Question: What democratic presidential candidate in the past said " I want to go to Mars "..? NONE..MR. Burke,you are misconstruing the president's adjenda on his vision..and YES he HAS a vision for space and the new innitiative...Kerry has nothing;just another " Flip-Flop on space policy...If anything,Kerry will bring this nation closer to nuclear war and we certaintly won't get to Mars or anyplace else for that matter if he is elected !! Kerry has no vision,and really no interest in space to the level that George W. Bush has.......besides..Mr. Bush never said " I want to go to Mars ".....Read between the lines and you will see that Kerry is not the prime choice for president...at least with the president being re-elected,we will finally get to go and explore beyond Earth orbit. One thing you can't argue with is that " Bush gets things done !!!Thats what is needed...not someone like Kerry who is "Namby-Pamby " and just says what the people want to hear to get elected....A vote for Kerry is a vote wasted...People have to wake up and understand in order to accomplish ideas, a president has to stand firm..and George W. Bush does !!!

Well written as always James.

In Many of the discusions of topics we come back to what did the president mean by first the Moon and then beyound. To use the moon as a stepping stone to space.

To sustain a Moon project does this mean a base, colonization and or can it be one shot after the other with nothing permanent ever built. We can keep looking a startup cost as well as the long term cost but are they really what is important to exploration. If we go to the moon should we be looking to develope self sufficiency and less dependence on Earths resources.

Should the moon be the next Launching pad to beyound or is it still here on Earth?

The questions keep coming or going and even Nasa is looking for information as to what is meant in the commissions report for privitization of and for its use.

But since that time I have looked at the only model we have to follow, in a word Apollo...

So what science value can we achieve by going back robotically or by manned mission?

How many robotic mission must be sent to the moon to prepare the way for man to practice the skills needed for Mars?

How many times will we go before we have Practiced enough?

Will the CEV for the Moon be designed with the end goal of Mars in mind or only just lunar use?

With each question the cost goes up and I have even more questions as to whether or not we will ever get started on this journey.

With the minimal support of the presidential office and from our nations governing bodies which are in conflict over the funds needed to do this vision for human kind.

Private industy if it continues will lead the way by lowering the cost access to space. That by itself my start the fires under our government, Nasa and of the big aerospace companies to put in the effort to do what is right for all.

Allow me to respond to Jake; if nothing else, hopefully my use of punctuation will be better than his...

You mentioned that no democratic candidate has ever supported going to Mars...

Gore in 2020: "I do support the space station. I think that understanding the problems associated with longer term duration in manned space flight represents the next critical step if we're going to explore the solar system. I think that, in the lifetimes of people in this room, we will see people walking on the surface of Mars."

Dean in 2024: "I am a strong supporter of NASA and every government program that furthers scientific research. I don't think we should close the shuttle program but I do believe that we should aggressively begin a program to have manned flights to Mars."

Kerry in Feb 2024: "Our civilian space program represents a great opportunity for scientific research. Sending a person to Mars is a great mission worthy of a great nation like America."

You accused John Kerry of "flip-flopping" (personally I'm soooooooo sick of that term) on space policy. I read political news and of course I read anything space-related that's out there. Kerry has been consistent in support of an expanded mission for NASA (something most Presidential candidates in both parties have never done). But he questions (like many others have) what support the President is putting behind the vision and how much it's going to cost.

Kerry today (Oct 1): "There is little to be gained from a space initiative that throws out lofty goals but fails to support those goals with realistic funding. I am committed to increasing funding for NASA and space exploration, because it not only makes critical contributions to our economy, but also expands our understanding of the world we live in."

Personally, I'm not a huge Kerry supporter, but I think he raises a very good point. Other than speaking in January, what has the President (himself) done to support the vision? Why can't NASA agree on a price tag for the effort to build the CEV and go to the Moon? As all the readers of this blog know, their answer is that it will be affordable and inline with NASA's budget. NASA has only gotten $1 billion extra to implement the vision. Do you think that's enough?

