So, Bush wants us to go back to the Moon and then on to Mars. I think the most amusing of this is that he wants us back to the moon by 2015... that's 11 years out... apparently in 1961, we were able to do it "before this decade is out", about 8.5 years.

I've been a fan of the space program for some time, though its glory days were before I was born. I'd love to see us working to get out there, and most of the statements against Bush mentioned in the Chronicle article were pretty useless: a "lunar outpost could be used ... by corporations eager to make a profit in space." Oh no, you mean we might actually have a profit motive to get into space? That would actually be a good thing, since it would get us up there a whole heck of a lot faster, especially given their complaints about the cost. Having a $500 billion deficit is bad, but adding another billion isn't going to change things one way or the other.

Personally, I'd be more worried about the self serving aspects of it, the fact that Florida and Texas are the main states that will benefit from the increases (though CA won't be far behind). Also, most of the cost estimates I've read have been much higher than what he's actually proposing, which could mean this is just more politicking and not a real initiative. The Chronicle article says "hundreds of billions" which is a far cry from an extra billion a year, even if they don't make it to Mars til 2030. Also, there was a bit about shelving the space station after 2010, which seems odd. Unless the current design of the station is useless for the role, I'd think a way station in earth orbit would be useful. Of course, given NASA and the budget cuts they've gotten year after year, I wouldn't be surprised if the space station was useless for most things.

More links:

• Cathedrals and Shuttles - on why the profit motive for space exploration is a good thing