goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 29, 2014, 12:43:20 PM
-
Remember how we axed the Shuttle Program without replacing it with a different mode of transportation for our astronauts, instead choosing to rely on the Russians? That was a great idea. http://news.yahoo.com/us-reviving-iron-curtain-policies-russia-094611975.html (http://news.yahoo.com/us-reviving-iron-curtain-policies-russia-094611975.html)
But hey, NASA's only got so much money in the budget and most of that needs to spent studying climate change. And besides, actually launching manned rockets has a huge carbon footprint.
-
Are you calling for a tax increase? I agree.
-
yeah i want a space machine bad
space rough ridin' rules
-
I think we should just cut defense in half and give all of that money to NASA. That will show Putin what's what.
-
those shuttles still have plenty of miles left on the tires.
-
Are you calling for a tax increase? I agree.
No, I think we can find room in a $3.5 trillion budget for a decent space program and a strong military.
-
Agree with giving NASA an enormous raise.
-
What about that Tesla guy's company? SpaceEx I think? They could probs do it.
-
Agree with giving NASA an enormous raise.
they are pretty great at twitter, lots of Mars talk
-
NASA should have a blank check
-
I think we should spend crap tons of money on nasa but think it would be a good idea to abandon manned space travel for the next 100 years or so.
-
Why would spending a crap ton of $ on nasa be a good thing? I mean, are they going to save 7 billion ppl when crap hits the fan or something?
-
Why would spending a crap ton of $ on nasa be a good thing? I mean, are they going to save 7 billion ppl when crap hits the fan or something?
NASA has done more for the world than the military
-
Why would spending a crap ton of $ on nasa be a good thing? I mean, are they going to save 7 billion ppl when crap hits the fan or something?
NASA has done more for the world than the military
And it's not even close really.
-
NASA. BITB.
-
Agree with giving NASA an enormous raise.
they are pretty great at twitter, lots of Mars talk
fantastic Instagramers too
-
I don't know anyone can view defunding the space program as anything other than a war on science and technology. Typical liberal bullshit.
NASA and the Military are pretty much the only useful parts of the government.
-
I don't know anyone can view defending the space program as anything other than a war on science and technology. Typical liberal bullshit.
NASA and the Military are pretty much the only useful parts of the government.
wut
-
I don't know anyone can view defending the space program as anything other than a war on science and technology. Typical liberal bullshit.
NASA and the Military are pretty much the only useful parts of the government.
wut
Auto correct. Would support defunding AC, will not defend AC.
-
NASA could fix autocorrect if we gave them more cash
-
NASA could fix autocorrect if we gave them more cash
Concur, or at least expand upon the 500 words in its data bank.
-
What about that Tesla guy's company? SpaceEx I think? They could probs do it.
Hate to go to far right on everyone, but this is one of those things best done by the private sector. Healthy competition there will allow exponential growth as compared to NASA who were constantly stalled based on budget issues. I do enjoy the idea of free enterprise, and so the government should subsidize research without having to fund an entire program.
-
What about that Tesla guy's company? SpaceEx I think? They could probs do it.
Hate to go to far right on everyone, but this is one of those things best done by the private sector. Healthy competition there will allow exponential growth as compared to NASA who were constantly stalled based on budget issues. I do enjoy the idea of free enterprise, and so the government should subsidize research without having to fund an entire program.
That's about as middle of the road as you can get, and at one time was the universal credo. Now, everything but the stock market is stalled.
-
How does a company in the private sector make money sending out probes like Voyager or the Hubble Telescope?
-
How does a company in the private sector make money sending out probes like Voyager or the Hubble Telescope?
They sell those probes to Russia.
-
How does a company in the private sector make money sending out probes like Voyager or the Hubble Telescope?
They charge a fee?
-
How does a company in the private sector make money sending out probes like Voyager or the Hubble Telescope?
They charge a fee?
nasa writes them a huge check
-
How does a company in the private sector make money sending out probes like Voyager or the Hubble Telescope?
They charge a fee?
To the government?
How's that save money? Because they will compete against other space companies for these contracts?
-
How does a company in the private sector make money sending out probes like Voyager or the Hubble Telescope?
They charge a fee?
To the government?
How's that save money? Because they will compete against other space companies for these contracts?
Because the government doesn't have to bear the full cost of R&D. As an analogue, it's cheaper for me buy a car from Cadillac than it would be for me to hire engineers and buy all the manufacturing equipment necessary to build my own Cadillac from scratch.
