Armstrong to Nasa: You're embarrassing • Hacker News Board

Re: Armstrong to Nasa: You're embarrassing

#21

Post by TechNewb » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 4:27 PM UTC

nirvana wrote: post #19

This situations represents a failure to understand economics. From the moon race to the period of the XPrize, and even after, NASA and the FCC has stymied private access to space. It is hard to test a launch vehicle if you can't get a launch or even testing (e.g.: static firing) permits. It is hard to start a space tourism business if the person developing your vehicles is barred from showing the CEO of the company t…

"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

Re: Armstrong to Nasa: You're embarrassing

#22

Post by eru » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 4:33 PM UTC

diogenescynic wrote: post #18

nate_meurer wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bingo. Armstrong and many of the other old Apollo-era astronauts are emotionally invested in manned space-flight. I think he romanticizes it to the point of being immune to arguments of cost-effectiveness.

It's not just about emotions. It's the next frontier. Don't you want us to get there first? It's also a great investment, it creates jobs and develops technological breakthroughs that benefit everyone.

> it creates jobs and develops technological breakthroughs that benefit everyone.

That's a testable statement. Though the more interesting statement would be: It creates more jobs than other things we could do with the many, and develops more beneficial technology.

(My guess is that those stronger version aren't true.)

Re: Armstrong to Nasa: You're embarrassing

#23

Post by rbanffy » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 4:53 PM UTC

nate_meurer wrote: post #16

bradleyland wrote: post #2

I know this has to be incredibly difficult for anyone who grew up during the space race, but there comes a point at which you must force yourself to let go of the old in the act of grasping at the future. Compared to the advance of technology within government organizations like NASA, the progress seen in private programs chasing the X PRIZE has been astounding. So long as the government keeps their 70s era technolog…

Bingo. Armstrong and many of the other old Apollo-era astronauts are emotionally invested in manned space-flight. I think he romanticizes it to the point of being immune to arguments of cost-effectiveness.

What is space exploration? Is it sending robots to take pictures? Or is it sending people who can radio back a message saying how it feels to look at the Earth from afar?

The information gathered through space probes is awesome, but what's the point of knowing something if we are never going to experience it? It's like comparing writing a travel guide from second-hand knowledge with making the journey yourself.

You know NASA's budget is tiny compared to the military. I'd also like to point out the lofty goal of exploring other worlds has the power to unite mankind much better than a couple wars. In 1969, all over the world, people were paying attention to Neil's first steps on another world. For a brief moment, we were one mankind, united around the most extraordinary achievement of the 20th century.

Re: Armstrong to Nasa: You're embarrassing

#24

Post by dimitar » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 4:53 PM UTC

TechNewb wrote: post #21

nirvana wrote: post #19

This situations represents a failure to understand economics. From the moon race to the period of the XPrize, and even after, NASA and the FCC has stymied private access to space. It is hard to test a launch vehicle if you can't get a launch or even testing (e.g.: static firing) permits. It is hard to start a space tourism business if the person developing your vehicles is barred from showing the CEO of the company t…

"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

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.

Re: Armstrong to Nasa: You're embarrassing

#25

Post by rbanffy » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 4:57 PM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #8

The shuttle was never flown the thousands of times it needed to have all the bugs worked out, NASA is an agency lost in middle-management hell, and you can't trust exploration to the politicians. That being said, Armstrong has a point: none of what I've just said is new or is satisfactory as an excuse. The failure to manage these facts and manage our access to space -- perhaps by a privatization push a decade earlier…

> you can't trust exploration to the politicians.

All bad things happen when you trust politics to politicians.

Seriously - everyone (and that's not a US problem) should pay much more attention to what the people who is paid to represent them are doing in their name.

Re: Armstrong to Nasa: You're embarrassing

#26

Post by jen_h » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 4:59 PM UTC

TechNewb wrote: post #21

nirvana wrote: post #19

This situations represents a failure to understand economics. From the moon race to the period of the XPrize, and even after, NASA and the FCC has stymied private access to space. It is hard to test a launch vehicle if you can't get a launch or even testing (e.g.: static firing) permits. It is hard to start a space tourism business if the person developing your vehicles is barred from showing the CEO of the company t…

"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

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.

Re: Armstrong to Nasa: You're embarrassing

#27

Post by ap22213 » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 5:01 PM UTC

SamReidHughes wrote: post #10

nhebb wrote: post #6

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.

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?

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.

Re: Armstrong to Nasa: You're embarrassing

#28

Post by alexqgb » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 5:01 PM UTC

diogenescynic wrote: post #18

nate_meurer wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bingo. Armstrong and many of the other old Apollo-era astronauts are emotionally invested in manned space-flight. I think he romanticizes it to the point of being immune to arguments of cost-effectiveness.

It's not just about emotions. It's the next frontier. Don't you want us to get there first? It's also a great investment, it creates jobs and develops technological breakthroughs that benefit everyone.

Wow, vintage rhetoric. I'm guessing 1954.

Re: Armstrong to Nasa: You're embarrassing

#29

Post by rbanffy » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 5:02 PM UTC

cryptoz wrote: post #12

martythemaniak wrote: post #7

Great, now try to tell people they should pay more taxes to support a bigger space program - be it carried out by NASA or private companies.

The people don't need to pay more taxes. An adjustment of current budget allocation is all that's needed. For example, you could double NASA's budget by shrinking the war budget from ~$698,000,000,000 to $678,000,000,000 / year. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

And you should not underestimate the propaganda value. Generations were inspired by the Apollo program. The shuttle is a beautiful machine, but it really doesn't go anywhere interesting.

Re: Armstrong to Nasa: You're embarrassing

#30

Post by equark » Fri, Sep 23, 2011, 5:09 PM UTC

TechNewb wrote: post #21

nirvana wrote: post #19

This situations represents a failure to understand economics. From the moon race to the period of the XPrize, and even after, NASA and the FCC has stymied private access to space. It is hard to test a launch vehicle if you can't get a launch or even testing (e.g.: static firing) permits. It is hard to start a space tourism business if the person developing your vehicles is barred from showing the CEO of the company t…

"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

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-...