Ron Paul on NASA??

[Yoddle]

Ron Paul said this - "We must recognize the government led space program is dead and the corpse must be buried as soon as possible. Any defense functions should be put under the military, and the rest of NASA should be sold to private operators."

I agree space travel exploration should be privatized, but does this mean their will be no government funding under Ron Paul? Without government funding how could any profits be made? Beyond Earth orbit I mean, Putting up satellites and putting millionaires into lower orbit (only to...sadly have them return to Earth) really doesn't exactly advance us as a species.

What I really want to know is, Is NASA or government funded space exploration in his 'Plan to Restore America?' - I couldn't find it, other agencies he isn't funding like the Department of Education is mentioned but shows he isn't funding it. :D

[Stevo_Chill]

I could see an air force role in a satelite defense network. that would be constitutional.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Ron Paul said this - "We must recognize the government led space program is dead and the corpse must be buried as soon as possible. Any defense functions should be put under the military, and the rest of NASA should be sold to private operators."

I agree space travel exploration should be privatized, but does this mean their will be no government funding under Ron Paul? Without government funding how could any profits be made? Beyond Earth orbit I mean, Putting up satellites and putting millionaires into lower orbit (only to...sadly have them return to Earth) really doesn't exactly advance us as a species.

What I really want to know is, Is NASA or government funded space exploration in his 'Plan to Restore America?' - I couldn't find it, other agencies he isn't funding like the Department of Education is mentioned but shows he isn't funding it. :D

Do not assume just because the government has had a monopoly on something that it can't be accomplished in the private sector. Virgin Galactic is about to start sending people into space at $200,000 a trip. Hundreds have already paid for this service. With demand like that you will see (baring government intervention) many competitors popping up over the next decade. Competition means the quality will go up while the price goes down. In 20 years you'll be able to fly from New Mexico to China in 1 hour at a cost of a normal plane ticket.

But besides that, lets look at something you said. "Without government funding, how could any profits be made?"

On the contrary, it's because of a government monopoly that no company has yet been able to venture into space for profit. How could a private company compete with a government that gets its funds through taxation? Also, the reason space exploration costs billions and billions is precisely because the government has had a monopoly for 50 years.

Now back to the exploration side. The first moon colony will be for mining. Once we've determined that we can extract valuable ore on the cheap there will be a mad rush to the moon. Once mining camps are established you'll be in a better position to launch missions to Mars. All of this requires a free market to work. Central planning absolutely cannot anticipate all of the factors involved in humans moving on beyond this planet.

[Yoddle]

Do not assume just because the government has had a monopoly on something that it can't be accomplished in the private sector. Virgin Galactic is about to start sending people into space at $200,000 a trip. Hundreds have already paid for this service. With demand like that you will see (baring government intervention) many competitors popping up over the next decade. Competition means the quality will go up while the price goes down. In 20 years you'll be able to fly from New Mexico to China in 1 hour at a cost of a normal plane ticket.

But besides that, lets look at something you said. "Without government funding, how could any profits be made?"

On the contrary, it's because of a government monopoly that no company has yet been able to venture into space for profit. How could a private company compete with a government that gets its funds through taxation? Also, the reason space exploration costs billions and billions is precisely because the government has had a monopoly for 50 years.

Now back to the exploration side. The first moon colony will be for mining. Once we've determined that we can extract valuable ore on the cheap there will be a mad rush to the moon. Once mining camps are established you'll be in a better position to launch missions to Mars. All of this requires a free market to work. Central planning absolutely cannot anticipate all of the factors involved in humans moving on beyond this planet.


I'm not advocating to continue what the Government has been doing for the past 50years with space. I want private company's to build the spacecraft, not the government. BUT I think the government should be able to pay a company(like SpaceX) to take our astronauts to the ISS, moon, or Mars...

[Crystallas]

Because when you meet in the middle on such programs, the lobbys grow and corrupt the system. There is little compromise to be made here, and if and when, we decide what to do with specific operations, we discuss, vote, allocate ect. If the logic is behind a mission concept, we have the money to do it, and the people support the idea, then what's the problem?

[low preference guy]

this is clearly the most important issue of our times.

[low preference guy]

profits could be made through space tourism.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I'm not advocating to continue what the Government has been doing for the past 50years with space. I want private company's to build the spacecraft, not the government. BUT I think the government should be able to pay a company(like SpaceX) to take our astronauts to the ISS, moon, or Mars...

why? Why do we need government agents in space?

[low preference guy]

why? Why do we need government agents in space?

to screw up the universe.

[Ben Bernanke]

We need some place to bomb after we've bombed the entire world

[AGRP]

Hasn't a few billionaires done more with their fraction of an investment ie space tourism as opposed to what NASA has done?

[Xenophage]

I love NASA. NASA is full of really kick ass people and does a lot of kick ass things.

That said, we need to shut the f*er down. It's been holding back space development for far too long and its been costing the taxpayers way more than its worth. We need private businessmen looking for ways to make PROFIT in space! How can we exploit the resources beyond our atmosphere to produce a positive benefit for the human race?

So far, NASA hasn't found a SINGLE way for humanity to DO anything PRODUCTIVE in space. And who would have expected otherwise? It's a government organization, after all. But they have held a monopoly on the situation.

If I were President, something that would be high on my agenda is to allow private property in space and on the moon. First to develop would be first to own. Mineral rights for asteroids. The quest for resources will drive humanity's expansion into outer space, but I fear little else will. I consider this an extremely high priority, because as it stands we're all ripe for extinction confined to this one little dustball called Earth.

[8ClicksPerSecond]

NASA is relatively underfunded. Furthermore, the things that NASA does wouldn't be picked up by the private sector. What stake does the private sector have in space exploration? There's no money to be made. There's nothing wrong with NASA.

[kuckfeynes]

What stake do I, taxpayer, have in space exploration?
Like someone else said, satellite technology for defense.
Other than that, I'm not planning on going anywhere.
If it's so important to people, let them fund it voluntarily.

