Ron Paul the next Space President ?

Mars_B4_Moon · 2007-10-21 09:13:46

Ron Paul is big on the ideas of the private sector coming in and returning US military satellite launches to the military rather than depending on Russian engines to put Lockheed's payloads into space. On NASA Ron Paul says we must recognize the government led manned space program is dead and the corpse must be buried as soon as possible. Ron Paul thinks there is really only one proper role for the military in space and that is the protection of the United States of America. Otherwise, this new frontier of OuterSpace should be opened to all. Ron Paul thinks Space pioneers will generate knowledge and wealth that will improve the lot of all people on earth while any defense functions should be put under the military, and the rest of NASA should be sold to private operators. No other member of Congress has the integrity, or the consistent voting record of Ron Paul, many of us are impressed. With his thoughts on disasters like Immigration and Katrina it seems Ron Paul may think groups like FEMA need to be eliminated. The fate of the Saturn V heavy lift launch vehicle is one of the saddest examples of this government folly says Ron Paul. Most of his ideas to repair the USA are a little on the fringe, but this country has been taken to the fringe by a long history of greedy politicians. Ron Paul has stated “If you had a space program in Baghdad, you could probably get money for it but Congress is cutting our space program budget ”

EuroLauncher · 2007-10-23 10:28:19

He's got some good ideas for the States but I think he's too radical especially on things like NASA. Ron Paul seems to fly on an anti big government ticket so except cuts if he gets elected, private sector will contribute things to exploration but want they can do will be limited in size, even the biggest of private companies can not afford the Moon or colonization Mars.

EuroLauncher · 2007-10-23 12:40:53

Ron Paul is Republican but his beliefs are different to the Republicans like Giuliani and Thompson, some of his arguments come across as fiery libertarian party slogans saying the United States should follow Founding Fathers' ideals. He's also a fan of Lowering US taxes and smaller US government in people's lives, I'm not sure he would be economically good for NASA.

Lots of US politicians think NASA has wasted money but the agency is also a source of American pride. Many Republicans and Democrats have strong local ties, especially among local NASA workers. I'm not sure Ron Paul gets NASA and what it has achieved but some of the other ideas he has are good. He wants to make changes to the US economy, made comments about the property market and said it wasn't the gold that bind US currency which was getting weaker. The reason the dollar is falling is because of the deficit and countries like India, China were financing US debt by buying dollars

cIclops · 2007-10-23 12:46:54

NASA doesn't need any more politicians "fixing it", Griffin has done that already, what NASA needs a big fix of money! All the next president has to do is provide the necessary funding and let NASA do its job. NASA can be back on the Moon by 2016 and on Mars by 2021 and pushing space science beyond. Does Ron Paul get it?

EuroLauncher · 2007-10-23 13:25:07

Ares-1 faced hitches and the first LSAM flight is not until February 2019, so it will be at least 2019 not 2016 until NASA returns to the Moon, putting people on Mars by 2021 seems even more improbable. As it stands the visions lack that real push and real energy, and NASA has not made full potential use of the private sector and commercial flights.

What the next leader after Bush could do for private companies is look at a number of commercial areas. Change the structure at the top and allow more companies to come in, this technique worked well at JPL during a period of poorer performance in the 70s.

If Boeing had stuck a KFC/Starbucks inflatable module onto the space station people would have been buzzing for tickets to get into space. NASA and its mega budgets got bloated during Apollo and it filled out with bureaucracy. Rutan was based on government research preformed by the X aircraft and look at the money himself and Branson are going to make. Ron Paul has some good ideas but what I think a guy like Ron Paul doesn't get is 'Private' isn't the answer for everything, making something private doesn't mean it will always succeed and sometimes its the Big Government backed programs which have produced the best results. Can you imagine how the American public would feel if they see some astronaut guy in a live broadcast from the Moon speaking Chinese or something ? Kennedy thought that America needed the new home grown engineers and scientists that a Moon program would produce, he also understood what kind results a US government backed program would produce and Kennedy knew there would be a great political victory over the Soviets.

cIclops · 2007-10-23 13:40:14

Ares-1 faced hitches and the first LSAM flight is not until February 2019, so it will be at least 2019 not 2016 until NASA returns to the Moon, putting people on Mars by 2021 seems even more improbable. As it stands the visions lack that real push and real energy, and NASA has not made full potential use of the private sector and commercial flights.

