Posted on 02/22/2012 8:20:42 AM PST by katiedidit1
In the past 10 years – since the Columbia tragedy led President Bush to retire the Space Shuttle – we have spent almost $150 billion on NASA and the civilian space program. We have spent additional money on defense aspects of a space program. Yet the United States currently has no way to launch a human being into space, other than buying seats from Russia
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
Newt, the man with a vision! I read and reread this article and am convinced of Newt’s brilliance. This is doable and will not cost the taxpayers a slew of money. Less than the combination of the bridge to nowhere, earmark spending and with greater results for America.
Prizes have several huge advantages, which Zubrin also points out:
• We don’t pay anything unless and until we actually get results—and we never pay more than the prize amount. If no one offers a system of launch vehicles and spacecraft that meet the prize specifications, it doesn’t cost anything. And cost overruns are impossible even if there is a winner. After spending $150 billion on NASA for no current manned capability, this is quite a virtue.
• It would result in systems radically cheaper than those NASA has produced. NASA contractors are paid on a cost-plus basis, meaning whatever they spend “plus” a markup. This gives them a disincentive to save money. In a prize system, a company has to raise or borrow every dollar a company it spends, and then decreases their ultimate profit.
• Many competitors will spend money investing in technology and developing new solutions, but won’t win the prize. And they spend all the money before the taxpayers ever have to pay anything.
• Competition breeds better, more diverse results. While NASA projects typically result in only one working design, a single prize incentive could produce several viable designs that make it to the flight stage—each will have different merits. Awarding runner-up prizes further stokes the competition.
I am totally on board with Newt’s vision for America.I was born in 1943 and I know how depressed the economy was in the rural areas especially. The spinoff technology from the space program improved life in America from the bottom up. Not many innovative solutions come about because the person can afford it, but because they have a vision and believe in it.
How about we allow anyone who takes possesion of an extraterrestrial object to own it?
True. But why does it have to be government prizes? Why does it have to be government that sets the bar? Why does it have to be government that determines the qualified players?
Space policy ping.
Prizes are a poor substitute for profits. The Soviet Union tried them to entice innovation out of their scientist-slaves, with limited success; USSR was never as innovative as the US. Government cheese is still government cheese, even if its Newt offering it.
This really is a good idea. For sure it is worth discussing but how did the other candidates who did not come up with ANY ideas react to Newt’s proposal? They slammed it, ridiculed it and made fun of Newt and his idea. The other candidates really are not even in the same league as Newt in terms of ideas and solutions. LOSERS.
kevincdavis.net?
For every Dollar a business spends in space they get a $1.10 credit!
Buy refurbish and use the shuttle fleet and we're back on course. It is now a truck as it was intended to haul goods into space. The tanks would be bought and paid for by Oil companies who would fly the tank into space. The tanks would be full and would achieve orbit with fuel remainnig. The tanks would become fuel tank farms next to the ISS which is now reclassified as a Truck Stop! Some tanks would be converted into warehouse and repair depots.
FEDEX and UPS would pay for inter orbit shuttles which would carry satellites into orbit and recover broken Dish, Direct or weather satellites from geosynchronous orbit and bring them to the repair center ant the ISS. They would then take them back up as necessary.
Other tanks would be taken to Lunar orbit where they will be a Truck Stop in Lunar orbit. The Earth Lunar highway is open for products and people to move to and from the Lunar colony.
Senator Harrison Schmidt the Apollo 17 Astronaut recommends "Return to the Moon" in his book so that we can create green energy to be beamed to Earth as Microwaves and converted to electrical energy.
The environmental wacko's won't be able scream loud enough when the fusion reactors are on the Moon!
Tax credits can work!
China is working on having a moon colony by the year 2025. Right now we have to hitch a ride via the Russians or Chinese. The wonders of what was accomplished thanks to NASA are remarkable from being online, cell phones, satellites which the USA used to track N. Korea on their nuclear facility, to laser surgery, eye surgery and MORE. Newt is a visionary and the other candidates are not even in his class.
China is working on having a moon colony by the year 2025. Right now we have to hitch a ride via the Russians or Chinese. The wonders of what was accomplished thanks to NASA are remarkable from being online, cell phones, satellites which the USA used to track N. Korea on their nuclear facility, to laser surgery, eye surgery and MORE. Newt is a visionary and the other candidates are not even in his class.
The 'prize' concept works for keeping newspapers beholden to nutty liberals ( Pulitzer ) and assorted nut cases getting respect (Nobel Peace Prize) so it should work for this...
The 'prize' concept works for keeping newspapers beholden to nutty liberals ( Pulitzer ) and assorted nut cases getting respect (Nobel Peace Prize) so it should work for this...
Sad fact is...NASA is dead in the USA. The Chinese and Russians will be the ones exploring..one day people will look back and say, “Newt was right” by then it will be too late.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.