Keep on posting. It's good to hear data and opinions that are not just the same old attacks, and you're giving your father a voice on our board!
Bread and circuses. Didn't the Roman Empire keep te throngs occupied this way. As my brother says I'm surprised that he played this card so soon. I would have that he woulof have held off for a Bush like "October Surprise". Could it have been the 10 US soldiers killed yesterday?
Excerpt from today's LATimes... "Setting up operations on the moon is affordable, as long as it is taken as a primary goal for the American space program and not larded onto all of the other things that NASA does," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach), chairman of the House subcommittee on space and aeronautics. As an example, he cited NASA's efforts to assess global warming, saying: "Over the years, we have spent tens of billions of dollars of NASA money proving global warming is occurring, which I think is suspect and debatable."
I have no doubt that libs will fall down over themselves trying to put a negative spin on this. I for one think it is the first time in 30 years that the government has come up with a plan for space exploration that wasn't a complete waste of money. The space shuttle??? So we can test rat piss in outer space?? Puleeeaasssseee!! If we're going to spend money to explore the last frontiers (as I think any nation with the resources that the U.S. has should do) I would rather see us keep pushing the envelope of what is possible, not send space shuttles into orbit twice a year. Keep in mind, if the U.S. doesn't do it, someone else will and soon and the twentieth century showed us what space exploration can do for a country's national pride.
I seriously doubt the private sector is going to come forward with any substantial funding for this space initiative. This is election year nonsense and nothing more... Bush Space Vision Needs Private, Public Sector Cooperation, Advocates Say By Brian Berger Space News Staff Writer WASHINGTON -- For the forthcoming Bush space exploration vision to succeed the private sector needs to play a vital role, commercial advocates say. When President George W. Bush speaks here Jan. 14, he is expected to lay out a long term plan for returning astronauts to the moon and forging on from there to Mars. The undertaking will almost certainly entail the doling out large government contracts to NASA's roster of aerospace contractors. But a sustained human presence on the moon, advocates say, is best achieved by harnessing the full creativity of the commercial sector. "It is my hope that this new vision does have an ample opportunity for the commercial sector," said Courtney Stadd, NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe's former chief of staff who left the space agency for private industry in late 2003. "If it is limited to just a few astronauts exploring the moon and Mars, as we learned after Apollo 17, it will not grab and sustain public attention." David Gump, president of Fairfax, Va.-based LunaCorp and author of the 1990 book, "Space Enterprise: Beyond NASA," agreed. "It's up to the administration on which path it takes into the forest," Gump said. "If it welcomes private participation, life is good." LunaCorp has been working with its primary corporate sponsor, RadioShack, for several years trying to close the business case on a privately-funded robotic mission to the moon that would blend science and entertainment. A major impediment to such a mission becoming reality, Gump said, is launch costs. So far, the Bush plan does not appear to include development of new gneration of less expensive launch vehicles, but would rely instead on the recently introduced stable evolved expendable launch vehicles built by Boeing and Lockheed Martin. That's a disappointment to Gump, who argues that for the $100 million cost of awarding a commercial launch contract to Boeing or Lockheed Martin, NASA could entice more innovative players into the market. He sited as an example El Segundo, Calif.-based Space Exploration Technologies, which is finishing development on a small reusable rocket priced at $6 million a launch. The company recently announced plans to scale up the rocket to compete with the Delta 2, the workhorse of NASA's space science enterprise. But even if NASA continues to tread the same conservative path to orbit it has taken for years, Gump said there is still plenty of room for innovative practices. "You can throw up a dozen Delta 2 payloads to space station, assemble them there and send a Battlestar Galactica-sized payload to the moon," Gump said. "We have to make creative use of our existing infrastructure." One major proponent of on-orbit assembly is long time space entreprenuer Dennis Wingo. As president of Huntsville, Ala.-based SkyCorp, Wingo got as far as anybody in recent years in forging a commercial agreement with NASA. The agreement entailed having astronauts on board the space station assemble a small snap-together satellite designed by SkyCorp and "launch" it out an airlock. The demonstration fell through, however, when SkyCorp withdrew from the agreement citing financing setbacks that jeopardized the project's schedule. Wingo said the same approach to spacecraft assembly, paired with a lower-cost launcher like the Falcon rocket SpaceX has in development, could dramatically increase the rate of lunar launches and do so at a cost that is palatable to U.S. taxpayers. "If we are going to do this in a less expensive manner, then using the space station as an on orbit assembly platform is a logical way to go," Wingo said. Wingo said private sector-government synergy stands the best chance of laying the lunar infrastructure needed for a sustained human presence there. "If we are going to the moon in a sustainable way, we're not talking about needing just one or two satellites," Wingo said. "We need a radar satellite, a high resolution mapper, a lunar version of GPS and a lot more." To Wingo's way of thinking, NASA's customary way of doing business is not up to the tasks Bush is about to assign the agency. "If this is going to be the old NASA contractor model, it coing to fail because there is no way that's going to produce the cost effective solutions this venture needs," he said. http://space.com/news/nasa_commercial_040110.html
It's kind of hard to argue with you when you take both sides of the issue. Almost the entire space program is corporate welfare for space contractors. This is more of the same.
