No, the military, law enforcement, roads, and space exploration are I believe fundamental duties of the government.
The record doesn’t support this claim by any interpretation. The Apollo program was cancelled by the Nixon Administration. The Shuttle fleet was reduced from an originally planned six Orbiter Vehicles to four under Reagan. (Endeavor was later built from structural spares, although Rockwell offered to build two orbiters on a cost-reimbursible basis.) Blue Shuttle (the Air Force use of the Shuttle flying out of VAFB SLC-6) was essentially cancelled in 1987, under Reagan’s tenure. Space Station Alpha (later Freedom) was a sop offered by the Reagan Administration after the 120+ billion price tag for a manned mission to Mars proved to be less enticing than the B-2. The space station was scaled back repeatedly during the 'Eighties and early 'Nineties, and the budget was gutted by Congress in the first congressional session of 1993, and then resurrected as a joint agreement between NASA, ESA, JAXA, and the Russian Space Agency in November due to a deal arranged primarily by then Vice President Al Gore. The development of the DC-X/XA (the most promising SSTO concept) was cancelled by NASA under the Clinton Administration, although it was a low budget program that was not being developed or billed as a Shuttle replacement. The Shuttle program, the X-33 spaceplane demonstrator (which was intended as a Shuttle replacement), and the X-38 Crew Return Vehicle were all cancelled under the W. Bush Administration. The Constellation Program was launched under the same administration, but with significant problems in technology selection (including what should be regarded as gross corruption during the selection process) resulted in a a severely flawed program that didn’t successfully achieve a single cost, schedule, or performance goal before cancellation. The Obama Administration has refocused NASA on procuring launch services from commercial providers by expanding the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, which is, ironically, exactly the sort of policy that “free market conservatives” are supposedly in support of. (Whether this policy will pan out remains to be seen.)
There has never been a detailed manned Mars program under any administration to date. There have been speeches, provisional milestones (decades in the future), and a multitude of studies, but nothing resembling an actual program; not under Reagan, or W. Bush, or by any administration to have been cancelled. The reason for this is that we lack the technology and experience to even make a detail plan of a credible manned mission to Mars. Nor do we have any realistic or plausible goal for such a mission other than a flag-planting exercise.
Stranger
And the thread was going so well…
We had actually turned the corner from an idiotic OP and, truly, Ignorance was Being Fought…
But you just couldn’t resist a jab at Obama.
Grow up. Really.
Perry: Talking money…
Harry: A talking monkey?
Perry: Talking monkey, yeah, yeah. Came here from the future, ugly sucker, only says “ficus”.
Stranger
I’m not the type of Republican who nitpicks at everything President barack Obama does. But other members couldn’t resist a jab at the Republicans either.
Because the Moon isn’t good for anything but making the tides rise and fall. The real problem is that, apart from the potential for high-end tourism, there’s nothing profitable in space beyond low Earth orbit. Sure, the Moon and planets and asteroids could be mined, but how could they be mined profitably? Antarctica can’t be mined profitably. Space enthusiasts talk about “vacuum industries” and “microgravity industries,” but I’ve never seen a convincing demonstration of how anything could be done more profitably in space than on the Earth’s surface.
That leaves only pure scientific exploration. And pure scientific exploration is from a government’s POV an expensive luxury to be cut when things are tight, and, from the private sector’s POV, nothing to considered in the first place.
I think most Democrats know government can’t do anything right, too.
They just don’t care.
I also think part of the problem is, going into to space really doesn’t have much of a point, does it? I mean, other than getting there. Been nearly 40 years since we went to the moon, and we realized once we got there, meh, so what? We find out more with unmanned probes now than we ever found out with astronauts.
If we assume humanity is already living beyond its ways and means over the long-term, then the long-term solution is draconian population controls, or giving humanity room to grow.
If there is one thing of which space represents an infinite resource, it’s space.
That assumes we can get to another place that inhabitable within the near future.
This might be the only planet in the universe that has life on it, for all we know. (Unlikely, but possible).
There isn’t much choice, one way or the other. We can get to other inhabitable places, it’s just complicated and expensive. Humanity has a way of doing things a day late and a dollar short. See AGW and the way we’re currently handling that.
Precisely. Out of the entire universe, Earth is the only place we know that has life. No doubt life exists elsewhere, in different forms, but I think it’s safe to say Earth is the only place we will ever find earth life. That makes the Earth the most valuable and irreplaceable planet in existence.
Can we really afford to carve it up and pave it over? I can think of other relatively nearby places it’d be far less harmful to carve up and pave over. We’ve got the moon, we’ve got Mars, and we could build our own orbiting space colonies. There is no irreplaceable life in those places.
I suppose we could carve up and pave over the earth’s poles, its oceans, its remaining deserts or Montanas and such. Sure, we still have lots of space here on Earth. But, can we really afford to carve it up and pave it over? It’s the only source of earth life in the universe remember. It’s the only place we’ll ever find it in the portion of the universe we will ever get to.
It would probably be more pragmatic to control the population than build an orbital habitat. Actually, the industrialized world is already there, it’s the undeveloped world that hasn’t got a handle on it, yet.
Yup, you are still drinking the Kool-aid.
The government is about as good at doing things right as any large organization is. Which means that you have a few spectacular successes, a lot of muddling through, and a few dramatic failures.
The consistent undermining of confidence in representative government is a calculated strategy to destroy the best defense the common man has against the moneyed elites.
I think you’ll find the industrialized world is not already there. It increasingly depends on immigration, imported labor, and out-sourced labor.
No society on Earth yet has demonstrated it can remain self-sufficient and its people happy and comfortable with a shrinking or stagnant population.
Those Easter Island Statues look pretty content to me 
[quote=“The_Hamster_King, post:33, topic:588397”]
Yup, you are still drinking the Kool-aid.
The government is about as good at doing things right as any large organization is. Which means that you have a few spectacular successes, a lot of muddling through, and a few dramatic failures.
Actually, what undermines my confidence is how often they get things wrong.
Let’s just go back to this whole space shuttle thing. (I’m really trying to avoid tangents here.) They built this thing to essentially be a cheap cargo carrier. Except it turned into a very expensive cargo carrier, we limited ourselves to only having four operational ones at any given time. It became pretty clear early on that they were less efficient than single use rockets, but after the Challenger disaster showed limits in the design, they just went back and spent a lot more money on them instead of coming up with a new design.
Then Columbia crashed and burned, and the writing was on the wall.
But what happens when the government becomes the impediment? When it encourages bad behavior through the laws of unintended consequences?
Insightful, accurate… perfect.
Actually, the Space Shuttle program had an amazing safety record. Let’s ignore the 2 disasters - they were totally avoidable and the consequence of poor Management risk analysis.
133 safe trips on the most complex machine ever built, with harnessed energies difficult to fathom, into the hostile environment of space. Kudos.
We have far more control over government mismanagement (through the ballot box) than we do over the self-serving actions of rich and powerful. And unintended consequences apply to the private sector as well. What makes the most money for a company may not necessarily be what’s best for society.
As I’ve been saying, you’ve internalized the belief that government inherently sucks so thoroughly that you treat it as an unquestioned axiomatic truth. You might pause to consider who profits by you having this belief, and why they might be interested in encouraging you to have it … .
40% of them being destroyed and killing 14 people is an amazing record? Really?
But even putting the safety issue aside, it didn’t deliver what it’s original promise was, which was to be a safe way to deliver satellites and repair them in orbit.
Today we just send them up by booster rocket and if one breaks, we just send up a new one.