-
It's cheaper for me to buy steak from the store whenever I've got a craving for a filet than it would be for me to start a ranch and raise my own cattle.
-
How does a company in the private sector make money sending out probes like Voyager or the Hubble Telescope?
They charge a fee?
To the government?
How's that save money? Because they will compete against other space companies for these contracts?
Because the government doesn't have to bear the full cost of R&D. As an analogue, it's cheaper for me buy a car from Cadillac than it would be for me to hire engineers and buy all the manufacturing equipment necessary to build my own Cadillac from scratch.
Cadillac recoups that R&D cost by selling cars to more people than just you, though. These private contractors really only have one customer, so I'm not sure if that still holds true.
-
How does a company in the private sector make money sending out probes like Voyager or the Hubble Telescope?
They charge a fee?
To the government?
How's that save money? Because they will compete against other space companies for these contracts?
Because the government doesn't have to bear the full cost of R&D. As an analogue, it's cheaper for me buy a car from Cadillac than it would be for me to hire engineers and buy all the manufacturing equipment necessary to build my own Cadillac from scratch.
Cadillac recoups that R&D cost by selling cars to more people than just you, though. These private contractors really only have one customer, so I'm not sure if that still holds true.
Private companies need rockets to send satellites into space. Plus, space tourism is becoming a thing.
-
The modern space race IMO is about successful space tourism. When the private sector finds a way to monetize this there will be no end to the money venture capitalists will be willing to pour into it. This competition will drive for a safer, higher quality product that can then be accessed by the government when necessary as a private contract.
-
The modern space race IMO is about successful space tourism. When the private sector finds a way to monetize this there will be no end to the money venture capitalists will be willing to pour into it. This competition will drive for a safer, higher quality product that can then be accessed by the government when necessary as a private contract.
Probably true , but in the meantime it was an awesome idea to not develop a manned alternative to the shuttle before scrapping the shuttle program, and instead rely upon the Russians. Brilliant, really.
-
The modern space race IMO is about successful space tourism. When the private sector finds a way to monetize this there will be no end to the money venture capitalists will be willing to pour into it. This competition will drive for a safer, higher quality product that can then be accessed by the government when necessary as a private contract.
Probably true , but in the meantime it was an awesome idea to not develop a manned alternative to the shuttle before scrapping the shuttle program, and instead rely upon the Russians. Brilliant, really.
Yeah, effin commies.
-
How does a company in the private sector make money sending out probes like Voyager or the Hubble Telescope?
They charge a fee?
To the government?
How's that save money? Because they will compete against other space companies for these contracts?
Because the government doesn't have to bear the full cost of R&D. As an analogue, it's cheaper for me buy a car from Cadillac than it would be for me to hire engineers and buy all the manufacturing equipment necessary to build my own Cadillac from scratch.
Cadillac recoups that R&D cost by selling cars to more people than just you, though. These private contractors really only have one customer, so I'm not sure if that still holds true.
Private companies need rockets to send satellites into space. Plus, space tourism is becoming a thing.
don't private companies already build and launch their own rockets?
-
How does a company in the private sector make money sending out probes like Voyager or the Hubble Telescope?
They charge a fee?
To the government?
How's that save money? Because they will compete against other space companies for these contracts?
Because the government doesn't have to bear the full cost of R&D. As an analogue, it's cheaper for me buy a car from Cadillac than it would be for me to hire engineers and buy all the manufacturing equipment necessary to build my own Cadillac from scratch.
Cadillac recoups that R&D cost by selling cars to more people than just you, though. These private contractors really only have one customer, so I'm not sure if that still holds true.
Private companies need rockets to send satellites into space. Plus, space tourism is becoming a thing.
don't private companies already build and launch their own rockets?
Like I said, Space Ex launches commercial satellites into orbit. I don't know if there are others, but there probably is.
-
How does a company in the private sector make money sending out probes like Voyager or the Hubble Telescope?
They charge a fee?
To the government?
How's that save money? Because they will compete against other space companies for these contracts?
Because the government doesn't have to bear the full cost of R&D. As an analogue, it's cheaper for me buy a car from Cadillac than it would be for me to hire engineers and buy all the manufacturing equipment necessary to build my own Cadillac from scratch.
Cadillac recoups that R&D cost by selling cars to more people than just you, though. These private contractors really only have one customer, so I'm not sure if that still holds true.
Private companies need rockets to send satellites into space. Plus, space tourism is becoming a thing.
don't private companies already build and launch their own rockets?
Like I said, Space Ex launches commercial satellites into orbit. I don't know if there are others, but there probably is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies)
-
Oops, I guess it's SpaceX. My bad. Looks like they kind of dominate that space, at the moment.
