Why would someone be so fascinated with something and not want to be involved?
phill4paul
Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 46,967
So people who suport NASA would rather be a cheerleader for an agency while staying on the ground instead of buying a ticket to go to space themselves?
People that support NASA have been programmed to believe that the government is more adept at any project than a private company that they could support through buying shares or providing investment capital.
People Who support Nasa and *OWN* private space companies:
Elon Musk
Robert Bigleow
Jeff Bezos
John Carmack
John Powell
David Masten
Jeff Feige
Steve Bennet
Jim Benson
Gary Hudson
David W. Thompson
People who support Nasa and have *BOUGHT* their own ticket to space:
Dennis Tito
Mark Shuttleworth
Gregory Olsen
Anousheh Ansari
Charles Simonyi
Richard Garriott
People Who don't support Nasa and own their own private space company:
Burt Rutan (he is bitter about a lot of things)
Elon Musk
Robert Bigleow
Jeff Bezos
John Carmack
John Powell
David Masten
Jeff Feige
Steve Bennet
Jim Benson
Gary Hudson
David W. Thompson
People who support Nasa and have *BOUGHT* their own ticket to space:
Dennis Tito
Mark Shuttleworth
Gregory Olsen
Anousheh Ansari
Charles Simonyi
Richard Garriott
People Who don't support Nasa and own their own private space company:
Burt Rutan (he is bitter about a lot of things)
Last edited:
rajibo
Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2007
- Messages
- 1,280
I gave up on NASA, when a man representing them said on CSpan" one day the earth will be inhabitable and we must seek out other planets that can support life"
So I'm thinking to myself Billions of dollars was ok when I thought maybe we were placing space weapons but this whole program is based on a 1950's sicence fiction movie. And that was before I found out we are outsourcing millions in NASA related space projects
So I'm thinking to myself Billions of dollars was ok when I thought maybe we were placing space weapons but this whole program is based on a 1950's sicence fiction movie. And that was before I found out we are outsourcing millions in NASA related space projects
apc3161
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2007
- Messages
- 538
I think most people think of NASA funding like this:
I have to pay X amount in taxes every year regardless, so I would rather have that go to NASA than some other stupid program.
You have to give credit where credit is due. For the budget that NASA has (a few billions dollars) it gets A LOT done. I'm an aero/mech engineer, and I can tell you that NASA, unlike most government agencies, DOES attract incredible, productive talent and the results they usually produce in their research labs are incredible.
Take what NASA does with their 18 billion, and compare it to what any other agency does (even though they are usually funded in the 100's of billions) and you can get an idea for why NASA kicks ass.
I think it comes down to this. For most agencies, the employees work there because they need a job. Most of them aren't self motivated. Who says , "when I grow up I want to be a bureaucrat in a clean water committee fro the department of the interior." Answer: No one.
On the other hand, and I know a few of them, pretty much all of the researchers, scientists, and engineers at NASA are all top notch and very self motivated. They are working in their dream jobs, combining science and technology on an day to day basis. This is why I think NASA accomplishes so much, and with so little. Because of its people.
Again, I dont think most people would donate to NASA if given the chance. However, I think most people assume the money they pay in taxes is fixed every year, and in light of that, they would like to see as much as possible go to NASA, because they support that program more than the others in the federal government.
I have to pay X amount in taxes every year regardless, so I would rather have that go to NASA than some other stupid program.
You have to give credit where credit is due. For the budget that NASA has (a few billions dollars) it gets A LOT done. I'm an aero/mech engineer, and I can tell you that NASA, unlike most government agencies, DOES attract incredible, productive talent and the results they usually produce in their research labs are incredible.
Take what NASA does with their 18 billion, and compare it to what any other agency does (even though they are usually funded in the 100's of billions) and you can get an idea for why NASA kicks ass.
I think it comes down to this. For most agencies, the employees work there because they need a job. Most of them aren't self motivated. Who says , "when I grow up I want to be a bureaucrat in a clean water committee fro the department of the interior." Answer: No one.
On the other hand, and I know a few of them, pretty much all of the researchers, scientists, and engineers at NASA are all top notch and very self motivated. They are working in their dream jobs, combining science and technology on an day to day basis. This is why I think NASA accomplishes so much, and with so little. Because of its people.
Again, I dont think most people would donate to NASA if given the chance. However, I think most people assume the money they pay in taxes is fixed every year, and in light of that, they would like to see as much as possible go to NASA, because they support that program more than the others in the federal government.
OptionsTrader
Member
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2007
- Messages
- 5,987
The only useful result of the NASA beaurocracy existence is that the unmanned missions send back photos and other data from the distant parts of the solar system or other intellectually stimulating results, kids do get interested in sciences such as physics and chemistry, which is a good thing.
is NASA a terribly bloated beuraocracy that largely exists to keep its self at the handout teets? Indeed. A big bloated beaurocracy that has qustionable constitutionality. It should never have been created.
But I think I would put dismantling NASA further down on my list than dozens of programs that do more harm.
is NASA a terribly bloated beuraocracy that largely exists to keep its self at the handout teets? Indeed. A big bloated beaurocracy that has qustionable constitutionality. It should never have been created.
But I think I would put dismantling NASA further down on my list than dozens of programs that do more harm.
Objectivist
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2009
- Messages
- 3,716
I'm happy that Eichmann worked on bone pinning in his experiments, that doesn't mean I want to break my arm to see how it works. Or have the experiment done on me.
ANd it cost about $10,000 per pound for a space launch and I weigh 240 pounds.
ANd it cost about $10,000 per pound for a space launch and I weigh 240 pounds.
Most people think Nasa should be cut back from consuming 24% of the Federal budget.
When asked how much money Nasa should get the most common reply is 'about 10%'.
Nasa gets (or got, before Obama went nuts) about 0.6% of the discretionary budget.
Nasa also has one of the highest GDP returns, or trickle downs of any agency, nearly $6 for every dollar spent on it.
The basic research it does has very wide ranging benefits that are simply not noted. It is probably the best example of the 'general welfare' clause. Most people think of 'Tang' when they think of Nasa developed products, not of digital cameras, breast cancer screening and dopler radars.
The most widely suggested change for Nasa by space advocates (who are traditionally broadly libertarian) is that Nasa gets out of the launch business and buy seats and kilos of payload at market rates. It should rent space from private space stations, and buy power and water from on orbit suppliers.
Then the money spent on probes, telescopes and extra-planetary would be far more efficiently utilised. The ongoing gauranteed market would lower the risk for private companies operating independently in space allowing the industry to bloom much more quickly with jobs that are much harder to outsource.
When asked how much money Nasa should get the most common reply is 'about 10%'.
Nasa gets (or got, before Obama went nuts) about 0.6% of the discretionary budget.
Nasa also has one of the highest GDP returns, or trickle downs of any agency, nearly $6 for every dollar spent on it.
The basic research it does has very wide ranging benefits that are simply not noted. It is probably the best example of the 'general welfare' clause. Most people think of 'Tang' when they think of Nasa developed products, not of digital cameras, breast cancer screening and dopler radars.
The most widely suggested change for Nasa by space advocates (who are traditionally broadly libertarian) is that Nasa gets out of the launch business and buy seats and kilos of payload at market rates. It should rent space from private space stations, and buy power and water from on orbit suppliers.
Then the money spent on probes, telescopes and extra-planetary would be far more efficiently utilised. The ongoing gauranteed market would lower the risk for private companies operating independently in space allowing the industry to bloom much more quickly with jobs that are much harder to outsource.
Last edited:
Similar threads
