The former President Bush mockingly spoke of "the vision thing," that Americans expect big ideas from their leaders. President George W. Bush may soon deliver.
On Wednesday, the White House is expected to unveil details about an initiative to send astronauts back to the moon and perhaps later send them to Mars for the first time.
The idea has both its believers and doubters. First circulated last week, it calls for establishing a permanent presence on the moon, which may serve as a steppingstone to a manned flight to the red planet, according to U.S. officials.
"It's something that's going to push technology, push our capabilities. It's going to push us to do more than we can do today," said California Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, chairman of the House Science Committee's Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee.
Government sources say Bush wants to resume space shuttle flights in the short term, but ultimately retire the fleet, in favor of new vehicles designed to take astronauts to the moon, and eventually to Mars.
The plan is to fly the shuttles until 2010, then mothball them the moment the international space station is complete. The replacement: a smaller spacecraft nimble enough to carry crews to low Earth orbit , the moon or Mars.
NASA would build a lunar outpost, to learn what it's like to live off Earth, and as a pit stop on the way to the red planet.
"I think most of all for this administration it's a way to strike a kind of high minded note in a political contest that we've already been struggling over in 2004," said Robert Dallek, a presidential historian.
Bush officials, who downplay suggestions their hope is for a big boost in an election year, say after the Columbia disaster, it was clear NASA needed to be refocused. But with a $500 billion budget deficit, the big question is how much will this cost?
NASA's current budget is about $15 billion per year. Administration officials say the president will call on the agency to shift existing money to fit the new priorities. And he's expected to give NASA a 5 percent funding increase, more than most other government programs.
But some experts say the long-term cost could be extraordinary. One Democrat says the president should focus his energies on this planet.
"If you ask me whether the best use of $1 trillion of American taxpayer money in the coming years is to land a mission on Mars or the moon, I'd say no," presidential candidate Sen. Joe Lieberman told Wolf Blitzer on CNN this week.
"We need it right here on Earth to give health care that's affordable to everybody, to improve our education system, and do better on veterans' benefits and homeland security."
NASA's goal for getting back to the moon is 2018, but officials say the president will make clear the ultimate goal, getting man to Mars, will be several decades in the making.
Interestingly, in 1989, the elder George Bush pledged to send Americans to Mars. The idea never got off the ground, stymied by technological obstacles and a Congressional reality check.
So will the outcome be different when the younger Bush reaches for Mars? No, says space critic Bob Park.
"We simply can't afford it. We still can't. It hasn't gotten any cheaper," he said.
And should we go when robots can do our bidding in space for much less cost, as dramatically illustrated by the landing of a rover on Mars this month?
"This is the way I think we'll explore the universe. We won't explore it by sending human beings out there," said Robert Park, a physics professor and space expert at the University of Maryland.
Some space enthusiasts say there are things that robots just can't do.
Topic: Breaking news! 'MAN ON MARS IN NEXT 20 YEARS' (Read 1585 times)