We all are excited about the Vision, but it's not going to mean anything in 10 years if nothing is implemented because the cost is too high and if it doesn't have the support from the current and future Presidents.

You say I can't argue that "Bush gets things done." Well, other than giving a single speech in support of the Vision, what has Bush done for space? He hasn't mentioned it in any of his speeches since, including the State of the Union which was universally surprising to all his space supporters.

The classic moment to me was last December at the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers's flight. While we were all hoping for Bush to launch the Vision (which didn't happen until over a month later), he presided over a lame attempt to recreate the Kitty Hawk flight, which got stuck in the mud. Meanwhile on the west coast, SpaceShipOne broke the sound barrier with no government funding. Let's hope the Vision doesn't get stuck in the mud also, if Bush is re-elected.

Mr.Burke..Lets not be picky about my puncuation OK ?Mr.Kerry saying " Going to Mars is noble endeavour for the American people"to para-phrase doesn't mean he's committed to it,nor does he believe that the money being used for the space initiative is worth it...I believe he said " going to Mars should be here on Earth for schools,etc,etc.... so Mr. Kerry in my view does not in anyway approach the enthusiam of Mr. Bush...Remember..those who talk the most accomplish the least................jake

Kerry hasn't committed on going to Mars, but he supports an expanded mission for NASA (expanded defined as going beyond LEO) which is much more than most Presidential candidates, including Bush in 2020. Kerry did not say that NASA's budget should be spent elsewhere, he explicitly said "I am committed to increasing funding for NASA and space exploration."

I think their "enthusiasm" for space is about the same among both candidates -- it's pretty low compared to the other issues - Iraq, terrorism, job outsourcing, economy, etc. Think about this for a second -- we've spent over $200 billion on Iraq so far. Opening up Mars to an entire branch of civilization by sending the first few missions would cost around $30 billion. Building a permanent Mars base could cost under $50 billion (I'm working on such a design with MarsHome.org) It's clear to me what would have been a better use of taxpayer money.

By the way, my last name is spelled "Burk"

As I wrote earlier elsewhere on this site, anyone who thinks Kerry is a strong supporter of manned space exploration just has not studied the mans record on the subject.

Kerry has not “been consistent in support of an expanded mission for NASA”; there is no evidence to support that contention. He worked vigorously to cancel ISS yet now claims it is of great scientific value, obviously as a counter to Bush plans to minimize US involvement with ISS past 2015 or so.

There has been no President since John F. Kennedy that has advocated such a far reaching and actually achievable goal for the US national space program as has George W. Bush.

How many times did John F. Kennedy speak of sending men to the Moon in 1961? Only once or twice after the original announcement, so why is Bush’s not making speeches about a Moon return such a big deal? Why would he mention it when the overwhelming majority of people are much more concerned with the war on terror, the economy and so forth. Why does Kerry mention space at all? Only to counter Bush’s plans, he has no interest in NASA otherwise. On his visit to NASA a couple of months ago (the bunny suit incident) what did Kerry talk about? Healthcare. If Kerry thinks the plan is a good idea only under funded why doesn’t he announce he’ll fight to insure NASA gets the money to carry out the plan? Why doesn’t he announce his plan for NASA rather than the vague “I am committed to increasing funding for NASA”? Think about that, and then go back and look at Kerry’s voting record on NASA and see if the answer isn’t there in black and white.

And I just can’t believe my eyes when I read the above chiding of Bush for not announcing his space plans at the Kitty Hawk celebration, as well as seemingly connecting Bush to the 1903 Flyer replica’s failure!! Anyone who was closely following the buildup to the real announcement would have noticed Frank Sietzen’s article just days before the Kitty Hawk anniversary stating that the announcement would be made “when the plan was ready, not before”. I read that article and I punched my fist in the air and said YES! Here was a President that was going to make a space vision announcement on it’s own merits, without any regard as to what might be politically expedient. You can rest assured that most any other “politician” would have insisted to his staff that he would make a “grand announcement” whether it was ready to be made or not.

