4 ms·

The title is completely misleading. Armstrong did not tell NASA "you're embarrassing". He told the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology that the de

by nhebb 15y ago

The title is completely misleading. Armstrong did not tell NASA "you're embarrassing". He told the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology that the demise of NASA is embarrassing. And it is. Regardless of the other crap our government spends money on, NASA is a fantastic investment, and has always provided a positive return to our economy.

SamReidHughes 15y ago
I'm sorry, but you have no way of knowing this. What would happen if you took a bunch of would-be rocket scientists and hadn't given them jobs at NASA?
- nhebb 15y ago
  No, I don't have absolute certainty, but there have been studies on its economic impact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget#Economic_impact_of_NASA_funding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget#Economic_impact_of_...
- ap22213 15y ago
  That's an interesting perspective, assuming you're alluding to private vs. government funding. However, can anyone provide evidence that private funding can accomplish anything near the scale of what NASA accomplished? I'm asking that as an honest question. I don't love government spending or bureaucracy, by any means. Who would, except perhaps government workers? However, I fail to see any major advancements that have happened without the scale of funding that only governments can provide. I really want to believe that the private sector can do it. I just don't see a lot of historical evidence that it can.
  - astine 15y ago
    It's hard to make an apple-to-apples comparison here as private companies in the past decades have been forbidden to do what NASA has done. Not to mention, NASA's most memorable achievements were fueled largely through patriotic furor. I suspect that it's possible. Much of NASA's flouted benefit are the technological discoveries it has made while solving the problems of Space exploration. Assuming that those discoveries have benefited our society economically more than NASA has cost it (an argument I've read before) then it seems like their would have been at least one sufficient financial incentive for private industry to pursue space if given the chance. Not to mention R&D that can only be performed in a zero gravity environment. A patent system could make all this profitable. But there are still so many other concerns, such as national defense that crop up in talk of private space exploration that it's really hard to make any real comparison.
- muhfuhkuh 15y ago
  Same thing that happens to the ones that don't end up at NASA: they work on incremental improvements to some quant trading platform to squeeze more "productivity" out of it. Sikorsky x2 don't fly and fuel themselves to west Hampton you know. I kid, but no really.
- redrobot5050 15y ago
  Well, this is just a guess, but you would probably get a bigger, meaner, more accurate V2 missile. But that could be because the place for rocket scientists before NASA was the Nazi party -- back when they were out to pretty much dominate humanity. Did that answer your question?

by nhebb 15y ago

SamReidHughes 15y ago

I'm sorry, but you have no way of knowing this. What would happen if you took a bunch of would-be rocket scientists and hadn't given them jobs at NASA?

nhebb 15y ago
No, I don't have absolute certainty, but there have been studies on its economic impact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget#Economic_impact_of_NASA_funding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget#Economic_impact_of_...
ap22213 15y ago
That's an interesting perspective, assuming you're alluding to private vs. government funding. However, can anyone provide evidence that private funding can accomplish anything near the scale of what NASA accomplished? I'm asking that as an honest question. I don't love government spending or bureaucracy, by any means. Who would, except perhaps government workers? However, I fail to see any major advancements that have happened without the scale of funding that only governments can provide. I really want to believe that the private sector can do it. I just don't see a lot of historical evidence that it can.
- astine 15y ago
  It's hard to make an apple-to-apples comparison here as private companies in the past decades have been forbidden to do what NASA has done. Not to mention, NASA's most memorable achievements were fueled largely through patriotic furor. I suspect that it's possible. Much of NASA's flouted benefit are the technological discoveries it has made while solving the problems of Space exploration. Assuming that those discoveries have benefited our society economically more than NASA has cost it (an argument I've read before) then it seems like their would have been at least one sufficient financial incentive for private industry to pursue space if given the chance. Not to mention R&D that can only be performed in a zero gravity environment. A patent system could make all this profitable. But there are still so many other concerns, such as national defense that crop up in talk of private space exploration that it's really hard to make any real comparison.
muhfuhkuh 15y ago
Same thing that happens to the ones that don't end up at NASA: they work on incremental improvements to some quant trading platform to squeeze more "productivity" out of it. Sikorsky x2 don't fly and fuel themselves to west Hampton you know. I kid, but no really.
redrobot5050 15y ago
Well, this is just a guess, but you would probably get a bigger, meaner, more accurate V2 missile. But that could be because the place for rocket scientists before NASA was the Nazi party -- back when they were out to pretty much dominate humanity. Did that answer your question?