Who thinks Uncle Sam is serious about the new Moon program?

The US government has more money to spare now than it did in the 1960s.  Despite what some would have us believe, defence spending is significantly less now than it was in 1960 as a proportion of GDP.  In 1960 they were in an arms race with the Soviet Union.

To put things in perspective - the US Navy's annual budget today is about $175bn.  That's approximately 1.5% of the USA's GDP.  

As for global prestige - American prestige is at an all time low.  Why do you think the US Navy has 11 aircraft carriers?  It certainly doesn't need even half that many.

It has them to provoke pride in the American people and awe in foreigners.  A space program serves the same purpose aswell.  It's the sort of thing that impresses people.  That's why they had one in the 1960s, and also why there is an equally strong argument in favour of having one today.

So, yes, they can afford it.  Whether they will or not is another matter.

Personally I believe that our taxes should be spent on awesome things - not neccessarily practical things.  If I want practical things like health care and education, I'll pay for those myself.

I agree with Puppy -- the American Government COULD do these things, I think they should, but I don't know if they will.

Often the political will is lacking if it does not help the politicians get re-elected.

If you agree funds should be spent in this way, let your legislators know.  If not, tell them that too.  Many people think we wasted money on the space program, that could have been used for better purposes.  Then, if we'd not had the space program, we'd likely not be having this conversation (no internet, no integrated circuits, no PCs, etc.)

I'm sorry to say that Bush's initiative looks more like "How can we boost Bush's sagging popularity and get people's minds off Iraq" than, "What kind of great endeavor can we engage the American people in".

I may be cynical, but I just don't believe Bush has the long term foresight of somebody like Kennedy.  It doesn't make sense to me that an administration that is notoriously disrespectful (to put it nicely) of scientific facts and achievements, should suddenly decide we ought to commit ourselves to planetary exploration.

I would very much LIKE to see us make such a commitment--I think it would be a great morale-booster for America and the human race, just as it (very briefly) was in the 60's; and I frankly believe that that alone is worth the cost.

But I would like to see it as part of a larger general "package" of social reform that includes, at its base, a basic respect for human dignity that we seem to have forgotten.  I don't want to see America return to the moon just as a way to flex its muscles or to distract people from earthly problems.

It will be just flags and footprints with the current program design.

All other proposals by the industry before ESAS, which got wiped away by NASA by the argument "Not invented here", had better plans for a sustainable space infrastructure for exploration, while the current design is already at it's limits with bringing some astronauts to the moon.

The Ares I will for example already be at it's limits with the first iterations of the CEV, the proposed smaller brother of the Ares V, the Ares IV, will be at it's limits with a lunar fly-around mission.

So, the NASA architecture does not bring anything to make spaceflight more regular and let the low risk parts be done by private companies (keeping the high technological risk to NASA). Instead, it keeps manned spaceflight as expensive bloated infrastructure - which means that a manned lunar base will again be impossible, because the logistics will be too expensive. And Mars will also be either done never or as one shot solution without the interest to give the technology out of NASAs hands.

Just my opinion...

I agree with your feelings on the matter.  Eventually we may go back but it will be at a snail's pace, unless something changes.  I think the gevernment got what THEY wanted from the space program and won't push it too much.  Spy Sattelites, GPS etc has a lot of military value, the moon has much less.  It's too far away even if it is the "high ground".

I guess the Ares rocket will be tested in a couple years so maybe, at least that may be interesting.

It looks as if Congress will fund it.  What isn't clear is if the mission has a worthwhile goal.  The International Space Station continues to lack a clearly stated worthwhile goal.  It has been enormously expensive (and IMO, needlessly).  But we may learn something by accident.