US Officially Out of the Space Program

[David Floyd]

I think its kinda ok to cut some of the NASA budget at this time, with the expectation it'll be raised in better economic times.

Wouldn't it make more sense to slash out pork barrel spending and leave NASA alone? Pork accomplishes nothing, nor does it have the potential to accomplish anything. The space program has proven results, both direct and indirect, and greater potential.

[KrazyHorse]

Try again, KH. Putting men on the Moon - ahead of the Soviets - was the goal of the Apollo Program. It met the goal it set out to achieve, therefore the Apollo Program was a success.

What a ****ing pathetic relativist interpretation of "success". Sorry, but I apply a far more objective criterion.

[KrazyHorse]

Wouldn't it make more sense to slash out pork barrel spending and leave NASA alone? Pork accomplishes nothing, nor does it have the potential to accomplish anything. The space program has proven results, both direct and indirect, and greater potential.

The space program IS pork barrel spending.

[David Floyd]

What a ****ing pathetic relativist interpretation of "success". Sorry, but I apply a far more objective criterion.

Are you ****ing retarded, dude? I never claimed the Moon landing turned a profit. I simply claimed that it was successful, and the success was in line with the stated goals of the program. You can argue all you want about whether it should have happened or not, and you can argue whether or not it was worth it, but OBJECTIVELY - if by "objectively" you mean the same thing the dictionary does - the Apollo Program SUCCEEDED.

[Kuciwalker]

@ BK. Come to think of it, at the space program too. As long as we can get satellites and missiles into orbit, and missiles out of orbit and accurately on people we wish to vaporize, I'm not too fussed about our ability to land humans on uninhabitable rocks for outrageous sums of money. Yes, the outrageous sums are tiny in comparison to the outrageous sums we spend on other things, but those outrageous sums might at least theoretically achieve something useful.

[David Floyd]

The space program IS pork barrel spending.

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/

That site details numerous commercial spinoffs of technology developed either for the space program or because of it. If you prefer a non-government site, I can provide that as well.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wouldn't it make more sense to slash out pork barrel spending and leave NASA alone? Pork accomplishes nothing, nor does it have the potential to accomplish anything. The space program has proven results, both direct and indirect, and greater potential.

A comprehensive health care plan, providing coverage to more Americans and curtailing insurance company excesses is something useful, with results.

[KrazyHorse]

Are you ****ing retarded, dude? I never claimed the Moon landing turned a profit. I simply claimed that it was successful

Yes, and then you went on to claim that your definition of success was simply achieving stated goals (at huge cost overruns, by the way). You ****ing ****. My point is that achieving stated goals is a blatantly relativist, useless measure of the value of gov't spending.

****.

[KrazyHorse]

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/

That site details numerous commercial spinoffs of technology developed either for the space program or because of it. If you prefer a non-government site, I can provide that as well.

You must simply be ****ing retarded. What I need from you is a social benefit analysis of these spinoffs, compared to the cost of the program. Not some sort of list that says "look at all this amazing ****"

****ing ****. Go back to stealing **** from Best Buy and bragging on the internet.

[Ramo]

Manned exploration is a completely unjustifiable waste of money.

Robots

And subsidizing the health care of the poor

[David Floyd]

Imran,

A comprehensive health care plan, providing coverage to more Americans and curtailing insurance company excesses is something useful, with results.

And what makes you think the US government is capable of pulling this off? You know, the same government that launched the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and the War on Terror, all of which are larger programs than comprehensive health care, and has failed to succeed at each? You mean the same government that tried to implement "cash for clunkers" but couldn't even pull THAT off?

In theory, you might be right. But it isn't realistic.

KH,

Yes, and then you went on to claim that your definition of success was simply achieving stated goals (at huge cost overruns, by the way). You ****ing ****. My point is that achieving stated goals is a blatantly relativist, useless measure of the value of gov't spending.

How is achieving stated goals being the measure of success relativistic? Isn't achieving stated goals the whole point?

If Apollo had come in under budget, but lost the space race, would it have been successful then? No, because the goal wasn't to save money, the goal was to beat the Soviets to the Moon.

[loinburger]

What did you expect from Obama? The only way he would be interested is if he could put the first black guy on the moon.

More like if they discovered fried chicken and watermelon on the moon am I right?

[David Floyd]

You must simply be ****ing retarded. What I need from you is a social benefit analysis of these spinoffs, compared to the cost of the program. Not some sort of list that says "look at all this amazing ****"

Hey *******, you're missing the point. My point was, FROM THE BEGINNING, that the US space program has generated far greater results than many other federal spending programs, while spending less money. The cost may or may not exceed the benefits - I don't know, and frankly I don't think you do either. But what is OBVIOUS is that the space program is one of the ONLY areas the federal government has managed to both run, and achieve some modicum of results that were both in line with the goals of the program, and beneficial outside of the space. If you want to deny that, go ahead, but don't build up strawmen.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And what makes you think the US government is capable of pulling this off? You know, the same government that launched the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and the War on Terror, all of which are larger programs than comprehensive health care, and has failed to succeed at each? You mean the same government that tried to implement "cash for clunkers" but couldn't even pull THAT off?

The same government that successful completed World War II, created the first Atomic Bomb, created ARPANet, etc?

Are you saying that the US government is somewhat lesser than the governments of European countries (forget the single payer systems of Britain and Canada, but what of the public/private systems of, say, Switzerland?)?

[Ramo]

Dave, your definition of the success of government program is completely independent of a quantitative analysis of costs and benefits. That makes for a really ****ty definition.