NASA Issues

[sirachman]

I am a participant in a growing private space enterprise and the biggest problems we face hands down are government red tape, high taxes, bad laws, and a generally negative and definately non-helpful attitude projected by government. They either need to be helpful, or stay out of private ventures. However what they do is a mix of boths negatives. If Burt Rutan can make a sub-orbital spaceship in a couple years and less than 3 million then that hands-down proves private industry far exceeds government beaurocracy in its efficiency. The best path for the future it to restrict government space projects to strictly research science ones which can then be bidded out to private space contractors and leave hardware construction, extra-planetary missions, and all other things that can break a profit to private industry.
There are massive possibilities for profit, expansion, and much more in space all that is needed is a government that will get out of the way. All ownership in space is free-for-all until claimed by arrival in my opinion since continental jurisdiction of countries cannot be extended thousands of miles upward and outward into space and object never visited by them.
In conclusion it is in my opinion that NASA can be maintained for space research like missions while removing government regulations and creating a more hospitable environment for space upstarts. Then NASA can be gradually phased out as a market arises large enough to allow for private space contractors to bid for contracts to work on government projects funded and approved by the people for the purpose of furthering humanitys understanding of the surrounding cosmos.
~Adam

 

[Elwar]

Umm...Ron Paul voted for funding for NASA.

The only "yes" vote that has come into question on the stance that he always votes based on the Constitution.

His explanation is that the funding he voted for had national defense implications.

 

[Visual]

I am a participant in a growing private space enterprise and the biggest problems we face hands down are government red tape, high taxes, bad laws, and a generally negative and definately non-helpful attitude projected by government. They either need to be helpful, or stay out of private ventures. However what they do is a mix of boths negatives. If Burt Rutan can make a sub-orbital spaceship in a couple years and less than 3 million then that hands-down proves private industry far exceeds government beaurocracy in its efficiency. The best path for the future it to restrict government space projects to strictly research science ones which can then be bidded out to private space contractors and leave hardware construction, extra-planetary missions, and all other things that can break a profit to private industry.
There are massive possibilities for profit, expansion, and much more in space all that is needed is a government that will get out of the way. All ownership in space is free-for-all until claimed by arrival in my opinion since continental jurisdiction of countries cannot be extended thousands of miles upward and outward into space and object never visited by them.
In conclusion it is in my opinion that NASA can be maintained for space research like missions while removing government regulations and creating a more hospitable environment for space upstarts. Then NASA can be gradually phased out as a market arises large enough to allow for private space contractors to bid for contracts to work on government projects funded and approved by the people for the purpose of furthering humanitys understanding of the surrounding cosmos.
~Adam

Indeed.

Also, it's amazing if you look at the nasa budget how much is slated for pet projects for congressmen.

 

[torchbearer]

Space exploration would be better done by a private foundation of forward thinking Capitalist like the guy from Virgin.

 

[robertwerden]

ron has said he would rather see nasa run by the marketplace

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

We need a planetary private effort, in both the FOR profit and non profit sectors. This means that companies, individuals and non profit enthusiasts should all be able to work on it in a true free market setting.

 

[jb4ronpaul]

I am sure if laws and regulations were properly changed, we could create a massive new private space exploration industry in this country with lots of new employment and benefits in many areas. Anyone in the space industry should love Ron Paul because he is basically the only person running who would even consider this.

 

[torchbearer]

ron has said he would rather see nasa run by the marketplace

The moon is a great source of Helium-3. with private competition, a cheaper way of extracting it and returning it could be developed.
With money to be gained, space technology and later exploration would explode.

Under government control, we will never get to mars.
ask the guys from "Mars Direct". Nasa doesn't know a good idea when it hits them in the face.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The moon is a great source of Helium-3. with private competition, a cheaper way of extracting it and returning it could be developed.
With money to be gained, space technology and later exploration would explode.

Under government control, we will never get to mars.
ask the guys from "Mars Direct". Nasa doesn't know a good idea when it hits them in the face.

True. Why aren't more people getting involved in private research and development?

What is "Mars Direct"?

 

[torchbearer]

True. Why aren't more people getting involved in private research and development?

What is "Mars Direct"?

Mars Direct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

google it to find more info.. the guy behind the project is a genius.


Private research isn't there because it isn't necessary because the government is taxing the businesses to do the exploration on their behalf.

 

[dwdollar]

I agree with idea of extending private property rights into space. As far as I know, there are none. The way I understand it, according to treaty, space is owned by governments and not just one government but all governments as a whole. I understand the intent of wanting to have a peaceful future in space but this will not encourage exploration. In theory, if a private entity wanted to build a base on the moon, they would have to get the permission of every government on Earth. And even then they couldn't own the land.

 

[torchbearer]

If I were elected to congress I would promote Mars Direct, and using my status to form outside of our government a foundation of space dwelling millionares... to start a private foundation for the advancement of humanity in our solar system and beyond.

I believe if we start focusing on space exploration as a planet, our in fighting will start to look really ridiculous and childish.

Our future as a planet, is a unifying theme.

 

[torchbearer]

I agree with idea of extending private property rights into space. As far as I know, there are none. According to treaty, space is owned by governments and not just one government but all governments as a whole. I understand the intent of wanting to have a peaceful future in space but this will not encourage exploration. In theory, if a private entity wanted to build a base on the moon, they would have to get the permission of every government on Earth. And even then they couldn't own the land.