-
space tourism isn't going to fund anything
-
space tourism isn't going to fund anything
This guy is gonna watch his b&w tv until they get the kinks worked out of those fancy technicolor tvs.
-
I'd like to launch that damn Chelsea baby straight into the sun.
-
Privatization mostly only works with the government serving as a backstop for when private companies eff up. That's not real "privatization" -- it's privatizing the gains and socializing the losses. When the government maintains operational control, at least the public gets both the benefits and the losses.
And I can say from experience that private companies are just as rife with inefficiencies as public companies. You think CEOs want to take over services provided by the government just because they have some weird fetish for increasing efficiency? Or is it because they see the opportunity to pad bills and get rich and leave the risk of downside to the government.
That being said, it's simply idiotic to speak in absolutes. There are certain companies in certain sectors that can do a better job than the government at running things. Even in those sectors, there are companies that are eff ups and won't do a better job. And there are certain sectors where the government will almost always do a better job, such as monopolistic utilities -- e.g., a private water company with a monopoly on the pipes supplying water to your town has almost no incententive to give the town clean water if it is cheaper to just let the equipment turn to crap, whereas a government doing that job has to answer to the townspeople.
-
All very good points. That's why it makes sense to me that to have a competition based system you have to deal with a situation that is anti monopoly. Where two companies at least are always competing and thus maintain subsidies.
I understand that the oversight for this process can be daunting/astronomical. . .so it might not be efficient immediately. Yet, if we adopted the ideas. . .that could definitely lead somewhere.
-
CEO salaries are actually a ridiculously enormous inefficiency
-
I'd like to launch that damn Chelsea baby straight into the sun.
:lol:
-
Anything that can't be done without a profit should absolutely done by the government.
-
Anything that can't be done without a profit should absolutely done by the government.
Doesn't the issue then become internal politics? The fact that there are so many hands in the decision making everything gets muddled?
-
Anything that can't be done without a profit should absolutely done by the government.
Doesn't the issue then become internal politics? The fact that there are so many hands in the decision making everything gets muddled?
I dunno I was making an insincere statement to make fun or someone who posted earlier.
-
The government should never be engaged in anything for profit, sillies. It's run by a bunch of self interested jagoffs who were placed there by a bunch of rich self interested jagoffs for the sole purpose of diverting money to all the jagoffs. How some of you fail to realize this is baffling.
-
Orbital Telescope brought to you by RevHoney
-
The government should never be engaged in anything for profit, sillies. It's run by a bunch of self interested jagoffs who were placed there by a bunch of rich self interested jagoffs for the sole purpose of diverting money to all the jagoffs. How some of you fail to realize this is baffling.
No offense, but this line of argument is horrible. Privatizing just funnels the money even more directly to the rich, self-interested jerks. When government is involved, at least society (the people) have some oversight and a voice in how funds are spent.
If you want to try a better argument, maybe argue that government control stifles incentive to create (just make sure you take into account government incentives and technology created by government agencies).
-
The government should never be engaged in anything for profit, sillies. It's run by a bunch of self interested jagoffs who were placed there by a bunch of rich self interested jagoffs for the sole purpose of diverting money to all the jagoffs. How some of you fail to realize this is baffling.
No offense, but this line of argument is horrible. Privatizing just funnels the money even more directly to the rich, self-interested jerks. When government is involved, at least society (the people) have some oversight and a voice in how funds are spent.
If you want to try a better argument, maybe argue that government control stifles incentive to create (just make sure you take into account government incentives and technology created by government agencies).
Are you insane or just stupid?
-
The government should never be engaged in anything for profit, sillies. It's run by a bunch of self interested jagoffs who were placed there by a bunch of rich self interested jagoffs for the sole purpose of diverting money to all the jagoffs. How some of you fail to realize this is baffling.
No offense, but this line of argument is horrible. Privatizing just funnels the money even more directly to the rich, self-interested jerks. When government is involved, at least society (the people) have some oversight and a voice in how funds are spent.
If you want to try a better argument, maybe argue that government control stifles incentive to create (just make sure you take into account government incentives and technology created by government agencies).
Are you insane or just stupid?
What was either insane or stupid in what I wrote? :confused:
-
Your comparison of government spending as compared to government spending is pretty batty, or stupid.
-
Your comparison of government spending as compared to government spending is pretty batty, or stupid.
I don't really understand what you're saying, but I'm off the weekend. Have a good one!
