What would Ron do about NASA?

[pcosmar]

I built and launched rockets as a child. I designed spacecraft.
I gave up all hope of "Space Exploration" over 30 years ago.
The only purpose was to launch Nukes and Spy satellites.
I hope that will change, but it will not be in my lifetime.

 

[tangent4ronpaul]

One of the only votes Ron Paul has ever voted "Yes" to that involves spending for something not specifically called for in the Constitution was a vote for NASA funding.

Though he claims that that vote had to do with NASA's role in defense.

I'd say Ron Paul as a president would roll NASA's defense capabilities in with military spending and leave things open otherwise to the free market. (total conjecture though)

I worked at NASA for a while. They had had their funding gutted about 90% and had gone through mass layoffs. So yes, they are really underfunded.

They also do a lot of defense related work. The project I worked on had to do with a constellation of communication satellites, and of the channels supported, at least 40% of them were classified. The office next to mine was a SCIF that got swept before every meeting...

In some ways, the shuttle is a glorified service station - you can't exactly bring a satellite back to earth is it needs a little maintenance...

As to costs, and the people here bashing the science aspects - what's so expensive is getting the payload into orbit in the first place. The cost of the science is chump change, by comparison.

Private industry is already taking over aspects here. Companies launching satellites will buy a launch vehicle from Locked-Martin or a similar company to put their birds into orbit. One company, COMSAT, was created by the government in 1963 and completely spun off to private industry. It hasn't faired so well, in recent years, but I used to work there too - back when COMSAT Labs was still in Clarksburg. It is an example of how government can go private in a good way.

The USPS is kind of in the middle here, as it's part government agency and part civilian company.

Some examples of how privatization is disastrous would be the recent trend to privatize aspects of how the government does business. NTIS comes to mind, which is a clearing house for government scientific and technical data. Here we have a fantastic resource of data that in theory belongs to the US Public as we paid for all that research, but it's priced so high that only corporations can afford it. If you need something that they might have, pray that DTIC hasn't released it to NTIS, as from DTIC you can file a FOIA and get the first 100 pages free and the rest will be 10 cents a page. That's a lot better than $30 for a 18 page report...

In other cases, "technology transfer" or the licensing materials produced at public expense are forms of corporate welfare. Their effect is to take what belongs to all of us and keep it out of the publics hands. A couple of examples: do a patent search on N-GRAMS, a very useful tool, but the company the gvmt patent was transfered to is not making it available to the public, only incorporating it in very special purpose machines that ordinary people can't afford. Another would be the state department language tapes that are supposed to be excellent, but the company they were given to has priced them much higher than any other language courses so only corporations can afford them. Another was an algorithm developed to detect change between one aerial photograph and another of the same area taken later - it's now being used for detecting and monitoring breast cancer, but might have other applications. Applications that won't be developed, because one company has a loch on the technology - despite that it was developed on the public dime and is our property - in theory...

anyway, I'm getting a bit off topic, or am I...

-n

 

[Kregener]

NASA is a cash cow.

But at least we know how bees reproduce in zero gravity...

 

[pyrazole2]

pcos, you must remember that government-run space agencies are by far the most experienced actors in the space industry. it's extremely risky to ignore the tried and true practices of these agencies. there is a lot of risk involved in allowing any private company with an assload of money to put people and objects in space before the private sector is ready to go on their own.

if the private sector takes an assload of money to put people and objects into space, then doesn't that indicate that they're ready to do it on their own???

Ignore the fact that all the components that go into our spacecraft are built by Lockheed, Boeing, Rockwell, Grumman, etc. I would think they would be the ones to take over, since they've been building the spacecraft anyway. http://www-de.ksc.nasa.gov/dedev/contractors.html

Take a look at the Commercial Space Act of 1998...this is why NASA is underfunded. It was taken down a notch to be only a research agency. This hasn't completely happened, so NASA is technically breaking the law by doing what it's doing today. http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/commercial/CommercialSpaceActof1998.html
And I quote "As part of those preparations, the Administrator shall plan for the potential privatization of the Space Shuttle program."
It goes on to privatize everything except for research.

 

[Matt Collins]

I think that NASA should be folded into the DoD since aeronautics and space is an important part of our defense (think ICBMs etc). Obviously not all of NASA's operations are applicable to national defense. In that case, those operations should cease under the Gov and the free market can take over, if indeed there is a market for those types of operations.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The notion of free market competition in space is still a few years off.

The notion is a few years off? Bullshit. NASA is cool but it's a free market system would accomplish much more. NASA is just wasting money. However, I would support merely legalizing competition, you don't HAVE to close down NASA. NASA is under funded anyway, so they don't do much as it is.

 

[dude58677]

I don't think it's that simple. You'd basically be setting back the industry by a decade. Even if you abolish NASA, private companies are still a long ways away from even matching the ability to conduct the scientific and manned missions that NASA, the ESA, and JAXA are capable of.

Burt Rutan came up with the feathered configuration that slows the descent of the space ship in reentry. When the descent slows, heat is no longer a factor as there is no friction.

