Privatized prisons have a profit motive to keep people in and avoid rehabilitating them. See also the destruction wrought by private energy companies (deepwater horizon, fracking, etc).
Originally Posted by One Pivot
Private enterprises work to benefit themselves, public enterprises work to benefit the public. A privatized NASA would have no incentive to benefit the public.
The question at issue, which is a legitimate one, is whether NASA provides enough public benefit to justify the cost to the taxpayers of keeping it running.
"A thing is right when it tends to perserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." - Aldo Leopold
Shooting a rover to mars doesnt benefit the public beyond the "oh neat" factor. I dont have a problem with government funded research that helps the general public, its a good use for government. Claiming nasa is the best way to accomplish that doesnt really make sense.
Private prisons are a completely different issue, thats a real nightmare.
I got neg repped for my comment and I probably should have it was a pretty dick comment but reflects the way I feel every quarter when I have to write a check. But what p'oed me about the neg rep was that it said "selfish bsatard"(it was spelled correctly) while I admit that I am selfish, I am unmarried and young, I am just surprised that the rep system allows you to cuss whereas you can't say shiz with a t in the open forum
I certainly got my ass handed to me. I was definitely in over my head. That's a tuff crowd.
Originally Posted by rockcrusher
Maybe I should have started off saying I use to launch Estes Rockets on my schools playground as a child and I had a model of the Saturn V rocket hanging above my bed, among all the WWII model planes. I think I set some sort of record for losing 7 reps in a couple hours. Not that I care all that much. I hate the idea of being a slave to a process that encourages butt-ass smoochin to win favor, but Gregg must have his reasons for instituting it.
not a waste at all, i would like to see more... perhaps Jupiter moons next?
Europa (moon) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"the vinyl basement"
I must be ADD as I've begun to lose interest in this topic already and wanty to put together a music thread unlike any other. It's something I'm actually interested in.
Comments on some posts above;
NASA has a small budget. The U'S. military has a large budget. Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security together dwarf military spending and are growing rapidly, to the point the military better get ready for some base closings and deep cuts in spending. Further, the size of a budget is important but so is the benefit that taxpayers receive from that budget, regardless of it's size.
A lot of people have followed NASA for decades. Pop quiz; why was the lunar lander designed with those long spider legs?
If you think private prisons are a nightmare, you haven't seen the inside of our state prisons. I worked at one and it was very much a nightmare. My solution is to let Mexico build prisons in Mexico for our inmates. Send human rights groups to make sure the conditions are within whatever guidelines are agreed to. The cost of incarceration drops by 75%. The downside is the loss of good paying jobs.
Pushing boundaries does advance science and technology. The SR-71 was built of carbon fiber back in the 60's? I guess that technically it entered into space, didn't it? The Air Force and others may well have advanced everything NASA did in time. The military is constantly looking for someone to give them better weapons, I'd like to put all those engineers at NASA to work creating an electric pick-up truck that goes 400 miles on a charge and can pull a camper the whole time.
If you ask a government contractor to build an electric cart to drive around the surface of Mars, he will make it for five million dollars and charge the government 700 million or even a billion dollars for it. We seem to accept those kind of mark-ups when some poindexter from NASA explains how those ten million dollar wheels (ten million each x six) have to be able to travel at 1 mph and go over small rocks and handle really cold temps. Pretty sure my $200 Goodyear tires could do that.
NASA spends a lot of money but they employ a lot of people. I suppose that is true but if NASA pays a company made up of 100 employees 1,005,000,000 to build a rocket, and the rocket has a price tage of 1,000,000,000, what you end up with is a one billion dollar rocket that often blows up when it is launched, and 100 employees earning $50k a piece. Now that's a good wage, but the billion on the disposable rocket is not so much a benefit to taxpayers. They might want the billion, five million invested directly in low interest rates on their homes or tax rebates, lower property taxes, education grants or vouchers for their children, discounts on medical treatment, etc., as opposed to watching that billion dollar rocket explode or end up in the bottom of the ocean.
Space Shuttle Challenger and Space Shuttle Columbia both exploded. What does that say about NASA? An engineer at Morton Thiokol raised objections to the launch of Challenger, saying the faulty design of the solid rocket boosters could lead to a catastophic failure during launch, as it did.