[Xenophage]

NASA is relatively underfunded. Furthermore, the things that NASA does wouldn't be picked up by the private sector. What stake does the private sector have in space exploration? There's no money to be made. There's nothing wrong with NASA.

This is totally false. Many private individuals and organizations have a keen interest in space exploration, for no other reason than to advance scientific knowledge. Just look at the Keck telescopes. A $70 million project funded by the W. M. Keck Foundation, and it's operated by a non-profit group.

Furthermore, there is a TON of money to be made in space. Unbelievable amounts! The resources that are available are quite literally limitless. We need to harness those resources. Besides, think of the adventure.

No, I think there is every indication that private space exploration and development would have been occurring at the same breakneck pace as the computer revolution had we opened up a legal avenue for people and organizations to own extraterrestrial property, own orbits, and exploit the resources of our solar system.

[8ClicksPerSecond]

This is totally false. Many private individuals and organizations have a keen interest in space exploration, for no other reason than to advance scientific knowledge. Just look at the Keck telescopes. A $70 million project funded by the W. M. Keck Foundation, and it's operated by a non-profit group.

Furthermore, there is a TON of money to be made in space. Unbelievable amounts! The resources that are available are quite literally limitless. We need to harness those resources. Besides, think of the adventure.

No, I think there is every indication that private space exploration and development would have been occurring at the same breakneck pace as the computer revolution had we opened up a legal avenue for people and organizations to own extraterrestrial property, own orbits, and exploit the resources of our solar system.

$70 million won't put a ship, probes, and more into space/deep space for research. Not to mention the amount of R&D that goes into space exploration. As far as I understand, nothing is stopping private interests from space exploration? Or is that not true? I don't think private interests should be barred from space exploration, but there are plenty of things that can and should be cut before NASA.

[8ClicksPerSecond]

What stake do I, taxpayer, have in space exploration?
Like someone else said, satellite technology for defense.
Other than that, I'm not planning on going anywhere.
If it's so important to people, let them fund it voluntarily.
http://www.whatpoll.com/nasa-inventions-we-use-everyday
http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/benefits.html

[kuckfeynes]

Do you really believe that we would not have that technology without NASA?

How many billions in R&D is spent in the private sector, and you don't think we would have Britta by now?

[8ClicksPerSecond]

Why doesn't the private sector do what NASA is doing then? What's stopping them?

[Lafayette]

I'd be willing to make a constitutional trade... the postal service for NASA.

[Lafayette]

Why doesn't the private sector do what NASA is doing then? What's stopping them?

You don't think the government allows just anyone to buy hundreds of thousand of pounds of rocket fuel, build what is essentially an ICBM and launch it into space do you? Its also not like the private sector has the full coercive force or the bottom less check book of the Federal government behind it.


Though there are many companies and private organizations who are working on making space travel and exploration profitable. As technology becomes better an cheaper so will the private sectors roll in space.

[Xenophage]

Why doesn't the private sector do what NASA is doing then? What's stopping them?

They ARE. The process has been long and slow, and the private space industry has only really just begun to develop, because we had to wait for deregulation. Deregulation isn't complete, yet, because we have a communist policy regarding the moon: nobody can own any part of it!

NASA held a complete monopoly on ALL rocket launches until the 1980's when Reagan deregulated it. The 80's saw the first private rocket launches. All those communications satellites we rely on nowadays are privately owned and privately launched. Spaceflight was further deregulated in the 90's. Prior to deregulation, you couldn't launch from the U.S., and you couldn't land in the U.S. All commercial satellites had to be launched on the Space Shuttle.

The first private spaceflights of manned vehicles are set to happen in a couple years. Space X is getting ready to dock with the ISS. Virgin is building their giant Spaceport in New Mexico (almost finished with construction). It's an extremely exciting time for space nuts, but the truth is... we should have been doing this in the 70's! And we could have been, too.

You're worried about pure science and exploration, right? Part of the problem is the development of launch mechanisms. Nobody can fund an entire Voyager mission without first developing the launch capabilities. There's the biggest part of your cost! Once these commercial ventures get their launch services ready to market, $70 million will buy you an extremely sophisticated probe, because your actual launch will only cost you tens of thousands... not millions. These private ventures want to launch their vehicles over and over again. While they may be pricey to build up front, they'll make up their cost and turn a profit in the long run... just like a cruise ship, or a train.

Currently, it's quite clear to anyone paying attention that NASA no longer serves a useful purpose. Anything NASA has done in the past is going to be done in a competitive free market environment in the future. They're a monolithic relic of a bygone age that never should have happened in the first place.

[Diurdi]

Why doesn't the private sector do what NASA is doing then? What's stopping them? Why do it with your own money when it's being done with taxpayer money?

[LibertyEsq]

this is clearly the most important issue of our times.

are you being sarcrastic? I would like to see advances in space exploration in my time. Not saying that can't be accomplished in the private sector but it's an important issue to me

[Xenophage]

I consider it an extremely important issue. Much more needs to be done. NASA needs to be shut down. It's infrastructure and launch facilities needs to be auctioned off. Comprehensive legislative reform is needed that will grant legal property rights to space developers operating on the moon and around other planets.

[Elwar]

Ron Paul has voted to fund NASA in the past.

Something to do with national defense.

[Raudsarw]

Government has fucked up things on earth enough as it is. Why would we want to send them to fuck up the galaxy?

[fatjohn]

NASA is certainly a program that should not be cut immediately but should be dwindled down over a long period of time. I propose 12 years. Ron Paul I, Rand Paul I and Rand Paul II. Yes, in the long run space exploration should be privatized, but the gap between government and private sector is too wide. Just cancelling NASA would be horrible. Obama is doing (i don`t like to say it) a decent job in that regard.

