Ron Paul on NASA??

[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.

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.