Some Tea Partiers love govt spending, so long as it's NASA

[justinc.1089]

Ok anyone on here arguing we should have NASA clearly does not understand why they are here, and why we oppose the government.

Government is by its nature, by what it is, an impediment and a barrier to the free market working correctly.

It distorts prices higher and lower than they should be.

It grants immunity to certain organizations so that they cannot fail. This would include businesses propped up by government, and government organizations themselves, which includes NASA.

And there are many other ways government interferes with free market functions.

If NASA had to compete with Space Business A, and NASA sucked, NASA would go bankrupt and be out of business while Space Business A would have more resources since it can use those resources more effectively. That means it would get MORE satellites up into space FASTER and get PEOPLE to the MOON and MARS FASTER.

But since NASA is a government organization, it is immune to failure. If it sucks, it will be given MORE money.

You MUST understand why a free market works better than a government, otherwise you will promote failure in many organizations/ businesses our society needs to succeed. Of course, in a free market, even if an organization/ business fails, another will take its place.

If I hated NASA and space exploration, I would want it to remain as it is, a government institution because I know that will impede its success and efficiency.

But I know how important space exploration is, and I find it interesting, so I want to encourage private business to pursue space exploration so that resources are used with maximum effiency, and so that if one business sucks it will fail, giving way to a better business than can handle exploring space better.

Last to the poster that said we would have been to Mars 20 years ago if space exploration had been privatized and NASA never had existed, you're probably right.

 

[NYgs23]

Private space companies are not there yet. When one can get a few people in orbit, keep them there for a few weeks, dock with the space station and do things like fix sats - well, maybe defunding NASA would be an appropriate topic.

btwL renting seats from the Russians, besides making the country dependent is really dumb financially. The cost is 50 Mil a head for a round trip ticket. It costs 10 Thousand dollars per pound to put orbit payload via the shuttle. Do the math.

Also remember, space is the ultimate high ground - from a military perspective.

So we're still worried about "those people over there" invading the homeland? Defund NASA and give it people to start voluntary militias that'll do a much a better job defending their property than Imperial legions have ever done. People who make exceptions for forced wealth transfer have no basis to complain when someone takes their money to give it Goldman-Sachs or Halliburton.

 

[Pete_00]

If NASA hadn't of ever existed, a man would have walked on Mars ten years ago sent there by a private business.

Yeah...they could even take the Loch Ness Monster, Santa Claus and Sasquatch on a Earth-Mars-Earth trip in 12 hours. And that if they used the obsolete privatly developed nuclear rocket engine because the "private market/total anarcho-capitalism" God would surely provided the Ion-Warp drive that could do the job in 1.3 hours or less.

 

[NYgs23]

Yeah...they could even take the Loch Ness Monster, Santa Claus and Sasquatch on a Earth-Mars-Earth trip in 12 hours. And that if they used the obsolete privatly developed nuclear rocket engine because the "private market/total anarcho-capitalism" God would surely provided the Ion-Warp drive that could do the job in 1.3 hours or less.

The marketplace would send humans to Mars if and when it were efficient to do so according to the subjective preferences of individuals. It's a simple as that.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

A couple of points - do you think NASA makes their own rockets? They don't. Can private sat companies buy a launch vehicle and launch their sat without NASA's involvement (beyond coordination so there isn't anything that micht hit each other up there) - yes they can. Did your gvmt vs private sector argument just go down in flames?

Why do you disagree with Ron Paul? - he's voted to fund NASA, after all.

Government is supposed to have a limited purpose and scope - a couple of you sound like anarchists, not libertarians.

-t

 

[phill4paul]

Private space companies are not there yet.

Because of monopoly.

Also remember, space is the ultimate high ground - from a military perspective.

I will concede that space should fall under the department of the Navy.

 

[justinc.1089]

A couple of points - do you think NASA makes their own rockets? They don't. Can private sat companies buy a launch vehicle and launch their sat without NASA's involvement (beyond coordination so there isn't anything that micht hit each other up there) - yes they can. Did your gvmt vs private sector argument just go down in flames?

Why do you disagree with Ron Paul? - he's voted to fund NASA, after all.

Government is supposed to have a limited purpose and scope - a couple of you sound like anarchists, not libertarians.

-t

Even people that aren't remotely interested in politics will tell you NASA is like the first thing that could be dramatically toned down in funds if you're talking about reducing government spending. And they're right.

The government is needed to defend people's liberty, and nothing more.

We don't need the government for services and products, which includes space rockets and space trips. Why do we not need the government for goods and services? Because the free market provides them with greater efficiency.