Roger Boisjoly - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Shuttle Columbia disintegrated during re-entry. The leading edge of the shuttle wing was damaged by a piece of foam that seperated from the external tank during lift-off. Engineers at NASA watched video tape of the take-off, as they always do, looking for possible damage coming from pieces of foam insulation that come loose, which was routine. They saw the foam hit the shuttle and brought it to the attention of flight managers, who decided it didn't matter if it did cause damage since they had no protocol to repair the damages in space. Later independent investigation of the tragedy stated there was a culture in NASA where they did not listen to concerns regarding safety. Similar to what NASA was doing prior to the Challenger explosion. There are some very smart people working at NASA but government employees have a history of not caring what the cost of mistakes are because taxpayers will always foot the bill.
First, you're not stalking me, are you? Wait, do stalkers ever answer that question honestly? When I turn 65 or 67 or 70, I hope to begin collecting some returns from what I paid into Social Security. It won't be much as I paid into a different retirement program most of my working years. I think my yearly statement suggested I will qualify for $500 a month when I turn 67?
Originally Posted by roadie scum
I also don't receive Social Security Disability. I can tell you that during the last four years, the number of people qualifying for that program has nearly doubled. They say the long-term unemployed have been applying for SS disability, and getting it. But I'm not one of them.
What you are getting confused with is my pension from my job as a prison guard. You find it upsetting that I was given an early retirement, and have been receiving all the money I paid into the retirement system during my years of employment as a prison guard, plus interest, I was not given a choice in the matter. They took my badge away and said doctors told them I was not allowed to work as a prison guard any longer. Again, their choice, not mine. If I had been allowed to keep working, I'd be fully retired today and have double the income I receive from them currently. I've never claimed to be a cripple. I was merely too much of a risk for them to keep around working in close proximity to violent prisoners, after my injury and major spinal surgery (first of two). Well, I think that was there logic. They never explained it to me. Satisfied? You should really do something about that nasty cough.
I would take you more seriously when you fling poo like that if you actually had some experience working for NASA.
Originally Posted by The Prodigal Son
Chasing bears through the woods drunk with a dull hatchet is strongly not advised
I love space exploration but not as much as I love abortion, worshiping Satan, practicing socialism and corrupting America's values.
What are our options, not try to reach further?
This is a good a time as any, and for all we know maybe a better time than what's to come.
Ya gotta dream babe.
I suppose most families prioritize how they spend money. Stuff like mortgage payments, car payments, unilities, insurance, food would all be among the top ten most important to pay off before they go on vacation or buy a second home.
What if you were to draw up a list of the 100 most important issues facing the U.S. What would be near the top of that list? I would put stopping rogue nations from getting and using nuclear weapons on top. Then you could put a lot of things some would agree with and some would not. Stopping the exponential growth of entitlement spending, Stopping population growth, global warming, Islamic extremism/terrorism, WMD used against the U.S. or it's allies, Bird flu (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/21/sc...-flu.html?_r=1), A particularly virulent strain of the flu, economic collapse, large object flying through space colliding with earth,etc.
Are we doing everything we can to deal with those problems? Why not? Money, right? What are we spending money on that could be diverted to the things on the top of the list. I'm sure there are things like recycling that would be number 99 on the list that we can worry about later, after the more important and life theatening are solved.
So, is sending another rocket to Mars and having another robot vehicle digging in the soil on Mars, helping to solve those serious problems or is it taking very limited funding away from projects designed to solve some of those problems?
But NASA spends so little compared to Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, right? But those are not part of discretionary spending. Those have increased over ten fold since they began and soon will take up 100% of all government spending. But by then it will be far too late to do anything about it, other than join the doomsday preppers in their bunkers, if they'll have you.
look at our future another way. Say we are all on the Titanic and we hit the iceberg. What do you plan to do? Listen to the band play; near my God to thee? Yell at the captain? Argue with other passengers about why they are so few lifeboats? Find a whig and a dress and jump into the last lifeboat? Convince all the passengers to grab buckets and start bailing water?
I would do one of two things. I'd refuse to get on a ship that doesn't have enough lifeboats. If my wife insisted we get on it anyway, I would have lashed a dozen pieces of wooden furniture together, coated my body with grease from the kitchen, layered with wool clothing, and found a large hammer to club anyone who tried to get on my makeshift raft. A few hours floating on calm waters and we are rescued. Now was that so difficult?