While I think both of us are agreeing that the past 25 years of space exploration have largely been a waste of time and money, I think we disagree on this latest proposal by the Bush administration. Of course, it's election year politics, but it is also the direction I think the space program should have taken over a decade ago so I'm not going to be critical of the proposal. At the risk of sounding too Sci-Fi-ish, the day may soon arrive when humans will overpopulate and make the earth unlivable and I'm not sure the space program is on schedule to deal with that problem whenever it arrives. Bush's proposal would be an expensive small step, but I think it is a necessary step that, if it is not taken now, will need to be taken within the next quarter of a century. If our national defense is going to mandate the need for a space program to put their satellites into orbit and maintain them, we may as well use some of that wealth of funds for space exploration for something useful and I don't think dedicating all funds to the Space Shuttle program the past 25 years has been a wise investment.
The initial plans for the space shuttle were very ambitious. Reuseable shuttles up in the air once every two or three weeks. The problem was when the technology used actually cost more than using Saturn V's for the same payload, they continued the program instead of cancelling it because NASA bet the farm on the shuttle program - it has pork contracts in a lot of states. The moon base thing makes no sense at all from a science perspective, don't save much of anything by using the moon as an intermediate base. The main problem is still getting lots of mass into low earth orbit with rocket engines which is not directly addressed by this program. Some critical leap of technology will have to occur - the only promising thing right now is the space elevator but it could be something else.
I tend to lean left but I love Bush for doing this.... if he actually does. I don't think he actually will and it's just something to make him look intelligent for once. Define spinoff technology and thats why we should put as many resources into the space program as possible. Do you want a better life with more advanced technology? That's how it's gonna happen. I'm sorry but the United States of America is not in grave danger. More money for productive things.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/13/bush.space.ap/index.html Poll: Public tepid on Bush space plan Tuesday, January 13, 2004 Posted: 9:33 AM EST (1433 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- The public is evenly split on President Bush's plan to build a space station on the moon and eventually send astronauts to Mars, according to an Associated Press poll. A new Associated Press poll finds that more than half say it would be better to spend the money on domestic programs rather than on space research. Asked whether they favored the United States expanding the space program the way Bush proposes, 48 percent backed the idea and the same number opposed it, according to the poll conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs. . . . Those most likely to favor the plan to expand space exploration were men, young adults, people with more education and those with higher incomes. It made a difference who was said to be behind the plan. When half the poll sample was asked about a "Bush administration" plan to expand space exploration instead of the "United States" plan, opposition increased. Just over half of Democrats' opposed the plan by "the United States." Once it was identified as a "Bush administration" plan, Democrats opposed it by a 2-to-1 margin. . . . OK, let's take some bets on whether he keeps pushing this. Since he only needs about 48% to win the election I think he will.
