Should the Taxpayer pay for what NASA is doing? (1 Viewer)

[SavannahMann]

There were more contractor personnel at the site than NASA government workers.

We need to ban Tanks since the Army can’t make their own. We need to get rid of Airplanes since the Air Force doesn’t build their own. Ships for the Navy? Guess what, someone else builds them. The Navy doesn’t do anything.

This theory is ludicrous. I run heavy equipment. The company I work for doesn’t build their equipment. They just bought it from another company. A European Company designed it and a Chinese company built it. I just drive the big bastard.

The Army doesn’t make their own rifles, or artillery. They are useless according to the theory you are arguing for here.

 

[Metric Mouse]

There were more contractor personnel at the site than NASA government workers.

Ok... it's pretty well known that NASA can't build a rocket by themselves. They tried, and wound up using a bunch of contractors. And now they don't even try, because they fail like all the time, so they just hire it out.

But that doesn't mean there was never a time when they didn't try.

 

[Questerr]

Ok... it's pretty well known that NASA can't build a rocket by themselves. They tried, and wound up using a bunch of contractors. And now they don't even try, because they fail like all the time, so they just hire it out.

But that doesn't mean there was never a time when they didn't try.

No, they didn't. They were using contractors from the beginning.

 

[StillBallin75]

I'd rather the government invest in science and technology than handing over that enterprise to capitalist leeches like Elon Musk.

These are public investments.

 

[quip]

MSN

How does a private jet flying without a sonic boom better the Average Taxpayers life?
Has NASA out spent its private venture Taxpayers funded space launch needs ?
A Fat Cow, Pregnant agency is a thought.

Seems you fully latched onto the MAGAsphere's anti-federal-program propoganda train.

 

[Metric Mouse]

No, they didn't. They were using contractors from the beginning.

This has been explained to you. Nasa literally had a rocket factory, and a whole rocket program.

Now they don't, of course, because they were super bad at it.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

How many SpaceX ships have blown up?

And how many Teslas have spontaneously burst into flames or had body panels fall off of $100k+ vehicles?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Ok... it's pretty well known that NASA can't build a rocket by themselves. They tried, and wound up using a bunch of contractors. And now they don't even try, because they fail like all the time, so they just hire it out.

Where’d you come up with this ^ stupid shit?

 

[Metric Mouse]

Where’d you come up with this ^ stupid shit?

Please explain to @Questerr all the rockets NASA is building and has built and will build.

They insist that NASA has never done so, and is not doing so, and after all the evidence that has been posted they cling to their argument.

Maybe your evidence will help?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Please explain to @Questerr all the rockets NASA is building and has built and will build.

They insist that NASA has never done so, and is not doing so, and after all the evidence that has been posted they cling to their argument.

Maybe your evidence will help?

Still waiting for you to provide support for your claim.

… now they don't even try, because they fail like all the time

 

[Metric Mouse]

Still waiting for you to provide support for your claim.

Yes, please show that NASA ever built a rocket?

Surely I can supply no evidence. Guess they never did? Only private companies.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Yes, please show that NASA ever built a rocket?

Surely I can supply no evidence. Guess they never did? Only private companies.

You’re confused. I haven’t asserted that NASA never built it’s own rockets.

I’m asking you to support proof of your claim;

… now they don't even try, because they fail like all the time

 

[Metric Mouse]

You’re confused. I haven’t asserted that NASA never built it’s own rockets.

I’m asking you to support proof of your claim;

I can't prove a negative.

If NASA never built a rocket, how could I show they ever built a rocket...

Did they?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I can't prove a negative.

If NASA never built a rocket, how could I show they ever built a rocket...

Did they?

You’re definitely confused.

They tried, and wound up using a bunch of contractors. And now they don't even try, because they fail like all the time

First, you claimed that NASA did “try”, and now you’re both claiming that you can’t “prove a negative”, and asking if they did.