You have to be like Vanilla Ice. If someone (or the country) has a problem...yo, you'll solve it.
NASA isn't part of the solution but part of the spending problem. Spending on things that won't help solve the biggest, most threatening problems looming over us. Wow, that was a great rant. So clear and consise and totally logical. But nobody will agree with it.
Now you can pat yourself on the back in congratulations. How it must be to feel superior. Now go make me a sammich.
Last edited by AZ; 08-15-2012 at 07:08 PM.
I want new wheels and a fork.
Originally Posted by The Prodigal Son
Polarization and scare tactics.
There is no need for the other 98 items.
We invade the most countries and kill the most people... if the world needs to fear a rogue nation, it just might be us.
Hitler - 7 million
Originally Posted by One Pivot
Stalin - 20 million (give or take)
Mao - 40 million
Pol Pot - 5 million (one out of every five Cambodians)
The history channel is your friend, try it out.
I certainly hope tyrannical despots fear us. Less likely to commit genocide.
Care to post a list of the ten biggest threats to the U.S. and how NASA is helping to solve them?
Originally Posted by The Prodigal Son
Less likely to commit genocide? I think not. All of those pale in comparison to the genocide of the indigenous peoples of the United States, numbers which are probably as high as 114 million. Might as well include all of the facts instead of just the ones that you think are appropriate.
As far as the biggest threats to the U.S., people whom cannot think outside of their narrow mindedness.
So the next president should gather his cabinet together in the war room and just as he is about to be briefed on the latest bird flu headline, followed by the latest estimate of when Iran will have their first nuke and Israel will blow it up, followed by some NASA wank who is convinced we are on a collision course with a giant meteor, and a guest appearance by some global warming researcher who says Florida will be under water by next summer, and you believe the President should interrupt them all and ask what they are doing about the proliferation of scare tactics and why liberals can't get along with conservatives? Because if we can figure those two things out, the rest of our problems will just melt away. Man, I would love to see the Democrats running on your platform. Hope, Change, and no more scare tactics, I promise.
Originally Posted by heyyall
So, assuming you have it all figured out, do you feel NASA is doing their part to solve the polarization and scare tactic situation? Or, is anyone else doing anything to solve it? I listen to some great bands who seem to be non-polarizing and not using scare tactics. But on the other hand, those Geico commercials are all about scare tactics. Same with the global warming crap, don't you think?
Of course both have major economic and social returns and a direct comparison is iffy but just to put it in perspective...
What they cost
Alcohol may lead nowhere, but it sure is the scenic route!
I live by JPL in Pasadena CA. The employee parking lot looks like a ghost town after the last
layoffs.Compare that to the other federally funded institutions that don't feed, house & take care
of US people in dire straits.. Federal funds are divided into categories.
In order to destroy NASA
you'd have to squeeze their budget further. And that has to be approved by Congress (and they can't make up their minds on anything) Write your congressman, posting here is a waste of time.
I also agree with Furball the Mystery Cat
JPL announces about 200 layoffs - latimes.com
Yes, that is why they have lost nearly all funding.
Originally Posted by The Prodigal Son
I would encourage you to more critically consider what I said in the context of elections, erosion of civil liberties, and recent wars. I know it is not going to happen, but since you are quite adept at writing essays in this thread, why not take a challenge to write 5 statements that support my point and 5 statements that contradict my point. In doing so, you will be avoiding polarization and scare tactics while developing a logical argument.
NASA made a huge mistake when they went ahead with the Shuttle and the International Space Station. Both items took most of NASA budget and delivered nothing. Manned spaced flight is a bust, robot probes are where it's at. Unmanned vehicles like the Hubble Space Telescope and the Mars landers are less than 5% of the NASA budget and deliver ALL of the interesting results.
It's time to re-define NASA's mission to 100% unmanned probes/vehicles. Manned space flight has no future. Don't listen to me, Scientific American has published the proof, with the math/science to back it up.
Yeah - I hate basic research too.
The US did best when it invested in science and tech. Both public an private sectors did. Now, neither really does. I hate all the fancy technology and trickle down tech.
I got trolled.
I was gonna stop by and see you, but the Jehovas witnesses came by. When they left I started drinking. Voicemail from Paul