How exactly could we have space exploration/moon landings without government?

[Verad]

Skimming through this topic, it seems that no one here is aware of Virgin Galactic (and other private firms that are starting to pop up). Some of the stuff they're doing is pretty neat, even if its currently limited to space tourism at the moment. Also, the X-Prize foundation is a non-profit (I think) that is offering prizes to individuals and firms that are able to create new technologies according to a vague outline (like the Ansari X-Prize to create a spacecraft capable of entering space twice within a specific time frame). Google is sponsoring the Lunar X-Prize, which will be given to the first couple of firms/individuals that are able to put a robot on the moon that can send back a prerecorded message, send video and other stuff, with bonuses for teams that are able to find (and recover?) human artifacts from previous space ventures and other things. It is a great model for encouraging space exploration without gov't.

 

[Elwar]

Cutting out NASA was probably - or definitely - the weakest part of Ron Paul's policy suggestions during the 2008 campaign.

Umm, Ron Paul voted for funding NASA. He was actually attacked for voting to fund NASA.

 

[Conquistador]

The bulk of NASA's duties today involve scientific research (the Mars rovers, Hubble, etc.) NASA then publishes the findings of these missions for the scientific community. It can therefore be assumed that if NASA were to be abolished, these missions would be performed mostly by universities and funded by a foundation or by corporations who would benefit from the research.

The government has actually been surprisingly lax on the private spaceflight industry thus far. The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act allows passengers aboard private space vehicles to travel into orbit at their own risk, that is, without government regulation. Unfortunately, the law expires in 2012, and since its main opponent, Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota is the Chairman of the House Transportation Committee it will most likely not be renewed.

 

[BeFranklin]

An oldie organization from the 70s - they fought off the orginal UN moon treaty. Space Colony at L5 Lagrangian point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L5_Society

FYI: The wikipedia article is wrong about the L5 organization - once a member, always a member, and it only disbands on the space colony at L5.
Hence why many of the local L5s still exist in that name.

 

[BeFranklin]

Skimming through this topic, it seems that no one here is aware of Virgin Galactic (and other private firms that are starting to pop up). Some of the stuff they're doing is pretty neat, even if its currently limited to space tourism at the moment. Also, the X-Prize foundation is a non-profit (I think) that is offering prizes to individuals and firms that are able to create new technologies according to a vague outline (like the Ansari X-Prize to create a spacecraft capable of entering space twice within a specific time frame). Google is sponsoring the Lunar X-Prize, which will be given to the first couple of firms/individuals that are able to put a robot on the moon that can send back a prerecorded message, send video and other stuff, with bonuses for teams that are able to find (and recover?) human artifacts from previous space ventures and other things. It is a great model for encouraging space exploration without gov't.

I am. I'm waiting to be able to bug out - into space

 

[qh4dotcom]

What Ron Paul would say about space travel:

1) We can't afford it, the government is broke, where's the money going to come from?
2) Nowhere in the constitution is the government given the authority to explore space.

Your thoughts?

 

[Danke]

What Ron Paul would say about space travel:

1) We can't afford it, the government is broke, where's the money going to come from?
2) Nowhere in the constitution is the government given the authority to explore space.

Your thoughts?

General Welfare clause. Martians are a poor people, and need subsidizes.

 

[AutoDas]

Maybe if NASA didn't own 1,000 patents then private industry would be in better shape.

 

[jacmicwag]

Tin foil hat technology is vastly underrated.

 

[AJ Antimony]

Private companies as per free market principles can do a much better job exploring space than government. However, if I were in Congress, the only non-vital government expenditure I would consider is money for a space program. I'd consider it for a couple of reasons. 1. The space program isn't politics so it's hard to corrupt, and 2. Space is the future of exploration. Exploring used to be a Navy thing. Nonetheless, I'd always vote NO on NASA budgets unless the entire yearly budget produced a surplus. If the government is going to run a deficit, then I wouldn't vote for NASA funding.

 

[AJ Antimony]

What Ron Paul would say about space travel:

1) We can't afford it, the government is broke, where's the money going to come from?
2) Nowhere in the constitution is the government given the authority to explore space.

Your thoughts?

1. Bingo
2. One could argue that the space program is the Navy of the future. The Navy used to do the exploring; now it's up to the space program. In this regard, I almost consider the space program part of the military. When I say military, I'm talking about command structure, missions, etc. I am NOT talking about war. The Constitution also said nothing about an Air Force

 

[socialize_me]

Skimming through this topic, it seems that no one here is aware of Virgin Galactic (and other private firms that are starting to pop up). Some of the stuff they're doing is pretty neat, even if its currently limited to space tourism at the moment. Also, the X-Prize foundation is a non-profit (I think) that is offering prizes to individuals and firms that are able to create new technologies according to a vague outline (like the Ansari X-Prize to create a spacecraft capable of entering space twice within a specific time frame). Google is sponsoring the Lunar X-Prize, which will be given to the first couple of firms/individuals that are able to put a robot on the moon that can send back a prerecorded message, send video and other stuff, with bonuses for teams that are able to find (and recover?) human artifacts from previous space ventures and other things. It is a great model for encouraging space exploration without gov't.

