Another Reason For Privatizing

Houston area conservative Republicans are basically falling all over themselves to keep funding for NASA, specifically the JSC here in Houston. Despite the lack of usable science coming out of all those millions of dollars, conservatives like former (and maybe future) Rep. Tom DeLay and Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison - who needs NASA votes in November - continue to support budget increases. I'm glad they do, NASA jobs provide a strong housing demand and so I maintain the value of my house investment in Clear Lake. I just wish they were doing something demonstrably beneficial to scientific achievement. Meanwhile, Bigalow Aerospace, right down the street from Ellington Field, is demonstrating how the private market can do space flight - but with very little public attention being paid.

Dennis,

What's even more telling about today's Republican Party is that they went so far as to ensure that places like NASA and the Medical Center were included in Republican districts ... for the sole purpose of putting a ready supply of political donors at their beck & call as well as to put a source of pork under their own responsibility for feeding. So it's not an accident that today's Republicans are enjoying life at the trough ... they specifically asked to be fed from the fattest troughs available.

Still, you make one point I'll disagree with. Kay Bailey Hutchison does not NEED votes from the extended NASA electorate. She could very easily win without them. But that only goes to demonstrate how fully corrupted conservatism has become by today's Republican Party. There's no way in heck that KBH would look at the polls and say she has enough votes to start doing anything on conservative principle. Instead, she'll continue feeding at the trough. Happily. And all the good little Republicans will vote for her under the even-yeared delusion that she's suddenly "conservative." And then they'll complain about her being too moderate (again) sometime around February 2007.

Of course, there's a way around all of that mess ;-)

The free market should have at it!
What are they waiting for? A government grant?

Greg, your arguments to "privatize" NASA is poor at best.

NASA executive program was moved to Langley last year. CIA is moving to DIA/NSA. The work that CIA has traditionally done may have moved into an area handled by NASA astronauts.

There may be issues around CIA going back and making errors.

John,

I'm curious what the argument FOR government monopoly in this situation is. I've yet to see you (or anyone else for that matter) make one. If it's a beneficial service to mankind that we explore space, then by all means, enumerate the benefits.

In the meantime, those services which are beneficial (ie - launching satellites), is a service that private enterprise can rightfully do more efficiently if the government gives up their monopoly (which is precisely what I'm waiting for).

The argument for privatizing, as I offer it, are similar to the desire to see local governments get out of the business of building sports stadiums. If it's such a benefit, let someone make a profit on it and let's stop tripping over ourselves to offer a handout to some billionaire owner.

Believe me, if you release all of those engineers, scientists, and researchers into the realm of private enterprise, I'm confidant that they're smart enough to come up with a better plan than what we now have with NASA.

Meanwhile, I'll eagerly await that list of great and wonderful things that NASA has accomplished for us in, say, the past decade. Then we can see which argument is poorest.

Actually I defer to your assessment of KBH. She is conservative when the party demands it, moderate when she needs votes. Republicans don't notice the difference, as you correctly state. As for those scientific achievements, my recollection is that the list includes powdered drinks and velcro. But those came 40 years ago.

"Believe me, if you release all of those engineers, scientists, and researchers into the realm of private enterprise, I'm confidant that they're smart enough to come up with a better plan than what we now have with NASA."

I am not doubting this. What I am saying is GO DO IT!

Again, privitizing is NOT about the free market. Instead it is taking the tax dollars and giving it to the companies without government oversight.

In the end, you have a government program under the disquise of "privitizing".

The "engineers, scientists, and researchers" and corporations, have the opportunity to quit sucking off the tit of the government, go out on their own and fly like an eagle, and soar.

But they have their mouths too full to think straight.

I'm not sure I believe it's due to those individuals that NASA remains a federal entity. And for what it's worth, there's more to be done than just leaving NASA to go to some startup that has to compete with a government service that operates under a prohibitively favorable business model. Think of the Amtrack situation as something of a comparison. It's not enough to compete with a government that can print money, subsidize, and play favorites at the whim of whatever member of Congress has the most poker chips on any given night.

NASA can be privatized with oversight of the industry offered like that of the airlines. Sell it off (Lockheed looks like they want in on some of this busiess, after all), and let's see if a private business has a need for space shuttles and space stations ... and at what cost.

Considering that such endeavors (pardon the pun) provide little-to-no public benefit to society, it shouldn't be done in the realm of government. The beneficial services that are done can be done by those with a vested interest in it. I'm not sure why I have to pay for the privelage of putting someone else's satellite into orbit. I'm not sure why I have to pay for a trip to Mars to make a President look cool or get sufficient applause from scientists. Let's see if shareholders are as easily manipulated as members of Congress.

I'm not sure how you arrive at a point of describing something as "a government program under the disguise of 'privitizing'." I don't know that I'd describe Southwest or Continental airlines as a government program. But that's more the model that I see as possible here. You still have an FAA that offers oversight, but the industry operates freely.

In the end, though, it's not the engineers that are preventing this - it's government that prevents it. And since it offers nothing in return, other than the vague "inspiration" to others to study math and science, I'm not of the opinion that the price tag is worth it.

Your understanding of the mission of space exploration is so pathetic I can not understand why you bothered to comment at all.

Wow, Dale ... thanks for enlightening us with that well-spoken rationale for space exploration.