[Sematary]

There aren't many things I believe the government needs to be involved in but I think if we, as a species, as going to explore the galaxy, then it IS going to take funding from the government. Whether people want to believe it or not, much of what we enjoy - including this little medium called the internet, is the result of government funding. If not for the federal government, we wouldn't have what was, at the time, the most advanced roadway system in the world. If not for government funding (sorry - taxpayer funding) we never would have landed on the moon and Virgin Galactic wouldn't have been able to build upon the technology created by our government. I've done this before but look at ALL the inventions that have come about because of the space program:

1. Cordless tools
2. Smoke detectors
3. Enriched baby food
4. New-age pavement
http://articles.cnn.com/2007-10-04/living/nasa.everyday_1_detectors-tires-nasa?_s=PM:LIVING

Dust Buster Invention ideas around the house have to include the Dust Buster. This convenient little vacuum cleaner takes care of small spills and messes around the house. It began as a useful item to help the astronauts with their housekeeping.

Tempur-Pedic Mattress This space-age mattress was developed from foam created by NASA to help astronauts be more comfortable during the high G-force blast-off and re-entry. Many people swear by this mattress as being the most comfortable, pain-free sleep they have ever had.

http://www.listmyfive.com/9dc3cd97/The-Top-Five-Invention-Ideas-from-NASA-That-You-May-Have-Used

NASA robotics research has led to wheelchairs that respond to the user's voice

The same technology developed for robotic tools on space vehicles has been incorporated into artificial limbs for amputees

Technology used by the Viking craft that landed on the planet Mars can be found in automated pumps that deliver insulin to diabetics replacing the need for numerous daily injections

The technologies developed for spacesuits are now used by firefighters here on Earth

Fire-retardant fabrics used in the manufacture of furniture, mattresses, and children's sleepwear are also a result of space program research

NASA was able to develop magnetic liquids.
Magnetized liquids are used in the manufacture of electronic products, industrial processes, visual displays, and medical equipment. Most computer memory disk drives use magnetic fluids for exclusion seals and they are useful for dampening motion in car's shock absorbers and on bridges

Read the rest
http://www.essayforum.com/writing-feedback-3/nasa-spinoff-technology-6484/

It seems to me that for the small amount of money that NASA requires, the benefits to the taxpayer have been MORE than realized.

So I respectfully disagree. Anyone who cares to actually LOOK AT THE FACTS will see that the NASA space program has not only provided science with a multitude of answers that help us to understand more about our planet and the sky above but also has provided people with a multitude of creations that make our lives easier as well as serve vital interests in protecting human lives.

[Sematary]

are you being sarcrastic? I would like to see advances in space exploration in my time. Not saying that can't be accomplished in the private sector but it's an important issue to me

I wonder if people here understand that not ALL taxpayer funded government programs are evil?
Space exploration may one day save our species. It's already made our lives safer and less difficult. I wouldn't say that 17 Billion a year is too much for that kind of payoff

[Occam's Banana]

Without government funding how could any profits be made?
Have you considered what the concept "profit" (correctly understood) means & implies?

Getting "into the black" because government funding got you "out of the red" is NOT "making a profit."

(The correct term, I believe, is "mooching." :))

[ShaneEnochs]

If the government completely deregulated everything having to do with getting into space, private corporations would have space plane tickets in ten years for the cost of normal plane tickets now. And we'd have all sorts of new technologies. Private companies do it better, faster, and cheaper. That's all there is to it.

[Occam's Banana]

*sigh*


There aren't many things I believe the government needs to be involved in but I think if we, as a species, as going to explore the galaxy, then it IS going to take funding from the government. Whether people want to believe it or not, much of what we enjoy - including this little medium called the internet, is the result of government funding. If not for the federal government, we wouldn't have what was, at the time, the most advanced roadway system in the world. If not for government funding (sorry - taxpayer funding) we never would have landed on the moon and Virgin Galactic wouldn't have been able to build upon the technology created by our government. I've done this before but look at ALL the inventions that have come about because of the space program:

1. Cordless tools
2. Smoke detectors
3. Enriched baby food
4. New-age pavement
http://articles.cnn.com/2007-10-04/living/nasa.everyday_1_detectors-tires-nasa?_s=PM:LIVING

Dust Buster Invention ideas around the house have to include the Dust Buster. This convenient little vacuum cleaner takes care of small spills and messes around the house. It began as a useful item to help the astronauts with their housekeeping.

Tempur-Pedic Mattress This space-age mattress was developed from foam created by NASA to help astronauts be more comfortable during the high G-force blast-off and re-entry. Many people swear by this mattress as being the most comfortable, pain-free sleep they have ever had.

http://www.listmyfive.com/9dc3cd97/The-Top-Five-Invention-Ideas-from-NASA-That-You-May-Have-Used

NASA robotics research has led to wheelchairs that respond to the user's voice

The same technology developed for robotic tools on space vehicles has been incorporated into artificial limbs for amputees

Technology used by the Viking craft that landed on the planet Mars can be found in automated pumps that deliver insulin to diabetics replacing the need for numerous daily injections

The technologies developed for spacesuits are now used by firefighters here on Earth

Fire-retardant fabrics used in the manufacture of furniture, mattresses, and children's sleepwear are also a result of space program research

NASA was able to develop magnetic liquids.
Magnetized liquids are used in the manufacture of electronic products, industrial processes, visual displays, and medical equipment. Most computer memory disk drives use magnetic fluids for exclusion seals and they are useful for dampening motion in car's shock absorbers and on bridges

Read the rest
http://www.essayforum.com/writing-feedback-3/nasa-spinoff-technology-6484/

It seems to me that for the small amount of money that NASA requires, the benefits to the taxpayer have been MORE than realized.

So I respectfully disagree. Anyone who cares to actually LOOK AT THE FACTS will see that the NASA space program has not only provided science with a multitude of answers that help us to understand more about our planet and the sky above but also has provided people with a multitude of creations that make our lives easier as well as serve vital interests in protecting human lives.

[danbeaulieu]

I agree space travel exploration should be privatized, but does this mean their will be no government funding under Ron Paul?

When people ask these types of questions it makes me feel like they think Ron Paul will be president for 50 years. We haven't had good funding for NASA for decades. 4 to 8 years of privatization wont kill anyone.