Yes, I knew Virgin was doing this, but none of it would have been accomplished without prior government models. The private sector did not just jump right in and start designing this stuff--they've waited 40+ years for the government to test, design, and launch the programs and research. Had the Government not have done anything with space, none of these companies would have such programs. This is evidence enough that even with privatization, some tasks are simply too large without government performing them like the military and space travel.

 

[BeFranklin]

1. Bingo
2. One could argue that the space program is the Navy of the future. The Navy used to do the exploring; now it's up to the space program. In this regard, I almost consider the space program part of the military. When I say military, I'm talking about command structure, missions, etc. I am NOT talking about war. The Constitution also said nothing about an Air Force

 

[socialize_me]

The bulk of NASA's duties today involve scientific research (the Mars rovers, Hubble, etc.) NASA then publishes the findings of these missions for the scientific community. It can therefore be assumed that if NASA were to be abolished, these missions would be performed mostly by universities and funded by a foundation or by corporations who would benefit from the research.

The government has actually been surprisingly lax on the private spaceflight industry thus far. The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act allows passengers aboard private space vehicles to travel into orbit at their own risk, that is, without government regulation. Unfortunately, the law expires in 2012, and since its main opponent, Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota is the Chairman of the House Transportation Committee it will most likely not be renewed.

Universities would be pursuing these programs?? If Ron Paul believes the Federal Government is too broke to pursue a few billion dollars on space programs a year, then America's universities sure as hell won't have the money. My tuition just went up 8% this year. My university is having enough trouble raising $14 million to build new facilities due to the economic woes and, well, getting millions of dollars in donations simply isn't an easy task regardless of the times.

 

[socialize_me]

Private companies as per free market principles can do a much better job exploring space than government. However, if I were in Congress, the only non-vital government expenditure I would consider is money for a space program. I'd consider it for a couple of reasons. 1. The space program isn't politics so it's hard to corrupt, and 2. Space is the future of exploration. Exploring used to be a Navy thing. Nonetheless, I'd always vote NO on NASA budgets unless the entire yearly budget produced a surplus. If the government is going to run a deficit, then I wouldn't vote for NASA funding.

Private companies can barely even get out of the atmosphere, let alone explore space.

This is frustrating. I'm tired of these "free market does everything better" theories. For most things, they do; others, they don't. The military cannot be held to the free market. I'm glad the government provides us with a military because I, unlike many of you, have looked around lately. I don't want some of these people (some of which are likely yourselves) to have a private military force. I don't want warlords running America as would exist privately. The theoretical bullshit you guys throw is ridiculous and completely impractical.

Free market can't solve things it can't get to. The Government can't nuke Neptune just as Company X can't land on the moon. It's too big of a task for private companies to do, and too costly of an endeavor. For those of you who believe "well, if it's too expensive, it's not a good idea". I suppose living on this planet is something sustainable in a hundred years, right? Even though we'll all likely be dead, or wish we would be, people won't last another hundred years on this planet.

 

[Knightskye]

There are private companies who would like to explore space.

Such as SpaceX:
http://www.spacex.com/F1-004-summary.php

They're more careful with the money because it's theirs. And if they waste it, they're in trouble. The government takes your money and doesn't care what it does with it. Plus, the government is in bed with the special interests, so they could allocate more money than is needed just to help out a favorite company *cough*Lockheed*cough*.

But let's explain what is needed for space exploration:

Money
Technology
Brains
Labor

See government in that list? It's not necessary.

Ron Paul wrote an essay about NASA, and said we only needed the parts necessary for national security. This quote sums up what I said, only more articulate.

Even worse, this failed state monopoly is now wrecking businesses to avoid well deserved embarassment. American companies desperately need to get their satellites into space. They have been blocked from using the cheapest, most reliable launcher in the world which unfortuneately happens to be the Soviet Proton.

NASA has cost our nation a full twenty years in space development, twenty years that has seen the Soviet Union surpass us to an extent that may well be irreparable. It is inconceivable that a private firm could have committed such follies and survived. NASA deserves no better.

Our only hope now lies in the power of free individuals risking their own resources for their own dreams. 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. The reciepts would be applied to the national debt. Then, all government roadblocks to commercial development of space must be removed.

