Why Does NASA Still Exist?

[Anonymouse]

Yes of course...no income tax so you rich bastards can be kings agains - etc - the real story here - what is being pushed - let the poor starve - who need em! etc

This is pointless. I am not rich, nor do I advocate the poor starve. However, there is a difference between coercively taking money from people (taxes) and when people out of their own volition engage in charity or philanthropy.

I am to guess you love the government taking money from people and spending it inefficiently in places where it does not concern itself. What if someone doesn't want his tax money to be spent on NASA. They have no choice. But of course, as long as statists like you exist there will always be that.

[Anonymouse]

Nasa Lands $820 Million Golf Cart on Mars

by Fred Reed

Being the rabidly nationalistic patriot that I am, I heard with delight that NASA had landed an $820 million dollar golf cart on Mars. Always get the best, I say. The planet has always seemed to me a reasonable place to play golf. I bow to no one in my mindless enthusiasm for technotrinkets. And I quietly gloated a bit that America had done it and not, say, Vanuatu or Papua-New Guinea.

Then I thought: Wait a minute. Mars is a gazillion miles away, probably whole whoppaparsecs or gigawhatsises. Mostly you can’t even see the place. NASA says it shot a golf cart all that way and hit the right crater? After the thing bounced all over the place wrapped in inner tubes? The federal government did this – who couldn’t make a functioning doorstop?

Nah. Buncha engineers just wanted funding.

When I was eight I used to throw rocks at the hub caps of passing cars. Those cars were all of twenty feet away, not going over forty, and I had a pretty good arm for a tad. I almost never hit those hub caps. Of course after every rock I had to hide in the woods till the driver stopped looking for me. Still, I couldn’t do it.

Neither can NASA. You can’t hit something that far away, going that fast, in all whicha directions, with a golf cart. It ain’t doable. Any fool can see that if he thinks about it, and probably if he doesn’t.

And those pictures they always show up after they spend $820 million, or more likely put it in a Swiss bank – they really do look just like Arizona. They’re always grainy, because grainy pictures look authentic. Besides, if the resolution was any good you might see jeep tracks, or a distant sign saying, “Pepi’s Miracle Cat Tacos.”

I have another question. Why do we think Mars even exists? Have you ever been there? Know anyone who has? Have you ever even seen it? Sure, maybe some teacher pointed to a dot in the sky and said, “Yay-us, brother, thass Mars. Fulla them little green rascals. Got canals all over the place too. Go fishing.”

Nah. Red speck. Could have been a red balloon with a flashlight inside it, or just about anything. We think Mars is there because people tell us it is, people who got told by other people who didn’t know anything about it either. Sure, astronomers say they see it all the time, but they get the money. An astronomer would see Mars if you put a bag over his head.

Those pictures mean nothing. I’ve seen pictures of an island full of dinosaurs that look more real than some of my old girlfriends. They stomped around and ate people, and if you showed them to a four-year-old kid and told him they lived in Africa, he’d never think to doubt it. Isn’t it so? I mean, a dinosaur is no stranger than, say, a four-foot iguana, or a Pacific tube-worm living inside an underwater volcano, or Michael Jackson, or Democratic social policy.

Fact is, NASA could show us a piece of Nevada with a shopping mall and a K-Mart, tell us it was Ganymede, and we’d rejoice because we’d Discovered Life. That’s assuming you believe there’s life in shopping malls. We’d believe it because we believe anybody in a white coat. Then we’d have to give the space people a billion or so more so they could send a complicated prongy space thing to fingerprint everybody on Ganymede and search for weapons of mass destruction.

Tell you what: I don’t think the solar system exists. The only part of it you can see is the sun, except in Los Angeles. Long time ago, that fellow Galileo hollered that he’d found planets, and a bunch of moons, Ganymede and Io and Callisto and Europa, sailing around Jupiter like they had something in mind. (How did he know those were their names? Was it written on them? None of this adds up.) We believed it, and then we believed in Pluto which is so far away that if it was there, you couldn’t tell.

The truth is that we have nothing more than fifth-hand evidence for most of the things we believe in. None of it would stand up in a court of law. Atoms, for example. We all know that they are really, really tiny things that have electrons flying around them like disgruntled hornets when you shoot their nest with a BB gun. The definition of an atom is that it’s too small for you to know it’s there. Which means we don’t.

