Should NASA be privatized??

No, we need NASA. Think about how much they have and will contribute to science. Some of the greatest minds of the country, and world, work for NASA, and this shouldn''t be all about "what have you done for me lately." There''s enormous potential for breakthroughs and discoveries and they keep us on the cutting edge of technology. We should always be trying to advance ourselves as a nation, and NASA is one way of doing that. And there''s something to be said about getting all the guys who wanna launch rockets and have the knowledge to do so off the street.

And NASA doesn''t do a whole lot for the military. I think doing things for the love of and in the name of science is the best way to go. I don''t think there''s anything stopping a corporation from trying to make a profit off of space, but do we really want that? I wouldn''t.

Whenever someone says something about NASA wasting all the money, I want to punch that person right in the face.

NASA does not use even CLOSE to the amount of money that is wasted in other programs and corrupted officials, and it might actually have some long term benefits to the quality of life for the entire world, unlike the shit corrupted programs that are wasting far more.

No NASA should remain a government funded organization that stands by itself (ie. do not put it under the military).

The reason it should remain under the governement, and funded by the taxpayer, is the very reason you're arguing against it.

I know it sounds weird, but you're right, at the moment there are very few practical reasons for a private company to explore space. For a private organization the cost setting up any type of R+D operation FAR outweighs the benefits right now, and is probably beyond the means of most companies (even one as big as microsoft)

The thing is, even ignoring the human search for extraterrestrial life, the potential of exploring space is limitless (ex: when we run out of raw materials like metals where else will we get them? How about garbage disposal, terraforming and colonization for out-of-control population growth, What about studying the sun more closely - when we can - to unlock the secrets of nuclear fusion etc...).

Someone needs to lay the groundwork to facilitate the use of outter space and right now the only one to do it is the government.



[edited by - linternet on January 7, 2004 10:03:52 AM]

Advances in space technology has yielded advances in other fields of science, especially in "space-age materials". I firmly disagree with your point that NASA should be funded privately. I'm perfectly happy with my tax dollars going to NASA. There are other programs and services that the government provide that are misused, abused or perhaps shouldn't exist. NASA is not one of them in my eyes.

[edited by - nervo on January 7, 2004 10:07:05 AM]

Wasn''t NASA one of the forces that helped reduce computers from building-sized monstrosities to the desktops we have today?

quote:

---

Original post by Senses777
Whenever someone says something about NASA wasting all the money, I want to punch that person right in the face.

NASA does not use even CLOSE to the amount of money that is wasted in other programs and corrupted officials, and it might actually have some long term benefits to the quality of life for the entire world, unlike the shit corrupted programs that are wasting far more.

---

Yes.

NASA has provided a lot of very practical benefits in many fields, like weather forecasting and numerous inventions that have resulted out of necessity in space exploration.

But even that isn''t the most important thing. The most important thing is that you''re probably going to be rotting dust and ashes in around 50-70 years, your pathetic meaningless life forgotten with those who knew you. The things you accomplish in life are unlikely to substantially effect anything, ever, anywhere. With the exploration of space, though, the limits of human understanding and ability are shattered, creating some hope that one day the domain of our species will extend beyond this little rock and into the vastness of the universe that had only been dreamt of before. Maybe access to abundant resources and space in which to live, without constant pollution and overcrowding, will one day allow people to treat each other with the civility and respect we all know in our hearts we should.

Or maybe instead we can take the funding for NASA and piss it away on a couple more tanks. Sound good?

"Baby-killer is a bad word though. Notice how as soon as you say it, you think negative things." - Peon

I like NASA. I just wish they wouldn''t spend billions of dollars on a telescope that they didn''t mount the lens on properly, they didn''t send a lander to Mars which didn''t work because the systems were working on different units of measure (metric/US), they don''t continue to use 40 year old shuttle technology, which was never intended to last half that long, which keeps causing good people to die.

I don''t think NASA should be privatized - just think if the ability to explore space or colonize other planets is discovered. Would you want all of space owned by Microsoft?

I still believe however that NASA needs an overhaul in management, and a new set of goals to propel them in the right direction, pun intended.

Many types of highly insulating ceramics. Many types of new polymers. Super-sensitive actuators. Data Matrix Symbology (highly sophisticated bar code). Software video image jitter correction. Very sensitive microaltimeters. Sophisticated onboard satellite orbital and attitude control. 3-D interactive display.

Just a few of the things that NASA has offered to the civilian sector in the past 5 years or so.

NASA is one of the few government programs with results that do a whole lot for the US economy. The inventions and discoveries of NASA have done incredible things for the technology sector, the manufacturing sector, and our everyday lives.

I for one think it''s worth it. At least a lot moreso than the government funded studies involving the effects of cow flatulence.

-fel

Hmm, I all see your points, but the role of Government is not suppose to facilitate Science, it is to protect property (see Machiavelli, and other political writers (federlist papers, etc). Indiviguals (per this political idea) should be the ones that focus on Science.