[danbeaulieu]

this is clearly the most important issue of our times.

agreed ;)

[danbeaulieu]

There aren't many things I believe the government needs to be involved in but I think if we, as a species, as going to explore the galaxy, then it IS going to take funding from the government. Whether people want to believe it or not, much of what we enjoy - including this little medium called the internet, is the result of government funding. If not for the federal government, we wouldn't have what was, at the time, the most advanced roadway system in the world. If not for government funding (sorry - taxpayer funding) we never would have landed on the moon and Virgin Galactic wouldn't have been able to build upon the technology created by our government. I've done this before but look at ALL the inventions that have come about because of the space program:

1. Cordless tools
2. Smoke detectors
3. Enriched baby food
4. New-age pavement
http://articles.cnn.com/2007-10-04/living/nasa.everyday_1_detectors-tires-nasa?_s=PM:LIVING

Dust Buster Invention ideas around the house have to include the Dust Buster. This convenient little vacuum cleaner takes care of small spills and messes around the house. It began as a useful item to help the astronauts with their housekeeping.

Tempur-Pedic Mattress This space-age mattress was developed from foam created by NASA to help astronauts be more comfortable during the high G-force blast-off and re-entry. Many people swear by this mattress as being the most comfortable, pain-free sleep they have ever had.

http://www.listmyfive.com/9dc3cd97/The-Top-Five-Invention-Ideas-from-NASA-That-You-May-Have-Used

NASA robotics research has led to wheelchairs that respond to the user's voice

The same technology developed for robotic tools on space vehicles has been incorporated into artificial limbs for amputees

Technology used by the Viking craft that landed on the planet Mars can be found in automated pumps that deliver insulin to diabetics replacing the need for numerous daily injections

The technologies developed for spacesuits are now used by firefighters here on Earth

Fire-retardant fabrics used in the manufacture of furniture, mattresses, and children's sleepwear are also a result of space program research

NASA was able to develop magnetic liquids.
Magnetized liquids are used in the manufacture of electronic products, industrial processes, visual displays, and medical equipment. Most computer memory disk drives use magnetic fluids for exclusion seals and they are useful for dampening motion in car's shock absorbers and on bridges

Read the rest
http://www.essayforum.com/writing-feedback-3/nasa-spinoff-technology-6484/

It seems to me that for the small amount of money that NASA requires, the benefits to the taxpayer have been MORE than realized.

So I respectfully disagree. Anyone who cares to actually LOOK AT THE FACTS will see that the NASA space program has not only provided science with a multitude of answers that help us to understand more about our planet and the sky above but also has provided people with a multitude of creations that make our lives easier as well as serve vital interests in protecting human lives.

While your at it why don't you list off all the inventions that we use that came from our military or even the nazi military... should we keep pumping funds into militarism because most of our technological advances are coming from war?

[Acala]

NASA is relatively underfunded. Furthermore, the things that NASA does wouldn't be picked up by the private sector. What stake does the private sector have in space exploration? There's no money to be made. There's nothing wrong with NASA.

Here is the gist of your argument:

"I value what NASA does. Other people are too stupid or short sighted or greedy to give the proper value to, and pay for, what NASA does. Because my value system is better than the value system of most people, they should be forced at gunpoint to subsidize my value system. While I normally don't support this kind of thing, I do in this instance because my values are better than other people's values."

See the problem? If you like space exploration, PAY FOR IT WITH YOUR OWN MONEY!! If not enough money can be generated by providing goods or interesting research from space to sustain it, then your values are simply out of step with the human race. Too bad for you.

[erowe1]

BUT I think the government should be able to pay a company(like SpaceX) to take our astronauts to the ISS, moon, or Mars...

And when you say "the government," what you really mean is "the taxpayer."

But if you as a taxpayer want to donate your money to a space exploration company to help them go to Mars, why can't you just do that directly? Do you really need to force other people to help you against their wills?

[xFiFtyOnE]

I think NASA is past its prime aswell. But how will we spur a private sector growth to replace it?

[low preference guy]

BUT I think the government should be able to pay a company(like SpaceX) to take our astronauts to the ISS, moon, or Mars...

BUT I think the government should be able to pay colleges to educate students!

And a lot of people could also think of many arbitrary things they want the government to pay for.

[Verrater]

One of the most important things I think we could ever do is inspire a new generation of exploration.
NASA plays a critical role in national self defense and I just freaking love space. I would be more than willing to trade the USPS for NASA as another poster said.

Here's Ron's take, from an interview not to long ago.


I said that the space program has historically given Americans some of her greatest heroes, not to mention a lot of great technology and research.

Paul eagerly agreed, so I asked what he thought about the cuts to the space program and the elimination of the shuttle program altogether. Paul just shrugged a little, pursed his lips a bit dejectedly and said with a very distinct touch of sadness, “We just can’t afford it right now.”

Then Ron leaned in close one last time and pointed to the sky, smiling big. “You know I love the space program, though. You’re right, those astronauts were big heroes and quite an inspiration, and that was one of the reasons I was interested in the Air Force. I wanted to be the first doctor in space.”

http://iowastatedaily.com/opinion/article_48a4db0e-041f-11e1-b720-001cc4c002e0.html

I see this question get asked a lot elsewhere and I wish they could see what Ron said first instead of what others here say.
What some of you say seems abrasive, non complimentary, and not in the spirit of the Ron at all.


Edit: That was kind of harsh but I still stand by it. We need to be more welcoming to people and this abject criticism isn't helping at all.

[ShaneEnochs]

Dr. Paul... IN SPAAAAAAAAAAAAAACE!

[kylejack]

I could see space exploration as part of defense.

Regardless, I think it should be one of the very last things we cut. NASA's budget is trivially small compared to the insane defense budget.

[liberty2897]

NASA is relatively underfunded. Furthermore, the things that NASA does wouldn't be picked up by the private sector. What stake does the private sector have in space exploration? There's no money to be made. There's nothing wrong with NASA.

Most everything that NASA does is *really* done by the private sector. NASA is a high-level systems integrator. Most of the big names behind NASA technology are the big names you will find behind the technology being used in our seemingly endless wars.