There have been two pre-releases of information about this space agenda so far (the first was around the Wright bros anniversary). I wonder how much the publics’ ho hum reaction to this plan will change some of the proposals he ventures tomorrow. I’m sure they have been busy retooling portions of his speech for maximum political effect. Bush must be a unifier not a divider in 2004…
Commentary: The Reasonable Cost of Putting Humans on the Moon and Mars By Robert Roy Britt Senior Science Writer President Bush's trial balloon for sending humans back to the Moon and on to Mars is, naturally, becoming politicized. Critics question whether America can afford a bold new space initiative at a time of fiscal disarray back home. "It is not worth bankrupting the country," said Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean. Of course it isn't. And it need not. Setting up a permanent base on the Moon -- Bush is expected to call for a return in about 10-15 years -- and then reaching for Mars does not require any outlandish hike in NASA's budget. Beyond a modest 5 percent increase that Bush will reportedly announce Wednesday, getting people beyond Earth orbit means shifting the existing budget from arguably ineffective and unpopular programs -- crippled shuttles and a leaking space station -- into building a new generation of space taxis and otherworldly habitats. Severe change needed To be successful, the reorganization plan should be swift and severe. Instead of spending billions each year to circle the Earth, Bush should quickly redirect the same billions to an effort singularly focused on getting to Mars, with the Moon as an important step. Unfounded fears of a money pit abound. An editorial in the Washington Post, for example, faults Bush for thinking of ambitious spaceflight plans at a time when there are serious social and economic concerns. But comparing the value of human spaceflight to the need for jobs or improved healthcare looks at the whole issue of how to spend federal money from an absurd perspective. It's like asking whether schools should offer sports programs or focus entirely on reading, writing and math. The question of whether to put humans on the Moon and Mars should be viewed strictly in terms of how best to spend a reasonable chunk of science and exploration dollars, not in comparison to other important government programs. All the while NASA's budget must remain reasonable -- not much more than the tiny fraction of overall federal spending that it is today. The money is there The 2004 federal budget is $2.2 trillion. NASA's is $15.5 billion. Reasonable estimates suggest the space agency's share of the pie would need to rise gradually to $20 billion within a few years if footprints are to be made in Martian dust within a generation. First, Bush aides say, the plan will call for a return to the Moon, in part so new technology critical to a Mars mission can be tested. In 1995, NASA scientists and engineers developed a plan to put astronauts back on the Moon by 2001 for $3 billion or less. Other estimates nowadays put the cost at around $15 billion over five years. That's $3 billion a year. NASA has the money. About half of the agency's budget is already spent directly on human spaceflight. Nearly $4 billion is earmarked annually for the shuttle program. The cost of the space station is elusive, but it exceeds $1 billion each year. Another $2 billion or more goes to supporting research and maintaining the infrastructure needed for all human spaceflight activity. Drop the ISS Bush's new plan reportedly will phase out the shuttle program in favor of a new Orbital Space Plane over the next decade. The fate of the space station is less clear, but remaining planned components would apparently be delivered before costs would drop. The sooner the better. Like the Edsel, the orbiting outpost might be a technologically wonderful machine, but it is not worth the minor science return or lack of inspiration it provides. How many people can name a single member of the eight crews that have lived there? And who can name a single discovery that's resulted from its science operations? Good science is not necessarily popular science, but NASA knows better than any institution that it doesn't hurt when you are working with public funds. Bush's exact plans aren't known. But many experts hope the space station will ultimately be supplanted by a new one that would sit about 80 percent of the way toward the Moon, in a gravitationally balanced spot called a LaGrangian point. Getting to and from that station -- and onto the Moon or Mars -- would be cheaper than using bigger rockets to make direct flights. Reasons to go "There's no real rationale for colonization of the Moon, so it's hard not to be cynical and conclude this is the space-age equivalent of bread and circuses," Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a Democratic research group, said in The New York Times the other day. Marshall's criticism is either uninformed or patently political, or both. Scientists and space visionaries can quickly tick off several practical reasons: Solar energy could be collected on the atmosphere-free Moon from properly located sites 24/7, then beamed to Earth. Some advocates say all the world's power needs could be met. Realistically, it could at least augment strained energy resources for many countries, both industrialized and developing. Lunar minerals could be mined and shipped back to Earth or used for Moon-based manufacturing of lunar hotels and science facilities. A whole new economy would support scientists, colonists and lunar tourists. Huge telescopes on the Moon would offer an unprecedented view of the cosmos, unhampered by atmosphere or light pollution. Think Hubble on steroids. The Moon contains rocks that were blasted from Earth billions of years ago by asteroid impacts. Things don't weather much on the Moon, so these rocks hold the only available clues to Earth's earliest geologic history. Share the cost NASA does not have to foot