Attorney: “Mr. Reed, how do you know that these…er…atoms exist?”

Me: “Well, this teacher I had said she read in a book that some scientists wrote about some experiments she said some other scientists did, she thought, a long time ago, somewhere she’d never been.”

Other attorney: “Objection. Hearsay.”

Me: “But it was in a book….”

Other attorney: “So are Grimm’s Fairy Tales.”

Scientists don’t really know anything. In chemistry they have this thing called Avocado’s number, which is how many atoms there are in a mole. Seriously. Six-point-oh-two-three-times-ten-to-the-twenty-third atoms per mole. It makes no sense. What size mole? Obviously a huge übermole with great hairy forepaws like scoops (the only kind I get in my lawn) has more atoms than a dwarf mole or a baby mole. Why moles and not, say flying squirrels?

But what I want to know is, who counted those atoms?

Now, you’re probably thinking, “Fred, be reasonable. Physicists know this stuff.” No. They’re crazier than Rasputin’s loony brother, who used to stand on his head in a corner and sing the Marseillaise.

They have what they call the Wave Equation, invented by some disturbed German. The Wave Equation is full of second partials derivatives, and del-square, sigh, and all the orphan constants in the world. What it says is that you can never be sure where atoms are.

Aha! Then how can you count them?

The wave equation says – honest, they told me this – that an electron can be here now, and over there later, but it can’t ever be in between where the plot crosses the x-axis because when you square zero you mostly get zero. (Unless you went to school recently, in which case it’s up for grabs.) You believe that? I don’t.

What I think is, NASA made up the solar system. It was to get grants. When the Feddle Gummint wants money, it makes things up – the Maine, the Gulf of Tonkin, nerve gas, Mars, the universe. It always works.

[winoman]

Are you so naive to think that there is a viable alternative to taxes - as much as we don't like being "coerced" into giving up some of our precious hard earned funds for seweres and roads and a whole miriad of services and functions that government provides to ensure we can live in peace, prosperity and such? Do you really believe that somehow we collectively would police ourselves and regulate commerce and ensure quality of products, medical care and what have you just on our own? Considering the level at which folks rob, cheat and take advantage of each other even with laws enforcement and oversite and such and considering how people are willign to decieve others and neglect their needs for pursuit of ones own riches etc - I kind of doubt that we could adequatly pull it off - and prevent the really big unregulated fish from setting up dicatorship and enslaving others and such without consequences for doing so. I understand and appreciate the arguments critiquing government - in concept and in practice - but we don't live in a perfect world where people can be counted on to look after one another and act in concert without serious abuses. Additionally government is able to harness collective resources in ways that enable things that is at best difficult to imagine to be done any other way. Its just fact. So at this point in our deveolpment it is a necessary evil. And to only go blasting away how government and taxation are evil and should be eliminated is just not dealing with reality. There is no nation on earth that I know of that operates without taxes - unless perhaps some single resouces - like oil - in the case of Lybia - is providing such a windfall that the reletively small population of the nation can be easily taken care of through the revenues from such. In the mentime I see no viable alternative to some sort of government (for protection from other nations at the very least - whom might just move in and take over if given the chance) - and one with participation of and protection for the populace is the (by all accounts seemingly) best kind - certainly the best we can concieve of to this date - certainly with room for improvement to lessen abuses and be more efficient - but better then any alternatives where abuses of the citenzenry can reach the extreme. And no government of any large number of people can exist without some basis of financing - and taxes provides this - our contibution to the common good - coerced? perhaps - But if you are bothered so by such you can go elsewhere perhaps - maybe live off on a little island somewhere all by yourself - no one is blocking your exit.

And the commentary by Fred Reed is not even worth discussion - its just silly - Is Fred Reed a pen name that Rush Limbagh uses?

[loseyourname]

Whether or not there is a viable alternative to taxation, there is certainly a viable alternative to spending tax revenue on NASA, which is the topic of this thread. Let us not derail this into just another discussion of the merits/dismerits of statism. That can be discussed elsewhere.