Ownership is determined by who can actual hold a presence and defend it. Regardless of what all the earth governments state... if a private company colonies and militarizes the moon, there is nothing they can do about it.

Property ownership should be the result of "homesteading".

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Mars Direct: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct

google it to find more info.. the guy behind the project is a genius.


Private research isn't there because it isn't necessary because the government is taxing the businesses to do the exploration on their behalf.

What? Government taxing the businesses to do the exploration on their behalf? That doesn't make any sense. Where are they being taxed?

Mars Direct sounds cool. Why would it cost 55 billion USD in order to complete the project? Sounds like a lack of competition to me, you have this government monopoly and I don't see much incentive for start-up companies. 55 billion must be primarily for the materials, right?

 

[torchbearer]

What? Government taxing the businesses to do the exploration on their behalf? That doesn't make any sense. Where are they being taxed?

Mars Direct sounds cool. Why would it cost 55 billion USD in order to complete the project? Sounds like a lack of competition to me, you have this government monopoly and I don't see much incentive for start-up companies. 55 billion must be primarily for the materials, right?

Research Mars Direct, learn its entire story.. it was born of competition... and is the cheapest most efficient way for us to explore mars.
It was propose to nasa, and they rejected it in favor of the 8 unmanned projects they are going to be milking over the next two decades.

the taxation i was talking about was the usual taxation. not a special tax.

 

[sirachman]

No government owns space unless they are there to claim ownership. All ownership is is your claim on a place, and even that can be taken by force. Thus your residence in the area you are claiming can be enough for ownership as long as your behavior in that area does not attract someone who can steal it from you. According to that logic, noone owns space since noone lives there to claim it. If a country put a manned base on the moon they would own whatever they claimed and could protect from anyone who wished to take it from them, same goes for a private enterprise. When you go into space you basically become your own little mini-country. Treaties and whatnot do not matter in reality as no Earthly government has jurisdiction in space. Protecting space assets however is not entirely difficult and there is enough space out there that conflicts over specific bits would be quite unneccessary. Do some research on Near Earth Asteroids and you will find that they are massively numerous, average miles wide, closer than Mars, and contain thousands of times more elemental resources than the entire crust of the planet earth. The average 1M wide asteroid is worth over 2 Trillion dollars in current market prices and thats not counting the fact that currently it costs more than 2000 dollars a pound to send something into orbit, and thats not to mention what it costs to sent it to geosynchronous orbit, much less where it would be found on the asteroid.....
The one and only problem is taxes and government regulations to get things off the ground. Everything else is basically a Columbus esque voyage where you take off in the name of your country, claim it for your own when you get there, then demand independance in return for the worlds access to your products.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Research Mars Direct, learn its entire story.. it was born of competition... and is the cheapest most efficient way for us to explore mars.
It was propose to nasa, and they rejected it in favor of the 8 unmanned projects they are going to be milking over the next two decades.

the taxation i was talking about was the usual taxation. not a special tax.

But what is the government taxing? Yeah, I could spend all night researching this, but why do that when I could be promoting Ron Paul? ha I just thought that you meant a special tax that is discouraging free market research and development? Ha, anyway.

Why would it cost 55 billion USD though? lol. However, I much prefer money going towards this than some stupid war perpetuated by the military industrial complex.

 

[sirachman]

I dont disagree with nasa being kept as a committe of scientists that picks projects to be governmentally funded. However I think everything they pick to do should be subcontracted out to private industry, and if that industry doesnt exist they need to be as helpful as possible in creating it. That cant happen until taxes are lowered and government takes on a helping role rather than a prohibitive role. Prizes have worked in the private industry such as with the xprize so I think if the govt gets involved they should fund these as well as giving grants in return for results but without the negative requirements they currently have.

Hah, how did I get this off topic. This is a Ron Paul board afterall. I guess my love of space and freedom lead me to Ron Paul for his view of small government and low taxes.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I dont disagree with nasa being kept as a committe of scientists that picks projects to be governmentally funded. However I think everything they pick to do should be subcontracted out to private industry, and if that industry doesnt exist they need to be as helpful as possible in creating it. That cant happen until taxes are lowered and government takes on a helping role rather than a prohibitive role. Prizes have worked in the private industry such as with the xprize so I think if the govt gets involved they should fund these as well as giving grants in return for results but without the negative requirements they currently have.

Hah, how did I get this off topic. This is a Ron Paul board afterall. I guess my love of space and freedom lead me to Ron Paul for his view of small government and low taxes.

Why should government even be involved at any level? The referee doesn't make the touch down in a football game, that's the player's job.

 

[sirachman]

I meant IF the government was involved that would be the limit of its involvement. I would much rather have people donate to a fund to do space science missions. However one could argue that because of the unusual combination of massive expense, massive discovery possibility, and lack of profitability they can be agreed to be funded governmentally through taxes due to their benefit to humanity as a whole. However I disagree with this because I believe that any of these can be made profitable.

I do believe that due to the MASSIVE amount of money required to be thrown at these ventures some sort of government motivation would be helpful and while not needed the difficulty of aquiring the funds for these ventures in the free-market would be such that productivity and progress in space would be very limited due to the risk/benefit ratio.

This is why I suggest some sort of prize system, and/or completely getting rid of all taxes associated with purchases and other activities in space ventures, and/or some type of motivation to invest massive amounts of money. Other than that I dont know but a lack of taxes on ventures paired with the government de-regulating space related things would be of massive benefit alone.