Which brings up another key point, why was it not ready to be announced in December? Well it seems that the President insisted that some changes be made. He didn’t want it to be just about the Moon. George W. Bush wanted to include the idea of going beyond the Moon, to Mars and elsewhere.

Disagree with Bush as you like on Iraq, the economy, jobs or any other issue, but don’t let that disagreement color your opinion of his obviously stronger position on space exploration with comparison to John Kerry.

Of course Bush didn't come up with the idea to go to Mars all by himself. And of course he wasn't the first President to suggest going to Mars. But you have to face facts. And the fact is that we wouldn't be talking about seriously going back to the Moon or going back to Mars if it weren't for the initiative of the Bush administration. Instead some people would be talking around in circles like they have been for decades.

why does president bush want to go to mars? i mean what good does it do to bush if he makes the mission to mars possible? what is the merit for him??
PLEASE ANSWER QUICKLY!!! THIS IS MY SCIENCE PROJECT!

Stephanie, i hope this isn't too late but this blog entry is a couple months old. That being said....

Why does G W Bush want to goto mars? Dang good question, i haven't figured it out myself. But lets look at past presidents and what i believe is the reason they had for space.

Kennedy, the one that started it well this one is fact, from tapes decalssified in 2021, he wanted to goto the Moon to beat the Soviets technologicaly. No other reason. On the tapes, James Web was arguing for an expansion of the apollo program beyond the moon.

LBJ: used the space program to reindusialize the south.

Nixon: didn't really want to deal with space, he wanted the funds to finish off LBJ's blunder in vietnam. WHen NASA offered a plan for a space station (expanded skylab), a shuttle, and an expanded apollo (To Mars), Nixon forced thm to choose one.

Ford and Carter: well hmm not really much i can tell from history on them, maybe someone else could enlighten on there space leanings. Till then i say disinterested.

Reagan: Well he was not opereating on both booosters somne of the time and his interests in space was to Protect the US from the USSR, and Earth from ET

Bush Sr.: Well he most liekly did the 90 day SEI to give Quayle somethoing to occupy his time to get him outta his hair.

Clinton: really not sure his stance was on it i can't recall anything major he said about space besides his press confenercne on the lawn about the Allen Hills Martian Meteorite.

GW Bush: the one thing i can see is as former gov of texas it will bring media attention to huston again as thats where the focus for a manned mission to Mars or the Moon will be at. I can't come up with anything more substansional then that. His rationale for saying it other then something along his fathers rationale (maybe to keep CHaney;s friends happy) is still not clear to me.

I really don't think political rhetoric like this:

"not opereating(sic) on both booosters(sic)"

"to give Quayle somethoing(sic) to occupy his time"

or "maybe to keep CHaney;s(sic) friends happy"

will be very helpful to anyone who wishes to create a serious science project.

Simply put Bush wants a strong US Space program because that is where the future of humanity lies, this planet does not have the resources to sustain us forever but space contains abundant resources.

okay after some more thought on it I think the real reason Bush wants to goto Mars, is the similar to the reason Kennedy wanted to goto the Moon. To keep us technologicaly advanced in aerospace. As we are lagging in biotechnology due to the moral issues we are struggling with stem cell research. And we are starting to lag in aerospace too.

Dogsbd: I think you are transfering the space communities reason onto the politician's reason to support it. Cause i find it hard to believe that any high level poloitican wants a space program for the right reason. And in my mind what you state is the right reason. I just take nothing at face value. More often then not face value is wrong. But don't give up your idealism.. it will be sad if we all became cynics :) Maybe Bush is one of the true believers and that its just the situation thats distracted him, much like Gingrinch. Only history will tell.