4 ms·

"First of all, let’s clarify what the NASA budget is. Do you realize that the $850 billion dollar bailout, that sum of money is greater than the entire 50-year

"First of all, let’s clarify what the NASA budget is. Do you realize that the $850 billion dollar bailout, that sum of money is greater than the entire 50-year running budget of NASA? -Neil deGrasse Tyson" http://wp.me/p1bnM2-qW http://wp.me/p1bnM2-qW

dimitar 15y ago
Eventually the US government will sell back the banks and make some income, so its hardly comparable. Sweden in the early nineties did this and they recovered more than half their money. The bailouts were a necessary step to prevent severe economic crisis - they amounted to just 6% percent of GDP. Clearly worth it, when considering what is at stake here.
- redrobot5050 15y ago
  >Eventually the US government will sell back the banks and make some income, so its hardly comparable. Sweden in the early nineties did this and they recovered more than half their money. Compared to what America got out of the space race, the bailout was a complete waste. America got something like 100X their ROI in going into space. Major investments in materials science, aerospace engineering, battery technology, computer technology, their probably isn't a product today on the market that isn't using some kind of "space age technology" that ultimately came about because of NASA's space race. So the space race was clearly worth it. The bank bailout is still clearly debatable. I would argue that because the banks turned around and paid out bonuses, that we should have placed the banks into receivership and re-structured them. In our post-bailout system, the banks have grown even more concentrated and reform is pretty much a failure. We're set up to be "way too big to fail" next time around. When that happens, we won't be talking about "getting half our money back" and saying it was a "good deal".
  - tsotha 15y ago
    >Compared to what America got out of the space race, the bailout was a complete waste. America got something like 100X their ROI in going into space. Oh please. This isn't even close to being true. If you actually go down the list of things NASA fans claim to be commercial space development, what you find is a whole lot of half truths and exaggerations. The space race was expensive, and we never even came close to recouping what we spent. You can try to justify it on scientific grounds, but the space race was clearly not worth it from an economic perspective.
jen_h 15y ago
Seriously. Two weeks ago, the GRAIL project sent two satellites on a Delta 2 to the moon. To the MOON. The entire mission, soup to nuts, cost 496 million dollars. To put this in perspective, with this cash, we could have also purchased one of the following: - Two F-35s - .07% of the TARP bank bailout - Half of Groupon's Series D I'd rather go to the moon.
- hugh3 15y ago
  Sounds like a lot just for the Moon. The whole Juno mission to Jupiter is currently budgeted at a mere $371.1 million. (Or for $500 million, we could give a loan guarantee to Solyndra and watch it go bankrupt!)
equark 15y ago
This statement is false. TARP cost $19 billion compared to NASA at $18.5 billion per year. http://www.housingwire.com/2011/03/30/cbo-drops-estimate-of-tarp-cost-to-19-billion http://www.housingwire.com/2011/03/30/cbo-drops-estimate-of-...
- melling 15y ago
  Also, aren't companies suppose to be paying the TARP money back? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program
- dhugiaskmak 15y ago
  His number is way too small, if anything. There was an awful lot more to the bailout of the US economy than the TARP program. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristocracy-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristoc...
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]

dimitar 15y ago

Eventually the US government will sell back the banks and make some income, so its hardly comparable. Sweden in the early nineties did this and they recovered more than half their money. The bailouts were a necessary step to prevent severe economic crisis - they amounted to just 6% percent of GDP. Clearly worth it, when considering what is at stake here.

redrobot5050 15y ago
>Eventually the US government will sell back the banks and make some income, so its hardly comparable. Sweden in the early nineties did this and they recovered more than half their money. Compared to what America got out of the space race, the bailout was a complete waste. America got something like 100X their ROI in going into space. Major investments in materials science, aerospace engineering, battery technology, computer technology, their probably isn't a product today on the market that isn't using some kind of "space age technology" that ultimately came about because of NASA's space race. So the space race was clearly worth it. The bank bailout is still clearly debatable. I would argue that because the banks turned around and paid out bonuses, that we should have placed the banks into receivership and re-structured them. In our post-bailout system, the banks have grown even more concentrated and reform is pretty much a failure. We're set up to be "way too big to fail" next time around. When that happens, we won't be talking about "getting half our money back" and saying it was a "good deal".
- tsotha 15y ago
  >Compared to what America got out of the space race, the bailout was a complete waste. America got something like 100X their ROI in going into space. Oh please. This isn't even close to being true. If you actually go down the list of things NASA fans claim to be commercial space development, what you find is a whole lot of half truths and exaggerations. The space race was expensive, and we never even came close to recouping what we spent. You can try to justify it on scientific grounds, but the space race was clearly not worth it from an economic perspective.

jen_h 15y ago

Seriously. Two weeks ago, the GRAIL project sent two satellites on a Delta 2 to the moon. To the MOON. The entire mission, soup to nuts, cost 496 million dollars. To put this in perspective, with this cash, we could have also purchased one of the following: - Two F-35s - .07% of the TARP bank bailout - Half of Groupon's Series D I'd rather go to the moon.

hugh3 15y ago
Sounds like a lot just for the Moon. The whole Juno mission to Jupiter is currently budgeted at a mere $371.1 million. (Or for $500 million, we could give a loan guarantee to Solyndra and watch it go bankrupt!)

equark 15y ago

This statement is false. TARP cost $19 billion compared to NASA at $18.5 billion per year. http://www.housingwire.com/2011/03/30/cbo-drops-estimate-of-tarp-cost-to-19-billion http://www.housingwire.com/2011/03/30/cbo-drops-estimate-of-...

melling 15y ago
Also, aren't companies suppose to be paying the TARP money back? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program
dhugiaskmak 15y ago
His number is way too small, if anything. There was an awful lot more to the bailout of the US economy than the TARP program. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristocracy-got-1-2-trillion-in-fed-s-secret-loans.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-21/wall-street-aristoc...
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]