NASA and the Space Program

papajohn56

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2007
Messages
144
I'm a supporter of Paul, but I'm also in Physics, and a major supporter of the space program and NASA's research. What does Dr. Paul think of this? It's an issue that states do not have the funding to take up, so it'd be very difficult to do without federal support.
 
That is a good example of a program that some people think is worthwhile and can have benefits but which some others may think is a waste of taxpayer money.
 
Adjusted for inflation, I'd bet heavily that putting Yuri Gagarin in space cost a lot more than the X prize.

In a private company, I'd bet heavily that the second total crew death disaster involving a 30 year old reusable spacecraft program would kill the program.

And didn't I read that low funding is largely responsible for intelligent changes in the way they do things, like doing airbag landings instead of parachutes?

I agree that NASA has done great things, but I can't help think that there would be greater things happening if it wasn't federal, worked for what it got, and had competition.
 
The space shuttle uses parachutes, not air bags and there already have been two disasters aboard the space shuttle. Challenger and Columbia. Yuri's flight most likely cost more since they had to develop all of the technology from scratch. For the X-Prize, some of the parts and designs were taken (literally) from NASA. I too am torn as to whether government should continue to fund NASA.
 
Everything has opportunity cost. The money spent by bureaucrats at Nasa is money that WASN'T spent by start up companies, or old people on their doctor, or poor people on their rent. ALL government consumption (and that is all government can do, since it suffers from the calculation problem) comes at the expense of private consumption.

Just because government does something now doesn't mean it wouldn't get done if it didn't do it in the future.
 
I'm a supporter of Paul, but I'm also in Physics, and a major supporter of the space program and NASA's research. What does Dr. Paul think of this? It's an issue that states do not have the funding to take up, so it'd be very difficult to do without federal support.
The question is: From where the government can finance NASA & similar projects?
The answer defiantly is not by taxing people. Ron Paul's principle is that we cannot force anybody to spend his money on something that it might not interest him.
There are many other sources that bring revenue to the government and it has been discussed here before. Now the question is how much Ron Paul is willing to spend out of this revenue to finance science projects?
There is also another source we should not ignore and it is donations. Many people in America are very enthusiastic about the space and I guess they would be so willing to donate for this cause.
 
I love the space program but the only way I can see the federal governments role in it would be defense against asteroids and comets. Part of national defense.
 
Everybody is a fiscal conservative except when it come to their own pet project or cause.

It has something to do with the phenomenon of distributed costs and concentrated benefits. So we end up comprimising by funding everybody's pet projects and causes, even the ones that are contradictory. How much rocket fuel does the shuttle program use? How much greenhouse gasses are emitted? see what I mean?
 
One of the reasons the government funds NASA is because it does not want to let private individuals make rockets with guidance systems, because then you have a missile. That’s also why the X-prize is a joke. We could have plenty of private companies flying shuttles, but you cant, because technically speaking the rocket its flying on is a missile.
 
The space shuttle uses parachutes, not air bags and there already have been two disasters aboard the space shuttle.

My point was shifting toward the Mars landings of the last 15 years - they used airbag landings. AFAIK that came about because budget constraints forced the engineers to think outside the box. Huygens used a parachute both because the topography of Titan was unknown, and because it was scientifically necessary to take readings & photos on the way down.

Here's another point in favor of the free market when it comes to space exploration: the free market isn't beholden to some dunderhead getting in front of the scientific community and dictating that we're returning to the moon and going to mars, right after we kill everyone in Iran, ship all our jobs out of the country, and destroy the dollar.
 
Where the candidates stand on space

Congressman Ron Paul, who has attracted some voter support, particularly in New Hampshire, has not talked about space policy during this campaign, but did in 1988 when he was the Libertarian Party nominee. At that time he was critical of the lack of progress NASA had achieved over the previous two decades. “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,” he states in a position paper from that 1988 campaign (one that apparently did not foresee the imminent collapse of the Soviet Union.) “It is inconceivable that a private firm could have committed such follies and survived. NASA deserves no better.”

Paul, who was not in Congress during that 1988 campaign, has been in Congress for over a decade now (he previously served in the House in two periods from the mid 1970s through the mid 1980s), in a district that includes some Houston suburbs near the Johnson Space Center. When the House passed its version of a NASA authorization bill in 2005, one of the few roll call votes in recent years on space-specific legislation, Paul did not cast a vote. He did, though, vote in favor of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act (HR 5382) in a critical November 2004 vote after being the only member to oppose an earlier version of the bill that March.

XNN
 
I think some form of NASA should be kept in interest of national defense, both from natural things such as asteroids as well as the possibility that future wars could be fought partially in space, I really think NASA should be downsized to serve only these purposes and then put under the command of the USAF. It only makes sense that with the huge level of dependence on satellites that our military has, if we were to go to war with a country that was capable they would certainly attempt to destroy them. From there I think it would escalate the same way air combat did in WWI. I don't think they have any justification at all for using taxpayer money for purely exploratory endeavors such as going to mars or advancing science in general.

I also think there should be a free market for this that would make up for (albeit surpass) the loss of NASA's work in exploration and understanding the universe in general.
 
As with any other government program, the correct answer is this question:

"Are you personally willing to hold a gun on someone to make them contribute to this cause?"

If your personal answer is NO and you still support the cause in question, ask yourself what that says about your attitude toward your fellow man. Theft is theft, you can't give someone permission to violate someone's right to property if you're not allowed to do it yourself.
 
As others have said, some parts of NASA are vital to national defense. Those parts should be kept. The rest should be privatized.
 
Back
Top