Look at the names of the top 100 NASA contractors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NASA_contractors

They aren't hurting for money right now. Having said that, I definitely prefer seeing pictures from deep space and robots on mars, than the horrible pictures I have seen from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.

[Fredom101]

People have all kinds of rationalities for why they think stolen tax payer money should be used for NASA space exploration. My dad once said they invented the personal computer because of the need to shrink down computers to get them on a space ship, so he is for NASA funding because of that reason.

I guess it takes stolen money to invent things!

Anyway, 0 reason to have our money going towards this program. If there's a demand to "put a man on the moon", or Mars, or whereever, you bet your ass the free market will fulfill that demand, and in a much faster, safer fashion than the government would.

As far as Nasa employees, these are smart people and in a free market would easily find work.

[Athan]

Ron Paul said this - "We must recognize the government led space program is dead and the corpse must be buried as soon as possible. Any defense functions should be put under the military, and the rest of NASA should be sold to private operators."

I agree space travel exploration should be privatized, but does this mean their will be no government funding under Ron Paul? Without government funding how could any profits be made? Beyond Earth orbit I mean, Putting up satellites and putting millionaires into lower orbit (only to...sadly have them return to Earth) really doesn't exactly advance us as a species.

What I really want to know is, Is NASA or government funded space exploration in his 'Plan to Restore America?' - I couldn't find it, other agencies he isn't funding like the Department of Education is mentioned but shows he isn't funding it. :D

It will likely be funded under his presidency. It wasn't targeted for cuts.

He is simply saying that NASA as an organization is wasting money as a government entity and space exploration needs to be privatized. They figuratively are twittling their thumbs because all their goals are based on what congress and the President decide and feel like with the budget and goal at a certain point of time. They aren't exactly leaders and businessmen. They are a bunch of scientists, mathematicians, engineers and tech geeks waiting for burecrat money and orders. They will get you to the moon, but they will spend way more than needed to get there and back safely.

[kylejack]

I'd be willing to make a constitutional trade... the postal service for NASA.
I agree with this. Private companies are perfectly capable of delivering the mail.

[pcosmar]

I guess it takes stolen money to invent things!

Anyway, 0 reason to have our money going towards this program. If there's a demand to "put a man on the moon", or Mars, or whereever, you bet your ass the free market will fulfill that demand, and in a much faster, safer fashion than the government would.

As far as Nasa employees, these are smart people and in a free market would easily find work.

I think so too. I my youth I wanted to get into space. It became apparent when I was in High School that the space program was military only. Yeah, there have been some innovations that have trickled our way. But mostly it was Missile R&D.
Chuck Yeager showed how it was done long ago. But they scrapped the X15 project and went with a capsule on a rocket.
Probably the most inefficient way to launch something.

The new market pioneers are going back to flying off the earth.

[Feeding the Abscess]

This hasn't been discussed:

Arms manufacturers are currently a rather large industry. When Ron is elected president and the wars are ended, what are they going to do? An entire industry that is largely destructive would need to be retooled to make it in the private sector; would it not stand to reason that this creative energy would then pour into automobile, airplane, computer, and space technology? Even on the medical front, vast swaths of offensive biological research could be used for defensive or curative purposes instead.

Just think of it - massive amounts of destructive energy, retooled and unleashed as productive energy.

[Sematary]

While your at it why don't you list off all the inventions that we use that came from our military or even the nazi military... should we keep pumping funds into militarism because most of our technological advances are coming from war?

Having a military is a necessity, unfortunately and yes, many good inventions have come from the military. I would even go so far as to say the the species could not have evolved technologically at the pace that it has without war. It is something that is inherent in our species, something that is abhorrent and also something that has propelled us forward.

[erowe1]

Having a military is a necessity, unfortunately and yes, many good inventions have come from the military. I would even go so far as to say the the species could not have evolved technologically at the pace that it has without war. It is something that is inherent in our species, something that is abhorrent and also something that has propelled us forward.

Like a cosmic broken window.

[Xenophage]

Like a cosmic broken window.

lol

[liberty2897]

I would even go so far as to say the the species could not have evolved technologically at the pace that it has without war.

I would change one thing about that statement. I would say that the species could not have evolved technologically at the pace that it has without oil. We would have never been able to go to walk on the moon, put up satellites, create semi-conductors, internet, missiles, tanks, planes, automobiles, etc without it. It is as close to free energy as we will probably ever have. Humans were at war for a long time before oil was discovered. Humans were intelligent a long time before oil was discovered. Our technology is all about "free energy" that we call oil. Some would even kill for it.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Once again the logical fallacy of "It was only done that way, therefore it can only be done that way" still pervasive among intelligent people. *sigh*

[kill the banks]

I would change one thing about that statement. I would say that the species could not have evolved technologically at the pace that it has without oil. We would have never been able to go to walk on the moon, put up satellites, create semi-conductors, internet, missiles, tanks, planes, automobiles, etc without it. It is as close to free energy as we will probably ever have. Humans were at war for a long time before oil was discovered. Humans were intelligent a long time before oil was discovered. Our technology is all about "free energy" that we call oil. Some would even kill for it.

I don't want to cause argument here but bankers ( money men ) chose the oil route
... they could put a meter on it and profit big ... better ideas may have been put to rest because of this ~ some that may have caused death of inventor ... some claim even Edison was murdered on a discovery ... anyway crony capitalistic and an age of less than true pursuits got us to the moon on rocket fuel IMO

[liberty2897]

My main point was that I don't believe that war "enables" technology development. I think it is much more the other way around these days. I do believe that there are lots of great alternatives to fossil fuels in the works. Some of them are even getting to be impressive. Like this, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_tower

My other point is that in no time in man's history have we had the abundance of energy as we have since the discovery of oil. Global population has exploded to almost 7 billion people now. Technology has grown at an incredible exponential rate. Unfortunately, it is a limited resource that was formed over millions of years of storing energy from the sun. We are going to use it all up in several hundred years. Much like our financial situation, we are living beyond our means relative to energy. We should use it more wisely (not war) to figure out alternatives while we still have it.