-
The government should never be engaged in anything for profit, sillies. It's run by a bunch of self interested jagoffs who were placed there by a bunch of rich self interested jagoffs for the sole purpose of diverting money to all the jagoffs. How some of you fail to realize this is baffling.
No offense, but this line of argument is horrible. Privatizing just funnels the money even more directly to the rich, self-interested jerks. When government is involved, at least society (the people) have some oversight and a voice in how funds are spent.
If you want to try a better argument, maybe argue that government control stifles incentive to create (just make sure you take into account government incentives and technology created by government agencies).
I'm curious. . .Who from society would have any oversight on how funds are spent? An advisory committee filled with special interests anyways?
-
Blank check
-
The government should never be engaged in anything for profit, sillies. It's run by a bunch of self interested jagoffs who were placed there by a bunch of rich self interested jagoffs for the sole purpose of diverting money to all the jagoffs. How some of you fail to realize this is baffling.
No offense, but this line of argument is horrible. Privatizing just funnels the money even more directly to the rich, self-interested jerks. When government is involved, at least society (the people) have some oversight and a voice in how funds are spent.
If you want to try a better argument, maybe argue that government control stifles incentive to create (just make sure you take into account government incentives and technology created by government agencies).
I'm curious. . .Who from society would have any oversight on how funds are spent? An advisory committee filled with special interests anyways?
Um, voters. Argue if you want that voters don't have enough input in how the U.S./Kansas/MHK make their budget, but it's still more input than you have in how any private corporation spends its cash (assuming you're not a CEO). If your concern is accountability or the rich controlling the agenda, it's quite obviously better to work to make government more accountable than to throw up your hands and simply hand all the cash to private corporations, right?
-
The government should never be engaged in anything for profit, sillies. It's run by a bunch of self interested jagoffs who were placed there by a bunch of rich self interested jagoffs for the sole purpose of diverting money to all the jagoffs. How some of you fail to realize this is baffling.
No offense, but this line of argument is horrible. Privatizing just funnels the money even more directly to the rich, self-interested jerks. When government is involved, at least society (the people) have some oversight and a voice in how funds are spent.
If you want to try a better argument, maybe argue that government control stifles incentive to create (just make sure you take into account government incentives and technology created by government agencies).
I'm curious. . .Who from society would have any oversight on how funds are spent? An advisory committee filled with special interests anyways?
Um, voters. Argue if you want that voters don't have enough input in how the U.S./Kansas/MHK make their budget, but it's still more input than you have in how any private corporation spends its cash (assuming you're not a CEO). If your concern is accountability or the rich controlling the agenda, it's quite obviously better to work to make government more accountable than to throw up your hands and simply hand all the cash to private corporations, right?
I know how to make corporations more accountable, but how can you make the federal government more accountable?
-
The government should never be engaged in anything for profit, sillies. It's run by a bunch of self interested jagoffs who were placed there by a bunch of rich self interested jagoffs for the sole purpose of diverting money to all the jagoffs. How some of you fail to realize this is baffling.
No offense, but this line of argument is horrible. Privatizing just funnels the money even more directly to the rich, self-interested jerks. When government is involved, at least society (the people) have some oversight and a voice in how funds are spent.
If you want to try a better argument, maybe argue that government control stifles incentive to create (just make sure you take into account government incentives and technology created by government agencies).
I'm curious. . .Who from society would have any oversight on how funds are spent? An advisory committee filled with special interests anyways?
Um, voters. Argue if you want that voters don't have enough input in how the U.S./Kansas/MHK make their budget, but it's still more input than you have in how any private corporation spends its cash (assuming you're not a CEO). If your concern is accountability or the rich controlling the agenda, it's quite obviously better to work to make government more accountable than to throw up your hands and simply hand all the cash to private corporations, right?
I know how to make corporations more accountable, but how can you make the federal government more accountable?
Please clarify. TIA
-
I'm pretty sure the only person that knows what TGSP is talking about is TGSP.
-
What about that Tesla guy's company? SpaceEx I think? They could probs do it.
Hate to go to far right on everyone, but this is one of those things best done by the private sector. Healthy competition there will allow exponential growth as compared to NASA who were constantly stalled based on budget issues. I do enjoy the idea of free enterprise, and so the government should subsidize research without having to fund an entire program.
That's about as middle of the road as you can get, and at one time was the universal credo. Now, everything but the stock market is stalled.
