Replies

I'm a limited government type too, but I do think there is a role and often an exclusive role for government to play in some endeavors. I think space exploration is one of these. While the concept of a "privatized" space program is appealing, philosophically, I've yet to see any viable proposal for such. I'm afraid that a "private" space program would look too much like Burt Rutan's "SpaceShipOne" project, or would be limited in scope to only the commercial interests of the companies involved.

There's also an unconscious assumption that government investment in space is like throwing our money into space itself. The liberals make the same assumption. The truth is that every cent spent on space ends up being plowed into the national economy. This isn't like the old Soviet space program, where the means of manufacture and research and development are not only directed by the government, but are also owned by the government. Who benefits from a robust space program? It would benefit existing centers of aerospace manufacturing, the stockholders of those companies, and would spur the creation of new industries in probably every state in the nation.

Reading the posts of the naysayers, what I see isn't so much an appeal to fiscal responsibility and conservative governmental policy, but a lack of imagination and vision.

I'm a limited government type too, but I do think there is a role and often an exclusive role for government to play in some endeavors.

Well, you'll be damned to hell for that around here! :-)

I'm afraid that a "private" space program would look too much like Burt Rutan's "SpaceShipOne" project, or would be limited in scope to only the commercial interests of the companies involved.

I think Rutan's project is brilliant. It's along the path that will get us into the space economy for real. NASA's problem is that, being a government monopoly, designs systems that can only be operated by a government monopoly. Therefore, some of the truely ingenious ideas for getting into space are going ignored.

I still think loan guarantees to the winning bidder for a viable space transportation system, and title to moon and mars property is the only way to go.

For certian, the "Antartica" technique, of reserving space to scientists sponsored by governments IS NOT the way to do it.

There's also an unconscious assumption that government investment in space is like throwing our money into space itself. The liberals make the same assumption. The truth is that every cent spent on space ends up being plowed into the national economy. This isn't like the old Soviet space program, where the means of manufacture and research and development are not only directed by the government, but are also owned by the government. Who benefits from a robust space program? It would benefit existing centers of aerospace manufacturing, the stockholders of those companies, and would spur the creation of new industries in probably every state in the nation.

Let's see. The government should run the economy, but businesses should be privately owned. There's a name for that -- fascism. There are worthwhile government projects, but they involve areas where there is already a commercial interest or a military need. One day that will involve space. Today, it's just a road to nowhere.

Reading the posts of the naysayers, what I see isn't so much an appeal to fiscal responsibility and conservative governmental policy, but a lack of imagination and vision.

Please understand what we are naysaying, government growth in an area where it's shown gross incompetence. We are all for dreams, vision, imagination, and innovation, but the government has never been good at those things, individuals have. Examples are Thomas Edison, the Wright brothers, Robert Goddard, Charles Lindbergh, and the Rutans.