The thing that worries me about NASA, is because it is tied to politics. . . space exploration will suffer. Every time NASA screws up (see the 1st Mars Rover failure, the space shuttle trajitys) Public opinion sways and NASA''s funding gets cut more.

NASA''s great minds are starting to retire (or already have), and not too much fresh blood (new Great minds) is coming in to replace them. A professor friend (PhD Electrical Engineering) of mine (currently woking on a Project with NASA in partnership with his school) says that NASA is just starting to realize that they need to put more of an effort on training students in "Rocket Science", and are starting to do programs in schools (he is a professor at WPI in Worcester Mass). Most people that go into school for Engineering are looking more at $$ than on the scientific research/projects that they could be a part of, and are thus taking jobs with places like M$ then places like NASA.

In the 1960s - NASA had a Blank Check to do whatever they wanted (whole Space Race, got to beat the Commies mentality - no matter how much it cost), they could recruit - and pay their engineers a good chunk of coin to work for them. Since the Mid-1980s, this started to change and NASA''s funding was cut dramatically - public intrest in NASA also faded, and due to this - mistakes started to make it''s way through to the surface. NASA started to become a joke in Engineering circles, instead of the model of what good engineering was. (Here at Raytheon we have a bunch of posters showing the MARS Lunar rover, describing what NOT to do in engineering).

Personally I think that this budget cutting will continue, and NASA will have more failures. That''s why I believe that NASA should be privatized, with the theory that private companies will put the $$ needed into the program, while avoiding public scruitiny for failures that it might run into.

I think Political Pressure will really be what kills NASA - the tax payers have the "what have you done for me lately" approch, and I really don''t think that NASA is delivering in the way that most americans would like. Prehaps all NASA needs is a better PR campain??

Roach

The amount of money funded for NASA is relatively small compared to the overall budget. What I am not keen on is the overall direction NASA has taken the last couple of decades. For example, building the space station at this time in my opinion was the wrong move and has exceeded it's budget by billions for every country involved.

I would rather have NASA focus it's effort on creating a space vehicle, specifically updating the engine, that can take off and land multiple times within a day like your average airliner jet. Instead we're stuck using the same thrusting technology that's existed for the past 50 years. If we had a new space vehicle that could enter and exit space cheaply, then government and private business could build what ever they want at a much cheaper cost.

[edited by - MagTDK on January 7, 2004 10:52:22 AM]

quote:

---

Original post by Roach
OK, debate here - should NASA be a private company? Should the tax payers of the United States spend the millions of dollars a year to spend on space technology and scientific research? I really don''t think we should. . . I really don''t believe the NASA has really done enough for the good of the tax payer (average American) as far as improving the quality of life for the tax payer. Why should we be paying for something that does not benefit us?

Yes I understand that NASA also does work for the Military, which the Tax payer should continue to fund. But as for this mission to Mars (the Rover), and the probe that is monitoring Comets - shout the tax payer be paying for this??

Furthermore, with the recent problems that NASA has had (due mainly to US budget cuts), do you think a private organization (Perhaps a Microsoft - just using them as an example) would do a better job in Space Exploration and Scientific Research (obviously with the concept to do research in order to sell something to the masses)?

Any thoughts, comments??

---

Uh, let''s point something out here. If you don''t want to pay taxes for space exploration, then who''s going to pay for it? Nobody is stopping a private corporation from doing space exploration, but they can''t pull it off. How do I know? Because, like I said, no private corporation has succeeded, despite there being no laws stopping them. Unless all the tax money going to NASA went to the private corporation instead, in which case, your complaint, about spending tax dollars on space exploration becomes moot.

What you meant to pose as a question was: Would a private corporation, taking your tax dollars, be more successful?

don't worry about NASA.

Now that that the Communist Republic Of China is eyeballing its own trip to the moon, mars, space station, etc, you can bet NASA will get a jolt in their funding.

Also, i don't want to go into an argument of should NASA be funded by the gov, etc, but NASA as an institution has given the world a lot of useful patents, a real lot, including portable water filters, that are geting re-engeenered for Africa's rural communities.

Im not an American, and so im not going to discuss what you guys should do with your own money, but that is one of the most humane places to work for, in the history of humanity.

Lets just hope the American gov has the good sense of keeping its nose out of it...

EDIT: Like another thread in GDev states, the mild depression of the US economy in the past 2 years, has left schools badly in need of cash. The US should be more procupied about its "incredible learning system" of schools and colleges, the fact that less science-oriented people are "produced" in times of low school budget, and the fact that a lot of brains are running away to Europe, going against the normal trend of eurepean brains coming to the US to study, and then laying a job in a high profile science & tech company...

I see Europe developing basic industries, like steel and cereals, making them cheaper, i see america buying those good from europe, turning internal csh flow towards europe, the strong euro, the recent large flow of money into science projects, and the exodus of a lot of brains from america to germany, france, uk...

Lets see what hand America will play to turn this around...

