What would Ron do about NASA?

[Starks]

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

 

[steph3n]

He is a big supporter of private space exploration.

Personally I'd like to see NASA sold but that's another story and NOT what Dr Paul has said, so no one take it for that

 

[kylejack]

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

Yeah, but we don't lose much by abolishing NASA either. There's no current pressing need for it, and getting rid of it frees up a lot of experts to work in the free market alternatives.

 

[risiusj]

steph3n wants to buy NASA!

 

[pcosmar]

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

No it is not.
It is stifled by Government interference.
http://www.xprize.org/

 

[Starks]

NASA will be a necessary evil for at least 10 or 20 more years. Private enterprise in space is still too young and the companies rely heavily on NASA scientists for information on how to safely and effectively build and launch spacecraft.

 

[ghemminger]

Abolish it - let the free market decide

 

[anewvoice]

Something tells me that NASA is pretty far down the list of things to be addressed. If only it were the only expenditure to be cut, we'd be in a much better position.

 

[EvilEngineer]

NASA really is a fossil. The only time it produces anything is when it has billions of dollars funneled into it for specific purposes.

Burt Rutan and the space ship one are the near future for space flight. Virgin understood this and bought the first few commercial ships to be produced. Virgin Galactic will be awesome to see when it gets going. Though really, it has no real point aside from a thrill seeking point of view. We are decades away from inter-planetary colonies and travel, which is the point at which space travel will really flourish.

On another side of the coin... Right now we don't need to be in space until we solve many of the issues here at home. I don't want to see the very problems we have today spread out of control into the cosmos. We think small wars we have today are problematic. Try managing an interstellar government and army.

 

[jj111]

I think the best answer to this question is that this is not a high priority issue in the Presidential campaign. No candidates are talking about NASA, including Ron Paul. Ron Paul is against making any major changes in any government program without a transition period. Whatever Ron Paul suggests regarding NASA, Ron Paul will work with Congress and the American people instead of acting like a dictator.

 

[Starks]

Abolish it - let the free market decide

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.

 

[Elwar]

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)

 

[pcosmar]

Been there,done that.
WANTS MORE.
http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/

 

[Gilby]

There are some security elements about NASA, so I imagine that NASA would still exist, but would be limited strictly to security issues and leave all other space exploration programs to the free market.

 

[Severius]

Abolish it. NASA scientists will then work FOR the private companies rather than helping with a little bit of information. The government being involved in space exploration is the reason I'm not vacationing on the moon this Christmas. I've been saying this for years. Robert Heinlein had it right, the only way space exploration will ever advance is if private enterprise is allowed to get involved. Competition between companies will drive the price down, and increase the speed of innovation. NASA spent billions in research for the replacement of the space shuttles only to use fifty year old technology by building a bigger version of the Apollo lander.

 

[MicroBalrog]

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

Really? There's several private sattelite launch ventures.

 

[literatim]

NASA plays a heavy role in national defense and there is nothing stopping private industry from developing their own space technology.

 

[Hope]

Dr. Paul has already pointed out numerous times that it's the departments with the big spending he primarily wants to eliminate or reform. If I'm not mistaken, NASA is pretty far down that list.

 

[stalcottsmith]

Private Space Industry is HERE

When the Shuttle finally dies in the next couple years, SpaceX will have the ONLY American-own manned orbital capability, whether governmental or private.

They have designed the only entirely new heavy lift system in 30 years, entirely from scratch, and the only one not directly derived from missile technology. It is far more relable, simple and modern than anything else out there.

Watch them. There are many others in the race but these guys are way ahead.

NASA can be retired or simply vastly reduced and purchase whatever scientific launch and operations capabilities are needed from private industry. I say this as a Floridian who may run for office some day... We have to get private industry spun up here.

 

[EvilEngineer]

There are some security elements about NASA, so I imagine that NASA would still exist, but would be limited strictly to security issues and leave all other space exploration programs to the free market.

Only thing I fear about that kind of centers around sci-fi shows around corporate warfare on planets due to lack of government control, and the isolation of being on other planets.