[Anonymouse]

Whether or not there is a viable alternative to taxation, there is certainly a viable alternative to spending tax revenue on NASA, which is the topic of this thread. Let us not derail this into just another discussion of the merits/dismerits of statism. That can be discussed elsewhere.

Thanks for putting that into perspective for a certain someone. What's your take on it Adam? Do you think the money thrown at NASA is pointless, especially considering the recent fumbles?

[loseyourname]

Thanks for putting that into perspective for a certain someone. What's your take on it Adam? Do you think the money thrown at NASA is pointless, especially considering the recent fumbles?

Quite pointless. Heck, if we did nothing except scrap NASA and scrap this stupid war, that alone would greatly improve the economic situation of the country.

That said, I can see how there was a point to it at one time. Back in the day, there was no way any private company was going to have any shot at making a profit attempting to explore space. That is no longer the case, however.

[winoman]

My comments were entirely appropriate to the issues regarding the topic - of private versus government efforts in space. It is the mouse who rails against taxation and government in general and who brought such into this thread - so don't blame me.

[winoman]

Back in the day, there was no way any private company was going to have any shot at making a profit attempting to explore space. That is no longer the case, however.

True - but in a limited sphere. If we were to drop government funded space exploration and only rely on private a whole realm of useful and necessary activities would never happen. Private space ventures are great and need to be strongly encouraged (again government has an involvemnt in this in many respects) - but if we decide to not pursue space as a nation we will just ne leaving it to the Japs, Euros. Chinses, Russians and everyone else - and much necessary and important science as well as other activities will not occur. Private space ventures are in their infancy and cannot replace public at this time - no way no how.

[Lamb Boy]

The other truth is space travel is possible without needing government support-it was financed by Microsoft Corp. co-founder Paul Allen.

Corporations would never spend that kind of time and effort on a project and then dissolve it, because they are motivated by making a profit.

Without that motivation, NASA has no incentive not to spend money irresponsibly. Though a lot of good has come out of NASA, men like Rutan prove that the space program can be handled by civilians who can do the same things, and more cheaply.

"Before Wilber Wright went to Paris with his airplane, the Europeans thought he was lying," Rutan said. "Then they watched him do turns, and they watched him fly for a long time and they watched him do multiple flights a day. I believe the significant thing is that they then all said, at the same time, "I can do that, too, because these are just bicycle shop guys.'"

Further, it was an accomplishment unblemished by the theft of American money.

The government must let go and allow the proof of people like Rutan are providing to convince Americans that space exploration is best handled by the men and women who can do it without stealing their funding.

A. Microsoft is the corporation you want driving corporate space travel?? They have a horrible track record with their products in regards to how well they actually perform.

B. Privatization of space travel sounds seriously scary. Of course if it were to happen there would have to be an immense government agency to regulate it which might cost as much if not more than NASA (think space FAA). If the corporations treat space like our oceans then I guess the space junk already floating around out there will just grow exponentially with the advent of corporate space travel. Since when are profit driven corporations environmentally minded?

C. He barely mentions everything NASA has done up to this point while slamming them none stop. **NEWS FLASH** where would any space program be w/o all of the money they/we have spent in the past through trial and error? I'd rather have scientists spending the money irresponsibly, which doesn’t surprise me, then "trench coat wing-tips" not concerned with the scientific aspects of space but merely making a huge profit from ppl who want an expensive thrill.

D. I hate it when ppl use double negatives in their writing. Totally relegates their intelligence imo and makes me feel like everything written previous to that point was created by a ________ and totally negates their argument.

E.The Wright Bros. are similar to NASA in what respect?

F. The fact that he even mentions air flight as a contrasting technology to space flight is seriously laughable and more to the fact it diminishes everything that, primarily, NASA has done to further space flight technology ... the only similarities is reentry after the atmosphere has been breached. If they were soooo similar then any pilot could become an astronaut and that is simply something that doesn’t happen … amongst the multitudes of other major differences b/w the two technologies and the ppl who can handle the differences.