---

[Hugo Ferreira][Positronic Dreams][Colibri 3D Engine][Entropy HL2 MOD][Yann L.][Enginuity]
The most irrefutable evidence that there is intelligent life in the Universe is that they haven't contacted us!

[edited by - pentium3id on January 7, 2004 12:00:40 PM]

quote:

---

Original post by Roach
Why should we be paying for something that does not benefit us?

---

Because we''re smarter than the average dinosaur.

quote:

---

Original post by Roach
Hmm, I all see your points, but the role of Government is not suppose to facilitate Science, it is to protect property (see Machiavelli, and other political writers (federlist papers, etc). Indiviguals (per this political idea) should be the ones that focus on Science.

The thing that worries me about NASA, is because it is tied to politics. . . space exploration will suffer. Every time NASA screws up (see the 1st Mars Rover failure, the space shuttle trajitys) Public opinion sways and NASA''s funding gets cut more.

NASA''s great minds are starting to retire (or already have), and not too much fresh blood (new Great minds) is coming in to replace them. A professor friend (PhD Electrical Engineering) of mine (currently woking on a Project with NASA in partnership with his school) says that NASA is just starting to realize that they need to put more of an effort on training students in "Rocket Science", and are starting to do programs in schools (he is a professor at WPI in Worcester Mass). Most people that go into school for Engineering are looking more at $$ than on the scientific research/projects that they could be a part of, and are thus taking jobs with places like M$ then places like NASA.

In the 1960s - NASA had a Blank Check to do whatever they wanted (whole Space Race, got to beat the Commies mentality - no matter how much it cost), they could recruit - and pay their engineers a good chunk of coin to work for them. Since the Mid-1980s, this started to change and NASA''s funding was cut dramatically - public intrest in NASA also faded, and due to this - mistakes started to make it''s way through to the surface. NASA started to become a joke in Engineering circles, instead of the model of what good engineering was. (Here at Raytheon we have a bunch of posters showing the MARS Lunar rover, describing what NOT to do in engineering).

Personally I think that this budget cutting will continue, and NASA will have more failures. That''s why I believe that NASA should be privatized, with the theory that private companies will put the $$ needed into the program, while avoiding public scruitiny for failures that it might run into.

I think Political Pressure will really be what kills NASA - the tax payers have the "what have you done for me lately" approch, and I really don''t think that NASA is delivering in the way that most americans would like. Prehaps all NASA needs is a better PR campain??

Roach

---

Think of NASA as insurance aginst being wiped out by a huge rock of death hitting us from space. Soon we will have the technology to stop that, thanks to NASA. That is one way that NASA helps protect us.

As for companies privately setting up a space program, it''s not going to happen. For the reasons stated by other posters it wouldn''t be cost effective for a company to have a space program.
Think of it, Nike could spend $100,000 on making some new aerodynamic shoe, or $1,000,000,000 on getting some moon rocks.

So they can either have a shoe they can sell, or some rocks that can be studied but are pretty much worthless (aside from people that just want to buy moon rocks).

quote:

---

Original post by Roach
Hmm, I all see your points, but the role of Government is not suppose to facilitate Science, it is to protect property (see Machiavelli, and other political writers (federlist papers, etc)). Individuals (per this political idea) should be the ones that focus on Science.

---

And I suppose that 100-year old ideas of what government should be are the be all and end all?

Government should serve the public interest. Protecting property is one way of doing so; facilitating commerce is another (did Macchiavelli cover that, or should we eradicate Federal insurance, banking and finance laws?); creating public works is a third (I recall this being discussed when I took American Politics - without government, there would be no state or interstate highway systems as everyone would feel they had no personal need for them, etc). NASA falls under that last category. Just like the military, incidentally.

That NASA needs a reorganization is a given. Some measure of public input/oversight, not just progress reports and news conferences.

quote:

---

NASA started to become a joke in Engineering circles, instead of the model of what good engineering was. (Here at Raytheon we have a bunch of posters showing the MARS Lunar rover, describing what NOT to do in engineering).

---

Microsoft is a joke in CS circles, but also the most influential force in computing. My point is that being a joke is immaterial; efficiency and productivity are what matter, which can be achieved in a relatively short while with some smart management.

quote:

---

Original post by Nervo
Advances in space technology has yielded advances in other fields of science, especially in "space-age materials". I firmly disagree with your point that NASA should be funded privately. I''m perfectly happy with my tax dollars going to NASA. There are other programs and services that the government provide that are misused, abused or perhaps shouldn''t exist. NASA is not one of them in my eyes.

[edited by - nervo on January 7, 2004 10:07:05 AM]

---

And therein lies the problem. For every govt. program, there are people who think it is necessary. It all adds up, and somebody''s got to pay for it.

Just Say No To Pork!

--
Dave Mikesell Software & Consulting

Don''t governments need programs like space exploration to waste billions of dollars on to keep inflation in check? Or is that a mistake?

No

I thought it was obvious personally... right now we have all our eggs in the same basket as it were. It only takes one colission and we are gone.

Seems like a good idea to try and fund space related things doesn''t it?