I’ll help you out;

No, NASA has never actually built the rockets that have carried any craft into space, or most of the rest of the spacecraft that have been built.

Like with nearly every large scale, highly specialized project, NASA staff are primarily responsible for designing and supervising the construction by contractors.

Clear things up for you?

 

[Questerr]

This has been explained to you. Nasa literally had a rocket factory, and a whole rocket program.

Now they don't, of course, because they were super bad at it.

The factory was operated by contractors. There were more contractor personnel there than NASA workers.

 

[SavannahMann]

The factory was operated by contractors. There were more contractor personnel there than NASA workers.

How many Naval Personnel are present during the Construction of a Carrier?

 

[Questerr]

How many Naval Personnel are present during the Construction of a Carrier?

…do you think the Navy builds it’s own carriers?

 

[Roycarn]

Might as well ask the same question of any kind of science that doesn't generate a profit, which includes most of astronomy. On the one hand, there needs to be accountability and frugal use of funds. On the other hand, can you really put a price on scientific exploration when projects like JWST have recently proven themselves capable of detecting biosignatures in alien worlds (even if K2-18b doesn't have dimethyl sulfide)?

 

[SavannahMann]

…do you think the Navy builds it’s own carriers?

No. But the fellow denouncing NASA says they should be abolished because they don’t build the rockets. I’m wondering how far that theory goes. Does it start and stop at NASA? Does it extend to every Department? Or just the ones he doesn’t like?

 

[P_T]

There is always Generals, Admirals some sick lil, running around wanting someone to build something
to kill, Kill, Kill, Fly, Fly, fly, Build, Build, Build with someone else's money.. (YOURS)
Take the POTUS an his 5+ $billions 747. A 787 would be a better plane and he has a
Cell Phone to contact stuff. If he runs out of fuel so have others.

He has the Stupidest Potus Ever Medal sent his place.

 

[P_T]

I'm generally supportive of many of NASA's priorities and programs but not all.

I believe in the flagship science and cosmology programs for which we are simply unequaled on the world stage at this time. From Deep Horizons to Perseverence to James Webb, NASA's flagship exploratory programs have hit the target again and again. The crown jewel of our federal government, without question. I also support their planetary sciences programs.

I'm somewhat mixed on the ISS. I would prefer that we maintain a manned presence on LEO but going forward I would like to see the United States and China cooperating rather than competing. Unfortunately with the current administration any notion of such cooperation is out of the question at least through 2028. Perhaps afteward?

I'm profoundly negative on the "jobs programs" that is the SLS and Lunar Gateway. These are silly, stupid wastes of money and frankly it isn't NASA's fault - a bunch of Congress Critters insist on keeping these jobs programs going despite few results and tens of billions spent. If ULA can't cut it vs. SpaceX then they need to lose out on funding. I agree with very few of Trump's actions but killing SLS is a big positive in my book.

As for the Moon and Mars, I'm reforming my thoughts now. Until recently I was highly supportive, particularly with SpaceX getting close to making these things potentially cost-effective. That said with the rapid development of AI, I think the focus on zero-gravity and extra-planetary fabrication and manufacturing is more important than putting people on another surface. So, I support the ambition of establishing capability, but I'm not convinced it should be human capability whether it be on the moon (as NASA/Donald/Joe/etc. would prefer) or Mars (as Elon would prefer).

Can you imagine Elon in a power chair bragging about his stuff on mars after 5 years on the Surface. Never happening. Who was that physicist with the chronic physical problems? Stephen Hawkings. Is that a back from Mars in a 5 / 10-year deployment of Elon there. Moon may be much worser for humans, our stuff just can't handle being out of Earths gravity well at all and is really dumb too. Ladies Deep space, long journeys, deployments, stations, Moon - Mars stations are not human happy places. Most of today's stuff on info net is Sci Fi Just as it was Sci Fi 70 years ago.

Spending of Sci Fi agencies has to be curbed by 2/3'rds