G. Theft of American money huh? Well how about this ... considering that all of the technology that the corporations would be using to make a profit (from us) in space flight comes directly from all of the tax payers money that helped NASA get to where it is today, shouldn't the corporations pay the government (i.e. giving the tax payers a monetary break in some form) for all of the patented technology derived from our monies? This seems only fair as the intellectual property in this field truly belongs to the American ppl. If they don't have to pay for the technology that they didn't even help create, with the exception of the computer, then the corporations are just going to steal from us just like this article accuses NASA of doing … and this is what you guys support … yea

Let's be truly honest here too ... all the supporters of the privatization of space travel only want it to become that way so they can experience space flight for themselves. This is a totally selfish reason that is covered up by trying to show how NASA wastes tax payer’s money although there are thousands of other programs deserving destruction WAY before NASA. Yet this is the guise ppl hide behind so that they too can hopefully one day experience space flight for themselves. The scientific aspects of space would be put on hold for pleasure seekers imho … how typical. Corporations ruin everything and if you deny that fact then I would say remove your head from the sand.

If you need a road map to the programs that actually need to be cut then I suggest that you read Martin Gross The Government Racket. You’ll actually find some worth while programs to complain about instead of NASA whom over the course of their entire career have contributed much to all of humanity. Just because they're not at the height of their achievements right now doesn’t mean we should just do away with them. That's ugly American speak right there ... "In a field of dreams I paid for I'll burn it down if I operate it sloppily" Company Flow: Patriotism

[Anonymouse]

A. Microsoft is the corporation you want driving corporate space travel?? They have a horrible track record with their products in regards to how well they actually perform.

B. Privatization of space travel sounds seriously scary. Of course if it were to happen there would have to be an immense government agency to regulate it which might cost as much if not more than NASA (think space FAA). If the corporations treat space like our oceans then I guess the space junk already floating around out there will just grow exponentially with the advent of corporate space travel. Since when are profit driven corporations environmentally minded?

C. He barely mentions everything NASA has done up to this point while slamming them none stop. **NEWS FLASH** where would any space program be w/o all of the money they/we have spent in the past through trial and error? I'd rather have scientists spending the money irresponsibly, which doesn’t surprise me, then "trench coat wing-tips" not concerned with the scientific aspects of space but merely making a huge profit from ppl who want an expensive thrill.

D. I hate it when ppl use double negatives in their writing. Totally relegates their intelligence imo and makes me feel like everything written previous to that point was created by a ________ and totally negates their argument.

E.The Wright Bros. are similar to NASA in what respect?

F. The fact that he even mentions air flight as a contrasting technology to space flight is seriously laughable and more to the fact it diminishes everything that, primarily, NASA has done to further space flight technology ... the only similarities is reentry after the atmosphere has been breached. If they were soooo similar then any pilot could become an astronaut and that is simply something that doesn’t happen … amongst the multitudes of other major differences b/w the two technologies and the ppl who can handle the differences.

G. Theft of American money huh? Well how about this ... considering that all of the technology that the corporations would be using to make a profit (from us) in space flight comes directly from all of the tax payers money that helped NASA get to where it is today, shouldn't the corporations pay the government (i.e. giving the tax payers a monetary break in some form) for all of the patented technology derived from our monies? This seems only fair as the intellectual property in this field truly belongs to the American ppl. If they don't have to pay for the technology that they didn't even help create, with the exception of the computer, then the corporations are just going to steal from us just like this article accuses NASA of doing … and this is what you guys support … yea

Let's be truly honest here too ... all the supporters of the privatization of space travel only want it to become that way so they can experience space flight for themselves. This is a totally selfish reason that is covered up by trying to show how NASA wastes tax payer’s money although there are thousands of other programs deserving destruction WAY before NASA. Yet this is the guise ppl hide behind so that they too can hopefully one day experience space flight for themselves. The scientific aspects of space would be put on hold for pleasure seekers imho … how typical. Corporations ruin everything and if you deny that fact then I would say remove your head from the sand.

If you need a road map to the programs that actually need to be cut then I suggest that you read Martin Gross The Government Racket. You’ll actually find some worth while programs to complain about instead of NASA whom over the course of their entire career have contributed much to all of humanity. Just because they're not at the height of their achievements right now doesn’t mean we should just do away with them. That's ugly American speak right there ... "In a field of dreams I paid for I'll burn it down if I operate it sloppily" Company Flow: Patriotism

Are you a socialist?