] President Bush beckoned the nation "forward into the
] universe" on Wednesday, outlining a costly new effort to
] return Americans to the moon as early as 2015 and use it
] as a waystation to Mars and beyond.

i'm really interested in what people think about this... progressive commitment or poltical opportunism? I tend to take the latter view, personally, though i have trouble being *too* unhappy with anything that funds basic science.

second question, will such a proposal even *begin* to get through congress? i think it's unlikely, which solidifies my belief that it's a political move, so W can say "I *wanted* to fund science... but that mean 'ol congress wouldn't let me!"

a more relevant question, to me is : is the moon even a useful place for a permanent base? are there useful raw materials there? feasible means of energy generation? is using it as a launch venue sensible given its substantial (though admittedly less than earth's) gravity well?

Guys like Robert Zubrin (who is, admittedly, zealous, sometimes to the point of unreasonable) makes good arguments that the moon is pretty pointless, and there's not a lot of reason to put people there, other than nationalism, pride, and other forms of self-fellatio. Could we make more progress by devoting those resources (or even a fraction of them) towards other projects, like a space elevator (and the attendant advances in nanoscience that would be widely beneficial)?

Given how limited the budgets usually are for basic science, it's important to make sure we spend the money we do get on the most promising projects, not planetwide publicity stunts.

ABCNEWS.com : Bush Outlines Plan for 2015 Moon Landing