Ares I is technically on track and has reserves of 15%, it's operational date has been delayed only because of funding shortages in the last two years. Even with as much money as they want Ares I/Orion probably won't be flying crew much sooner than the recently announced September 2013 date. Ares V uses the same main elements (5 segment SRB, J-2X and avionics) and a modified RS-68, so it can be ready by 2016 if there is full funding. The same goes for the Lunar lander. Yes 2021 is hard to do but possible, even sooner if everything goes well. All that's needed is the money and that means political support and that means public support.

A dynamic Moon and Mars program would energize many many people, motivate students and stimulate science, technology and industry. The private sector will build almost every part of Constellation, with enough funding they may come up with even better solutions. Without funding the commercial sector will be stuck building more satellites and maybe tossing people into suborbital flights for years and years ahead. Everything else is day dreaming.

Commodore · 2007-10-23 20:27:05

I wouldn't worry about Ron Paul.

I'm afraid you won't get a big funding increase under the current formula in Washington. They are simply to motivated by bribing various potential voters, and their arn't enough of us to catch their attention.

It's going to take a major upheaval to reorient the purpose of the government. Then, you have a real chance to argue for a much more robust space program.

cIclops · 2007-10-24 01:41:16

I'm afraid you won't get a big funding increase under the current formula in Washington. They are simply to motivated by bribing various potential voters, and their arn't enough of us to catch their attention.
It's going to take a major upheaval to reorient the purpose of the government. Then, you have a real chance to argue for a much more robust space program.

Yes that is the problem, there aren't enough people who understand how critical NASA's space program is to the future and the present. When asked where the government should save money, the space program comes at the top of the list. Why? because it's so successful, so cool, so impressive it must be costing a fortune whereas it's only 0.6% of government spending. No major upheaval is necessary just the realization that NASA can and will deliver far more impressive results with double the funding. There is a way to achieve this but there's not enough space here to explain it

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-10-24 11:06:53

Ron Paul is Republican but his beliefs are different to the Republicans like Giuliani and Thompson, some of his arguments come across as fiery libertarian party slogans saying the United States should follow Founding Fathers' ideals. He's also a fan of Lowering US taxes and smaller US government in people's lives, I'm not sure he would be economically good for NASA.
Lots of US politicians think NASA has wasted money but the agency is also a source of American pride. Many Republicans and Democrats have strong local ties, especially among local NASA workers. I'm not sure Ron Paul gets NASA and what it has achieved but some of the other ideas he has are good. He wants to make changes to the US economy, made comments about the property market and said it wasn't the gold that bind US currency which was getting weaker. The reason the dollar is falling is because of the deficit and countries like India, China were financing US debt by buying dollars

Here are some comparable government figures:
Federal Budget Outlays
2005
Department of Defense
Military Personnel $127,463,000,000
Operation and Maintenance $188,118,000,000
Procurement $82,294,000,000
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation $65,694,000,000
Military Construction $5,331,000,000
Family Housing $3,720,000,000
Subtotal, Department of Defense $474,168,000,000
Atomic energy defense activities $18,042,000,000
Defense-related activities $3,130,000,000
International Affairs $34,592,000,000
General science, and basic research $8,896,000,000
Space flight, research, and supporting activities (NASA) $14,778,000,000
Energy $429,000,000
Natural resources and environment $28,023,000,000
Agriculture $26,566,000,000
Commerce and housing credit $7,574,000,000
Transportation $67,894,000,000
Community and regional development $26,264,000,000
Education, training, employment, and social services $97,526,000,000
Health $250,612,000,000
Medicare $298,638,000,000
Income security $345,847,000,000
Social security $523,305,000,000
Veterans benefits and services $70,151,000,000
Administration of justice $40,019,000,000
General government $16,994,000,000

With so much being spent on all these items, how come some look for government waste in NASA's $14,778,000,000? I doubt NASA can be responsible for much of the Government's wasteful spending practises as it gets a small percentage of government outlays. Eliminating NASA's budget or doubling it would hardly affect the deficit at all.