the entire bill for setting up a Moon base. Other nations will want to play, and they will pay. As an additional benefit, some space policy analysts note, such a cooperative international effort could bring nations together as never before. China, with its own lunar ambitions, is an obvious target for cooperation. And it can be a public-private project in which corporations pony up in exchange for access to lunar minerals and the chance to beam power back to Earth, or to build the first extraterrestrial Hilton. Private citizens with the means would pay dearly for tickets to the Moon. Sir Martin Rees, the eminent theoretical astrophysicists and space visionary, recently pointed out that the commercialization of space is already underway. It now needs a governmental nudge to get beyond the realm of satellites. "Space is already commercially exploited for telecommunications and other applications. But the 'glamorous' aspects of space -- science, planetary exploration, and of course astronauts -- have in the U.S. been the prerogative of NASA. It is time for the private sector to expand its role here too." On to Mars Continuing on to Mars will be more dangerous and more costly, with the tangible rewards less evident. Yet in the final cost-benefit analysis, we should not shortchange our souls. "The moment we land on Mars, all the people of the world will weep with joy," science fiction writer Ray Bradbury said last week. He's probably close to being right. But what might worldwide rapture cost? Estimates vary greatly. Many analysts say a manned mission to Mars would cost anywhere from $50 billion to $250 billion. Others, like Robert Zubrin of the Mars Society advocacy group, think it could be done for as little as $30 billion if bureaucracy is limited. If one assumes a NASA-led $100 billion effort and a launch target of 2024, that would be $5 billion per year if we start funding the project now. That's one-third of NASA's present annual budget. Not outlandish, not impossible, and not with any significant impact on other governmental programs. Again, other countries will be willing to share the cost of the grandest mission ever, if we ask them to. Pain for gain Going to Mars, and even getting back to the Moon efficiently, will mean painful reorganization at NASA. Programs will be cut, offices closed. Humans might be completely absent from space for a few years as momentum is built for loftier pursuits -- though there is no indication the White House will suggest this route. Robotic space exploration might see flat budgets. Perhaps some NASA employees will be laid off. Yet others would be hired as goals are radically shifted. Do all this and young, bright minds will view the new NASA as a place where they can do great things. School children would see a reason to study hard, a chance to be the first human to visit and explore another planet. Bush's plan needs to be business-like, rather than business as usual. NASA is steeped in innovation, but its human spaceflight program is as stale as a sweat-stained Apollo suit. Nothing short of a clear, long-term and tremendously challenging goal can give its human spaceflight program the vitality and relevancy obvious in its robotic pursuits. A trip to Mars must also promise practical rewards. These are several to expect. The technology that would be developed over the next 20 years, in preparation, along with the medical knowledge gleaned from long-term low-gravity living and exposure to high levels of radiation, will have unknown but surely significant benefits to those who remain on this planet. In medicine alone, NASA spinoff technology has a solid track record, having given us MRI and CAT scanners, among many other benefits. Finally, putting humans on Mars -- especially geologists and biologists -- could quickly answer the ultimate question in science: Are we alone? If there is or ever was microbial life on Mars -- and many scientists believe only a human mission will determine the answer -- then everything we humans think about ourselves, our world, about science and religion, will be viewed in a new light. No small pursuit. And no small risk. Human spaceflight is very, very dangerous. You don't need to tell that to the current astronaut corps, who recently lost seven of their own. These brave adventurers know that more will die if NASA is given a directive to go to Mars. And they are itching to get in line. http://space.com/news/commentary_bush-plan_040113.html
Reasons to go: Solar Energy - if this were even feasible, we would be doing it already with geosynchronous satellites in orbit around the earth. In fact, one would want to do this as a proof of concept first - the fact that no one has yet means it's got a long way to go. Minerals - unless there's some element on the Moon that is worth oh say 1,000,000 dollars a gram, this does not make sense economically. he neglected the cost calculation of getting it off the moon and back to earth Travelers - NASA currently has a hissy fit anytime the Russians do something like this. Why do we think they will change their mindset now? Right now only the richest of the rich who don't mind a very risky trip take the leap so it's a small pool of people - very rich adventurer travelers with lots of time on their hands. Science - how about science on earth - the Bushies currently promise things but don't fund them, we could actually fund some things or really provide AIDs treatment for free to everyone around the world and get this scourge under control. The old adage is we know the surface of the moon better than the ocean floors, and what's going on in the ocean is more important to the survival of the human species than the moon will be for many, many generations.
Bravo, woofer. that was a complete scientific dress-down of the sadly vague space.com article. The website should be ashamed. I can't believe the arguments they put forth. We'll fund solar energy on the moon while we cut funds for it on Earth (e.g. hello, Nevada has "moon-like" weather)? Ooookay.