That is fact. Go read about Austrian economics like Paul talks about all the time if you want to keep bringing him up. But honestly Paul is just one man anyway. One man doing great things, but still just a man. He can be wrong about things, and if Paul is for NASA I think he is wrong for wanting to force me to fund NASA spending millions just to send astronauts to the space station to laugh at their kool-aid floating in the air in front of them.

Btw, I am also not an anarcho-capitalist.

I really can't believe there are people on here that support NASA though. That is the easiest kind of spending to cut because there are not tons of people depending on NASA's funding compared to cutting spending on things like defense and welfare. Those are hard to cut because you have to gently get people off of the money they get from those things that they're depending on to live from. NASA on the other hand has very few people depending on it, and the satelites can be maintained by private companies.

 

[NYgs23]

A couple of points - do you think NASA makes their own rockets? They don't. Can private sat companies buy a launch vehicle and launch their sat without NASA's involvement (beyond coordination so there isn't anything that micht hit each other up there) - yes they can. Did your gvmt vs private sector argument just go down in flames?

It sounds like you just said private companies can do things NASA can't.

There's nothing worthwhile that aggression (e.g. the state) can do that voluntary action can't do more efficiently, and even if there was, it wouldn't matter because aggression is always evil and the ends don't justify the means.

Why do you disagree with Ron Paul? - he's voted to fund NASA, after all.

What difference does it make what his position is? Are we not able to make up our own minds without appealing to an authority?

Still, if you're really interested in Ron Paul's position, the only thing I was able to find was a policy paper from 1988. It says, "...this failed state monopoly is now wrecking businesses to avoid well deserved embarassment. American companies desperately need to get their satellites into space....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....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."

a couple of you sound like anarchists, not libertarians.

I'm a person who believe in a fully voluntary society. Label it what you want; it doesn't matter to me.

 

[justinc.1089]

Yeah...they could even take the Loch Ness Monster, Santa Claus and Sasquatch on a Earth-Mars-Earth trip in 12 hours. And that if they used the obsolete privatly developed nuclear rocket engine because the "private market/total anarcho-capitalism" God would surely provided the Ion-Warp drive that could do the job in 1.3 hours or less.

The private market/ total anarcho-capitalism God served us well compared to the authoritarian government God's service to other countries before our country began...

Its pretty funny you assumed I'm an anarcho-capitalist just because I stated the economic fact that private business could handle space exploration better than the government's NASA because I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. I was just pointing out economic fact.

If you like NASA you should be all for private business getting into space exploration. I love space so I would love to see a stronger private space exploration industry. It would do much better than NASA has done.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

It sounds like you just said private companies can do things NASA can't.

What difference does it make what his position is? Are we not able to make up our own minds without appealing to an authority?

Still, if you're really interested in Ron Paul's position, the only thing I was able to find was a policy paper from 1988. It says, "...this failed state monopoly is now wrecking businesses to avoid well deserved embarassment. American companies desperately need to get their satellites into space....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....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'm a person who believe in a fully voluntary society. Label it what you want; it doesn't matter to me.

NASA is actually transitioning to private companies and has been for years. They choose not to make their own rockets because it is more efficient to let Martin do it.

Well, this is a forum devoted to him...

and he has apparently changed his mind, - see post 35 in this thread and look at the second link.

-t

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

The private market/ total anarcho-capitalism God served us well compared to the authoritarian government God's service to other countries before our country began...

Its pretty funny you assumed I'm an anarcho-capitalist just because I stated the economic fact that private business could handle space exploration better than the government's NASA because I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. I was just pointing out economic fact.

If you like NASA you should be all for private business getting into space exploration. I love space so I would love to see a stronger private space exploration industry. It would do much better than NASA has done.

Sure I'd love to see private space companies make it. They aren't there yet. Now were are going to be buying seats on Russian rockets to get to the space station. Do you really think that is privately owned? If private industry could do it for less, why would we be buying seats from a foreign government?

-t

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I am a realist. We can not have sacred cows in the budget. Everything must be cut. NASA has become bloated, inefficient, and somewhat incompetent.

Private enterprise would not have put a man on the moon. There is no profit.

The frustrating part is that the politicians will fund paper-pushing, completely non-productive jobs long after they get rid of areas that provide some benefit.

The neo-conservatives and war-mongers have been pushing for a long time to cut NASAs budget and divert it to war, the other waste of money. And it's such a surprise that Obama is going along with them.

 

[justinc.1089]

NASA is actually transitioning to private companies and has been for years. They choose not to make their own rockets because it is more efficient to let Martin do it.

Well, this is a forum devoted to him...

and he has apparently changed his mind, - see post 35 in this thread and look at the second link.

-t

And would it not be more efficient to let private business handle space exploration?