[fatjohn]

are you being sarcrastic? I would like to see advances in space exploration in my time. Not saying that can't be accomplished in the private sector but it's an important issue to me

Things like this make me also question the libertarian philosophical application to everything. For Nasa there are a lot of people that want them to do research more than they want an upgrade on their smartphone. However, no one would donate 300 bucks to a private company so they can research some awesome space stuff because the action reaction mechanism (pay for the program, get scientific results years later without knowing what you would have gotten without your contribution) is far less direct than when you buy a smartphone (pay for smartphone, play with smartphone)

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Things like this make me also question the libertarian philosophical application to everything. For Nasa there are a lot of people that want them to do research more than they want an upgrade on their smartphone. However, no one would donate 300 bucks to a private company so they can research some awesome space stuff because the action reaction mechanism (pay for the program, get scientific results years later without knowing what you would have gotten without your contribution) is far less direct than when you buy a smartphone (pay for smartphone, play with smartphone)

Research and development occurs because a company makes a profit on some product or service. When you buy a smartphone today, a good portion of that money is being reinvested in the company through R&D to produce some product in the future. People who bought telecommunication technology back in the 80's and early 90's were contributing to the R&D that eventually developed into the cheap smart phones we have today. Not only that, but by doing research with money acquired through profit, you are ensuring that the research you are funding is most likely going toward some future technology that will have a significant impact on your life. As opposed to being taxed to produce Tang.

Also, if a company R&D's the wrong thing or goes in the wrong direction, then they are wasting their money and are likely to go out of business. This is not a bad thing in that it stops bad R&D from wasting resources.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Research and development occurs because a company makes a profit on some product or service. When you buy a smartphone today, a good portion of that money is being reinvested in the company through R&D to produce some product in the future. People who bought telecommunication technology back in the 80's and early 90's were contributing to the R&D that eventually developed into the cheap smart phones we have today. Not only that, but by doing research with money acquired through profit, you are ensuring that the research you are funding is most likely going toward some future technology that will have a significant impact on your life. As opposed to being taxed to produce Tang.

Also, if a company R&D's the wrong thing or goes in the wrong direction, then they are wasting their money and are likely to go out of business. This is not a bad thing in that it stops bad R&D from wasting resources.

No, it's impossible to improve from PS2 to PS3 without government assistance and funding. You're just a crazy libertarian who doesn't understand reality.

[fatjohn]

Research and development occurs because a company makes a profit on some product or service. When you buy a smartphone today, a good portion of that money is being reinvested in the company through R&D to produce some product in the future. People who bought telecommunication technology back in the 80's and early 90's were contributing to the R&D that eventually developed into the cheap smart phones we have today. Not only that, but by doing research with money acquired through profit, you are ensuring that the research you are funding is most likely going toward some future technology that will have a significant impact on your life. As opposed to being taxed to produce Tang.

Also, if a company R&D's the wrong thing or goes in the wrong direction, then they are wasting their money and are likely to go out of business. This is not a bad thing in that it stops bad R&D from wasting resources.

Yes but this is not the point i am making. NASA provides a whole different service to some people. The research is the end point. Knowledge about the universe will not translate in a cool device next year, but knowledge is a virtue that would not be correctly valued in a pure libertarian society, because cause and effect in your investment is absolutely not so direct. If i would donate 200 a year to a private Nasa or i would not and be cheap, almost the same information about the universe would have been gathered. Unless everyone thinks like that off course...

Sometimes research needs to be done because it is interesting and not because development of materialistic objects can stem from it.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Yes but this is not the point i am making. NASA provides a whole different service to some people. The research is the end point. Knowledge about the universe will not translate in a cool device next year, but knowledge is a virtue that would not be correctly valued in a pure libertarian society, because cause and effect in your investment is absolutely not so direct. If i would donate 200 a year to a private Nasa or i would not and be cheap, almost the same information about the universe would have been gathered. Unless everyone thinks like that off course...

Sometimes research needs to be done because it is interesting and not because development of materialistic objects can stem from it.

And there are really rich people that agree with you. Therefore, you and people who want to throw money at research just for the sake of knowledge can do so on your own. Stop using the government to force the rest of us to go along with you.

You think NASA is the only organization in the world who does research simply for research's sake? There are TONS of privately funded organizations who simply do research. There is ZERO need to include government coerced funding in the picture.

[Athan]

And there are really rich people that agree with you. Therefore, you and people who want to throw money at research just for the sake of knowledge can do so on your own. Stop using the government to force the rest of us to go along with you.

You think NASA is the only organization in the world who does research simply for research's sake? There are TONS of privately funded organizations who simply do research. There is ZERO need to include government coerced funding in the picture.

Nate. No need to be so adamant iabout it with a fellow supporter. I agree with you, but there are priorities and funding or removing funding from NASA is a LOW priority. What difference does it make now if NASA is not the reason we are bankrupt? NASA is not the endless wars, growing welfare state, surveillence state, and etc.

Its just a bunch of science geeks with little funding at this time anyway. Just agree with him or disagree and don't worry about converting. As long as he understands part of the Ron Paul platform its a win win.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Nate. No need to be so adamant iabout it with a fellow supporter. I agree with you, but there are priorities and funding or removing funding from NASA is a LOW priority. What difference does it make now if NASA is not the reason we are bankrupt? NASA is not the endless wars, growing welfare state, surveillence state, and etc.

Its just a bunch of science geeks with little funding at this time anyway. Just agree with him or disagree and don't worry about converting. As long as he understands part of the Ron Paul platform its a win win.

I'm lost. What?

[kuckfeynes]

Just because it's not a high priority on the list of wasteful programs that need to go NOW, doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.

It's still an excellent example to illustrate the philosophy of liberty. It is still a wasteful program that needs to go. Anything critical to national defense can stay, but beyond that, using taxpayer money to fund general space exploration is wrong.