Alright, here we go... We'll use the moon as a base for which to go to Mars... everyone should read what the President just said, and then go back in this thread and read the Easterbrook article. It will be affordable and sustainable and safe... the first two are ridiculous and the latter is questionable, particularly if contractors are calling the shots. $11 billion of NASA's $15 billion will be "redirected." No deep space, no aeronautics, no enviro monitoring, no global warming research, no biological research, etc. Bush also formed a new panel to "advise' NASA on his ideas. This will inevitably become like the rogue operation that skewed intelligence on Iraq... they will summarily dismiss scientific opinions and facts and push through a politicized agenda that does nothing in support of the original NASA mission but everything for the GOP and contractors. If this goes through, it will be a sad day for this country and the world. __________ Bush Calls for New Moon Landing by 2015 8 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo! By PAUL RECER, AP Science Writer WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites) proposed on Wednesday to develop a new spacecraft to carry Americans back to the moon by 2015, and to establish a long-term base there as an eventual springboard to Mars and beyond. Bush would withdraw the United States from the International Space Station (news - web sites) by 2010 and retire the space shuttle fleet at about the same time. Details of his proposal were released by the White House in advance of a speech by the president at NASA (news - web sites) headquarters. Bush wants to use the moon as a base for more ambitious missions to Mars and into the deeper reaches of the solar system, the White House said. An extended human presence on the moon "will enable astronauts to develop new technologies and harness the moon's abundant resources to allow manned exploration of more challenging environments," the White House said in a prepared statement. "The experience and knowledge gained on the moon will serve as a foundation for human missions beyond the moon, beginning with Mars," the statement said. The moon has one-sixth the gravitational field of Earth, so moon-based aircraft could launch from there more cheaply. "The president's vision affirms our nation's commitment to manned space exploration," the White House statement said. "It gives NASA a new focus and clear objectives. It will be affordable and sustainable while maintaining the highest levels of safety." Bush proposed a modest increase in spending for the new venture — $1 billion in new spending over five years. Bush would also shift $11 billion in federal money from other NASA programs to make way for the program. Probes, landers and other unmanned spacecraft would explore the lunar surface beginning no later than 2008 to research and prepare for future human exploration. NASA would also develop and build a new "Crew Exploration Vehicle" to ferry people first to the International Space Station after the shuttles are retired, and then to the moon, no later than 2015. The goal, the White House said, would be humans "living and working there for increasingly extended periods." White House officials said the human "presence" would not necessarily be a permanent base. At the start of an election year, the White House cast the next envisioned generation of space travel as affordable and useful to average Americans who might be skeptical about such a mission at a time of record budget deficits. The administration's fact sheet offered a list of benefits from previous space missions: "Space exploration has yielded advances in communications, weather forecasting, electronics and countless other fields," the White House said. Examples included CAT scanners, MRIs, kidney dialysis machines, programmable heart pacemakers, satellite communications advances. Bush is asking for a $1 billion boost to NASA's budget over five years to fund the start of a new American campaign in space. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said NASA spending, in the short term, would constitute less than 1 percent of the federal budget, but he would not provide a total price tag for the venture. McClellan suggested that other countries, perhaps including Russia, would share in the project and help bear the costs. "Russia would have some important contributions," McClellan said. Bush also formed a new panel, the Commission on the Implementation of U.S. Space Exploration Policy, to advise NASA on the implementation of his ideas.
I haven't posted in this thread yet because I was waiting to see what Bush really had to offer... Apparently, the destruction of NASA as we know it. He want's to "withdraw" from the Space Station by 2010, the essential element needed as a "way station" to any reasonable Lunar exploration? He wants to retire our only "heavy lifters", the Shuttles, when they are obviously needed for this "program" he proposes? He wants to do all of this for the nebulous reason of putting a "presence" on the Moon, but not a permanent base? He wants to destroy the bulk of our unmanned scientific program to reach some goals that will only be reached after he is out of office? And we're going to do all of this for an extra 1 billion a year for a NASA budget that has been declining for years in real terms? Right. God, I wish this man was president of Outer Mongolia or someplace, anywhere but the country he is hell-bent on putting in the crapper. No one is a bigger supporter of the Space Program and manned space flight than I am. I have been my whole life, long before I saw JFK at Rice Stadium call for "putting a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth by the end of this decade". And I think we should have a Lunar base, and an expanded space station. I think we should go to Mars, eventually. But I don't think this is the way to do it. And I think many (certainly Bush) have overlooked the main reason we should increase our presence in space... the danger of a certain strike by an asteroid or comet and the fact that, right now, we can't do a damn thing about it. I had hoped Bush would address that. He didn't. How disappointing.