I think in general cutting taxes would be good for the economy and by extension NASA, because the economy would grow faster, and there are fatter cats to cut in the above budget. The total elimination of NASA's budget would yeild the average taxpayer $49.26 in annual tax savings, the price of a college textbook.

cIclops · 2007-10-24 12:38:47

Currently US government expenditure is planned at $2,918 Billion of this $17.3 billion is budgeted for NASA ... to add another $17.3 billion would mean reducing other expenditures by 0.6% each or raising the budget by the same amount.

Commodore · 2007-10-24 19:43:54

And to think that all that is just the Federal government. You've also got State, county, and in many places city taxes. And a host of overlapping and redundant bureaucracies. And often times the counties and cities have to fund underfunded mandates by the state and federal governments.

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-10-25 01:21:41

Currently US government expenditure is planned at $2,918 Billion of this $17.3 billion is budgeted for NASA ... to add another $17.3 billion would mean reducing other expenditures by 0.6% each or raising the budget by the same amount.

The US Budget grows with the US economy if tax rates remain unaltered, that means the faster the US economy grows, the faster the tax revenue grows and the faster the US budget grows!

Typically the US economy grows at an annual rate of 3.5%, this is way greater that 0.6%. Other expenditures wouldn't have to be reduced at all to double the NASA budget, all you would have to do is increase the other expenditures by 2.9% instead of 3.5% while growing NASA budget by 100% so that the Budget for NASA would be $30,000,000,000 for one year and afterwards grow NASA's budget and every other expenditure at 3.5% like they did before. Just pick a year double NASA's budget for that year from the previous year, and then grow it with the rest of the economy like before. Hardly any sacrifice is called for to increase NASA's expenditure, its not like we'd have to raise taxes as we might have to do to keep Social Security solvent for instance. It really is an outmoded idea that NASA consumes a large part of the Government's revenue. Jesse Jackson once commented that all the money spent on sending people to the Moon could more usefully be spent here on Earth to solve our problems at home. But if you do the math, you find out that this is hardly the case. $50 per person is not enough to end poverty, or to send people to college, or to feed the hungry, or anything else that is of significance, it is just a drop in the bucket.

cIclops · 2007-10-25 02:26:57

Right, the US economy is strong and growing so such an increase would be tiny. However the budget is in deficit so any extra will increase borrowing. Bush has reduced the budget deficit considerably, in 2001 it was 3.6% of GDP down to 1.9% in 2006 - quite an impressive performance. That was done while fighting a global war (estimated at about $650 billion). A big boost to NASA will have very positive effects nationally and economically compared with most government spending that inefficiently redistributes and wastes tax payer's money.

EuroLauncher · 2007-10-27 09:33:45

Ron Paul is honest, he's too honest, brutally honest on his opinions. He's running on the idea for changing the fed, he's running on returning to the constitutional values on America's founding fathers and he's running on an anti-war ticket. He thinks US meddling since WWII in the ME has brought the US here into the quagmire. Paul appeals to voters because he says he's a true conservative, not a neo-conservative

Here's an opinion on him which brands him a nutcase, they also mention NASA
http://www.sptimes.com/2007/10/15/World … s_on.shtml

"I cringe whenever I hear Ron talk," said Bruce Bartlett, a former Paul congressional aide and Treasury Department official. "But that's part of his charm. It's the thing that validates he's genuine. Clearly, no sensible person who is trying to win would say any of these things."
In Congress, Paul opposes resolutions that try to tell another country what to do. He has been called "Dr. No" for so often being the lone dissenter in the 435-member House. He would not express support for freedom in Hong Kong (426-1), a call for free elections in Azerbaijan (416-1) or Belarus (419-1), nor condemn Kim Jong Il for the North Korean government's abduction of foreign citizens (362-1).
He voted against awarding a congressional gold medal to Rosa Parks (424-1) and also has fought medals for Pope John Paul II (416-1) and Ronald Reagan (350-8). Paul does not oppose the honor; he thinks the $30,000 expense is a waste.
Serving a House district with a sizable farm industry, Paul opposes subsidies. In a district near the Johnson Space Center, Paul objects to funding NASA.
"There aren't Ron Paul dams and bridges and overpasses across the district," said Kerry Neves, the Republican Party chairman in Galveston County, which is part of Paul's district.
And though his "rugged honesty," as one Republican Party official put it, is endearing him to a menagerie of political misfits and castoffs, it may be trouble when it comes time to run for reelection in the House. Three Republicans are planning to challenge him in a primary, including a former aide who recently called Paul a "nutcase."