Ron Paul has asserted his voluntarism numerous times, and this is no exception. Just because you believe it is important to fund does not give you the right to force me to help you fund it.

It's small beans compared to the wars and entitlements, but the principle is the same. Bureaucracies are inherently wasteful, and in order to fund them wealth must necessarily be confiscated from the private sector. So when you look at all the great things NASA has done, it is a fallacy to think that without NASA we would lack this technology. Rather, you should be thinking how much MORE and MORE USEFUL technology we would have, had that capital been allowed to stay in the hands of private investors.

[lx43]

NASA should be eliminated simply because its not authorized in the constitution. Keep in mind, this statement is coming from me, a guy that loves space exploration.

[Sematary]

NASA should be eliminated simply because its not authorized in the constitution. Keep in mind, this statement is coming from me, a guy that loves space exploration.

Again, I respectfully disagree. Since space exploration didn't exist at the time the constitution was written, doesn't mean that it cannot be included in the legitimate funding of the government. Space exploration certainly has military implications. The Constitution does not explicitly authorize funding for an "air force" because no such thing existed then but I doubt anyone would argue that because it doesn't say the words, that the air force shouldn't be funded. Likewise, NASA, can also certainly be considered a legitimate use of taxpayer moneys as one of the tasks of the scientists there is to understand and recognize threats that are not terrestrial in nature.

Our understanding of the solar system is greatly enhanced by the space program. Satellite technology, which has numerous, possibly countless, military implications, is the direct result of our space program. To suggest that we shouldn't fund such endeavors simply because we want to "slash government" is ludicrous. Cutting off the space program would be like cutting off a finger simply because you have a splinter. Ridiculous.

[low preference guy]

Again, I respectfully disagree. Since space exploration didn't exist at the time the constitution was written, doesn't mean that it cannot be included in the legitimate funding of the government.

If so, then it can be included after amending the Constitution. The amendment hasn't passed yet, so it isn't authorized.

[cdc482]

Do not assume just because the government has had a monopoly on something that it can't be accomplished in the private sector. Virgin Galactic is about to start sending people into space at $200,000 a trip. Hundreds have already paid for this service. With demand like that you will see (baring government intervention) many competitors popping up over the next decade. Competition means the quality will go up while the price goes down. In 20 years you'll be able to fly from New Mexico to China in 1 hour at a cost of a normal plane ticket.

But besides that, lets look at something you said. "Without government funding, how could any profits be made?"

On the contrary, it's because of a government monopoly that no company has yet been able to venture into space for profit. How could a private company compete with a government that gets its funds through taxation? Also, the reason space exploration costs billions and billions is precisely because the government has had a monopoly for 50 years.

Now back to the exploration side. The first moon colony will be for mining. Once we've determined that we can extract valuable ore on the cheap there will be a mad rush to the moon. Once mining camps are established you'll be in a better position to launch missions to Mars. All of this requires a free market to work. Central planning absolutely cannot anticipate all of the factors involved in humans moving on beyond this planet.

Google Lunar X Prize

[LibertyEsq]

agreed ;)

With 7 billion people on earth and rapidly rising, I wonder when people will think space exploration is an important issue. 10 billion? 20?

[Athan]

I'm lost. What?
I'm simply saying its no big deal if one concerns themselves with the government funding NASA or not. Its just so.. irrelevant.

[truthspeaker]

Even is Dr. Paul's stance is tough on NASA, I don't think Congress would agree to completely cut the program.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

I'm simply saying its no big deal if one concerns themselves with the government funding NASA or not. Its just so.. irrelevant.

OK, firstly, this was the original question in the OP...

What I really want to know is, Is NASA or government funded space exploration in his 'Plan to Restore America?

The answer is, Ron Paul isn't going to touch NASA because there are bigger fish to fry.

And I agree with that approach.


Moving beyond that though, Ron Paul has said that the government should only do what it is Constitutionally authorized to do, and space exploration is not one of them.

Moving beyond that, philosophically, space exploration funded by pointing a gun at people and saying pay up is completely unethical.

Does this clear things up?

[JamesButabi]

Speaking of.....

Microsoft Co-founder to launch plane and cargo into space.
http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2011/12/13/microsoft-co-founder-to-build-giant-plane-to-launch-people-cargo-into-space/

[Athan]

OK, firstly, this was the original question in the OP...

What I really want to know is, Is NASA or government funded space exploration in his 'Plan to Restore America?

The answer is, Ron Paul isn't going to touch NASA because there are bigger fish to fry.

And I agree with that approach.


Moving beyond that though, Ron Paul has said that the government should only do what it is Constitutionally authorized to do, and space exploration is not one of them.

Moving beyond that, philosophically, space exploration funded by pointing a gun at people and saying pay up is completely unethical.

Does this clear things up?
Oh, I COMPLETELY agree with you as I said before. I just wanted to stress, that its no big deal if the government funds it at this time. It's like complaining that you have a hairline crack in your windshield when your car is going up in flames.

[Athan]

Speaking of.....

Microsoft Co-founder to launch plane and cargo into space.
http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2011/12/13/microsoft-co-founder-to-build-giant-plane-to-launch-people-cargo-into-space/

I saw that! Totally badass and PROOF the private sector can be far more effective than NASA as it doesn't need to worry about the political will power of tax thieves.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Oh, I COMPLETELY agree with you as I said before. I just wanted to stress, that its no big deal if the government funds it at this time. It's like complaining that you have a hairline crack in your windshield when your car is going up in flames.

True, but I was complaining. I was responding to the position that NASA is necessary. If I had started a thread titled "OMGWTF WE GOT TO GET RID OF NASA!!!11" then I can understand trying to get me to back off. But that isn't what happened. The OP had a question about NASA. It was answered. And then we moved on to a philosophical debate.

Kinda what this place is for.

[Sematary]

If so, then it can be included after amending the Constitution. The amendment hasn't passed yet, so it isn't authorized.

Neither is the air force. You want to add an amendment to account for future military technologies? Really?

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Neither is the air force. You want to add an amendment to account for future military technologies? Really?