That's actually what's going on right now. The private sector has taken over space exploration. I just watched a video today that featured a company that is going to start asteroid mining within the next few years. According to the spokesman for the company, one fifty-meter long asteroid could be worth up to $600 billion. Apparently asteroids are rich with metals, fuels, and other various resources. That's where private space companies will profit the most, imo.
-
That's actually what's going on right now. The private sector has taken over space exploration. I just watched a video today that featured a company that is going to start asteroid mining within the next few years. According to the spokesman for the company, one fifty-meter long asteroid could be worth up to $600 billion. Apparently asteroids are rich with metals, fuels, and other various resources. That's where private space companies will profit the most, imo.
That's really cool actually. Any chance you could dig up a link to that video? I'd really enjoy watching it.
-
That's actually what's going on right now. The private sector has taken over space exploration. I just watched a video today that featured a company that is going to start asteroid mining within the next few years. According to the spokesman for the company, one fifty-meter long asteroid could be worth up to $600 billion. Apparently asteroids are rich with metals, fuels, and other various resources. That's where private space companies will profit the most, imo.
That's really cool actually. Any chance you could dig up a link to that video? I'd really enjoy watching it.
I saw that documentary too, it was called Battlestar Galactica or something. It was either on the SciFi channel or Cartoon Network.
-
What about that Tesla guy's company? SpaceEx I think? They could probs do it.
Hate to go to far right on everyone, but this is one of those things best done by the private sector. Healthy competition there will allow exponential growth as compared to NASA who were constantly stalled based on budget issues. I do enjoy the idea of free enterprise, and so the government should subsidize research without having to fund an entire program.
That's about as middle of the road as you can get, and at one time was the universal credo. Now, everything but the stock market is stalled.
That's actually what's going on right now. The private sector has taken over space exploration. I just watched a video today that featured a company that is going to start asteroid mining within the next few years. According to the spokesman for the company, one fifty-meter long asteroid could be worth up to $600 billion. Apparently asteroids are rich with metals, fuels, and other various resources. That's where private space companies will profit the most, imo.
The EPA and asteroid huggers will put an end to that crap right away.
-
What about that Tesla guy's company? SpaceEx I think? They could probs do it.
Hate to go to far right on everyone, but this is one of those things best done by the private sector. Healthy competition there will allow exponential growth as compared to NASA who were constantly stalled based on budget issues. I do enjoy the idea of free enterprise, and so the government should subsidize research without having to fund an entire program.
That's about as middle of the road as you can get, and at one time was the universal credo. Now, everything but the stock market is stalled.
That's actually what's going on right now. The private sector has taken over space exploration. I just watched a video today that featured a company that is going to start asteroid mining within the next few years. According to the spokesman for the company, one fifty-meter long asteroid could be worth up to $600 billion. Apparently asteroids are rich with metals, fuels, and other various resources. That's where private space companies will profit the most, imo.
The EPA and asteroid huggers will put an end to that crap right away.
Stupid asteroid huggers. They need to go back to Lawrence where they belong!
-
Flipped on comedy central tonight hoping south park would be on. Nope, just some boring documentary on couriers of the future called futurama. :zzz:
-
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/05/08/russia-plans-to-colonize-moon-by-2030-report-says/ (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/05/08/russia-plans-to-colonize-moon-by-2030-report-says/)
Russia plans to colonize moon by 2030, report says
-
I couldn't imagine a worse life than trying to live on the moon.
-
I couldn't imagine a worse life than trying to live on the moon.
Living in northern Russia? :dunno:
-
I couldn't imagine a worse life than trying to live on the moon.
Living in northern Russia? :dunno:
Better than the moon. Not much, but it's still better.
-
That's actually what's going on right now. The private sector has taken over space exploration. I just watched a video today that featured a company that is going to start asteroid mining within the next few years. According to the spokesman for the company, one fifty-meter long asteroid could be worth up to $600 billion. Apparently asteroids are rich with metals, fuels, and other various resources. That's where private space companies will profit the most, imo.
That's really cool actually. Any chance you could dig up a link to that video? I'd really enjoy watching it.
That's probably a good endeavor to do privately. I just wouldn't want to hand over nasa/military type projects to the private sector considering how the private sector has handled supply and security for the U.S. Military in the past.
-
Anyone that thinks space mining is on the horizon is a rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
I did hear about training great white sharks for purposes of deep sea mining. Unfortunately, its a trillion times less economical than paying some guy in Uganda 4 cents an hour to strip mine iron ore. Which means it's still far more likely than asteroid mining.
-
Anyone that thinks space mining is on the horizon is a rough ridin' Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Yes. FSD is correct here folks, but I wouldn't use such mean language. :(