I think you're hung on Paul's position since he is pretty much the only person in the government we can trust to work towards our freedom. But if Paul really thinks we need NASA as it is now, he is wrong in my opinion. I really doubt thats his position anyway. I'm going to go look at the link.

 

[NYgs23]

NASA is actually transitioning to private companies and has been for years.

Good. Another reason for Obama to slash their budget (actually, increase it by less then they wanted, but, hey, who's counting?)

They choose not to make their own rockets because it is more efficient to let Martin do it.

It's not really private in the market sense until private organizations are doing it without taxpayer loot. It's just a more hidden part of the state.

he has apparently changed his mind, - see post 35 in this thread and look at the second link.

If he did, he changed his mind to opposing NASA, since the paper was from 1988, while the funding the hit piece refers to was from "the late 1970s and early 1980s." Furthermore, he might have authorized the funding due to the defense functions within NASA without approving of NASA itself. Now I'm done arguing about Ron Paul's position. Whatever it is, it doesn't change my position.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

I am a realist. We can not have sacred cows in the budget. Everything must be cut. NASA has become bloated, inefficient, and somewhat incompetent.

NASA was massively downsized years ago. Their budget is a drop in the bucket.

Private enterprise would not have put a man on the moon. There is no profit.

No profit in space tourism?
No profit in lunar mining?
No profit in lunar manufacturing (think ultra high precision bearings)
No profit in a lunar launch platform where keeping most of your fuel for a long trip would be important.

You're joking - right?

One other thing. Remember Hubble's vision problem? That was private industries fuck up. A very expensive one to correct. NASA didn't have the technology to check that. No aerospace companies did. NRO was the only one and they didn't ask for help.

-t

 

[Brian4Liberty]

No profit in space tourism?
No profit in lunar mining?
No profit in lunar manufacturing (think ultra high precision bearings)
No profit in a lunar launch platform where keeping most of your fuel for a long trip would be important.

You're joking - right?

One other thing. Remember Hubble's vision problem? That was private industries fuck up. A very expensive one to correct. NASA didn't have the technology to check that. No aerospace companies did. NRO was the only one and they didn't ask for help.

-t

I have worked in the aerospace industry. Testing the Hubble mirror before launch was fairly simple and straight forward. It was the government's decision not to check it to save a little money. That was an expensive gamble, and they lost.

Yes, I am serious about private industry and space. You seem to be leaving out expenses. Almost everything related to space has had expenses that exceeded any possible income. If it was profitable, private industry would be doing it.

 

[BlutStein]

NASA is the one government program that has always given me problems with my political beliefs.

I believe in as little taxes as possible, if any, and I want a small and local government. But when I stop and think about all the amazing things NASA has given us I can't help but want to expand their budget. They are the only government product that has panned out on an average basis. If you google it you can find numerous pages that explain all the the technology spin off that NASA funding has given us which has better our everyday life and lead to new businesses.

My dream is to have space completely privatized but the fact is that we aren't there yet and with subjects like space exploration if you ever plan on getting something done you have to start now and while government funded exploration isn't ideal, it should be tolerated for the time being since it is currently happening and is an actual plus to humanity.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

I have worked in the aerospace industry. Testing the Hubble mirror before launch was fairly simple and straight forward. It was the government's decision not to check it to save a little money. That was an expensive gamble, and they lost.

Yes, I am serious about private industry and space. You seem to be leaving out expenses. Almost everything related to space has had expenses that exceeded any possible income. If it was profitable, private industry would be doing it.

Not what heard re: Hubble, though that was before I got into the industry.

low earth orbit is looking possible in a few years and a private company (Virgin?) plans to offer trips and brief "hotel" stays for something like 5 Million a person. People are making advanced reservations.

Microwave propulsion has been worked on for a while and isn't there yet. A beanstalk is still a dream. Either would be much less expensive.

Right now you can buy payload space on a rocket. It's popular w/ uni's for experiments.

As to privatization, would you be OK with a private company operating a "boomer"? What about the sat that tells, say a nuke tipped cruise missile where it is and what course corrections it should make? At what point does privatization become an incredibly BAD idea!

-t

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Not what heard re: Hubble, though that was before I got into the industry.

I saw it before it was launched. I was working at the Lockheed site where it was undergoing final assembly. The whole thing was over-budget, especially the optics. That was why they cut corners and did not double check the mirror.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

I saw it before it was launched. I was working at the Lockheed site where it was undergoing final assembly. The whole thing was over-budget, especially the optics. That was why they cut corners and did not double check the mirror.

UGH! - though that is what you can expect from defense companies. Low bid and go over budget.

-t