Politics. The dirtiest, and thus the most fascinating of sciences.

Though others might see it as engineering. Whatever. Point is, it's awesome and the more I learn the more I love it.

And are Europe and Russia, literally dying out, doing any better? Or China with massive internal problems not to mention ringed with hostile rivals? India with corruption so deep-set and intractable that even buying a TV usually involves multiple pay-offs?

America's been through worse and I'm confident that she'll come out all right in the end. God help us if I'm wrong.

Actually, you just mentioned one of the things I like the most about the American system. The choice is mine. In societies with socialized healthcare, some government bureaucrat is the person who decides how much to spend on my dying wife. In America, she and I decide. It's horrible either way, but I'd prefer for that choice to be in my hands than someone else's.

Or a successful hegemony.

First, India plans to get man in orbit in 2016. They don't even have a date yet for a manned lunar landing.

Second, why do I care that India and China are doing what we did in the '60s? Good on them, let them build an unsubstainable lunar exploration program. Meanwhile, we'll be lowering the price per kg to orbit and building our domestic launch infrastructure. You know, stuff that actually matters.

Not really. Please examine the details of Obama's budget proposal before commenting on it.

The concern is that organizations like the UN are not only powerless, but also incompetent. Leading to the question: Why support a powerless and incompetent organization? I honestly find it difficult to come with an argument for substantial United States support for the United Nations.

It's good that it's a more balanced take on this, rather than the screaming hysterics I see on Slashdot's front page.

The United States government has those attributes, correct. NASA does not. The space agency has a very limited budget, is quite sensitive to adjustments in market prices, and has no control over its income. Indeed, "failures" such as the Challenger disaster tend to be punished with inquiries and funding cuts.

But even if it's not free-market, I approve of it. I like the development of our orbital infrastructure and crewed capsules.

That's a common misconception. The introduction of state actors does not suddenly and magically make an economic system less free. When the government is engaging in activities like cost-plus contracting, there's a point to suggestions that this distorts true market prices and encourages suppliers of goods and services to overcharge the government. However, when the government purchases services in the same way that a regular buyer would (ie. Do this and I'll give you x dollars) then its just acting like another buyer. And that's what's happening with this whole privatization shindig.

Every damn article posted on Slashdot about privatization of space has been packed with complaints that this is the end of the world. It's really not. God willing, it may be the start of a new one.

NASA was pursuing a completely impossible architecture. Ares was underfunded and unable to be effectively used until 2017 at the latest. By forcing NASA to buy services from private corporations we can develop our domestic launch infrastructure as opposed to keeping it under government control.

And yes, I said BUY! This is not cost-plus contracting, which defense contractors famously use to rip us off every chance they get. This is a straight purchase of services, cash for deliveries and milestones met. In other words, actual free-market capitalism.

As for those claiming that we should have blown our cash on another Apollo-like shot: what cash? Obama is not a dictator, he's a President. His budget requests have to be approved by Congress which would have balked at any substantial increase in spending on space exploration. Not to mention that we tried Apollo and it was nowhere near substainable. Development of regular deliveries to orbital space by private companies - that's sustainable. That's what will provide us with the groundwork to move beyond earth orbit and lower the cost to orbit to the point where we can actually do something.

That lowers the efficiency of the whole system, meaning less gets done altogether. Quoting TV Tropes: "In truth, some countries have a relative productive advantage in some areas, while other countries have different relative productive advantages. Trade allows countries to specialize in whatever production they have an advantage in, thus producing more in total, and then trade with each other. This makes both countries better off. For example, perhaps Country A can produce 4 cans of butter, or 2 cans of butter and 1 carton of eggs, or 2 cartons of eggs. Country B can produce 4 cartons of eggs, or 2 cartons of eggs and 1 can of butter, or 2 cans of butter. With trade, they can produce at their advantages of 4 cans of butter in A and 4 cartons of eggs in B and then trade so they each have 2 cartons and 2 cans. Making them both better off than if they produced everything in their own country."

As I recall, the price of the goods dropping will make it easier for poor people to get the goods, therefore increasing relative wealth, and will create more jobs in the end.

Starting trade wars with other nations by requiring that jobs stay in the US, while probably satisfying populist sentiment, is probably a bad idea.

Isn't that an economic fallacy?

My knowledge of the dismal science is sketchy at best, but I'm pretty sure the imports = good, exports = bad idea that was pushed by mercantilism was roundly trashed and replaced with the modern view that trade is good.

This'd be a good time for an economist to jump in, by the way.