Ron Paul on space exploration

[mithridates]

Since there are threads on Obama and Edwards, I thought I'd start one on Ron Paul. His nearly 100% free market approach to government seems to reflect some of the views here but I could see others being opposed to it. I follow the campaign pretty closely but have only found one source where he talks about NASA in 1988 when he was last running for president as an independent:<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Time after time NASA has developed capabilities at great expense then discarded them: a space station larger than the Soviet MIR, a heavy lift vehicle competitive with the new Soviet Energia, a nuclear engine twice as efficient as the space shuttle main engine and a well tested Earth-Moon transport.<br /><br />The fate of the Saturn V heavy lift launch vehicle is one of the saddest examples of this folly. Production was intentionally halted and portions of its tooling were "lost". This bridge burning ensured support for the next aerospace welfare program: the space shuttle. Now we have a grounded government shuttle that can lift a third as much as the Saturn V for the same cost per pound. That's progress, government style.<br /><br />Even worse, this failed state monopoly is now wrecking businesses to avoid well deserved embarassment. American companies desperately need to get their satellites into space. They have been blocked from using the cheapest, most reliable launcher in the world which unfortuneately happens to be the Soviet Proton.<br /><br />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. It is inconceivable that a private firm could have committed such follies and survived. NASA deserves no better.<br /><br />Our only hope now lies in the power of free individuals risking their own resources for their own dreams. We must recognize the government led space program is dead and the corpse must be buried as soon as</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[hewes]

I think Ron Paul would make a fine president, given enough thorazine... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mithridates]

Ha ha. -_-<br /><br />No seriously, this thread is about how space exploration would work if he were to become president. It's a serious thread and I don't want to see it moved to free space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[no_way]

Well, it seems to me the whole topic of space would become way more honest about whys of doing it and concrete goals.<br /><br />Pulling the plug on ever limping government-run space trucking company ? I wouldnt argue.

 

[bobunf]

It's been more than 50 years since Sputnik. In that whole time no private entity from any country has done anything beyond geostationary orbit. Absolutely nothing anywhere by anybody from anywhere in more than half a century.<br /><br />On the other hand governments (the Soviet Union, the U.S., Europe, Japan and many others) have done a lot: missions to every planet, comets, asteroids, and dozens of observatories of various sorts. And, of course, landing 10 men on the moon.<br /><br />So, the plan is to junk the only system that’s produced results in favor of one that’s done nothing at all in spite of very extended opportunities. Inaction that has the very good reason that there is no way to make any money beyond geostationary orbit, and probably won’t be for at least another century.<br /><br />I suppose after 50 more years of nothing, our grandchildren could go back to getting governments to do something.<br /><br />Good plan.<br /><br />Bob<br />

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>In that whole time no private entity from any country has done anything beyond geostationary orbit. Absolutely nothing anywhere by anybody from anywhere in more than half a century. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Yeah, have you analysed why this is ?

 

[h2ouniverse]

The reason is called absence of "buy in".<br />Technology is not enough. If you do not have a market within reach, there cannot be any sustainable accomplishment by any real private company. In space like on ground.<br />There is no example on ground of venture able to get the return on investment with investment of several hundreds of millions of dollars AND a time-to-market larger than 15 years. The only approaching example is , pharmaceutical industry (time-to-market about 10 years). And this one is more and more in difficulty btw because of their increasingly long time-to-market. <br /> <br />Suborbital flights may make it but only because their time-to-market is smaller, but this is more extreme aeronautics than space. (by several km/s of delta-v difference!!!).<br /><br />Orbital hotel: the dev plan of the Bigelow orbiter looks fine. But where is the launcher? A really economically-motivated company would not make it. Fortunately for this project, Mr Bigelow is ready to sacrifice part of his money and so they may succeed (let's jhope so!). But this cannot be called "entrepeneurial". "Pioneering", yes, but not "Market Economy"!<br /><br />So there is no sustainable solution unless:<br />* you decrease the amount of investment<br />* and you decrease the time-to-market.<br />

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The reason is called absence of "buy in". <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />A good start, thanks for taking the time to write it out. But as for any issue as big as that, its not the only reason.<br />.

 

[bobunf]

"Yeah, have you analysed why this is ?"<br /><br />Yes.<br /><br />"there is no way to make any money beyond geostationary orbit"<br /><br />Bob

 

[steve82]

"Has anybody else found anything else where Ron Paul references space exploration or NASA?" <br /><br />I live in his district and he has pretty consistently voted against NASA funding.<br />

 

[kelvinzero]

I don't see businesses launching robotic missions to the planets and then making all that information freely available.<br /><br />NASA does some great things but I agree it seems a pity to have them designing big rockets rather than assuring a market for them. I would like to see a lot more money specifically spent on ISRU technology and super long-term life support. <br /><br />Those NASA prizes and x-prizes (oxygen extraction/lunar lander) etc are what really excite me about space currently. <br /><br />Big Rockets: yawn.<br /><br />A lawnmower sized robot that can print a thousand times its own mass in solar panels out of regolith, or a ten ton life support module that can keep someone alive indefinitely.. point to something like that and I will certainly be saying 'boy, I wish I had some Big Rockets.'<br /><br />(edit) Again, this just isnt something business is going to do. There is no pay off until way way later.

 

[gunsandrockets]

Understanding Paul<br /><br />The key point is he was Libertarian and his run for President in '88 was as the Libertarian Party candidate. The problem with the Libertarian Party is they are so extreme that if they could they would almost abolish the entire government.<br /><br />Heck, in his current campaign Ron Paul is even proposing complete elimination of the income tax! If President Paul could manage such a shift there would be no money left for NASA in such a realigned government.

 

[mithridates]

An eventual elimination of the income tax, yes, but not right away. Don't forget that with a Paul presidency the US would no longer have any troops overseas - that means none in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Germany, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and a withdrawal of funds now being given to all countries in the Middle East.<br /><br />For example, apparently $10 billion has been given to Pakistan's government, more than half of NASA's yearly budget. The Iraq War is something around half a trillion dollars. Such expenses wouldn't exist in the first place if he were to become president. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>----- </p><p>http://mithridates.blogspot.com</p> </div>

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"there is no way to make any money beyond geostationary orbit" <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Assertion, not an analysis. Care to show us how exactly did you get to that conclusion ?