Tom Kalbfus · 2007-10-27 10:48:01

Right, the US economy is strong and growing so such an increase would be tiny. However the budget is in deficit so any extra will increase borrowing. Bush has reduced the budget deficit considerably, in 2001 it was 3.6% of GDP down to 1.9% in 2006 - quite an impressive performance. That was done while fighting a global war (estimated at about $650 billion). A big boost to NASA will have very positive effects nationally and economically compared with most government spending that inefficiently redistributes and wastes tax payer's money.

Yes, but NASA's budget is not responsible for that Deficit. Most of the runaway spending has occured elsewhere, not in NASA. The last time NASA's budget grew premendously was in the 1960s and that was a long time ago, it has been stable or dwindling ever since. The biggest waste of government money is in what's called "Middle Class" welfare, and administrative costs. If they means tested Social Security such that only people who needed it actually received it, that's plenty of money right there. What about college tuition subsidies for illegal aliens? If they deported illegal aliens right away, they wouldn't end up in hospital emergency rooms and be unable to pay making the hospitals eat the cost.
It is not NASA's responsibility to balance the budget. Congress that throws billions of dollars around on other pork barrel projects shouldn't look to NASA for savings.

NASA has a very important role, its achievements are highly visible, and people will remember the first landings on the Moon and Mars long after they have forgotten the "Bridge to Nowhere", yet Congress seems more willing to spend money on "Bridges to Nowhere" that will be forgotten in a generation of two than in something really meanigful and symbolic like Exploring the Solar System. What is the seminal event of the 1960s that people will remember in a hundred years? I'll bet its not Woodstock, it won't be the tide turning against the United States in 1968 during the Vietnam War, though strangely some Democrats look to that as an "accomplishment", something to be proud of in breaking America's long time winning streak. It is the landings on the Moon. Wars have been lost and won before, and people have gone to music festivals, their is nothing really unique about that, but landing Men on the Moon, that hasn't happened before, it is well worth the money to show the US as the leader in this field.

publiusr · 2007-11-09 14:53:49

Another anti-NASA nut is Paul.

R-7 proved than Gov't space does work. It has flown to space reliably--more so than the alt.spacers.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2008-01-12 06:16:07

Ron Paul Presidential Campaign
Position Paper
(1988)
http://www.islandone.org/Politics/LP.space-dom.html

X · 2008-01-14 00:25:18

Paul wouldn't be good for NASA. If he had a clue about foreign policy he'd be a decent candidate though.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2007-10-21 09:13:46

Re: Ron Paul the next Space President ?

#2 2007-10-23 10:28:19

Re: Ron Paul the next Space President ?

#3 2007-10-23 12:40:53

Re: Ron Paul the next Space President ?

#4 2007-10-23 12:46:54

Re: Ron Paul the next Space President ?

#5 2007-10-23 13:25:07

Re: Ron Paul the next Space President ?

#6 2007-10-23 13:40:14

Re: Ron Paul the next Space President ?

#7 2007-10-23 20:27:05

Re: Ron Paul the next Space President ?

#8 2007-10-24 01:41:16

Re: Ron Paul the next Space President ?

#9 2007-10-24 11:06:53

Re: Ron Paul the next Space President ?

#10 2007-10-24 12:38:47

Re: Ron Paul the next Space President ?

#11 2007-10-24 19:43:54

Re: Ron Paul the next Space President ?

#12 2007-10-25 01:21:41

Re: Ron Paul the next Space President ?

#13 2007-10-25 02:26:57

Re: Ron Paul the next Space President ?

#14 2007-10-27 09:33:45

Re: Ron Paul the next Space President ?

#15 2007-10-27 10:48:01

Re: Ron Paul the next Space President ?

#16 2007-11-09 14:53:49

Re: Ron Paul the next Space President ?

#17 2008-01-12 06:16:07

Re: Ron Paul the next Space President ?

#18 2008-01-14 00:25:18

Re: Ron Paul the next Space President ?

Board footer