There should be a specific amendment to include the air force in defense. Space defense should be part of the air force.

[heavenlyboy34]

Neither is the air force. You want to add an amendment to account for future military technologies? Really?
Yes. Either the Constitution means something (has teeth) or it doesn't.

[heavenlyboy34]

There should be a specific amendment to include the air force in defense. Space defense should be part of the air force.
That too ^^

[Sematary]

There should be a specific amendment to include the air force in defense. Space defense should be part of the air force.

Just because in the 18th century they couldn't see that one day there would be planes and space flight, does it mean that those cannot be included in the defense budget or as a constitutional expenditure. I am certain there will be plenty of technological advances that we currently can't foresee and it would be a catastrophe to attempt to include every single one that might have some defense related application. The amendment process wasn't intended to account for changes in technology. It was intended to account for changes in culture.

[Nate-ForLiberty]

Just because in the 18th century they couldn't see that one day there would be planes and space flight, does it mean that those cannot be included in the defense budget or as a constitutional expenditure. I am certain there will be plenty of technological advances that we currently can't foresee and it would be a catastrophe to attempt to include every single one that might have some defense related application. The amendment process wasn't intended to account for changes in technology. It was intended to account for changes in culture.

What you are doing here is arguing for a "Living Breathing Constitution". It is a flawed argument, with no basis in history. The Constitution specifically states that the federal government shall provide for national defense via a navy and militia. (Land and water). You are right in that there was no concept of flying machines creating another theater of war, but that is exactly why you have the amendment process. We are talking about national defense in the sky, not about specific technology. If during WW1, the first war to see planes used, the States passed an amendment that said something like "In addition to the militia and naval forces, Congress shall have the power to declare war in the sky and to secure an air force for national defense. Such a force is under the command of the Commander in Chief.", would it really matter what technology was being used in order to make men fly? It could be airplanes or helicopters or maybe a hundred years from now, hovercraft. All that matters is WHERE military action is occurring. Just as there should be an amendment for space, when that comes along. And if a parallel dimension is discovered with hostile aliens, then there should be a Constitutional amendment for a Parallel Dimension Force or whatever. The technology isn't the point. It's where the theater of war takes place.

If this wasn't the case, why put militia AND navy in the Constitution? Why not just say "armed forces".

[Sematary]

What you are doing here is arguing for a "Living Breathing Constitution". It is a flawed argument, with no basis in history. The Constitution specifically states that the federal government shall provide for national defense via a navy and militia. (Land and water). You are right in that there was no concept of flying machines creating another theater of war, but that is exactly why you have the amendment process. We are talking about national defense in the sky, not about specific technology. If during WW1, the first war to see planes used, the States passed an amendment that said something like "In addition to the militia and naval forces, Congress shall have the power to declare war in the sky and to secure an air force for national defense. Such a force is under the command of the Commander in Chief.", would it really matter what technology was being used in order to make men fly? It could be airplanes or helicopters or maybe a hundred years from now, hovercraft. All that matters is WHERE military action is occurring. Just as there should be an amendment for space, when that comes along. And if a parallel dimension is discovered with hostile aliens, then there should be a Constitutional amendment for a Parallel Dimension Force or whatever. The technology isn't the point. It's where the theater of war takes place.

If this wasn't the case, why put militia AND navy in the Constitution? Why not just say "armed forces".

Maybe because it never occurred to them that there might be other options some day? Just a thought.

[Athan]

Also, air based support and now aerospace is essential for land and sea defense. You don't need an ammendment to think in a 3 dimensional battlefield just because you wish to provide for victory. Every person in the US could be armed to the teeth and be undone by strategic air support if we had none such as was the case with Japan in WW2. General Washington used spys, and military uses aerospace spying. The revolutionaries used the submerssible Turtle which was not part of the established theatre of war. This is all common sense and military sense.

You'll handicap our cause if you start using inane reasoning and a lack of common sense. Space travel, deployment, and defense isn't excluded in providing from the common defense. Using taxpayer funds to start endless conflicts up there and government restriction of space exploration, defense, trade and travel is not. You need to think of space and air like an extention of accessible land when it comes to the Constitution. If a private citizen can get to the moon, he should have his rights and have the ability to travel without being attacked by a foreign enemy.

[erowe1]

Just because in the 18th century they couldn't see that one day there would be planes and space flight, does it mean that those cannot be included in the defense budget or as a constitutional expenditure. I am certain there will be plenty of technological advances that we currently can't foresee and it would be a catastrophe to attempt to include every single one that might have some defense related application. The amendment process wasn't intended to account for changes in technology. It was intended to account for changes in culture.

Amending the constitution to empower the federal government to engage in space exploration of any kind would be totally unethical. We should be amending to take away powers, not to give them more.

[K466]

S@tR: The Free Market Goes to Outer Space- Much Better than NASA (http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474980027833)

[fatjohn]

Wow, alot of talking. Not much links to Paul's opinion on the matter though.

[Greg Buchanan]

Ocean exploration and exploitation is the logical next step, and our government has put bans on that. Once deep sea mining has been mastered that technology can be used in space.

[Seraphim]

Nasa has always been a space war proxy.

The point is not to "explore space together". It's to conquer and phyically control space.

Nasa is not designed to make society wealthier. It's designed for strategic advantages in the face of WAR.

[Lishy]

As someone aspiring to work in the sciences field, I personally believe America should be investing in space. NASA might need policy changes, but I do not see how its concept would conflict with Non-interventionism in theory. Collaborations for space exploration is a step to peace.

[Seraphim]

The market place does this, the government, most certainly does not.

Read post #89, for further explanation.


As someone aspiring to work in the sciences field, I personally believe America should be investing in space. NASA might need policy changes, but I do not see how its concept would conflict with Non-interventionism in theory. Collaborations for space exploration is a step to peace.

[heavenlyboy34]

Nasa has always been a space war proxy.

The point is not to "explore space together". It's to conquer and phyically control space.

Nasa is not designed to make society wealthier. It's designed for strategic advantages in the face of WAR.
qft.