If it isn't advanced it is because of a self-fufilling prophecy from NASA regulating everything.

When the Federal Reserve is abolished and the we have a gold standard, more people will be able to travel into space and more people will be able to start their own space business.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Burt Rutan came up with the feathered configuration that slows the descent of the space ship in reentry. When the descent slows, heat is no longer a factor as there is no friction.

If it isn't advanced it is because of a self-fufilling prophecy from NASA regulating everything.

When the Federal Reserve is abolished and the we have a gold standard, more people will be able to travel into space and more people will be able to start their own space business.

Yup. That would be cool. And why would we need to shut down NASA? lol. We mainly need to deregulate all of that, we don't need an unproductive and underfunded NASA regulating everything

 

[plopolp]

Space travel is an old mature industry, half a century old. Many key industries, like electronics, are younger than that and do extremely well on the market. Space is surely "mature enough" to go private. That's evidently not the issue.

There's something about transportations, be it on rails or on rockets, which makes states want to control it. I think it is because transportations are so very important and that politicians therefor concentrate so much power to themselves by monopolizing it...

 

[SeanEdwards]

There's a legitimate need for the federal government to invest in space technology as it relates to national defense. Other than defense, space exploration should be opened up to the marketplace.

I'd even include astronomical observation and research as important for national defense. We know for a fact that celestial objects pose a significant threat to life on Earth. Our only defense against these objects is to detect them in advance and have some capability to change their trajectory.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

There's a legitimate need for the federal government to invest in space technology as it relates to national defense. Other than defense, space exploration should be opened up to the marketplace.

I'd even include astronomical observation and research as important for national defense. We know for a fact that celestial objects pose a significant threat to life on Earth. Our only defense against these objects is to detect them in advance and have some capability to change their trajectory.

only government should research new weapon systems? how about government bidding on private contracts?

 

[Triton]

The notion of free market competition in space is still a few years off.

Oh this issue hits me where I live: I think we need to be in space. I keep consoling myself with the thought that if the government got out of the space-flight business, that private industry would quietly step in and fill the void.

 

[Hook]

In some ways, the shuttle is a glorified service station - you can't exactly bring a satellite back to earth is it needs a little maintenance...

-n

If you compare the complete costs of maintaining the entire shuttle fleet since its inception as well as the launch costs, you could have thrown up a replacement satellite for every one that died in space with a Saturn V for way less money. The Space Shuttle has been the most expensive way of getting things into space ever devised. And they can only repair satellites in low earth orbit anyway. The ones that are really useful to us, such as comm sats are in geosynchronous orbit, which is way too far out to go for the shuttle. The only generally useful low earth satellites are GPS and sat phones. Those sats are certainly cheaper than the shuttle launch costs.
The cost to lanuch something into space with the Shuttle is something like $2000/oz. Which means if there was gold for the taking in low earth orbit, it wouldn't be cost-effective to get it with the shuttle.
Every dollar you spend on the shuttle or the space station is a dollar you could have spent sending your kids to school or feeding some poor person in the third world. Let the market decide, not NASA.

 

[dude58677]

I got Burt Rutan's and Paul Allen's autograph when they donated the SS1 to the Air and Space Museum. I just thought I would share it with all of you.

 

[eleganz]

The only way for space exploration and technology to be able to survive in the free market is if said company would find a way to earn high profits. Enough so that they could be functioning and still have enough funds to keep their projects going.

The only way to do this, as of now is to send rich people into space, and after these people have all been to space, who is left over to fund said company?

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The only way for space exploration and technology to be able to survive in the free market is if said company would find a way to earn high profits. Enough so that they could be functioning and still have enough funds to keep their projects going.

The only way to do this, as of now is to send rich people into space, and after these people have all been to space, who is left over to fund said company?

Not exactly. Ever hear about non profit organizations? Why does it have to be exclusively FOR profit companies that develop these technologies? Why not a group of a space enthusiasts? Scientists?

 

[eleganz]

Not exactly. Ever hear about non profit organizations? Why does it have to be exclusively FOR profit companies that develop these technologies? Why not a group of a space enthusiasts? Scientists?

Yea of course it's possible that enthusiasts would start this as a non-profit organization, I totally left that out.


But....everybody wants to get paid...

 

[LibertyOfOne]

NASA is a cash cow.

But at least we know how bees reproduce in zero gravity...

At least we can look back 13 billion years back in time.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=x4s62voTc9k

For those talking about private space flight it will be along while before the average person can go to space. We need space elevators to dramatically cut costs, but nano technology is not that advanced yet.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

At least we can look back 13 billion years back in time.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=x4s62voTc9k

For those talking about private space flight it will be along while before the average person can go to space. We need space elevators to dramatically cut costs, but nano technology is not that advanced yet.

Why do you say "it will be a long while" ? how do you know? Maybe it'd all speed up once the government is out of the way? There's TONS of incentives for people to want to get into space, especially for mining purposes.

 

[Hook]

Yea of course it's possible that enthusiasts would start this as a non-profit organization, I totally left that out.


But....everybody wants to get paid...

Employees of non-profits do get paid.