Come now, people, we all know why the administration is pushing for this new chapter in space exploration. That's right. Halliburton. http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2004/01/12/mars/ "Yes, the firm once headed by Vice President Dick Cheney -- fabled beneficiary of no-bid multibillion-dollar military contracts and high-priced provider of Kuwaiti oil -- is determined to drill on Mars and the moon. Surely this scheme has nothing to do with the Bush space initiative. But somehow, no matter what worthy motivations lie behind the president's policies, he and Cheney always appear to be shilling for their corporate clientele. . . ."
Is this 'Space Plan' driven by a need to explore or politics as usual? NASA chief: Space plan driven by need to explore WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush is expected to ask Congress for billions of dollars for NASA to fund missions to the moon and eventually to send astronauts to Mars. NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe discussed the plan Wednesday in an interview with CNN anchor Bill Hemmer. HEMMER: This program is going to cost billions and billions of dollars ultimately. Why is it worth it? O'KEEFE: Well, it's not billions of billions in that context. We are talking about every taxpayer contributes, on average, about 15 cents a day. The price of a monthly cable television bill is what's being contributed by the average taxpayer. Less than 1 percent of the federal budget goes toward this, and that's not going to change. What is different is the president is going to outline very specific exploration direction and objectives of what we should be targeting ourselves to, developing the technologies in order to achieve that, and that in his estimation -- what he will say today -- that is worth that. HEMMER: The polls show an even split in terms of support for this. Are you going to have a tough time selling this idea to Americans? O'KEEFE: I think every year, every year, there ought to be a spirited public debate over what the taxpayers' money, the people's money, is dedicated toward paying for. And that won't be any different this year. What's going to be different I think in that respect is a new direction, a specific kind of focus that the president is going to enunciate today. HEMMER: Sen. Bill Nelson out of Florida has flown on a shuttle mission before and says the 5 percent increase will not get us to the moon. Is this in the end going to be a higher price tag? O'KEEFE: Well, the budget comes out in two weeks, and we believe the resources necessary to carry out the objectives the president will enunciate today are going to be included in this budget and forecast in the future. Let's wait to see the details before we make judgments. HEMMER: How important is it for NASA and how important for the White House to give the impression and let Americans know that they are -- let's say -- big thinkers? O'KEEFE: Again, it's about exploration. It's in the human heart. It's what we are all about as human beings, to want to see the other side of that hill, to explore and discover. It's what got us out of the caves in the first place. So much of what this is about is not the politics of it; it's about human nature, and that's what the president is really focusing on. HEMMER: So if you are able to get a permanent base on the moon at some point within five or 10 years from now, what will that do for space exploration? O'KEEFE: Well, having the capacity to use the moon as a staging area to get to anywhere else in the solar system is a huge advantage. Really, the biggest challenge we always have is getting off this planet, and that's what poses the most aggressive technological challenge. The moon is an easier basing structure for that purpose, but we'll see there are a lot of different alternatives we have to explore and look at to consider how we do that -- using robotic capabilities as well as human capabilities. HEMMER: Critics will say that robots can do the job that humans cannot, and they can do it cheaper and with greater safety and security. Your response? O'KEEFE: Well, look at the Mars rover on the planet now. Spirit is a remarkable piece of machinery. It's taken 10 days to move it off of this lander because you've got to do it very meticulously. There's nothing like the cognitive skills of human beings presently, to make judgments at the time in order to really explore and do things that are necessary. So I think a combination of both is the focus the president will enunciate today, and that's exactly the direction we're going to go in. HEMMER: The past year has been tough. You go back to February and the shuttle explosion over the state of Texas -- how are you addressing the risks involved going forward? O'KEEFE: The risk of exploration throughout the course of human history has always been high. Our challenge is to mitigate, to minimize that risk as much as humanly possible. But to ignore that human instinct to want to go and explore and see the other side of that hill would be to deny our human nature. http://edition.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/14/cnna.okeefe/index.html