 

[socialize_me]

A great example of privatization of a government function is the postal service. I hear so much criticism of the USPS because there's inefficiencies and "waste" (funny because I find mailing a letter 3,000 miles for 42 cents or whatever the current rate is to be cheaper than driving). Even if it is subsidized, that is one good area to be subsidized. I also happen to get my mail faster than ever with the USPS--usually about 3 or 4 days from the time it's mailed via first class. Not bad at all.

The private sector has proven to utterly suck balls at postal services. Look at the industry right now with job losses galore and profit margins going negative. The private sector is LOSING money in an area of necessity even though theoretical thinkers like Rothbard provide evidence that the private sector has all the answers; it doesn't. FedEx, UPS, and DHL are all getting their asses kicked.

Don't get me started on roads. I understand with the Department of Transportation that the federal road system has gone terribly downhill, but that's the fault unconstitutionality and massive bureaucracy. Regardless, I could not imagine America with privatization of roads. The idea we would have the roads we have now because we'll have hundreds of thousands of these generous companies that have absolutely no interest in roads to suddenly build them and maintain them, is ridiculous. The roads would suck, we'd have only a handful, and it would literally take us back to horseback times. Where exactly will all of this free market investment come from if we suddenly decided not to tax gasoline at $0.18/gallon???

 

[Kludge]

The USPS is very efficient. I use them almost every day for shipping packages and letters alike and have not yet been alerted of one loss that was their fault. It's probably the most useful government service for me.

However, does that mean that people should be forced to pay taxes by threatening with imprisonment even if they don't use the service? I don't believe so.

Taking it one step further, I believe anyone who would vote to fund such a non-essential service is guilty of attempted theft and should be imprisoned.

 

[nbhadja]

A great example of privatization of a government function is the postal service. I hear so much criticism of the USPS because there's inefficiencies and "waste" (funny because I find mailing a letter 3,000 miles for 42 cents or whatever the current rate is to be cheaper than driving). Even if it is subsidized, that is one good area to be subsidized. I also happen to get my mail faster than ever with the USPS--usually about 3 or 4 days from the time it's mailed via first class. Not bad at all.

The private sector has proven to utterly suck balls at postal services. Look at the industry right now with job losses galore and profit margins going negative. The private sector is LOSING money in an area of necessity even though theoretical thinkers like Rothbard provide evidence that the private sector has all the answers; it doesn't. FedEx, UPS, and DHL are all getting their asses kicked.

Don't get me started on roads. I understand with the Department of Transportation that the federal road system has gone terribly downhill, but that's the fault unconstitutionality and massive bureaucracy. Regardless, I could not imagine America with privatization of roads. The idea we would have the roads we have now because we'll have hundreds of thousands of these generous companies that have absolutely no interest in roads to suddenly build them and maintain them, is ridiculous. The roads would suck, we'd have only a handful, and it would literally take us back to horseback times. Where exactly will all of this free market investment come from if we suddenly decided not to tax gasoline at $0.18/gallon???

For the roads I agree the government can take care of it, Ron Paul even says the government has the option of taking care of it.

But one think you do not understand is that the government is robbing everyone of their wealth right now, meaning less investment for private companies like UPS in this anti free market system. In a free market system people would have a lot more money to spend, meaning more investment for private companies like postal service and space exploration.

The government does not invent anything, people invent it.

The government merely just takes money from people and gives it to a designated inventor or researcher, leaving the other private talented researches without the funds they need because the citizens will not fund them because they do not have much money left after government stole it all.

Hence the reason researchers hired by the government invent a lot in certain fields like space exploration.

 

[Danke]

A great example of privatization of a government function is the postal service. I hear so much criticism of the USPS because there's inefficiencies and "waste" (funny because I find mailing a letter 3,000 miles for 42 cents or whatever the current rate is to be cheaper than driving). Even if it is subsidized, that is one good area to be subsidized. I also happen to get my mail faster than ever with the USPS--usually about 3 or 4 days from the time it's mailed via first class. Not bad at all.

The private sector has proven to utterly suck balls at postal services. Look at the industry right now with job losses galore and profit margins going negative. The private sector is LOSING money in an area of necessity even though theoretical thinkers like Rothbard provide evidence that the private sector has all the answers; it doesn't. FedEx, UPS, and DHL are all getting their asses kicked.

Don't get me started on roads. I understand with the Department of Transportation that the federal road system has gone terribly downhill, but that's the fault unconstitutionality and massive bureaucracy. Regardless, I could not imagine America with privatization of roads. The idea we would have the roads we have now because we'll have hundreds of thousands of these generous companies that have absolutely no interest in roads to suddenly build them and maintain them, is ridiculous. The roads would suck, we'd have only a handful, and it would literally take us back to horseback times. Where exactly will all of this free market investment come from if we suddenly decided not to tax gasoline at $0.18/gallon???

What are you talking about? One can't directly compete against delivery of the mail. Just look what they did to Lysander Spooner when he tried.