programs....

the problems with the US budget came about because Bush INCREASED spending while giving everyone a "feel good" tax break that did exactly nothing to stimulate the economy - you can't do both at once and expect the budget to stay balanced.....

Kelgar · Post by **Kelgar** » January 15, 2004, 10:30 am

Kylere wrote:
Kelgar you need another edit, because this is dumb as hell. The USSR would have used its military in desperation if they thought they would have a chance, but for all of his bads, Reagan did rebuild our military that was in Canada like shape in 1980 and he had the soviets overall convinced that he wanted a war. It scared them deeply. Read some of the umpteen books written by former Soviet bigwigs in the last 20 years and you can speak logically on the issue.

They would have steamrolled Europe before they would have given in, but they were convinced that we wanted them to so we had a reason to destroy them. Mil Spending, a few bombers on their way jokes, and Levi's brought down the strongest Socialist nation to ever exist.

Rescind what? Read it again fool. All I said is that the USSR didn't collapse due to losing in the "keeping up with the Joneses" game it had going with the US.

The Cold War was fought over 30+ years before Reagan took office. At the most, Reagan's scaled up arms race caused the USSR to realize much sooner that it had no way of keeping up. Perestroika wasn't a matter of if, but when.

The USSR would have used its military in desperation if they thought they would have a chance

They would have steamrolled Europe before they would have given in, but they were convinced that we wanted them to so we had a reason to destroy them

How is this any different from any prior administration dating back to Eisenhower? Having a healthy fear and respect for MAD is nothing new. The US too was very much afraid of being nuked to hell.

Gorbachev signed the SALT agreement while rescinding a condition that Reagan scrap the SDI program (something he got a Nobel Prize for) thus conceding the possibility of first strike advantage and negated counterstrike capability. This is hardly consistant with your portrayal that the Soviets were the type who would have gone hog wild in Europe had not Reagan waved his wrinkly little cock around. If they were as nuts as you make them out to be, then they would have preemptively struck long before Star Wars could ever come close to being reality.

Krurk · Post by **Krurk** » January 15, 2004, 3:15 pm

Calandra was dead on, NASA's budget for 2004 is $15.5B.

http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy200 ... t/nasa.pdf

Defense comes in at $379.9B

http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy200 ... efense.pdf

However, it's Medicare/Social Security that still takes the biggest bite and there is not much we can do about it.

As far as the comment earlier about foreign aid programs, the total budget for state is $9.4B but that includes a broad range of programs, not just direct loans to other countries. However, just half of that is military related with about $1B going to Israel, the rest between Columbia, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan and other SE Asian countries.

Deward wrote:
http://www.washington-report.org/html/u ... israel.htm

For those that don't want to read the article. It states that we have given 134 BILLION dollars to Israel since 1949 and are currently giving in excess of 3-4 billion in aid every year. This is just Israel. I could dig more to find that we given similar yearly payments to Egypt so they will leave Israel alone.

I agree with this completely, although the counter on their homepage does display abot 30 billion less, but that's just a matter of classifications on the loans. The US policy on disbursements to Israel in it's current form is utter bullshit and demonstrates what a powerful lobby can do for your country. Expect this to likely change in 15-20 years when the US Arab population outnumbers the Jewish population.

However, a lot of that money was a direct result of the US policy of containment during the cold war where through ineptitude we drove most Arab countries towards the Soviets even when they approached us first. Since they became out enemy, we needed a friendly power in the region to protect American interests (oil).

Another thing to keep in mind, Bush has two political reasons to goto the moon and Mars.

Florida
California

Two states with large aerospace indutries that would benefit from increased spending that are crucial to re-election.

* Fixed a link

Raistin · Post by **Raistin** » January 15, 2004, 3:38 pm

134 billion in 55 years... You seem to think that's a completely outrageous number. The only thing I see is that the money should be spread out to different countries, but 134 billion over 55 years is not a lot of money considering we're sitting at a $600 billion deficit accumulated in only 3 years.

If you go back 55 years, 1 billion dollars is a outrageous number. Averaged out, its like 2.2 billion a year. Pool that money along with the countless other countries that we give "billions" to. I'm pretty sure not only would that help our debt, it would also help out a lot of our funding in such as medicare and other much needed programs.

Does anyone know how much money from income taxes the united states brings in each year?

VeeshanVault

Moon...Mars

Moon...Mars

Re: Moon...Mars

Re: Moon...Mars