What would Ron do about NASA?

[Starks]

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.

I'd reckon it would be wise to cut the fat out of NASA, but preserve it until the space industry matures to the point where an "authoritative body" on space science and travel is not needed.

 

[steph3n]

I agree NASA is needed, it is part of defense quite a lot, the ability to see the world is a great thing, and allows us to prepare proper and adequate defense.

 

[jj111]

Ron is not going to abolish everything on his first day in office. He will use his bullypulpit to PERSUADE, NOT DICTATE, Congress and the American people to use reason and support reductions in government programs. He will not abolish things unilaterally all by himself.

 

[runderwo]

Once we have cut wars, foreign aid, and entitlements, then we can look at cutting back education and science, but not before.

 

[kylejack]

This is extremely low priority. It has a very minor budget compared to other agencies. It would be very low on Ron Paul's list.

 

[EvilEngineer]

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.

There is something about non-reusable components for a spaceship I despise. I think we need to construct a maglev accelerator to help bridge the problem of initial speed requirements for breaking the atmosphere. It could be run off entirely of clean energies, and doesn't require extra fuel tanks for a ship.

 

[jj111]

You should realize that many people are SCARED of a President who would ABOLISH things unilaterally all by himself. Ron Paul does NOT take that position. Such a position would be that of a DICTATOR and Ron Paul is NOT a dictator. Ron Paul will use PERSUASION to try to knock some sense into Congress so that we can roll back government, but he will not use his power to do away with things that the Congress or American people are not yet ready to do away with.

Please remember that when you talk with a general audience, the term "abolish" is very scary. I would recommend you avoid using those terms when communicating a transition to liberty (exceptions, those things that Ron Paul says he would like to see abolished: IRS, Income Tax, and Federal Reserve).

 

[pcosmar]

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.

NASA is in the way. If you want to keep it, then keep it out of the way.
We should have had an industrial Space station by 1980.
It has been used for Military purposes, NOT exploration.
Let the free market explore space. We will be mining in no time. The technology has been available for years.
NASA is in the way.

 

[lucius]

Nothing like a modern day pyramid project--government subsidies only retard private development.

http://despair.com/achievement.html

 

[surf]

it should be sold. a lot of folks, including my brother who works in 3-d cell imagery, believes that some experiments performed by NASA assist developement on earth.

what i have found is that it NASA has generally verified what scientists wrote many years ago. Tang, NASA's greatest influence in product development, isn't that wonderful anymore.

NASA can't send a shuttle up without some major (and too often tragic) errors occuring.

Paul Allen and Richard Branson are doing a better job than NASA at developing commercial options for space travel. The years of NASA employing the best and the brightest are long a thing of the past (they probably work for Allen and Branson now).

end it, don't mend it.

 

[ARealConservative]

congress passes spending legislation - and NASA has broad non partisan support.

For this reason, Ron wouldn't do anything about NASA even if he wants to.

 

[klamath]

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)

This I can understand. It is not a matter of if but when a space object slams into earth. This I would call national defence. As much as I love the space program I don't think a lot of what it does should be government funded.

 

[literatim]

it should be sold. a lot of folks, including my brother who works in 3-d cell imagery, believes that some experiments performed by NASA assist developement on earth.

So you want our space defense sold to a private company?

what i have found is that it NASA has generally verified what scientists wrote many years ago. Tang, NASA's greatest influence in product development, isn't that wonderful anymore.

Tang?

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

NASA can't send a shuttle up without some major (and too often tragic) errors occuring.

Paul Allen and Richard Branson are doing a better job than NASA at developing commercial options for space travel. The years of NASA employing the best and the brightest are long a thing of the past (they probably work for Allen and Branson now).

end it, don't mend it.

NASA is severely under funded.

 

[lucius]

This I can understand. It is not a matter of if but when a space object slams into earth. This I would call national defence. As much as I love the space program I don't think a lot of what it does should be government funded.

As for ‘defense’ wait till you see their next little trick of precisely inserting slugs of Depleted Uranium in gravity wells from space, bet it looks a lot like brimstone when in action.

 

[Starks]

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.

 

[Starks]

at any rate, regardless of whether NASA and the ESA have impeded the private sector, i am not convinced that the private industry is ready to take over.

 

[pcosmar]

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.

They have already "done it on their own". They would have done it sooner if not for the interference, and opposition.
If left to private industry we would be much farther along.
If we were designing spacecraft rather than ballistic missiles we would be farther along.
If we weren't designing disposable launch platforms, we would be farther along.
In the 1950s we had a flying space craft.
We scraped it in favor of Ballistic missiles.
NASA is in the way of progress.....

 

[surf]

"So you want our space defense sold to a private company?"

No, defense is for the government. i want to stop sending satellites and pissing away millions of dollars for crap that crashes on Mars (remember, metric...), stop the shuttle, etc. This can all be funded privately. This should all be funded privately.

If you can tell me how crashing rovers on the surface of Mars protects me, i'll go ahead call it "space defense."

But if it is "defense," then it should be rolled into the DOD - if it is already, i appologize.

Funding for NASA is money that would be better utilized by a free market. "Golf Ball Aerodynamics http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html "? Give me a break

I think people believe that NASA develops things that a free market wouldn't or couldn't. That's crap.

 

[pdavis]

SpaceShip One X-Prize

 

[pcosmar]

What's not to understand?